Multiple Correspondence Analysis of Factors Influencing Student Acceptance of Massive Open Online Courses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very well written, it comprises an extensive literature review, the proposed methodological approach is very promising and the results are very well-documented. Therefore, the paper is of very-high value and is proposed to some minor revision of the Figures which are not clear at all.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment

The manuscript is very well written, it comprises an extensive literature review, the proposed methodological approach is very promising and the results are very well-documented. Therefore, the paper is of very-high value and is proposed to some minor revision of the Figures which are not clear at all.

Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive words of encouragement and for pointing out this useful suggestion to improve the quality of our paper. The figures have been revised and replaced by clearer ones.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper was well structured and the multiple correspondence analysis was used  to explore hidden associations amongst factors influencing student acceptance of MOOCs. However, I am a bit surprised to know that only 54 primary studies were found with the given criteria. Besides, the universities in the USA were among the first to offer MOOCs and yet none of the studies in Table 1 was from the USA. It would be good if the authors could elaborate the dataset in greater detail.
The findings were interesting and it would be good to highlight some major findings in the abstract as well. Perhaps it is also good to include the limitations of this study. To conclude, this research paper is timely and provides insightful findings to researchers of the field.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment

This paper was well structured and the multiple correspondence analysis was used to explore hidden associations amongst factors influencing student acceptance of MOOCs. However, I am a bit surprised to know that only 54 primary studies were found with the given criteria. Besides, the universities in the USA were among the first to offer MOOCs and yet none of the studies in Table 1 was from the USA. It would be good if the authors could elaborate the dataset in greater detail. The findings were interesting and it would be good to highlight some major findings in the abstract as well. Perhaps it is also good to include the limitations of this study. To conclude, this research paper is timely and provides insightful findings to researchers of the field.

Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive words of encouragement and for expressing the surprise. We have added useful statements in Section 2.1 and Section 5 as indicated in the red-underlined font to justify why articles from the USA may not have been discovered as relevant to this study. The article selection criteria used to select related articles in the analysis may have excluded those from the USA not related to the present study.

Comment

The findings were interesting, and it would be good to highlight some major findings in the abstract as well.

Response

The findings of this study have been summarized in Section 5 and the main findings are summarized in the abstract.

Comment

Perhaps it is also good to include the limitations of this study.

Response

The limitations of the study have been presented in Section 5.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with analysing the factors influencing student acceptance of massive open online courses (MOOC). The article is well structured and supported by relevant references. In the Introduction, the authors presented their three-fold contributions to the body of knowledge. While the first two are well explained, the third one is the most important and not enough emphasised. Therefore, the Conclusions and Discussion should be extended to highlight the findings. For example, page 18, line 543 says, “This study has found some important outcomes through the unique application of MCA.” But mentioned important outcomes are not listed nor explained. Therefore, the Conclusion section should give brief and concise findings and implications for education, especially for the third contribution mentioned in the Introduction.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment

The article deals with analysing the factors influencing student acceptance of massive open online courses (MOOC). The article is well structured and supported by relevant references. In the Introduction, the authors presented their three-fold contributions to the body of knowledge. While the first two are well explained, the third one is the most important and not enough emphasised. Therefore, the Conclusions and Discussion should be extended to highlight the findings. For example, page 18, line 543 says, “This study has found some important outcomes through the unique application of MCA.” But mentioned important outcomes are not listed nor explained. Therefore, the Conclusion section should give brief and concise findings and implications for education, especially for the third contribution mentioned in the Introduction.

Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive words of encouragement and for pointing out this suggestion. This has been elaborated in the paper in the sections on results, discussions, and conclusions highlighted in a red underlined font.

Comment

Therefore, the Conclusions and Discussion should be extended to highlight the findings. For example, page 18, line 543 says, “This study has found some important outcomes through the unique application of MCA.” But mentioned important outcomes are not listed nor explained. Therefore, the Conclusion section should give brief and concise findings and implications for education, especially for the third contribution mentioned in the Introduction

Response

These suggestions have been made in Sections 4 and 5 as highlighted in the red-underlined font throughout the paper.