| Literature DB >> 36259079 |
I S Rekha1, Jyothi Shetty2, Savitha Basri1.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in understanding the Massive open online courses (MOOCs) due to its gaining popularity. Even though the number of online platforms and programs has grown during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is still a high rate of dropout and non-completion. In this work, the expectation-confirmation model is combined with MOOC features such as perceived openness, perceived reputation, and other factors i.e., perceived enjoyment, and perceived computer self-efficacy to investigate the learner's continued intention to use MOOC. A survey was undertaken and the data was collected from 383 students pursuing their degrees (undergraduate and post-graduate) in Karnataka state, India. The collected data were analyzed with structural equation modelling in Smart PLS 3. The study confirms a significant influence of confirmation and perceived usefulness on satisfaction, and direct significant influence of perceived computer self-efficacy, satisfaction, and perceived usefulness on continuance intention. Also, the results demonstrated the significant influence of confirmation on perceived enjoyment and usefulness and the effect of computer self-efficacy on usefulness. The findings in this study indicate that the MOOC platforms should focus on confirming learner expectations and the usefulness of courses to ensure student satisfaction and continuance of courses.Entities:
Keywords: Computer self-efficacy; Confirmation; Enjoyment; MOOCs; Openness; Perceived usefulness; Reputation; Satisfaction
Year: 2022 PMID: 36259079 PMCID: PMC9561332 DOI: 10.1007/s10639-022-11308-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Educ Inf Technol (Dordr) ISSN: 1360-2357
Fig. 1Conceptual Model
Indicator and construct reliability and validity
| Construct | Indicators | Outer Loading | Cronbach’s Alpha | Composite Reliability | Average Variance Extracted (AVE) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI | CI1 CI2 | 0.932 0.947 | 0.867 | 0.937 | 0.882 |
| CONF | CONF1 CONF2 CONF3 | 0.935 0.940 0.928 | 0.927 | 0.954 | 0.873 |
| PCSE | PCSE1 PCSE2 PCSE3 PCSE4 | 0.845 0.916 0.910 0.915 | 0.919 | 0.943 | 0.805 |
| PENJ | PENJ1 PENJ2 PENJ3 | 0.952 0.953 0.954 | 0.949 | 0.967 | 0.908 |
| PO | PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 PO6 | 0.859 0.841 0.885 0.708 0.874 0.827 | 0.914 | 0.932 | 0.696 |
| PREP | PREP1 PREP2 PREP3 PREP4 | 0.929 0.936 0.918 0.904 | 0.941 | 0.958 | 0.850 |
| PU | PU3 PU4 | 0.955 0.954 | 0.902 | 0.953 | 0.911 |
| SAT | SAT1 SAT2 SAT5 | 0.933 0.934 0.885 | 0.906 | 0.941 | 0.843 |
Note: CI: continuance intention; CONF: confirmation; PCSE: perceived computer self-efficacy; PENJ: perceived enjoyment; PO: perceived openness; PREP: perceived reputation; PU: perceived usefulness; SAT: satisfaction
Discriminant validity
| CI | CONF | PCSE | PENJ | PO | PREP | PU | SAT | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| CI |
| |||||||||
| CONF | 0.729 |
| ||||||||
| PCSE | 0.645 | 0.669 |
| |||||||
| PENJ | 0.700 | 0.746 | 0.708 |
| ||||||
| PO | 0.608 | 0.597 | 0.713 | 0.655 |
| |||||
| PREP | 0.709 | 0.745 | 0.745 | 0.799 | 0.690 |
| ||||
| PU | 0.760 | 0.816 | 0.634 | 0.759 | 0.596 | 0.747 |
| |||
| SAT | 0.638 | 0.730 | 0.520 | 0.642 | 0.527 | 0.636 | 0.683 |
| ||
|
| ||||||||||
| CI1 |
| 0.646 | 0.556 | 0.595 | 0.555 | 0.626 | 0.673 | 0.567 | ||
| CI2 |
| 0.721 | 0.651 | 0.714 | 0.585 | 0.702 | 0.750 | 0.628 | ||
| CON1 | 0.672 |
| 0.600 | 0.709 | 0.559 | 0.674 | 0.741 | 0.692 | ||
| CON2 | 0.651 |
| 0.621 | 0.686 | 0.558 | 0.694 | 0.775 | 0.667 | ||
| CON3 | 0.722 |
| 0.656 | 0.697 | 0.556 | 0.720 | 0.771 | 0.686 | ||
| PCSE1 | 0.603 | 0.551 |
| 0.594 | 0.643 | 0.627 | 0.544 | 0.447 | ||
| PCSE2 | 0.571 | 0.588 |
| 0.624 | 0.649 | 0.643 | 0.559 | 0.466 | ||
| PCSE3 | 0.570 | 0.634 |
| 0.641 | 0.631 | 0.676 | 0.570 | 0.466 | ||
| PCSE4 | 0.570 | 0.627 |
| 0.680 | 0.634 | 0.724 | 0.598 | 0.486 | ||
| PENJ1 | 0.674 | 0.717 | 0.668 |
| 0.607 | 0.764 | 0.719 | 0.619 | ||
| PENJ2 | 0.682 | 0.708 | 0.669 |
| 0.638 | 0.766 | 0.737 | 0.607 | ||
| PENJ3 | 0.645 | 0.708 | 0.687 |
| 0.627 | 0.755 | 0.715 | 0.609 | ||
| PO1 | 0.600 | 0.649 | 0.652 | 0.713 |
| 0.703 | 0.619 | 0.567 | ||
| PO2 | 0.447 | 0.414 | 0.541 | 0.456 |
| 0.500 | 0.398 | 0.362 | ||
| PO3 | 0.458 | 0.474 | 0.552 | 0.481 |
| 0.548 | 0.456 | 0.424 | ||
| PO4 | 0.322 | 0.273 | 0.417 | 0.338 |
| 0.326 | 0.299 | 0.234 | ||
| PO5 | 0.556 | 0.493 | 0.641 | 0.556 |
| 0.597 | 0.530 | 0.453 | ||
| PO6 | 0.559 | 0.549 | 0.684 | 0.599 |
| 0.643 | 0.559 | 0.474 | ||
| PREP1 | 0.659 | 0.721 | 0.712 | 0.769 | 0.632 |
| 0.701 | 0.602 | ||
| PREP2 | 0.664 | 0.700 | 0.693 | 0.744 | 0.662 |
| 0.716 | 0.599 | ||
| PREP3 | 0.675 | 0.687 | 0.696 | 0.745 | 0.640 |
| 0.693 | 0.573 | ||
| PREP4 | 0.617 | 0.636 | 0.643 | 0.688 | 0.611 |
| 0.642 | 0.571 | ||
| PU3 | 0.732 | 0.788 | 0.630 | 0.698 | 0.579 | 0.714 |
| 0.653 | ||
| PU4 | 0.718 | 0.769 | 0.579 | 0.752 | 0.559 | 0.712 |
| 0.652 | ||
| SAT1 | 0.586 | 0.673 | 0.480 | 0.588 | 0.479 | 0.596 | 0.626 |
| ||
| SAT2 | 0.592 | 0.694 | 0.478 | 0.603 | 0.501 | 0.579 | 0.625 |
| ||
| SAT5 | 0.579 | 0.642 | 0.474 | 0.577 | 0.470 | 0.577 | 0.631 |
| ||
|
| ||||||||||
| CI | ||||||||||
| CONF | 0.811 | |||||||||
| PCSE | 0.719 | 0.725 | ||||||||
| PENJ | 0.768 | 0.795 | 0.758 | |||||||
| PO | 0.659 | 0.618 | 0.759 | 0.673 | ||||||
| PREP | 0.783 | 0.797 | 0.800 | 0.845 | 0.713 | |||||
| PU | 0.856 | 0.891 | 0.695 | 0.821 | 0.628 | 0.810 | ||||
| SAT | 0.718 | 0.796 | 0.570 | 0.692 | 0.551 | 0.689 | 0.756 | |||
Note: Bold values indicate square root of each construct’s AVE.
Collinearity statistics
| CI | PENJ | PO | PREP | PU | SAT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONF | 1.000 | 1.812 | 3.548 | |||
| PCSE | 1.712 | 1.812 | ||||
| PENJ | 3.547 | |||||
| PO | 2.043 | |||||
| PREP | 3.674 | |||||
| PU | 2.341 | 3.667 | ||||
| SAT | 1.921 |
Structural model path analysis and explanatory power
| Hypothesis | Path coefficient | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | t Statistics | Decision at 5% level of significance | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1: CONF → SAT | 0.432 | 0.435 | 0.070 | 6.147** | Supported | 0.569 |
| H8: PENJ → SAT | 0.097 | 0.100 | 0.058 | 1.660ns | Not- Supported | |
| H6: PO → SAT | 0.054 | 0.051 | 0.043 | 1.243ns | Not- Supported | |
| H7: PREP → SAT | 0.072 | 0.069 | 0.059 | 1.226ns | Not- Supported | |
| H2: PU → SAT | 0.172 | 0.170 | 0.069 | 2.505* | Supported | |
| H4: PU → CI | 0.479 | 0.477 | 0.066 | 7.297** | Supported | 0.639 |
| H11: PCSE → CI | 0.246 | 0.247 | 0.055 | 4.497** | Supported | |
| H5: SAT → CI | 0.182 | 0.183 | 0.045 | 4.078** | Supported | |
| H3: CONF → PU | 0.709 | 0.711 | 0.046 | 15.525** | Supported | 0.679 |
| H10: PCSE → PU | 0.159 | 0.158 | 0.049 | 3.247 | Supported | |
| H9: CONF → PENJ | 0.746 | 0.745 | 0.031 | 23.702** | Supported | 0.557 |
Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ns: not significant
Fig. 2Results of the structural model. The results support 8 out of 11 hypotheses, the 3 hypotheses which are not supported are shown by dashed line indicating insignificant results (perceived enjoyment, perceived openness and perceived reputation on satisfaction)
Effect size, Predictive relevance and q2 effect size
| Exogenous variable | Endogenous variable | f2 | Q2 included | Q2 excluded | q2 effect size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCSE | CI | 0.098 (SE) | 0.554 | 0.526 | 0.063(SE) |
| PU | CI | 0.272 (ME) | 0.554 | 0.470 | 0.188(ME) |
| SAT | CI | 0.048 (SE) | 0.554 | ||
| PU | SAT | 0.019 (NE) | 0.469 | 0.466 | 0.007(NE) |
| CONF | SAT | 0.122 (SE) | 0.469 | 0.427 | 0.079(SE) |
| PENJ | SAT | 0.006 (NE) | 0.469 | 0.468 | 0.003(NE) |
| PO | SAT | 0.003 (NE) | 0.469 | 0.470 | -0.001(NE) |
| PREP | SAT | 0.003 (NE) | 0.469 | 0.469 | 0.002(NE) |
| PCSE | PU | 0.043 (SE) | 0.613 | 0.602 | 0.028(SE) |
| CONF | PU | 0.866 (HE) | 0.613 | 0.362 | 0.647(HE) |
| CONF | PENJ | 1.257 (HE) | 0.505 |
Note: NE: no effect; SE: small effect HE: high effect
Specific indirect effect
| Path | Path coefficient | Sample Mean (M) | Standard Deviation (STDEV) | t Statistics | P Values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PO → SAT → CI | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.009 | 1.114 | 0.266 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CONF → PENJ → SAT → CI | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.008 | 1.565 | 0.118 |
| CONF → PENJ → SAT | 0.072 | 0.074 | 0.044 | 1.646 | 0.100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PCSE → PU → SAT → CI | 0.005 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 1.800 | 0.072 |
| PCSE → PU → SAT | 0.027 | 0.027 | 0.014 | 1.947 | 0.052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PREP → SAT → CI | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.011 | 1.146 | 0.252 |
| PENJ → SAT → CI | 0.018 | 0.018 | 0.011 | 1.573 | 0.116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: Bold path indicates significant indirect effect.