The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2056-4880.htm

An innovative MOOC platform: An innovative

MOOC
the implications of self-directed platform

learning abilities to improve

motivation in learning and 283
to support self-regulation Received 25 March 2020
Revised 28 March 2021
Accepted 28 March 2021
Daniel F.O. Onah
Department of Information Studies, University College London, London, UK
Elaine L.L. Pang
Organisation and Educational Development, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Jane E. Sinclair
Computer Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, and
James Uhomoibhi
Faculty of Computing and Engineering, Ulster University, Coleraine, UK

Abstract
Purpose – Massive open online courses (MOOCs) have received wide publicity and many institutions have
invested considerable effort in developing, promoting and delivering such courses. However, there are still
many unresolved questions relating to MOOCs and their effectiveness in a blended-learning context. One of the
major recurring issues raised in both academic literature and in the press about MOOCs is the consistently high
dropout rate of MOOC learners.
Design/methodology/approach – In this study, we applied mixed methods as an exploratory case study,
which prioritised the quantitative and qualitative approaches for the data collection processes. The data
were collected using a MOOC Online Self-regulated Learning Questionnaire (MOSLQ) adapted and created
from an existing measuring instrument. The quantitative data was analysed using Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 22) tool to conduct descriptive analysis. The qualitative results obtained
from the transcribed focus group interviews in this study revealed the various behavioural patterns of how
undergraduate students self-directed their learning. This focus group interview was conducted to reveal the
various ways students organised and strategised their learning patterns in order to derive satisfaction in
their distinctive learning behaviours and encourage motivation within their study approaches. Quantitative
data collected online included a 30 items survey of which 17 respondents completed the survey items in the
blended-learning study. The online course survey included 19 items of which data were gathered from 11
respondents.
Findings – Across the data, it is noticeable and clear that time management and goal setting were among the
dimensions that are highly rated close to high level among SRL skills investigated in this study. We found that

The first author wishes to acknowledge Mr. Adakole S. Onah’s financial support in his research, family
members and friends for their moral support.
Research involving human participants: With diligent consideration and with the permission of the
student participants, the authors applied a careful approach and tag anonymously all the feedback
analysis with no subject to any one single individual student in the class. We understood the ethical
implications involved in reviewing individual confidential feedback for public information. The authors
The International Journal of
do have full responsibility for all information contained here. Information and Learning
Informed consent: The authors declared that appropriate ethical concepts and full approval were Technology
Vol. 38 No. 3, 2021
given by the host institution to conduct the research. pp. 283-298
Funding and Conflict of Interest: There are no funding and conflict of interest attached to this © Emerald Publishing Limited
2056-4880
research. The research work and outcomes were supported by a self-funded researcher and family. DOI 10.1108/IJILT-03-2020-0040
IJILT goal setting and task strategies predicted much better attainment of individuals controlling personal course
goals, while help seeking was associated with lower goal attainment among majority of the participants.
38,3 Research limitations/implications – The study also identified several challenges. For example, there were
some challenges in learners completing the survey questions even when several reminders were sent out forth
nightly. At this preliminary stage, learners participated as lurkers without engaging fully with other non-
academic and academic interactive activities such as surveys, in course quizzes and forums. Most of the
participants in this course said they enrolled to know more about the new trend MOOC, to make friends, to have
fun and so on. Although, these are some of their intentions for participating, some of the participants at some
284 points contributed to discussion forums.
Practical implications – Our platform currently allows learners to direct their learning within the course and
also allow the choice of content prerequisite in order to recommend resources necessary for their learning. This
study indicates the necessity to support SRL skills and directing development of self-determination skills
among the participants. This study when applied to a larger sample will demonstrate effective measurement on
areas of reliability and validity as results from this small sample has indicated some high SRL skill levels for
individual learners within the research.
Social implications – However, the success of any e-learning or MOOC platform should consider the
following best practices and objectives: the learners’ entire learning experience, the strategies used in
developing the course content, the planning of the course delivery and the methods of delivery. Therefore, all
e-learning platforms should be designed with a primary focus on the way students learn to improve their own
learning skills and help them regulate their own independent learning habits. In another related study, the
success of any e-learning course implementation should be carefully considered with regards to the course’s
underlying pedagogy and how learners engage with the content.
Originality/value – There are many e-learning platforms in existence globally, but little has been mentioned
about the development of a MOOC platform in general that could allow independent learning and also
adequately demonstrating the components and features used in these MOOC designs. This research’s
implication is to aid instructional designers to apply best practices in the development of an online course. The
best approach in designing a good course is to consider the learners and how they could engage with the course
resources independently and develop the ability to self-direct their learning. One of the main goals of e-learning
platforms is primarily based on developing learning resources that would be suitable for linear course structure
as directed by the course developer or instructor.
Keywords Self-directed learning, Self-regulated learning, eLDaMOOC, MOOC, Motivation, Blended-learning
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
MOOCs provide an innovative educational technology which has become widely used for
distance learning by independent learners. There has been current research work that
studied the effects of using MOOCs as part of a blended classroom approach in which
learning activities take place both online and in a traditional face-to-face classroom settings
(Kloos et al., 2015; Morris, 2014; Holotescu et al., 2014). This study was conducted to
investigate aspects of blended MOOC usage in the context of a computing course for first-
year undergraduates at a top UK university in a term in the 2015/2016 academic year. The
MOOC was implemented on a purpose-built platform (known as eLDaMOOC) which supports
learners to make informed choices about their learning path. The research investigates
students’ capacity for self-regulated learning (SRL) in order to understand their preparedness
for independent study and to profile the general areas of SRL strengths and weaknesses,
which may affect their ability to learn effectively in a self-directed MOOC environment.
Studies have soon found that most learners who registered in MOOCs engage selectively
with a fraction of the course content they are interested in and dropout afterwards. In this
case, we are left with only a few proportion of learners who eventually complete the course
(Anderson et al., 2014; Breslow et al., 2013; Evans et al., 2016; Ho et al., 2015; Kizilcec et al.,
2017). This issue of high dropout rates has been addressed in several published materials
around the world. In this study, we are looking at modalities that would motivate SRL skills
among students using a standalone MOOC in an online learning setting. We will present and
discuss aspects on the various approaches developed by individual learners participating in
the course. Students in a blended learning course, study independently with minimum
supervision and they initiate a learning environment suitable to their learning abilities An innovative
without much guidance. MOOC
SRL is significant in a MOOC environment with low level of guidance, the learners are able
to coordinate their learning effectively and actively engage in developing SRL skills using
platform
individual initiatives. However, supporting SRL in a MOOC context involves the
implementation of effective support mechanisms to support the systems to understand
which SRL strategies are most effective to the current level of learning activities (Kizilcec and
Halawan, 2015). Understanding the SRL level of weakness observed within individual 285
learners could advance the provision of specific targeted support directly to the learners.
The tool with the novel features introduces paths to study in order to support self-regulated
skills among the learners or students using the courses (online and blended). This research
provides a pedagogical approach to creating a prototype system to aid learners in the right
direction to achieve their set goals. The eLDa prototype system draws theories from other
learning management systems (LMS) evaluated in the past. The major drive in this study is to
investigate and understand various meta-cognitive processes of SRL occurrences using
technology in educational pedagogy. This drive helped to model a more advanced prototype
that was flexible with choice of mode and suitable to all learners, classes, levels and
nationalities. The introduction of learning technology in education helps in supporting learning
and improving how people study and engage with online content. Some research theories
pointed out that commitment to online courses helps in better grades in a traditional context
(Barnard-Brak et al., 2010; Nawrot and Doucet, 2014; Onah et al., 2016). In another related study,
the authors argued that blended learning challenges learners’ self-regulation and that this
insight is significant for effective online pedagogy design (Van Laer and Elen, 2018).
An existing survey instrument, based on a six-dimensional conceptualisation of SRL in
e-learning, was adapted to investigate self-regulation in this study (Barnard et al., 2009). In
order to gather useful information for investigation, in course surveys were used to obtain the
SRL habit of the online course learners. Further qualitative semi-structured focus group
interviews and questionnaires were conducted to support the data collection processes within
the blended-classroom context. The data analysis was done with statistical analysis, thematic
analysis and content analysis. Results for the whole group demonstrated that the dimensions
of self-evaluation and time management represented particular areas of weakness for these
students. Furthermore, profiles of SRL for individual students showed considerable
differences in capability within the group. Our results show that some students and
learners demonstrated distinctive high level of SRL skills within individual dimensions and
need to improve in those for which they show low level of SRL skills. However, the
deficiencies in SRL dimensions contrast with the students’ generally high levels of
attainment. This led us to question the validity of the existing conceptualisation of SRL in the
context of blended-learning students. Further, a high level of social interaction and support
seeking was reported in relation to MOOC study indicating the increasing importance of
social learning (even within a traditional university) and the importance of co-regulation
for SRL.
This study covers the areas briefly outline in the following sections: Section 2 illustrates
the literature review and work related to MOOCs, Section 3 described the research
methodologies and data collection processes, Section 4 presents the result of the research
from both the mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative methods, Section 5 describes the
conclusion and the implications of the study.

1.1 Research questions

In this study, we investigate the following research questions:
(1) What are the implications of self-directed learning and SRL in a MOOC context?
IJILT (2) What are the implications of a good design practice and implementation of
38,3 instructional e-learning systems?

2. Literature review
Educational development using technology has made online instructors and e-learning
developers’ training widely applicable to MOOCs. However, this validation presents some
286 challenges, including the high level of dropout rate and low continuance and interest to study
via MOOCs (Tsai et al., 2018). This lack of interest in participating in MOOCs might result
from the way the course is structured and the concept of delivery that does not allow users to
decide their choice of route while engaging with the course resources. According to Tsai et al.
(2018), they tested students’ metacognitive relationship in their learning habits, which
revealed the three positive levels of learning interest to be; liking the course, enjoyment and
effective course engagement. Their findings imply that improving learners’ metacognition
could contribute in increasing learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs,
thereby encouraging the benefits of reinforcing adequate instructional training and
continuous professional development in order to acquire best practice skills in the
development of e-learning (MOOCs) platforms.
MOOC technology requires students to apply their metacognitive skills to manage their
learning habits. Students are required to by smart, active and independent participants in
maintaining their own learning progress and that could help them to reach their learning
goals (Ackerman et al., 2016). Several students registered in MOOCs for various reasons,
therefore if they are not motivated, they tend to dropout (Wu and Chen, 2017). While some
students cannot sustain their interest in the instructional resources, others perceive this type
of learning in MOOCs to be a special kind of learning experience (Chang et al., 2015). It is
essential to understand the complexity involve during the learning process of students and
how the technology that was adopted for teaching could help to facilitate successful learning
(Straub, 2009). Understanding and having metacognitive knowledge is also regarded in some
cases useful to instructional course developers and e-learning curriculum practitioners. This
will help to facilitate adequate application of theoretical concepts into educational or
pedagogical practices (Crespin and Hartung, 1997). Moreno and Mayer (2007) suggested that
during learning tasks, learners’ mental processes of making decisions, choices, organizing
and integrating information are mediated by individual motivational factors that impact
upon their metacognitive engagement with the course resources.
In a recent study, self-directed learning (SDL) and SRL are often applied to learning
without clear distinction. This has been said to lead to confusion in the knowledge of
appropriate tools for measurement (Gandomkar and Sandars, 2018). SDL is said to apply
general approach to learning identified using questionnaires, but SRL is said to be a dynamic
and context-specific learning process which requires measures such as microanalysis.
Although, while both concepts appear to share similarities in active learners’ engagement in
setting goals, making appropriate choices and implementation of suitable learning strategies
and the evaluation of learning outcomes. Nowadays, these concepts are used interchangeably
in most studies. However, on intensive reviews, there are major differences within the two
concepts and their implications to learning. SDL describes a general approach to learning
which was adopted by the individual learners that are unique to learning habits, whereas SRL
focuses on specific key learning processes that were set based on clearly defined tasks. SRL
has been said to be a critical factor in learning in both online, blended and in a traditional
collaborative settings (Law et al., 2016).
Self-directed learners are said to be motivated internally and also appreciate the choice of
direction for which open educational resources provided to allow learners the autonomy in
their study. Self-directed learners create the opportunity to learn in an informal setting and
out of their individual curiosity and interest (Jordan, 2013). These learners take absolute An innovative
control of their learning and knowing that they could independently learn without any need MOOC
to rely on instructors for their learning directions. According to Kizilcec and Halawa (2015),
learners with strong SRL skills are characterised by their ability to plan, manage and take
platform
control of their learning process and “can learn faster and outperform those with weaker SRL
skills”. It has been observed that learners with strong SRL skills do not only perform better,
but they are more likely to revisit previous studies, assessments and learning resources that
could help them to enhance better their academic performance and achievement. The 287
behaviour of these learners is distinctive during their learning activities. This variation of
learning behaviour is unique due to the diversity of learners’ prior knowledge, experiences,
background, interest, motivations, aspirations and intentions (de Barba et al., 2016; Jordan,
2013; Lee and Reynolds, 2015; Wang et al., 2013). Students were able to regulate their study
and interact outside formal educational settings more at any time and place of their choosing.
This variation in their learning patterns provides a general enhancement to their educational
experiences.

2.1 The emergence of MOOCs

The evaluation of massive open online courses (MOOCs) in general has taken educational
sectors by storm in the creation of open courseware (OCW) and open educational resources
(OER). MOOCs are recent expansion in e-learning and distance learning that have experience
rapid growth and achieved high attention from large participants as compare to traditional
educational system (Zheng et al., 2015). MOOCs demonstrate the fact that we have reach an
era of open information abundance in huge contrast to information scarcity (Kolowich, 2013).
Taking advantage of such open educational resources, hundreds of thousands of participants
around the world enrol in courses to gain MOOCs experiences (Bowman, 2012). By early 2016,
over 4,000 of such courses across a wide range of multidisciplinary subjects were made
available by some MOOC platforms and providers such as Udemy, Udacity, Coursera,
NovoEd, FutureLearn and edX (Bersin, 2016; Sun and Rueda, 2012; Wexler, 2015).
Impressively, over 35 million participants have enrolled and participated in these courses that
were delivered by educators from over 570 different universities around the world (Carter,
2016; Cook, 2016; Onah and Sinclair, 2017). Research from Shah (2015, 2016) and Schmid et al.
(2015) indicated that MOOCs grew in 2016 to more than 58 million students who enrolled in
over 7,000 MOOCs at more than 700 universities around the world. These research from the
two studies present findings on the growth of MOOCs in terms of numbers from early 2015
to 2016.
Coursera is known to be the platform with the most number of registered participants.
They accounted for more than 23 million MOOC participants. According to Kop et al. (2011),
MOOC can provide information in some cases more than just traditional education course
information and assignments. MOOC can support connections between learners and
instructors in an online learning environment. When courses are design to harness
information flow in the learning environment, the result can be spontaneous
(MOOC@Edinburgh2013, 2013; Bonk and Lee, 2017).
MOOC received international recognition and attention especially in the Fall of 2011 where
a series of MOOC platforms from Stanford University enrolled over 100,000 participants
(Beckett, 2011; Littlejohn et al., 2016). There has been much attention recently related to their
potential plans and sustainability in this new education paradigm and delivery (Bonk et al.,
2015; Bonk and Lee, 2017; Kizilcec et al., 2013; Bethke, 2016; Onah et al., 2016). Nowadays,
MOOC developers are consistently considering enhancing the platform and deliberating
issues related to the accreditation, attrition, design, adaptation and personalisation (Bonk
et al., 2016; Kop et al., 2011). Some of the main concerns found in this new trend of learning has
IJILT to do with learners’ motivation, retention and continuity (Kop et al., 2011). For example, a
38,3 Bioelectricity MOOC delivered by Duke university had shown high number of registrations
from participants but after few weeks, there was lack of participation in any of the course
activities and high dropout rates (Belanger and Thornton, 2013; Catropa, 2013). A similar
situation was observed in the six MOOCs delivered by the University of Edinburgh, which
also suffered the same fate of high dropout rates and reduction in the course participation
(Markoff, 2011).
288 Learning interest in MOOCs context may heighten overall general interest, which in most
cases could improve motivation to fulfil a need for individual autonomy in e-learning
systems. MOOCs are said to be mediated by the participants’ learning interest developed
before or while engaging with the course resources (Tsai et al., 2018). Research conducted in
MOOCs using mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative approaches has revealed that
learners’ reasons for attrition were related to insufficient time management skills and also on
the difficulty of the course concepts (Jordan, 2013; Morrison, 2013; Wang et al., 2013). The
ability to regulate learning skills in the absence of the instructor’s support and guidance
during learning process required critical skills from the learners in order to achieve personal
learning goals.

3. ELDAMOOC platform
3.1 Participants and context
This study currently has 145 registered online learners for which selected responses of 11
online samples and 27 blended-learning samples from undergraduate participants were
extracted and analysed from those who participated in the Computing Concept and Python
programming and the blended course delivered in the eLDa Platform. The course was offered
by one of the UK top Universities, and it encompassed 7 sessions, containing at least 43
lessons embedded with video lectures and assessments (example: in lesson multiple-choice
quizzes, exercises, programming activities and solutions and finally open-ended and closed-
ended survey questions). The course assessments were not formative, therefore could only be
attempted once and not multiple times as applied in another related study (Kizilcec and
Halawa, 2015). The target audiences for this course were teachers of computer science
education in the UK, undergraduate students, graduates and other professionals around the
world who are in subject-related industries. These learners responded to the early stage of the
preliminary research instrument that was based on the six SRL dimensions. Indeed, based on
the demographics, Table 1 shows the percentage age range of the participants. This
demonstrates that early middle age participants, over 62.97% of the learners fell under the
age range of 25–44 and while the older participants from the range of 55 or over has the least
percentage of 3.7%.
Further demographics reveals that 40.7% were female, 59.3% were male, 59.26% held a
bachelor’s or higher degrees (a Master’s or Ph.D.), 11.11% were undergraduate students from
the University of Warwick and 29.63% were other professionals. Data were collected within a
short period of time as the course was launched live for participation between January and
December 2015.

Age range %

18–24 18.52
Table 1. 25–34 25.93
The percentage 35–44 37.04
age range of the 45–54 14.81
participants 55 or over 3.7
3.2 The eLDa self-directed scenario An innovative
A learner registers and decides his or her learning path and pattern. The entire course content MOOC
is visually displayed to the learner. The learners determine the mode in which they are
interested in engaging with the course resources. In each of the seven modules in the course
platform
but one, there are five lessons apart from the introductory module that has three lessons,
including practical exercises and solutions. Each of the modules discusses Computing
Concepts and Python programming. Learners have the choice of engaging with the course by
watching lecture videos, reading the text transcripts of the videos, reading the lecture 289
resources and slides, practicing exercises and accessing external links and resources that was
suggested for further clarification or enlightenment.

3.3 The eLDa self-regulated scenario

At this point, the learners prepare ahead for the lessons or modules. They set learning
preferences and goals to achieve in the course. However, the researcher hoped that, with the
combination of these two modes of study in the platform, learners could develop skills needed
for enhancing personal or independent SRL habits. These skills will help learners to
autonomously take control of their reading and improve independent learning skills.

4. Research methodology
This section describes the research methodologies used in this study. This presents the
methods applied to the data collection processes, and the analysis of data through the entire
study. The overarching research methodology for the wider study is derived from a design
science paradigm (Von Alan et al., 2004) which was based on the development and evaluation
of an innovative online and blended-learning platform to investigate and measure SRL
(Barnard et al., 2009). In this study, we applied mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative
approaches for the data collection. These mixed methods were applied because the data were
collected from two case studies in a stand-alone online course and a blended-learning course.

4.1 Sampling
This study applied two main types of sampling: convenience sampling which comprises the
population of students that could be easily reached and a purposeful sampling which
comprises sample population of selected participants with common characteristics. While the
convenience sampling was used for the undergraduate blended-learning research activities,
the purposeful sampling was applied for the online MOOC activities for selected teachers of
computer science.

4.2 Data collection process

4.2.1 Instrument and analysis. Purposeful and convenience sampling approaches were used
to select the participants for the research, as they were readily available. The data were
collected using quantitative and qualitative methods. The instrument for the data collection
was a MOOC Online Self-regulated Learning Questionnaire (MOSLQ), developed for a
previous study (Onah et al., 2014; Onah, 2017; Barnard et al., 2009). The data were analysed
using descriptive and exploratory approaches using the statistical package for the social
sciences (SPSS Version 22) and R-Studio programming tool.
4.2.2 Focus group interviews. A semi-structured interview format was used for the focus
group discussion. The participants were divided into groups of two and the template
questions were the same for both groups. The interview was recorded with three different
devices in order to collate optimum data. The specific approaches used to collate the data
are: (1) standard instrument to assess aspect of SRL patterns among the learners;
IJILT (2) questionnaires administered to all learners collating general information of their
38,3 aspirations, and experience of the course resources; (3) survey results demonstrating
understanding of the course and (4) finally, a semi-structured post course focus group
interviews.

5. Results
290 The results from this study are gathered from a subset of learners who answered the initial
entry course survey about their SRL skills and various other demographics data, their
intention for participation, their motivations and preferences. Early demographic data from
the blended-learning aspect of this research reveal that for majority of the undergraduate
students, this is their first time in participating in a blended classroom learning. Responses
from the question when students were asked if they have participated in a blended-learning
course before, this reveals over 85% of the participant said they never had any blended-
learning experience and only a handful of less than 15% said they had (see Figure 1). Table 2
illustrated the SRL subscale and survey questions in the MOSLQ measuring instrument.

5.1 Results by individual questions

Table 3 reveals the mean and standard deviation of the survey questions of the MOSLQ
instrument. As can been seen, this shows variation in the mean responses from GSQ4: 2.18 to
SEQ2: 4.18 indicating that some areas of the SRL are better advanced than the others;
therefore, there are needs for improvements in these less-developed aspects of SRL skills.
These individual questions contribute to the six SRL dimensions in this study. Table 3 shows
the results arranged according to the subscale of these dimensions, which revealed a
noticeable variation between the mean and standard deviation of each. The respondents self-
reported effective results at self-evaluation (SEQ1 and SEQ2), which reveals that participants
reflect on their own learning and evaluate their progress. Individual participants in this study
show effective goal setting skills in the aspect of (GSQ1, GSQ2, GSQ3, GSQ4 and GSQ5). This
shows that majority of the individuals in this study set goals and work towards achieving the
results to attain better outcomes. For a sub-scale dimension question to be classified as high
SRL skills, the mean should be from 3.5 to 4.18, any average below the threshold of 3.5 is
considered in this study has low SRL skills. A few SRL questions achieved this result,
therefore indicated that there is a necessity to improve achievement in all the aspects below
the threshold. This study shows alarming and concerning results in help seeking and task
strategies among the learners. It might be that the learners do not expect this instrument

Figure 1.
Show percentage of
undergraduate
students who has had
experience in blended
learning
Subscale
An innovative
SRL Survey question MOOC
platform
GSQ1 I know what I am going to achieve in this course
GSQ2 I have set aside time to study the course
GSQ3 I have high standards for my work on this course
GSQ4 I have set targets for all I want to achieve in this course
GSQ5 I do not see my engagement in the course as less important solely because it is an online course 291
GSQ6 I have written down the goals I plan to achieve by the end of this course
TSQ1 I work strategically to prioritise tasks to help me achieve my learning goals
TSQ2 I prepare for my online study by reading the suggested background learning materials
beforehand
TSQ3 I set out my study agenda before engaging with the online resources
TSQ4 I am prepared to tackle any challenging aspects of the work in this course
TMQ1 I have planned ahead in order to devote the necessary time to my online studies
TMQ2 I find a good time to study when I will not be distracted
ESQ1 I choose my study location in order to avoid distractions
ESQ2 I find a comfortable place to study
ESQ3 I choose an appropriate place to work in order to study effectively
HSQ1 I plan to use the interactive communication channels provided to gain support from peers and
tutors
HSQ2 I plan to participate in the course discussion forums in order to get the most out of the course Table 2.
SEQ1 While engaging in this course, I will reflect on my study in each module MOSLQ survey
SEQ2 I will be proactive in engaging and reviewing progress in the learning path I select instrument

Subscale SRL Mean Standard deviation

GSQ1 3.55 1.128

GSQ2 3.45 0.688
GSQ3 3.82 0.603
GSQ4 3.00 1.0
GSQ5 4.09 0.831
GSQ6 2.18 0.874
TSQ1 3.82 0.603
TSQ2 2.91 1.221
TSQ3 2.36 0.924
TSQ4 2.82 0.874
TMQ1 2.73 0.905
TMQ2 4.09 0.831
ESQ1 3.73 0.905
ESQ2 3.91 0.701
ESQ3 3.36 0.924 Table 3.
HSQ1 2.55 0.082 Survey instrument
HSQ2 2.27 0.905 questions mean and
SEQ1 3.91 0.539 standard deviation of
SEQ2 4.18 0.603 the SRL dimensions

questions in aspect of help seeking and task strategies to be attributed to an effective means
for them to study and achieve success.

5.2 Results from focus group interviews

This section presents results from the focus group interview conducted for first-year
undergraduate blended-learning students from a top UK University. We demonstrate the
IJILT Deductive themes
38,3 Emerging Percent Emerging Percent Emerging Percent

Theme: goal setting Theme: task strategies Theme: time management

Sub-theme: preparation for Sub-theme: strategies used in Sub-theme: allocating time for
studies studies studies
Deadline 17.14 Draw-notes 6.25 Important 30
292 Interest 20 Games 9.38 Prioritise 30
Learning 20 Music 18.75 Schedule 10
Motivation 11.43 Planned and prepare 18.75 Under-pressure 30
Results 14.29 Priority 9.38
Understanding 17.14 Reading 21.88
Revise 9.38
Rewrite-notes 6.25
Theme: environment Theme: help seeking Theme: self-evaluation
structuring Sub-theme: ways of seeking help Sub-theme: self-reflection
Sub-theme: preferred learning during studies
environment
Less distraction 11.54 Friends 14.81 Assessment 28.57
Focus 26.92 Google 11.11 Evaluate 10.71
Table 4. Not quiet 7.69 Group study 22.22 Exams 17.86
Deductive themes Silent 11.54 Internet and Online 33.33 Listening 14.29
derived from the focus Tidy 11.54 Library 11.11 Reflecting 14.29
group interviews With people 30.77 YouTube 7.41 Revising 14.29

emerging themes extracted from the transcribed interviews and responses. Deductive themes
were derived from the six SRL dimensions in this study that were extremely relevant to report
in this research (see Table 4).
Goal setting. This theme revealed responses to when students were asked how they
prepared for their studies, over 70% of the emerging themes was related to having interest in
the course, learning, understanding and meeting deadlines. Over 24% said they prepared for
their studies for the sake of obtaining a better result and the level of motivation they get from
the course.
Task strategies. This theme focused on the strategies students used in their studies.
Results show that over 59% of the students said they listen to music, adequately planned and
prepared for their studies and constantly read their learning resources. About 21.88 % said
they revise, draw and rewrite their lecture notes while 18.76% said the play computer games
and afterwards engage in studies according to their learning priority and also on how
important this is to their discipline.
Time management. This theme illustrated how students allocate time to their studies.
Over 90% allocate time for their studies according to how important the resources are,
prioritise their studies to cover topic areas of interest and work under-pressure to meet their
closest deadline.
Environment structuring. In this theme, about 34.62% revealed that students preferred a
learning environment that is silent, tidy and with less distractions, 26.96% preferred a
learning environment that will make them to be more focused to concentrate on their studies,
while about 30% preferred their learning environment to have people, so they could interact
and be motivated to study.
Help seeking. This revealed emerging themes of the various ways that students seek
for help with their studies. Over 48% seek help from friends, within group studies and from
the library. Over 51% seek help with their studies from Google, YouTube, the internet and
online.
 Self-evaluation. In this theme, over 46% revealed that students self-reflect in their studies An innovative
when they received their assessment and examination scores. Students’ self-reflection during MOOC
their studies shows over 53% reflect when evaluating their studies, when listening to lectures,
and also they reflect when revising their learning resources.
platform

5.3 Visualisation of SRL subscale results

Figure 2 illustrates the distinctive levels of SRL skills observed from the six dimensions in 293
this study. The results reveal high levels of SRL skills in some of the dimensions while there is
need for improvement within some of the other dimensions. For example, goal setting
demonstrates a high score within the Likert scale responses and others are relatively low. The
help-seeking dimension shows that there is a need for improvement among this dimension.
This could be enhanced as learners develop the habits and skills for asking for support with
their studies either from tutors or from classmates. The results indicated the respondents’
responses to the individual questions and indicate aspects of SRL questions that are under-
represented in this study. Although two or more learners may have similar response patterns,
but their individual profiles may differ considerable with each showing different weaknesses
and strengths within the dimensions. There is need to apply different approaches to provide
effective support to learners in order to improve those dimensions or strategies that were
identified to be weak.

6. Conclusion
Compared to instructional classes, contemporary online environments tend to provide less
support to the learners and directions on how to learn effectively. Online learners are
supposed to actively engage in their studies and autonomously take control of their learning
process, which adequately demand a high degree of confidence in their learning abilities and
in the abilities to manage their learning progresses. Current MOOC systems fail to consider
good aspects of effective support and learning pedagogy, which has been established in
traditional educational setting to be beneficial for teaching and learning. With the didactic
nature of MOOC one-size-fits-all approaches, they lack the full flexibility structure to aid
effective engagement that allows the learners to direct and regulate their learning. There is a
need for learners to be provided with the opportunity of making their own individual choices

Subscale SRL

4
Frequency on response

Figure 2.
1
Visualisation of
subscale of SRL skills
GSQ1 GSQ3 GSQ5 TSQ1 TSQ2 TSQ3 TSQ4 TMQ1 ESQ1 ESQ2 ESQ3 HSQ1 SEQ1 SEQ2
IJILT and deciding unique route that could motivate them in learning and encourage continuous
38,3 engagement in a MOOC. This study supports the fact that most MOOC learners are highly
educated practitioners with adequate skills to regulate their learning process. However, our
results indicate that these learners did not show high level of skills as might be expected
within the SRL subscale questions at an acceptable high level individually. In particularly,
task strategies and help seeking items revealed low responses within the instrument
questions as used in this study. Therefore, we could not conclude that even practitioners and
294 highly educated professionals who are learners in a MOOC context could regulate their
learning effectively. There is need for MOOC to incorporate modalities of engaging and
encouraging SRL skills among participants.

6.1 Implications of the study

In this study, we discovered that most of the learners were keen to direct their own individual
learning path and those who followed the instructional path engaged with the course as
suitable to their learning habits. Thus, these learners were showing their abilities for
autonomous learning skills and taking control to achieve individual learning goals. Our
platform currently allows learners to direct their learning within the course and also allow the
choice of content prerequisite in order to recommend resources necessary for their learning.
This study indicates the necessity to support SRL skills and directing development of self-
determination skills among the participants. This study when applied to a larger sample will
demonstrate effective measurement on areas of reliability and validity as results from this
small sample has indicated some high SRL skill levels for individual learners within the
research.
The study also identified several challenges. For example, there were some challenges in
learners completing the survey questions even when several reminders were sent out forth
nightly. At this preliminary stage, learners participated as lurkers without engaging fully
with other non-academic and academic interactive activities such as surveys, in course
quizzes and forums. Most of the participants in this course said they enrolled to know more
about the new trend MOOC, to make friends, to have fun and so on. Although, these are some
of their intentions for participating, some of the participants at some points contributed to
discussion forums. The results from this study’s investigation reveal distinctive SRL skills
among the learners. There are some dimensions that show high SRL skills and while others
show low SRL skills, which necessitate further improvement among the participants. The
participants’ intentions are as important in this study as well as their distinctive independent
SRL skills. In this study, we hoped to reveal high levels of SRL skills among the participants,
due to the fact that majority of those involved in the study were highly educated. However,
this is not fully the case in our investigation, as most of the learners preferred to go “solo” in
this study without seeking help in most cases and preferred independent learning habits. This
attribute leads to the low level of help seeking as revealed in Table 3 in the results section.
Although this preliminary study and results are only from a small group of respondents who
participated in the course, the results indicated areas for our further investigation.
The study presented results from a small sample of participants in the stand-alone MOOC
platform. However, this has exposed emerging themes that are of interest and which could be
further investigated. In addition, we will explore other new approaches to harness the means
of supporting learners developing SRL skills.

6.2 E-learning design implications for practitioners

There are many e-learning platforms in existence globally, but little has been mentioned
about the development of a MOOC platform in general that could allow independent learning,
and also adequately demonstrating the components and features used in these MOOC
designs. This research’s implication is to aid instructional designers to apply best practices in An innovative
the development of an online course. The best approach in designing a good course is to MOOC
consider the learners and how they could engage with the course resources independently
and develop the ability to self-direct their learning. One of the main goals of e-learning
platform
platforms is primarily based on developing learning resources that would be suitable for
linear course structure as directed by the course developer or instructor. In order to include
best practices in e-learning development, some course instructors have constantly revised
their content to improve the learning structure, deliver better interactive courses and ensure 295
learners attain optimum satisfaction from the learning platform resources (Alexander, 2001).
However, the success of any e-learning or MOOC platform should consider the following
best practices and objectives: the learners’ entire learning experience, the strategies used in
developing the course content, the planning of the course delivery and the methods of
delivery. Therefore, all e-learning platforms should be designed with a primary focus on the
way students learn to improve their own learning skills and help them regulate their own
independent learning habits (Littlejohn and Milligan, 2015). In another related study, the
success of any e-learning course implementation should be carefully considered with regards
to the course’s underlying pedagogy and how learners engage with the content
(Govindasamy, 2001). However, this is one of the most important factors that have been
lacking in most MOOC learning or e-learning platforms and their evaluation.

6.3 Recommendation and future work

In line with a design base research approach, our future research development plan is in the
direction of investigating ways of motivating self-directed learning habits. Looking at ways
of improving effective interactive learning to elevate help-seeking skills. In line with this
proposed future work, we hope to increase learners’ awareness of the need to improve on
these SRL skills and also develop additional skills for setting up achievable goals to pursue.

References
Ackerman, R., Parush, A., Nassar, F. and Shtub, A. (2016), “Metacognition and system usability:
incorporating metacognitive research paradigm into usability testing”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 54, pp. 101-113.
Alexander, S. (2001), “E-learning developments and experiences”, Education þ Training, Vol. 43
Nos 4/5, pp. 240-248.
Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J. and Leskovec, J. (2014), “Engaging with massive online
courses”, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web, ACM, pp. 687-698.
Barnard, L., Lan, W.Y., To, Y.M., Paton, V.O. and Lai, S.L. (2009), “Measuring self-regulation in online
and blended learning environments”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V.O. and Lan, W.Y. (2010), “Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online
learning environment”, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 61-80.
Beckett, J. (2011), Free Computer Science Courses, New Teaching Technology Reinvent Online
Education, Stanford University News, available at: http://news.standford.edu/news/2011/
august/online-computer-science-081611.html (accessed 11 June 2017).
Belanger, Y. and Thornton, J. (2013), “Bioelectricity: a quantitative approach duke university’s first
MOOC”, available at: https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/6216/
DukeBioelectricityMOOCFall2012.pdf (accessed 11 June 2017).
Bersin, J. (2016), “Use of MOOCs and online education is exploding: here’s why”, available at: https://
pittcoursera.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/moocs-and-online-education-exploding/ (accessed 11
June 2017).
IJILT Bethke, R. (2016), “Developing country MOOC users not like those in the US”, available at: https://
www.ecampusnews.com/top-news/developing-country-mooc/ (accessed 11 June 2017).
38,3
Bonk, C.J. and Lee, M.M. (2017), “Motivations, achievements, and challenges of self-directed informal
learners in open educational environments and MOOCs”, Journal of Learning for Development-
JL4D, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 36-57.
Bonk, C.J., Lee, M.M., Reeves, T.C. and Reynolds, T.H. (2015), MOOCs and Open Education Around
the World, Routledge, London, New York, NY.
296
Bonk, C.J., Lee, M., Reeves, T.C. and Reynolds, T.H. (2016), “The emergence and design of massive
open online courses”, in Reiser, R.A. and Dempsey, J.V. (Eds), Trends and Issues in Instructional
Design and Technology, 4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 250-258.
Bowman, K.D. (2012), “Winds of change: is higher education experiencing a shift in delivery”, Public
Purpose Magazine (from the American Association of State Colleges and Universities), pp. 6-9,
available at: http://www.aascu.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5570.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D.E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G.S., Ho, A.D. and Seaton, D.T. (2013), “Studying
learning in the worldwide classroom: research into edx’s first MOOC”, Research and Practice in
Assessment, Vol. 8, pp. 13-25.
Carter, J. (2016), “MOOC and learn: the university with 35 million students”, Techradar, available at:
http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/mooc-and-learn-the-university-with-35-million-
students-1318037 (accessed 11 June 2017).
Catropa, D. (2013), “Big (MOOC) data”, Inside Higher Education, available at: https://www.
insidehighered.com/blogs/stratedgy/big-mooc-data (accessed 11 June 2017).
Chang, R.I., Hung, Y.H. and Lin, C.F. (2015), “Survey of learning experiences and influence of learning
style preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs”, British Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 528-541.
Cook, M. (2016), “State of the MOOC 2016: a year of massive landscape change for massive open
online courses. online course report”, March, available at: http://www.onlinecoursereport.com/
state-of-the-mooc-2016-a-year-of-massive-landscape-change-for-massive-open-online-courses/
(accessed 11 June 2017).
Crespin, L. and Hartung, E. (1997), “Metacognition as a necessary strategy for teacher training in
DBAE: facilitating theory into practice”, Visual Arts Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 124-134.
de Barba, P.G., Kennedy, G.E. and Ainley, M.D. (2016), “The role of students’ motivation and
participation in predicting performance in a MOOC motivation and participation in MOOCs”,
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 218-231.
Evans, B.J., Baker, R.B. and Dee, T.S. (2016), “Persistence patterns in massive open online courses
(MOOCs)”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 206-242.
Gandomkar, R. and Sandars, J. (2018), “Clearing the confusion about self-directed learning and self-
regulated learning”, Medical Teacher, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 862-863.
Govindasamy, T. (2001), “Successful implementation of e-learning: pedagogical considerations”, The
Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 4 Nos 3-4, pp. 287-299.
Ho, A.D., Chuang, I., Reich, J., Coleman, C.A., Whitehill, J., Northcutt, C.G., Williams, J.J., Hansen, J.D.,
Lopez, G. and Petersen, R. (2015), “Harvardx and mitx: two years of open online courses fall
2012-summer 2014”, SSRN Electronic Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 1-37, available at: https://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2586847.
Holotescu, C., Grosseck, G., CREŢU, V. and Naaji, A. (2014), “Integrating MOOCs in blended courses”,
Elearning and Software for Education, No. 1, pp. 243-250.
Jordan, K. (2013), “MOOC completion rates: the data”, available at: http://www.katyjordan.com/
MOOCproject.html (accessed 24 June 2017).
Kizilcec, R.F. and Halawa, S. (2015), “Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning”, Proceedings
of the Second (2015) ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale, ACM, pp. 57-66.
Kizilcec, R.F., Piech, C. and Schneider, E. (2013), “Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner An innovative
subpopulations in massive open online courses”, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, ACM, pp. 170-179. MOOC
Kizilcec, R.F., P
erez-Sanagust
ın, M. and Maldonado, J.J. (2017), “Self-regulated learning strategies
platform
predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses”, Computers 4
Education, Vol. 104, pp. 18-33.
Kloos, C.D., Mu~
noz-Merino, P.J., Alario-Hoyos, C., Ayres, I.E. and Fern
andez-Panadero, C. (2015),
“Mixing and blending MOOC Technologies with face-to-face pedagogies”, 2015 IEEE Global 297
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), IEEE, pp. 967-971.
Kolowich, S. (2013), “How edx plans to earn, and share, revenue from its free online courses”, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 21, available at: http://chronicle.com/article/How-EdX-Plans-
to-Earn-and/137433/ (accessed 11 June 2017).
Kop, R., Fournier, H. and Mak, J.S.F. (2011), “A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support
human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses”, The International Review
of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 74-93.
Law, V., Ge, X. and Eseryel, D. (2016), “The development of a self-regulation in a collaborative context
scale”, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 243-253.
Lee, M. and Reynolds, T. (2015), “MOOCs and open education: the unique symposium that led to this
special issue”, International Journal on E-Learning, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 279-288.
Littlejohn, A. and Milligan, C. (2015), “Designing MOOCs for professional learners: tools and patterns
to encourage self-regulated learning”, eLearning Papers, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C. and Mustain, P. (2016), “Learning in MOOCs: motivations and self-
regulated learning in MOOCs”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 29, pp. 40-48.
Markoff, J. (2011), “Virtual and artificial, but 58,000 want course”, The New York Times, 15, available
at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/science/16stanford.html (accessed 11 June 2017).
MOOC@Edinburgh2013 (2013), Mooc@edinburgh2013 Report#1, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh, available at: https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/6683/Edinburgh
MOOCs Report2013 no1.pdf? (accessed 11 June 2017).
Moreno, R. and Mayer, R. (2007), “Interactive multimodal learning environments”, Educational
Psychology Review, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 309-326.
Morris, N.P. (2014), “How digital technologies, blended learning and MOOCs will impact the future of
higher education”, International Association for the Development of the Information Society,
ERIC, pp. 401-404, available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED557272.pdf.
Morrison, D. (2013), “The ultimate student guide to xMOOCs and cMOOCs”, available at: http://
moocnewsandreviews.com/ultimate-guide-to-xmoocsand-cmoocso (accessed 11 June 2017).
Nawrot, I. and Doucet, A. (2014), “Building engagement for MOOC students: introducing support for
time management on online learning platforms”, Proceedings of the 23rd International
Conference on World Wide Web, ACM, pp. 1077-1082.
Onah, D.F.O. (2017), Investigating Self-Regulated Learning in Massive Open Online Courses: A Design
Science Research Approach, Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick.
Onah, D.F.O. and Sinclair, J.E. (2017), “Assessing self-regulation of learning dimensions in a stand-
alone MOOC platform”, International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 4-21.
Onah, D.F., Sinclair, J. and Boyatt, R. (2014), “Dropout rates of massive open online courses:
behavioural patterns”, EDULEARN14 Proceedings, pp. 5825-5834.
Onah, D.F., Sinclair, J., Pang, E.L. and Jantjies, M. (2016), “Exploring the multi-dimensional attainment
of self-regulatory learning skills in educational contexts: a comparative study”, EDULEARN16
Proceedings, pp. 5970-5979.
IJILT Schmid, L., Manturuk, K., Simpkins, I., Goldwasser, M. and Whitfield, K.E. (2015), “Fulfilling the
promise: do MOOCs reach the educationally underserved?”, Educational Media International,
38,3 Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 116-128.
Shah, D. (2015), By the Numbers: MOOCs in 2015, Class Central, available at: https://www.class-
central.com/report/moocs-2015-stats/ (accessed 11 June 2017).
Shah, D. (2016), By the Numbers: MOOCs in 2015, Class Central, available at: https://www.class-
central.com/report/mooc-stats-2016/ (accessed 11 June 2017).
298
Straub, E.T. (2009), “Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal
learning”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 625-649.
Sun, J.C.-Y. and Rueda, R. (2012), “Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their
impact on student engagement in distance education”, British Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 191-204.
Tsai, Y.H., Lin, C.H., Hong, J.C. and Tai, K.H. (2018), “The effects of metacognition on online learning
interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs”, Computers and Education, Vol. 121, pp. 18-29.
Van Laer, S. and Elen, J. (2018), “Adults’ self-regulatory behaviour profiles in blended learning
environments and their implications for design”, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 25,
pp. 509-539.
Von Alan, R.H., March, S.T., Park, J. and Ram, S. (2004), “Design science in information systems
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 75-105.
Wang, C.-H., Shannon, D.M. and Ross, M.E. (2013), “Students’ characteristics, self-regulated learning,
technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning”, Distance Education, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 302-323.
Wexler, E. (2015), “MOOCs are still rising, at least in numbers”, The Chronicle of Higher Education,
available at: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/moocs-are-still-rising-at-least-in-
numbers/57527 (accessed 11 June 2017).
Wu, B. and Chen, X. (2017), “Continuance intention to use MOOCs: integrating the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 67, pp. 221-232.
Zheng, S., Rosson, M.B., Shih, P.C. and Carroll, J.M. (2015), “Understanding student motivation,
behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs”, Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, ACM, pp. 1882-1895.

Further reading
Onah, D.F. and Sinclair, J. (2016), “An empirical investigation of students’ perceptions of self-regulated
learning in online blended learning: a case study of a novel e-learning platform”,
EDULEARN16 Proceedings, pp. 5960-5969.

Corresponding author
Daniel F.O. Onah can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]