Sustainable Distance Education: Comparison of Digital Pedagogical Models

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read your paper. The paper is well organized  and structured.  I have no comments to style and writing, but I would like you to consider the following:

1) In the abstract you claim: A personalised learning process is confirmed as complicating academic attempts to address social topics and topics related with sustainable development. Can you really say this based on your research questions and design? I think this might just be a new question that you can pose to inquire further into.  At least this needs more discussion:)

Take therefore a close look at e.g. what you write from line 329-331 and 347-349. Can you imagine other ways of interpreting these findings? For now you just confirm earlier research. 

2) Your results are rather predictable giving the research questions and design.  Can you elaborate more on what is new and other in your findings? Did anything puzzle you?

3) Try to open up to more complexity between individual and collaborative models.  Would it be interesting to discuss e.g. that individual processess might open issues related to sustainability to personal responsibilities and risktaking? Sustainability is after all a wicked problem, - the result that implies that model I fails, might actually be the opposite:)  It might be so that discovering and appreciating personal responsibility first and foremost is what might save the plannet:)

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present  manuscript  analyses how digital pedagogical models of three kinds (collaborative, 11 social, and independent) influence the learning experience

 

The authors carry out a detailed analysis of the theories that support and give theoretical basis to the study later designed. The introduction contains the fundamental contributions, as well as the most relevant and current theoretical references.

 

The objectives and working hypotheses that are collected are adequate and define the subsequent design of the investigation.

In the exposition of the materials and methods, a more detailed exposition could be made to facilitate the understanding of the study. The study is complex, using a sample composed of Postgraduate and Undergraduate students who in turn participate in three different methodologies. This makes it complex to understand, which is why I propose that a greater understanding of the study be facilitated by developing more clearly what each group does, within what subject, with what instrument, for how long, etc.

On the other hand, it would be very interesting if the tasks carried out within each methodology were described in greater depth, giving more examples of each one.

The same happens with the data collection instruments. I think it would be much more enriching if the authors could develop each of the instruments and give examples of the Likert scale used. It is not described at all how many items it had, how many dedicated to each variable, ...

The same occurs with the qualitative study instrument. It must be further specified and exemplified.

The results answer the research questions posed and the conclusions drawn offer an accurate view of the entire study.

 

I think it is a brilliant work, which deserves to be known by the scientific community and which will serve as the basis for future research. For this reason, I believe that it is more than necessary to provide as much data as necessary to make the article 100% understandable. Hence, my comments are only focused on a further explanation of the tools and design. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf