Interactions in an xMOOC: perspectives of learners who completed the course

References

• Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., & McGreal, R. (2012). Disruptive pedagogies and technologies in universities. Educational Technology & Society, 15(4), 380–389. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.15.4.380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T. (2013). Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25. https://www.rpajournal.com/studying-learning-in-the-worldwide-classroom-research-into-edxs-first-mooc/
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cisel, M. (2014, February 10–12). Analyzing completion rates in the first French xMOOC [Paper presentation]. Second European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit,
   Google Scholar
• Conole, G. (2014). A new classification schema for MOOCs. The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3), 65–77. https://researchspace.bathspa.ac.uk/id/eprint/5807
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (2017). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In J.W. Creswell & C.N. Poth (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (pp. 65–110). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, R., & Clow, D. (2015). Consistent commitment: Patterns of engagement across time in Massive Open online courses (MOOCs). Journal of Learning Analytics, 2(3), 55–80. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2015.23.5
   Google Scholar
• Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hueso-Romero, J. J., Gil-Quintana, J., Hasbun, H., & Osuna-Acedo, S. (2021). The social and transfer Massive Open online course: Post-digital learning. Future Internet, 13(5), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13050119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of Massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyazoe, T., & Anderson, T. (2013 2). Interaction equivalency in an OER, MOOCS and informal learning era. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2013(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.5334/2013-09
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, R., Scott-Clayton, J., & Wyness, G. (2019). The end of free college in England: Implications for enrolments, equity, and quality. Economics of Education Review, 71, 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Northrup, P. T. (2002). Online learners’ preferences for interaction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 219–226. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/95275/
   Google Scholar
• Osuna-Acedo, S., & Gil-Quintana, J. (2017). El proyecto europeo ECO. Rompiendo barreras en el acceso al conocimiento [The European Project ECO. Breaking Down Barriers to Access Knowledge]. Educación XX1, 20(2), 189–213. https://doi.org/10.5944/educXX1.19037
   Google Scholar
• Otto, D., Bollmann, A., Becker, S., & Sander, K. (2018). It’s the learning, stupid! Discussing the role of learning outcomes in MOOCs. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 33(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2018.1486183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Padilla Rodriguez, B. C. P., & Armellini, A. (2015). Expanding the interaction equivalency theorem. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 16(3), 16(3. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in Massive Open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14562423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, K., Tang, H., Lovett, A., & Bodily, R. (2020). Understanding the impact of OER courses in relation to student socioeconomic status and employment. International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.18278/ijoer.3.1.5
   Google Scholar
• Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Semenova, T. (2020). The role of learners’ motivation in MOOC completion. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 37(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2020.1766434
   Google Scholar
• Sun, J. N., & Hsu, Y. C. (2013). Effect of interactivity on learner perceptions in Web-based instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H. (2018). Exploring self-regulated learner profiles in MOOCs: A comparative study. () [ Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, H. (2021a). Person-centered analysis of self-regulated learner profiles in MOOCs: A cultural perspective. Educational Technology Research & Development, 69(2), 1247–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09939-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H. (2021b). Teaching teachers to use technology through Massive Open online course: Perspectives of interaction equivalency. Computers & Education, 174, 104307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2016). Massive Open online courses and educational equality in China: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 9(1), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.0901.04
   Google Scholar
• Tang, H., & Qian, Y. (2022). Designing MOOCs with LITTLE, COGENT Education. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2064411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H., Wang, S., Qian, Y., & Peck, K. (2016). Students’ perceptions of online instructors’ roles in a Massive Open online course. In S. D’Agustino (Ed.), Creating teacher immediacy in online learning environments (pp. 277–294). IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, H., & Xing, W. (2022). Massive Open online courses for professional certificate programs? A perspective of professional learners’ longitudinal participation patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5768
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H., Xing, W., & Pei, B. (2018). Exploring the temporal dimension of forum participation in MOOCs. Distance Education, 39(3), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1476841
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang, H., Xing, W., & Pei, B. (2019). Time really matters: Understanding the temporal dimension of online learning using educational data mining. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1326–1347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118784705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veletsianos, G., Collier, A., & Schneider, E. (2015). Digging deeper into learners’ experiences in MOOCs: Participation in social networks outside of MOOCs, notetaking and contexts surrounding content consumption. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 570–587. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webber, D. A. (2016). Are college costs worth it? How ability, major, and debt affect the returns to schooling. Economics of Education Review, 53, 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xing, W., Tang, H., & Pei, B. (2019). Beyond positive and negative emotions: Looking into the role of achievement emotions in discussion forums of MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 43, 100690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, Q., Tang, H., Lockee, B., & Jablokow, K. (2020). Exploring Chinese students’ learning experience in CIC MOOC 2.0– a study with Chinese online communities. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 13(2). Article 2. https://doi.org/10.18785/jetde.1302.05.
   Google Scholar