Computer Assisted Language Learning

ISSN: 0958-8221 (Print) 1744-3210 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

Delving into learner autonomy in an EFL MOOC in

China: a case study

Yan Ding & Huizhong Shen

To cite this article: Yan Ding & Huizhong Shen (2019): Delving into learner autonomy
in an EFL MOOC in China: a case study, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2019.1681464

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1681464

Published online: 06 Nov 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 847

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1681464

Delving into learner autonomy in an EFL MOOC in

China: a case study
Yan Dinga and Huizhong Shenb
a
School of Language and Communication Studies, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China;
b
Sydney School of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Autonomy of language learners in technology-supported Language MOOCs; learner
learning environments has attracted much scholarly atten- autonomy; autonomous
tion. However, few studies, to date, have examined the language learning; learning
strategies; EFL learners
issue in the emerging context of language MOOCs. The
present study complemented this line of research via a
qualitative investigation of a group of Chinese EFL learners
in an English language MOOC. Data were collected via a
prior interview (N ¼ 38), four interviews held at different
stages of the MOOC (N ¼ 36, 27, 17, 13, respectively), and a
post-course interview for dropouts (N ¼ 14). A framework
consisting of seven constructs in three dimensions, namely,
the situational, the behavioral, and the psychological, was
employed for analyzing the data. The results showed that
the learners exhibited individual and dimensional variation
in the extent to which they exercised autonomy. Participants
were also observed to have adopted a variety of metacogni-
tive strategies, motivation control strategies, and emotion
control strategies to regulate their learning. The findings
highlight the complexity of learner autonomy as displayed
in the new learning interface as well as the potential of lan-
guage MOOCs for fostering learner autonomy.

Introduction
Educators, researchers, and policy makers around the world have
attached much importance to learner autonomy in foreign language
learning (Huang & Benson, 2013). A general consensus is that the devel-
opment of technology has opened up a new opportunity for fostering
autonomy, as it provides learners with easy access to facilitative resour-
ces, tools, and environments, and thus lowers barriers to autonomous
language learning (Hafner & Miller, 2011). A number of studies have
revealed various modes of technology-supported autonomous language
learning (e.g., Lam, 2000; Ma, 2017; Thorne, Fischer, & Lu, 2012). A

CONTACT Yan Ding yanding@bjtu.edu.cn

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

balanced approach to research has also been observed to show both the
potential and limitations of such resources, tools, and environments for
promoting autonomy (e.g., Ardi, 2017; Figura & Jarvis, 2007; Hafner &
Miller, 2011; Snodin, 2013).
However, an important aspect in this line of research remains under-
investigated. To date, few studies have examined learner autonomy in
the emerging context of language MOOCs, that is, Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) dedicated to foreign language learning (B
arcena &
Mart
ın-Monje, 2014). The present study was conducted to complement
this line of research. It explored autonomy of Chinese learners of English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) in an English vocabulary MOOC via a
qualitative analysis of data collected from interviews. Specifically, the
study addressed the following two research questions:
RQ1: To what extent did Chinese EFL learners exercise autonomy
while learning the MOOC?
RQ2: What strategies did Chinese EFL learners employ to exer-
cise autonomy?
The findings of the study will add to knowledge of learner autonomy
in technology-supported learning environments. They will also contribute
to the discussion of the role of language MOOCs as an emerging learn-
ing platform in fostering autonomy of Chinese EFL learners.

Literature review
Learner autonomy
Learner autonomy refers to a learner’s ‘capacity to take control of one’s
own learning’ (Benson, 2011, p. 58). An autonomous learner was initially
believed to have the capacity for determining the objectives of learning,
defining the contents and progressions, selecting methods and techni-
ques, monitoring the procedure of acquisition, and evaluating what has
been acquired (Holec, 1981, p. 3). Later theories and models, however,
generally hold that autonomy is a matter of degree and can manifest
itself in various forms, depending on a range of individual, contextual,
and sociocultural factors (e.g., Benson, 2011; Little, 1991; Littlewood,
1999). More recently, it is argued that communicative practices involving
the use of computers, mobile devices, and the Internet have led to even
more variability in learner autonomy (Benson, 2013).

Learner autonomy in MOOCs

A MOOC is commonly defined as ‘a course of study made available over
the Internet without charge to a very large number of people’ (Sanchez-
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3

Gordon & Luj
an-Mora, 2014, p. 1453). One salient feature of a MOOC

is its massiveness, which creates a broad spectrum of diverse learners
who often differ in many aspects including learner autonomy (Milligan
& Littlejohn, 2016).
Another salient feature of a MOOC is that it affords learners with
more freedom in learning, which renders it highly possible for learners
to exercise and develop autonomy (Dawson, Joksimovi
c, Kovanovi
c,
Gasevi
c, & Siemens, 2015; Terras & Ramsay, 2015). Indeed, learners can
determine how to interact with a MOOC largely at their own will, as evi-
denced by the various engagement behaviors documented in the litera-
ture (Anderson, Huttenlocher, Kleinberg, & Leskovec, 2014).
Previous research has verified empirically the variability and import-
ance of learner autonomy in MOOCs. MOOC learners were found to
differ in their awareness of and ability for setting goals, planning learn-
ing, and modifying learning approaches (Littlejohn, Hood, Milligan, &
Mustain, 2016; Milligan & Littlejohn, 2016). MOOC learners who
reported better skills in goal setting, planning, and self-regulation, and
used more learning strategies—that is, learners displaying a higher level
of autonomy—were shown to demonstrate more engagement and better
performance in general (Kizilcec, P
erez-Sanagust
ın, & Maldonado, 2017;
Magen-Nagar & Cohen, 2017). However, individual variations were also
observed. Looking into a FutureLearn MOOC that was blended into a
face-to-face module of an MA program, Phi (2017) found that some
learners of the MOOC, who considered themselves as highly autonomous
learners, nevertheless showed a visible level of demotivation and disen-
gagement. The reason for the problem, as he argued, was that the con-
tent and environment of the MOOC were determined by the teacher,
syllabus, FutureLearn and the institution, rather than being negotiated
with learners.

Learner autonomy in language MOOCs

Language MOOCs differ from other MOOCs in at least two aspects.
First, they are often more heterogeneous than MOOCs on other subjects,
as a language course normally involves a larger range of topics, learning
materials, and activities (Goetz, Frenzel, Pekrun, Hall, & L€udtke, 2007).
Second, instructional videos in language MOOCs are not only a way of
lecturing, but also a source of authentic language input and an opportun-
ity for students to engage themselves in the target language and culture
(Sokolik, 2014). Due to these specifics, a learner may have to make more
choices concerning the content, objective, method, and procedure of
learning, which gives more room for the exercise of autonomy.
4 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

However, research on learner autonomy in language MOOCs has been

limited, with only a handful of studies having a focus upon the issue. Of
these studies, Fuchs (2017) was specifically concerned with learner auton-
omy. The study examined learner autonomy of 15 EFL student teachers who
were enrolled in beginner-level language MOOCs to fulfill the requirement
of a mandatory course. The results indicated participants’ overall low motiv-
ation to complete the course. However, some participants displayed high
degree of autonomy in that they took additional language MOOCs, searched
for external materials, and turned to native speakers for assistance.
The majority of other studies tended to make broad reference to
learner autonomy by way of offering ideas for design purposes. Colpaert
(2014) suggested that the design of language MOOCs should consider
subgroup differences in terms of autonomy. Perifanou (2015) proposed a
design of a language MOOC platform to promote autonomy, creativity,
social interaction and collaboration. Read (2014) stated that language
MOOCs might be ‘challenging for students who are not used to studying
in such an autonomous manner’ (p. 93). This observation was verified
by Beaven, Hauck, Comas-Quinn, Lewis, and de los Arcos (2014), who
showed that low level of motivation and self-determination was associ-
ated with poor learning experience in a language MOOC. Rubio (2014)
compared academic performance of students enrolled in a face-to-face
pronunciation course and students enrolled in a language MOOC with
the same content. The results revealed significant improvements in both
courses, but large effect sizes in the MOOC, which, according to Rubio
(2014), might be attributed to increased level of autonomy facilitated by
online learning.

Autonomy of Chinese EFL learners

Learner autonomy of Chinese EFL learners has been prioritized as an
educational objective of College English learning and teaching in China
since 2007 (Cai, 2017). In the past few years, practitioners and policy-
makers in China have embraced language MOOCs readily as a potential
means to enhancing autonomy of EFL learners (Luo, 2017). Currently,
more than a hundred language MOOCs have been launched in iCourse
and xuetangX, the two largest MOOC platforms in China.
However, existing studies in China tended to present broad conceptual
or working proposals on how language MOOCs could be designed or
used to enhance learner autonomy (e.g., Li, 2016; Luo, 2016). Few studies
examined learner autonomy in language MOOCs empirically. The only
exception was a more recent study (Luo, 2017), which classified and ana-
lyzed the forum postings of six English MOOCs on Coursera, edX,
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 5

iCourse, and xuetangX to assess problems of autonomous language

learning in these courses. The results showed that the learners seldom
shared resources or evaluated their achievement, which, according to
Luo (2017), was a sign of a low level of autonomy. In addition, Luo
(2017) argued that the learners of the three MOOCs on iCourse and
xuetangX, who were all Chinese EFL learners, showed an even lower
degree of autonomy in that the participants displayed little interest in
communicating with each other in the MOOCs.
The study of Luo (2017) provided an important first glimpse into the
autonomy of Chinese EFL learners in the context of language MOOCs.
However, it mainly enabled an understanding of the autonomy of the
MOOC cohort rather than that of individual learners. Thus, to what
extent and how individual language MOOC learners exercise autonomy
remains largely unclear. Without such knowledge, discussion on language
MOOCs as a means to fostering autonomy of Chinese EFL learners will
be reduced to a level of speculation with no adequate empirical evidence.

Analytical framework
To answer the research questions, an analytical framework for describing
and analyzing learner autonomy in language MOOCs was established.
The framework, shown in Figure 1, was based on Benson’s (2011) tax-
onomy of dimensions of autonomy, Littlewood’s (1996) distinction of
different components of autonomy, O’Malley and Chamot’s (1990) classi-
fication of metacognitive strategies, Tseng, D€
ornyei, and Schmitt’s (2006)
taxonomy of self-regulatory strategies, as well as previous research on
learner autonomy and behaviors in MOOCs. These models were well
recognized and commonly adopted in research on learner autonomy and

Figure 1. Framework for describing and analyzing learner autonomy in MOOCs.

6 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

learning strategies (e.g., Ardi, 2017; Yun, Hiver, & Alhoorie, 2018). The
major components of the models were integrated into the current frame-
work to enable a more comprehensive analysis of factors relating to
learner autonomy. The conceptualization of the interconnections is pre-
sented below:
Following the definitions of Benson (2011) and Holec (1981),
autonomy was conceptualized in terms of a learner’s capacity to take
control of different aspects of learning. This capacity depends not
only on learners’ ability but also on their willingness (Littlewood,
1996, p. 428).
Autonomy can be exercised in three dimensions, namely, the situ-
ational dimension, the behavioral dimension, and the psychological
dimension (Benson, 2011). The situational dimension is where learners
exercise control over the learning content (Benson, 2011, p. 92). The
behavioral dimension is where learners exercise control over their learn-
ing behaviors (Benson, 2011, p. 92). The present study focused particu-
larly on three types of behaviors—setting goals, formulating schedules,
and deciding on learning methods, as these behaviors have been shown
to vary among MOOC learners and influence their learning performance
and achievement (Kizilcec et al., 2017; Littlejohn et al., 2016; Magen-
Nagar & Cohen, 2017; Milligan & Littlejohn, 2016). As to the psycho-
logical dimension, Benson (2011) put stress on the management of
attention. In the present research, another two constructs—motivation
and emotion were added, on the grounds that they are important com-
ponents in the psychology of learning and have been shown to affect the
dropout rate, learning performance and achievement of MOOC learners
(Barba, Kennedy, & Ainley, 2016).
Learners control aspects of learning via different strategies. They con-
trol the content and behaviors via metacognitive strategies including
planning, self-management, self-monitoring, problem identification, and
self-evaluation (O’Malley & Chamot, 1990, p. 138). They control atten-
tion via another set of metacognitive strategies that involves ‘the moni-
toring and controlling of concentration’ (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 85). In
Figure 1 and the following text, the former is called ‘metacognitive strat-
egies: general’ and the latter is called ‘metacognitive strategies: attention
management’. Learners control motivation via commitment control or
motivation control strategies, which help ‘preserve or increase the learn-
ers’ original goal commitment’ (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 85). Finally, learn-
ers control their emotions via emotion control strategies, which concern
‘the management of disruptive emotional states or moods, and the gener-
ation of emotions that will be conducive to implementing one’s inten-
tions’ (Tseng et al., 2006, p. 86).
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 7

The context and data

The English vocabulary MOOC
The MOOC, called ‘Vocabulary for College English Learners’, consisted
of 16 units on different themes such as health, education, and economy.
Each unit had four parts, focusing on basic words, idiomatic expressions,
interactive scenarios, and cross-cultural differences related to the theme
of the unit. There were four to six short videos in a unit, which all used
English as the medium of instruction. The videos were followed by
assignments, which contained scores of objective questions (e.g., mul-
tiple-choice and true or false) and subjective tasks (e.g., translation and
writing). Each unit also had extended reading resources related to the
theme of the unit, as well as questions for forum discussions. Finally,
each unit had a unit quiz comprising 20 objective questions, most of
which were taken or adapted from the questions in the assignments.
The MOOC was run on iCourse from 3, September, 2018 to 13,
January, 2019. The contents were updated weekly, but the learners were
given three weeks to complete each unit. Hence, the 16-unit course
lasted for 18 weeks. To get a certificate, learners needed to pass the unit
quizzes (i.e., getting at least 60 points out of a total 100 points) of all the
16 units. Students were allowed to do a unit quiz three times. They were
advised, but not required, to participate in forum discussions. The
MOOC enrolled 42,709 students, and 2953 of them got certificates, the
completion rate being 6.9%.

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected via interviews. To recruit interviewees, a recruitment
notice was sent to all enrolled via a system message on the first day. A
total of 38 students responded to the message, all of whom were recruited.
Volunteer sampling rather than random sampling was used as the contact
details of individual learners were not readily accessible to the researchers.
The general backgrounds of the 38 participants—17 males and 21
females, are shown in Appendix A. The cohort comprised of 33 full-time
college students, three secondary and tertiary level teachers, and two
company employees. The three teachers taught English, geography, and
physical education, respectively. The college students were between 18 to
23 years old. The other five participants were between 24 and 51 years
old. Ten participants were first-time MOOC learners, while the other 28
had varied prior MOOC learning experiences.
A prior interview was administered to the participants when they were
recruited, collecting information such as their gender, occupation, and
8 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

prior MOOC experience. Four interviews were conducted in week 2,

week 5, week 11, and week 17 during the course. As participants were
dropping out week after week, only a part of them received all the four
interviews (see Appendix A). To be precise, 36 participants received the
first interview, 27 participants persisted to the second interview, 17 par-
ticipants persisted to the third interview, and 13 participants persisted to
the fourth interview.1 In addition, the participants who dropped out
were invited for a separate interview after the course was closed. Of the
25 dropouts, 14 attended the interview. The interview schedule was
partly adapted from Tseng et al.’s (2006) focus-group interview schedule
for assessing students’ strategies in vocabulary learning (see Appendix B).
The interviews were all conducted in Mandarin via WeChat, except the
ones with Participant 35, which were conducted in English upon the
request of the interviewee. The data were transcribed verbatim and ana-
lyzed with a view to addressing the research questions.

Results
To what extent did EFL learners exercise autonomy?
Autonomy in the situational dimension
All the interviewees controlled the learning content autonomously.
About two thirds of the respondents did this by selecting a particular
course that met their needs or aroused their interests from multiple
courses available. For example, the following quote from Participant 04
showed how he chose the vocabulary MOOC:
‘Whenever there is a new English MOOC, I will click through to have a look.
[ … ] I decided to take this vocabulary MOOC because I read the course
introduction and I believed that it could help me to learn words of different
themes and master some skills of vocabulary learning.’

To offer another example, Participant 11 explained why she chose the

course in the following quote:
‘I noticed the course when I was searching for English MOOCs on iCourse. I
think that learning new words from vocabulary books may help me to remember
many new words in a short time, but it will not teach me how to use the words.
So I decided to take the course to see if a different way of learning could help me
master English words in the real sense.’

Approximately a third of the interviewees, namely, Participants 05, 12,

13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 37, exercised additional control
over the learning content by intentionally focusing on a part of the
course. For example, Participants 18 and 34 stated that they would focus
on a few units of the course, as the themes of these units were more
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 9

practical and useful. Participant 13 stated, ‘For me, Parts 1 and 2 of each
unit are to be memorized, whereas Parts 3 and 4 are just to be under-
stood’. Participants 12 and 33 said that they skipped easy assignments as
they would not be helpful.

Autonomy in the behavioral dimension

The interviewees exhibited different degrees of autonomy in the behav-
ioral dimension. Regarding goal setting, two thirds of the interviewees
were not very autonomous in that they only had general goals such as
improving English, enlarging vocabulary, and passing CET-4/6.2
However, a third of the interviewees, namely, Participants 03, 05, 06, 08,
10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22, set more specific goals. For example,
Participant 20 planned to ‘get a score higher than 80 in all the unit
quizzes’. Participant 08 wanted to ‘understand the instructors without
looking at the subtitles’.
With respect to the planning of schedule, a majority of the interview-
ees said that they would only try to follow the course schedule. However,
five of the interviewees, namely, Participants 08, 10, 14, 18, and 24, had
more specific schedules. Participants 08 and 14 planned to spare some
time for the MOOC every day. Participant 10 said that she would learn
the course ‘after evening classes’ of her college. Participant 18 decided to
allocate Saturday evenings for the course, in the hope that participation
in the MOOC could help her to put aside ‘a regular time reserved spe-
cially for English-learning’. Participant 24 said that he would ‘complete a
unit every week and go over what has been learnt every three weeks’.
The learners with more specific goals and schedules can be said to be
more autonomous in this regard.
As to learning methods, 17 interviewees, namely, Participants 03, 05,
11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, and 38, stated that
they often adopted other learning methods in addition to watching the
videos at the normal speed and doing exercises. The methods they
adopted included: taking notes while watching videos (Participants 11,
12, 14, 20, 21, 30, 32, and 36), pausing at difficult points and/or re-
watching (Participants 22, 29, 31, 35, and 38), adjusting the speed of the
videos (Participants 22, 23, 29, 30, and 38), and looking up new words
while watching videos (Participants 03 and 05). Two of them,
Participants 33 and 34, occasionally read the subtitles aloud, read new
words aloud after the instructor, and translated the English subtitles
into Chinese.
It is worth mentioning that four participants, Participants 01, 03, 05, and
38, adjusted their methods of learning during the learning process, showing
a high level of autonomy in this aspect. For example, Participant 03
10 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

originally planned to take note of ten unknown words in each section and
memorize them. Later in the second interview, he described an adjustment
in his perception of the course, which in turn led to an improvement in his
method of learning, as well as a growing willingness to learn new words:
‘Now I am more adapted to the course, because I do not consider the videos as a
means to learning new words, but as stories. Once I started to view the videos in
this way, I found them more interesting. Now when I see words I do not know, I
often stop the video to look them up in a very active and autonomous manner,
and make notes of the words I am interested in.’

Participant 38 mentioned in the second interview that he had

improved his method of learning by ‘watching difficult videos at 0.75’
so that he could follow the videos more easily. In the third interview, he
revealed more control of the speed of the videos:
‘When I had to stop in the middle of a video for other things, the next time I
would re-watch the video from the beginning to the part where I stopped at
1.25 and then go on at a normal speed.’

Autonomy in the psychological dimension

A number of the interviewees said that they did not regulate their atten-
tion, motivation, or emotion, as they had been able to concentrate on
learning all the time (Participants 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 33), had never
wanted to drop out (Participants 02, 06, 19, 23, 29, and 33), and had
always been enjoying the course (Participants 12, 23, 29, 35, and 36).
The other interviewees all attempted to control their motivation, emo-
tion, and attention, using a variety of control strategies. The strategies
were not always effective, though. The details will be presented in the
next section.

What strategies did EFL learners employ?

Metacognitive strategies: general
As can be seen from the description in the previous section, the inter-
viewees employed the metacognitive strategy of planning to decide on
their learning content, set up learning goals, and formulate schedules
(e.g., Participants 20 and 18). Four of them, Participants 01, 03, 05, and
38, used the metacognitive strategy of problem identification to adjust
their learning methods.
Apart from these, participants also adopted the metacognitive strat-
egies of self-management and self-monitoring, which can be seen from
their struggle with procrastination. Participants 02, 05, 10, 18, and 29
often relied on external pressure, that is, course deadline, to overcome
procrastination. For example, Participant 05 said:
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 11

‘Sometimes I did not want to do the exercises after watching the videos. But I
would definitely complete the exercises during the weekends, as the deadline was
there. It was sort of pressing.’

Participants 06, 36, 38 imposed their own deadlines to overcome pro-

crastination. For example, Participant 06 would say to herself that she
must complete a unit within the first week the unit was released, other-
wise she would not allow herself to go out during the weekend.
Participants 22 and 31 reminded themselves of their goals to overcome
procrastination. For example, Participant 22, who was preparing for the
national entrance examination for postgraduates, recalled in the interview:
‘I did want to procrastinate sometimes, but I would think of my goal. I must get a
master degree to get a better job, and then I could get down to learning.’

Metacognitive strategies: attention management

A majority of the interviewees said they were occasionally or sometimes
distracted while learning the course. To avoid distraction, Participants
06, 21, 24, 27, 31, and 38 often stopped temporarily for adjustment. For
example, Participant 24 said:
‘I was occasionally absent-minded while watching videos [ … ]. In this case I
would give myself a rest, surfing social networking sites like zhihu, and get back
to the course after a while.’

Participants 01, 05, 06, 22, and 33 controlled the environment to avoid
external factors that may cause distraction. For example, Participant 01
changed his location of learning from dormitory to library to shut out
distraction:
‘I was distracted sometimes when I watched the videos in my dormitory. I often
talked to my roommates or replied to messages on my mobile phone. So now, I
usually go to the library for watching the videos. The learning atmosphere in the
library is better and I can focus on the videos.’

Similarly, Participant 33 said that she usually went to classroom for learn-
ing the MOOC, as the environment in her dormitory was ‘uncontrollable’.
A few interviewees adopted several other strategies, namely, continually
telling oneself to concentrate (Participants 02, 29, and 36), looking up
unknown words (Participants 02 and 23), and rewarding oneself
(Participants 36), to retain their attention. Participant 02, for example, used
the first two of these strategies, as shown in the following conversation:
Researcher: Are you easily distracted while learning the MOOC?

Participant 02: Occasionally, but I could adjust in a short time.

Researcher: What strategies did you use?

12 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

Participant 02: Just say to myself, ‘Do not be distracted’. And looking up
unknown words with my mobile phone could also help me become concentrated
again in a short time.

Participant 36 adopted the first and the third one:

‘Sometimes I was absent-minded when doing the exercises, as there were too
many questions. Once I felt I was going crazy. Then I said to myself, “Hang on,
only a few questions left now. You can take a rest or play mobile phone games
after finishing these questions”.’

Motivation control strategies

The participants displayed different motivations, which could be classi-
fied into eight categories based on the taxonomies of motivation pro-
posed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and Mckeachie (1993) and Vallerand
et al. (1992). These included external motivation for career reasons
(abbreviated as M1 in Appendix A), external motivation for MOOC cer-
tificates (M2), external motivation for examinations like CET4/6 (M3),
external motivation for other academic reasons such as college program
for high English proficiency (M4), external motivation for social connec-
tion (M5), internal motivation for competence and knowledge (M6),
internal motivation for curiosity (M7), and internal motivation for
stimulation (M8). About a half of the participants reported more than
one motivation (see Appendix A).
To maintain their original goal commitment, the participants adopted
various motivation control strategies. These included reminding oneself
of one’s original goals or needs (Participants 03, 10, 18, 22, 25, 30, 31,
35, and 38), emphasizing one’s investment (Participants 03 and 36),
stressing the benefits of learning (Participants 03 and 27), reading inspir-
ational stories and mottos (Participants 12 and 20), and rewarding one-
self for staged achievement (Participant 20).
For example, Participant 31 kept reminding himself of his goal in
order not to drop out:
‘Once or twice, I thought maybe I was not able to complete the course, and I
thought of giving it up. But then I said to myself, “Think of your goal. Now that
you have chosen the course, you should not drop out.” So I kept persuading
myself, and then I managed to persist.’

Participant 03 motivated herself by thinking of her investment and the

benefits of learning the course:
‘One time I had a lot of other things to do and fell far behind the schedule [ … ],
I felt like giving it up. [ … ] But I thought of the time and efforts I had already
invested in the course. Why should I give it up? I said to myself that if I kept
watching the videos every day, the gain would accumulate and make a difference,
even though I might only learn a little each time.’
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 13

Participant 20 read inspirational stories and mottos and rewarded her-

self for the completion of a section to keep herself continuing the course:
‘I often put some snacks on my side and gave myself a treat after I completed a
section. I also read something stimulating, sort of chicken soup for the soul, to
encourage myself, for example, “the harder you work, the luckier you are”.’3

However, as cautioned in the previous section, these strategies might

not be always effective. For example, though they had managed to over-
come their thoughts to drop out once or twice, the above-mentioned
Participants 20 and 31 did not persist to the end of the course.

Emotion control strategies

The interviewees chiefly used four strategies to regulate their negative
emotions. The first one was to turn away from the MOOC temporarily,
relax, and then come back to learn the course again (Participants 03, 06,
18, 19, 22, 31, 33, and 38). For example, Participant 06 said:
‘Occasionally I got bored and did not want to learn. In this case, I would
overcome my boredom by doing other things, such as jogging, for it was not the
course but the action of learning that I got bored with. Then I would feel much
better and could study again.’

The second strategy was to solve the problem that caused the emotion
(Participants 02, 05, and 30), as illustrated by the following quote from
Participant 30:
‘I sometimes felt confused, struggling with the question whether it was worthwhile
to spend so much time on the course. Then I decided to use the morning time
when I wake up but do not want to get up, for watching the videos. So I made
use of the time that would have been wasted. So I feel ok now.’

The third strategy was to remind themselves of their goals or needs

(Participants 14 and 13), as illustrated by the following conversation
between the researcher and Participant 14:
Researcher: Are you getting bored with the course now?
Participant 14: Sometimes.
Researcher: Then how did you cope with your boredom?
Participant 14: Er …
Participant 14: CET-4.

Participant 14: For the examination.

Finally, Participant 12 used note-taking as a strategy to overcome

boredom. She said, ‘Sometimes I would get bored, and then I would
choose to take notes while listening to the videos.’
14 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

Figure 2. Autonomy levels of the participants.

Discussion
With respect to RQ 1—to what extent learners of the MOOC exercised
autonomy, data show that the learners exercised varying degrees of
autonomy in the situational, behavioral, and psychological dimensions.
The variation manifested itself in two types. The first type was the vari-
ation between individuals—some learners were generally more autono-
mous than others. To visualize the difference, we assigned an interviewee
an autonomy score of one if he or she exercised effective or additional
control over a construct and a zero if he or she did not, and then added
up an interviewee’s autonomy scores on all the seven constructs to
obtain the overall autonomy level of the interviewee. The result is shown
in Figure 2, from which it can be seen that the autonomy levels of the
interviewees are quite disperse.4 The individual difference observed in
the present study is line with the previous finding that MOOC learners
differ in autonomy (Littlejohn et al., 2016; Milligan & Littlejohn, 2016)
The second type was the intrapersonal variation between dimensions.
For example, Participant 08 set a specific goal and an operable schedule
at the beginning of the course, suggesting a high degree of autonomy in
the behavioral dimension. However, he dropped out before the second
interview because of ‘lack of willpower’, showing poor control over the
psychological dimension. By contrast, Participant 12 said in the first
interview that she did not have a plan for the course as she ‘was not
good at planning’. However, she managed to control her attention, emo-
tion, and motivation effectively and completed the course. The individual
and dimensional variation observed in the MOOC context confirmed the
complexity of learner autonomy suggested by theorists on autonomy
(Benson, 2013; Little, 1991; Littlewood, 1999).
It should be noted again that despite the general correlation between
the two (Kizilcec et al., 2017; Magen-Nagar & Cohen, 2017), variation in
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 15

autonomy is not always correlated with variation in engagement at the

level of individual learners. One reason for this disconnection was
offered by Phi (2017), who noted that the lack of negotiation opportuni-
ties in some contexts may disengage and demotivate autonomous learn-
ers. The findings of the present study revealed yet another reason. That
is, highly autonomous learners, motivated by their personal goals and
beliefs, may selectively disengage themselves from some contents or
activities of a MOOC. For example, as previously mentioned,
Participants 05, 12, 18, and 33 intentionally focused their attention on
the parts they considered as more useful and helpful. They were overall
less engaged than learners like Participants 36 and 38 who watched all
the videos and did all the assignments, but they were not less autono-
mous (see Figure 2).
Regarding RQ2—with what strategies learners of the MOOC exercised
autonomy, the results indicated that the learners adopted a variety of
metacognitive, motivation control, and emotional control strategies. Two
points are worthy of noting here. First, some of the strategies were used
for controlling more than one construct in the psychological dimension.
To be specific, reminding oneself of one’s goals or needs was used for
controlling motivation and emotion; stopping temporarily for adjustment
was used for controlling emotion and attention; and rewarding oneself
for staged achievement was used for controlling motivation and
attention. The applicability of these strategies for controlling more
than one construct is possibly due to the close relation between the con-
structs (Kim & Hodges, 2012; Pekrun, Goetz, Daniels, Stupnisky, &
Perry, 2010).
The second point is concerned with the effectiveness of these strat-
egies. A primary observation is that the same strategy might work differ-
ently with different learners. For example, nine participants, Participants
03, 10, 18, 22, 25, 30, 31, 35, 38, had reminded themselves of their goals
or needs to motivate themselves to go on with the course, but four of
them, namely, Participants 03, 10, 25, and 31, eventually dropped out
whereas the other five persisted to the end. This primary observation,
however, does not preclude the possibility that some strategies might be
generally more effective than others. Future research is needed to investi-
gate this possibility and assess the effectiveness of these strategies.
The results also highlight the potential of MOOCs for fostering learner
autonomy. The potential lies in the context that MOOCs can provide for
learners to extend ‘reactive autonomy’ to ‘proactive autonomy’. The two
concepts were proposed by Littlewood (1999) in view of the sociocultural
differences between East Asia and the West. Proactive autonomy is
the type of autonomy envisioned by Holec (1981) which regulates the
16 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

direction of activity and the activity itself, whereas reactive autonomy

‘enables learners to organize resources autonomously’ after a direction
has been initiated (Littlewood, 1999, p. 75). Littlewood (1999) held that
East Asian learners experienced few learning contexts that encouraged
them to exercise proactive autonomy, but they had a high level of react-
ive autonomy, and had the same capacity for proactive autonomy when
appropriate contexts were provided.
The findings of the present study show that MOOCs may provide an
ingenious context for learners to exercise proactive autonomy. This can
be seen from the interviewees’ conscious control of their learning content
and their careful consideration of what they need and want when decid-
ing on learning materials and tasks (see the section ‘autonomy in the
situational dimension’). In other words, when selecting a MOOC, the
learners were setting a direction and thus exercising proactive autonomy.
Hence, MOOCs can be distinguished from other resources, tools, or
environments that have been reported to foster autonomy, such as com-
puter-based materials (Figura & Jarvis, 2007), collaborative video projects
(Hafner & Miller, 2011), or learning management systems (Ardi, 2017;
Snodin, 2013). All of these tended to support the exercise of reactive
autonomy after directions were initiated by a course or pro-
gram instructor.
It was interesting to observe that the completion rate among the inter-
viewees (i.e., 31.6%) was much higher than that among all enrollees (i.e.,
6.9%).5 Two reasons could be put forward to interpret this disparity.
First, learners who were more enthusiastic and concerned about the
course might be more likely to select themselves for the interviews
(Khazaal et al., 2014). In other words, the participants in the present
study might be generally more motivated. Second, considering that data
collection in a longitudinal study may cause the participants to adjust
their behaviors, emotions, or cognitions to their perceptions of good par-
ticipants (McCambridge, Kypri, & Elbourne, 2014), it is reasonable to
believe that participation in the present study might be a motivating fac-
tor for the interviewees.
Limitations of the study have also been noted. First, the interviewees
were not representative enough, due to the self-selection constraint, the
disproportionately small sample size, and their participation in the pre-
sent study. Second, the MOOC investigated was untypical in terms of
course length. As completion rates were shown to be negatively corre-
lated with course length (Jordan, 2014), motivation control in this long
MOOC was presumably more difficult. These limitations may affect the
generalizability of some specific results, such as the percentages of learn-
ers who could exercise effective control over each construct. Future
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 17

research that adopts post hoc interviews and involves a larger and ran-
domly-selected sample recruited from learners of shorter MOOCs is
needed to make up for the shortcomings. Finally, due to the qualitative,
case-study design, the present study was unable to establish statistically
significant links between levels of autonomy and factors such as motiv-
ation, age, prior MOOC experience, and culture in the context of lan-
guage MOOCs. These questions need to be addressed in future research
that utilizes mixed or quantitative research designs.

Conclusion
The present study delved into learner autonomy in the emerging context
of language MOOCs via a qualitative investigation of Chinese EFL learn-
ers in an English vocabulary MOOC. It examined the extent to which
these learners exercised autonomy and the strategies they employed to
exercise autonomy. The results indicated that the learners showed
dimensional as well as individual variation in the extent to which they
exercised autonomy, and they adopted a range of metacognitive strat-
egies, motivation control strategies, and emotion control strategies to
regulate their learning. The findings added to knowledge of learner
autonomy and autonomous language learning in language MOOCs. The
analysis of interviewees’ responses helped reveal the complexity of
learner autonomy by way of unpacking some of the dynamics in a tech-
nology-supported language-learning environment. It is with much confi-
dence to anticipate that language MOOCs have the potential for enabling
EFL students in China and other similar educational contexts to develop
autonomy, particularly proactive autonomy.

Notes
1. Participants 26 and 28 decided to quit the course before the first interview.
Participant 28 thought the all-English instruction of the course was too difficult for
her. Participant 26, who was teaching a course on lexical semantics and wanted to
get an idea of the MOOC, said that an overview of the first unit was already
sufficient for her purpose.
2. CET-4 (College English Test-Band 4) and CET-6 (College English Test-Band 6) are
standardized English tests for non-English major college students in the mainland of
China. Undergraduates are usually required to pass CET 4 to get their
bachelor degrees.
3. “The harder you work, the luckier you are” is similar to “God help those who help
themselves”. It means that people who work hard can get more opportunities than
those who do not.
4. Participants 26 and 28 were not included in Figure 2, as they dropped out before
the first interview.
18 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

5. One of the participants who persisted to the fourth interview (i.e. Participant 35)
did not get a certificate because he chose to take only a few unit quizzes.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Social Science Foundation of Beijing(Grant No.
16YJC018).

Notes on contributors
Dr. Yan Ding is lecturer in School of Languages and Communication Studies, Beijing
Jiaotong University. She has been doing research on the teaching and learning of
English vocabulary and writing, design of English MOOCs, and learner emotions and
autonomy in English MOOCs. She was a visiting scholar in Sydney School of Education
and Social Work, the University of Sydney, in 2018.
Dr. Huizhong Shen is associate professor in Sydney School of Education and Social
Work, the University of Sydney. He has undertaken research, PhD supervision and pub-
lications in foreign language learning, language teacher education, cross-cultural pedago-
gies for language learning, ICT-based language instruction, and researching Chinese
English as an emerging variety of English.

ORCID
Yan Ding http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4579-8250

References
Anderson, A., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Leskovec, J. (2014). Engaging with mas-
sive online courses. In C. Chung, A. Broder, K. Shim, & T. Suel (Eds.), Proceedings of
the 23rd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 687–698). New York, NY:
ACM.
Ardi, P. (2017). Promoting learner autonomy through schoology m-learning platform in
an EAP class at an Indonesian university. Teaching English with Technology, 17(2),
55–76.
Barba, P. G. D., Kennedy, G. E., & Ainley, M. D. (2016). The role of students’ motiv-
ation and participation in predicting performance in a MOOC. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 32(3), 218–231.
B
arcena, E., & Mart
ın-Monje, E. (2014). Introduction. Language MOOCs: An emerging
field. In E. Martin-Monje & E. B
arcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning,
transcending boundaries (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Lewis, T., & de los Arcos, B. (2014). MOOCs:
Striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. MERLOT
Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 31–43.
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 19

Benson, P. (2011). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). London, England:
Pearson Education.
Benson, P. (2013). Learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 47(4), 839–843. doi:10.1002/
tesq.134
Cai, J. G. (2017). Challenges of foreign language teaching in colleges: Analysis of
Guidelines on College English Teaching. Foreign Language Teaching, 38(1), 6–10.
Colpaert, J. (2014). Reflections on present and future: Towards an ontological approach
to LMOOCs. In E. Martin-Monje & E. B
arcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing
learning, transcending boundaries (pp. 161–172). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Dawson, S., Joksimovi
c, S., Kovanovi
c, V., Gasevi
c, D., & Siemens, G. (2015).
Recognising learner autonomy: Lessons and reflections from a joint x/c MOOC. In T.
Thomas, E. Levin, P. Dawson, K. Fraser, & R. Hadgraft (Eds.), Research and develop-
ment in higher education: Learning for life and work in a complex world (pp.
117–129). Milperra: Higher Education Research and Development Society of
Australasia.
Figura, K., & Jarvis, H. (2007). Computer-based materials: A study of learner autonomy
and strategies. System, 35(4), 448–468.
Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Hall, N. C., & L€ udtke, O. (2007). Between- and
within-domain relations of students’ academic emotions. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(4), 715–733. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.715
Hafner, C. A., & Miller, L. (2011). Fostering learner autonomy in English for science: A
collaborative digital video project in a technological learning environment. Language
Learning & Technology, 15(3), 68–86.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy in Foreign language learning. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Huang, J., & Benson, P. (2013). Autonomy, agency and identity in foreign and second
language education. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1), 7–28. doi:10.1515/
cjal-2013-0002
Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online
courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1),
133–160.
Khazaal, Y., van Singer, M., Chatton, A., Achab, S., Zullino, D., Rothen, S., … Thorens,
G. (2014). Does self-selection affect samples’ representativeness in online surveys? An
investigation in online video game research. Journal of Medical Internet Research,
16(7), e164. doi:10.2196/jmir.2759
Kizilcec, R. F., P
erez-Sanagust
ın, 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
Kim, C., & Hodges, C. B. (2012). Effects of an emotion control treatment on academic
emotions, motivation and achievement in an online mathematics course. Instructional
Science, 40(1), 173–192. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9165-6
Lam, S. E. L. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager
writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482. doi:10.2307/3587739
Li, C. (2016). The status quo of foreign language MOOCs in China. Foreign Language
Education and Teaching, 8, 163–166.
Little, D. (1991). Learner autonomy 1: Definitions, issues and problems. Teacher &
Learner Perspectives, 62(4), 395–397.
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. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
20 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

Littlewood, W. (1996). Autonomy: An anatomy and a framework. System, 24(4),

427–435. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00039-5
Littlewood, W. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts.
Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 71–94. doi:10.1093/applin/20.1.71
Luo, R. (2017). Modes of autonomous foreign language learning in the Internet environ-
ment—A survey of language MOOCs in Chinese and American MOOC platforms.
Foreign Language World, 6, 29–36.
Luo, S. (2016). Autonomous Foreign language learning model under MOOCs environ-
ment. Modern Educational Technology, 1, 87–93.
Ma, Q. (2017). A multi-case study of university students’ language-learning experience
mediated by mobile technologies: A socio-cultural perspective. Computer Assisted
Language Learning, 30(3–4), 183–203. doi:10.1080/09588221.2017.1301957
Magen-Nagar, N., & Cohen, L. (2017). Learning strategies as a mediator for motivation
and a sense of achievement among students who study in MOOCs. Education and
Information Technologies, 22(3), 1271–1290. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9492-y
McCambridge, J., Kypri, K., & Elbourne, D. (2014). Research participation effects: A
skeleton in the methodological cupboard. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(8),
845–849. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.002
Milligan, C., & Littlejohn, A. (2016). How health professionals regulate their learning in
massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 31, 113–121. doi:10.
1016/j.iheduc.2016.07.005
O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning strategies in second language acquisi-
tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Daniels, L. M., Stupnisky, R. H., & Perry, R. P. (2010). Boredom
in achievement settings: Exploring control-value antecedents and performance out-
comes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 531–549.
doi:10.1037/a0019243
Perifanou, M. (2015). Personalized MOOCs for language learning: A challenging pro-
posal. Elearning Papers, 45, 4–16.
Phi, M. T. (2017). Becoming autonomous learners to become autonomous teachers:
investigation on a MOOC blend. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language
Learning and Teaching, 7(4), 15–32.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & Mckeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and
predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ).
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801–813. doi:10.1177/
0013164493053003024
Read, T. (2014). The architectonics of language MOOCs. In E. Martin-Monje & E.
B
arcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries (pp.
91–105). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Rubio, F. (2014). Teaching pronunciation and comprehensibility in a language MOOC.
In E. Martin-Monje & E. B
arcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, tran-
scending boundaries (pp. 143–160). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Sanchez-Gordon, S., & Luj
an-Mora, S. (2014). MOOCs gone wild. In Proceedings of the
8th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 1449–1458).
Valencia, Spain: INTED Academy.
Snodin, N. S. (2013). The effects of blended learning with a CMS on the development of
autonomous learning: A case study of different degrees of autonomy achieved by indi-
vidual learners. Computers & Education, 61(1), 209–216. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.
10.004
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 21

Sokolik, M. (2014). What constitutes an effective language MOOC? In E. Martin-Monje

& E. B
arcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs: Providing learning, transcending boundaries
(pp. 16–32). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Terras, M. M., & Ramsay, J. (2015). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): insights
and challenges from a psychological perspective. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 46(3), 472–487. doi:10.1111/bjet.12274
Thorne, S. L., Fischer, I., & Lu, X. (2012). The semiotic ecology and linguistic complexity
of an online game world. ReCALL, 24(3), 279–301. doi:10.1017/S0958344012000158
Tseng, W. T., Dornyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic
learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics,
27(1), 78–102. doi:10.1093/applin/ami046
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F.
(1992). The Academic Motivation Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amoti-
vation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1003–1017.
doi:10.1177/0013164492052004025
Yun, S., Hiver, P., & Alhoorie, A. H. (2018). Academic buoyancy: Exploring learners’
everyday resilience in the language classroom. Psychology of Language Learning, 40,
805–830.
22 Y. DING AND H. SHEN

Appendix A

Prior First Second Third Fourth Dropout

Code Sex Occupation Age Motivation experience interview interview interview interview interview
01 M Student A1 M6 M8 Y Y Y N N N
02 F Student A1 M2 M6 M7 Y Y Y Y Y NA
03 M Student A1 M3 M6 Y Y Y Y N Y
04 M Student A1 M3 M4 M6 Y Y N N N Y
05 F Student A1 M3 M6 M7 N Y Y Y N Y
06 F Student A1 M4 M6 Y Y Y Y Y NA
07 M Student A1 M3 M6 Y Y N N N N
08 M Student A1 M6 Y Y N N N N
09 F Student A1 M3 Y Y N N N Y
10 F Student A1 M6 Y Y Y Y N Y
11 F Student A1 M6 N Y Y N N N
12 F Student A1 M4 N Y Y Y Y NA
13 M Student A1 M6 Y Y N N N Y
14 M Student A1 M3 M5 M6 Y Y Y N N N
15 F Student A1 M5 M6 Y Y N N N Y
16 F Student A1 M6 Y Y Y N N Y
17 F Student A1 M6 Y Y N N N Y
18 F Student A1 M6 Y Y Y Y Y NA
19 F Teacher A3 M6 Y Y Y Y Y NA
20 F Student A1 M1 M3 M6 N Y Y N N N
21 M Student A1 M3 N Y Y N N N
22 F Student A1 M3 Y Y Y Y Y NA
23 M Student A1 M3 M7 Y Y Y Y Y NA
24 M Student A1 M6 N Y Y N N Y
25 M Student A1 M3 N Y Y N N N
26 F Teacher A2 M1 M7 N N N N N N
27 F Student A1 M6 Y Y Y N N Y
28 F Student A1 M6 N N N N N Y
29 M Student A1 M6 Y Y Y Y Y NA
30 F Student A1 M1 M3 M6 M8 Y Y Y Y Y NA
31 M Student A1 M3 M6 N Y Y Y N N
32 M Student A1 M6 Y Y N N N Y
33 F Student A1 M3 Y Y Y Y Y NA
34 F Employee A2 M8 Y Y N N N Y
35 M Employee A2 M6 M8 Y Y Y Y Y NA
36 F Student A1 M3 M4 M7 Y Y Y Y Y NA
37 M Student A1 M3 Y Y Y N N N
38 M Teacher A1 M2 M3 M6 Y Y Y Y Y NA
F ¼ female; M ¼ male; A1 ¼ 18–24; A2 ¼ 30–36; A3 ¼ above 50; Y ¼ yes; N ¼ no; NA ¼ not applicable.

Appendix B
The first interview
1. Why did you choose the MOOC?
2. How did you feel as you learnt the first unit?
3. Do you have a learning plan for the MOOC?
4. How do you like learning with MOOCs?
The second interview
1. Are you on schedule? If no, why not?
2. Are you still interested/excited/confused … about learning the course?
3. Do you feel easily distracted while watching videos or doing exercises? If yes, what
did you do to keep your attention?
4. What is an ideal English MOOC like in your mind?
 COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 23

The third interview

1. Could you describe in detail how you usually learn a unit?
2. Have you ever had some negative emotional experiences when learning the MOOC?
If yes, what did you do to deal with these negative emotions?
3. Do you procrastinate when learning the MOOC? If yes, what did you do to overcome
your procrastination?
4. Have you ever wanted to drop out? If yes, how did you motivate yourself to go on?
The fourth interview
1. What do you think of the MOOC?
2. Are you satisfied with your performance and achievement in the MOOC?
3. Will you choose other English MOOCs in the future? If yes, do you think you can
do better in your next English MOOC?
4. Do you think participation in English MOOCs has improved your ability for learning
English?
Interview for dropouts
1. Why did you decide to quit the course?
2. Will you choose other English MOOCs in the future? If yes, do you think you can do
better in your next English MOOC?
3. Do you think participation in English MOOCs has improved your ability for learning
English?