Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical Frameworks and Research Methods in the Study of MOOC/e-Learning Behaviors: A Theoretical and Empirical Review

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
New Ecology for Education — Communication X Learning

Abstract

The field of research on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and other online Learning Management Systems (LMS) is very comprehensive. Dozens of theories or intention-based models are used by scholars as theoretical frameworks or basis to deal with the user attitudes, intentions, acceptance, and adoption. Among these frameworks, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) are the most widely used models. However, studies on these competing frameworks and models are sparse. In response to the rapid rise of MOOCs and the lack of research examining users’ intention to adopt this revolutionary initiative, this study provides a theoretical and empirical review of the three major theoretical models in an attempt to shed lights on future research about the mechanism influencing users’ intention or behaviors of adopting MOOCs for long-distance learning. Research methods adopted by scholars using these frameworks are also summarized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aharony, N., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2016). Students’ perceptions on MOOCs: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary. Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning, 12, 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, C., & Logan, D. (2013). Towards an understanding of the implementation & adoption of massive online open courses (MOOCs) in a developing economy context. In Proceedings of SIG GlobDev sixth annual workshop, Milano, Italy, December 14, 2013. Paper Category: Research in Progress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Lewis, T., & de los Arcos, B. (2014). MOOCs: Striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. MERLOT: Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCS): Emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review, 25, 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., et al. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiou, Y., & Shih, T. K. (2015). Auto grouping and peer grading system in massive open online course (MOOC). International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 13(3), 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, G., Steinmetz, A., Alcorn, B., Bennett, A., Woods, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2013). The MOOC phenomenon: Who takes massive open online courses and why? (University of Pennsylvania Working Paper). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2350964

  • Clutterbuck, P., et al. (2015). Investigating student behavior in adopting online formative assessment feedback. International Journal of Social, Educational, Economic, Management Engineering, 9(1), 328–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deĉman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in human behavior, 49, 272–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, B. J., et al. (2016). Persistence patterns in massive open online courses (MOOCs). The Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 206–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, S., & McIntyre, K. (2014). MOOCs in the humanities: Can they reach underprivileged students? In Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 1354856514560311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T. (2012). Come the revolution. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/opinion/friedman-come-the-revolution.html?_r=0

  • Gao, S., & Yang, Y. H. (2015).Exploring users’ adoption of MOOCs from the perspective of the institutional theory. WHICEB 2015 Proceedings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2009). Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: A metaanalysis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14(2), 275e302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagger, M. S., et al. (2002). A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 3e32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. D., Reich, J., Nesterko, S., Seaton, D. T., Mullaney, T., Waldo, J., et al. (2014). HarvardX and MITX: The first year of open online courses. HarvardX and MITx (Working Paper N.1). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263

  • Hsiao, C. H., & Tang, K. Y. (2014). Explaining undergraduates’ behavior intention of e-textbook adoption: Empirical assessment of five theoretical models. Library Hi Tech, 32(1), 139–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, S.-J., Thong, J. Y. L., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding continued information technology usage behavior: A comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decision Support Systems, 42, 1819–1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, D. A. (2015). Testing the technology acceptance model 3 (TAM 3) with the inclusion of change fatigue and overload, in the context of faculty from seventhday adventist universities: A revised model. Graduate Research, Andrews University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhary, J. (2013). The learning management system at the defence university: Awareness and application. International Education Studies, 6(8), 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhary, J. (2014). Perceived usefulness and ease of use of the learning management system as a learning tool. International Education Studies, 7(8), 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, H. (2014). A path analysis of educator perceptions of open educational resources using the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 57–66). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2724680

  • Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in Massive Open Online Courses. In D. Suthers, K. Verbert, E. Duval, & X. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 170–179). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., et al. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’ decisions regarding use of educational technology. Educational Technology & Society, 13(1), 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Legris, P., et al. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information Management, 40, 191–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanagunawardena, T., Adams, A., & Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lvovskaya, Y., & Lamprou, S. P. (2015). Individual adoption to innovation a study of MOOCs in Swedish universities. Master’s Thesis. Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackness, J., Mak, S. F. J., & Williams, R. (2010). The ideals and reality of participating in a MOOC. In L. Dirckinck-Holmfeld, V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. De Laat, D. McConnell, & T. Ryberg (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Networked Learning (Vol. 10, pp. 266–274). University of Lancaster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcinkowski, B., & Wrycza, S. (2015). CASE tools’ acceptance in higher education—Assessment and enhanced UTAUT model. 2015 Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems Applied Research (Vol. 8, No. 3671).

    Google Scholar 

  • McFerran, K. (2016). How music can change your life … and the world: A massive open online course (MOOC). In Voices: A world forum for music therapy (Vol. 16, No. 2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Norazah, N., et al. (2015). Technology acceptance of massive open online courses in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi, N. O. (2006). Factors of online learning adoption: A comparative juxtaposition of the theory of planned behaviour and the technology acceptance model. International Journal on ELearning, 5(4), 571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., et al. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43, 421–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pynoo, B., et al. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 568–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A. C., Kerski, J., Long, E. C., Luo, H., DiBiase, D., & Lee, A. (2015). Maps and the geospatial revolution: Teaching a massive open online course (MOOC) in geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suen, H. K. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. SAGE Open, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39: 273–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, B., & Chen, X. H. (2015). Research on MOOCs continuance. 3rd International Conference on Material, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, M. M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92, 194–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hang Seng Management College, Hong Kong, China

    Zhao Xun Song & Mei Fung Cheung

  2. University of Saint Joseph, Macau, China

    Stephane Prud’Homme

Authors
  1. Zhao Xun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mei Fung Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephane Prud’Homme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhao Xun Song .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. HKAECT, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Will W.K. Ma

  2. HKAECT, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Chi-Keung Chan

  3. HKAECT, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Kar-wai Tong

  4. HKAECT, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Heidi Fung

  5. HKAECT, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Cheuk Wai Rose Fong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Cite this paper

Song, Z.X., Cheung, M.F., Prud’Homme, S. (2017). Theoretical Frameworks and Research Methods in the Study of MOOC/e-Learning Behaviors: A Theoretical and Empirical Review. In: Ma, W., Chan, CK., Tong, Kw., Fung, H., Fong, C. (eds) New Ecology for Education — Communication X Learning. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4346-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4346-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4345-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4346-8

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation