Accepted Manuscript

The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn with
MOOCs

Ya-hsun Tsai, Chien-hung Lin, Jon-chao Hong, Kai-hsin Tai

PII: S0360-1315(18)30044-7
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.011
Reference: CAE 3307

To appear in: Computers & Education

Received Date: 8 June 2017

Revised Date: 9 February 2018
Accepted Date: 13 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Tsai Y.-h., Lin C.-h., Hong J.-c. & Tai K.-h., The effects of metacognition on
online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs, Computers & Education (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.011.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn
with MOOCs

Ya-hsun Tsai
Department of Applied Chinese Language and Culture, National Taiwan Normal

PT
University
162, Heping East Road Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan
yahsun@ntnu.edu.tw

RI
Chien-hung Lin (corresponding author)

SC
Master program in teaching Chinese as a second language, National Chi Nan
Unversity

U
545, No. 1, Daxue Rd., Puli Township, Nantou County 545, Taiwan
AN
chienhung@ncnu.edu.tw

Jon-chao Hong
M

Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University

162, Heping East Road Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan
D

tcdahong@gmail.com
TE

Kai-hsin Tai
Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University
EP

162, Heping East Road Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan

star99xin@gmail.com
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The effects of metacognition on online learning interest and
continuance to learn with MOOCs

Abstract

Developments in technology have made online teacher training applicable

to MOOCs, but the validation of MOOCs presents some challenges,

PT
including the high dropout rate and low continuance intention to learn via
MOOCs. The purpose of this study is to propose a unified model integrating

RI
metacognition and learning interest to investigate continuance intention to
learn via MOOCs. Data of 126 respondents were collected and subjected to
confirmatory factor analysis. Furthermore, the relationships were tested

SC
with structural equation modeling and the results revealed that
metacognition was positively related to three levels of learning interest (i.e.,

U
liking, enjoyment, and engagement). The three levels of learning interest
were positively related to continuance intention to use MOOCs. The
AN
findings imply that enhancing learners’ metacognition can contribute to
increased online learning interest and continuance to learn with MOOCs,
thereby reinforcing the benefits of developing teacher training programs via
M

MOOCs.
D

Keywords: MOOCs, metacognition, online learning interest, continuance

intention
TE

1. Introduction
EP

The number of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) has increased in

universities in recent years. MOOCs enable students to access free and open
education provided by the most reputable universities, which attract substantially
C

larger audiences than traditional online learning (Alario-Hoyos et al., 2014). In the
AC

MOOCs learning system, students learn content knowledge by moving the mouse
between nodes of information and multimedia tools based on the evolving knowledge
state of the learning system. That is, capitalizing on the affordances of the MOOCs
learning system, this technology requires students to use metacognitive skills to
manage their learning pace. Students need to be active participants in maintaining
their own learning progress. For example, they should assess the extent to which the
strategies are effectively facilitating their progress, and identify which content is
optimal in terms of helping them reach their desired learning goals (Ackerman,
Parush, Nassar, & Shtub, 2016).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
In spite of public passion for MOOCs, Bartolome and Steffens (2015) observed
that, on average, less than 10% of students attending MOOCs complete the courses.
Such a high dropout rate is a problem which needs to be overcome. However,
completion rate may not be the best measure for evaluating learning in MOOCs,
because students enroll in them for a variety of reasons (Wu & Chen, 2017). Some
students cannot sustain their interest in the learning contents, and some perceive
learning in MOOCs as a special type of learning experience (Chang, Hung, & Lin,

PT
2015). In order to address this question related to continuing attendance, in this study,
we examined which grounded constructs of interest could be predicted by

RI
metacognition when learning with MOOCs.
Moreno and Mayer (2007) posited the cognitive-affective theory of learning with
media and suggested that in learning tasks, learners’ mental processes of selecting,

SC
organizing, and integrating information are mediated by motivational factors that
impact cognitive engagement. McGuinness (1990) also suggested that learning is

U
mediated by metacognitive factors that regulate cognitive processing and affect.
However, metacognition refers to the implicit or explicit information individuals have
AN
about their own cognition and about the coping strategies that have an impact on it
(Brown, 1987). According to the metacognitive theoretical tenet (Wells, 2000),
metacognition plays an important role in leading individuals to develop coping
M

strategies including worry, rumination, avoidance and thought suppression, threat

monitoring, and maladaptive behaviors. Evidence suggests that metacognition is
D

implicated in all psychological problems (Wells, 2013). As metacognition is essential

to successful learning, it is important to understand the complex process of what and
TE

how technology adoption can facilitate successful learning (Straub, 2009), as many
types of e-learning systems exist. Metacognition is also regarded as a necessary
EP

strategy for teacher training, since it can facilitate the application of theoretical
concepts into pedagogical practice (Crespin & Hartung, 1997). Thus, the focus of the
current study was primarily on the processes and usage of the MOOCs designed for
C

teacher training, with the aim of knowing how metacognition affects learning
AC

intention in MOOC settings.

The lack of motivation to continue learning could be attributed to several factors.
Specifically, the mediated virtual learning environment lacks personal, face-to-face
instructor guidance and attention, which may result in feelings of disconnection,
causing low engagement with the learning programs (Waugh & Su-Searle, 2014).
Consequently, this issue may dampen students’ motivation to continue with their
online learning, and may eventually lead them to drop out of online courses (Shernoff,
Csikszentmihalyi, Shneider, & Shernoff, 2003). Thus, the challenge for online
learning is to create an environment that engages students in ways that will maintain
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
their high interest and commitment to continued learning (Sansone, Smith, Thoman, &
MacNamara, 2012). Learning interest in MOOCs may heighten general learning
interest, which would then increase motivation to fulfill a need for autonomy in
e-learning systems. It is therefore important to understand if continuance intention to
use (CIU) MOOCs is mediated by online learning interest.

PT
2. The present study
2.1 Metacognition relevant to learning interest
Many studies of MOOCs regard the dropout rate as one of the important

RI
indicators of a MOOC’s success (e.g., Waldrop, 2013; Breslow et al., 2013). Pursel et
al. (2016) observed that those students who complete MOOCs demonstrate a high

SC
degree of self-directed learning. It is noted that one of the premises of self-directed
learning should be that of enhancing students' metacognition to prepare themselves
for approaching learning autonomy (Victori & Lockhart, 1995; Sperling, Howard,

U
Staley, & DuBois, 2004).
AN
Metacognition has been defined as “the information individuals hold about their
own cognition and internal states, and about coping strategies that impact both”
(Wells, 2000). From a metacognitive standpoint, such beliefs are thought to play a
M

central role in motivating individuals to engage in behaviors as a means of

cognitive-emotional regulation (Ackerman, Parush, Nassar, & Shtub, 2016). That is,
metacognition involves conscious awareness and control of one’s learning.
D

Metacognitive approaches allow learners to monitor their progress when they

TE

understand and learn something. The metacognitive skill puts forward the centrality of
subjective judgment of confidence and coping strategies in the success of performing
cognitive tasks (Bjork, Dunlosky, & Kornell, 2013). Metacognition can be considered
EP

as involvement in declarative knowledge related to factual information in relation to

“what”; procedural knowledge related to “how”; and conditional knowledge related to
C

“when” and “why” (Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011). Regarding procedural knowledge,
when students prepare to take a course, they need to recognize that various
AC

requirements must be in place, regulate their actions to ensure that they are, and
monitor themselves to determine their learning progress (Kentridge & Heywood,
2000).
Moreover, previous research on the smooth process of using systems has
indicated that when the perceptual clarity of the declarative knowledge or procedural
knowledge exposure to the same or a related condition facilitates processing of the
information, it will evoke a positive affective response (Bornstein, 1989). Thus,
metacognitive skills promote spontaneous learning fluency in e-learning systems,
which may increase interest and engagement with the learning material (Labroo &
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Pocheptsova, 2016). Thus, one known group of predictors of on-task interest is
metacognitive beliefs, which are beliefs that one has about one’s affect that are
relevant to task performance (Schraw & Dennison, 1994). It is well acknowledged in
the emotion literature that metacognition may impact the individual’s interest in
coping with learning tasks; thus, it was hypothesized that metacognition is positively
related to learning interest.
Interest has been studied and associated with motivation. Hidi and Renninger

PT
(2006) described interest as a “psychological state of engaging or the predisposition to
reengage with particular classes of objects, events, or ideas over time” (p. 112).

RI
Interest may play an important role in guiding the selection of certain goals that
students choose to pursue or in helping students to pursue such goals (Hui & Bao,
2013). However, interest has been considered by Hidi and Renninger as long-term

SC
change in the psychological state; in the short term, Hong et al. (2016a, 2016b)
posited that interest can be seen as a temporary change in psychological state based on

U
Mehrabian’s (1996) theory. Emotional state is divided into three levels: valence (i.e.,
pleasure), arousal (i.e., energy) and dominance (i.e., control) (Mehrabian, 1996), and
AN
the emotional state of gameplay interest is classified into three levels: liking,
enjoyment, and engagement (Hong et al., 2014). Moreover, topic interest is
content-specific and is related to a deep personal interest (Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff,
M

2002; Flowerday, Schraw, & Stevens, 2004). Therefore, how metacognition relates to
the three levels of Chinese learning interest in MOOCs was hypothesized as follows.
D

H1: Metacognition is positively related to liking

TE

H2: Metacognition is positively related to enjoyment

H3: Metacognition is positively related to engagement.
EP

2.2 Online learning interest relevant to CIU MOOCs

C

In a study of a Bioelectricity MOOC offered by Duke University, it was found

that approximately 12,000 students registered, but only about 720 earned a final grade
AC

(Belanger & Hornton, 2013), giving a dropout rate of about 94%. Jordan (2015)
collected data from a total of 221 MOOCs, and indicated that the average
non-completion rate was approximately 87.4%. Regarding these problems of high
dropout and non-completion rates, focus has been centered on the issues of learning
and teaching quality in MOOCs (Diver & Martinez, 2015). Following motivational
theories, learners’ thoughts, feelings, and beliefs are considered to influence affective
reactions to engagement in learning (Meyer & Turner, 2002). Prior studies have
shown that despite the greater autonomy that online courses provide in many learning
aspects, many students report low motivation to continue their online courses (Kang,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Liew, Kim, & Park, 2014). Flowerday and Shell (2015) confirmed the primary role of
interest in enhancing engagement in learning, and in particular, the effects of topic
interest in learning. In turn, interest leads individuals to concentrate on cognitive
engagement (Critcher & Ferguson, 2011; Giannakos, 2013). Ainley et al. (2002)
reported that when learning a special topic, interest can be spontaneous, transitory,
and environmentally activated (Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, &
Tauer, 2008). In addition, Hong and colleagues (2014) found that three types of

PT
learning interest were positively correlated to continuance learning through iPad2
interactions. Thus, how students’ online learning interest related to their continuance

RI
intention to use a MOOC system was explored. The hypotheses are proposed as
follows.

SC
H4: Liking is positively related to CIU MOOCs
H5: Enjoyment is positively related to CIU MOOCs

U
H6: Engagement is positively related to CIU MOOCs
AN
Leutner (2014) pointed out that cognitive and affective factors can interact with
and influence learning behavior. Accordingly, this study took metacognition as a
cognitive factor and adopted three components of online learning interest as affective
M

factors, aiming to explore their interrelatedness with continuance intention to learn

with MOOCs. The research model that was subjected to verification is shown in
D

Figure 1.
TE
EP

Liking
C
AC

Metacognition Enjoyment CIU N

Engagement

Figure 1 Research model

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3 Research design
3.1 Course segments
Learning via MOOCs implies to participants that there are ways to access
material to make it easier to learn and remember, and that some forms of learning
require thoughtful application of specific strategies, whereas others do not. The

PT
MOOCs course which was the focus of the current study is entitled “An introduction
to teaching Chinese as a second /foreign language,” and is offered by National Taiwan
Normal University. This course aims to provide an overview of teaching Chinese as a

RI
second/foreign language (CSL/CFL), including a broad foundation of academic
knowledge and practical skills related to CSL/CFL. In addition, new trends in

SC
CSL/CFL are also addressed. The MOOC platform used in this course is
demonstrated in Figure 2, and the course’s content page is shown in Figure 3.

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Figure 2 The MOOC course platform

C
AC

Figure 3 The course’s content page

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In Figure 2, the top left of the webpage shows the link for registering for the
course, and the right part shows the information about the course, such as the duration
(i.e., from February 25 to August 31, 2015), study load (i.e., one hour per week), the
number of temporary visitors (i.e., 4,954) and enrolled students (i.e., 581). The left
part of Figure 2 illustrates the principles for designing the course, such as promising
practice in online teaching and teaching (Restine, 2007), and online collaborative

PT
learning (Haraism, 2012). Regarding Figure 3, the left column demonstrates the
course content, including the 10 core topics and the essential issues of each topic.

RI
Learners can manage their learning content and sequence through clicking the links in
the left column. In addition, they can also control their learning pace by pressing
control buttons on the video screen in the right column.

SC
Regarding this MOOC, 10 essential topics were selected, focusing on the
theoretical and practical aspects relevant to CSL/CFL. The 10 topics can be divided

U
into two parts, content knowledge and pedagogy content knowledge, as illustrated in
Table 1. Take Topic 5 as an example; the course content introduced certain
AN
approaches concerning second language teaching, such as the grammar translation
method, communicative language teaching, direct methods, and the audio-lingual
approach, focusing on the practical aspect.
M

Table 1 Segments of the course

D

Content knowledge
Topic 1 - The current situation of overseas CSL/CFL
TE

Topic 2 - The current situation of Taiwan’s CSL/CFL

Topic 3 - Pre-service Chinese language teachers’ training and certification
EP

Topic 4 - The features and principles of CSL/CFL

Pedagogical content knowledge
Topic 5 - Pedagogical Techniques for CSL/CFL (I)
C

Topic 6 - Pedagogical Techniques for CSL/CFL (II)

AC

Topic 7 - Immersion program

Topic 8 - Theme-based teaching methods
Topic 9 - Task-oriented teaching methods
Topic 10 - Culture-based teaching method

To date, three strands of MOOCs have been identified according to their

theoretical foundations, cMOOCs, xMOOCs, and hybrid MOOCs. cMOOCs are
described as being based on constructivist approaches, while xMOOCs are described
as mostly following an instructivist approach (Liyanagunawardena, Adams, &
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Williams, 2013; Jacoby, 2014; Hew & Cheung, 2014). Both types of MOOCs have
their strengths and drawbacks (Margaryan, Bianco, & Littlejohn, 2015). Hybrid
MOOCs are recognized as a mix of constructivism and instructivism, emphasizing
activities and assignments to facilitate engaged practice (Abram, 2015). The MOOC
explored in this study was designed based on the hybrid MOOCs model, with the
purpose of supporting the greatest diversity of learners and scaffolding engagement
with the MOOC content.

PT
It is well known that the average attention span of learners in online courses is not
more than 15 minutes (e.g., Wilson & Korn, 2007). Thus, each topic of the current

RI
MOOC was divided into four to six sections, each of 10-15 minutes’ duration. While
watching the video, learners can play or rewind according to their own learning pace.
Each lesson was structured around the following online components: videos, readings,

SC
quizzes, and exercises. In addition, a discussion forum was provided to enhance
student interaction and collaboration outside the course time. Participants could

U
interact with their peers and get feedback from the instructor on the forum. After
completing a topic, several exercises were provided and graded through either
AN
automated scoring or peer-scoring, depending on the question type. After completing
all of the courses, a course completion certificate was issued. Regarding the dropout
rate, this course had 860 students registered, of whom 674 watched at least one video,
M

but only 92 attempted the final examination. The dropout rate was therefore about
89.4%.
D

3.2 Participants and procedure

TE

The research participants were students registered for the MOOC, “An
Introduction to Teaching Chinese as a Second/Foreign Language” during the spring
EP

semester of 2015. This is an open course for anyone who is interested in taking it.
About 860 enrolled in the course, and they could learn the content at their own
learning pace during March to August 2015. Participants were required to complete
C

the course to gain a certificate. This type of certificate is useful as some kind of credit
AC

when they apply for a Chinese teaching job.

After closing the course, we posted the questionnaire on Google doc, and sent
emails to 860 students enrolled in the MOOC. After 2 weeks, 150 questionnaires were
returned, which were then subjected to statistical analysis by confirmatory factor
analysis with structural equation modeling. In line with this statistical method, the
reliability and validity of the questionnaire were tested after we deleted the
incomplete returns. Thus, data from only 126 participants were useful for the data
analysis.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
We conducted descriptive statistical analyses on the valid questionnaires. As
shown in Table 2, of these 126 participants, males accounted for 28.57% and females
71.43%. A major portion of the respondents were between 20 and 30 years old
(76.98%), with the most common educational degree at Bachelor level (81.75%). As
for their Chinese teaching experience, most of the respondents did not have any
teaching experience (86.51%). Regarding nationality, around 75.40% of the
participants were from Taiwan.

PT
Table 2 Demographic distribution of research respondents

RI
No. %
Gender Male 36 28.57

SC
Female 90 71.43
Age 20 below 27 21.43
20-30 97 76.98

U
31-40 2 1.59
AN
Education Doctor 2 1.59
Master 21 16.67
Bachelor 103 81.75
M

Teaching Chinese experience Yes 17 13.49

No 109 86.51
D

Nationality Taiwan 95 75.40

China 13 10.32
TE

Japan 9 7.14
Brazil 6 4.76
EP

Korea 3 2.38

3.3 Measuring questionnaire

C

The questionnaire items were adapted from previous theories or studies and were
obtained by professionally translating the original items into Chinese using the
AC

forward-backward method, which allows verification of the accuracy and clarity to

ensure “face validity.” Finally, the items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 5 (Agree strongly).
Metacognition: Cromley and Azevedo (2006) stressed that while learning
language, meta-cognitive readers can orchestrate a large number of mental activities
(i.e., comprehension strategies) such as summarizing, paraphrasing, generating
questions, activating relevant background knowledge, and monitoring. In order to
assess individual differences in metacognition, in this study, we adapted a self-report
scale taken from the Learning Strategies Survey, which evaluates knowledge about
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
the use of coping strategies including planning, monitoring, and regulating (Dowson
& McInerney, 2004). Specifically, we developed a 9-item Chinese Likert scale with
five options for each item.
Online learning interest: Regarding situational interest, previous research
suggests that such feelings as liking and enjoying an activity may be related to a
person’s interest and a heightened psychological state that accompanies engagement
in learning for a given period of time (Roeser & Peck, 2009). Accordingly, in this

PT
study, we adapted Hong et al.’s (2014) online learning interest scale to semantically
measure the state of interest in the formation related to liking, enjoyment, and

RI
engagement.
CIUMOOCs: Adapted from Bhattacherjee (2001) and Bhattacherjee et al. (2008),
continuance intention occurs when individuals develop positive attitudes and an

SC
overall attachment to an object or activity, in this case, a MOOC training course for
pre-service Chinese language teachers. This study defines continuance intention as the

U
continuous revisiting of the MOOC or the continuous reenrollment in other MOOCs
they are interested in.
AN
4 Data analysis
The analysis was conducted in three steps. In the first step, first-order
M

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to test the suitability of the
questionnaire items. In the second step, SPSS 20 was applied to test the reliability and
D

validity of the questionnaire. In the third step, Amos 20 was adapted to test the model
fit, path modeling, and mediator effect in structural equation modeling (SEM).
TE

4.1 Item analysis

EP

The original items in each construct were subjected to first-order CFA to refine
the number of items in each construct. According to Larwin and Harvey (2012),
establishing model parsimony is an important element of structural equation modeling.
C

Table 3 shows that the χ2/df values of each construct were all less than the threshold
AC

value of 5. In addition, the values of the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) and Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were above the cutoff value of .900, and the Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values were less than the threshold
value of .08, indicating that there was a good fit for each construct (Hair et al., 2014).
Because there were only three items in the construct of online learning interest, the
value of first order CFA could not be counted. Those data are therefore missing from
Table 3. Consequently, the results revealed that the items for metacognition were
reduced from 8 to 6, and those for continuance to learn with MOOCs were reduced
from 7 to 5.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 First-order CFA

Measurement Threshold Metacognition Enjoyment Engagement Continuance
Index Value Liking
2
x -- 9.4 -- -- -- 13
df -- 9 -- -- -- 5
2
x /df <5 1.05 -- -- -- 2.6

PT
RMSEA <.08 .02 -- -- -- .073
GFI >.80 .98 -- -- -- .96

RI
AGFI >.80 .94 -- -- -- .88

SC
4.2 Reliability and validity
A confirmatory factor analysis was first applied to examine the factor loading,
reliability, and validity of the research instruments. First, internal consistency can be

U
determined by examining the composite reliability (CR) of the constructs (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The table of reliability and validity analysis shown in the appendix
AN
indicates that all of the construct CR values ranged from 0.84 to 0.90, surpassing the
suggested threshold value of 0.7 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009).
M

Second, convergent validity refers to the degree to which multiple items measure
one construct. In the present study, convergent validity was evaluated by verifying
D

that (1) the average variance extracted (AVE) values were greater than 0.5 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981), and (2) the factor loadings (FL) of all items were significant and
TE

above 0.6, showing acceptable convergence (Hair et al., 2009). The AVE values of all
the constructs were above 0.5, and all the FL values were above 0.6. The required
EP

conditions were met, indicating acceptable convergent validity, as the table in the
appendix shows.
C

Third, the discriminative power of each item was examined by independent t test.
It has been suggested that if the critical ratio (t-value) is larger than 3, the
AC

discriminative power is significant (Green & Salkind, 2004). The table of reliability
and validity analysis shown in the appendix indicates that all t-values were larger than
3 (p < .001***), suggesting that all items reached significance and were
discriminative. Conclusively, the examination of internal consistency, discriminative
and convergent validity showed that all of the required conditions were met,
indicating that the validity of all of the constructs was acceptable (Hair et al., 2009).

Table 4 demonstrates a descriptive statistical analysis of the various research

constructs. To examine internal consistency reliability, a coefficient factor,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cronbach’s α is used to measure the consistency degree of the detailed items. As
suggested by Nunnally (1978), a Cronbach’s α value above .5 indicates an acceptable
level of reliability. Table 4 shows the Cronbach’s α values, indicating that all values
were well above .5, such as metacognition (α= .87), liking (α=.85), enjoyment (α=.90),
engagement (α=.84), and continuance to learn (α= .89), suggesting that the variables
had good reliability. Further, Table 4 also shows that the mean values of each
dimension were between 3.69 and 4.12, and that the standard deviations were small,

PT
indicating a low degree of dispersion.

RI
Table 4 Descriptive statistical analysis of the various constructs

SC
Construct Mean SD Cronbach’s α CR AVE

Metacognition 3.86 .62 .80 .87 .54

U
Liking 3.69 .81 .73 .85 .66
AN
Enjoyment 3.75 .75 .82 .90 .74

Engagement 4.12 .66 .70 .84 .65

M

CIU 4.05 .61 .84 .89 .61

D

5. Result
The analysis was performed with the visual partial least squares (PLS) 1.04
TE

software in two steps. In the first step, confirmatory factor analysis was applied to test
the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. In the second step, structural equation
EP

modeling (SEM) was used to verify the research model. In this study, we used PLS to
perform the SEM analysis because of the sample size, 126. PLS can analyze data and
test the model, but cannot test the model fit.
C
AC

5.1 Path analysis

In the present study, we adopted the PLS method to estimate the prediction and
explanatory abilities of the structural model. The model explanatory power primarily
examined whether the path coefficients between each research construct were
significant, as judged by the significance of the corresponding t-value of each path
coefficient (Chin, 1998). The R2 value is used to judge the model’s predictive power.
Path coefficients represent the strength and direction of the relationship between two
research variables; they also perform hypothesis testing for the causal model of the
observable variables and latent variables. Figure 4 shows the results of the path
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
relationship among the hypotheses. It is clear that all six hypotheses were supported.
Metacognition had a positive effect on Liking (β = .388, t = 5.058***). Metacognition
also had a significant positive effect on Enjoyment (β = 0.567, t = 9.314**) and on
Engagement (β = 0. 456, t = 5.687***). Further, Liking had a positive effect on CIU
(β = 0. 197, t = 2.301***), Enjoyment had a positive effect on CIU (β = 0.269, t =
3.792***), and Engagement also had a positive effect on CIU (β = 0.407, t =
4.241***).

PT
Table 5 shows the direct and indirect effect analysis results. No 95% confidence
interval (CI) included zero, revealing that a direct effect existed in the research model.

RI
According to the results of the bootstrapping method, the indirect effect of
metacognition to intention is .57 with 95% CI: [.67, .39]; it does not include zero,

SC
revealing that there is a mediator effect for metacognition in the relation between
liking, enjoyment, engagement, and intention.

U
Table 5 Direct and indirect effect analysis results
Like Enjoyment Engagement) CIU
AN
95% 95% 95% 95%
β β β β
CI CI CI CI
Direct effect
M

.39* .46**
Metacognition [.58,.02] .57** [.79,.47] [.72,.34]
** *
D

Liking .20* [.42,.05]

.27**
TE

Enjoyment [.44,.07]
*
Engagement .41** [.83,.42]
CIU
EP

Indirect effect
Metacognition .57* [.67,.39]
C

Liking
Enjoyment
AC

Engagement - - - - - - - -
CIU - - - - - - - -

Based on the square of multiple correlation coefficients (R2), the explained

variance of Metacognition on Liking was 15.1%, that on Enjoyment was 32.1%, and
that on Engagement was 20.8%. The explained variance of Liking, Enjoyment, and
Engagement on CIU was 46.7%. Therefore, it can be concluded that all of the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
dependent variables in the present study had great predictive powers (Chin &
Newsted, 1999).

.388***
Liking

PT
(t= 5.058) .197*
(t= 2.301)
R2=.151

RI
Metacognition Enjoyment CIU
.269***

SC
.567**
(t= 9.314) (t= 3.792)
R2=.321
R2=.467

U
.456***
.407**
(t= 5.687) Engagement
AN
(t= 4.241)

R2=.208
M

*p < .05 **p < .01 *** p < .001

Figure 4 Path analysis
D
TE

6. Discussion
The findings of this study provide insights into the attention-to-affect
relationships among metacognition, online learning interest, and continuance intention
EP

when using hybrid-designed MOOCs. These findings provide three theoretical

contributions: (1) They show that continuance intention to learn via MOOCs had a
positive correlation with a mix of learning interests; (2) the findings emphasize the
C

integrated relationship between metacognition and learning interest; and (3) the
AC

results provide a more system-specific insight into the predictors of continuance

intention when learning via a hybrid-designed MOOC.

Consistent with the present study’s hypotheses, metacognition mediated the

association with learning interest and reflected continuance intention to learn via
MOOCs. The confirmatory analyses showed the high predictive power of
metacognition to learning interest, and furthermore, metacognition accounted for
virtually all of the shared variance among liking, enjoyment, and engagement. That is,
metacognition skill can affect an individual’s feeling of interest while coping with
learning tasks in a MOOC setting. These findings are consistent with other previous
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
findings regarding the positive associations between metacognition and learning
interest (e.g., Schraw & Dennison, 1994; Cheyne, Carriere, & Smilek, 2006; Labroo
& Pocheptsova, 2016).

The findings also fully support the hypothesis that there exists a significant and
positive relationship between learning interest and continuance intention to use
MOOCs in the future. Recently, many studies on MOOCs have taken the completion

PT
rate or dropout rate to be an important indicator of learner success (e.g., Breslow et al.,
2013; Waldrop, 2013). However, Pursel (2016) regarded that the completion rate is
not an appropriate indicator of successful learning in MOOCs, because some students

RI
might define success as the ability to feel pleasure in the MOOCs environment. Hone
and El Said (2016) claimed that whether the course content is really interesting to learn

SC
and interaction with the instructor of the MOOC are the predictors of MOOC intention.
Regarding the effect of learning interest, it has been found to be significantly related
with engagement in learning (Sun & Rueda, 2012; Flowerday & Shell, 2015). Hong

U
and colleagues (2014) further pointed out that three types of learning interest, namely
AN
liking, enjoyment, and engagement, were positively related to CIU through an
electronic device, that is, an iPad2. The findings of the present study are consistent
with the studies mentioned, showing a positive correlation between learning interest
M

and continuance intentions when using MOOCs.

D

7. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to examine the variables that are relevant to learners’
TE

intention to learn via MOOCs. It has been suggested that the retention in MOOCs
should be evaluated within the context of learner intent (Koller et al., 2013). The
results of this study reveal that increasing participants’ metacognition skills increased
EP

their Liking, Enjoyment, and Engagement regarding learning in a MOOCs setting.

Moreover, as for the relationship between learning interest and learners’ intention to
C

use MOOCs, the results suggest that increasing the learners’ interest will increase
their intention to learn via MOOCs. Prior research primarily focused on exploring the
AC

factors affecting completion rate or retention of students taking MOOCs (e.g., Reich,
2014; Hone & El Said, 2016). In contrast, this study extended the scope of
our research to the learners’ intent to learn via MOOCs in the future. The findings
show that metacognition can explain whether learners intend to learn via MOOCs due
to consequential reasoning mediated by learning interest.

Taken together, the findings of this study suggest two major contributions. First,
this study introduces learning interest, an important construct relevant to the study of
online learning. Where prior research has established the importance of learning
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
interest in knowledge learning, this study advances our understanding of learning
interest in MOOCs relevant to how it can be promoted or inhibited by individual
metacognition. In this way, the findings of this study can be seen to have an even
more meaningful combinative realization of MOOCs learning behavior than has been
demonstrated in prior research of MOOCs learning alone.
Second, this study supports an expanded perspective on MOOC use in
continuing intention. The strong relationship between three types of learning interest

PT
and continuance usage of MOOCs indicates the influence of online learning
willingness as a means of self-directed learning, which asserts the distinctiveness of

RI
online learning interest and enhances students’ selection of which domain knowledge
may be more suitable for their online learning.

SC
This study has an important implication for MOOC teaching practice. The
findings of this study suggest that those teachers who use MOOCs could benefit from
paying closer attention to how the online learning interest of online learners affects

U
specific online learning behaviors. Particularly in contexts such as teacher training
AN
programs, learners’ metacognition may be more germane than other individual traits.
Teachers may consider the relational dynamics more effectively if they have a greater
understanding of how individuals vary in the importance they place on using MOOCs
M

to teach domain knowledge.

D

8. Limitations and future study

TE

Although the results of the study appear promising considering the small sample,
several limitations must be noted. MOOCs are characterized by their high level of
EP

freedom of participation. In our MOOCs platform, participants tend to use

pseudonyms and nicknames to register for the courses, so our data were collected
anonymously. Because of the lack of background information on the participants, our
C

findings can only be generalized to certain MOOCs. For instance, we cannot make
AC

comparisons between the students with high and low completion rates, to address
their similarities and differences. In a study of MOOCs, Milligan et al. (2013) found
that three primary factors contributed to the active participation of learners: prior
MOOC experience, confidence, and motivation. Future research can collect
participants’ demographic information, including their prior online learning
experience in MOOCs (or other online formats), in order to offer a fine-grained
account.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Although information communication technology has shown significant progress
in the field of education including MOOCs learning (Ditcharoen, Naruedomkul, &
Cercone, 2010), the platforms and functions of the MOOCs provided may vary.
(Ditcharoen, Naruedomkul, & Cercone, 2010), the platforms and functions of the
MOOCs provided may vary. Different functions of platforms may lead to different
demonstrations of learning content and may trigger different types of interactivity. It

PT
has been noted that learning content and interactivity on MOOCs are the crucial
factors affecting the intention to use them (Hone & El Said, 2016). Thus, further

RI
studies can take variables of the MOOCs platform into account.

Harackiewicz et al. (2002) claimed that interest combined with external factors

SC
could predict academic outcomes. Specific identification of learners’ interest at
various phases of development is a critical next step for interest research in MOOCs

U
settings. From a developmental perspective, future studies could adopt the four-phase
AN
model of interest, including triggered situational interest, maintained situational
interest, emerging individual interest, and well-developed individual interest (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006). Further articulating the contribution of the development of interest
M

in MOOCs settings and its relation to other motivational variables has potentially
powerful implications for teaching and learning with MOOCs.
D
TE

Reference
Abram, A. (2015). Theories and Applications of Massive Online Open Courses
(MOOCs): The Case for Hybrid Design. International Review of Research in
EP

Open and Distance Learning, 16(6), 39-61. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i6.2185

Ackerman, R., Parush, A., Nassar, F., & Shtub, A. (2016). Metacognition and system
C

usability: Incorporating metacognitive research paradigm into usability testing.

Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 101-113. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.041
AC

Ainley, M. D., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the
psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 1–17. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card:
Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group
and the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), Pearson, and WCET State
Authorization Network. Retrieved from Education Advisory Board Website:
http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Bartolome, A., & Steffens, K. (2015). Are MOOCs promising learning environments?
Comunicar, 44, 91-99. doi:10.3916/C44-2015-10
Belanger, Y. & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A Quantitative Approach, Duke
University’s First MOOC, Duke Center for Instructional Technology. Retrived
6th April, 2017,available at:
http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/6216.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an

PT
expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351-370.
doi:10.2307/3250921

RI
Bhattacherjee, A., Perols, J., & Sanford, C. (2008). Information technology
continuance: A theoretic extension and empirical test. Journal of Computer
Information Systems, 49(1), 17–26. doi:10.1080/08874417.2008.11645302

SC
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: beliefs,
techniques, and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 417-444.

U
doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research,
AN
1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265
M

Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., & Seaton, D. T.
(2013). Studying learning in the world- wide classroom: Research into edX’s
D

first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13–25.

Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and other
TE

mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert, & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition,

motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling.
EP

In G. A. Mar- coulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–
336). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

C

Chin, W., & Newsted, P. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small
samples using partial least squares. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for
AC

small sample research (pp. 307–341). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Crespin, L., & Hartung, E. (1997). Metacognition as a Necessary Strategy for Teacher
Training in DBAE: Facilitating Theory into Practice. Visual Arts Research,
124-134.
Critcher, C. R., & Ferguson, M. J. (2011). Affect in the abstract: Abstract mindsets
promote sensitivity to affect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6),
1185-1191. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.014
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Self-report of reading comprehension
strategies: What are we measuring? Metacognition and Learning, 1, 229-247.
doi:10.1007/s11409-006-9002-5
Diver, P., & Martinez, I. (2015). MOOCs as a massive research laboratory:
Opportunities and challenges. Distance Education, 36(1), 5-25.
doi:10.1080/01587919.2015.1019968
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2004). The development and validation of the

PT
Goal Orientation and Learning Strategies Survey (GOALS-S). Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 64, 290–310. doi:10.1177/0013164403251335

RI
Flowerday, T., & Shell, D. F. (2015). Disentangling the effects of interest and
choice on learning, engagement, and attitude. Learning and Individual
Differences, 40, 134-140. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.05.003

SC
Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in
reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72, 93–114.

U
oi:10.3200/jexe.72.2.93-114
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
AN
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 382-388. doi:10.2307/3150980
Giannakos, M. N. (2013). Enjoy and learn with educational games: Examining
M

factors affecting learning performance. Computers & Education, 68, 429-439.

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.005
D

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
TE

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2014). Multivariate data
analysis (7th ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
EP

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting
success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures
as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through
C

graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562-575.

AC

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562
Harackiewicz, J. M., Durik, A. M., Barron, K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Tauer, J.
M. (2008). The role of achievement goals in the development of interest:
Reciprocal relations between achievement goals, interest, and performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 105–122.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.105
Harasim, L. (2012) Learning theory and online technologies. New York/London:
Routledge.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open
online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research
Review, 12, 45-58. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest
development. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.
doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention:

PT
A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157-168.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016

RI
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y.*, Liu, M. C., Ho, H. Y., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Using a
"prediction-observation- explanation" inquiry model to enhance student interest
and intention to continue science learning predicted by their internet cognitive

SC
failure. Computers & Education, 72, 110-120.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.004

U
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y.*, Liu, Y. T., Lin, P. H., & Chen, Y. L. (2016a). The role
of pre-game learning attitude in the prediction to competitive anxiety, perceived
AN
utility of pre-game learning of game and gameplay interest. Interactive Learning
Environment, 24(1), 239-251. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.841263
Hong, J. C., Hwang, M. Y., Szeto, S. Y. E., Tsai, C. R., Kuo, Y. C., & Hsu, W. Y.
M

(2016b). Internet cognitive failure relevant to self-efficacy, learning interest, and

satisfaction with social media learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 55,
D

214-222. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.010
Jacoby, J. (2014). The disruptive potential of the Massive Open Online Course: A
TE

literature review. Journal of Open Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(1), 73-85.
Jordan, K. (2015). Massive open online course completion rates revisited: Assessment,
EP

length and attrition. The International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 16(3). 341-358. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i3.2112
Kang, M., Liew, B.T., Kim, J., & Park, Y. (2014). Learning presence as a predictor of
C

achievement and satisfaction in online learning environments. International

AC

Journal of E-learning, 13(2), 193-208.

Kentridge, R.W., & Heywood, C.A. (2000). Metacognition and awareness.
Consciousness and Cognition, 9(2), 308–312. doi:10.1006/ccog.2000.0448
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.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
Koller, D., Ng, A., Do, C., & Chen, Z. (2013). Retention and intention in massive open
online courses: In depth. Educause Review, 48(3), 62-63.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Labroo, A. A., & Pocheptsova, A. (2016). Metacognition and consumer judgment:
fluency is pleasant but disfluency ignites interest. Current Opinion in Psychology,
10, 154-159. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.01.008
Larwin, K., & Harvey, M. (2012). A demonstration of a systematic item-reduction
approach using structural equation modeling. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 17(8), 1-19.
Leutner, D. (2014). Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning.

PT
Learning and Instruction, 29, 174-175. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.004
Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: a

RI
systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 202-227.
doi:10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455

SC
Malone, T. (1981). Towards a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction. Cognitive
Science, 4, 333-369. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0504_2

U
Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive
open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77-83.
AN
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
McGuinness, C. (1990). Talking about thinking: the role of metacognition in teaching
thinking. In K. Gilhooly, M. Deane, & G. Erdos (Eds.), Lines of thinking (Vol. 2,
M

pp. 310-312). San Diego: Academic.

Mehrabian, A. (1996). Pleasure-arousal-dominance: a general framework for
D

describing and measuring individual differences in temperament. Current

Psychology, 14(4), 261–292. doi:10.1007/bf02686918
TE

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering emotion in classroom motivation

research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 107-114.
EP

doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3702_5
Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments.
Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309-326. doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2
C

Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in L2

AC

academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 95–110.
doi:10.1016%2Fj.jslw.2011.02.002
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pursel, B. K., Zhang, L., Jablokow, K. W., Choi, G. W., & Velegol, D. (2016).
Understanding MOOC students: motivations and behaviours indicative of MOOC
completion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(3), 202-217.
doi:10.1111/jcal.12131
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Reich, J. (2014). MOOC completion and retention in the context of student intent.
EDUCAUSE review online Available at: Accessed 10.04.2017.
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mooc-completion-and-retention-context-stu
dent-intent.
Restine, K (2007). Promising practices in online teaching and learning. Retrieved
April. 28, 2017 from http://twuid.pbwiki.com/f/OES07_Restine_Promising.pdf
Roeser, R. W., & Peck, S. (2009). An education in awareness: self, motivation, and

PT
self-regulated learning in contemplative perspective. Educational Psychologist,
44(2), 119–136. doi:10.1080/00461520902832376

RI
Sansone, C., Smith, J. L., Thoman, D. B., & MacNamara, A. (2012). Regulating
interest when learning online: Potential motivation and performance
trade-offs. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(3), 141-149.

SC
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.10.004
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M.E., Bendixen, L.D., & Roedel, D.T. (1995). Does a general

U
monitoring skill exist? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 433–444.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.433
AN
Shernoff, D. J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Shneider, B., & Shernoff, E. S. (2003). Student
engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory.
M

School Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 158–176. doi:10.1521/scpq.18.2.158.21860

Sonnenberg, C., & Bannert, M. (2015). Discovering the effects of metacognitive
prompts on the sequential structure of SRL-processes using process mining
D

techniques. Journal of Learning Analytics, 2, 72-100. doi:10.18608/jla.2015.21.5

TE

Sperling, R. A., Howard, B. C., Staley, R., & DuBois, N. (2004). Metacognition and
self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2),
117-139. doi:10.1076/edre.10.2.117.27905
EP

Sun, J. C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self‐efficacy and self‐
regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191-204.
C

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
AC

Victori, M., & Lockhart, W. (1995). Enhancing metacognition in self-directed language

learning. System, 23(2), 223-234. doi:10.1016/0346-251x(95)00010-h
Waldrop, M. (2013). Campus 2.0. Nature, 495(7440), 160–163. doi:10.1038/495160a
PMID: 23.486040
Waugh, M., & Su-Searle, J. (2014). Student persistence and attrition in an online M.S.
Program: implications for program design. International Journal of E-learning,
13(1), 101–121.
Wells, A. (2000). Emotional disorders and metacognition: Innovative cognitive
therapy. Chichester: Wiley.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Wells, A. (2013). Advances in metacognitive therapy. International Journal of
Cognitive Therapy, 6, 186–201. doi:10.1521/ijct.2013.6.2.186
Wilson, K., & Korn, J. H. (2007). Attention during lectures: Beyond ten
minutes. Teaching of Psychology, 34(2), 85-89.
doi:10.1080/00986280701291291
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the
technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model.

PT
Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028

RI
SC
Appendix

U
Reliability and validity analysis
AN
Items Mean SD Loading t-value
Metacognition:
CR=.87, AVE=.54, α=.80, M =3.86, SD =.62
M

1. I set my own goals for learning the course. 3.67 .96 .24 42.73
2. I understand the content of the course before I learn 3.91 .86 .82 51.18
D

Chinese.
3. To help myself, I look for other MOOCs when I find 3.87 .85 .70 51.24
TE

my learning effects are ineffective.

4. I work hard on how to decrease the mistakes that I 3.98 .88 .82 51.04
make with regard to questions which I don't
EP

understand.
5. I check my understanding before I go on to the next 3.90 .87 .85 50.00
C

topics, then I review the MOOC if I need to.

6. I try to understand the meaning of the new words.
AC

Liking: 3.85 .87 .79 49.79

CR=.85, AVE=.66, α=.73, M =3.69, SD =.81
1. I like the course (Introduction to Teaching Chinese as
a Foreign Language). 4.04 .90 .78 50.37
2. I like the teaching style of the teacher in this course.
3. I like the teaching method of this course. 3.41 1.03 .90 37.20
Enjoyment: 3.60 1.09 .74 37.15
CR=.90, AVE=.74, α=.82, M =3.75, SD = .75
1. I'm excited about participating in this course.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2. I'm glad that I participate in this course. 3.66 .91 .87 44.96
3. It's a pleasure for me to participate in this course. 3.68 .87 .88 47.34
Engagement: 3.91 .83 .83 52.94
CR=.84, AVE=.65, α=.70, M =4.12, SD =.66
1. No matter whether I answer right or wrong, the
course is still fun. 4.27 .766 .86 62.21
2. I'm concentrated on the activities of the course so it

PT
makes me feel that time flies. 4.21 .74 .84 63.72
3. I think that I'm fully focused on the course.

RI
CIU MOOCs: 3.91 .99 .70 44.09
CR=.89, AVE=.61, α=.84, M = 4.05, SD = .61
1. I would like to continue taking MOOCs.

SC
2. I like to recommend MOOCs to other friends and 4.08 .79 .74 58.27
classmates. 3.99 .76 .73 58.64

U
3. I wish I can take advantage of online courses like
MOOCs. 4.15 .77 .84 60.50
AN
4. I hope that I can learn more knowledge by using the
MOOCs. 4.09 .78 .84 58.62
5. I will take advantages of MOOCs if there are new
M

courses in the future. 3.92 .84 .75 52.69

D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Acknowledgement
This research is partially supported by the “Aim for the Top University Project”
and “Center of Learning Technology for Chinese” of National Taiwan Normal
University (NTNU), sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Taiwan, R.O.C. and the
“International Research-Intensive Center of Excellence Program” of NTNU and
Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. under Grant no. MOST

PT
104-2911-I-003-301.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Research Highlights

1. The correlation between metacognition and online learning interest was

explored.
2. The correlation between online learning interest and continuance intention to
learn with MOOCs was investigated.

PT
3. Increasing learners’ metacognition skills is positively correlated with their
intention to learn with MOOCs.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC