The Massive Implementation of ICT in Universities and Its Implications for Ensuring SDG 4: Challenges and Difficulties for Professors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for addressing previous revisions. 

Author Response

Thanks for your revision.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The concerns raised by the 1st round of review have been addressed.

Author Response

Thanks for your revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

The area of intent of this article, when clearly established, is seen as meaningful. But the clarity of the article at present still remains poor. It seems to be about concerns in promoting SDG4, but in reality it focuses on how University staff cope with digitalisation. Establishing the link between these 2 aspects and how to address a concern for a lack of attention to SDG4 when course delivery has changed in format is perceived as the focus of the article. And to do that the questionnaire focuses on current (or the change of) practices/emphases by University staff.

Unfortunately all this has become very muddled. The abstract is a good example.  In the abstract it is expected that the aim of the study is put forward (your abstract does not really do this, but cites research questions which makes the abstract very detailed) . Beyond the aim, the abstract is expected to indicate how the aim is being tackled ie the methodology being used. Then comes the findings and finally the overall implications.  The  given abstract is far from this.

The introduction is expected to encompass the background and in this case the background to the concern(s) - the concerns leading to the need for the research, in your case that related to the 3 research questions. In giving research questions there is really no need for hypotheses, but of course there is a need for background literature impinging on the research and its uniqueness.   For the research itself, there is a need to put forward the methodology  covering those aspects being investigated as well as with whom (sample), the instrument (developed) used, the manner in which data is collected and analysed, as well as the validity and reliability of the approach. Beyond the methodology is the giving of the results and their interpretation followed by a discussion on the implication of the outcomes, all leading to conclusions which is basically the answers to the research questions.   With all of the above in mind the title of the research can be reconsidered.   

Thus, in my opinion  the paper still major restructuring.  And possibly the following sections, can be foreseen (1) the Introduction giving the concern (s) leading to the aim of the research  (and this expressed as the 3 RQs) (2) what the literature says (3) the methodology (4) the results and interpretation (5) the discussion on the implications (6) the conclusion answering the RQs.

Author Response

Thanks for your revision.

 

Here you will find our comments to answer to your suggestions:

• We have modified the whole abstract following the suggested structure to provide greater clarity to our presentation.
• We have expanded the introduction to put in context for the reader those facts that will help to understand  our concerns and how the research questions are arrived at. To this end, we felt it necessary to move the research questions to the end to provide greater clarity.
• The hypothesis was eliminated to improve the development of the paper.
• We have reviewed articles by authors who have investigated the consequences of the impact of the pandemic on teaching practice both in Europe and globally around the world, as references, Pokhrel, S., & Chhetri, R. (2021), Mawere, T., & Sambo, P. (2021). We have seen some actions carried out by different educational initiatives in different countries, Mattana, D. (2020) and Ibáñez, F. (2020). Also, different documents of UNESCO, 2018, 2020 and 2021 for the development of the goals of SDG 4. In the study we have focused about Spanish professors from different universities and the anxiety generated for them, as a referent author, Martinez-Otero Pérez, V. (2003) and what we have been learned, Moreno-Correa, S. M. (2020).
• The interpretation of the results has been expanded beyond the numerical data, which was included in the discussion as a new section.
• After modifying the research questions, we believe that the conclusions make more sense with what was previously provided and provide greater clarity.
• We have also expanded future lines of research with an input that we believe would be very useful for some educational decision-makers.

We hope that the modifications will bring more clarity and order to our paper.

 

We thank you for your time and all your suggestions for improvement. We believe your contributions have been of great help to improve the quality of the text.

 

Yours sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Line 46: as well as in countries (even in countries)

Line 81: school stoppage (closure)

Line 150: so-called CDI (the so-called CDI)

Line 163-4: the degree of integration of students towards ICT was analyzed (what do you mean here?) 

Line 293: How have you felt as a faculty during the hybrid classes? (is the question correct? or maybe it should be as a faculty professor?)

Reference [12]: sdgs (SDGs)

Reference [16]: DOI is correct, but the link isn't working DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-6533-9.ch003

Reference [25]: botswana (please spell Botswana)

Reference [47] - spelling mistake (advesiting)

Author Response

Thanks for your revision and for your comments.

Here you have a list of our modifications made:

• All typos have been modified and highlighted in blue for your revision.
• We also included “professor” in the question in line 293 and 375.
• We also clarified the formers lines 163-4 with the following: , it was analyzed how students had integrated the use of ICT into their routine
• We have modified the link that was not working with a new one: https://cutt.ly/zRqkBnx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the article is suitable for publication, apart from the issues with the English. Attached, I send the article, where the text marked in light blue comes from the authors, indicating their updating of the text following the 1st review. The grey shaded words are also by the authors where they have changed wording from the original.

In the attached file, my additions are:
(a) the highlighting in yellow (where the tense of the verb is incorrect);
(b) the highlighting in purple and dark blue, where I suggest the expression needs modification, and
(c) the highlighting in brown for the word therefore, which does not seem to be appropriate in this context.

I hope this helpful. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time and suggestions. 

We have incorporated all those corrections that help to a better understanding of the article. There are other grammatical clarifications that we have kept because we believe that they fit the message we want to communicate.

You can see in green all the changes made. We also attach the certificate of proofreading by a professional proofreader of this last version.

Thank you again for your advice to improve our paper.

Yours sincerely,
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf