Introduction:

- Please revise few sentences – where the research is not recent study anymore –
page 2

- Page 4-6 - How confident are the authors on the appropriateness of van Dijk’s (2005,
2013) digital divide scholarships with MOOCs perspectives? The digital skills that focus
by van Dijk might be inappropriate with digital skills for MOOCs? What are your
comments on this.

- The use of van Dijk’s theory in this research may be inappropriate for checking learner
readiness on MOOCs.

- Page 7 – 8 – different levels of engagement with ICTs – while this research is on MOOCs.
Therefore, the engagement should be on MOOCs.

Research Question:

- RQ1 – the article does not have strong rationales on why the three factors are the
main focus in this research : engagements with ICTs, self-efficacy and locus of control
should be explored among MOOCs learners. Critical reviews on the importance of
these three factors among MOOCs learners have not been discussed
comprehensively.

Methods:

- Please explain more on a comparative case study design that had been used in this
research.

- From 2450 learners – how many were received certificates of achievement? Same
goes to the Arabic MOOCs – 970 - ???

- Why the rate in Table 1 for Arabic MOOCs has been calculated differently from
English MOOCs??? – Page 10 – Line 12-24. Table 1 data are questionable in term of
their validity since the authors used different ways of calculation methods for English
vs Arabic MOOCs.

- Some parts of your writing are not recent anymore – page 10 – line 31-32, please
refer the article for other similar comments.
- The Survey (Online Learning Readiness Survey (OLRS) that researchers used in this
research also questionable in term of it appropriateness with the theory that
underpinning this research; which is also questionable;

- How much work by Dray et al. (2011) influenced by van Dijk’s (2005, 2013) theory?

- Irrelevant rationale in page 10 – line 36-41.

- It looks like items for ICT engagement are not suitable to identify learner readiness
on MOOCs.

- The use of English survey for English MOOCs and the use of Arabic survey for Arabic
MOOCs create non-homogenous group in the research. As a suggestion, please
exclude English survey from the overall data for research findings. Why do you need
those two groups?

- It is good if this article checks the normality of the data distribution.

Findings:

- Sub heading in page 18 – Line 24-25 is misleading when you used the word effect!
RQ 1 is exploring the similarities and differences and not the effect. Same goes to
the sentence in line 43-45 and also in page 23.

- Page 19 – line 19-53 – please interpret the findings in the meaningful way instead of
reporting it significance or not. Please state also why the findings are significant and
not significant.

- Page 23 – line 36-41 – the sentence is contradicting with the sentence in line 41-46.

Discussions

- Avoid using effect word.

- Page 26 – Line 26-31 – misleading conclusion – the difference is not due to the
country – it depending on the exposure of ICT among people in North America –the
development of ICT in North America is higher than other countries.
- Why do learners in North America have higher level of self-efficacy? Give your
rationales by referring to previous research findings.
- Is there any correlation between ICT engagements vs self-efficacy and also locus of
control and vice versa?
Conclusion:

- Misleading conclusion – the last sentence. The conclusion should discuss the factors
behind the country of region – might be due to the development of ICT in certain
countries is in advanced than other countries.

Highlight no 2 – check the sentence – omit “from”

Based on my comments, this article need major corrections before it can be considered to
be published in CAE.