Research Article

Blended MOOCs in higher education: Analyzing student interaction and satisfaction

Anh Tuan Pham 1 *
More Detail
1 FPT University, Can Tho, VIETNAM* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), January 2025, ep550, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15689
Published Online: 05 December 2024, Published: 01 January 2025
OPEN ACCESS   315 Views   160 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Blended massive open online courses (bMOOCs) have emerged as a potential educational model that combines conventional in-person instruction with online learning. The investigation into students’ level of interaction in bMOOCs is significant to the effective implementation of bMOOCs in higher education. This study investigates the perceived level of student interaction with their peers, instructors, content, and technology in bMOOC environments, the relationship between their interaction and satisfaction, and ways of enhancing student interaction. This research employs a mixed-method data collection approach, including qualitative semi-structured interviews and quantitative data analysis, with the participation of 339 students at a higher education institution in Vietnam. The findings reveal that students’ perceived level of interaction was quite high. Student interaction in offline classes was preferred to the massive open online courses environment. Besides, student interaction types and their satisfaction were positively correlated. The paper also addresses possible suggestions for maximizing student interaction in bMOOC environments and practical implications for educational practices in higher education.
Keywords: blended learning, MOOCs, interaction, Coursera

CITATION (APA)

Pham, A. T. (2025). Blended MOOCs in higher education: Analyzing student interaction and satisfaction. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), ep550. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15689

REFERENCES

  1. Alemayehu, L., & Chen, H.-L. (2023). Learner and instructor-related challenges for learners’ engagement in MOOCs: A review of 2014-2020 publications in selected SSCI indexed journals. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(5), 3172–3194. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1920430
  2. Baturay, M. H. (2015). An overview of the world of MOOCs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.685
  3. Castellanos-Reyes, D. (2021). The dynamics of a MOOC’s learner-learner interaction over time: A longitudinal network analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 123, Article 106880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106880
  4. Cho, M.-H., & Byun, M.-K. (2017). Nonnative English-speaking students’ lived learning experiences with MOOCs in a regular college classroom. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2892
  5. Cho, M.-H., Yang, T., Niu, Z., & Kim, J. K. (2024). Investigating what learners value in marketing MOOCs: A content analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 36(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09347-w
  6. Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1–20.
  7. Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455–472). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012174698-8/50045-X
  8. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
  9. Dai, H. M., Teo, T., & Rappa, N. A. (2020). Understanding continuance intention among MOOC participants: The role of habit and MOOC performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, Article 106455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106455
  10. Deng, R., & Gao, Y. (2023). Using learner reviews to inform instructional video design in MOOCs. Behavioral Sciences, 13(4), Article 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13040330
  11. Du, B. (2023). Research on the factors influencing the learner satisfaction of MOOCs. Education and Information Technologies, 28(2), 1935–1955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11269-0
  12. Edward, C. N., Asirvatham, D., & Johar, Md. G. M. (2018). Effect of blended learning and learners’ characteristics on students’ competence: An empirical evidence in learning oriental music. Education and Information Technologies, 23(6), 2587–2606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9732-4
  13. Elizondo-Garcia, J., & Gallardo, K. (2020). Peer feedback in learner-learner interaction practices. Mixed methods study on an xMOOC. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 18(2), 122–135. https://doi.org/10.34190/EJEL.20.18.2.002
  14. Elson, R. J., Gupta, S., & Krispin, J. (2018). Students’ perceptions of instructor interaction, feedback, and course effectiveness in a large class environment. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 20.
  15. Estévez-Ayres, I., Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Pardo, A., Crespo-García, R. M., Leony, D., Parada G., H. A., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2015). A methodology for improving active learning engineering courses with a large number of students and teachers through feedback gathering and iterative refinement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9288-6
  16. Fesol, S. F. A., & Salam, S. (2016). Towards MOOC for technical courses: A blended learning empirical analysis. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on User Science and Engineering (pp. 116–121). https://doi.org/10.1109/IUSER.2016.7857945
  17. Gameel, B. G. (2017). Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462
  18. Garg, A., Kumar, P. P., & Priya, M. S. (2023). Estimation of sustainability aspects of MOOC platforms in higher education in India using the PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Computers in Education, 11, 1235–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-023-00298-4
  19. Ghadiri, K., Hsu, P., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2013). The transformative potential of blended learning using MIT edX’s 6.002x online MOOC content combined with student team-based learning in class. Environment, 8, 1–15.
  20. Gregori, E. B., Zhang, J., Galván-Fernández, C., & de Asis Fernández-Navarro, F. (2018). Learner support in MOOCs: Identifying variables linked to completion. Computers & Education, 122, 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.014
  21. Gulati, S. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning in developing nations: A review. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v9i1.477
  22. Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649409526853
  23. Ho, T. T. N., Pham, H.-H., Sivapalan, S., & Dinh, V.-H. (2022). The adoption of blended learning using Coursera MOOCs: A case study in a Vietnamese higher education institution. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.7671
  24. Ismail, A. O., Mahmood, A. K., & Abdelmaboud, A. (2018). Factors influencing academic performance of students in blended and traditional domains. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(02), 170–187. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i02.8031
  25. Jitpaisarnwattana, N., Reinders, H., & Darasawang, P. (2021). Learners’ perspectives on interaction in a language MOOC. The JALT CALL Journal, 17(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.472
  26. Kim, D., Jung, E., Yoon, M., Chang, Y., Park, S., Kim, D., & Demir, F. (2021). Exploring the structural relationships between course design factors, learner commitment, self-directed learning, and intentions for further learning in a self-paced MOOC. Computers & Education, 166, Article 104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104171
  27. Kuo, Y.-C., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955265
  28. Lamy, M.-N., & Hassan, X. (2003). What influences reflective interaction in distance peer learning? Evidence from four long-term online learners of French. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 18(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051032000054112
  29. Lee, J., & Gibson, C. C. (2003). Developing self-direction in an online course through computer-mediated interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1703_4
  30. Li, J., Li, L., Zhu, Z., & Shadiev, R. (2023). Research on the predictive model based on the depth of problem-solving discussion in MOOC forum. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 13053–13076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11694-9
  31. Liu, M., Zou, W., Shi, Y., Pan, Z., & Li, C. (2020). What do participants think of today’s MOOCs: An updated look at the benefits and challenges of MOOCs designed for working professionals. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 32(2), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-019-09234-x
  32. Mellati, M., & Khademi, M. (2020). MOOC-based educational program and interaction in distance education: Long life mode of teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1022–1035. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1553188
  33. Mijatovic, I., Jovanovic, J., & Jednak, S. (2012). Students’ online interaction in a blended learning environment–A case study of the first experience in using an LMS. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 445–454). https://doi.org/10.5220/0003963804450454
  34. Mohamed, M. H., & Hammond, M. (2018). MOOCs: A differentiation by pedagogy, content and assessment. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 35(1), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-07-2017-0062
  35. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
  36. Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40(2), 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199103000-00014
  37. Oh, E. G., Cho, M.-H., & Chang, Y. (2023). Learners’ perspectives on MOOC design. Distance Education, 44(3), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2150126
  38. Pursel, B. K., Zhang, L., Jablokow, K. W., Choi, G. W., & Velegol, D. (2016). Understanding MOOC students: Motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC completion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12131
  39. Reparaz, C., Aznárez-Sanado, M., & Mendoza, G. (2020). Self-regulation of learning and MOOC retention. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, Article 106423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106423
  40. Salas-Rueda, R.-A., Castañeda-Martínez, R., Eslava-Cervantes, A.-L., & Alvarado-Zamorano, C. (2022). Teachers’ perception about MOOCs and ICT during the COVID-19 pandemic. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), Article ep343. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11479
  41. Sancho Vinuesa, T., Oliver, M., & Gisbert, M. (2015). MOOs in Catalonia: Fueling innovation in higher education. Educación XX1, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.13462
  42. Sari, A. R., Bonk, C. J., & Zhu, M. (2020). MOOC instructor designs and challenges: What can be learned from existing MOOCs in Indonesia and Malaysia? Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09618-9
  43. Shafaat, A., Marbouti, F., & Rodgers, K. (2014). Utilizing MOOCs for blended learning in higher education. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (pp. 1–4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044105
  44. Spring, K. J., Graham, C. R., & Hadlock, C. A. (2016). The current landscape of international blended learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 8(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2016.075961
  45. Ucha, C. R. (2023). Role of course relevance and course content quality in MOOCs acceptance and use. Computers and Education Open, 5, Article 100147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100147
  46. Wang, K., & Zhu, C. (2019). MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: Students’ participation, experience and learning performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0163-0
  47. Wei, W., Liu, J., Xu, X., Kolletar-Zhu, K., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Effective interactive engagement strategies for MOOC forum discussion: A self-efficacy perspective. PLoS ONE, 18(11), Article e0293668. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293668
  48. Wei, X., & Taecharungroj, V. (2022). How to improve learning experience in MOOCs an analysis of online reviews of business courses on Coursera. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), Article 100675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100675
  49. Williams, R. T. (2024). An overview of MOOCs and blended learning: Integrating MOOC technologies into traditional classes. IETE Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09747338.2024.2303040
  50. Wong, L., Tatnall, A., & Burgess, S. (2014). A framework for investigating blended learning effectiveness. Education + Training, 56(2/3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2013-0049
  51. Wu, H., & Luo, S. (2022). Integrating MOOCs in an undergraduate English course: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of blended learning. SAGE Open, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221093035
  52. Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., & Wosnitza, M. (2015). A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: An experimental case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2032
  53. Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult learners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education, 29(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910802004852