ArticlePloS one2025
Is MOOC really effective? Exploring the outcomes of MOOC adoption and its influencing factors in a higher educational institution in China.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Media for Health Outcomes: Evaluation Study of a Massive Online Open Course.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of a Gamified Educational Intervention on Palliative Care Knowledge Among Nursing Students: A Single-Group Pre-Post Intervention Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Where do we go from here? Evaluating the effectiveness of a nursing MOOC over six years.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of a Learning Pathway on Food and Nutrition in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.Nutrients · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) has gained widespread adoption across diverse educational domains and plays a crucial role in advancing educational equality. Nevertheless, skepticism surrounds the effectiveness of MOOC due to their notably low completion rates. To explore the outcomes of MOOC adoption in higher education and improve its application efficiency, this study compares MOOC with traditional course in terms of mean score and pass rate. The study examines the factors influencing MOOC performance within the context of higher education, utilizing the method of Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). This study analyzed MOOC learning data from a college over a period of six years and a total of 4,282 Chinese college students participated in this study. The factor of learning environment was proposed for the first time, and it was proved to have a significant impact on learning behavior and MOOC performance in higher education. The results reveal that 1) MOOC has a lower pass rate than traditional course (including both compulsory and selective course); 2) MOOC has a lower mean score than selective course only; 3) we did not find a significant difference between MOOC and compulsory course in terms of the mean score; 4) Learning behavior, learning motivation, perceived value, learning environment, previous experience and self-regulation have significant and positive influences on MOOC performance in higher education. The study provides valuable insights that college administrators should pay attention to students' learning environment, learning motivation and other factors while actively introducing MOOC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.