What affects permanence in a MOOC about Chemistry?

Main Article Content

Gabriela Perry
Henrique Padovani
Napoliana Souza
Paola Rossatto


In this paper we analyze what influences the permanence of 1606 students in a MOOC on General Chemistry, using navigation records (log files). Permanence – quantified as the amount of course items viewed and tests completed – was compared regarding the following parameters: (1) showing the correct answers after completing evaluative questionnaires; (2) offering certificates of completion; (3) allowing non-linear navigation (free browsing). Results from the Mann Whitney tests revealed that offering a certificate and showing the correct answer to test questions influence the permanence. However, when considering a smaller cut of students - those who completed at least 30% of the activities - none of the parameters influenced permanence. From these results, it can be argued that these two configuration parameters are relevant in relation to permanence, since they are an incentive for students who perform fewer activities, and therefore are those who are at greater risk of evading.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Perry, G., Padovani, H., Souza, N., & Rossatto, P. (2019). What affects permanence in a MOOC about Chemistry?. International Journal for Innovation Education and Research, 7(3), 19-29. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol7.iss3.1315
Author Biographies

Gabriela Perry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Graduate Program of Informatics in Education

Henrique Padovani, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Graduate student of Physics Engineering 

Napoliana Souza, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Doctoral student

Paola Rossatto, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Doctoral student


[1] ADAMOPOULOS, P. What Makes a Great MOOC? An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Student Retention in Online Courses. Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, 2013, 1–21.
[2] ALLIONE, Gloria; STEIN, Rebecca M. Mass attrition: An analysis of drop out from principles of microeconomics MOOC. The Journal of Economic Education, Philadelphia, 2017, v. 47, n. 2, p.174-186.
[3] AZEVEDO, R.; HARLEY, J.; TREVORS, G.; FEYZI-BEHNAGH, R.; DUFFY, M.; BOUCHET, F.; LANDIS, R.S. Using trace data to examine the complex roles of cognitive, metacognitive, and emotional self-regulatory processes during learning with multi-agent systems. In: R. Azevedo & V. Aleven (Eds.), International handbook of metacognition and learning technologies, vol. 26, p. 427-449, 2013.
[4] BOAL, H., M., C.; STALLIVIERI, L. 2015. The influence of Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs) on the internationalization process of higher education. Digital Universities: Best Practices, Roma, v. 2-3, n. 2015, p.21-36.
[5] CLOW, D. MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In: Third Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2013), 8-12 April 2013, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 185–189.
[6] DANIEL, W., W. 1990. Applied nonparametric statistics. Boston: PWS-Kent. 2ª edição.
[7] DOWNES, S. Connectivism and connective knowledge: essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council Canada, 2012.
[8] DOWNES, S. Like reading a newspaper. 2014. Half an Hour.
[9] EBBEN, M.; MURPHY, J. 2014. Unpacking MOOC scholarly discourse: A review of nascent MOOC scholarship. Learning Media and Technology 39(3).
[10] ERIKSSON, T; ADAWI, T; STÖHR, C. 2016. Time is the bottleneck: a qualitative study exploring why learners drop out of MOOCs. Journal Of Computing In Higher Education, [s.l.], v. 29, n. 1, p.133-146,.
[11] GOMEZ-ZERMENO, M., G.; LAGARZA, L., A.. 2016. Research analysis on MOOC course dropout and retention rates. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, [s.l.], p.03-14, 1 abr. 2016.
[12] GÜTL, C.; CHANG, V.; MORALES, M. 2014. Attrition in MOOC: lessons learned from drop-out students. In: Learning technology for education in cloud. MOOC and Big data, 2014, pp. 37e48. Springer International Publishing.
[13] HO, A. D. et al. 2015. HarvardX and MITx : Two Years of Open Online Courses Fall 2012-Summer 2014. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2015. n. 10, p. 1–37
[14] HOLLANDS, F., M.; TIRTHALI, D. 2014. Resource requirements and costs of developing and delivering MOOCs. The International Review of Research in open and Distributed Learning, v. 15, n. 5.
[15] HONE, K. S.; SAID, G. R. El. Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 2016. v. 98, p. 157–168.
[16] KIZILCEC, R; HALAWA, S. 2015. Attrition and Achievement Gaps in Online Learning. Proceedings Of The Second. ACM Conference On Learning @ Scale - L@s '15, [s.l.], p.57-66, 2015. ACM Press.
[17] KOLLER, D. et al. 2013. Retention and Intention in Massive Open Online Courses (New Horizons). Educause Review. p. 62–63.
[18] ONAH, D. F. O., SINCLAIR, J.; BOYATT, R. 2014.Dropout Rates Of Massive Open Online Courses: Behavioural Patterns. EDULEARN14 Proceedings, 5825-5834.
[19] PAPPANO, L. The Year of the MOOC. 2012. The New York Times, 1–7.
[20] PERNA, L. W. et al. 2014. Moving Through MOOCs: Understanding the Progression of Users in Massive Open Online Courses. Educational Researcher, [s.l.], v. 43, n. 9, p.421-432,
[21] RHOADS, R A. et al. 2015. The Massive Open Online Course Movement, xMOOCs, and Faculty Labor. The Review of Higher Education, [s.l.], v. 38, n. 3, p.397-424.
[22] STACEY, P. The Pedagogy of MOOCs.

Most read articles by the same author(s)