Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Understanding Higher Education Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes Towards MOOCs for Professional Development: A Scale Validation and Predictive Study Cover

Understanding Higher Education Teachers’ Perceptions and Attitudes Towards MOOCs for Professional Development: A Scale Validation and Predictive Study

By: ,   and    
Open Access
|Nov 2025

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211. 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  2. Akram, H., Abdelrady, A. H., Al-Adwan, A. S., & Ramzan, M. (2022). Teachers’ perceptions of technology integration in teaching-learning practices: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 920317. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.920317
  3. All India Council for Technical Education. (2017). SWAYAM (Study Webs of Active-Learning for Young Aspiring Minds). Government of India. https://www.aicte-india.org/bureaus/swayam
  4. Altalhi, M. (2021). Toward a model for acceptance of MOOCs in higher education: The modified UTAUT model for Saudi Arabia. Education and Information Technologies, 26(2), 15891605. 10.1007/s10639-020-10317-x
  5. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 8097. 10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890
  6. Bartlett, M. S. (1951). The effect of standardization on a χ² approximation in factor analysis. Biometrika, 38(3–4), 337344. 10.1093/biomet/38.3-4.337
  7. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (Eds.). (2015). MOOCs and open education around the world. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315751108
  8. Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: Cocreation, Authorship, Ownership, Academic Ethics and Integrity in a Time of Generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 110. 10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
  9. Chen, B., Fan, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, M., & Wang, Q. (2020). Teachers’ networked professional learning with MOOCs. PLOS ONE, 15(7), e0235170. 10.1371/journal.pone.0235170
  10. Class Central. (2020, July 9). In India, MOOCs are now part of the education system. https://www.classcentral.com/report/swayam-for-credit/
  11. Commonwealth of Learning. (2018, June 12). MOOC on technology-enabled learning. https://www.col.org/news/mooc-technology-enabled-learning/
  12. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297334. 10.1007/BF02310555
  13. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340. 10.2307/249008
  14. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  15. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  16. Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(3), 255284. 10.1080/15391523.2010.10782551
  17. Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  18. Fuchs, K. (2022). Using an extended technology acceptance model to determine students’ behavioral intentions toward smartphone technology in the classroom. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 972338. 10.3389/feduc.2022.972338
  19. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (16th ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429056765
  20. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381391. 10.1080/135406002100000512
  21. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  22. Herranen, J., Aksela, M., Kaul, M., & Lehto, S. (2021). Teachers’ expectations and perceptions of the relevance of professional development MOOCs. Education Sciences, 11(5), Article 240. 10.3390/educsci11050240
  23. Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104121. 10.1177/109442819800100106
  24. Jobe, W., Östlund, C., & Svensson, L. (2014). MOOCs for professional teacher development. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014—Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 15801586). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/130997/
  25. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141151. 10.1177/001316446002000116
  26. Kaiser, H. F., & Rice, J. (1974). Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(1), 111117. 10.1177/001316447403400115
  27. Kayal, S. (2020). MOOCs for professional development of teachers through e-learning system: The Indian scenario. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 9(2), 32343239. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341764075. 10.17821/srels/2020/v57i2/151966
  28. Kemp, A. (2024). Testing a novel extended educational technology acceptance model using student attitudes towards virtual classrooms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 55(2), 487507. 10.1111/bjet.13440
  29. Kim, S. W. (2015). MOOCs in higher education. In MOOCs and educational challenges around Asia and Europe (pp. 1328). KNOU Press.
  30. Koukis, N., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2019). MOOCs for teacher professional development: Exploring teachers’ perceptions and achievements. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(1), 7491. 10.1108/ITSE-10-2018-0081
  31. Koukis, N., & Jimoyiannis, A. (2020). Towards a design framework of MOOCs for teacher development: Theoretical issues and analysis of teachers’ achievements about Web 2.0 in language instruction. Themes in eLearning, 13, 6986. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1291202
  32. Laurillard, D. (2016). The educational problem that MOOCs could solve: Professional development for teachers of disadvantaged students. Research in Learning Technology, 24(1), Article 29369. 10.3402/rlt.v24.29369
  33. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008–2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), 202227. 10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455
  34. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf
  35. Mishra, S. (2024, March 6). Open education is an essential ‘public good’. Commonwealth of Learning. https://www.col.org/news/open-education-is-an-essential-public-good/
  36. Misra, P. K. (2018). MOOCs for teacher professional development: Reflections, and suggested actions. Open Praxis, 10(1), 6777. 10.5944/openpraxis.10.1.780
  37. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  38. Pan, X. (2020). Technology acceptance, technological self-efficacy, and attitude toward technology-based self-directed learning: Learning motivation as a mediator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 564294. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564294
  39. Patru, M., & Balaji, V. (2016). Making sense of MOOCs: A guide for policy-makers in developing countries. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245122
  40. Pellas, N. (2025). Comparing quality and autonomous learning of teacher professional development programs in MOOCs and LMS. Education and Information Technologies, 30, 90059039. 10.1007/s10639-024-13154-4
  41. Razia, B. (2020, December 22). Role of Swayam in the professional development of teacher educators in India. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/44215517/Role_of_Swayam_in_the_Professional_Development_of_Teacher_Educators_in_India
  42. Rodés, V., Porta, M., Garófalo, L., & Enríquez, C. R. (2021). Teacher education in the emergency: A MOOC-inspired teacher professional development strategy grounded in critical digital pedagogy and pedagogy of care. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2021(1), Article 15. 10.5334/jime.657
  43. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  44. Sangwan, A., Sangwan, A., & Punia, P. (2021). Development and validation of an attitude scale towards online teaching and learning for higher education teachers. TechTrends, 65(2), 187195. 10.1007/s11528-020-00561-w
  45. Scherer, R., Siddiq, F., & Tondeur, J. (2019). The technology acceptance model (TAM): A meta-analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital technology in education. Computers & Education, 128, 1335. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.009
  46. Shah, D. (2019, December 2). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2019. Class Central. https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2019/
  47. Singh, G. (2022). Quality of MOOC for teachers’ professional development: Participants’ perception. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364307834
  48. Singh, G., & Chauhan, R. (2017). Awareness towards Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and their usage for Teacher Education in India. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 12(2), 8188. https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/253
  49. Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203843130
  50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.
  51. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425478. 10.2307/30036540
Language: English
Page range: 710 - 729
Submitted on: Jun 17, 2025
Accepted on: Sep 18, 2025
Published on: Nov 25, 2025
Published by: International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2025 Adit Gupta, Arpana Koul, Ankur Gupta, published by International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.