International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hihc20

Personality Traits and Intention to Continue Using

Massive Open Online Courses (ICM) in Spain: The
Mediating Role of Motivations

Hend Alabdullatif & J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide

To cite this article: Hend Alabdullatif & J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide (2020): Personality
Traits and Intention to Continue Using Massive Open Online Courses (ICM) in Spain: The
Mediating Role of Motivations, International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, DOI:
10.1080/10447318.2020.1805873

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1805873

Published online: 02 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hihc20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1805873

Personality Traits and Intention to Continue Using Massive Open Online Courses
(ICM) in Spain: The Mediating Role of Motivations
Hend Alabdullatif and J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide
Department of Informatics and Statistics, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT
This research proposes a theoretical research model that integrates personality traits (namely, conscien­
tiousness, agreeableness, and extraversion) with motivation (whether external, in terms of third party
enforcement, or internal, in terms of self-motivation) in explaining the variance in the Intention to
Continue using Massive Open Online Courses (ICM), i.e., MOOCs. Having analyzed a sample of 136
students in Spain using Partial Least Squares (PLS) path analysis, we found that internal motivation plays
a significant full mediating role in the effects of personality on ICM for all traits except extraversion.
Extraversion is externally motivated, but no evidence was found to support direct or indirect effects on
the ICM. None of the above personality traits was found to have any significant direct impact on the
ICM. Internal, but not external motivation, was found to influence the ICM significantly. This model
explains 49% of the variation in such intention. The implications for employers seeking maximum profit
for employees enrolled in MOOCs are highlighted.

1. Introduction
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are an online educa­
tional form that can provide both structured and non-
structured learning methods. MOOCs provide students with
many benefits, such as flexibility in their learning approach
and in the time dedicated to learning. Despite these apparent
benefits, the dropout rate is found to be between 93% and
94% (Sanagustín et al., 2016). Such drastic dropout rates
justify innovations and studies which try to remedy this
situation because it curtails the possible benefits of MOOCs.
MOOCs come in two primary forms: xMOOCs and
cMOOCs. While xMOOCs adopt the traditional teaching
style of being instructivist and individualist, connectivist
cMOOCs are based on social interactions and learning
(Hidalgo et al., 2020). cMOOCs follow the concept of social-
networked learning, where participants generate knowledge
and contents as they progress through the course (Joksimović
et al., 2018). This type of MOOCs gives learners themselves
control over the learning process; they set their educational
goals, creating further content and activities, and circulate the
knowledge to other participants (Hidalgo et al., 2020).
Assessment is informal, and learners can either receive it
from other participants or self-assess. Examples of cMOOCs
include PLENK6 (Personal Learning Environments, Networ-
ked Knowledge), CCK117 (Connectivism and Connective
Knowledge), ChangeMOOC8, and etMOOC9. (Yeager, Hurley-
Dasgupta & Bliss, 2013). Some cMOOC platforms can be
offered to massive numbers of students. xMOOCs can be
used by relatively high numbers of learners at the same time
because communication and interaction with instructors are
not much needed. In xMOOCs, automated assessment mini­
mizes the need for direct and personal interaction with stu­
dents, such as essays, quizzes, and auto-graded submissions
require. The instructor delivers the material online and gives
feedback (Joksimović et al., 2018). cMOOCs, unlike xMOOCs,
are noted to hardly ever be used globally (Wang et al., 2018),
due to the “difficulties in way-finding and sense-making
because of their lack of necessary knowledge and skills”
(Li et al., 2016, p. 3). The present research focuses on
xMOOCs because they are the prevailing variant, in particular
in the Spanish context where this research was conducted
(Rodríguez, 2015).
Whatever the form of MOOCs, human-computer interac­
tions are a challenge. They may be hard factors (including inter­
face design factors and technical characteristics) (Chen et al.,
2019) or soft ones (Wong et al., 2019). This research adopts
Wong et al. (2019) perspective and finds that soft factors, in
terms of personal motivations and personality traits, are crucial
to explaining the underlying reasons for the variation in the
Intention to Continue using MOOCs (ICM). The main reason
to study the soft factors here is that the hard factors have already
been extensively studied in the literature. We followed the
research stream pioneered by Joo et al. (2018) and Dečman
(2015), who pointed to the motivation to use MOOCs and
personality traits as the main drivers for the ICM.
Motivational theory can help to understand how the role
of motivation in using MOOCs could influence the future

CONTACT Hend Alabdullatif h.alabdullatif@alumnos.urjc.es Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Informática, Rey Juan Carlos University 28933
Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE
intention to use them (Wang et al., 2019). Among the various
motivations behind the use of MOOCs may be a desire for
self-development (i.e., an internal motivation), or the require­
ment of a job or academic status (i.e., an external motivation)
(Wang et al., 2019). Although motivations undoubtedly play
a significant role in predicting a user’ s behavior, different
personalities may be motivated differently (Al-Qirim et al.,
2018; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; J.-L. Wang,
Jackson, et al., 2012). This concludes that personality traits
may play a role in understanding the adoption and continued
use of innovative initiatives of this kind.
Motivation to use should be studied because if a system is
chosen only to meet an obligation, one possible reaction is
eventually to discontinue its use (Kim et al., 2017; Laurin
et al., 2013). However, not all personalities react in the same
way in obligatory contexts: while some may resent them, but
others justify and embrace them (Jost et al., 2004, 2011).
Similarly, some personalities, when self-motivated, are more
open to adopting a behavior than others. In other words,
motivation is interconnected with and influenced by personal­
ity traits (Chen et al., 2015). Additionally, some personalities
are people-oriented, while others are task-oriented (Pickett
et al., 2019). This premise may have an important implication
for understanding the role of personality in examining the
ICM. In the general dearth of published research on the corre­
lation between personality traits and the ICM (Al-Qirim et al.,
2018; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Chen et al.,
2016), motivation as a theoretical concept for understanding
this correlation has been neglected.
On the contextual side, MOOCs are a strategic tool for
Spain to maintain its dominance in Spanish-speaking coun­
tries. They have great potential for engaging students from
the Spanish-speaking world, who are likely to number
600 million. Accordingly, Spanish institutions of higher edu­
cation have participated in two of the leading MOOC plat­
forms (Udacity and Coursera), the dominant one being
Miríadax, which offers only courses from Spanish and
South American universities (Sangrà et al., 2015). Although
Spain is one of the leading countries in this regard, as the
country with 10.4 MOOCs per million inhabitants, the high­
est rate in Europe, learners’ intentions to keep using the
MOOCs are not solid enough to justify more investment in
this area (Sanagustín et al., 2016), moreover, although the
role of motivation has been studied in Eastern countries
(Zhou, 2016), the relationship between motivation and
ICM in a low power distance context, such as Spain, could
demonstrate new findings because of the possible reactions
to external motivations. As Haslam (2004) notes, power
distance is associated negatively with psychological reac­
tance. Indeed, it is not clear which motivations affect inten­
tions of current use and which motivation can make
different personalities continue their use of MOOCs in the
future.
This research contributes to the literature by elucidating
the various motivations that drive people with a particular
personality trait to use MOOCs and show which motivations
may have either a negative or a positive impact on future use
by such people. This contribution may improve the current
debate on understanding the factors affecting the ICM
2. Literature review
2.1. Intention to continue using MOOCs (ICM)
The ICM is defined as a personal attitude to and perception
of the possibility of using MOOCs in the future (Alraimi
et al., 2015; Wu & Chen, 2017). In the ICM, the user
experience may be based on hard or soft aspects. The
hard aspects, such as the design of MOOCs, could play
a role in improving user experience. For instance, Lung-
Guang (2019) has found that self-regulated design improves
students’ experience and motivates them to continue to use
MOOCs. Design is, however, not the key, Wu and Chen
(2017) found that attitude is a critical mediator between the
perception of ease of use and the ICM. The perception of
ease of use does not affect the ICM itself. Zhao et al. (2020)
found that interactivity, media richness, and sociability
affect the ICM, mediated by telepresence and social pres­
sure. A similar study of 294 Chinese students using
MOOCs found that system quality, course quality, and
service quality were significant antecedents of the intention
to continue, mediated by perceived usefulness (Yang et al.,
2017). This usefulness can be interpreted more as motiva­
tion (Davis et al., 1992) to current use than the technical
attributes of the MOOCs application. The ultimate factor is
the attitude to the system, which comes from the last
experience. In this respect, Alraimi et al. (2015) have
found that the degree of difference between expectations
and realization has a significant influence on the ICM.
ICM is different from the intention to complete the current
course and needs a different perspective from which to
explain it. According to Teo and Dai (2019), the theories
explaining the intention to use MOOCs are the Model of PC
Utilization (MPCU) (Thompson et al., 1991), Diffusion of
Innovations (DOI) (Rogers, 1983), the combined TAM and
TPB (C-TAM-TPB) (Taylor & Todd, 1995), and the Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Indeed, the primary premise of
these theoretical perspectives is that the perceived ease of
use is the crucial predictor of technology acceptance in
terms of the intention to use it now (Henderikx et al., 2017;
Wu & Chen, 2017). For instance, Teo and Dai (2019) found
that integrating TAM with the perception of time explains
about half of the variance in Chinese university learners’
MOOCs acceptance. These theories have been extensively
adopted to investigate the acceptance of innovative educa­
tional technologies (e.g., (Abdullah et al., 2016; Al-Emran
et al., 2018) but understanding why people intend to use
something in the future could demand a different perspective.
According to these classic theories, the intention to use
now or complete the registration on a MOOC is based on the
perceived ease of using it, subjective norms, and social pres­
sures (Zhou, 2016). According to the research by Dai et al.
(2020) on 192 Chinese MOOCs learners, perceived usefulness

is not the critical predictor of the ICM; instead, the key is the
attitude to its current use. Similarly, Wu and Chen (2017),
when they integrated the TAM with the Task Technology
Model, found that the attitude of their sample 252 Chinese
students was the main factor and a key mediator for the
effects on the ICM of perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness. Without this mediator, the effect would have been
nonsignificant. In other words, the ICM is different from the
intention to use MOOCs now and may be based on the
experiences of the MOOC last time, rather than merely
the perceptions of usefulness that fuels the classic theories of
intention.
In their seminal work on 346 students from a public uni­
versity in Singapore, Li and Moore (2018) found that user
persistence in using MOOCs in the future was a function of
network benefit and the motivation to achieve. Another study
of 300 Chinese students found that confirmation affects the
ICM, mediated by perceived usefulness, perceived interest,
and satisfaction (Lu et al., 2019). Although they cover the
learners’ side, none of these papers underlines the role of
the user’s personality and motivations in the same framework
in the ICM. Thus, this present research will focus mainly on
such soft factors as they influence the current experience
because it could affect the intention to use MOOCs in the
future.
2.2. Motivation theory
Perception comes not merely from the experience of use but
may also come from the motivations that lead to such experi­
ence (Simmering et al., 2009). In other words, the motivations
for one’s current use of MOOCs can be significant predictors
of attitudes to and perceptions of these platforms and hence
can influence ICM (Alraimi et al., 2015; Tsai et al., 2018;
Wong et al., 2019; Wu & Chen, 2017).
The literature is dominated by the quest to understand the
factors affecting the intention to use or complete the current
course but tries less to understand the wish to continue use
after completing a course. Some qualitative studies have pro­
vided useful insights into the diverse types of motivation and
their role in learner’s behaviors (Littlejohn et al., 2016; Zheng
et al., 2015). Zheng et al. (2015) conducted in-depth inter­
views of students with diverse academic profiles and ethnic
backgrounds who were using MOOCs and found four main
categories of motivation to use: fulfilling current needs, pre­
paring for the future, satisfying curiosity, and connecting with
people. Deng et al. (2019) extended these findings through
their comprehensive systematic review of MOOCs and classi­
fied the following critical types of motivation: intrinsic (per­
sonal interest and curiosity), extrinsic (improved job
performance), and social (professional networking purposes).
Accordingly, a psychological classification may be more useful
for the present research. Ryan and Deci (2000) classified
motivation according to regulatory style: non-regulation,
external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regula­
tion, integrated regulation, and intrinsic regulation. However,
since the distinctions between these types of motivation are
sometimes unclear, many studies employ only four types of
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 3
motivational regulation, namely, external, introjected, identi­
fied and integrated regulation (Joo et al., 2018).
MOOCs can be pursued from choice or obligation.
Voluntary MOOCs operate as informal learning courses
(Colley et al., 2002; Li & Chen, 2014) whose individual parti­
cipants choose how, when, and in what ways they engage to
be educated in whatever interests them. Obligatory MOOCs
are offered in many academic institutions either as part of the
academic program or in relation to job requirements as part
of performance evaluation and recruitment processes (Lung-
Guang, 2019). Accordingly, the motivations to take them may
be internal or external. The distinguishing factors between
internal and external motivation are rooted in Self-
Determination Theory (SDT), which explains how and why
a particular human behavior occurs (Deci et al., 1999) as “the
perceived origin or source of one’s behavior. Autonomy con­
cerns acting from interest and integrated values. When auton­
omous, individuals experience their behavior as an expression
of the self … ” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 8). Human behaviors
may be stimulated not only by internally evoked incentives
but also by externally induced ones. This theory contends for
a continuum from controlled (i.e., internal) to autonomous
(i.e., external) motivation, with external regulation being the
most controlled form of extrinsic motivation, and introjected,
acknowledged, and integrated motivations being progressively
more self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Internal motivations can be traced to the inward and self-
motivated purposes of student use, whereas external ones
connect to externally imposed ones, such as job or academic
requirements. Zhou (2016) employed SDT to examine the
acceptance of MOOCs among Chinese university students
and found that a learner’ s internal motivation when taking
a MOOC had a positive impact on his/her attitude to them.
Concerning external motivations, the influence of systems
such as certificates and credits on learner motivation can be
examined through external regulation, a state where no
action occurs unless external compensation is offered (Joo
et al., 2018). External motivation may affect the use of
MOOCs. A study conducted by Dečman (2015) on 228 stu­
dents from Slovenia found that external compulsion to use
MOOCs can play a role in improving ICM but depends upon
the existence of facilitating conditions such as training, a help
desk, and time. Another study conducted in the USA on
15,655 participants revealed that the relationship between
learner motivations and course engagement (number of
interactions) is significantly higher for those enrolled in
Humanities/Liberal Arts than STEM courses. Williams et al.
(2018) found that external motivations on the lines of “pre­
paring for a credit or placement exam” have a negative effect
on engagement. However, the fact that this research did not
address ICM engagement in terms of the number of interac­
tions does not necessarily make such engagement a definitive
predictor of a future ICM.
2.3. The big five personality traits
The Big Five Personality Traits theory is a model that was
initially developed by psychologists to assess individuals’
4 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE

personality traits (Gosling et al., 2003). Among the many 3.2. The impacts of the extraversion personality trait on
personality models and constructs developed by psychologists, the ICM
the Big-Five Personality Traits model is unique and the most
Highly extraverted individuals are more engaged in social
widely used in interdisciplinary research. The Big Five con­
gregariousness, optimism, drive, and talkativeness (e.g.,
structs form an acronym such as “OCEAN,” “CANOE” and
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003; Costa & McCrae,
“NEOAC”; the last stands for Neuroticism (anxiety and angry
1992). extraverted individuals are social, active, and outgoing,
hostility), Extraversion (warmth and assertiveness), Openness
they are more likely to place a high value on close and warm
to Experience (fantasy, and feelings), Agreeableness (trust,
interpersonal relationships and to enjoy them more than
and altruism), and Conscientiousness (order and dutifulness)
introverts do. Since MOOCs do not involve face-to-face stu­
(DeYoung, 2015).
dent interaction, extraverted students are more likely than
The current literature on the relationship between
others to use them less often. In other words, extravertedness
MOOCs and personality traits focuses mainly on the profile
as a personal trait is proposed to negatively affect the ICM.
of current users or non-users with an intention to use but
not on the ICM among those who have used MOOCs and
H2. Extraversion is associated with lower ICM
intend to continue using them in the future. Hanzaki and
Epp (2018) found that personality can predict MOOCs
Extraverted people are not as task-oriented as introverts are,
learners’ grades when using both students’ personality and
and are not similarly oriented to goal achievement (Pickett et al.,
the level of collaboration in a course. In fact, different
2019). It has been found that the primary motivations for extra­
personalities interact differently with MOOCs; i.e., only
verted people are social motivations such as “trying to entertain
conscientiousness has a significant positive correlation
someone,” “trying to avoid loneliness,” “trying to connect with
with the time spent watching videos on MOOCs and
people” but not task-oriented, having no significant relationship
a negative one with skipping videos, whereas openness is
with “trying to get things done” (McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). In
significantly negatively correlated with the time spent in
other words, they are more motivated to build relationships with
using different features of MOOCs (i.e., videos, forums,
peers than to achieve quantified performance goals (Neel et al.,
questions) (Chen et al., 2016). Equally, not all personalities
2016). Thus, this research proposes that the extraversion trait
use MOOCs in the same way. A study by Al-Qirim et al.
affects learners’ internal motivation negatively.
(2018), which surveyed 179 students in the United Arab
Emirates, found that agreeableness, extraversion, and con­
H2.1. Extraversion is associated with lower internal motivation
scientiousness were the most common traits observed in
users of online learning platforms. In contrast, Neuroticism
Extraverted individuals use technology for different rea­
was the least common (Al-Qirim et al., 2018). The present
sons, i.e., being socially connected, being seen in professional
research will focus only on the personality traits of agree­
and nonprofessional society (e.g., Kuss & Griffiths, 2011).
ableness, extraversion, and conscientiousness, because
They tend to follow the herd and to imitate the behaviors of
a study that supported the above findings, conducted on
their peers (Feiler & Kleinbaum, 2015; Simmering et al.,
228 students in China by Lu et al. (2019), found that
2009). As persons, they are people-oriented, not task-
Neuroticism and openness to experience were not asso­
oriented (Pickett et al., 2019). They are not rebels but seek
ciated with MOOCs intentions to use.
alignment with the social structure. They want to be acknowl­
edged and thanked by society. Thus, if the university or the
3. Theoretical framework workplace appreciates and recommends the use of MOOCs,
extroverts may be motivated to use them. This can be para­
3.1. The role of motivation on ICM
phrased as the claim that the traits of extraversion positively
In motivation theory, motivation is the key driver of the affect the current external motivation to use.
intention to use something; in this case, a kind of technology.
Research has found that motivation plays a significant role in H2.2. Extraversion is associated with higher motivation.
the ICM for xMOOCs (Wu & Chen, 2017). Because motiva­
tion represents reasons to use and justifications for use, the Although Hypothesis H2 proposes that the extraverted
more a purpose is justified, the more the ICM should follow personality may have a negative effect on the ICM, an extra­
(Picazo-Vela et al., 2010; Zhou, 2016), i.e., the more an indi­ verted person may still be motivated to use something if there
vidual should be motivated to use MOOCs in the future. is proper and robust justification. Besides, if it is acknowl­
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis and sub- edged and appreciated by society, this can drive extraverts to
hypotheses: use MOOCs in the future (i.e., ICM). In other words, accord­
ing to the Theory of Reasoned Action, an ICM would be
H1. Motivation is associated with higher ICM improved if there was proper justification for using it in the
future. Thus, the following emerges:
H1.1. External motivation is associated with higher ICM
H2.3. Extraversion is associated with higher ICM, mediated by
H1.2. Internal motivation is associated with higher ICM motivation

3.3. The impacts of the agreeableness personality trait
on the ICM
Agreeableness is linked with cooperating and supporting the
arguments of others (DeYoung, 2015). Nevertheless, in various
studies relating to the use of the internet and social media,
agreeableness was reported to be generally unrelated to the
level of engagement (Amichai-Hamburger & Vinitzky, 2010).
Because agreeable individuals are more people- than technol­
ogy-oriented (Lu et al., 2019) and MOOCs do no meet people’s
expectations of typical class situations, agreeableness is pro­
posed to have a negative impact on the ICM. Therefore, we
propose the following hypothesis.
H3. Agreeableness is associated with lower ICM
Although agreeable individuals are people-oriented, as
extraverted people are, they hold a more positive view than
extraverts of technology’s usefulness (Devaraj et al., 2008).
This argument could mean a positive effect of agreeableness
on internal motivation.
H3.1. Agreeableness is associated with higher internal motivation
Agreeable individuals have a high interpersonal orientation
toward others, together with sympathy, courteousness, kind­
ness, trust, and forgiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Being
forced to use MOOCs is not expected to cause an adverse
reaction from these individuals: instead, they would be
expected to accept the external requirements and to continue
using MOOCs in the future, in order to be acknowledged by
their societies.
H3.2. Agreeableness is associated with higher external motivation
Conditioned by perceptions of usefulness, agreeableness is
found to affect the intention to use new technologies (Zhou &
Lu, 2011). Similarly, agreeableness may affect motivation, which
is a mediator in the causal effect of agreeableness on the ICM.
H3.3. Agreeableness is positively associated with higher ICM,
mediated by motivations
3.4. The impacts of the agreeableness personality trait
on the ICM
The trait of conscientiousness determines how far an individual
is dependable, concerned with details, and responsible (Gosling
et al., 2003; Wang, Jackson, et al., 2012; Zhou & Lu, 2011).
Conscientious individuals are discreet and assiduous. They do
not use social networks to garner attention or acceptance
(Seidman, 2013). Ryan and Xenos (2011) found a significant
negative correlation between the time spent on social network­
ing and conscientiousness. Conscientious people are task-
oriented; as observed by Chen et al. (2016), they use learning
technologies more than others. In an educational system such as
the present research is concerned with, we hypothesize that:
H4. Conscientiousness is associated with higher ICM
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 5
Conscientious individuals follow the rules, are industrious
and dutiful, and forgo immediate gratification in the interest
of longer-term goals, spend less time on fun, games, or any
activities perceived to be devoid of purpose (DeYoung, 2015).
Conscientiousness reflects the internal motivation to achieve
and perform at a high level and to take action to improve
individual job performance (Devaraj et al., 2008). In other
words, the more conscientious individuals are, the more they
are internally motivated to use MOOCs and vice versa.
H4.1. Conscientiousness is associated with higher internal
motivation
Conscientious people are less keen to spend any time on non-
purposeful activities, being conservative, and more inclined to
follow the social rules (DeYoung, 2015). In other words, when
they face new constraints and requirements, they are keener than
unconscientious individuals to follow such rules.
H4.2. Conscientiousness is associated with higher external
motivation
Conscientious people have a strong sense of purpose and
will. They are responsible and scrupulous (George & Zhou,
2001). They are not rebels, and they believe in using technol­
ogy to do their tasks efficiently.
H4.3. Conscientiousness is associated with higher ICM
mediated by motivation
4. Research methodology
4.1. MOOCs in Spain
Nowadays, Spain has a massive number of MOOC providers.
They are provided by Spanish universities, private providers, and
the National Distance Education University (UNED). The land­
scape of MOOCs in Spain has been spreading and diversifying
since 2012 (Gil et al., 2015). The first institution offering MOOCs
in Spain was UNED, in a pilot program launched in
October 2012 called Abierta (Gil et al., 2015). The other vital
platforms are Miríadax, UCATx, Coursera, and AbiertaUGR.
Miríadax, which was launched in January 2013 by Telefonica
(a telecommunication company) and Universia (a network of
Spanish and Portuguese speaking universities promoted by
Santander Bank), is the biggest platform in Spanish in terms of
the numbers of enrolled students. UCATx, using OPENedX
technology, was launched in May 2014 by a consortium of uni­
versities in Catalonia and offered MOOCs in Spanish, English,
and Catalan. AbiertaUGR was launched by the University of
Granada in 2013 and offered courses in Spanish. The xMOOCs
are the dominant type of MOOC in Spain (Rodríguez, 2015),
a fact which motivates this research to focus on xMOOCs.
4.2. Participants
This research adopted the survey method to test the hypoth­
eses derived from the literature. We contacted a third party
6 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE

professional company to collect data from Spanish universi­ Table 2. Construct items, validity, and reliability.
ties that offer xMOOCs, i.e., traditional courses where tea­ Construct Item FL CR AVE Rho_A α Reference
chers deliver courses, interact with students, and finally ICM ITU1 0.90 0.87 0.69 0.87 0.87 Zhou, 2016; Wu
ITU2 0.92 & Chen, 2017;
examine students. A questionnaire was distributed by e-mail ITU3 0.89 Lung-Guang,
to 300 university students and professionals who had com­ 2019
pleted a MOOC within the previous three months. One hun­ Internal MOT1 0.81 0.86 0.61 0.86 0.86 Evans, 2016;
motivation MOT2 0.85 Wu & Chen,
dred and thirty-six valid completed responses were received, MOT3 0.89 2017
a response rate of 45%. The response rate may have been low MOT4 0.84
because students receive many e-mails and fail to read and External MOT5 0.92 0.73 0.56 0.76 0.71
motivation MOT6 0.88
respond to them all (Ha et al., 2018). Extraversion BF_E1 0.91 0.83 0.70 0.83 0.83 Kortum &
Our sample, as summarized in Table 1, was distributed as BF_E2 0.90 Oswald, 2018;
Agreeableness BF_A1 0.90 0.70 0.55 0.72 0.69 Donnellan
follows. Males and females were represented in almost equal BF_A2 0.85 et al., 2006
numbers (47% male and 53% female). The respondents came Conscientiousness BF_C1 0.94 0.76 0.61 0.76 0.76
prevalently from large (50%) and small towns (43%), rather BF_C2 0.87
than from rural areas (7%). 48% were employed full-time, 27%
were full-time students, 13% were engaged in part-time employ­
were above the accepted 0.7 thresholds (Hair et al., 1998), as
ment, and the rest were in minority situations. Almost all the
shown in Table 2.
respondents had a Bachelor, Master, or other postgraduate
Second, convergent validity, which refers to the degree to
degree (81%). This research claims a level of generalizability
which multiple items measure one construct, was appraised
because our sample demographics are comparable to other
by verifying that the average variance extracted (AVE) values
studies that covered the population of MOOC users in Spain.
were greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) and that the
For instance, Gil-Jaurena et al. (2017) studied 24,412 MOOC
factor loadings (FL) of all items were significant and above
users in Spain, and their demographics are roughly similar.
0.6, showing acceptable convergence (Hair et al., 1998). These
two conditions were satisfied for all the constructs and FL
4.2.1. Instruments values, indicating acceptable convergent validity, as shown in
The questionnaire covered seven aspects: descriptive data, Table 2.
internal motivation, external motivation, ICM, agreeableness, Furthermore, we checked the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio
extraversion, and conscientiousness. All items were measured of correlations (HTMT), as recommended by Henseler et al.
on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (2014). All values are below 0.90 were as summarized in
(totally agree). The questions were professionally translated Table 3. This means that discriminant validity was established
into Spanish using the forward-backward method. This ques­ between two reflective constructs.
tionnaire was designed to reflect the shorter versions in the
relevant literature, to avoid being long and tedious. Long
4.2.2. Motivation
questionnaires are among the main reasons for higher drop­
The internal and external motivation items were borrowed
out and low response rates.
from Wu and Chen (2017). The internal motivation items
This research adopted different approaches to measuring
focused on personal interest in using MOOCs to learn,
the construct validity and reliability. First, internal consistency
whereas the external ones focused on using MOOCs to meet
was determined by examining the composite reliability (CR),
a job or academic requirement. Typical statements clarifying
Rho_A, and Cronbach’s Alpha of the constructs (Fornell &
internal motivation were: “I registered for the MOOCs to
Larcker, 1981). The reliability analysis results indicated that all
prepare for future career challenges,” “I registered for the
of the constructs’ CR, Rho_A, and Cronbach’s Alpha values
MOOCs to be motivated to better myself,” “I registered for
the MOOCs to teach myself to see a wide range of possibilities
Table 1. Sample characteristics (N = 136). in my life,” and “I registered for the MOOCs to be encouraged
Gender % Age % to explore my potential.” This scale was valid and reliable
Male 46.7 18–21 24.4 (CR = 0.86, AVE = 0.607, Rho_A = 0.864, and α = 0.86).
Female 53.3 22–25 17.8 The statements revealing external motivation were: “I regis­
Location % 26–30 8.9
Big cities 50.3 31–40 26.7 tered for the MOOCs to meet an academic requirement” and
Small cities or towns 43.0 40–50 17.8 “I registered for the MOOCs to meet a job requirement.” This
Rural/countryside areas 6.7 51–60 4.4
scale was valid and reliable (CR = 0.728, AVE = 0.577,
Employment % Education level %
Rho_A = 0.756, and α = 0.711)
Full-time employed 48.1 PhD. 2.2
Part-time employed 12.6 Master/postgraduate studies 44.4
Freelancer/business owner 4.4 Bachelor’s degree 37.0
Full-time student 26.7 High school 13.3 Table 3. HTMT Test.
Unemployed 7.4 Intermediate 2.2 1 2 3 4 5
Retired 0.7 Primary school 0.7
1.Conscientiousness 0.638
MOOCs 2.External motivation 0.357 0.401
Coursera 30.1 Udacity 11.9 3.Extraversion 0.46 0.443 0.48
edX 12.6 Miríadax 18.9 4.ICM 0.523 0.45 0.441 0.347
FutureLearn 14.7 Other 1.4 5.Internal motivation 0.552 0.459 0.574 0.231 0.676

4.2.3. ICM
This construct was adopted from Lung-Guang (2019), Zhou
(2016), and Wu and Chen (2017). It focused on the intention
to use MOOCs in the future. The statements were: “I intend
to continue to use MOOCs for learning in the future,” “I will
continue using MOOCs increasingly in the future,” and “I will
insist on using MOOCs to complete the courses for which
I registered.” All of the statements were expressed in the
future tense to indicate the intention of continued use
(Zhou, 2016). The scale was shown to be valid and reliable
(CR=0.868, AVE=0.687, Rho_A=0.869, and α=0.868).
4.2.4. Personality traits
The three personality traits were borrowed from Kortum and
Oswald (2018), Donnellan et al. (2006), and Goldberg et al.
(2006). Kortum and Oswald (2018) used the Mini-IPIP scales
and 20 items. to measure both the trait and the anti-trait, i.e.,
two items were used to measure the trait of openness and two
items to measure the reverse of openness (i.e., closedness). To
avoid the questionnaire being too long, this research focused
only on the above two items in assessing the main personality.
All of the items were self-rating statements.
Extraversion was measured on the basis of each respondent ‘s
self-perception of his/her interest in talking and meeting others
on different occasions and events. Thus, the statements were: “I
am the life of the party” and “I talk to a lot of different people at
parties.” This scale was found to be valid and reliable
(CR = 0.826, AVE = 0.703 Rho_A = 0.826, α = 0.825). The
agreeableness items focused on feeling the emotions of others
and being sympathetic to the feelings of others. The statements
were: “I sympathize with the feelings of others” and “I feel the
emotions of others.” The scale was valid and reliable
(CR = 0.704, AVE = 0.547, Rho_A = 0.724, and α = 0.693).
The conscientiousness items focused on appreciating order and
structure. The statements were “I get my chores done right
away” and “I like order.” This scale was also valid and reliable
(CR = 0.76, AVE = 0.613, Rho_A = 0.76, and α = 0.76).
4.3. Common biased method
The researchers took the required precautions to account for the
possible presence of systematic error (or common method bias)
related to the informants. This was checked by two different
methods, namely Harman’s single-factor test, based on
Podsakoff et al. (2003), and Variance Inflation Factors, VIFs
(Kock, 2015). The test was conducted as an exploratory analysis
of all the independent and dependent variables. The first factor
accounted for 18.4% of the total 81% variance for the data,
demonstrating no evidence of any significant common method
bias. As recommended by Kock (2015), VIFs were generated for
latent variables in the measurement model. All inner values, as
summarized in Table 4, were less than 3.3 as an indication of non
significant pathological collinearity and as an indication that the
model was not contaminated by common method bias.
4.4. Data analysis
The analysis was conducted in two steps. In the first, corre­
lation analysis, using SPSS, was conducted to explore the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 7
Table 4. VIF Table for inner values.
External Motivation ICM Internal Motivation
Agreeableness 1.33 1.48 1.33
Conscientiousness 1.33 1.41 1.33
External Motivation 1.43
Extraversion 1.20 1.31 1.20
Internal Motivation 1.53
correlation between concepts. In the second, Structure
Equation Modeling was used with the PLS method to con­
duct path analysis. The SMART PLS output of the direct
analysis is captured in Figure 1, while that of indirect ana­
lysis is captured in Figure 2. The values on the arrows in
Figure 1 represent the unstandardized direct effect coeffi­
cients, and the values on the second figure represent the
indirect unstandardized effect coefficients. The comparison
between unstandardized effects in the direct and indirect
effects may help in explaining the level of mediation. The
values in Table 4, which summarize the path analysis, are the
standardized effects which can help in comparing the rela­
tionships between constructs.
5. Findings
5.1. Descriptive data
Descriptive analysis was conducted to describe and set the cor­
relations between the personality traits, motivations, and the
ICM. The internal motivation to use MOOCs now
(�x ¼ 5:36; σ ¼ 1:13), on average, is slightly but not significantly
higher than the external motivation (�x ¼ 5:12; σ ¼ 1:26); and
both figures are significantly higher than the middle point of the
scale (i.e. 3) (P <.00). The average score of ICM is 5.5 with
a standard deviation of 1.09; which is significantly higher than
the middle point (P <.00). The correlational results are presented
in Table 5. In addition, the r-square between the ICM and other
factors is visualized in Appendices A and B. The ICM is sig­
nificantly associated with all personality traits and all motiva­
tions. The highest correlation with the ICM pertains to internal
motivation (r = 0.55, p < .01) and the lowest is in relation to
extraversion (r = 0.28, p < .01). Internal motivation is closely
associated with agreeableness (r = 0.46, p <.01) but has the
weakest association with extraversion (r = 0.20, p < .05).
External motivation, which has a moderate correlation with the
ICM (r = 0.36, p < .01), has the highest association with extra­
version (r = 0.37, p < .01) and the lowest with agreeableness
(r = 0.28, p < .01). Conscientiousness is more closely associated
with internal motivation (r = 0.37, p < .01) than it is with external
motivation (r = 0.28, p < .01).
The correlation analysis aims to explore the relationships
between factors but not to examine the effects, because corre­
lation does not necessarily mean causation. Moreover, the
high level of correlation between the independent factors
brings a risk of multicollinearity in the data (i.e., inflated
correlation with the dependent because of the internal corre­
lations among the independent factors) (Hair et al., 2017).
These possible inflated correlations made it necessary to use
the Partial Least Square Method, not regression analysis, to
test the research hypotheses.
8 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE
Figure 1. The research model (Direct Analysis).
Figure 2. The research model (Indirect Analysis).
5.2. Testing the hypotheses
The ICM, external motivation and internal motivation explana­
tory ratios are all significant with the adjusted R2 of 0:49
ðP < 0:01Þ; 0:25ðP < 0:01Þ and 0:32ðP < 0:01Þ; respectively, as
seen in the blue circles in Figure 1. The PLS model SRMR is
0.04, which is under the 0.1 threshold. This means that the level
of error is controllable, and the model results are reliable and
useful for interpretation and explanation.
In Structure Equation Modeling for Path Analysis (i.e.,
Partial Least Square Method or PLS), to assess the significance
level for the effects, bootstrapping is used (Hair et al., 2017).
According to Hair et al. (2017), data are assumed to be not
normally distributed, which rules out the use of parametric
significance tests. Thus, PLS-SEM relies on a non-parametric
bootstrap method (Davison & Hinkley, 1997) to test the sig­
nificance of estimated path coefficients. In bootstrapping,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 9

Table 5. Sample descriptive and correlational analysis. mediated by motivation, positively affects the ICM) because it
Correlations (Pearson test) could not find evidence to support the mediating role of moti­
Mean StDev 1 2 3 4 5 6 vation on the relationship between extraversion and the ICM.
1.Extraversion 4.53 1.44 1 Regarding H2.1 (Extraversion affects internal motivation
2.Agreeableness 5.27 1.21 0.35** 1
3.Conscientiousness 5.20 1.20 0.35** 0.46** 1 negatively) and H2.2 (Extraversion affects external motivation),
4.Internal Motivation 5.36 1.13 0.20* 0.42** 0.37** 1 the results were mixed, and in line with the model. Extraversion
5.External Motivation 5.10 1.26 0.37** 0.25** 0.28** 0.44** 1
6.ICM 5.50 1.09 0.28** 0.39** 0.33** 0.55** 0.36** 1 has a significant positive effect on external motivation
**Correlation significant at 0.01; *Correlation significant at 0.05; N = 136 ðβ ¼ 0:28; P < 0:01) but no significant effect on internal moti­
vation (β ¼ 0:01; P > 0:1Þ.

subsamples are generated with randomly drawn observations
from the original set of data (with replacement). The subsam­
ple is then used to measure the PLS path model. This process
is repeated until a significant number of random subsamples
is created, namely, 500. With this generated information,
t-values are calculated to assess each estimate ‘s significance.
A summary of the results of the path analysis in the present
study is in Table 6. The testing analysis section is structured as
follows: first, testing the hypotheses related to the role of
motivation on the ICM; second, testing the impacts of each
personality trait.
5.2.1. The role of motivations in the intention to continue
to use MOOCs
Regarding H1 (Motivation affects the ICM), this research
found mixed results. It was impossible, first, to find evidence
in support of the impact of external motivation on the ICM
ðβ ¼ 0:049; P > 0:1Þ. The case was different for internal moti­
vation, which has a significant positive effect on the ICM for
all models, with significant differences between models
ðβ ¼ 0:45; P < 0:01Þ. The summary of the hypotheses testing
is to be found in Figures 1 and 2.
5.2.3. The impact of agreeableness
This research failed to find evidence supporting H3
(Agreeableness negatively affects ICM) (β ¼ 0:12; P > 0:1Þ.
However, the total impact was significant (β = 0.28,
P < .05), which means that the correlation is fully mediated.
H3.2 (Agreeableness positively affects internal motivation)
was supported because it was found that the effect is fully
mediated by internal motivation ðβ ¼ 0:15; P < 0:01Þbut not
by external motivation (β ¼ 0:01; P > 0:1Þ.
5.2.4. The impact of conscientiousness
This research failed to support H4 (Conscientiousness positively
affects the ICM). No significant direct effect of conscientiousness
on the ICM was found (β ¼ 0:19; P < 0:1Þ. No evidence from
mediation analysis was found to suggest that this effect is mediated
by external motivation (β = 0.01, P >.1). However, it was signifi­
cantly mediated by internal motivation (β ¼ 0:10; P < :05Þ: This
is due to the non significant impact of conscientiousness on
external motivation (β ¼ 0:18; P > 0:1) and its significant impact
on internal motivation (β ¼ 0:26; P < 0:05)

5.2.2. The impact of extraversion 6. Discussion

For H2 (Extraversion negatively affects the ICM), this research
This research makes two contributions to knowledge. First, it
failed to find evidence supporting the direct or indirect impact
contributes to and improves the current debate on under­
of extraversion on the ICM (β ¼ 0:12; P > 0:1) since the total
standing the factors affecting the ICM. The literature develops
impact was found to be not significant (β ¼ 0:13; P > 0:1Þ.
different models to explain the ICM. The present research is
Thus, this research failed to support H2.3 (Extraversion,
the first to combine personality traits and motivation in
a single model to explain the ICM. Unlike the other models
Table 6. Results of Path Analysis. that adopt supply-side factors, such as system quality, course
Path (M) (STDEV) T Statistics quality and service quality (Yang et al., 2017) or interactivity,
External Motivation -> ICM 0.049 0.12 0.40 media richness, or sociability (Zhao et al., 2020), this research
Internal Motivation -> ICM 0.45** 0.11 4.01
Agreeableness focused on users’ traits in terms of personality and motivation
Direct: Agreeableness -> ICM 0.12 0.09 1.41 to use MOOCs. This model is different from those in other
M1: Agreeableness -> Internal Motivation 0.33** 0.08 4.31
M1: Agreeableness -> Internal Motivation -> ICM 0.15** 0.08 2.74 papers that have studied users, because these other papers
M2: Agreeableness -> External Motivation 0.07 0.09 0.83 explained the ICM by users’ perceptions such as usefulness,
M2: Agreeableness -> External Motivation -> ICM 0.005 0.02 0.24
Total: Agreeableness -> ICM 0.28** 0.09 3.06 satisfaction, and enjoyment (Alraimi et al., 2015) or liking,
Conscientiousness enjoyment or engagement (Tsai et al., 2018). Second, it is the
Direct: Conscientiousness -> ICM 0.08 0.11 0.76
M1: Conscientiousness -> Internal Motivation 0.23* 0.10 2.38 first paper to explain the different motivations that drive each
M1: Conscientiousness -> Internal Motivation -> ICM 0.10* 0.05 2.00 personality trait to use MOOCs and show which motives may
M2: Conscientiousness -> External Motivation 0.18 0.12 1.52
M2: Conscientiousness -> External Motivation -> ICM 0.005 0.03 0.33 have either a negative or positive impact on future use, given
Total: Conscientiousness -> ICM 0.19 0.18 1.65 each personality trait. In other words, it is novel in its per­
Extraversion
Direct: Extraversion -> ICM 0.12 0.09 1.38 spective because it explains the ICM from the perspective of
M1: Extraversion -> Internal Motivation 0.005 0.08 0.01 the users’ inherent traits and motivations rather than the
M1: Extraversion -> Internal Motivation -> ICM 0.001 0.04 0.01
M2: Extraversion -> External Motivation 0.28** 0.10 2.76 users’ perceptions of the technology. Additionally, this
M2: Extraversion -> External Motivation -> ICM 0.01 0.04 0.37 research builds upon the taxonomy developed by Faridi and
Total: Extraversion -> ICM 0.13 0.10 1.31
Ebad (2018) and Li and Moore (2018) to classify motivations
10 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE
into internal (personal needs), and external (job or academic
requirements).
By integrating the two frameworks of personality traits and
motivational theory, our explanation ratio for the ICM var­
iance reached 49%. Interestingly, the explanation ratio is high,
and the models are well-fitted, although the sample is demo­
graphically distributed in different age groups, educational
backgrounds, and gender. This can be explained as a claim
that the findings of this research can be generalized across
various demographic groups. The explanation ratio explains
only half of the variation in the ICM; the other half still needs
more research.
The first hypothesis (the causal effect on the ICM of the
current motivation to use) is not entirely accepted. The cur­
rent internal motivation, but not the external one, is found to
affect the future intention to use. The reason here may be the
high level of institutionalization of the use of MOOCs in
Spain. That is to say, the fact it is commonly required by
universities and workplaces dilutes the effect of external moti­
vation on the intention to continue using it. The fact that
current internal motivation is the primary explanatory vari­
able in the model constructed is also consistent with and
complementary to the previous literature. This finding com­
plements Zhou (2016) study. Zhou (2016) found that it is
internal motivation rather than external motivation, that
determines the current attitude to using MOOCs. This
research, in this Spanish context, shows that the intention is
extended to the future and motivates the learner to go on
using it in the future.
This study followed the research stream of Chen et al.
(2016) and Al-Qirim et al. (2018) on the role played by person­
ality traits on the use, perception of, and interactions with
MOOCs. This research failed to find the impact of extraversion
on ICM and internal motivation (Hypothesis 2). Extraversion is
found in this research to affect only the current external moti­
vation to use MOOCs. This finding could imply that extra­
verted students are less keen to use technology for educational
purposes because they are more people-oriented and do not
seek to be achievement-oriented persons. This research sup­
ports other research in claiming that the trait of extraversion is
the least likely trait to use educational and purposeful technol­
ogies (Kortum & Oswald, 2018). According to Kortum and
Oswald (2018), extroverts are significantly externally motivated,
perhaps because they want to be acknowledged by society. This
finding supports other research works that find that extraver­
sion has a moderating effect on the relationship between the
subjective norm (social pressure) and adopting the use of
a technology (Devaraj et al., 2008). Supporting arguments by
Zhou and Lu (2011) maintain that extroverts may use commu­
nicative technologies such as M-commerce, not because they
perceive it to be useful but rather because it is trusted and
allows direct communication.
Regarding the third hypothesis, agreeableness as
a personality trait does not have a direct effect on the ICM.
However, its effect is fully mediated by internal motivation.
These results are in accordance with the results presented by
Chen et al. (2016) that the personality traits of agreeableness
are not correlated with the use of any particular feature of
MOOCs. The finding by Chen et al. (2016) in the literature
supports our argument that the agreeable personality is not
a technologist by nature. This result supports the finding of
Zhou and Lu (2011) that perceived usefulness is a mediator in
the relationship between agreeableness and behavioral inten­
tion in the context of M-commerce. These results may indi­
cate that someone with an agreeable personality is not
a normal adopter of technology without clear justification or
reasons to use it.
Evidence has not been found to support the effect of the
trait of agreeableness on the current external motivation to
use, which means that treating the use of MOOCs as
a requirement will not necessarily persuade agreeable person­
alities to extend their use of itby. The negative, but non
significant, relationship could give an indication that agree­
able learners may react against external enforcement and
refuse to keep using it in the future. Agreeable personalities,
at least in Spain, are self-motivated (DeYoung et al., 2007);
thus, it is not recommended to force them to use MOOCs in
relation to academic or job requirements. This could reflect
that they are not very keen to follow external requirements, at
least not as keen as extroverts are.
Similarly, the fourth hypothesis concerning conscientious­
ness has no direct effect on the ICM. Internal motivations
mediate the relationship. These research findings disagree
with those of Wang, Ngai, et al. (2012) that conscientiousness
and agreeableness as personality traits affect the intention to
continue using instant messaging technologies. Conversely,
the impact on ICM of conscientiousness, a trait that likes
order and structure (Hirsh et al., 2009), is fully mediated by
internal motivations. Unexpectedly, forcing conscientious
personalities to use the MOOCs does not persuade them to
use it more. This research failed to find evidence in support of
a relationship with external motivations.
6.1. Research implications
There are several implications from this research. This
research found that internal motivation affects the ICM,
whereas no evidence was found to support the same effect
for external motivation. The reason here may be the high level
of institutionalization of the use of MOOCs in Spain; i.e. it is
so commonly required by universities and workplaces that it
has diluted the effect of external motivation on the intention
to continue using it. This has also modified the research
implications.
In other words, the marginal effect of increased external
motivation is found to have a limited effect on the ICM, while
minimal improvement in internal motivation has had
a significant effect. This has two implications here. On the
policy-making level, Spain invests a huge amount of the
national income in legitimizing the MOOCs market and giv­
ing power to the MOOCs certificate. Although this can be
useful for promoting the use of MOOCs, in the ICM, internal
motivation is the key driver. That is to say, it would be more
cost-effective to invest in improving the awareness of the
value of MOOCs for improving learners’ competences and
capabilities .
On the organizational level, if employers want to promote
the future use of MOOCs, they should adopt actions to foster

employees’ internal belief in their usefulness; if the purpose of
current use is to meet external requirements, learners will
hardly be motivated to use MOOCs again. Forced use may
even lead to reaction and preclude future use altogether.
The research also has several implications with regard to
the user’s personality. On the one hand, extraversion is
a people-oriented, not a task-oriented feature. Thus, employ­
ers should not enroll extravert employees in MOOCs as indi­
viduals, because evidence shows that the probability of their
continuing to use the course is weak. Consequently, to push
them to use it, three different strategies may be recom­
mended. The first is that employers can make it
a requirement; otherwise, there is little possibility of its
being taken. The second is to enroll the extraverted learners
with other learners in groups so that they can engage more
with the technology because of being able to interact with
colleagues in an offline setting (i.e. in the workplace setting).
The third strategy is to avoid xMOOCs, where learners receive
the material but do not contribute to it, playing a more
passive role than in cMOOCs. Extraverts prefer being con­
tributors and having an influence on others, amd this has
a significant effect on posting and interacting on social net­
working sites (Liu & Campbell, 2017). Consequently, extra­
verts who experience a MOOC are seldom motivated to enroll
again. A promising line of research would be to find whether
connectivist MOOCs may increase the ICM for extraverts.
However, agreeable and conscientious personalities are
task-oriented. Consequently, agreeable and conscientious per­
sonalities will use MOOCs if they believe a course can con­
tribute to their career progress and help their personal
development. Thus, to encourage them to use such courses
in the future, employers should demonstrate to these employ­
ees the relevance of these courses to their work and the way in
which these courses could improve their work performance,
personal development, or career progress.
6.2. Research limitations and future research
The research here reported has several limitations. These
limitations also provide opportunities for future research.
First, our survey administration was based on using e-mail.
Collecting responses from students was challenging because
they already receive too many e-mails. A future recommenda­
tion is to use face-to-face or phone-administered surveys,
although these may be more costly and time-consuming
approaches. A second limitation is concerned with bias in
the sample selection. We intentionally avoided individuals
who did not complete the course in order to eliminate other
disengagement factors such as the poor design of a system or
course material. It should not be expected that those who did
not finish a course would have ICM since they probably had
had a negative experience with it. Therefore, the focus was on
those with post-completion experience.
The third limitation is the fact that the data used in this study
were drawn from a sample where about half of the participants
were full-time employees. This limitation may be a source of bias
in the response and may limit the generalizability of the findings
for different demographic categories (unemployed or part-time
employees). Although we did not find significant differences in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 11
the results between students and professionals, a study more
focused on undergraduates might lead to interesting findings,
since age is associated with justification behaviors and the accep­
tance of requirements (Jost & Hunyady, 2003). The data used in
thie present research were biased toward middle-aged respon­
dents because the sampling process targeted employees.
A recommendation would be to focus on two different age
groups and compare them to understand the differences in the
creation of age-specific motivations.
Fourth, the research was focused on xMOOCs, as opposed
to connectivist cMOOCs, which generally enable users to
collaborate more and to contribute to the study material.
Results may be different in the case of cMOOCs. For instance,
we guess that the extraverted personality may behave differ­
ently in this context and may be more engaged. Further
research is required in this area to find whether these colla­
borative technologies embedded with the new MOOCs may
make a difference for extroverts. Equally, regarding task-
oriented personalities such as conscientious people, further
research may find whether they behave similarly in new
collaborative contexts.
The theoretical limitations of this research underline the
mono-perspective from which the ICM was understood.
Researchers have argued that MOOC design could affect
users’ interactions, performance, and perceptions (Baikadi
et al., 2018; Davis et al., 2017). This research, moreover,
neglected two vital elements in understanding the relationship
between personality traits and the ICM: user experience and
user interaction. User experience may play a significant role in
influencing the correlations. In cases where the intention is to
reject using a MOOC due to external compulsion, a positive
experience with an interface that a particular personality trait
finds engaging might change the intention. Each personality
trait has different types of interaction with technology and of
engagement with it: whereas extroverts are keener than others
to use social media, conscientious individuals are less keen
to engage in any “gamification” (Liu & Campbell, 2017).
Individuals who are open to experience tend to have more
extensive use of online social networks (Quercia et al., 2012)
and are more engaged with social media (Kosinski et al., 2014;
Quercia et al., 2012). Additionally, agreeable individuals are
keener to ‘comment’ or ‘like’ than they are to initiate new
topics of discussion, whereas neurotics are keener to post new
topics (Schwartz et al., 2013). These differences in behavior
may lead to differences that can influence the ICM in inter­
acting with MOOCs.
7. Conclusion
This research aimed to theorize the relationship between per­
sonality traits, motivations, and ICM. It successfully found that
the more a trait is people-oriented (i.e., extroverted), the higher
is its motivation to use MOOCs derived from the existence of
external requirements, but this will not lead to sustainable use in
the future (i.e., ICM). The more a trait (i.e., agreeableness and
conscientiousness) is task-oriented, the higher is the current
motivation to use a MOOC, due to the user’s inner belief in its
usefulness. With agreeable, this can lead to sustained motivation
but not necessarily with conscientiousness.
12 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE
This research makes several contributions to knowledge. It is
the first to set a theoretical framework for understanding the
effects connecting personality traits, motivations, and ICM in
a European context. This research is novel in conducting both
direct and indirect analyses to understand the mechanisms that
can influence ICM. It contributes to the literature on the Theory
of Reasoned Action (TRA) by showing the importance of
accounting for personality traits in the generic framework,
since they may play a significant role in creating the perceptions
which will ultimately affect the intention to always use MOOCs
in the future. Not only is the research the first to focus on ICM by
explaining through the Big Five personality traits the motiva­
tions underpinning the use of MOOCs; it also contributes to
motivation theory by highlighting the role played by personality
traits in directing the various motivations of the user.
References
Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence
of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’
perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of
e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(October), 75–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology
acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review.
Computers & Education, 125(October), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2018.06.008
Al-Qirim, N., Rouibah, K., Tarhini, A., Serhani, M. A., Yammahi, A. R.,
& Yammahi, M. A. (2018). Towards a personality understanding of
information technology students and their IT learning in UAE
university. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 29–40.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9578-1
Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the
MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation.
Computers & Education, 80(January), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2014.08.006
Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and
personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018
Baikadi, A., Demmans Epp, C., & Schunn, C. D. (2018). Participating by
activity or by week in MOOCs. Information and Learning Science, 119
(9/10), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-04-2018-0033
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts
academic performance: Evidence from two longitudinal university
samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(4), 319–338. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00578-0
Chen, G., Davis, D., Hauff, C., & Houben, G.-J. (2016). On the impact of
personality in massive open online learning. In Proceedings of the 2016
Conference on User Modeling Adaptation and Personalization - UMAP
‘16 (pp. 121–130). ACM Press, Halifax, NS, Canada: . https://doi.org/
10.1145/2930238.2930240
Chen, J. V., Widjaja, A. E., & Yen, D. C. (2015). Need for affiliation, need
for popularity, self-esteem, and the moderating effect of big five
personality traits affecting individuals’ self-disclosure on facebook.
International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 31(11),
815–831. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1067479
Chen, Y., Gao, Q., Yuan, Q., & Tang, Y. (2019). Facilitating students’
interaction in MOOCs through timeline-anchored discussion.
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(19),
1781–1799. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1574056
Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2002). Non-formal learning:
Mapping the conceptual terrain. A consultation report. Consultation
report. University of Leeds.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in
clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological
Assessment, 4(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Dai, H. M., Teo, T., Rappa, N. A., & Huang, F. (2020). Explaining
Chinese university students’ continuance learning intention in the
MOOC setting: A modified expectation confirmation model perspec­
tive. Computers & Education, 150(June), 103850. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.compedu.2020.103850
Davis, D., Chen, G., Jivet, I., Hauff, C., Kizilcec, R. F., & Houben, G. J. (2017).
Follow the successful crowd: Raising MOOC completion rates through
social comparison at scale? In Proceedings of the seventh international
learning analytics & knowledge conference (pp. 454–463). Vancouver, BC,
Canada: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027411
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace1. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Davison, A., & Hinkley, D. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their applica­
tion (1st ed. ed.). Cambridge university press.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Dečman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory
environments of higher education: The influence of previous educa­
tion and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272–281. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.022
Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2019). Progress and new direc­
tions for teaching and learning in MOOCs. Computers & Education, 129
(February), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.019
Devaraj, U. S., Easley, R. F., & Michael Crant, J. (2008). How does
personality matter? Relating the five-factor model to technology
acceptance and use. Information Systems Research, 19(1), 93–105.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0153
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in
Personality, 56(June), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.004
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and
domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93(5), 880–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The
Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of
personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/
10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
Evans, B. (2016). Paco-Applying Computational Methods to Scale Qualitative
Methods. Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings, 2016(1),
348–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1559-8918.2016.01095
Faridi, M. R., & Ebad, R. (2018). Transformation of higher education
sector through massive open online courses in Saudi Arabia. Problems
and Perspectives in Management, 16(2), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.
21511/ppm.16(2).2018.20
Feiler, D. C., & Kleinbaum, A. M. (2015). Popularity, similarity, and the
network extraversion bias. Psychological Science, 26(5), 593–603.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569580
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2001). When openness to experience and
conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513
Gil, R., Virgili-Gomá, J., García, R., & Mason, C. (2015). Emotions ontology
for collaborative modelling and learning of emotional responses.
Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Part B), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2014.11.100
Gil-Jaurena, I., Callejo, J., & Agudo, Y. (2017). Evaluation of the UNED
MOOCs implementation: Demographics, learners’ opinions and com­
pletion rates. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 18(7), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i7.3155
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,
Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international person­
ality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of
the big-five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6),
504–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Ha, L., Joa, C. Y., Gabay, I., & Kim, K. (2018). Does college students’
social media use affect school e-mail avoidance and campus involve­
ment? Internet Research, 28(1), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IntR-11-2016-0346
Hair, J., Hult, T., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage (Second
ed. ed.). SAGE Publications.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & William, B. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hanzaki, M., & Epp, C. (2018). The effect of personality and course attributes
on academic performance in MOOCs. In V. Pammer-Schindler, M. Pérez-
Sanagustín, H. Drachsler, R. Elferink, & M. Scheffel (Eds.), Lifelong tech­
nology enhanced learning (pp. 497–509). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-98572-5_38
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations : The social identity
approach. (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
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
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for
assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1),
115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hidalgo, F. J., Abril, C. A., & Parra, E. (2020). MOOCs: Origins, concept and
didactic applications: A systematic review of the literature (2012–2019).
Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10758-019-09433-6
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Metatraits of the
big five differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior.
Journal of Personality, 77(4), 1085–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-6494.2009.00575.x
Joksimović, S., Dowell, N., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Gašević, D.,
Dawson, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2018). Exploring development of
social capital in a CMOOC through language and discourse.
Internet and Higher Education, 36(January), 54–64. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.09.004
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
(July), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003
Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of system justification and
the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social
Psychology, 13(1), 111–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000046
Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., Toorn, J. V. D., Alison Ledgerwood, A. M., &
Nosek, B. A. (2011). The psychology of justice and legitimacy. In
R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The
psychology of justice and legitimacy (1st ed., pp. 79–102). Psychology
Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837658
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system
justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and uncon­
scious bolstering of the status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6),
881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x
Kim, T. D., Yang, M. Y., Bae, J., Min, B. A., Lee, I., & Kim, J. (2017).
Escape from infinite freedom: Effects of constraining user freedom
on the prevention of dropout in an online learning context.
Computers in Human Behavior, 66(January), 217–231. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.019
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity
assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
Kortum, P., & Oswald, F. L. (2018). The impact of personality on the
subjective assessment of usability. International Journal of Human-
computer Interaction, 34(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10447318.2017.1336317
Kosinski, M., Bachrach, Y., Kohli, P., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2014).
Manifestations of user personality in website choice and behaviour on
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 13
online social networks. Machine Learning, 95(3), 357–380. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10994-013-5415-y
Kuss, D. J., & Griffiths, M. D. (2011). Online social networking and addic­
tion—a review of the psychological literature. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 8(9), 3528–3552. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph8093528
Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., Proudfoot, D., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2013). Response to
restrictive policies: Reconciling system justification and psychological
reactance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122
(2), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.004
Li, K., & Moore, D. R. (2018). Motivating students in massive open online
courses (MOOCs) using the attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction
(ARCS) model. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 2(2), 102–113.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41686-018-0021-9
Li, S., Tang, Q., & Zhang, Y. (2016). A case study on learning difficulties and
corresponding supports for learning in cMOOCs. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, 42(2), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21432/t2gs4s
Li, Y., & Chen, Z. (2014). Kinect-based gesture recognition and its application
in MOOCs recording system. In Proceedings - 2014 6th International
Conference on Intelligent Human-Machine Systems and Cybernetics,
IHMSC 2014 (Vol. 1, pp. 218–222). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/
IHMSC.2014.61
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(April), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.IHEDUC.2015.12.003
Liu, D., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). The big five personality traits, big two
metatraits and social media: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 70(October), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.
08.004
Lu, Y., Wang, B., & Lu, Y. (2019). Understanding key drivers of MOOC
satisfaction and continuance intention to use. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 20(2), 105–117.
Lung-Guang, N. (2019). Decision-making determinants of students par­
ticipating in MOOCs: Merging the theory of planned behavior and
self-regulated learning model. Computers & Education, 134(June),
50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.004
McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for?
Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the
purpose of extraversion. Psychological Science, 23(12), 1498–1505.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612444904
Neel, R., Kenrick, D. T., White, A. E., & Neuberg, S. L. (2016).
Individual differences in fundamental social motives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 110(6), 887–907. https://doi.org/
10.1037/pspp0000068
Picazo-Vela, S., Chou, S. Y., Melcher, A. J., & Pearson, J. M. (2010). Why
provide an online review? An extended theory of planned behavior
and the role of big-five personality traits. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26(4), 685–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.005
Pickett, J., Hofmans, J., & De Fruyt, F. (2019). Extraversion and perfor­
mance approach goal orientation: An integrative approach to
personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 82(October), 103846.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103846
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Quercia, D., Lambiotte, R., Stillwell, D., Kosinski, M., & Crowcroft, J. (2012).
The personality of popular facebook users. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012
conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ‘12 (p. 955).
ACM Press, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145346
Rodríguez, L. D. (2015). Cursos MOOC de formación docente en
MiríadaX: Experiencias de creadores de cursos masivos. UNED.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffuison of Innovations (3rd ed.). https://doi.org/
org/citeulike-article-id:126680
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses facebook? An investigation into
the relationship between the big five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness,
14 H. ALABDULLATIF AND J. Á. VELÁZQUEZ-ITURBIDE

and facebook usage. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(5), in MOOCs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5),
1658–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.004 1195–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9513-6
Sanagustín, M. P. S., Maldonado, J., & Morales, N. (2016). Status Report Yeager, C., Hurley-Dasgupta, B., & Bliss, C. A. (2013). CMOOCS and global
on the Adoption of MOOCs in Higher Education in Latin America and learning: An authentic alternative. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Europe (Vol. 1). Spain. Network, 17(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v17i2.347
Sangrà, A., González-Sanmamed, M., & Anderson, T. (2015). Meta- Zhao, Y., Wang, A., & Sun, Y. (2020). Technological environment, virtual
analysis of the research about MOOC during 2013-2014. Educacion experience, and MOOC continuance: A stimulus–organism–response
XX1, 18(2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.14808 perspective. Computers & Education, 144(January), 103721. https://
Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S. M., doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103721
Agrawal, M., Ungar, L. H., Stillwell, D., Seligman, M. E. P., Ungar, L. H., & Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding
Shah, A. (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In Proceedings
media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE, 8(9), 9. https://doi.org/ of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work &
10.1371/journal.pone.0073791 Social Computing - CSCW ‘15 (pp. 1882–1895). ACM Press, New York,
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675217
personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs.
and Individual Differences, 54(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. A Self-determination Perspective. Computers & Education, 92–93
paid.2012.10.009 (January), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012
Simmering, M. G., Arseneault, J. M., Ross, C., Sisic, M., Orr, E. S., & Zhou, T., & Lu, Y. (2011). The effects of personality traits on user
Orr, R. R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with acceptance of mobile commerce. International Journal of Human-
Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578–586. Computer Interaction, 27(6), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024 10447318.2011.555298
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior
experience. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 19(4),
561–568. https://doi.org/10.2307/249633
Teo, T., & Dai, H. M. (2019). The role of time in the acceptance of About the Authors
MOOCs among Chinese university students. Interactive Learning Hend Alabdullatif is a Ph.D. student at the Universidad Rey Juan
Environments, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1674889 Carlos, who is at the writing up stage of her Ph.D.studies. She took an
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: MSc in Computer Science at Texas Southern University in Huston, USA.
Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly: Management Before starting her doctoral thesis, she was a senior consultant in teach­
Information Systems, 15(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.2307/249443 ing technologies.
Tsai, Y. H., Lin, C. H., Hong, J. C., & Tai, K. H. (2018). The effects of
metacognition on online learning interest and continuance to learn J. Ángel Velázquez-Iturbide received a Computer Science degree and
with MOOCs. Computers & Education, 121(June), 18–29. https://doi. a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science from the Universidad Politécnica de
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.011 Madrid, Spain, in 1985 and 1990, respectively. He is currently a professor
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User with the Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, where he is the leader of the
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Laboratory of Information Technologies in Education (LITE). His
Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425–478. https:// research areas include programming, education, and software visualiza­
doi.org/10.2307/30036540 tion. Professor Velázquez is a senior member of the IEEE Computer and
Wang, J.-L., Jackson, L. A., Zhang, D.-J., & Su, Z.-Q. (2012). The Education Societies and a senior member of ACM. He is the Vice-
relationships among the big five personality factors, self-esteem, nar­ Chairman of the Spanish Association for the Advancement of
cissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese University students’ uses of Computers in Education (ADIE).
social networking sites (SNSs). Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6),
2313–2319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.001
Wang, W., Guo, L., & Sun, R. (2019). Rational herd behavior in online Appendix A: Questionnaire items
learning: Insights from MOOC. Computers in Human Behavior, 92,
660–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.009.
Wang, W., Ngai, E. W. T., & Wei, H. (2012). Explaining instant messa­ Items (7 scales) ITEM AVG STDV
ging continuance Intention: The role of personality. International ICMs: Are you going to use this learning platform in the future?
Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 28(8), 500–510. https://doi. I intend to continue to use MOOCs for learning in the ITU1 5.463 1.306
org/10.1080/10447318.2011.622971 future.
I will continue using MOOCs increasingly in the future. ITU2 5.463 1.224
Wang, Z., Anderson, T., & Chen, L. (2018). How learners participate in
I will insist on using MOOCs to complete the courses for ITU3 5.485 1.3
connectivist learning: An analysis of the interaction traces from a which I registered
cMOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Internal motivation to use: Why did you register for this
Learning, 19(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3269 module?
Williams, K. M., Stafford, R. E., Corliss, S. B., & Reilly, E. D. (2018). to prepare for future career challenges. MOT1 5.353 1.468
Examining student characteristics, goals, and engagement in massive to be motivated to better myself. MOT2 5.478 1.231
open online courses. Computers & Education, 126(November), to teach me to see a wide range of possibilities in my MOT3 5.309 1.292
life.
433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.014 to be encouraged to explore my potential. MOT4 5.316 1.397
Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G. J., & Paas, F. External motivation to use
(2019). Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environ­ to meet an academic requirement. MOT5 5.324 1.271
ments and MOOCs: A systematic review. International Journal of to meet a job requirement. MOT6 4.882 1.595
Human-computer Interaction, 35(4–5), 356–373. https://doi.org/10. Personality traits – extraversion:
1080/10447318.2018.1543084 I am the life of the party BF_E1 4.301 1.467
I talk to a lot of different people at parties BF_E2 4.757 1.597
Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Personality traits – agreeableness
Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task tech­ I sympathize with the feelings of others BF_A1 5.279 1.282
nology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67(February), I feel the emotions of others BF_A2 5.25 1.392
221–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028 Personality traits – conscientiousness
Yang, M., Shao, Z., Liu, Q., & Liu, C. (2017). Understanding the quality factors I get my chores done right away BF_C1 4.956 1.277
I like order BF_C2 5.434 1.36
that influence the continuance intention of students toward participation
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN–COMPUTER INTERACTION 15

Appendix B: Correlations between ICM and the research variables