An application of AHP for students’ perspectives on adopting MOOCs

Gupta, K.

Abstract: The aim of the present study is to find the relative importance of factors influencing the stu-dents’ decisions to adopt Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Eight sub-factors catego-rized under three main factors namely “benefits of MOOCs”, “MOOCs features” and “social recognition”, are considered for prioritization. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method-ology is also employed to prioritize the factors. The primary data pertaining to pair-wise com-parisons of various factors and sub-factors have been obtained from 250 students by using convenience sampling. The results indicate that academic recognition, followed by openness, autonomy and cost effectiveness of MOOCs are the most important aspects which students consider while deciding to learn through MOOCs.

How to cite this paper

        APA: Gupta, K. (2019). An application of AHP for students’ perspectives on adopting MOOCs. Management Science Letters, 9(13), 2337-2336.
    

        Chicago/Turabian: Gupta, K. 2019. "An application of AHP for students’ perspectives on adopting MOOCs." Management Science Letters 9, no. 13 (2019): 2337-2336.
    

        AMA: Gupta, K. An application of AHP for students’ perspectives on adopting MOOCs. Management Science Letters. 2019;9(13):2337-2336.
    

References

Abu-Shanab, E. A., & Musleh, S. (2018). The Adoption of Massive Open Online Courses: Challenges and Benefits. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies (IJWLTT), 13(4), 62-76.
Agrawal, A., Kumar, A., & Agrawal, P. (2015). Massive open online courses: EdX. org, Coursera. com and NPTEL, a comparative study based on usage statistics and features with special reference to India, 390-402.
Anderson, T. (2013). Promise and/or peril: MOOCs and open and distance education. Commonwealth of learn-ing, 3, 1-9.
Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of open-ness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38.
Barclay, C., & Logan, D. (2013, December). Towards an understanding of the implementation & adoption of massive online open courses (MOOCs) in a developing economy context. In Proceedings Annual Workshop of the AIS Special Interest Group for ICT in Global Development (Vol. 6, pp. 1-14).
Bourke, A. (2000). A model of the determinants of international trade in higher education. Service Industries Journal, 20(1), 110-138.
Bragg, A. B. (2014). MOOCs: Where to from here?. Training & Development, 41(1), 20.
Calonge, D., & Shah, M. (2016). MOOCs, graduate skills gaps, and employability: A qualitative systematic re-view of the literature. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 67-90.
Chen, S. (2015). The research of English massive open online course based on virtual technology. Computer Modelling & New Technologies, 19, 79-82.
Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European journal of operational research, 108(1), 165-169.
Gupta, K. P., & Chaudhary, N. S. (2017). Prioritizing the Factors influencing Whistle Blowing Intentions of Teachers in Higher Education Institutes in India. Procedia Computer Science, 122, 25-32.
Gupta, K. P., Bhaskar, P., & Singh, S. (2017). Prioritization of factors influencing employee adoption of e-government using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 19(1/2), 116-137.
Green, P., & Ramroop, S. (2014). Prioritising factors influencing service quality at Durban University of Tech-nology: AHP Approach. Journal of Social Sciences, 40(2), 243-250.
Hakami, N., White, S., & Chakaveh, S. (2017). Motivational Factors that Influence the use of MOOCs: Learn-ers’ Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) (pp. 323-331).
Kennedy, J. (2014). Characteristics of massive open online courses (MOOCs): A research review, 2009-2012. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1).
Khan, I. U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., & Khan, S. U. (2018). Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of task-technology fit model, social motivation, and self-determination theory. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 964-978.
Lee, M. C. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking: An integration of TAM and TPB with perceived risk and perceived benefit. Electronic commerce research and applications, 8(3), 130-141.
Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2019). Investigating the adoption of MOOC s: A technology–user–environment perspec-tive. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 89-98.
Mohapatra, S., & Mohanty, R. (2017). Adopting MOOCs for afforable quality education. Education and infor-mation technologies, 22(5), 2027-2053.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic Hierarchy Process. McGrawHill international. New York, NY, USA.
Sadeghi, R. M., Mohammad Moghimi, S., & Ramezan, M. (2013). Identifying and prioritizing of effective con-structs in readiness of knowledge management implementation by using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Journal of knowledge-based Innovation in China, 5(1), 16-31.
Semenova, T. V., & Rudakova, L. M. (2016). Barriers to taking massive open online courses (MOOCs). Russian Education & Society, 58(3), 228-245.
Sun, Y., Ni, L., Zhao, Y., Shen, X. L., & Wang, N. (2018). Understanding students’ engagement in MOOCs: An integration of self‐determination theory and theory of relationship quality. British Journal of Educational Technology.
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance mod-el (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232.
Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students' acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspec-tive. Computers & Education, 92, 194-203.