The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study
Open accessAbstract
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) hold the potential to open up educational opportunities to a global audience. However, evidence suggests that only a small proportion of MOOC participants go on to complete their courses and relatively little is understood about the MOOC design and implementation factors that influence retention. This paper reports a survey study of 379 participants enrolled at university in Cairo who were encouraged to take a MOOC of their own choice as part of their development. 122 participants (32.2%) went onto to complete an entire course. There were no significant differences in completion rates by gender, level of study (undergraduate or postgraduate) or MOOC platform. A post-MOOC survey of students' perceptions found that MOOC Course Content was a significant predictor of MOOC retention, with the relationship mediated by the effect of content on the Perceived Effectiveness of the course. Interaction with the instructor of the MOOC was also found to be significant predictor of MOOC retention. Overall these constructs explained 79% of the variance in MOOC retention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013) · The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455 · Cited by 1,092
Eom, S. B., Wen, H. J., & Ashill, N. (2006) · Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2006.00114.x · Cited by 876
Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation
Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006 · Cited by 657
MOOCs and the funnel of participation
Clow, D. (2013) · Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge · doi:10.1145/2460296.2460332 · Cited by 567
A Structural Equation Model of Predictors for Effective Online Learning
Marks, R. B., Sibley, S. D., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005) · Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1177/1052562904271199 · Cited by 499
Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS
Hew, K. F. (2016) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12235 · Cited by 463
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. (2016) · Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education · doi:10.1111/dsji.12097 · Cited by 388
de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12268 · Cited by 332
Changing “Course”: Reconceptualizing Educational Variables for Massive Open Online Courses
DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x14523038 · Cited by 276
Cited by
Unleashing the Potential of Chatbots in Education: A State-Of-The-Art Analysis
Winkler, R., & Soellner, M. (2018) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2018.15903abstract · Cited by 581
Progress and new directions for teaching and learning in MOOCs
Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019 · Cited by 273
Students' adoption of AI-based teacher-bots (T-bots) for learning in higher education
Pillai, R., Sivathanu, B., Metri, B., & Kaushik, N. (2024) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-02-2021-0152 · Cited by 176
Rethinking (Dis)Engagement in Human-Computer Interaction
O'Brien, H. L., Roll, I., Kampen, A., & Davoudi, N. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.107109 · Cited by 139
Coussement, K., Phan, M., De Caigny, A., Benoit, D. F., & Raes, A. (2020) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2020.113325 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R.
- Venue
- Computers & Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 98
- Pages
- 157-168
- ISSN
- 0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2333693388
- Cited by
- 720
- References
- 18
- FWCI
- 93.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
- The paper
- Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.