The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS
Abstract
Although past research has sought to identify the factors of student engagement in traditional online courses, two questions remained largely unanswered with regard to M assive O pen O nline C ourses ( MOOCs ): do the factors that could influence student engagement in traditional online courses also apply to online courses that are massive and open? What factors do students consider important in terms of their perceived ability to promote a satisfying or engaging online learning experience? This paper reports a case study of three top‐rated MOOCs in the disciplines of programming languages, literature, and arts & design in order to address these very questions. Using a mixed methods approach that combines participant observation with analysis of reflection data from 965 course participants, this paper seeks to understand the factors behind the popularity of these MOOCs . Five factors were found. These include the following, ranked in terms of importance: (1) problem‐centric learning with clear expositions, (2) instructor accessibility and passion, (3) active learning, (4) peer interaction, and (5) using helpful course resources. The specific design strategies pertaining to each factor are further discussed in this paper. These strategies can provide useful guidance for instructors and are a worthwhile subject for further experimental validation.
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
School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 · Cited by 12,581
Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/s1096-7516(00)00016-6 · Cited by 6,619
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 · Cited by 3,428
Handbook of Research on Student Engagement
(2012) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7 · Cited by 3,050
First principles of instruction
Merrill, M. D. (2002) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/bf02505024 · Cited by 2,092
Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic?
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012840 · Cited by 2,037
Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008) · Psychology in the Schools · doi:10.1002/pits.20303 · Cited by 1,956
How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014) · Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference · doi:10.1145/2556325.2566239 · Cited by 1,850
School Bonding in Children and Adolescents: Conceptualization, Assessment, and Associated Variables
Maddox, S. J., & Prinz, R. J. (2003) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1022214022478 · Cited by 364
Cited by
Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study
Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016 · Cited by 720
Online Learning: Adoption, Continuance, and Learning Outcome—A Review of Literature
Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.005 · Cited by 607
Salas‐Pilco, S. Z., Yang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2022) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13190 · Cited by 411
“This sudden change posed challenges to both teachers and students who were inadequately prepared for online learning because research indicates that engaging students in online learning environment is often more challenging than in traditional face- to- face courses (Gillett- Swan, 2017; Hew, 2016).”
BackgroundProgress 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
Wang, F. H. (2017) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.012 · Cited by 252
Metadata
- Authors
- Hew, K. F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-12-22
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 320-341
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W2101537501
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 19.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/bjet.12235
- The paper
- Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235
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.