IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbglo/v38y2024i4p481-496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying and prioritising MOOC attrition reasons using best worst method

Author

Listed:
  • Neeraj Chopra
  • Rajiv Sindwani
  • Manisha Goel
  • Ashutosh Nigam

Abstract

Despite the noticeable strengths of massive open online courses (MOOCs), the high attrition rate of learners is posing challenges in its way to successful diffusion. This created the need to know the reasons behind the high attrition rate among learners. The present work identifies nine MOOC attrition specific reasons from the literature on MOOC and resistance to innovation. The study also classifies and prioritises the attrition reasons in terms of criticality. The reasons for attrition are grouped according to their nature into three categories, referred to as general reasons. The prominence of reasons is established by using the best worst method (BWM), a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique. The optimised weights determined by BWM arranged them from most critical to least critical in terms of learners attrition. The results revealed technical reasons as the most critical general reason. The most and least critical specific reasons are identified as perceived risk and no penalty or reward. The study also suggested effective measures to address the challenges posed by various attrition reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Neeraj Chopra & Rajiv Sindwani & Manisha Goel & Ashutosh Nigam, 2024. "Identifying and prioritising MOOC attrition reasons using best worst method," International Journal of Business and Globalisation, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 38(4), pages 481-496.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbglo:v:38:y:2024:i:4:p:481-496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=142436
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijbglo:v:38:y:2024:i:4:p:481-496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=245 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.