A Qualitative Analysis of Implementing E-Learning during the COVID-19 Lockdown
and Juan Carlos Bustamante 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I enjoyed reading your manuscript. My feedback is below:
+ While it’s anticipated readers will know what ICT means, please consider spelling it out the first time in your abstract. Also, check with journal to see if ICT needs to be spelled out again the first time in the body of the manuscript.
+ You stated that there were 10 students from non-compulsory secondary education, but I didn’t see teachers sampled from this form of educational institution. The same for the classification of members of management board. You do state that there were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of the criteria of interest variables in any of the groups for the sample, but please consider speaking to the lack of teacher and management board members in the non-compulsory secondary education area and why this doesn’t play a role in your findings.
Author Response
Generally speaking, regarding English language and style a revision by a native English translator has been conducted. Moreover, we have included some clarifications regarding research questions and some methodological aspects.
1.- While it’s anticipated readers will know what ICT means, please consider spelling it out the first time in your abstract. Also, check with journal to see if ICT needs to be spelled out again the first time in the body of the manuscript.
Response: ICT has been spelled out the first time in the abstract and in the body of the manuscript (page 3 of the manuscript).
2.- You stated that there were 10 students from non-compulsory secondary education, but I didn’t see teachers sampled from this form of educational institution. The same for the classification of members of management board. You do state that there were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of the criteria of interest variables in any of the groups for the sample, but please consider speaking to the lack of teacher and management board members in the non-compulsory secondary education area and why this doesn’t play a role in your findings.
Response: This issue has been clarified in the participants section (page 8 of the manuscript). Specifically, we tried to clarify that teachers and members of management board are both involved in secondary education and non-compulsory secondary education.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Please indicate your research questions or hypotheses for this research.
- The Supplementary Materials (1) & (2) are missing.
- Please provide a list of 11 open questions and coding system in the Appendix or Supplementary Materials.
- Some data/information source is not adequately referenced. Please also check a citation style guide to make sure the entry is correct.
- Since several information are missing, readers would not be able to understand what this paper is trying to accomplish.
Author Response
Generally speaking, we tried to be more specific and systematic in the statement of the research questions. In this sense, we have included some current and relevant references in the introduction to improve theoretical and empirical background on the topic. Moreover, to clarify the presentation of the results and give coherence to the discussion we have readjusted the content of the results and discussion sections. Finally, we adjusted the manuscript to the journal format and guidelines. Likewise, a new revision by a native English translator has been conducted.
1.- Please indicate your research questions or hypotheses for this research.
Response: We have improved the statement of the research questions (page 6 of the manuscript).
2.- The Supplementary Materials (1) & (2) are missing.
Response: We apologize for the inconvenience. We believe that we submitted the Supplementary Material with the first submission of the manuscript. Thus, we have (re)submitted the material.
3.- Please provide a list of 11 open questions and coding system in the Appendix or Supplementary Materials.
Response: With the (re)submission of the Supplementary Materials we have included the coding system, and also the questions of the interviews and students questionnaire.
4.- Some data/information source is not adequately referenced. Please also check a citation style guide to make sure the entry is correct.
Response: We have checked and corrected references and citation.
5.- Since several information are missing, readers would not be able to understand what this paper is trying to accomplish.
Response: Despite the fact that another reviewer established that the abstract was positively highlighted, the introduction and methodology were correct, and the results were described objectively and in a clear and precise way, we partially agree with the reviewer because there is room for improvement. Thus, we tried to adequate the structure and content of the manuscript to clarify the objective and contribution of the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
1. The title is too long: it should be shorter (between 15- words), simple, easy to understand.
2. The abstract is positively highlighted: In simple words about the aim of this study. No discussion, no history, just the aim of the research. The methodology is correct, the qualitative approach and method is cited, although if it is an ad hoc questionnaire it should be cited. The main findings are reported in a few words. There is no discussion or explanation. Perhaps, to improve the section, the application of this study could be included: where this study can be useful, name the area, disciplines, etc. As well as, cite the novelty of this study.
3. The introduction is correct. The author(s) clearly discusses the research problem, with an adequate amount of background to the study, but should include more current references. In fact, of the 40 references in this section only 16 are from the last 6 years. It is recommended that these be included as current and relevant references:
- Espino-Díaz, L.; Fernandez-Caminero, G.; Hernandez-Lloret, C.-M.; Gonzalez-Gonzalez, H.; Alvarez-Castillo, J.-L. Analyzing the Impact of COVID-19 on Education Professionals. Toward a Paradigm Shift: ICT and Neuroeducation as a Binomial of Action. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5646. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145646
- Espino-Díaz, L.; Alvarez-Castillo, J.-L.; Gonzalez-Gonzalez, H.; Hernandez-Lloret, C.-M.; Fernandez-Caminero, G. Creating Interactive Learning Environments through the Use of Information and Communication Technologies Applied to Learning of Social Values: An Approach from Neuro-Education. Sci. 2020, 9, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9050072
- Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22.
4. Methodology: correct. It is not an excessively advanced study, but it is correct and easy enough for any reader to repeat the study under similar conditions.
5. Regarding the results, the finding of the study is described objectively and in a clear and precise way.
6. It is recommended that the authors add a discussion section in which they express more clearly the combination of their findings in relation to those previously identified in the literature review, and place them within the context of the theoretical framework underpinning the study. On the other hand, it is appreciated that the limitations of the study are reported.
7. The conclusions point is also correct, although there is room for improvement. It would be convenient to add some more conclusions linked to the results obtained. In this sense, evidence could be presented to support the analysis, citing the work of previous researchers or existing theories. It is positive that the authors take into account the need to report on future research, taking into account some of the limitations of the study. It would be useful to add a line of future research.
Author Response
Generally speaking, we tried to be more specific and systematic in the statement of the research questions. In this sense, we have included in the introduction the references proposed. Moreover, to clarify the presentation of the results and give coherence to the discussion we have readjusted the content of the results and discussion sections. Finally, we adjusted the manuscript to the journal format and guidelines. Likewise, a new revision by a native English translator has been conducted.
1.- The title is too long: it should be shorter (between 15- words), simple, easy to understand.
Response: We agree with the reviewer. We have proposed a new title.
2.- The abstract is positively highlighted: In simple words about the aim of this study. No discussion, no history, just the aim of the research. The methodology is correct, the qualitative approach and method is cited, although if it is an ad hoc questionnaire it should be cited. The main findings are reported in a few words. There is no discussion or explanation. Perhaps, to improve the section, the application of this study could be included: where this study can be useful, name the area, disciplines, etc. As well as, cite the novelty of this study.
Response: We have included a statement related with the fact that the scripts of data collection tools were made ad hoc, and also where the study can be useful and its novelty (page 2 of the manuscript).
3.- The introduction is correct. The author(s) clearly discusses the research problem, with an adequate amount of background to the study, but should include more current references.
Response: We have included the references proposed (page 3, 4, 6 and 46 of the manuscript).
4.- Methodology: correct. It is not an excessively advanced study, but it is correct and easy enough for any reader to repeat the study under similar conditions.
Response: We agree.
5.- Regarding the results, the finding of the study is described objectively and in a clear and precise way.
Response: We agree. We appreciate the comment.
6.- It is recommended that the authors add a discussion section in which they express more clearly the combination of their findings in relation to those previously identified in the literature review, and place them within the context of the theoretical framework underpinning the study. On the other hand, it is appreciated that the limitations of the study are reported.
Response: We have readjusted the content of the results and discussion sections.
7.- The conclusions point is also correct, although there is room for improvement. It would be convenient to add some more conclusions linked to the results obtained. In this sense, evidence could be presented to support the analysis, citing the work of previous researchers or existing theories. It is positive that the authors take into account the need to report on future research, taking into account some of the limitations of the study. It would be useful to add a line of future research.
Response: We partially agree with the reviewer. In our conclusions section we tried to point out the main conclusions of our study, and also in our strength and limitations section we added lines of future research.
In this sense, regarding conclusions we lined the main advantages that involves ease of access to information, as well as the immediacy offered by the different technological and digital resources; the offer of a much more motivating and individualized learning experience; that students have not felt uncomfortable due to the methodology but rather as a result of the lockdown itself; the doubt about the level and quality of the learning during lockdown due to the lack of training to adapt the use of e-learning; that families with insufficient financial means to access technological resources and students from rural areas seem to be worse off due to general issues with connectivity; the loss of social contact as a significant disadvantages (affecting students with special educational needs to a greater extent); and finally that the evidence seems to be leading us towards a future of blended teaching in which e-learning is combined with face-to-face teaching.
Regarding lines of future research, we included the consideration of the university context, the analysis of possible cross-cultural differences, the analysis of the perspective of education authorities, and the proposal of multi-method approach.
However, taking in consideration reviewer’s comment to improve our manuscript, we have cited in the conclusions section previous evidence to support our conclusions and to give them more significance and validity (page 45 and 46 of the manuscript).
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
N/A
