The Perception and Behavioral Intention Toward MOOCs: Undergraduates in China
This study incorporated the technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) to interpret students’ perception of MOOCs. This study was based on a survey questionnaire; all 525 respondents were undergraduates in China. A five-point Likert scale was used to collect data in order to measure relationships among the constructs of perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEOU), attitude (ATT), subjective norms (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC), and behavioral control (BI). The results showed that the research model that incorporated TAM and TPB provided both desirable fit and validity, and all the proposed hypotheses were positively supported. Compared with ATT and SN, PBC had a much stronger impact than did BI. This study and its findings provided educators and MOOC providers with managerial implications as well as suggestions for designing future MOC offerings.
Abdullatif, H., & Velázquez-Iturbide, J. Á. (2020). Relationship between motivations, personality traits and intention to continue using MOOCs. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4417–4435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10161-z
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Alegre, J., & Chiva, R. (2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(4), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12005
Badali, M., Hatami, J., Banihashem, S. K., Rahimi, E., Noroozi, O., & Eslami, Z. (2022). The role of motivation in MOOCs’ retention rates: a systematic literature review. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 17(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00181-3
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
Blanco, Á. F, Echaluce, M. L. S., & Peñalvo, F. J. G. (2016). From massive access to cooperation: Lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-016-0024-z
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
Chin, W. W., Johnson, N., & Schwarz, A. (2008). A fast form approach to measuring technology acceptance and other constructs. MIS Quarterly, 32(4), 687–703. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148867
Choe, J. Y., Kim, J. J., & Hwang, J. (2021). Innovative marketing strategies for the successful construction of drone food delivery services: Merging TAM with TPB. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 38(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2020.1862023
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Cronbach, L. J., & Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Test Validation. In R. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed., p. 443). Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3) 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Duan, P. (2021). The social presence of online education: How MOOC platforms in China cope with collective trauma during COVID-19. Asian Journal of Communication, 31(5), 436–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2021.1941152
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98610-000
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900406
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Geisser, S. (1975). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101
Glavee-Geo, R., Shaikh, A. A., & Karjaluoto, H. (2017). Mobile banking services adoption in Pakistan: Are there gender differences? International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(7). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-09-2015-0142
Goel, P., Raj, S., Garg, A., Singh, S., & Gupta, S. (2022). Peeping in the minds of MOOCs instructors: Using fuzzy approach to understand the motivational factors. Online Information Review. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2021-0205
Gómez-Ramirez, I., Valencia-Arias, A., & Duque, L. (2019). Approach to m-learning acceptance among university students: An integrated model of TPB and TAM. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4061CopiedA
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM; 2nd ed.). Sage.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014
Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). MOOCs: Expectations and reality. Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271841177_MOOCs_Expectations_and_reality
Hossain, M. N., Hossain, M. Y., Bao, Y., Kumar, N., & Hoque, M. R. (2022). A proposed model to design MOOCs through the lens of addressing graduate skill gap. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-04-2021-0070
Hossain, M. N., Talukder, M. S., Khayer, A., & Bao, Y. (2020). Investigating the factors driving adult learners’ continuous intention to use M-learning application: A fuzzy-set analysis. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 14(2), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2019-0071
Jang, J., Ko, Y., Shin, W. S., & Han, I. (2021). Augmented reality and virtual reality for learning: An examination using an extended technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 9, 6798–6809. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3048708
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kock, F., Berbekova, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2021). Understanding and managing the threat of common method bias: Detection, prevention and control. Tourism Management, 86, 104330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104330
Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. (2019). Understanding key drivers of MOOC satisfaction and continuance intention to use. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 20(2), 13. https://scholarworks.utrgv.edu/is_fac/27/
Lung-Guang, N. (2019). Decision-making determinants of students participating in MOOCs: Merging the theory of planned behavior and self-regulated learning model. Computers & Education, 134, 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.004
Malik, S., Taqi, M., Martins, J. M., Mata, M. N., Pereira, J. M., & Abreu, A. (2021). Exploring the relationship between communication and success of construction projects: The mediating role of conflict. Sustainability, 13(8), 4513. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084513
Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell, R. (1996). The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: Effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070396244002
Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 149–159. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.htm
Moon, S. J. (2021). Investigating beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding green restaurant patronage: An application of the extended theory of planned behavior with moderating effects of gender and age. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102727
Obaid, T. (2021). Predicting mobile banking adoption: An integration of TAM and TPB with trust and perceived risk. Retrieved September 23, 2022 from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3761669
Ossiannilsson, E., Altinay, F., & Altinay, Z. (2016). MOOCs as change agents to boost innovation in higher education learning arenas. Education Sciences, 6(3), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030025
Padilha, J. M., Machado, P. P., Ribeiro, A. L., Ribeiro, R., Vieira, F., & Costa, P. (2021). Easiness, usefulness and intention to use a MOOC in nursing. Nurse Education Today, 97, 104705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104705
Qiu, L., Liu, Y., Hu, Q., & Liu, Y. (2019). Student dropout prediction in massive open online courses by convolutional neural networks. Soft Computing, 23(20), 10287–10301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3581-3
Raja, M. A. S., & Kallarakal, T. K. (2021). COVID-19 and students perception about MOOCs: A case of Indian higher educational institutions. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-07-2020-0106
Ru, X., Qin, H., & Wang, S. (2019). Young people’s behaviour intentions towards reducing PM2.5 in China: Extending the theory of planned behaviour. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.019
Si, H., Shi, J. G., Tang, D., Wu, G., & Lan, J. (2020). Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104513
Sun, Y., Ni, L., Zhao, Y., Shen, X. L., & Wang, N. (2019). Understanding students’ engagement in MOOCs: An integration of self‐determination theory and theory of relationship quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3156–3174. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12724
Taherdoost, H. (2016). Sampling methods in research methodology: How to choose a sampling technique for research. Retrieved September 23, 2022 from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3205035
Tao, D., Fu, P., Wang, Y., Zhang, T., & Qu, X. (2019). Key characteristics in designing massive open online courses (MOOCs) for user acceptance: An application of the extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(5) 882–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1695214
Unal, E., & Uzun, A. M. (2021). Understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use Edmodo through the lens of an extended technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13046
Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.2307/20721428
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., Hu, P. J. H., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the two‐stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x
Villasenor, J. A., & Estrada, E. G. (2009). A generalization of Shapiro-Wilk’s test for multivariate normality. Communications in Statistics—Theory and Methods, 38(11), 1870–1883. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920802474465
Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Mytton, O., Bonel, C., & Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: A rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X
Wang, Y., Dong, C., & Zhang, X. (2020). Improving MOOC learning performance in China: An analysis of factors from the TAM and TPB. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 28(6), 1421–1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22310
Yang, H., & Lee, H. (2022). How does the perceived physical risk of COVID-19 affect sharing economy services? Current Issues in Tourism, 25(7), 1046–1062. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2022.2035700
Yang, H. H., & Su, C. H. (2017). Learner behaviour in a MOOC practice-oriented course: In empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2991
Zhang, J. (2016). Can MOOCs be interesting to students? An experimental investigation from regulatory focus perspective. Computers & Education, 95, 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.003
Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1882–1895). https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675217
Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. The copyright of all content published in IRRODL is retained by the authors.
This copyright agreement and use license ensures, among other things, that an article will be as widely distributed as possible and that the article can be included in any scientific and/or scholarly archive.
You are free to
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms below:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.