The research studied learner satisfaction and learner intention-fulfilment (IF) with the massive open online courses (MOOCs). Many authors have studied various prospects from the point of view of the developer. Retention and completion rate were studied by the authors but the satisfaction level of the students was untouched. The modern education system is more learner-centred which leads to lifelong learning. Lifelong learning focuses on the learner rather than the developer. The questionnaire was harvested among 177 MOOC participants. Various analyses such as mean, standard deviation, correlation, regression and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were applied with the help of statistical tool SPSS v26.0. The results reveal that the satisfaction level of the learner is affected positively by variables like online self-regulated learning which includes goal setting, behavioural variables and perceived course usability. Further, the satisfaction level of the participant is not dependent upon gender and age. Also, the previous learning experience of the participant does not affect their IF.
ArtinoA. R. (2007). Online military training: Using a social cognitive view of motivation and self-regulation to understand students’ satisfaction, perceived learning, and choice. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 37–45.
2.
BarakM., WattedA., & HaickH. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49–60. https://doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.010
3.
BarnardL., LanW. Y., ToY. M., PatonV. O., & LaiS.-L. (2009). Measuring self-regulation in online and blended learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.005
4.
BeckerG., & PosnerR. (2012). MOOCs—Implications for higher education—Posner. Retrieved from http://www.becker-posnerblog.com/2012/11/MOOCsimplications-for-higher-educationposner.html
5.
BralićA., & DivjakB. (2018). Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: Achieving learning outcomes with blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 2. href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0085-7
6.
BreslowL., PritchardD., & DeBoerJ. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into Edx’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.
7.
BuhrE. E., DanielsL. M., & GoeganL. D. (2019). Cognitive appraisals mediate relationships between two basic psychological needs and emotions in a massive open online course. Computers in Human Behavior, 96(3), 85–94.
8.
CarsonS., & SchmidtJ. (2012). The massive open online professor’s academic matter. Journal of Higher Education. Retrieved October2015 from http://www.academicmatters.ca/2012/05/the-massive-open-online-professor
9.
ChristensenG., SteinmetzA., AlcornB., BennettA., WoodsD., & EmanuelE. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why?SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2350964
10.
ChuangI., & HoA. D. (2016). HarvardX and MITx: Four years of open online courses: Fall 2012–Summer 2016. SSRN Electronic Journal. href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2889436
11.
CiselM. (2014). Analyzing completion rates in the first French MOOC [Paper presentation]. The European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit 2014, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 26–32.
12.
DaleV. H., & SingerJ. (2019). Learner experiences of a blended course incorporating a MOOC on Haskell functional programming. Research in Learning Technology, 27. href="https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v27.2248
13.
DalyJ. (2014). HarvardX’s and MITx’s MOOC data visualized and mapped. EdTech Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2014/02/harvardxs-and-mitxs-mooc-data-visualized-and-mapped
14.
DandacheS., FrenayM., Van NesM. C., & VerschurenF. (2017). A massive open online course (MOOC) for implementing pedagogical tools in undergraduate respiratory physiology. HAPS Educator, 21(2), 36–42. href="https://doi.org/10.21692/haps.2017.013
15.
DavisD., ChenG., HauffC., & HoubenG. (2016). Gauging MOOC learners’ adherence to the designed learning path [Conference session]. EDM ‘16: 9th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 29 June 2016–2 July 2016, Raleigh, NC, USA.
16.
De George-WalkerL., & KeeffeM. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(1), 1–13.
17.
De LimaM., & ZorrillaM. (2017). Social networks and the building of learning communities: An experimental study of a social MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1). Athabasca University Press. Retrieved November2, 2019, from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/180488/
18.
DengR., BenckendorffP., & GannawayD. (2019). Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers & Education, 129, 48–60. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019
19.
DikeoguG., & ClarckC. (2013). Are you MOOCing yet? A review for academic libraries. CULS Proceedings, 3, 9–13.
20.
EomS. B., WenH. J., & AshillN. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(2), 215–235.
21.
EwaisA., AwadM., & HadiaK. (2020). Aligning learning materials and assessment with course learning outcomes in MOOCs using data mining techniques. In HatzilygeroudisI., PerikosI., & GrivokostopoulouF. (Eds), Advances in Integrations of Intelligent Methods. Smart Innovation, Systems, and Technologies (Vol. 170, pp. 1–25). Springer. href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1918-5_1
22.
GarridoM., KoepkeL., AndersonS., & MenaA. F. (2016). The advancing MOOCs for development initiative: an examination of MOOC usage for professional workforce development outcomes in Colombia, the Philippines, & South Africa. Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.
23.
GuoP. J., & ReineckeK. (2014). Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference (pp. 21–30). ACM. href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566247
24.
GuttmanL. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149–161.
25.
HansenJ., & ReichJ. (2015). Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science, 350(6265), 1245–1248. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6265/1245.short
26.
HenderikxM., KreijnsK., & KalzM. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention-behavior gap. Distance Education, 38(3), 353–368. href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006
27.
JungE., KimD., YoonM., ParkS., & OakleyB. (2019). The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course. Computers & Education, 128, 377–388.
28.
JungI., & LeeJ. (2020). The effects of learner factors on MOOC learning outcomes and their pathways. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(5), 565–576. href="https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1628800
29.
JungY., & LeeJ. (2018). Learning engagement and persistence in massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 122, 9–22. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013
30.
KaiserH. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
31.
KalzM. (2015). Lifelong learning and its support with new technologies. In WrightJ. D. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 93–99). Elsevier.
32.
KellerJ. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In ReigeluthC. (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: An overview (pp. 386–434). Erlbaum.
33.
KhalilH., & EbnerM. (2013). Interaction possibilities in MOOCs: How do they actually happen? InInternational Conference on Higher Education Development (pp. 1–24). Mansoura University.
34.
KhalilM., & EbnerM. (2017). Driving student motivation in MOOCs through a conceptual activity-motivation. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 12(1), 101–122. href="https://doi.org/10.3217/zfhe-12-01/06
35.
KizilcecR., PiechC., & SchneiderE. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170–179). LAK ‘13, ACM. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~cpiech/bio/papers/deconstructingDisengagement.pdf
36.
KizilcecR. F., & HalawaS. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. In Proceedings of the second (2015)ACM conference on learning @ scale-vancouver, 14–18 March 2015 (pp. 57–66). ACM Press. href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2724680.
37.
KizilcecR. F., Perez-SanagustínM., & MaldonadoJ. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
38.
KollerD., NgA., ChuongD., & ZhenghaoC. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open online courses: In-depth. Educause Review, 48(3), 62–63.
39.
KovanovićV., JoksimovicS., PoquetO., HennisT., CukicI., de VriesP., HatalaM., DawsonS., SiemensG., & GasevicD. (2018). Exploring communities of inquiry in massive open online courses. Computers and Education, 118, 44–58. href="http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.010
40.
KuoY. C., WalkerA. E., SchroderK. E. E., & BellandB. R. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001
41.
LiB., WangX., & TanS. C. (2018). What makes MOOC users persist in completing MOOCs? A perspective from network externalities and human factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 385–395.
LiK., & MooreD. R. (2018). Motivating students in massive open online courses (MOOCs) using the attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction (ARCS) model. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(2), 102–113. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs41686-018-0021-9
44.
LiQ., & BakerR. (2018). The different relationships between engagement and outcomes across participant subgroups in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 127(5), 41–65. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.005
45.
LiawS., & HuangH. (2011). Exploring learners’ acceptance toward mobile learning. In TeoT. (Ed.), Technology acceptance in education (pp. 145–157). Sense Publishers.
46.
Littenberg-TobiasJ., & ReichJ. (2020). Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. The Internet and Higher Education, 47, 100759. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2020.100759
47.
LittlejohnA., HoodN., MilliganC., & MustainP. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40–48. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
48.
MahrajK. (2012). Using information expertise to enhance massive open online courses. Public Services Quarterly, 8(4), 360–368.
49.
MakS., WilliamsR., & MacknessJ. (2010). Blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in a MOOC. In Dirckinck-HolmfeldL., HodgsonV., JonesC., De LaatM., McConnellD., & RybergT. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning (pp. 275–284). http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/Mak.html
50.
MargaryanA., BiancoM., & LittlejohnA. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
51.
MorrisL. V., FinneganC., & WuS. S. (2005). Tracking student behavior, persistence, and achievement in online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(3), 221–231. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.06.009
52.
MorrisN., HotchkissS., & SwinnertonB. (2015). Can demographic information predict MOOC learner outcomes? In Proceedings of the European Stakeholders Summit on Experience and Best Practices in and Around MOOCs (EMOOCs2015) (pp. 199–207), Université Catholique de Louvain.
PappanoL. (2012). Massive open online courses are multiplying at a rapid pace. Hacker News. Retrieved March28, 2013, from http://www.egymodern.com/2011/07/al-nahar-chaneel.html
55.
PardoA., HanF., & EllisR. A. (2016). Combining University student self-regulated learning indicators and engagement with online learning events to predict academic performance. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies. href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2639508.
56.
PoquetO., KovanovićV., de VriesP., HennisT., JoksimovićS., GaševićD., & DawsonS. (2018). Social presence in massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). href="https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3370
57.
PuzziferroM. (2008). Online technologies self-efficacy and self-regulated learning as predictors of final grade and satisfaction in college-level online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 22(2), 72–89. href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640802039024
58.
RabinE., KalmanY. M., & KalzM. (2019a). An empirical investigation of the antecedents of learner-centered outcome measures in MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16. href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0144-3
59.
RabinE., Silber-VarodV., KalmanY. M., & KalzM. (2019b). Identifying learning activity sequences that are associated with high intention-fulfillment in MOOCs. In ScheffelM., BroisinJ., Pammer-SchindlerV., IoannouA., & SchneiderJ. (Eds.), Transforming learning with meaningful technologies. EC-TEL 2019. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 11722). Springer. href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29736-7_17
60.
RayyanS., FredericksC., ColvinK. F., LiuA., TeodorescuR., BarrantesA., & PritchardD. E. (2016). A MOOC based on blended pedagogy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 190–201. href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12126
61.
ReichJ. (2014). MOOC Completion and Retention in the Context of Student Intent. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved June11, 2020, from http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-completion-and-retention-context-student-intent
ReichJ., & Ruipérez-ValienteJ. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130–131. href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958
64.
RientiesB., & ToetenelL. (2016). The impact of learning design on student behavior, satisfaction, and performance: A cross-institutional comparison across 151 modules. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 333–341. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2016.02.074
65.
RocaJ. C., ChiuC. M., & MartínezF. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683–696. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003
66.
SandeenC. (2013). Assessment’s place in the new MOOC world. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 5–12.
67.
ShapiroH. B., LeeC. H., RothN. E. W., LiK., Çetinkaya-RundelM., & CanelasD. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education, 110, 35–50. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
68.
SinghA. B., & MørchA. I. (2018). An analysis of participants’ experiences from the first international MOOC offered at the University of Oslo. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(01), 40–64.
69.
SongL., SingletonE. S., HillJ. R., & KohM. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(1), 59–70. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.003
70.
SunJ. C. Y., & RuedaR. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy, and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204. href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
71.
SwinnertonB. J., MorrisN. P., HotchkissS., & PickeringJ. D. (2017). The integration of an anatomy massive open online course (MOOC) into a medical anatomy curriculum. Anatomical Sciences Education, 10(1), 53–67. href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1625
72.
Van den BeemtA., BuijsJ., & Van der AalstW. (2018). Analysing structured learning behaviour in massive open online courses (MOOCs): An approach based on process mining and clustering. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). href="https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i5.3748
73.
WangZ., AndersonT., & ChenL. (2018). How learners participate in connectivist learning: An analysis of the interaction traces from a MOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1). href="https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3269
74.
WatsonS. L., WatsonW. R., YuJ. H., AlamriH., & MuellerC. (2017). Learner profiles of attitudinal learning in a MOOC: An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study. Computers & Education, 114, 274–285. href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.005
75.
XiongY., & SuenH. K. (2018). Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: Possibilities, challenges, and future directions. International Review of Education, 64(2), 241–263. href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-018-9710-5
76.
YangH. H., & SuC. H. (2017). Learner behaviour in a MOOC practice-oriented course: In an empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 36–63. href="https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2991
77.
YousefA. M. F., ChattiM. A., SchroederU., & WosnitzaM. (2014, July). What drives a successful MOOC? An empirical examination of criteria to assure the design quality of MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 14th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (pp. 44–48). href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.23
78.
YuanL., PowellS., & OlivierB. (2014). Beyond MOOCs: Sustainable online learning in institutions. Retrieved from https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/619736
79.
YuanL., & StevenP. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implication for higher education. Retrieved February2, 2013, from http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf
80.
ZimmermanB. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 64–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
