Scholarlink

Purpose <p>The study aims to systematically evaluate studies focused on the evaluation of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms and existing frameworks to evolve an integrated model for the comprehensive evaluation of MOOC platforms.</p> Design/methodology/approach <p>The study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Web of Science (WoS) database was used to retrieve the data. A thematic analysis method was used to critically examine the existing frameworks identified in different studies to identify different criteria concerning various aspects of MOOC platforms. The identified criteria were further analysed to include different components concerning different aspects of MOOC platforms to propose a theoretically grounded integrated evaluation framework for MOOC platforms.</p> Findings <p>The findings highlight a diverse set of evaluation frameworks used in MOOC research, including Kirkpatrick’s Model, Quality Matters (QM) Evaluation Framework, and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). After critical analysis and discussion among peers, the study identified six major evaluation dimensions: course design and structure, learner engagement, instructional quality, assessment and learning outcomes, technical and administrative factors, and demographic and completion metrics. Furthermore, the results reveal that most MOOC research is concentrated in China, the UK and the US. Additionally, most studies employed quantitative and mixed-method approaches, with surveys being the most commonly used data-collection tool. Furthermore, xMOOC is a commonly studied platform, and the highest number of publications were published in 2024.</p> Originality/value <p>The study offers a unique integrated framework by synthesizing existing MOOC evaluation frameworks, providing a practical tool for the consistent and comprehensive assessment of MOOC platforms.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A systematic review of MOOC platforms, evaluation frameworks and development of integrated model

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月16日

查看全文
  • Shahid Maqbool Mir,
  • Nadim Akhtar Khan

摘要

Purpose

The study aims to systematically evaluate studies focused on the evaluation of Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) platforms and existing frameworks to evolve an integrated model for the comprehensive evaluation of MOOC platforms.

Design/methodology/approach

The study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the Web of Science (WoS) database was used to retrieve the data. A thematic analysis method was used to critically examine the existing frameworks identified in different studies to identify different criteria concerning various aspects of MOOC platforms. The identified criteria were further analysed to include different components concerning different aspects of MOOC platforms to propose a theoretically grounded integrated evaluation framework for MOOC platforms.

Findings

The findings highlight a diverse set of evaluation frameworks used in MOOC research, including Kirkpatrick’s Model, Quality Matters (QM) Evaluation Framework, and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). After critical analysis and discussion among peers, the study identified six major evaluation dimensions: course design and structure, learner engagement, instructional quality, assessment and learning outcomes, technical and administrative factors, and demographic and completion metrics. Furthermore, the results reveal that most MOOC research is concentrated in China, the UK and the US. Additionally, most studies employed quantitative and mixed-method approaches, with surveys being the most commonly used data-collection tool. Furthermore, xMOOC is a commonly studied platform, and the highest number of publications were published in 2024.

Originality/value

The study offers a unique integrated framework by synthesizing existing MOOC evaluation frameworks, providing a practical tool for the consistent and comprehensive assessment of MOOC platforms.