This is a literature review studying the evolution of MOOCs since 2008, and it's fine so far as it goes, and even interesting in some respects. But I have some comments. First, if you can't read the text on the diagram (even the full-sized version), don't put the text on the diagram. Clip and save. Second, I would like to see some argument or evidence that shows that a literature review relying (only) on Scopus is a sufficient, especially in a fast-moving and alternative discipline such as MOOCs. It seems to me that entirely incorrect data regarding citation and credit are obtained when limiting oneself to secondary literature such as that found in Scopus. Third, I would like to see some argumentation of evidence to show that 'hybrid MOOCs' are in any significant way different from 'cMOOCs'. Their main feature seems to be self-directed self-regulated learners, which was a hallmark of the cMOOC.
Today: 0 Total: 15 [Direct link] [Share]
