Résumés
Abstract
Over the last decade, several studies have focused on massive open online courses (MOOCs). The synthesis presented here concentrates on these studies and aims to examine the place held by content in these studies, especially those produced between 2012 and 2018: sixty-five peer reviewed papers are identified through five major educational technology research journals. The analysis revealed that these research articles covered a wide diversity of content. Content was mainly defined in terms of objectives of MOOCs, prerequisites required for participation in the MOOC, types of learning scenarios, and, though rarely, through the strategies used to convey content. In addition, empirical studies adopted a variety of conceptual frameworks which focused mainly on learning strategies without relating to the content in question. Finally, content was seldom considered as a research object. These results can provide MOOC researchers and instructors with insights for the study and design of MOOCs by taking into account the specificity of their content.
Keywords:
- MOOC,
- research review,
- didactics,
- content
Veuillez télécharger l’article en PDF pour le lire.
Télécharger
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Admiraal, W., Huisman, B., & Van de Ven, M. (2014). Self- and peer assessment in massive open online courses. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(4), 119-128.
- Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453-474.
- Alario-Hoyos, C., Estévez-Ayres, I., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Kloos, C. D., & Fernández-Panadero, C. (2017). Understanding learners’ motivation and learning strategies in MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 120-137. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2996
- Almatrafi, O., Johri, A., & Rangwala, H. (2018). Needle in a haystack: Identifying learner posts that require urgent response in MOOC discussion forums. Computers & Education, 118, 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.11.002
- Andersen, R., & Mørch, A. I. (2009, March). Mutual development: A case study in customer- initiated software product development. In International Symposium on End User Development (pp. 31-49). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
- Andersen, R., & Ponti, M. (2014). Participatory pedagogy in an open educational course: Challenges and opportunities. Distance Education, 35(2), 234-249. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917703
- Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. ( 2008). Student engagement with school: critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369-386.
- Ashton, S., & Davies, R. S. (2015). Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course. Distance Education, 36(3), 312-334. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1081733
- Barak, M., Watted, A., & Haick, H. (2016). Motivation to learn in massive open online courses: Examining aspects of language and social engagement. Computers & Education, 94, 49-60.
- Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V. O., & Lan, W. Y. (2010). Profiles in self-regulated learning in the online learning environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 61-80. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.769
- Bogdan, R. (2017). Integrating MOOCs in embedded systems blended Courses. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 8(3), 101-107. Retrieved from http://www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain
- Bozkurt, A., Akgün-Özbek, E., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Trends and patterns in massive open online courses: Review and content analysis of research on MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 119-147. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080
- Canbek, N. G., & Hargis, J. (2015). Educational innovation in e-learning: MOOCs and OER movements in Turkey. Glokalde, 1(1), 19-32. Retrieved from http://www.glokalde.com/
- Chen, Y. H., & Chen, P. J. (2015). MOOC study group: Facilitation strategies, influential factors, and student perceived gains. Computers & Education, 86, 55-70. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.03.008
- Cisel, M., & Bruillard, É. (2013). Chronique des MOOC. Sciences et Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication pour l’Éducation et la Formation, 19. Retrieved from http://sticef.univ-lemans.fr/
- Cohen, L., & Magen-Nagar, N. (2016). Self-regulated learning and a sense of achievement in MOOCs among high school science and technology students. American Journal of Distance Education, 30(2), 68-79.
- Costley, J., & Lange, C. H. (2017). The effects of lecture diversity on germane load. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 27-46. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2860
- Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers & Education, 125, 327-344. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
- Delcambre, I. (2013). Contenus d’enseignement et d’apprentissages. In Y. Reuter, C. Cohen-Azria, B. Daunay, and D. Lahanier-Reuter (Eds.), Dictionnaire des concepts fondamentaux des didactiques (pp. 43-48). De Boeck Supérieur. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/dictionnaire-des-concepts-fondamentaux-des-didacti9782804169107.htm
- de Lima, M., & Zorrilla, M. E. (2017). Social networks and the building of learning communities: An experimental study of a social MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(1), 40-64. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i1.2630
- Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction. Upper Saddle River. N.J.: Merrill/Pearson.
- Dysthe, O. (2001). Dialog, samspel og læring [Dialogue, interaction and learning]. Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag.
- Ebben, M., & Murphy, J. S. (2014). Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(3), 328-345. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjem20
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
- Engle, D., Mankoff, C., & Carbrey, J. (2015). Coursera’s introductory human physiology course: Factors that characterize successful completion of a MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 46-68. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i2.2010
- Evans, S., & Myrick, J. G. (2015). How MOOC instructors view the pedagogy and purposes of massive open online courses. Distance Education, 36(3), 295-311. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2015.1081736
- Firmin, R., Schiorring, E., Whitmer, J., Willett, T., Collins, E. D., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2014). Case study: Using MOOCs for conventional college coursework. Distance Education, 35(2), 178-201. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917707
- Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. doi: 10.4324/9780203838020
- Fluckiger, C., & Reuter, Y. (2014). Les contenus «informatiques» et leur(s) reconstruction(s) par des élèves de CM2. Etude didactique. Recherches en éducation, 18, 64-78. Retrieved from https://hal.univ-lille3.fr/
- Formanek, M., Wenger, M. C., Buxner, S. R., Impey, C. D., & Sonam, T. (2017). Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of an astronomy MOOC. Computers & Education, 113, 243-262. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.019
- Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept: State of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-119.
- Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35-41. doi: 10.2307/3033543
- Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education model. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105. doi: 10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
- Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Joksimovic, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 135-176. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1954
- Gillani, N., & Eynon, R. (2014). Communication patterns in massively open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 23, 18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.05.004
- Halasek, K., McCorkle, B., Selfe, C. L., DeWitt, S. L., Delagrange, S., Michaels, J., & Clinnin, K. (2014). A MOOC with a view: How MOOCs encourage us to reexamine pedagogical doxa. In S. D. Krause, & C. Lowe (Eds.). Invasion of the MOOCs: The promises and perils of massive open online courses. Anderson, South Carolina: Parlor Press.
- Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted, and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(6), 20-38. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v12i6.1030
- Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M. C., & Dumais, N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology teaching and learning at K-12 levels: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 199-231. doi: 10.1080/03057267.2016.1226573
- Henderikx, M. A., Kreijns, K., & Kalz, M. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention-behavior gap. Distance Education, 38(3), 353-368. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006
- 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. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12235
- Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300.
- Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46.
- Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157-168. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
- Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Context counts: How learners' contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91, 83-91.
- Huisman, B., Admiraal, W., Pilli, O., van de Ven, M., & Saab, N. (2018). Peer assessment in MOOCs: The relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essay performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(1), 101-110. doi: 0.1111/bjet.12520
- Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(5), 102-118. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222
- Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the massive open online course: A literature review. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 73-85. Retrieved from http://www.jofdl.nz/
- Jiang, S., Williams, A. E., Warschauer, M., He, W., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2014). Influence of incentives on performance in a pre-college biology MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 100-112. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1858
- Kahan, T., Soffer, T., & Nachmias, R. (2017). Types of participant behavior in a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6), 2-18. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3087
- Kamradt, T. F., & Kamradt, E. J. (1999). Structured design for attitudinal instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Kellogg, S., Booth, S., & Oliver, K. (2014). A social network perspective on peer supported learning in MOOCs for educators. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5), 264-289. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1852
- Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research review, 2009-2012. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1), 1-16. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/
- 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
- Kwak, S. (2017). Approaches reflected in academic writing MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 139-155. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i3.2845
- Lebeaume, J. (2000). L'éducation technologique. Histoires et méthodes [Technological education. Stories and methods]. Paris: ESF.
- Lee, D., Watson, S. L., & Watson, W. R. (2019). Systematic literature review on self-regulated learning in massive open online courses. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 28-41. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3749
- Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., Blom, J., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Watching MOOCs together: Investigating co-located MOOC study groups. Distance Education, 35(2), 217-233. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2014.917708
- Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
- Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202-227. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455
- Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Lundqvist, K. Ø., & Williams, S. A. (2015). Who are with us: MOOC learners on a FutureLearn course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 557-569. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12261
- Marks, R.B., Sibley, S.D., & Arbaugh, J.B. (2005) A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531-563.
- Martinand, J. L. (2012). Éducation au Développement durable et didactiques du curriculum [Education for Sustainable Development and Curriculum Didactics]. In Conférence au XIXe Colloque AFIRSE. Lisbonne: Educagri.
- Milligan, C., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Patterns of engagement in connectivist MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 9(2), 149-159. doi: http://jolt.merlot.org/
- Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). How health professionals regulate their learning in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 113-121. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.005
- Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2017). Why study on a MOOC? The motives of students and professionals. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 92-102. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.3033
- Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2018). Mobile-based assessment: A literature review of publications in major referred journals from 2009 to 2018. Computers & Education, 125, 101-119. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.006
- Nortvig, A. M., & Christiansen, R. B. (2017). Institutional collaboration on MOOCs in education - A literature review. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(6), 307-316. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i6.3110
- Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times, 2(12), 2012. Retrieved from https://www.edinaschools.org/cms/lib/MN01909547/Centricity/Domain/272/The%20Year%20of%20the%20MOOC%20NY%20Times.pdf
- Paton, R. M., Fluck, A. E., & Scanlan, J. D. (2018). Engagement and retention in VET MOOCs and online courses: A systematic review of literature from 2013-2017. Computers & Education, 125, 191-201. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.013
- Phan, T., McNeil, S. G., & Robin, B. R. (2016). Students’ patterns of engagement and course performance in a massive open online course. Computers & Education, 95, 36-44. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.015
- Pundak, D., Sabag, N., & Trotskovsky, E. (2014). Accreditation of MOOCs. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 17(2), 117-129. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org
- Raffaghelli, J. E., Cucchiara, S., & Persico, D. (2015). Methodological approaches in MOOC research: Retracing the myth of Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 488-509. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12279
- Rieber, L. P. (2017). Participation patterns in a massive open online course (MOOC) about statistics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1295-1304. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12504
- Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 91-115. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134743
- Riyami, B., Mansouri, K., & Poirier, F. (2016). Towards integrating MOOC in the Moroccan higher educational system: Economic pedagogical model based on ICT for on-going education and teacher motivation. In ICERI 2016. Seville: IATED. Retrieved from https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr
- Rolfe, V. (2015). A systematic review of the socio-ethical aspects of massive online open courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 18(1), 52-71. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org
- Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
- Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 1-19. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2033
- Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
- Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: Learning as network-creation. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/networks.htm
- Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, N. E. W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Canelas, D. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education, 110, 35-50. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
- Simonson, M. R. (1979). Designing instruction for attitudinal outcomes. Journal of Instructional Development, 2(3), 15-19. doi: 10.1007/BF02984375
- Simonson, M., & Maushak, N. (1996). Instructional technology and attitude change. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 984-1016). Mayway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Soffer, T., & Cohen, A. (2015). Implementation of Tel Aviv university MOOCs in academic curriculum: A pilot study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 80-97. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i1.2031
- Song, L., & Hill, J. R. (2007). A conceptual model for understanding self-directed learning in online environments. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(1), 27-42.
- Stich, A. E., & Reeves, T. D. (2017). Massive open online courses and underserved students in the United States. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 58-71. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.09.001
- Stump, G. S., DeBoer, J., Whittinghill, J., & Breslow, L. (2013). Development of a framework to classify MOOC discussion forum posts: Methodology and challenges. Proceedings of NIPS 2013 Workshop on Data Driven Education. Retrieved from http://tll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/library/Coding_a_MOOC_Discussion_Forum.pdf
- Svinicki, M. D. (2010). A guidebook for conceptual frameworks for research in engineering education. Retrieved from http://crlte.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/06/Svinicki-Conceptual-Frameworks.pdf
- 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. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12297
- Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2015). Who studies MOOCs? Interdisciplinarity in MOOC research and its changes over time. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3), 1-17. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2202
- Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 199-221. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
- Walji, S., Deacon, A., Small, J., & Czerniewicz, L. (2016). Learning through engagement: MOOCs as an emergent form of provision. Distance Education, 37(2), 208-223. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2016.1184400
- Wang, Z., Anderson, T., Chen, L., & Barbera, E. (2016). Interaction pattern analysis in cMOOCs based on the connectivist interaction and engagement framework. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(2), 683-699. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12433
- Wang, Z., Chen, L., & Anderson, T. (2014). A framework for interaction and cognitive engagement in connectivist learning contexts. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(2). doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1709
- Wang, Z. J., & Chen, L. (2015). Theory framework building of instructional interaction in connectivist learning context. The Journal of Open Educational Research, 5, 25-34. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i2.1709
- Watson, W. R., Kim, W., & Watson, S. L. (2016). Learning outcomes of a MOOC designed for attitudinal change: A case study of an animal behavior and welfare MOOC. Computers & Education, 96, 83-93. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.01.013
- Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Janakiraman, S., & Richardson, J. (2017). A team of instructors’ use of social presence, teaching presence, and attitudinal dissonance strategies: An animal behaviour and welfare MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(2), 69-91. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.2663
- Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Richardson, J., & Loizzo, J. (2016). Instructor’s use of social presence, teaching presence, and attitudinal dissonance: A case study of an attitudinal change MOOC. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3), 55-74. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2379
- Watson, S. L., Watson, W. R., Yu, J. H., Alamri, H., & Mueller, C. (2017). Learner profiles of attitudinal learning in a MOOC: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Computers & Education, 114, 274-285. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.005
- Watted, A., & Barak, M. (2018). Motivating factors of MOOC completers: Comparing between university-affiliated students and general participants. The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.12.001
- Wise, A. F., Cui, Y., Jin, W., & Vytasek, J. (2017). Mining for gold: Identifying content-related MOOC discussion threads across domains through linguistic modeling. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 11-28. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.08.001
- Wong, B. T. M. (2016). Factors leading to effective teaching of MOOCs. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 11(1), 105-118. Retrieved from https://www.emeraldinsight.co
- Xu, B., Zhang, Y., Li, F., & Yang, D. (2015). MOOC Ke Cheng Lun Tan Zhong Xue Xi Zhe Lun Tan Jiao Hu Wang Luo Jie Gou Te Zheng Fen Xi [The structural analysis of interactive network formed MOOC discussion forums]. Computer Education, 15, 23-35. doi: 10.16512/j.cnki.jsjjy.2015.15.007
- Yang, Q. (2014). Students motivation in asynchronous online discussions with MOOC mode. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(5), 325-330.
- Yang, H. H., & Su, C. H. (2017). Learner behaviour in a MOOC practice-oriented course: In empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 36-63. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2991
- Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., & Jakobs, H. (2014). A review of the state-of-the-art. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education. Barcelona: SCITEPRESS-Science and Technology Publications.
- Zaid, A (2017). Élaborer, transmettre et construire des contenus scientifiques et technologiques. Perspective didactique des dispositifs d'éducation et de formation [Develop, transmit and build scientific content and technology. Didactic perspective of education and training systems]. Rennes: PUR.
- Zawacki-Richter, O., Bozkurt, A., Alturki, U., & Aldraiweesh, A. (2018). What research says about MOOCs - An explorative content analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1), 243-259. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3356
- Zhang, J. (2016). Can MOOCs be interesting to students? An experimental investigation from regulatory focus perspective. Computers & Education, 95, 340-351. doi: /10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.003
- Zhang, J., Skryabin, M., & Song, X. (2016). Understanding the dynamics of MOOC discussion forums with simulation investigation for empirical network analysis (SIENA). Distance Education, 37(3), 270-286. doi: 10.1080/01587919.2016.1226230
- Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92, 194-203. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012
- Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2018). A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014-2016). The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2018.01.002
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.