Does MOOC Quality Affect Users’ Continuance Intention? Based on an Integrated Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Research Background
2.1. Massive Open Online Courses
2.2. DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model (D&M ISS Model)
2.3. Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM)
3. Research Model and Hypothesis
3.1. Research Model
3.2. Research Hypothesis
4. Methodology
4.1. Questionnaire and Pre-Test
4.2. Data Collection and Analysis Method
4.3. Sample Characteristics
5. Results
5.1. Measurement Model
5.2. Structural Model
6. Discussion
7. Implications
7.1. Theoretical Implications
7.2. Practical Implications
8. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Information Quality | MOOC platform provides accurate information. MOOC platform provides clear information. MOOC platform provides relevant information. MOOC platform provides up-to-date information. |
System Quality | It is convenient (easy to use) to access MOOC platform system. MOOC platform system is reliable. MOOC platform system is flexible (user-friendly). MOOC platform system allows information to be readily accessible to me. |
Service Quality | MOOC platform provides prompt responses to my request. MOOC platform provides right solution to my request. The service provided in MOOC platform attends to individual’s personalized needs. The service provided in MOOC platform is reliable. |
Confirmation | My experience with using the MOOC platform was better than I expected. My expectations from using the MOOC platform were confirmed. The service level provided by the MOOC platform was better than I expected. The MOOC platform can meet demands in excess of what I required for the service. |
Perceived Usefulness | The MOOC platform benefits me. The advantages of the MOOC platform outweigh the disadvantages. Using a MOOC platform helps me accomplish tasks more quickly. Overall, using a MOOC platform is advantageous. |
Satisfaction | I am extremely pleased with the MOOC platform. I am extremely contented with the MOOC platform. I am extremely satisfied with the MOOC platform. I am absolutely delighted with the MOOC platform. |
Continuance intention | I intend to continue using the MOOC platform in future. I intend to continue using MOOC platform rather than using any alternative means. I will continue using the MOOC platform in future. I strongly recommend others to use MOOC platform. |
References
- Becker, G. Climate change education for sustainable development in urban educational landscapes and learning cities. Experiences perspectives from Osnabrück. In Lifelong Learning and Education in Healthy and Sustainable Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 439–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nousheen, A.; Zai, S.A.Y.; Waseem, M.; Khan, S.A. Education for sustainable development (ESD): Effects of sustainability education on pre-service teachers’ attitude towards sustainable development (SD). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKeown, R.; Hopkins, C.A.; Rizi, R.; Chrystalbridge, M. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit; Energy, Environment and Resources Center, University of Tennessee: Knoxville, TN, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Buckler, C.; Creech, H. Shaping the Future We Want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development; Final Report; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Beynaghi, A.; Trencher, G.; Moztarzadeh, F.; Mozafari, M.; Maknoon, R.; Filho, W.L. Future sustainability scenarios for universities: Moving beyond the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3464–3478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, W.S.; Shi, S. Investigating Students’ Satisfaction and Continuance Intention toward E-learning: An Extension of the Expectation—Confirmation Model. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 141, 1145–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sarabadani, J.; Jafarzadeh, H.; ShamiZanjani, M. Towards Understanding the Determinants of Employees’ E-Learning Adoption in Workplace: A Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) View. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2017, 13, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, C.-W.; Shen, P.-D.; Chiang, Y.-C. The application of mobile technology in e-learning and online education environments: A review of publications in SSCI-indexed journals from 2003 to 2012. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2013, 9, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B. Identifying the Influential Factors of Knowledge Sharing in E-Learning 2.0 Systems. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2016, 12, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Al-Fraihat, D.; Joy, M.; Masa’Deh, R.; Sinclair, J. Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 102, 67–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazlollahtabar, H.; Muhammadzadeh, A. A Knowledge-Based User Interface to Optimize Curriculum Utility in an E-Learning System. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2012, 8, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kilburn, A.; Kilburn, B.; Cates, T. Drivers of student retention: System availability, privacy, value and loyalty in online higher education. Acad. Educ. Leadersh. J. 2014, 18, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Joo, Y.J.; So, H.-J.; Kim, N.H. Examination of relationships among students’ self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 260–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ossiannilsson, E.; Altinay, F.; Altinay, Z. MOOCs as Change Agents to Boost Innovation in Higher Education Learning Arenas. Educ. Sci. 2016, 6, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollenbeck, C.R.; Zinkhan, G.M.; French, W. Distance Learning Trends and Benchmarks: Lessons from an Online MBA Program. Mark. Educ. Rev. 2005, 15, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, D. Year of MOOC-Based Degrees: A Review of MOOC Stats and Trends in 2018. Class Central. Available online: https://www.classcentral.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2018 (accessed on 6 June 2019).
- Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Opinions on Strengthening Construction, Application and Management of Online Open Courses in Colleges and Universities. 2015. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/201504/t20150416_189454.html (accessed on 6 May 2019).
- Ho, A.; Chuang, I.; Reich, J.; Coleman, C.; Whitehill, J.; Northcutt, C.; Williams, J.; Hansen, J.; Lopez, G.; Petersen, R. HarvardX and MITx: Two Years of Open Online Courses Fall 2012-Summer 2014. SSRN Electron. J. 2015. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2586847 (accessed on 9 October 2021).
- Jordan, K. Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2014, 15, 133–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolowich, S. The professors who make the MOOCs. Chron. High. Educ. 2013, 25. Available online: http://publicservicesalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Professors-Behind-the-MOOC-Hype-Technology-The-Chronicle-of-Higher-Education.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2019).
- Hew, K.F.; Cheung, W.S. Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educ. Res. Rev. 2014, 12, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alraimi, K.M.; Zo, H.; Ciganek, A.P. Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado-Algarra, E.J.; Sánchez, I.M.R.; Olmedo, E.O.; Lorca-Marín, A.A. International MOOC Trends in Citizenship, Participation and Sustainability: Analysis of Technical, Didactic and Content Dimensions. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, M.-C. Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation-confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarhini, A.; Masa’Deh, R.; Al-Busaidi, K.A.; Mohammed, A.B.; Maqableh, M. Factors influencing students’ adoption of e-learning: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Int. Educ. Bus. 2017, 10, 164–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.-M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Sun, S.-Y.; Lin, T.-C.; Sun, P.-C. Usability, quality, value and e-learning continuance decisions. Comput. Educ. 2005, 45, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, L.; Powell, S. MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education; Cetis: Lancashire, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Xiong, Y.; Li, H.; Kornhaber, M.L.; Suen, H.K.; Pursel, B.; Goins, D.D. Examining the relations among student motivation, engagement, and retention in a MOOC: A structural equation modeling approach. Glob. Educ. Rev. 2015, 2, 23–33. [Google Scholar]
- Magen-Nagar, N.; Cohen, L. Learning strategies as a mediator for motivation and a sense of achievement among students who study in MOOCs. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2016, 22, 1271–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoxby, C.M. The Economics of Online Postsecondary Education: MOOCs, Nonselective Education, and Highly Selective Education. Am. Econ. Rev. 2014, 104, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Adwan, A.S.; Albelbisi, N.A.; Hujran, O.; Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alkhalifah, A. Developing a Holistic Success Model for Sustainable E-Learning: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Measuring e-Commerce Success: Applying the DeLone & McLean Information Systems Success Model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2004, 9, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A. Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Q. 2001, 25, 351–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aparicio, M.; Oliveira, T.; Bacao, F.; Painho, M. Gamification: A key determinant of massive open online course (MOOC) success. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albelbisi, N.A.; Al-Adwan, A.S.; Habibi, A. Impact of Quality Antecedents on Satisfaction Toward MOOC. Turk. Online J. Distance Educ. 2021, 22, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, H.M.; Teo, T.; Rappa, N.A.; Huang, F. Explaining Chinese university students’ continuance learning intention in the MOOC setting: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Comput. Educ. 2020, 150, 103850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, B. An empirical investigation of mobile data service continuance: Incorporating the theory of planned behavior into the expectation–confirmation model. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 7033–7039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roca, J.C.; Chiu, C.-M.; Martínez, F.J. Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2006, 64, 683–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, Y.-M. Extending the expectation-confirmation model with quality and flow to explore nurses’ continued blended e-learning intention. Inf. Technol. People 2014, 27, 230–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, A.; Yousaf, A.; Mishra, A. How pre-adoption expectancies shape post-adoption continuance intentions: An extended expectation-confirmation model. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 52, 102094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Liu, Y.; Yan, W.; Zhang, Y. Users’ continuance intention of virtual learning community services: The moderating role of usage experience. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 25, 685–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, E. User acceptance of smart wearable devices: An expectation-confirmation model approach. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 47, 101318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veeramootoo, N.; Nunkoo, R.; Dwivedi, Y. What determines success of an e-government service? Validation of an integrative model of e-filing continuance usage. Gov. Inf. Q. 2018, 35, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Akram, M.S.; Malik, A.; Shareef, M.A.; Goraya, M.A.S. Exploring the interrelationships between technological predictors and behavioral mediators in online tax filing: The moderating role of perceived risk. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulder, F.; Jansen, D. MOOCs for opening up education and the OpenupEd Initiative. In MOOCs and Open Education around the World; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2015; pp. 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shapiro, H.B.; Lee, C.H.; Roth, N.E.W.; Li, K.; Çetinkaya-Rundel, M.; Canelas, D.A. Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Comput. Educ. 2017, 110, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haider, T. A Comprehensive List of MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) Providers. TechnoDuet, 24 April 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, O. The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Prax. 2013, 5, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- AlDahdouh, A.; Osorio, A.; Caires, S. Understanding knowledge network, learning and connectivism. Int. J. Instr. Technol. Distance Learn. 2015, 12, 3–21. [Google Scholar]
- Walls, J.; Kelder, J.-A.; King, C.; Booth, S.; Sadler, D. Quality assurance for Massive Open Access Online Courses: Building on the old to create something new. In Macro-Level Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs): Strategies and Predictions for the Future; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 25–47. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, C.; Qiu, H.; Cheng, S.M. Challenges and opportunities for effective assessments within a quality assurance framework for MOOCs. J. Hosp. Leis. Sport Tour. Educ. 2018, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunar, A.S.; Abbasi, R.A.; Davis, H.C.; White, S.; Aljohani, N.R. Modelling MOOC learners’ social behaviours. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 107, 105835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, M.; Sari, A.; Lee, M.M. A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014–2016). Internet High. Educ. 2018, 37, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiley, D.; Hilton, J., III. Openness, Dynamic Specialization, and the Disaggregated Future of Higher Education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2009, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knox, J. Digital culture clash: “Massive” education in the E-learning and Digital Cultures MOOC. Distance Educ. 2014, 35, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, K.C.; Wong, B.T.; Chok, E.W.; Lee, T. Profiling MOOC platforms: Uniformity and diversity in course provision. In Studies and Practices for Advancement in Open and Distance Education; OUHK Press: Hong Kong, China, 2015; pp. 140–153. [Google Scholar]
- de Waard, I.; Gallagher, M.S.; Zelezny-Green, R.; Czerniewicz, L.; Downes, S.; Kukulska-Hulme, A.; Willems, J. Challenges for conceptualising EU MOOC for vulnerable learner groups. In Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014; Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne): Lausanne, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, I.U.; Hameed, Z.; Yu, Y.; Islam, T.; Sheikh, Z.; Khan, S.U. Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and self-determination theory. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 964–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambert, S.R. Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18. Comput. Educ. 2019, 145, 103693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mason, R.O. Measuring information output: A communication systems approach. Inf. Manag. 1978, 1, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, C.-W.D.; Cheng, C.-Y.J. Understanding consumer intention in online shopping: A respecification and validation of the DeLone and McLean model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2009, 28, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noudoostbeni, A.; Kaur, K.; Jenatabadi, H.S. A Comparison of Structural Equation Modeling Approaches with DeLone & McLean’s Model: A Case Study of Radio-Frequency Identification User Satisfaction in Malaysian University Libraries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2532. [Google Scholar]
- Albelbisi, N.A.; Al-Adwan, A.S.; Habibi, A. Self-regulated learning and satisfaction: A key determinants of MOOC success. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 3459–3481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cidral, W.A.; Oliveira, T.; Di Felice, M.; Aparicio, M. E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Comput. Educ. 2018, 122, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calisir, F.; Altin Gumussoy, C.; Bayraktaroglu, A.E.; Karaali, D. Predicting the intention to use a web-based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the technology acceptance model. Hum. Factors Ergonom. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2014, 24, 515–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Zhang, C. Empirical study on continuance intentions towards E-Learning 2.0 systems. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2014, 33, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.; Shao, Z.; Liu, Q.; Liu, C. Understanding the quality factors that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation in MOOCs. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2017, 65, 1195–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliver, R.L. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, C.; Palvia, P.; Chen, J.-L. Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: Toward a Technology Continuance Theory (TCT). Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2009, 29, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambalov, I.A. A meta-analysis of IT continuance: An evaluation of the expectation-confirmation model. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1561–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chou, S.-W.; Chen, P.-Y. The influence of individual differences on continuance intentions of enterprise resource planning (ERP). Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2009, 67, 484–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-L.; Lin, J.C.-C. Effect of perceived value and social influences on mobile app stickiness and in-app purchase intention. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 108, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.H.; Bae, J.H.; Jeon, H.M. Continuous Intention on Accommodation Apps: Integrated Value-Based Adoption and Expectation–Confirmation Model Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.-M. Examining students’ continued use of desktop services: Perspectives from expectation-confirmation and social influence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 96, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petter, S.; Delone, W.; McLean, E. Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 236–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Premkumar, G. Understanding Changes in Belief and Attitude toward Information Technology Usage: A Theoretical Model and Longitudinal Test. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daneji, A.A.; Ayub, A.F.M.; Khambari, M.N.M. The effects of perceived usefulness, confirmation and satisfaction on continuance intention in using massive open online course (MOOC). Knowl. Manag. E-Learn. Int. J. 2019, 11, 201–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, M.-C.; Chang, I.-C.; Hwang, H.-G. Exploring academic teachers’ continuance toward the web-based learning system: The role of causal attributions. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 1530–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.-S.; Wang, C.-H. Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: A contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finney, S.J.; DiStefano, C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course; Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT, USA, 2006; Volume 10, pp. 269–314. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Celsi, M.; Ortinau, D.J.; Bush, R.P. Essentials of Marketing Research; McGraw-Hill/Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M. Common Method Bias in Marketing: Causes, Mechanisms, and Procedural Remedies. J. Retail. 2012, 88, 542–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, D.; Mallery, P. IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D. A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hassanzadeh, A.; Kanaani, F.; Elahi, S. A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 10959–10966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joo, Y.J.; Park, S.; Shin, E.K. Students’ expectation, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use digital textbooks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 69, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographics | Category | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 231 | 42 |
Female | 319 | 58 | |
Total | 550 | 100 | |
Age | ≤18 | 51 | 9.3 |
19–28 | 158 | 28.7 | |
29–38 | 306 | 55.6 | |
≥39 | 35 | 6.4 | |
Total | 550 | 100 | |
Educational level | Senior high school or below | 12 | 2.2 |
Associate degree | 34 | 6.2 | |
Bachelor’s degree | 416 | 75.6 | |
Master’s or higher degree | 88 | 16 | |
Total | 550 | 100 | |
Experience in MOOC | Less than 6 months | 192 | 34.9 |
6–12 months | 313 | 56.9 | |
More than 1 year | 45 | 8.2 | |
Total | 550 | 100 | |
MOOC platforms | Coursera | 141 | 25.6 |
Edex | 44 | 8 | |
Udacity | 78 | 14.2 | |
Icourse163 | 287 | 52.2 | |
Total | 550 | 100 |
Construct | Item | Factor Loading | SMC | CR | AVE | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Information Quality | INFQ1 | 0.744 | 0.553 | 0.896 | 0.684 | 0.893 |
INFQ2 | 0.917 | 0.840 | ||||
INFQ3 | 0.876 | 0.767 | ||||
INFQ4 | 0.757 | 0.573 | ||||
System Quality | SYSQ1 | 0.895 | 0.800 | 0.897 | 0.688 | 0.887 |
SYSQ2 | 0.934 | 0.872 | ||||
SYSQ3 | 0.753 | 0.567 | ||||
SYSQ4 | 0.714 | 0.510 | ||||
Service Quality | SERQ1 | 0.653 | 0.427 | 0.825 | 0.543 | 0.797 |
SERQ2 | 0.835 | 0.697 | ||||
SERQ3 | 0.675 | 0.456 | ||||
SERQ4 | 0.771 | 0.594 | ||||
Confirmation | CONF1 | 0.809 | 0.654 | 0.852 | 0.591 | 0.841 |
CONF2 | 0.811 | 0.658 | ||||
CONF3 | 0.678 | 0.460 | ||||
CONF4 | 0.768 | 0.590 | ||||
Perceived Usefulness | PU1 | 0.781 | 0.610 | 0.838 | 0.565 | 0.835 |
PU2 | 0.702 | 0.493 | ||||
PU3 | 0.792 | 0.627 | ||||
PU4 | 0.728 | 0.530 | ||||
Satisfaction | SAT1 | 0.805 | 0.648 | 0.873 | 0.633 | 0.873 |
SAT2 | 0.787 | 0.619 | ||||
SAT3 | 0.791 | 0.625 | ||||
SAT4 | 0.799 | 0.638 | ||||
Continuance Intention | CI1 | 0.763 | 0.582 | 0.835 | 0.559 | 0.833 |
CI2 | 0.718 | 0.516 | ||||
CI3 | 0.767 | 0.588 | ||||
CI4 | 0.740 | 0.548 |
Construct | INFQ | SYSQ | SERQ | CONF | PU | SAT | CI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
INFQ | 0.827 | ||||||
SYSQ | 0.310 | 0.829 | |||||
SERQ | 0.277 | 0.214 | 0.737 | ||||
CONF | 0.547 | 0.376 | 0.519 | 0.769 | |||
PU | 0.494 | 0.458 | 0.614 | 0.628 | 0.752 | ||
SAT | 0.391 | 0.470 | 0.343 | 0.663 | 0.669 | 0.796 | |
CI | 0.375 | 0.398 | 0.390 | 0.323 | 0.702 | 0.678 | 0.748 |
Hypotheses | Path | Path Coefficient | t-Value | p-Value | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | INFQ ---> CONF | 0.438 | 8.593 | *** | Supported |
H2 | SYSQ ---> CONF | 0.154 | 5.671 | *** | Supported |
H3 | SERQ ---> CONF | 0.437 | 8.326 | *** | Supported |
H4 | CONF ---> PU | 0.932 | 12.785 | *** | Supported |
H5 | CONF ---> SAT | 0.624 | 6.633 | *** | Supported |
H6 | PU ---> SAT | 0.447 | 6.662 | *** | Supported |
H7 | PU ---> CI | 0.416 | 7.101 | *** | Supported |
H8 | SAT ---> CI | 0.316 | 6.225 | *** | Supported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gu, W.; Xu, Y.; Sun, Z.-J. Does MOOC Quality Affect Users’ Continuance Intention? Based on an Integrated Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212536
Gu W, Xu Y, Sun Z-J. Does MOOC Quality Affect Users’ Continuance Intention? Based on an Integrated Model. Sustainability. 2021; 13(22):12536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212536
Chicago/Turabian StyleGu, Wei, Ying Xu, and Zeng-Jun Sun. 2021. "Does MOOC Quality Affect Users’ Continuance Intention? Based on an Integrated Model" Sustainability 13, no. 22: 12536. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212536