Decoding MOOC Success: 7 Core Factors Shaping Chinese Students’ Online Learning Behaviors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14456/au-ejir.2026.5Keywords:
Perceived usefulness (PU), Satisfaction (SAT), Perceived ease of use (PEU), Learning engagement (LE), Continuance intention (CI), Cognitive presence (CP), Teaching presence (TP)Abstract
Purpose: This study sought to investigate the critical factors influencing undergraduate students’ perceived usefulness of and continuance intention to use Chinese University MOOCs in Chongqing, China. The proposed conceptual framework illustrates causal relationships among seven variables: Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), Perceived Usefulness (PU), Cognitive Presence (CP), Teaching Presence (TP), Learning Engagement (LE), Satisfaction (SAT), and Continuance Intention (CI). Research design, data and methodology: This quantitative research gathered data from 500 undergraduates at Chongqing University through online surveys, using non-random sampling methods—specifically judgmental, quota, and convenience sampling. Data analysis employed AMOS to assess model fit, reliability, and construct validity. Results: Empirical findings revealed that Perceived Usefulness (PU, β=0.199), Satisfaction (SAT, β=0.167), Learning Engagement (LE, β=0.213), Cognitive Presence (CP, β=0.185), and Teaching Presence (TP, β=0.193) are key drivers of students’ Continuance Intention (CI). Additionally, Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) exerts a significant positive impact on Perceived Usefulness (PU, β=0.365). All constructs demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α > 0.70) and convergent validity (Average Variance Extracted, AVE > 0.50). Conclusions: Key findings highlighted direct impacts of relevant variables on usage intention, emphasizing system and interaction factors. The well-fitted model validated an integrated framework, enhancing understanding of MOOC usage.
References
Akyol, Z., & Garrison, D. R. (2008). The development of a community of inquiry over time in an online course: Understanding the progression and integration of social, cognitive and teaching presence. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12, 3-22.
Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.006
Alshammari, S. H., & Babu, E. (2025). The mediating role of satisfaction in the relationship between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and students’ behavioural intention to use ChatGPT. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 7169.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-91634-4
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin, 107(2), 238.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921
Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernández-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102-110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: Connectivism & connective knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(1), 6.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition PDF eBook. Pearson Higher Ed.
Huang, H., & Qi, D. (2025). Is MOOC really effective? Exploring the outcomes of MOOC adoption and its influencing factors in a higher educational institution in China. PLOS ONE, 20(2), e0317701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317701
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ma, L. (2025). Investigation of the impact of cognitive load on EFL learners’ satisfaction with MOOCs: the mediating role of expectation confirmation and perceived usefulness. BMC psychology, 13(1), 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02735-8
O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938-955.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20801
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of marketing research, 17(4),460-469.
Jiang, Y., & Peng, J.-E. (2025). Exploring the relationships between learners’ engagement, autonomy, and academic performance in an English language MOOC. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(1-2), 71-96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2164777
Joo, Y. J., So, H.-J., & Kim, N. H. (2018). Examination of relationships among students’ self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Computers & Education, 122, 260-272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003
Kanuka, H., & Garrison, D. R. (2004). Cognitive presence in online learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(2), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940928
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Law, K. M. Y., Geng, S., & Li, T. (2019). Student enrollment, motivation and learning performance in a blended learning environment: The mediating effects of social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Computers & Education, 136, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.021
Mohtar, M., & Md Yunus, M. (2022). A systematic review of online learning during COVID 19: Students’ motivation, task engagement and acceptance. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) 2nd Special Issue on Covid, 19.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. The MIT Press.
Pedroso, R., Zanetello, L., Guimarães, L., Pettenon, M., Gonçalves, V., Scherer, J., Kessler, F., & Pechansky, F. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the crack use relapse scale (CURS). Archives of Clinical Psychiatry (São Paulo), 43(3), 37-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-60830000000081
Putra, L. S., Kustandi, C., Wirasti, M. K., Maman, M., & Gunawan, T. B. (2025). Community of Inquiry Approach: The Meaning of Presence for MOOC Learning in Zoonoses Control Training. Edunity Kajian Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan, 4(5), 213-222.
https://doi.org/10.57096/edunity.v4i5
Rappaport, S. D. (2007). Lessons from online practice: new advertising models. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(2), 129-129. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849907070158
Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2022). Jingle-Jangle Revisited: History and Further Evolution of the Student Engagement Construct. In A. L. Reschly & S. L. Christenson (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 3-24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_1
Shea, P., Sau Li, C., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.005
Sica, A., & Ghisi, M. (2007). The analysis of univariate and multivariate non-normality in structural equations models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51(4), 2118-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.01400
Soper, D. (2006). Calculator: a-priori sample size for structural equation models. Daniel Soper.
Stone, R. W., & Baker-Eveleth, L. (2013). Students’ expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 984-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.007
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Qian Zhang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
A separate Copyright Form will be sent to authors whose paper is accepted for publication.

