The poor success rate in MOOCs – from 5% to 10%, according to Jordan (2014) – has inspired many studies on the effects of teaching strategies on learner retention, motivation, and engagement (Sangra et al., 2015). In these studies, motivation and cognitive engagement are usually measured using questionnaires, while trace analysis is preferred to study engagement more generally, but these two approaches do not accurately describe the learning strategies used in MOOCs. Moreover, the current typologies for learning strategies (Bégin, 2008; Pintrich, 2003; Wolfs, 1998), developed in an especially traditional formal learning context, are ill-suited for analyzing the new strategies used in online teaching platforms. Qualitative orientation research has shown itself to be particularly useful for this analysis, however, although it is fairly rare in the current MOOC literature (Raffaghelli, 2015). This contribution analyzes participant learning practices by examining the reciprocal influences of the engagement motives and learning strategies used in the appropriation of available artefacts. Our study was conducted in a European MOOC offered on FUN (39,000 participants) and a Canadian MOOC offered on EDUlib (1,300 participants). We began with a typological analysis based on the responses to a questionnaire on engagement motives (Carré, 2001), which revealed six typical engagement motive profiles. We went on to conduct comprehensive interviews (Kaufmann, 2007) with 34 learners representing each of these profiles to describe the different cognitive and metacognitive strategies used in the MOOCs. These interviews were transcribed and coded according to the procedures suggested by Miles and Huberman (2003) using a coding grid based on engagement motives (Carré, 2001) and learning strategy typologies (Bégin, 2008; Pintrich, 2003), with openness to emerging categories. The results show that the typical profiles determined by the typological analysis of the Canadian and European participants are very similar, but they differ in some developing countries. The study qualitatively describes each of the six profiles and identifies differences in the learning strategies mobilized by participants with each profile. Our analysis sheds new light on the relationships between the participants’ learning strategies and their initial engagement motives. It also offers further insight into the theoretical frameworks used to analyze learning strategies by demonstrating their limitations with regard to the level of sophistication of certain strategies used with digital tools. New questionnaires that are better suited to these strategies are required, and these qualitative results may constitute a basis for developing them.

Bégin, C. (2008). Les stratégies d’apprentissage : un cadre de référence simplifié. Revue des sciences de l’éducation. 34(1), 47-67. Carré, P. (2001). De la motivation à la formation. Paris : L’Harmattan. Kaufmann, J.-C. (2007). L’entretien compréhensif. Paris : Armand Colin. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives. De Boeck Supérieur. Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds &. G.E. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol 7: Educational psychology (pp. 103-122). Hoboken, N.J.: John Wiley & sons. Sangrà, A., González-Sanmamed, M., & Anderson, T. (2015). Meta-analysis of the research about MOOC during 2013-2014. Educación XX1, 18(2). Wolfs, J.-L. (1998). Méthodes de travail et stratégies d’apprentissage. Bruxelles, Belgique: De Boeck Université.