Patterns of Lifelong Learning in Online Platforms: Evidence from Course Usage Data

Abstract

This study examines enrolment and completion patterns across online learning platforms to understand what shapes participation in digital lifelong learning. A dataset of 10,000 courses from four major platforms — Coursera, edX, Udemy, and LinkedIn Learning — was examined. The study focused on how course features such as duration, price, learner ratings, and subject area relate to engagement outcomes. Two main findings stand out. First, enrolment levels, completion rates, and learner satisfaction scores were surprisingly similar across all four platforms, even though these platforms differ in ownership, business model, and target audience. Completion rates were close to 75 percent on all platforms. Second, course-level design features showed very little connection to either enrolment numbers or completion likelihood, together explaining less than one percent of the variation in engagement outcomes. These results suggest that participation patterns are driven mainly by learner characteristics and motivation, not by course design features that institutions can easily adjust. The study contributes to understanding online learning engagement by showing how little course attributes predict participation. For educational policy, the findings point to ongoing difficulties in using online platforms to widen access. Achieving more equal participation likely requires addressing barriers that go beyond course pricing and design.

Keywords

• Online learning platforms
• Lifelong learning
• Digital education
• Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC's)
• Distance Education

Ethical Statement

The data in this study do not require ethics committee approval as they are secondary data.

Çevrimiçi Platformlarda Yaşam Boyu Öğrenme Kalıpları: Kurs Kullanım Verilerinden Elde Edilen Kanıtlar

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital yaşam boyu öğrenme ortamlarında katılımı şekillendiren etkenleri anlamak amacıyla çevrimiçi öğrenme platformlarındaki kayıt ve tamamlama örüntülerini incelemektedir. Coursera, edX, Udemy ve LinkedIn Learning olmak üzere dört büyük platforma ait 10.000 kurstan oluşan bir veri seti analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, kurs süresi, ücretlendirme, öğrenen değerlendirmeleri ve konu alanı gibi kurs özelliklerinin katılım çıktılarıyla nasıl ilişkilendiğini ele almaktadır. Araştırmada iki temel bulgu öne çıkmaktadır. İlk olarak, sahiplik yapısı, iş modeli ve hedef kitle bakımından birbirinden belirgin biçimde ayrışan dört platformda da kayıt düzeyleri, tamamlama oranları ve öğrenen memnuniyeti puanlarının çarpıcı bir benzerlik sergilediği görülmüştür; tamamlama oranları tüm platformlarda yüzde 75 civarında yoğunlaşmaktadır. İkinci olarak, kurs tasarımına ilişkin gözlemlenebilir özellikler, kayıt yoğunluğu ya da tamamlama olasılığıyla çok sınırlı bir ilişki göstermiş; bu değişkenler katılım çıktılarındaki varyasyonun yüzde birinden daha azını açıklamıştır. Bu bulgular, katılım örüntülerinin kurumlar tarafından kolayca düzenlenebilecek kurs tasarımı özelliklerinden değil, ağırlıklı olarak öğrenenlerin bireysel özellikleri ve motivasyonundan kaynaklandığına işaret etmektedir. Eğitim politikası açısından sonuçlar, çevrimiçi platformların erişimi yaygınlaştırma potansiyelinin sınırlarına dikkat çekmekte; daha eşitlikçi bir katılımın sağlanmasının kurs fiyatlandırması ve tasarımının ötesindeki engellerin ele alınmasını gerektirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Çevrimiçi Öğrenme Platformları
• Yaşam Boyu Öğrenme
• Dijital Eğitim
• Açık ve Uzaktan Eğitim Kursları
• Uzaktan Eğitim

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmadaki veriler, ikincil veri olması nedeniyle etik kurul izni alınması gerekmemektedir.

References

1. Aspin, D. N., & Chapman, J. D. (2010). Lifelong learning: Concepts and conceptions. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19(1), 2-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/026013700293421
2. Billsberry, J., & Alony, I. (2024). The MOOC post-mortem: Bibliometric and systematic analyses of research on massive open online courses (MOOCs), 2009 to 2022. Journal of Management Education, 48(4), 634-670. https://doi.org/10.1177/10525629231190840
3. Bozkurt, A. (2021). Surfing on three waves of MOOCs: An examination and snapshot of research in massive open online courses. Open Praxis, 13(3), 296-311. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.13.3.132
4. Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-Regulated Learning Strategies & Academic Achievement in Online Higher Education Learning Environments: A systematic Review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
5. Celik, B., & Cagiltay, K. (2024). Uncovering MOOC completion: A comparative study of completion rates from different perspectives. Open Praxis, 16(3), 445-456. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.3.606
6. Cristea, A. I., Alamuddin, R., Muntean, C., & De Meo, P. (2018). Can learner characteristics predict their behaviour on MOOCs? ICETC'18: In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 119-128). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290511.3290568
7. Dabbagh, N., & Castaneda, L. (2020). The PLE as a framework for developing agency in lifelong learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(6), 3041-3055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09831-z
8. Davis, D., Chen, G., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. J. (2018). Activating learning at scale: A review of innovations in online learning strategies. Computers & Education, 125, 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.019

9. DeBoer, J., Ho, A. D., Stump, G. S., & Breslow, L. (2014). Changing "Course" Reconceptualizing educational variables for massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(2), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14523038
10. Doo, M.-Y., & Zhu, M. (2024). A meta-analysis of effects of self-directed learning in online learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12865
11. Doo, M.-Y., Zhu, M., & Bonk, C. J. (2023). Influences of self-directed learning on learning outcomes in MOOCs: A meta-analysis. Distance Education, 44(1), 86-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2022.2155618
12. Egloffstein, M., Şahin, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2023). Course design approaches and behavioral patterns in massive open online courses for professional learning. Online Learning, 27(4), 48-68. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i4.4054
13. Field, J. (2006). Lifelong learning and the new educational order. Trentham Books.
14. Guntur, M., & Purnomo, Y. W. (2024). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning interventions studies on learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Online Learning, 28(3), 563-584. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i3.4025
15. Gütl, C., Rizzardini, R. H., Chang, V., & Morales, M. (2014). Attrition in MOOC: Lessons learned from drop-out students. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Learning Technology for Education in Cloud (pp. 37-48). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10671-7_4
16. 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
17. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students' and instructors' use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
18. Hew, K. F., Qiao, C., & Tang, Y. (2018). Understanding student engagement in large-scale open online courses: A machine learning facilitated analysis of student's reflections in 18 highly rated MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3596
19. Hone, K. S., & El Said, G. R. (2016). Exploring the factors affecting MOOC retention: A survey study. Computers & Education, 98, 157-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.016
20. Huang, H., Jew, L., & Qi, D. (2023). Take a MOOC and then drop: A systematic review of MOOC engagement pattern and dropout factor. Heliyon, 9(4), e15220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15220
21. Jansen, R. S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Jak, S., & Kester, L. (2020). Self-Regulated Learning Partially Mediates the Effect of Self-Regulated Learning Interventions on Achievement in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100292
22. Joksimovic, S., Gasevic, D., Kovanovic, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12107
23. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 133-160. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
24. Khalil, H., & Ebner, M. (2014). MOOCs completion rates and possible methods to improve retention: A literature review. In Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 1305-1313). AACE.
25. Kizilcec, R. F., & Halawa, S. (2015). Attrition and achievement gaps in online learning. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (pp. 57-66). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2724660.2724680
26. Kizilcec, R. F., Perez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.10.001
27. Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 170-179). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2460296.2460330
28. Kizilcec, R. F., Reich, J., Yeomans, M., Dann, C., Brunskill, E., Lopez, G., Turkay, S., Williams, J. J., & Tingley, D. (2020). Scaling up behavioral science interventions in online education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14900-14905. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921417117
29. Kizilcec, R. F., & Schneider, E. (2015). Motivation as a lens to understand online learners: Toward data-driven design with the OLEI scale. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 22(2), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2699735
30. Littlejohn, A., Hood, N., Milligan, C., & Mustain, P. (2016). Learning in MOOCs: Motivations and self-regulated learning in MOOCs. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.003
31. 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), 202-227. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455
32. Margaryan, A., Bianco, M., & Littlejohn, A. (2015). Instructional quality of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Computers & Education, 80, 77-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.005
33. Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when and how. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203095959
34. Ogunyemi, A. A., Quaicoe, J. S., & Bauters, M. (2022). Indicators for enhancing learners' engagement in massive open online courses: A systematic review. Computers and Education Open, 3, 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100088
35. Onah, D. F., Sinclair, J., & Boyatt, R. (2014). Dropout rates of massive open online courses: Behavioural patterns. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies 5825-5834. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2402.0009
36. Reich, J., & Ruiperez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130-131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958
37. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
38. Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Who does what in a massive open online course? Communications of the ACM, 57(4), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1145/2500876
39. Shapiro, H. B., Lee, C. H., Roth, N. E. W., Li, K., Çetinkaya-Rundel, M., & Canelas, D. A. (2017). Understanding the massive open online course (MOOC) student experience: An examination of attitudes, motivations, and barriers. Computers & Education, 110, 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.003
40. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
41. Veletsianos, G., & Shepherdson, P. (2016). A systematic analysis and synthesis of the empirical MOOC literature published in 2013-2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(2), 198-221. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2448
42. Wang, R., Cao, J., Xu, Y., & Li, Y. (2022). Learning engagement in massive open online courses: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education, 7, 1074435. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1074435
43. Yıldırım, H., Kır, Ş., & Bozkurt, A. (2025). Towards a future of qualifications: A systematic review of micro-credentials. Online Learning, 29(4), 535-559. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v29i4.4969
44. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.5072.8320
45. Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 1882-1895). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675217
46. Zhou, J. (2016). Exploring the Factors Affecting Learners' Continuance Intention of MOOCs for Online Collaborative Learning: An Extended ECM Perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2914
47. Zhu, M., Sari, A., & Lee, M. M. (2020). A comprehensive systematic review of MOOC research: Research techniques, topics, and trends from 2009 to 2019. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1685-1710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09798-x