Student-content interaction and learning outcomes in MOOCs: The moderating role of self-efficacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i3.5420Keywords:
Self-efficacy, MOOCs, student-content interaction, online engagement, learning outcomesAbstract
This study examines how self-efficacy moderates the relationship between student-content interaction and two key outcomes in Massive Open Online Courses: perceived course quality and sustained learning interest. Using survey data from 343 participants in the Learning How to Learn MOOC on Coursera, we employed structural equation modeling to test main and interaction effects. Participants were predominantly adult learners with diverse educational backgrounds, balanced gender representation, and varied language backgrounds. Results indicate that student-content interaction positively predicts perceived course quality and sustained learning interest. Moderation analyses further show that the positive effects of student-content interaction are strongest for learners with lower self-efficacy and weaker for learners with higher self-efficacy, suggesting a compensatory or ceiling effect. These findings extend prior MOOC research by empirically modeling self-efficacy as a moderating condition rather than only a direct predictor. Practical implications highlight the importance of designing interactive content and self-efficacy-supportive features to promote engagement in large-scale autonomous learning environments. Limitations include reliance on self-reported data and cross-sectional design. Future research should incorporate objective learning analytics and longitudinal approaches to examine how these relationships evolve over time.
References
Abulibdeh, E., & Hassan, S. S. (2011). E-learning interactions, information technology self-efficacy, and student achievement at the University of Sharjah, UAE. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 1014–1025. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.926
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.
Alemayehu, L., & Chen, H. L. (2023). Learner and instructor-related challenges for learners’ engagement in MOOCs: A review of 2014–2020 publications in selected SSCI indexed journals. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(5), 3172–3194.
Artino, A. R. (2008). Cognitive load theory and the role of learner experience: An abbreviated review for educational practitioners. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education Journal, 16(4), 425–439.
Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38(1), 3–6.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bond, M. (2019). Facilitating student engagement through the flipped learning approach in K–12: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 140, 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103599
Chen, Z., Liu, M., & Zhou, R. (2025). The more the better? How excessive content and online interaction hinder the learning effectiveness of high‐quality MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 56(4), 1640–1670.
Cheng, S., Xie, K., & Collier, J. (2023). Motivational beliefs moderate the relation between academic delay and academic achievement in online learning environments. Computers & Education, 195, Article 104724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104724
Cho, M. H., Oh, E. G., Chang, Y., & Hwang, S. (2025). Effects of personal and instructor goals on MOOC continuance intention. Distance Education, 46(2), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2024.2338703
Cho, M.-H., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2013.835770
Dai, H. M., Teo, T., Rappa, N. A., & Huang, F. (2020). Explaining Chinese university students’ continuance learning intention in the MOOC setting: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Computers & Education, 150, Article 103850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103850
Dindar, M., & Akbulut, Y. (2016). Effects of multitasking on retention and topic interest. Learning and Instruction, 41, 94–105.
Dinh, N. B. K., Zhu, C., Nguyet, D. A., & Qi, Z. (2023). Uncovering factors predicting the effectiveness of MOOC-based academic leadership training. Journal of Computers in Education, 10(4), 721–747. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00241-z
Emamjomeh, S., Toghyani, M., & Bahrami, H. (2024). The relationship between perceived learning, academic performance and academic engagement in virtual education for university students. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 11(1), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.20448/jeelr.v11i1.5404
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289.
Gamage, D., Perera, I., & Fernando, S. (2020). MOOCs lack interactivity and collaborativeness: Evaluating MOOC platforms. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 10(2), 94–111. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v10i2.11886
Ghali, Z., & Amari, A. (2024). Assessing the effectiveness of e-learning under the moderating role of self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 8327–8346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12147-z
Hew, K. F., Hu, X., Qiao, C., & Tang, Y. (2020). What predicts student satisfaction in MOOCs A systematic review. Computers and Education, 145, 103724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hodges, C. (2016, April). The development of learner self-efficacy in MOOCs. In Global Learn (pp. 517–522). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157–168.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.
Huacui, Z., Hossain, M. N., Zhen, K., & Kumar, N. (2024). Understanding the success factors of MOOCs’ retention intention. A necessary condition analysis. PLoS ONE, 19(11), e0310006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310006
Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment, length and attrition. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112
Jung, E., Kim, D., Yoon, M., Park, S., & Oakley, B. (2019). The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course. Computers & Education, 128, 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.001
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
Kuo, T. M., Tsai, C. C., & Wang, J. C. (2021). Linking web-based learning self-efficacy and learning engagement in MOOCs: The role of online academic hardiness. Internet and Higher Education, 51, 100819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2021.100819
Lee, Y., & Song, H.-D. (2022). Motivation for MOOC learning persistence: An expectancy-value theory perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 958945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.958945
Li, W., Chen, J., & Zhang, Y. (2023). The impact of adaptive learning paths and resource variety on self-efficacy and learning outcomes in MOOCs. Computers & Education, 195, 104723.
Loh, H. S., Martins van Jaarsveld, G., Mesutoglu, C., & Baars, M. (2024). Supporting social interactions to improve MOOC participants’ learning outcomes: A literature review. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1345205. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1345205
Long, H., & Liu, J. (2025). Understanding the impact of interaction elements on MOOCs continuance intention among undergraduates: An extended expectation confirmation model. SAGE Open, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251342171
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles of multimedia design based on social cues: Personalization, voice, and image principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 201–212). Cambridge University Press.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659
Moore, R. L., & Blackmon, S. J. (2022). From the learner’s perspective: A systematic review of MOOC learner experiences (2008–2021). Computers & Education, 190, Article 104596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104596
Moore, R. L., & Wang, C. (2021). Influence of learner motivational dispositions on MOOC completion. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33, 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-020-09258-8
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Oakley, B., Poole, D., & Nestor, M. (2016). Creating a sticky MOOC. Online Learning, 20(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i1.731
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Rabin, E., Henderikx, M., Yoram, M. K., & Kalz, M. (2020). What are the barriers to learners’ satisfaction in MOOCs and what predicts them? The role of age, intention, self-regulation, self-efficacy and motivation. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 119–131.
Rodríguez, B. C. P., & Armellini, A. (2017). Developing self-efficacy through a massive open online course on study skills. Open Praxis, 9(3), 335–343.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–53). Routledge.
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. N., & Scheines, R. (2001). Causation, prediction, and search. MIT Press.
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tsai, C. W., Shen, P. D., & Fan, Y. T. (2020). The application of self-regulated learning and technology acceptance model to MOOCs. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58(4), 768–791.
Wang, A. Y., & Newlin, M. H. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), 151–163.
Wang, Y., Cao, Y., Gong, S., Wang, Z., Li, N., & Ai, L. (2022). Interaction and learning engagement in online learning: The mediating roles of online learning self-efficacy and academic emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 94, Article 102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102128
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1016
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eulho Jung, Moon-Heum Cho, Jerusalem Merkebu, TingLan Ma
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As a condition of publication, the author agrees to apply the Creative Commons – Attribution International 4.0 (CC-BY) License to OLJ articles. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
This licence allows anyone to reproduce OLJ articles at no cost and without further permission as long as they attribute the author and the journal. This permission includes printing, sharing and other forms of distribution.
Author(s) hold copyright in their work, and retain publishing rights without restrictions
