Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Decision-making determinants of students participating in MOOCs:

T
Merging the theory of planned behavior and self-regulated learning
model
Niu Lung-Guang∗
Fo-Guang University, Communication Dep., Taiwan

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-regulated
Computer-mediated communication learning and planned behavior of students participating in massive open online courses (MOOCs)
Self-regulated learning at universities.
Theory of planned behavior Materials and methods: This was a questionnaire study in which all of the respondents in the
Learning communities
survey are undergraduate students in Taiwan. A total of 222 (114 male and 108 female) students
Media in education
were selected as survey subjects. Researchers used partial least squares (PLS) regression and
MOOCs
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the measurement model and the quality of mea-
sures. Data collection tools were the Self-Regulated Learning at Work Questionnaire and the
Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire.
Results: Structural equation modeling was used to test research hypotheses. All the hypotheses
tests showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between forethought of SRL
and TPB. But, the relationship between attitude toward the behavior and behavioral intention
was not significant. Additionally, the salient role of self-efficacy, goal setting, and task interest in
generating planned behavior for participating in MOOCs was identified. Overall, self-efficacy,
goal setting, and task interest were strong prediction variables for the proposed theoretical
model.
Conclusion: Results of the structural model comparisons revealed that the prediction power of the
integrated model was superior to that of the theory of planned behavior or the self-regulated
learning model in the MOOCs online learning context.

1. Introduction

In the growing market for massive open online courses (MOOCs), students have accepted and acknowledged the usefulness of
online learning at universities (Zhang, 2016; Zhou, 2016). In the field of education and communication, more and more users are
aware of the educational issues associated with the use of technology. Students are looking for and participating in the appropriate
MOOCs (Annabi & Wilkins, 2016). Instructors integrated value-based delivery of education into the online learning environment in
universities (Gilfoil & Focht, 2015).
As the acceptance of the distance learning framework grows, the requirements of the learning outcome of the students who
participate in MOOCs have been increasing. So, the effectiveness of open educational resources is important (Idrissi, Margoum,

∗
Mobile: +886 961022916.
E-mail address: lgniu@mail.fgu.edu.tw.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.004
Received 11 October 2018; Received in revised form 6 February 2019; Accepted 7 February 2019
Available online 11 February 2019
0360-1315/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Bendaoud, & Berrada, 2018). This trend has made the problem of learning requirements for MOOCs in universities. The students face
the phenomenon of the higher-education-institutions-promoted-MOOCs and greater openness in higher education. The phenomena of
MOOCs are placed in the wider context of open education, online learning and the globalization of education. So, the MOOCs -
through scholarly network, learning APP as well as openly available research blogs - became popular (Yuan & Powell, 2013), and
impact teachers and students as well as universities (O'Connor, 2014; Yepes-Baldó, Romeo, Martín, & García, 2016).
MOOC instruction is active and interactive in meeting the needs and wants of the present and future generations by enhancing the
university learning environment, and improving the utility and accessibility of knowledge in society (Kwak, 2017). Operators of
MOOCs make diverse endeavors to develop programs and resources that can help students develop learning schedules. In an in-
creasingly online learning environment, these platforms can create educational value (Gilfoil & Focht, 2015) and also obtain a
competitive advantage over other rival international online learning frameworks. MOOCs have come to be regarded as an important
strategy for studying university curriculum and is becoming an increasingly growing niche in the modern competitive university
marketplace and impacted on academic library services (Gore, 2013).
According to Byerly (2012), MOOCs have aided the evolution of the flipped classroom. Teachers encouraged students to learn
from online classes with the aid of instructors or teachers. MOOCs online learning is one type of the flipped classroom learning. SRL
model is the most important determinant of the flipped classroom learning behavior (Çakıroğ;lu & Öztürk, 2017).
In this study, researchers employed and utilized the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) and the model of self-
regulated learning (SRL) (Bruso & Stefaniak, 2016). This study clearly elucidates students’ decision-making process for participating
in MOOCs. The core assumption of TPB is that students' learning behavioral intentions are the primary and most recent prerequisites
of their behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The behavioral intention in this theory refers to how people are willing to show specific behaviors
(Chung et al., 2018). Within the framework of TPB, the volitional and non-volitional learning dimensions determine this behavioral
intention (Hood, Littlejohn, & Milligan, 2015).
TPB is one of the best-supported social psychological theories with respect to predicting human behavior as the result of a planned
process in which the behavior is influenced by attitudes, norms and perceived behavior control. These constructs influence the
behavior via the impact on behavioral intention (Sommer, 2011). TPB could explain the volitional or non-volitional behaviors of the
learners (Fen & Sabaruddin, 2009).
Self-regulation has three types of strategies: cognitive strategies, metacognitive and self-regulative strategies, and resource
management strategies (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & Mckeachie, 1993; Ryan & Pintrich, 1998; Zimmerman
& Martinez-Pons, 1990; Zimmerman & Pons, 1986). SRL strategies include: self-evaluation, organization and transformation, goal
setting and planning, seeking information, keeping records, monitoring, environment structuring, self-consequences, rehearsing and
memorizing, seeking social assistance and reviewing records (Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990).
These two types of theories rely on same presumptions of self-interest and self-motivation. In the learning context of Taiwan,
university students have the right to participate in a MOOC by their free choice. So, the researcher decided to study how under-
graduates form the decision-making determinants for participating in a MOOC.
According to DeBoer, Ho, Stump, and Breslow (2014); Kop (2011); Mackness (2013); Milligan and Littlejohn (2014), students
who learn through a MOOC differ from the pre-determined structure of conventional higher education (HE) curriculum. The absence
of interaction between the instructor and learners on a MOOC requires learners to self-regulate their own learning style, to determine
when to learn, how to study and with what content and activities they engage. So, the TPB and SRL are important for a student
planning to learn via MOOC.
Although TPB stems from motives of interest (Kim, Kim, & Nam, 2017), the SRL model is based on self-motivation (Middlebrooks
& Castel, 2018). The modifying of TPB and SRL has been tested in various sectors to study distance learning (Bruso & Stefaniak, 2016;
Wigginton, Lee, Marshak, & Freier, 2016). These theories have proven to be helpful in understanding individual learning motives and
decision-making processes. However, the adequacy of each theory is often suspect and not adequately explained (Treloar, Tidwell,
Williams Jrs., Buys, Oliver, & Yates, 2017).
When a learner participates in a course, the forethought of SRL is critical. Zimmerman (2000a) describes the forethought phase of
SRL that occurs before efforts to learn and is comprised of two key components – task analysis and planning processes. Motivation is
the determinant factor of learner's desire to learn. Planning allows the learner to monitor their progress and adapt their learning as
necessary (Milligan & Littlejohn, 2014).
Chung et al. (2018) examined the effectiveness of a theoretical framework that integrates self-determination theory (SDT) and
TPB in explaining the use of facemasks in preventing seasonal influenza among Hong Kong older adults. Research data were collected
at two time points when influenza is most prevalent. At the first time point of study, they tested self-report measures of SDT and TPB
constructs of facemask. Two weeks later, they tested participants’ acceptance of a facemask in the presence of an experimenter with
flu-like symptoms. The path analysis found that perceived autonomy support of senior citizens was positively related to intentions to
wear facemasks. This study was not used for surveying the online learning behavior.
Bruso and Stefaniak (2016) indicated the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) and the Online Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (OSLQ) as instruments in predicting overall grade point average (GPA). Participants of the study were 134
graduate students of the United States. Results indicated that neither instrument has shown to be a more accurate predictor of GPA.
Results also indicated that independent variables such as age, gender, graduate status, department and campus had no significant
impact on either MSLQ or OSLQ scores. This study did not combine two theories but with used two separate questionnaires to find the
impact factors of GPA.
Wigginton et al. (2016) modified the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) to predict the relationship between
children's attitude, subjective norms or perceived behavioral control and children's exercise behaviors. Intention was not a significant

51
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

predictor of children's exercise behaviors. The study found that child's age and gender were significant independent predictors of
children's exercise behaviors and should be considered in the TPB model as direct predictors of behavior. This study used modified
TPB to predict children's exercise behaviors and did not survey the online learning behavior either.
These studies have attempted to combine some theories or models into a theoretical framework, to enhance the sufficiency of the
model. In addition, the possible interactions between TPB and the key dimensions of SRL in the formation of MOOC learning
decisions (volitional and non-volitional dimension) have hardly been studied.
In order to fill in the gaps of previous studies, this study focuses on combining two important theories and models (TPB and SRL)
into a research framework that considers the interrelationships between the focus concepts in TPB and SRL to more clearly under-
stand students’ decision-making processes in the selection of MOOCs. In particular, this study aims to test the applicability, efficiency,
and comprehensiveness of this integrated framework, determine the relative importance of theoretical variables in the proposed
framework, and examine the mediating impact of the structure.

2. Literature review

2.1. MOOCs

Semenova and Rudakova (2016) and Fischer (2014) defines MOOCs as a course where the participants are distributed and course
materials are dispersed across the web. Zhang (2016) regards MOOCs to be open, to work better. MOOCs are not a gathering, but
rather a way of connecting distributed instructors and learners across some common topics, discursive fields or at a learning com-
munity.
MOOCs offer a massive breadth and depth of open and online learning courses. They operate as informal learning courses (Chen,
2014; Colley, Hodkinson, & Malcolm, 2002) where individual participants choose how, when and in what ways they engage. MOOCs
first appeared and became a new learning phenomenon in the higher educational fields. MOOCs can be defined as online courses and
have become affiliated with major universities, offering open content and open access to learners (Semenova & Rudakova, 2016, pp.
228–245). The openness of higher education includes the opening of people, places, methods and ideas (Alraimi, Zo, & Ciganek,
2015). Therefore, open access and an unlimited number of participants seem to be the two core functions of MOOCs. Rodriguez
(2012) defines openness to include open software, open access in course registration, open source of information, open structure of
the course, open evaluated criteria, and open processes for learning.
According to Annabi and Wilkins (2016), MOOCs first appeared around 2007 as a new learning phenomenon within higher
education. The New York Times reported, “… 2012 is a year of cooperation between MOOCs and universities” (Pappano, 2012).
During that year, some MOOC providers collaborated with prestigious universities to offer free online courses in a variety of academic
programs. Despite this, the MOOC phenomenon did not peak in 2012, but continued to expand in several areas over the next few
years. It extended geographically as higher educational institutions (HEI) around the world began offering MOOCs, including the
United States (Chen, 2014). Subsequently, the scope expanded and suppliers used a variety of pedagogies and offered a variety of
subjects and certification forms (Alraimi et al., 2015).
Due to the importance of the MOOC phenomenon, many critics believe that MOOCs may change the structure of the higher
education field (Evans, Baker, & Dee, 2016). Despite this, there is still much controversy about just how they may affect the higher
education field (Semenova & Rudakova, 2016, pp. 228–245).
MOOCs are focused on attracting the participation of online distance educational communities and are initiated and guided by
very specific teaching assumptions without having to strictly follow the original guidelines of the respective pedagogies.
According to Mackness (2013) and Conole (2013), MOOCs are divided into large-scale open online courses of connectivism
(cMOOCs) and large-scale open online courses, such as Coursera and edX (xMOOCs). The xMOOCs were developed primarily by the
world's leading universities as an evolution of digital technology and campus teaching strategies (Tømte, Fevolden, & Aanstad, 2017).
The xMOOCs build their content within their platform and it cannot be taken or freely distributed outside of the course (Mackness,
2013). On the other hand, the development of cMOOCs explores the teaching methods that connect social media for learning, such as
Web 2.0 (Clara & Barbera, 2013). The original cMOOCs are not the created content which goes into the course - they are used content
which is already out there on the web and open to link to. Whichever kind of MOOCs is participated in, the learners must plan that
how to study in MOOCs on that platform (Mackness, 2013). Some studies indicated the learning outcomes in MOOCs. According to
Yang, Sinha, Adamson, and Rosé (2013), MOOCs survival prediction is an indication of the growth of social connectedness from week
to week. Survival analysis is a stage-based way of identifying just those factors that had the strongest effect on student attrition. Affect
dropout is possible during participation in MOOCs. Thus, the researchers suggested providing more valuable outcomes for design of
MOOCs, that may be more conducive to social engagement, promote commitment and therefore cause lower attrition.
Sinha, Jermann, Li, and Dillenbourg (2014) explore video lecture interaction in MOOCs, and operationalize video lecture
clickstreams of students into the cognitively plausible higher level behaviors. Researchers construct a quantitative information
processing index, which can aid instructors in better understanding of MOOC hurdles and reasoning about unsatisfactory learning
outcomes. The study results illustrate how such a metric inspired by cognitive psychology can help answer critical questions re-
garding student engagement in their future click interactions and participation trajectories.
Idrissi et al. (2018) indicated that open education grants everyone the right to learn freely. The online education environment
helps students to learn easily. At Cadi Ayyad University (UCA), the newly-enrolled students who cannot have an easy access to their
face-to-face courses, have decided to participate in an online environment. The most innovative project adopted at UCA facing
massification was inspired by the massive open online courses and was designed as an open educational platform named UC@MOOC.

52
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

More than 120 courses have been posted online. The researchers describe and discuss a Geometrical Optics course designed for
around 2000 students at UCA, and explain how this initiative has been considered as a source of producing open educational
resources. The researchers indicated there are 14.35% and 17.5% success rate for Mathematics and Geometrical Optics in the aca-
demic year 2015–2016, and 16.8% and 17.8% in the next year. Geometrical Optics course has a higher success rate than Mathematics
course.
Cordero, Lluch, Codesal, and Torregrosa (2015) indicated that technological advances of recent years have induced a profound
change in society and higher education. Internet provided information and digital images floods into homes around the world. Along
with the improvement of technology, MOOCs appeared as e-learning material. In this work, the researchers analyze the advantages
and drawbacks of OCWs and MOOCs when they are used in their classroom. This experience has led university to incorporate the flip
teaching to help students to study. However, on one hand, if the group is large, it is more difficult to implement this flip methodology
and to achieve active and ongoing collaboration of each student.
Kizilcec, Piech, and Schneider (2013) explored three computer science MOOCs and indicated that low completion rates of learners
were an important critique of MOOCs. Completion rates reflected a monolithic view of disengagement that does not allow MOOC
designers to target interventions or develop adaptive course features for particular subpopulations of learners. This study presented a
simple, scalable, and informative classification method that identifies a small number of longitudinal engagement trajectories in
MOOCs. Learners are classified based on their patterns of interaction with video lectures and assessments. In this study, researchers
describe four prototypical trajectories of engagement and compare learners in each trajectory.
Kizilcec, Pérez-Sanagustín, and Maldonado (2017) investigated SRL in a sample of 4831 learners across six MOOCs based on
individual records of overall course achievement, interactions with course content and survey responses. Students with strong self-
regulated learning (SRL) skills have the ability to plan, manage and control their learning process and can learn faster than students
with weaker SRL skills. SRL is critical in the learning environment of MOOCs. Effective implementation of learner support systems in
MOOCs requires an understanding of which SRL strategies are most effective and how these strategies manifest in online behavior.
The high level of SRL strategies cause the superior learning outcome. In SRL strategies, goal setting and strategic planning predicted
attainment of personal course goals, while help seeking was associated with lower goal attainment.

2.2. TPB

TPB is the most widely applied field of social psychology and can predict human rational decision-making behavior (Sommer,
2011). It resulted from the evolution of the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which explores the volitional behavior of individuals,
including attitude toward the behavior (ATT) and subjective norms (SN). TPB increased the perceived behavioral control (PBC),
including the volitional and non-volitional behaviors (Ajzen, 1991).
The framework of TPB posits that behavioral intention (BI) is directly determined by ATT, SN, and PBC with BI resulting in actual
behavior. These predictors of ATT, SN, and PBC are based on functions of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs. The strengths of
such behavioral, normative, and control beliefs are weighted by the evaluation of the outcome, motivation to comply, and perceived
power of the control factor (Ajzen & Driver, 2009). The concept of ATT is the positive or negative predisposition of individuals to
respond to a certain activity (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). SN are the perception of social pressure and shared beliefs of a particular
reference group (Ajzen, 1991). PBC is the perceived ease or difficulty of an action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). The positive ATT,
positive SN toward a special action, and greater PBC is positively associated with a strong, positive BI, and BI positively influenced an
actual behavior (Ajzen, 2011).
The variables of TPB contain different beliefs, including about attitudes, norms and controls, and these differences in beliefs
influence the attitude and perception systems of TPB. There are some variables of affect, emotions, and rationality in the expanded
theoretical system of TPB (Ajzen, 2011). However, beliefs are often difficult to distinguish from attitudes or perception systems. Aside
from beliefs, are there other possible variables that affect the relevant variables of TPB?
In addition to exploring the rational behavior, that is, the attitudes toward something and the opinions of others, it also considers
whether or not a person has the ability to complete the behavior. This kind of theoretical thinking is motivational oriented self-
regulation, although it is in line with rational thinking, but each person possesses a different capacity to act on planned behavior so
there may be different pre-variables affecting the consideration of planned behavior.

2.3. SRL

Self-regulation is a social cognitive perspective in viewing as an interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental triadic
processes (Bandura, 1986). Researcher found that self-regulation is the basic foundation of how students regulate and improve their
own learning processes (Schunk, 2001), which learners can update their mental abilities into academic skills (Zimmerman, 2002).
Winne (2001) explain that SRL is an effective learning method. Students used metacognitive knowledge and applied strategies to
monitor and regulate task performance (Zimmerman, 2000a).
Originally, the studies of SRL emerged in offline and face-to-face learning contexts in formal education. Self-regulation means self-
generated thoughts, feelings and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to attain personal goals (Zimmerman, 2000b). This is
a self-motivation learning method to attain as a result of goal setting.
SRL not only has been positively associated with academic outcomes in formal, offline learning contexts, but also a number of
studies have investigated the role that SRL performs well in the online learning context, and online learning with social media to
attain better study effects (Cho & Heron, 2015). In an experimental study, Chang, Tseng, Liang, and Liao (2013) found that students

53
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

setting learning goals with the web-based portfolio assessment system demonstrated significantly better self-regulation in learning
than students setting learning goals with the paper-based portfolio.
A recent study investigating learners with high and low levels of SRL in a MOOC identified five sub-processes that were associated
with higher achievement, including elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation, and peer learning.
(Cheng & Chau, 2013; Littlejohn, Hood, Milligan, & Mustain, 2016). These four sub-processes include goal setting (GS), self-efficacy
(SE), learning and task strategies, and help-seeking strategies. SE is having the personal capability to learn and setting outcome
expectations about personal consequences of learning. Bandura and Adams (1977) introduced SE as a key component in social
cognitive theory, discussing human motivation primarily in terms of outcome expectations. For example, in students who feel SE
about learning knowledge, reducing physiological arousal improves performance by raising efficacy expectations rather than by
eliminating a drive that instigates the defensive behavior. There is considerable evidence that GS increases academic success by
learners who set specific goals for themselves, such as arranging a schedule list for a plan, and by learners who devise learning
strategies, such as a learning schedule (Locke & Latham, 2002).
Researchers defined interest as a particular relationship between a person and a task, topic, or domain that is characterized by
attention and engagement. Individual interest was examined as a moderator of effects of situational factors designed to catch and
hold task interest. Task interest (TI) is the motivation of the individuals to do something aligned with their wants and needs (Durik &
Harackiewicz, 2007). The TI is the self-motivation learning orientation. Bruso and Stefaniak (2016) measured self-regulating be-
haviors with the self-regulated strategy measures. From this point of view, SE, GS, and TI are important sub-processes of SRL for
completing online self-adjusted learning (Hood et al., 2015).
Pintrich et al. (1993) indicated three kinds of motivation scales, including expectancy, value, and affect. The expectancy was
divided into two subscales, including perception of SE and control beliefs for learning. Value included intrinsic goal, extrinsic goal
and task value beliefs. The third general motivational construct is affect. Self-regulated learning is the learning by self-interest
motivation. TI also is the self-interest value. According to Pintrich et al. (1993), motivation included intrinsic and extrinsic goal
orientations, control beliefs about learning, SE, and affect. All the motivational items came from the MSLQ. Hence, SE and GS are the
key variables for SRL, and along with TI, another important variable, these three variables constitute the forethought variables of
SRL.

2.4. Merged theoretical framework

TPB has been validated in a variety of fields, and this theory is believed to be one of the most dominant theories (Armitage &
Conner, 2010). Researchers have asserted that the sufficiency and effectiveness of TPB are disputable because this socio-psycholo-
gical theory misses diverse facets of human decision-making processes beyond volitional and non-volitional dimensions (Han, 2015).
Indeed, many studies employing the theory of planned behavior in the past decade have actively made a broadening effort by
incorporating some critical variables that are important in educational contexts rather than the direct application of this theory (Han,
Hsu, & Sheu, 2010). Researchers also agree that the function of the variables differ from the theory of planned behavior in the
extended framework. Similarly, SRL is generally considered to be one of the most suitable theories for explaining one's self-moti-
vation and self-interest behavior, and SE as well as task value beliefs (TI) can promote self-regulated behavior (Pintrich, 1999).
Nonetheless, TPB theory overlooks the importance of the volitional process and the non-volitional process, which are vital aspects
of rational thinking models in explicating one's decision-making process and behavior (Han, 2015). Previous studies in educational
behavior have acknowledged the essence of these processes in learning intention and behavior (Han, 2014).
In this research, we theorized the interplay among key variables of TPB and SRL. Moreover, the theorized framework included the
interrelations between the social factors of volitional and non-volitional dimensions as well as the social-psycho factor of self-
motivation dimension, and between the attitude factor of volitional and non-volitional dimensions as well as the cognitive factor of
self-motivation dimension.
In recent studies, either extending or combining existing social psychology theories has provided a greater accountability than
research that simply adopted the original rational-choice model (Han, 2015). Rooting our theoretical framework in the theory of
planned behavior and self-regulated learning model allows us to include focal variables within the theories in learning decision-
making formation for MOOCs. Fig. 1 shows the graphical representation of our merged theoretical model.

3. Hypothesized relationships

When individuals are confronted with something, challenge must be resolved with SE. Resolving problems entails the use of
knowledge as well as skills in order to achieve relevant goal attainment. Individuals with high SE have more GS ability than those
with low SE (Zimmerman, 2000b). Hence, hypothesis 1 (H1) is that SE has a positive impact on GS.
From a social cognitive perspective, there are three components of self-regulation, including behavioral, environmental, and
personal dimensions. The behavioral self-regulation is a self-method of learning. The environmental self-regulation is observing and
adjusting environmental conditions and outcomes. The personal self-regulation is monitoring and adjusting cognitive and affective
states, such as imagery for remembering or relaxing. These three components have interactive relationships among each other with
the environmental component being influenced by the behavioral component (Zimmerman, 2000b).
According to another viewpoint, there are three cyclical phases of self-regulation, including forethought, performance or voli-
tional control, and self-reflection. Forethought is the influential process that precedes efforts to act. Performance or volitional control
is the process that occurs during motoric enactment, attention direction, and action. Self-reflection is the process that occurs after

54
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Fig. 1. The proposed research model. The shaded constructs indicate the original variables of the TPB. The non-shaded constructs indicate the
forethought variables of the SRL model.

performance efforts, and influence individual's response to experience (Zimmerman, 2000b). There are two distinctive but closely
linked categories of forethought, the first one is task analysis and the second is self-motivational beliefs. Task analysis includes GS and
strategic planning. Self-motivation beliefs include SE, outcome expectations, intrinsic interest or value, and goal orientation (Locke &
Latham, 1990).
Forethought process impacts attributional judgments, while also constituting the prior construct of the variables of planned
behavior. Planned behavior is the result of attributional judgments. Forethought processes included SE, GS and TI variables to induce
planned behavior (Zimmerman, 2000b). As such, self-regulated learning models include several motivational variables, such as GS,
SE, and intrinsic interest (TI) (Bruso & Stefaniak, 2016). SE of the SRL processes have been shown to be the causal determinants of
students’ motivation and school success, and the SE from the scientific foundation of educational practice can improve motivation,
learning, and teaching (Pintrich, 2003). Hence, SE can impact the motivation, beliefs, perception, and attitudes, so hypothesis 2 (H2)
is that SE has a positive impact on ATT, and hypothesis 3 (H3) is that SE has a positive impact on PBC.
Yepes-Baldo et al. (2016) regarded that individuals who endorse mastery-approach goals may gain TI. Mastery-approach goals
(also referred to as GS) are portrayed as promoting the feeling that the task is enjoyable and interesting for its own target, supporting
self-determination and desires of autonomy, and emphasizing personal learning and personal growth needs, all factors that induce TI,
intrinsic motivation, and actual performance (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997).
TI can be thought of as those that an individual enjoys or interests in performing some task within a domain, while perceived
instrumentality is a type of value judgment involving individual perception of the importance of a task (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007).
TI also varies depending on how tasks are to be introduced, such as when they are presented in ways that encourage a person to focus
on something to achieve goals or to perceive the tasks as a purposeful goal (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998). Hence, the GS and
TI has a closed cause-effect relationship, and hypothesis 4 (H4) is to be that GS has a positive impact on TI.
GS is deciding upon specific outcomes of learning or performance, and is the sub-process from forethought (Hood et al., 2015).
According to Bandura (1991), the forethought influenced the anticipatory cognitive motivators, and forethought divided the cognized
goal and outcome expectancies. The cognized goal is the GS and induces the planned behavior. According to Hall and Foster (1977),
GS directly influences the performance and three attitudinal outcomes, including psychological success, self-esteem, and involve-
ment. Hence, the GS and perceived social rules have closed relationships. The SN are the results of social cognition and social
pressure. GS will change the individual willingness. When individuals are doing a volitional or non-volitional action, the GS will
construct their goal or task, and perceive the significance in the viewpoints of others. If individuals have the GS, they will perceive the
significance in the viewpoints of others as being in approval with them. Based on these arguments, GS will influence the SN, and thus
hypothesis 5 (H5) is that GS has a positive impact on SN.
TI are presented that encourage individuals to focus on their achievement goals or to perceive the tasks as their purposeful task
(Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007). People want to do their purposeful work. The person will feel in control of his or her behavior. Hence,
hypothesis 6 (H6) is that TI has a positive impact on PBC.
According to TPB (Ajzen, 1991), the ATT, SN, PBC, and BI have a cause-effect relationship. Hence, hypothesis 7 (H7) is that the
ATT has a positive impact on BI; hypothesis 8 (H8) is that SN has a positive impact on BI; hypothesis 9 (H9) is that SN has a positive
impact on ATT; and hypothesis 10 (H10) is that PBC has a positive impact on BI.

55
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

4. Methods

4.1. Measurement instruments and questionnaire development

According to Duncan and Mckeachie (2015), The MSLQ is student's self-report instrument for assessing their learning strategies
during the college course. The MSLQ is based on a general cognitive view of motivation and learning strategies. There are two
sections of the MSLQ: motivation section and learning strategies section. The motivation section has 31 items to assess students' goals,
values, and beliefs about a course, their beliefs about their skill to succeed in a course, and their anxiety about tests in a course. The
learning strategy section includes 31 items to assess students' different cognitive and metacognitive strategies. In addition, the
learning strategies section includes 19 items concerning student management of different resources. There are 81 items on the 1991
version of the MSLQ.
MSLQ has multiple sub-processes. The motivation scales include value components, expectancy components and affective com-
ponents. The learning strategies scales include cognitive and metacognitive strategies and resource management strategies. Value
components include intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation and task value. Expectancy components include control
beliefs and self-efficacy of learning and performance. Affective components include test anxiety. Cognitive and metacognitive stra-
tegies include rehearsal, elaboration, organization, critical thinking, metacognitive self-regulation. Resource management strategies
include time and study environment, effort regulation, peer learning and help-seeking. The forethought of self-regulated learning
scale includes goal setting, self-efficacy and task interest value which come from the value components and expectancy components
(Duncan & Mckeachie, 2015).
The survey questionnaire developed in this study contained such sections as an introductory letter, a thorough description of the
MOOCs' educational contexts, questions about research variables, and questions about participants' demographic information. All
items were translated into Chinese through a standard back-translation process with a seven-point Likert scale anchored from ‘1
strongly disagree’ to ‘7 strongly agree’.
Questionnaire adapted to the context of MOOCs was developed from previous research, except for the demographic questions.
Twelve items were presented including four constructs: three items for BI to use MOOCs (Davis, 1989; Teo, Zhou, & Noyes, 2016;
Zhou, 2016), three for ATT (Thompson, Higgins, & Howell, 1991; Zhou, 2016), three for SN (Taylor & Todd, 1995; Zhou, 2016), and
three for PBC (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Zhou, 2016). Another 15 items for forethought were adapted from the Self-
Regulated Learning Questionnaire by Hood et al. (2015), with six items for SE, six items for GS, and three items for TI (see Appendix).
The data were analyzed with SmartPLS (version 2.0), which can handle many independent variables at the same time and is
robust with respect to multicollinearity among independent variables. The program simplifies model construction with an intuitive
drag-and-drop interface. Significance levels were estimated with bootstrapping. The 250 samples and bootstrapping 500 times, as was
done here, meet PLS guidelines (Chin, 1998). In the analysis of the convergent validity, the measurement model was tested by factor
loading, Cronbach's α, composite reliability (CR), and average variation extracted (AVE).
A pre-test was conducted with undergraduate students from National Open University and Chung Yuan Christian University in
order to enhance content and face validity. Based on the feedback from a total of 50 samples, the original version of the questionnaire
was slightly modified.

4.2. Data collection and demographic profiles

A survey was conducted to collect the data at two universities located respectively in New Taipei City and Taoyuan City in
Taiwan. These two universities are well known to students and the public, and recognized as universities with quality MOOCs in this
country. Some students who had studied in the MOOCs requested to participate in the survey. The students without study experience
in MOOCs still have the basic knowledge about what MOOCs are and can answer the questions. Survey participation was voluntary.
Once students showed willingness to participate in the survey, the surveyors provided them with a thorough explanation of the
research and its objectives. In addition, the participants were requested to carefully read the detailed explanation in the survey
questionnaire. For the achievement of a higher response rate and an increase of usable responses, the respondents were asked to
answer all questions and return the completed questionnaire on-site. About 306 questionnaires were distributed to students through
this process, and a total of 302 cases were returned. From these returned questionnaires, 60 unusable cases were removed. In those 60
cases so many values were missing, even demographic characteristics. So, the researcher deleted them. The usable response rate was
72.5%, and the final sample size was 222 cases. These usable responses remained for data analysis.
Demographic characteristics of the samples were examined. Of the 222 respondents, 51.4% were males and 48.6% were females.
In terms of age, the average age was 33.7 years. In terms of education level, most participants reported that they had a university
degree and graduate degree (73.0%). About 27.1% indicated they had a high school diploma or less. The Chi-squared test values are
that sex variable (male = 114, female = 108, df = 1, p = 0.574), age interval variable (age from 18 to 50 years old = 193, age ove
50 years old = 29, df = 1, p = 0.067), education variable (be below undergraduate = 60, undergraduate and over = 162, df = 1,
p = 0.552). All these three variables did not significantly influence the dependent variable (BI).

4.3. Data analysis

In order to analyze the data, we used such analysis tools as partial least squares (PLS) regression and confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to evaluate the measurement model and the quality of measures. PLS was utilized to assess the proposed theoretical

56
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Table 1
Factor loading, Cronbach's α, CR, AVE of constructs.
Construct Item Factor Loading Cronbach's α CR AVE

SE SE1 0.8476 0.9406 0.9529 0.7715

SE 2 0.8711
SE 3 0.8621
SE 4 0.9056
SE 5 0.9010
SE 6 0.8811

GS GS1 0.8975 0.9566 0.9762 0.8217

GS2 0.9231
GS3 0.8779
GS4 0.9235
GS5 0.9160
GS6 0.8999

TI TI1 0.9625 0.9434 0.9637 0.8985

TI2 0.9504
TI3 0.9303

ATT ATT1 0.7605 0.8119 0.8893 0.7293

ATT2 0.9065
ATT3 0.8876

SN SN1 0.7999 0.8448 0.8958 0.6827

SN2 0.8509
SN3 0.8486
SN4 0.8042

PBC PBC1 0.8328 0.8142 0.8897 0.7289

PBC2 0.8635
PBC3 0.8646

BI BI1 0.8880 0.8681 0.9193 0.7916

BI2 0.9185
BI3 0.8618

framework, to evaluate the hypothesized intricate relationships among research constructs, and to conduct modeling comparisons.
Subsequently, the bootstrapping method was utilized to examine the mediating role of variables within our research framework. The
research objectives were attained through these data analytic procedures.

5. Results

5.1. The measurement model

All constructs of Cronbach's α and the CR were higher than 0.7 (see Table 1), indicating that the internal consistency between the
constructs was high. In addition, the factor loading of the constructed item is greater than 0.5, and the AVE of each construct is also
greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), indicating that the measurement has good convergent effect (see Table 1).
The items for ATT, SN, PBC, and BI are reflective indicators, and the items for SE, GS, and TI are pre-indicators, that is, they
directly measure a latent construct. For example, items ATT1, ATT2, and ATT3 all measure the same latent variable, ATT. Indicators
should have good internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. The internal reliabilities of the SE, GS, TI, ATT,
SN, PBC, and BI were high, with Cronbach's α from 0.8119 to 0.9566. Convergent validity is shown in AVE with items loading highly
(> 0.5) on their latent factors. All but one of the loadings were above 0.7, and the exceptions were above 0.68 (see Table 1).
Discriminant validity is shown when standardized item responses correlate more strongly with their associated latent constructs
than with other latent constructs. The discriminant validity of the PLS measurement model determines whether the items between
different variables are distinguishable. If the measured model has discriminant validity, the degree of correlation within the potential
construct must be stronger than the degree of correlation between potential constructs. The discriminant method compares the value
of the square root of the AVE of each potential construct with the absolute value of the correlation coefficient between each pair of
constructs, and the square root of each facet of AVE must be stronger than the correlation coefficients for other facets (see Table 2).
If the value of the square root of AVE is stronger than the absolute value of the correlation coefficient between pairs of constructs,
it means that there is good discriminant validity (Chin, 1998). Table 2 is the comparison of the correlation coefficient and the square
root of AVE value between each construct. It is shown in the Table 2 that the square root of all construct AVE values in this study are
stronger than the correlation coefficients among the constructs indicating that this study's questionnaire is valid and reliable.
Therefore, the results of this analysis shows that the seven constructs of this study have high reliability and validity.

57
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Table 2
Simple correlation matrix and discriminant validity.
Construct ATT GS BI PBC SE SN TI

ATT 0.8540
GS 0.3933 0.9065
BI 0.3869 0.5054 0.8897
PBC 0.4059 0.4663 0.6805 0.8538
SE 0.4748 0.7839 0.4961 0.4847 0.8784
SN 0.6407 0.4702 0.5416 0.6267 0.4947 0.8263
TI 0.4582 0.6558 0.6482 0.6335 0.6558 0.5865 0.9479

5.2. The structural model

Fig. 2 shows the PLS results. In this study, 500 samples were repeatedly sampled by bootstrapping to verify the relationship
between the variables of the model. The results of the verification are shown in Table 3. Out of a total of ten research hypotheses, nine
are supported and one is not supported. The path coefficients ranged from 0.1493 to 0.7839. The interpretation of variation (R2) had
the highest impact on SE of GS, R2 = 0.614; followed by the impact on BI with ATT, SN, and PBC, R2 reaching 0.487; the impact on
ATT with SE and SN, R2 reaching 0.443; the impact on TI with GS, R2 reaching 0.430; the impact on SN with TI and GS, R2 reaching
0.357; and the impact on PBC with SE, R2 reaching 0.235.
According to the structural model in Figs. 2 and 78.4% of GS is affected by SE; 65.6% of TI is affected by GS; 20.9% and 55.7%,
respectively, of ATT is affected by SE and SN; 15.0% and 48.0%, respectively, of SN are affected by GS and TI; 48.5% of PBC are
influenced by SE; 14.9% and 56.1% of BI are influenced by SN, and PBC.
This study was conducted on a single questionnaire scale to examine whether the bias of common-method variance (CMV) was
derived from the data collection method of this questionnaire. In this study, the Harman's one-factor test was used to characterize the
variation between variables. First, all items were analyzed by exploratory factors using the maximum variation method to analyze the
factor surface before the axis. If a factor can account for more than 50% of the variance for all variables, it indicates a possible
common method variation (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). After factor analysis of 28 items in this study, the results
showed that a total of 4 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted. The maximum explanatory amount of single factor
was 49.411%, which was less than 50%. The amount of cumulative interpretation variation was 70.13%, and the analysis showed
that the common method variation had no significant effect on the study.
All the research hypotheses validated the results displayed below (see Table 3):

6. Discussion and conclusion

6.1. Discussion

The research model was built on TPB and SRL in order to provide an understanding of the learning decision formation for MOOCs
in an online learning context. We combined these two theories into one general model by considering the interrelationships among
their original constructs. The students' survey was conducted at two universities to collect the data. The proposed conceptual fra-
mework was well supported by the data as a comprehensive model of students’ learning behavioral intention to choose a MOOC
curriculum, which has critical implications in that it shows how self-motivation and self-interest factors drive such online learning
decision-making formation. In particular, the original variables in the TPB and the forethought of the SRL together accounted for
about 44.3% of the variance in ATT, about 35.7.1% of the variance in SN, and about 23.5% of the variance in PBC (see Fig. 2).
The key aspects of our model were cognitive (SE and GS), and value (TI) dimensions, volitional (ATT and SN), and non-volitional

Fig. 2. Structural model PLS results.

58
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Table 3
The t-value of research hypotheses and path coefficients.
No. Research Hypotheses t-value Path Coefficient Validated Result

H1 SE has a positive impact on GS 27.518 0.784*** supported

H2 SE has a positive impact on ATT 4.294 0.209*** supported
H3 SE has a positive impact on PBC 9.077 0.485*** supported
H4 GS has a positive impact on TI 16.458 0.656*** supported
H5 GS has a positive impact on SN 2.516 0.150* supported
H6 TI has a positive impact on SN 8.055 0.480*** supported
H7 ATT has a positive impact on BI 1.194 0.064 not supported
H8 SN has a positive impact on BI 2.084 0.149* supported
H9 SN has a positive impact on ATT 11.588 0.557*** supported
H10 PBC has a positive impact on BI 8.359 0.561*** supported

(PBC), which together build self-motivation and self-interest intention. The research framework developed in this study can be a
valuable tool for a clear understanding of students' learning decision-making formation in regards to MOOCs. The model can also
serve as a powerful framework in identifying the role of vital proximal and distal determinants of various educational related
behaviors. In the competitive MOOC marketplace, there are an increasing number of students and the learning frequency seems to be
high. By further enriching the existing MOOC learning behavior literature, this research helps MOOC operators better understand
students’ learning decision-making process with regard to choosing a MOOC.
Concerning the relative criticality of employed research variables in the model, the salient roles of SE, GS, and TI were identified.
In particular, the consideration of TPB and SRL taken together had a significant impact on behavioral intention, and these variables
emerged to be most influential as compared with other constructs within the proposed conceptual model. This result is consistent
with the research findings of recent studies in MOOC learning that emphasized self-regulated learning (Han, 2015). This finding
accordingly confirmed our assumption regarding the necessity of including forethought of SRL model in our theoretical framework. In
other words, this study added forethought aspect to planned behavior formation in the MOOCs, which was missing in TPB. This
research find some variables to help students selecting a MOOC, and attain their self-motivation and self-interest to behave in an
online learning context.
GS and TI are significant variables in students’ learning decision-making formation in regards to MOOCs. In particular, these
variables significantly mediated the impact of its direct antecedents on planned behavior variables. This result is in line with previous
studies that stressed the important mediating nature of these variables. The significant mediating impact of these variables must not
be overlooked since the research finding indicated that it is effective to utilize these concepts as mediators when broadening and
deepening an existing TPB and SRL theory or model and developing a new theory or model. Taking the mediating characteristics of
these variables into account, MOOC operators who seek to exploit GS and TI in forming MOOCs learning behavioral intention should
manage and improve such mediator constructs in an effective manner.
Individuals who are making MOOCs online learning choices in their school lives and practice learning activities in their class often
follow a critical forethought that closely ascribes to the planned behavior. Fostering students' MOOC online self-regulation learning
behaviors can therefore be an important strategy to increase the online learning effects and enhance the existing MOOCs. Given this,
MOOC operators should actively inform students and learners through diverse communication channels that various learning ac-
tivities potentially cause educational deterioration and that they have a mutual responsibility for such learning problems, en-
couraging them to be more active when making a learning choice. Such an effort will boost students' sense of planned behavior to
engage in learning actions even when making MOOCs the learning choice, which ultimately contributes to the enhancement of
students’ learning decision-making in choosing MOOCs. Indeed, it was evident that the increased level of goal setting and task interest
resulted in enhancement of planned behavior.
Another point, the relationship of ATT and BI were not significant, but the direct link between ATT as well as SE was significant.
This result revealed that the relationship of forethought of SRL and ATT were significant. In Taiwan, students may study MOOCs for
certification, which influences their PBC and SN, but their underlying ATT may not change in regards to the MOOCs. This implies that
the students choose to participate in MOOCs based on utility.
The research model fulfilled the TPB as well as SRL, and fit within the postulated theoretical model. The incorporated variables
from the SRL model conceptually differed from the original variables rooted in the TPB. The combined research model, which is
applicable in MOOCs learning contexts, significantly increased the explanatory ability regarding students’ learning decision-making
process in regards to MOOCs. Overall, the developed converged framework added fundamental information in a single framework of
the TPB, and added important knowledge concerning a self-motivation aspect of their decision-making process. The theoretical model
therefore included advantages over the original TPB and SRL model based on its comprehensiveness and applicability to the learning
decision-making process for MOOCs (see Fig. 3).

6.2. Limitations and future research

Despite its insightful results and findings, the present research also included some weaknesses that need to be noted. First, like
most survey research, in the present study we used a convenient sampling approach from a well-recognized MOOC of a university in

59
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

Fig. 3. The Merged structural model.

Taiwan. Generalization of research findings is therefore somewhat limited. To validate and confirm the study findings, future re-
search should include a broader sampling range in diverse geographical areas.
Second, this study investigated students' learning decision-making process in regards to MOOCs rather than centering on their
learning behavior. Hence, the sample comprised both students with MOOC learning experience and those without such an experi-
ence. But, the students without study experience still have the basic knowledge about what is MOOCs and can answer all the
questionnaire items. Future studies should address this limitation by including a higher number of students having experience in
participating in and learning from MOOCs. Moreover, additional research is needed to examine the learning decision-making process
of experienced student’ and the actual learning behaviors.
Third, although the ability of the proposed merged model in predicting learning behavioral intention was found to be satisfactory,
its comprehensiveness can be further improved by integrating additional factors that are critical in learning behaviors. For instance,
some researchers have asserted the need for the integration of anticipated emotions (e.g., anticipated feelings of guilt and pride)
when explicating students’ online learning habits and affects. Future research could include such positive and negative anticipated
forms of affect in merged theoretical framework for the enhancement of the model comprehensiveness. In addition, investigating the
types of conditions students would be more likely to participate in MOOCs would be an interesting extension of this research in future
studies.

6.3. Conclusion

Students' decision-making process and learning behavior in regards to MOOCs has not been thoroughly explored in literature. The
present study added several crucial elements to the existing literature. First, this research was the first attempt to merge SRL and TPB
with self-motivation and self-interest into one comprehensive theoretical framework in a MOOC learning context. Second, the merged
theory identified that all seven predictors involved in the model had a significant total influence on MOOC's students' decision-
making formation, except the relationship of ATT and BI. Third, SE derived from the theory based on self-motivation of SRL, and
influenced ATT as well as PBC, both of which derived from the theory based on self-interest of TPB. Fourth, GS and TI as mediators
are effective in building a framework explicating decision-making formation of the students learning in MOOCs.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.004.

Appendix. Survey Items

Variable Items Reference

SE 1 I set goals to help me manage studying time for my learning. Hood et al. (2015)
2 I set short term goals as well as long term goals. Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991)
3 I set realistic deadlines for learning. Zimmerman (2000b)
4 I organize my study time to accomplish my goals to the best of my ability.
5 I set personal standards for performance in my learning.
6 When planning my learning, I use and adapt strategies that have worked in the past.
GS 1 My past experiences prepare me well for new learning challenges. Hood et al. (2015)
2 I feel prepared for the demands of this course. Pintrich et al. (1991)
3 I feel that whatever I am asked to learn, I can handle it. Zimmerman (2000b)
4 I can cope with learning new things because I can rely on my abilities.
5 When confronted with a challenge I can think of different ways to overcome it.
6 I meet the goals I set for myself in my learning.

60
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

TI 1 I am interested in the topics presented in this course. Hood et al. (2015)

2 The learning that I undertake is very important to me. Pintrich et al. (1991)
3 I think I will be able to use what I learn in the future. Zimmerman (2000b)
ATT 1 Once I start using MOOCs in learning, I find it hard to stop. Thompson et al. (1991); Zhou (2016)
2 Study is more interesting with MOOCs in learning.
3 I have fun using MOOCs in learning.
SN 1 The teachers in my university support the use of MOOCs in learning. Taylor and Todd (1995); Zhou (2016)
2 People who are important to me think that I should use MOOCs in learning.
3 The people whose views I respect support the use of MOOCs in learning.
PBC 1 I have the knowledge necessary to use MOOCs in learning. Ajzen, 1991; Taylor and Todd (1995); Zhou (2016)
2 I have control over MOOCs in learning.
3 I have the resources necessary to use MOOCs in learning.
BI 1 I intend to continue to use MOOCs in learning in the future. Teo et al., 2016; Davis (1989); Zhou (2016)
2 I plan to use MOOCs in learning in the future.
3 I will insist on using MOOCs to study the courses I registered.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health, 26(9), 1113–1127.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (2009). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior.
Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 185–204.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33.
Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38.
Annabi, C. A., & Wilkins, S. (2016). The use of MOOCs in transnational higher education for accreditation of prior learning, programme delivery, and professional
development. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 959–975.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2010). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(4), 287–310.
Bruso, J. L., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2016). The use of self-regulated learning measure questionnaires as a predictor of academic success. TechTrends, 60, 577–584.
Byerly, A. (2012). Before you jump on the Bandwagon. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(2), 34.
Çakıroğlu, Ü., & Öztürk, M. (2017). Flipped classroom with problem based activities: Exploring self-regulated learning in a programming language course. Educational
Technology & Society, 20(1), 337–349.
Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., Liang, C., & Liao, Y.-M. (2013). Constructing and evaluating online goal setting mechanisms in web-based portfolio assessment systems for
facilitating self-regulated learning. Computers & Education, 69, 237–249.
Chen, Y. (2014). Investigating MOOCs through blog mining. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(2), 85–106.
Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2013). Exploring the relationship between students' self-regulated learning ability and their ePortfolio achievement. The Internet and Higher
Education, 17, 9–15.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.). Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336).
California state university: Psychology Press.
Cho, M.-H., & Heron, M. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning: The role of motivation, emotion, and use of learning strategies in students' learning experiences in a self-
paced online mathematics course. Distance Education, 36(1), 80–99.
Chung, P.-K., Zhang, C.-Q., Liu, J.-D., Chan, K.-C., Si, G., & Hagger, M. S. (2018). The process by which perceived autonomy support predicts motivation, intention, and
behavior for seasonal influenza prevention in Hong Kong older adults. BMC Public Health, 18, 65–74.
Clara, M., & Barbera, E. (2013). Learning online: Massive open online courses (MOOCs), connectivism, and cultural psychology. Distance Education, 34(1), 129–136.
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning: Mapping the conceptual terrain, a consultation reportLeeds: University of Leeds.
Conole, G. (2013). MOOCs as disruptive technologies: Strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of MOOCs. Revista de educación a distancia: Vol. 39,
(pp. 1–17).
Cordero, A., Lluch, C. J., Codesal, E. S., & Torregrosa, J. R. (2015). Towards a better learning models through OCWs and MOOCs. International Journal of Interactive
Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 26–30 Special Issue on Teaching Mathematics Using New and Classic Tools.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing "course": Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational
Researcher, 43(2), 74–84.
Duncan, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (2015). Motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ) manual. See author profiles for this publication at: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/280741846.
Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Different strokes for different folks: How individual interest moderates the effects of situational factors on task interest.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 597–610.
Evans, B., Baker, R. B., & Dee, T. S. (2016). Persistence patterns in massive open online courses (MOOCs). The Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 207–242.
Fen, Y., & Sabaruddin, N. (2009). An extended model of theory of planned behaviour in predicting exercise intention. International Business Research, 1(4), 108–122.
Fischer, G. (2014). Beyond hype and underestimation: Identifying research challenges for the future of MOOCs. Distance Education, 35(2), 149–158.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Gilfoil, D. M., & Focht, J. W. (2015). Value-based delivery of education: MOOCs as messengers. American Journal of Business Education, 8(3), 223–238.
Gore, H. (2013). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) and their impact on academic library services: Exploring the issues and challenges. New Review of Academic
Librarianship, 20(1), 4–28.
Hall, D. T., & Foster, L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and goal setting: Goals, performance, and attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 20(2), 282–290.
Han, H. (2014). The norm activation model and theory-broadening: Individuals' decision-making on environmentally responsible convention attendance. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 40, 462–471.
Han, H. (2015). Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior. Tourism
Management, 47, 164–177.
Han, H., Hsu, L., & Sheu, C. (2010). Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the effect of environmentally friendly activities.
Tourism Management, 31, 325–334.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist,

61
N. Lung-Guang Computers & Education 134 (2019) 50–62

33, 1–21.
Hood, N., Littlejohn, A., & Milligan, C. (2015). Context counts: How learners' contexts influence learning in a MOOC. Computers & Education, 91, 83–91.
Idrissi, A. J., Margoum, S., Bendaoud, R., & Berrada, K. (2018). UC@MOOC's effectiveness by producing open educational resources. International Journal of interactive
multimedia and artificial intelligence, 5(2), 58–62.
Kim, S., Kim, H., & Nam, S. (2017). Effect of oral health education on the planned behavior theory variables among hospitalized alcoholic patients using structural
equation model. Biomedical Research, 28, 8316–8320.
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.
Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. Proceedings of the
third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge: vol. 13, (pp. 170–179).
Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–38.
Kwak, S. (2017). Approaches reflected in academic writing MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(3), 138–155.
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.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
Mackness, J. (2013). cMOOCs and xMOOCs-key differences. Available from:https://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/cmoocs-and-xmoocs- key-
differences/ .
Middlebrooks, C. D., & Castel, A. D. (2018). Self-regulated learning of important information under sequential and simultaneous encoding conditions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(5), 779–792.
Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2014). Supporting professional learning in a massive open online course. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
15(5), 197–213.
O'Connor, K. (2014). MOOCs, institutional policy and change dynamics in higher education. Higher Education, 68, 623–635.
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New Times. Sep 24, 2018 Retrieved from https://www.edinaschools.org/cms/lib/MN01909547/Centricity/Domain/
272/The%20Year%20of%20the%20MOOC%20NY%20Times.pdf.
Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31, 459–470.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4),
667–686.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(1), 33–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor,
Michigan: The University of Michigan.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801–813.
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.
Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-stanford like course: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open,
Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved on Sep 24, 2018 from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2013&halfyear=2&article=516.
Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1998). Achievement and social motivational influences on help seeking in the classroom. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.). Strategic help seeking:
Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 117–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and selfregulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H Schunk (Eds.). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement:
Theoretical perspectives (pp. 125–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Semenova, T. V., & Rudakova, L. M. (2016). Barriers to taking massive open online courses (MOOCs), Vol. 58Russian Education & Society 3.
Sinha, T., Jermann, P., Li, N., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Your click decides your fate: Inferring information processing and attrition behavior from MOOC video clickstream
interactions. See author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266141299.
Sommer, L. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behaviour. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 10(1), 91–110.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Teo, T., Zhou, M., & Noyes, J. (2016). Teachers and technology: Development of an extended theory of planned behavior. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 64, 1033–1052.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
Tømte, C. E., Fevolden, A. M., & Aanstad, S. (2017). Massive, open, online, and national? A study of how national governments and institutions shape the development
of MOOCs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(5), 211–226.
Treloar, J. A., Tidwell, D. K., Williams, R. D., Jrs., Buys, D. R., Oliver, B. D., & Yates, J. (2017). Applying theory of planned behavior to energy drink consumption in
community college students. American Journal of Health Studies, 32(6), 35–47.
Wigginton, M., Lee, J., Marshak, H. H., & Freier, K. (2016). Modifying the theory of planned behavior to predict children's exercise behaviors. The International Journal
of Health, Wellness and Society, 6(2), 57–71.
Winne, P. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning viewed from models of information processing. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunk (Eds.). Self-regulated learning and
academic achievement (pp. 153–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Yang, D., Sinha, T., Adamson, D., & Rosé, C. P. (2013). Turn on, tune in, drop out: Anticipating student dropouts in massive open online courses. See discussions, stats, and
author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266203181.
Yepes-Baldó, M., Romeo, M., Martín, C., & García, M. A. (2016). Quality indicators: Developing “MOOCs” in the european higher education area. Educational Media
International, 53(3), 184–197.
Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education a white paper. The University of Bolton: CETIS.
Zhang, J. (2016). Can MOOCs be interesting to students? An experimental investigation from regulatory focus perspective. Computers & Education, 95, 340–351.
Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students' acceptance of MOOCs: A self- determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92–93, 194–203.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000a). Self-Efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000b). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.). Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
13–39). New York: Academic.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89,
29–36.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learning: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-efficacy and strategy use.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 51–59.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Pons, M. M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing student use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational
Research Journal, 23(4), 614–628.

62