• Almatrafi, O., & Johri, A. (2019). Systematic review of discussion forums in massive open online courses (MOOCs).IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,12(3), 413–428.https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2018.2859304

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses.Journal of Management Education,24(1), 32–54.https://doi.org/10.1177/105256290002400104

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ayebi-Arthur, K., Barfi, K. A., Arkorful, V., Ocran, T., & Baffour, N. O. (2023). Leveraging computer technologies and instructional approaches to facilitate learning.Education and Information Technologies.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11963-7

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Badali, M., Hatami, J., Farrokhnia, M., & Noroozib, O. (2022). The effects of using Merrill’s first principles of instruction on learning and satisfaction in MOOC.Innovations in Education and Teaching International,59(2), 216–225.https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2020.1813187

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: Gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs.Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,10(1), 44–56.

  Google Scholar 

• Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., Rosario, L. S., & d. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines.Education and Information Technologies,26(6), 7321–7338.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10589-x

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Battalio, J. (2007). Interaction online: A reevaluation.Quarterly Review of Distance Education,8(4), 339–352. 407.

  Google Scholar 

• Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation.Journal of Machine Learning Research,3(1), 993–1022.

  Google Scholar 

• Blum, E. R., Stenfors, T., & Palmgren, P. J. (2020). Benefits of massive open online course participation: deductive thematic analysis.Journal of Medical Internet Research,22(7), e17318.https://doi.org/10.2196/17318

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bolliger, D. U. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses.International Journal on E-Learning,3(1), 61–67.

  Google Scholar 

• Borrella, I., Caballero-Caballero, S., & Ponce-Cueto, E. (2022). Taking action to reduce dropout in MOOCs: Tested interventions.Computers & Education,179, 104412.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104412

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Bradford, G. R. (2011). A relationship study of student satisfaction with learning online and cognitive load: Initial results.The Internet and Higher Education,14(4), 217–226.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.001

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Brinton, C. G., Rill, R., Ha, S., & Chiang, M. (2014). Individualization for education at scale: MIIC design and preliminary evaluation.IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies,8(1), 136–148.https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.2370635

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chen, H., & Tian, Z. (2022). Environmental uncertainty, resource orchestration and digital transformation: A fuzzy-set QCA approach.Journal of Business Research,139, 184–193.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.048

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chen, Y., Gao, Q., & Yuan, Q. (2020). Discovering MOOC learner motivation and its moderating role.Behaviour & Information Technology,39(12), 1257–1275.https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1661520

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Chirikov, I., Semenova, T., & Maloshonok, N. (2020). Online education platforms scale college STEM instruction with equivalent learning outcomes at lower cost.Science Advances,6(15), eaay5324.https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay5324

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Deng, R., & Benckendorff, P. (2017). A contemporary review of research methods adopted to understand students’ and instructors’ use of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).International Journal of Information and Education Technology,7(8), 601–607.https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.8.939

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Elia, G., Solazzo, G., Lorenzo, G., & Passiante, G. (2019). Assessing learners’ satisfaction in collaborative online courses through a big data approach.Computers in Human Behavior,92, 589–599.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.033

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research.Academy of Management Journal,52(2), 393–420.https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gameel, B. G. (2017). Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses.American Journal of Distance Education,31(2), 98–111.https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462

  Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Garrido, C. M., Olazabalaga, I. M., & Ruiz, U. G. (2015). Design, Motivation and Performance in a Cooperative MOOC Course.Comunicar,23(1), 19–26.https://doi.org/10.3916/C44-2015-02

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Greckhamer, T. (2016). CEO compensation in relation to worker compensation across countries: The configurational impact of country-level institutions.Strategic Management Journal,37(4), 793–815.https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2370

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Greckhamer, T., Furnari, S., Fiss, P. C., & Aguilera, R. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research.Strategic Organization,16(4), 482–495.https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270187864

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Henderikx, M. A., Kreijns, K., & Kalz, M. (2017). Refining success and dropout in massive open online courses based on the intention–behavior gap.Distance Education,38(3), 353–368.https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2017.1369006

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hew, K. F. (2016). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCS.British Journal of Educational Technology,47(2), 320–341.https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12235

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hew, K. F., Hu, X., & Qiao, C. (2020). What predicts student satisfaction with MOOCs: A gradient boosting trees supervised machine learning and sentiment analysis approach.Computers & Education,145, 103724.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103724

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study.Computers & Education,98, 157–168.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hossain, M. N., Talukder, M. S., Khayer, A., & Bao, K. A. (2021). Investigating the factors driving adult learners’ continuous intention to use M-learning application: A fuzzy-set analysis.Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning,14(2), 245–270.https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-09-2019-0071

  Article  Google Scholar 

• 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

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kara, M., & Can, G. (2019). Master’s students’ perceptions and expectations of good tutors and advisors in distance education.International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,20(2), 162–179.https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.3674

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kara, M., Kukul, V., & Çakır, R. (2021). Self-regulation in three types of online interaction: How does it predict online pre-service teachers’ perceived learning and satisfaction?The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher,30(1), 1–10.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-020-00509-x

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kasch, J., Van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2021). Educational scalability in MOOCs: Analysing instructional designs to find best practices.Computers & Education,161, 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104054

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kember, D., & Ginns, P. (2011).Evaluating teaching and learning: A practical handbook for colleges, universities and the scholarship of teaching. Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Kilburn, B., Kilburn, A., & Davis, D. (2016). Building collegiate e-loyalty: The role of perceived value in the quality-loyalty linkage in online higher education.Contemporary Issues in Education Research,9(3), 95–102.https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v9i3.9704

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Knox, J. (2017). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In M. A. Peters (Ed.),Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. Springer.

• Koufakou, A. (2023). Deep learning for opinion mining and topic classification of course reviews.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11736-2

• Kumar, P., & Kumar, N. (2020). A study of learner’s satisfaction from MOOCs through a mediation model.Procedia Computer Science,173, 354–363.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.06.041

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lee, Y. H., Yang, H. H., MacLeod, J., & Dai, J. J. (2019). Developing the rotational synchronous teaching (RST) model: Examination of the connected classroom climate.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,35(1), 116–134.https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4010

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Li, K. (2019). MOOC learners’ demographics, self-regulated learning strategy, perceived learning and satisfaction: A structural equation modeling approach.Computers & Education,132, 16–30.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.01.003

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Li, L. Y., Johnson, J., Aarhus, W., & Shah, D. (2022). Key factors in MOOC pedagogy based on NLP sentiment analysis of learner reviews: What makes a hit.Computers & Education,176, 104354.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104354

  Article  Google Scholar 

• 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.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lockee, B. B. (2021). Online education in the post-COVID era.Nature Electronics,4, 5–6.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-020-00534-0

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lu, Y. F., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. B. (2019). Understanding key drivers of MOOC satisfaction and continuance intention to use.Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,20(2), 105–117.

  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Martin, F., Bolliger, D. U., & Flowers, C. (2021). Design matters: Development and validation of the Online Course Design Elements (OCDE) instrument.International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,22(2), 46–71.https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i2.5187

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Mattke, J., Maier, C., & Weitzel, T. (2021). Qualitative comparative analysis in the information systems discipline: A literature review and methodological recommendations.Internet Research,31(5), 1493–1517.https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-09-2020-0529

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Melendez-Torres, G. J., Sutcliffe, K., Burchett, H. E. D., Rees, R., & Thomas, J. (2019). Developing and testing intervention theory by incorporating a views synthesis into a qualitative comparative analysis of intervention effectiveness.Research Synthesis Methods,10(3), 389–397.https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1341

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ministry of Education. (2023). China has over 500,000 open online courses. Retrieved September 25, 2022, fromhttp://wap.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2022/54324/mtbd/202203/t20220329_611849.html

• Pande, J., & Mythili, G. (2021). Investigating student satisfaction with online courses: A case study of Uttarakhand open university.International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE),17(3), 12–28.https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.20210701.oa2

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Pavlinek, M., & Podgorelec, V. (2017). Text classification method based on self-training and LDA topic models.Expert Systems with Applications,80(1), 83–93.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.03.020

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rabin, E., Kalman, Y. M., & Kalz, M. (2019). An empirical investigation of the antecedents of learner-centered outcome measures in MOOCs.International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,16(1), 1–20.https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0144-3

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ragin, C. C. (2009).Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago The University of Chicago Press.

• Rawat, S., Kumar, D., & Kumar, P. (2021). A systematic analysis using classification machine learning algorithms to understand why learners drop out of MOOCs.Neural Computing and Applications,33(21), 14823–14835.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-021-06122-3

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Reigeluth, C. M. (1983).Instructional design theories and models: An overview of their current status. Routledge.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Rekha, I. S., Shetty, J., & Basri, S. (2023). Students’ continuance intention to use MOOCs: Empirical evidence from India.Education and Information Technologies,28(4), 4265–4286.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11308-w

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rey-Martí, A., & Felício, J. A. (2017). Entrepreneurial attributes for success in the small hotel sector: A fuzzy-set QCA approach.Quality & Quantity,51, 2085–2100.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0466-3

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009).Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. SAGE Publications Inc.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Sánchez-Mena, A., Martí-Parreño, J., & Miquel-Romero, M. J. (2019). Higher education instructors’ intention to use educational video games: An fsQCA approach.Educational Technology Research and Development,67, 1455–1478.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09656-5

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Schneider, C. Q., & Rohlfing, I. (2016). Case studies nested in fuzzy-set QCA on sufficiency: Formalizing case selection and causal inference.Sociological Methods & Research,45(3), 526–568.https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241145324

  Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Singh, A. K., & Meena, M. K. (2023). Online teaching in Indian higher education institutions during the pandemic time.Education and Information Technologies.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11942-y

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Vacca, M., Wang, J. C., Graziano, M., Roch, M. R., & Zamboni, M. (2014). Feedbacks in QCA: A quantitative approach.IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems, 23(10), 2233–2243.https://doi.org/10.1109/TVLSI.2014.2358495

• Wang, Y. H., & Huang, L. (2021).A Thematic Portfolio and Recommended Study on the Usefulness of Online Medical Reviews Based on QCA Methods. Paper presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing.

• Wei, X. X., & Taecharungroj, V. (2022). How to improve learning experience in MOOCs an analysis of online reviews of business courses on Coursera.The International Journal of Management Education,20(3), 100675.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100675

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wengrowicz, N., Swart, W., & Paul, R. (2018). Students’ collaborative learning attitudes and their satisfaction with online collaborative case-based courses.American Journal of Distance Education,32(4), 283–300.https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2018.1511509

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wu, B., & Wang, Y. F. (2022). Formation mechanism of popular courses on MOOC platforms: A configurational approach.Computers & Education,191, 104629.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104629

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wu, P. L., Yeh, S. S., Huan, T. C., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations.Journal of Business Research,67(8), 1647–1670.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.012

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wu, Y. C., Hsieh, L. F., & Lu, J. J. (2015). What’s the relationship between learning satisfaction and continuing learning intention?Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,191, 2849–2854.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.148

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Xiao, J., Zeng, P., Ren, G., & Zhang, L. M. (2023a). How to drive strategic green innovation behavior? A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) based on Chinese manufacturing enterprises.Environmental Science and Pollution Research,30, 77784–77797.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27834-0

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Xiao, W., Lu, F., & Ji, Y. M. (2023b). What Kind of Online Courses are Popular with Learners?—Based on Text Mining and Configuration Analysis of 15 Online Course Reviews.e-Education Research, 44(05), 60–66.https://doi.org/10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2023.05.008

• Ye, W. J., & Lee, A. J. T. (2021). Mining sentiment tendencies and summaries from consumer reviews.Information Systems and e-Business Management,19(1), 107–135.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-020-00482-4

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zankadi, H., Idrissi, A., Daoudi, N., & Hilal, I. (2023). Identifying learners’ topical interests from social media content to enrich their course preferences in MOOCs using topic modeling and NLP techniques.Education and Information Technologies,28, 5567–5584.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11373-1

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Zheng, L., Ulrich, K., & Sendra-García, J. (2021). Qualitative comparative analysis: Configurational paths to innovation performance.Journal of Business Research,128, 83–93.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.044

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references