Main Article Content


In this paper we introduce an approach for selecting a linear model to estimate, in a predictive way, the completion rate of massive open online courses (MOOCs). Data are derived from LMS analytics and nominal surveys.

The sample comprises 723 observations (users) carried out in seven courses on EduOpen, the Italian MOOCs platform. We used 24 independent variables (predictors), categorised into four groups (User Profile, User Engagement, User Behaviour, Course Profile). As response variables we examined both the course completion status and the completion rate of the learning activities.

A first analysis concerned the correlation between the predictors within each group and between the different groups, as well as that between all the dependent variables and the two response variables.

The linear regression analysis was conducted by means of a stepwise approach for model selection using the asymptotic information criterion (AIC). For each of the response variables we estimated predictive models using the different groups of predictors both separately and in combination.

The models were validated using the usual statistical tests.

The main results suggest a high degree of dependence of course completion and completion rate on variables measuring the user’s behavioural profile in the course and a weak degree of dependence on the user’s profile, motivation and course pattern.

In addition, residual analysis indicates the potential occurrence of interaction effects among variables and non-linear dynamics.


Learning Analytics MOOCs Predictive Models Course Completion

Article Details

How to Cite
De Santis, A., Sannicandro, K., Bellini, C., & Minerva, T. (2019). Predictive model selection for completion rate in Massive Open Online Courses. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(3), 145-159.


  1. Akaike A. (1969), Statistical predictor identification, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 22, 203-217.
  2. Akaike A. (1978), Bayesian analysis of the minimum AIC procedure, Annals of the institute of Statistical Mathematics, 30, part A, 9-14.
  3. Brooker A., Corrin L., de Barba P., Lodge J. & Kennedy G. (2018), A tale of two MOOCs: How student motivation and participation predict learning outcomes in different MOOCs, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34 (1), 73-87.
  4. Brooks C. & Thompson C. (2017), Predictive Modelling in Teaching and Learning, in: Lang C., Siemens G., Wise A. & Gašević D. (eds.), Handbook of Learning Analytics. 61-68, SOLAR: Society for Learning Analytics Research.
  5. Brown M. (2012), Learning Analytics: Moving from Concept to Practice (EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative Briefs), Louisville (CO), EDUCAUSE.
  6. Gašević D., Tsai Y.S., Dawson S. & Pardo A. (2019), How do we start? An approach to learning analytics adoption in higher education, The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology.
  7. Guo P.J. & Reinecke K. (2014), Demographic differences in how students navigate through MOOCs, in: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scaleconference. 21-30, New York, ACM.
  8. Jung E., Kim D., Yoon M., Park S. & Oakley B. (2019), The influence of instructional design on learner control, sense of achievement, and perceived effectiveness in a supersize MOOC course, Computers & Education, 128, 377-388.
  9. Paterlini S., & Minerva, T. (2010). Regression Model Selection using Genetic Algorithms. In V., Munteanu, R., Raducanu, G., Dutica, A., Croitoru, V.E., Balas, & A. Gravilut (Eds.), Recent Advances in Neural Networks, Fuzzy Systems & Evolutionary Computing (pp. 19-28). USA: WSEAS Press.
  10. Williams K.M., Stafford R.E., Corlissb S.B. & Reillyc E.D. (2018), Examining student characteristics, goals, and engagement in Massive Open Online Courses, Computers & Education, 126, 433-442.
  11. Zhang Q., Bonafini F.C., Lockee B.B., Jablokow K.W. & Hu X. (2019), Exploring Demographics and Students’ Motivation as Predictors of Completion of a Massive Open Online Course, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20 (2), 140-161.