Educational Technology as a Support Tool for Students with Specific Learning Difficulties—Future Education Professionals’ Perspective
, José Luis Cuesta-Gómez, Vanesa Delgado-Benito and Raquel de la Fuente-Anuncibay
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
On line 19 of the abstract, the word "is" is missing.
Line 57 - There are two final points at the end of the sentence.
On page 2, please revise the wording under the bullet points in section 1.1 (e.g., The ET is help in should read The ET helps in, lines 62, 64, and 65)).
Line 71 - Should not have a bullet point.
Line 82 - The sentence does not have an end.
On page 9, the authors conclude that few students consider that ET contributes to the support of students with SLD. However, in Table 3, the corresponding question is "Allows for the diagnosis of students with SLD".
The conclusion taken does not seem to match the question posed. This should be clarified.
References on pages 11 and 12 are not numbered.
Author Response
Burgos, April 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
Following your recommendations, we have made the suggested changes in each of the aspects outlined, making substantial improvements to our article.
Regarding the language and style in English, a revision has been carried out in order to correct grammatical errors, as well as to improve the clarity of the writing in English.
Regarding the formal aspects, the article has been reviewed in its entirety in order to correct and improve them, adapting them to the reviewers' suggestions.
Regarding the size of the columns, the recommendations established by the journal have been followed, which indicate that "To facilitate the copy-editing of larger tables, smaller fonts may be used, but no less than 8 pt. in size". In this respect, the font size used in Tables 1, 2 and 3 is 9 pt.
The introductory section has been revised taking into account the suggestions of Reviser 2.
With regard to the suggestion to include a specific section on literature review, the bibliographic contribution has been expanded in accordance with the suggestions made by Reviewers 3 and 4.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, the objective of the research has been reformulated to improve the structure of the article in accordance with the conclusions.
In relation to the suggestion to establish research hypotheses, in our work there is no room for the formulation of hypotheses as we do not study cause-effect relationships.
As for the comment made by Reviewer 3, we are aware of the sample limitations of our study since the sample is made up of students from a single university. In this respect, we appreciate the suggestion and will take it into account in future research.
The current manuscript deals with the context of Educational Technology with specific learning difficulties. This is an important topic since learning difficulties reduce the student's ability to acquire and develop some educational skills, so we consider important the research that is developed around the knowledge of this topic in university students in order to improve their training in the field of educational technology and inclusive education. We thank Reviewers 2 and 3 for these contributions.
Following on from the contributions made by Reviewer 3, in relation to the presentation of results, our contribution presents the results of a quantitative research with a descriptive character. Using a descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational methodology with the aim of finding out the vision of future education professionals on the use of educational technology for students with Specific Learning Difficulties.
In agreement with Reviewer 1, the conclusions section has been revised in relation to the research objective.
In accordance with Reviewers 1 and 3, the numbering has been included in the list of bibliographical references on pages 11 and 12.
Without further ado, we submit the new version of the manuscript for your consideration and remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to one of the topical issues of modern education, namely, the study of the orientation of teachers to the application of inclusive education practices for teaching children with special educational needs.
Methods correspond to the goal. Outputs reflect the results of the work.
The study is interesting and useful for teachers and scientists in theoretical and practical aspects.
Unfortunately, the authors use very cumbersome sentences. Sometimes 1 paragraph equals 1 sentence. The text needs to be improved to achieve clarity of wording.
Also, the section "1.1. Educational Technology" starts with "This educational-technological evolution and the growing presence..." What does "This educational-technological evolution" mean? What kind of evolution are we talking about?
Lines 262 - 270 describe the logic of operation presented in the Results section. It will be more readable if, when designating sections, their names also appear here.
There is a question to the formulation of the goal, in which the word "view" is present.
Perhaps the authors should turn a little more deeply into the terminology and ask themselves the question of what is the practice-oriented activity of the teacher, the technology-oriented mechanism of the practical activity of the teacher. In fact, the authors use these concepts.
The article does not present the question of the essence of inclusive education. However, the authors addressed this issue in the study.
Author Response
Burgos, April 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
Following your recommendations, we have made the suggested changes in each of the aspects outlined, making substantial improvements to our article.
Regarding the language and style in English, a revision has been carried out in order to correct grammatical errors, as well as to improve the clarity of the writing in English.
Regarding the formal aspects, the article has been reviewed in its entirety in order to correct and improve them, adapting them to the reviewers' suggestions.
Regarding the size of the columns, the recommendations established by the journal have been followed, which indicate that "To facilitate the copy-editing of larger tables, smaller fonts may be used, but no less than 8 pt. in size". In this respect, the font size used in Tables 1, 2 and 3 is 9 pt.
The introductory section has been revised taking into account the suggestions of Reviser 2.
With regard to the suggestion to include a specific section on literature review, the bibliographic contribution has been expanded in accordance with the suggestions made by Reviewers 3 and 4.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, the objective of the research has been reformulated to improve the structure of the article in accordance with the conclusions.
In relation to the suggestion to establish research hypotheses, in our work there is no room for the formulation of hypotheses as we do not study cause-effect relationships.
As for the comment made by Reviewer 3, we are aware of the sample limitations of our study since the sample is made up of students from a single university. In this respect, we appreciate the suggestion and will take it into account in future research.
The current manuscript deals with the context of Educational Technology with specific learning difficulties. This is an important topic since learning difficulties reduce the student's ability to acquire and develop some educational skills, so we consider important the research that is developed around the knowledge of this topic in university students in order to improve their training in the field of educational technology and inclusive education. We thank Reviewers 2 and 3 for these contributions.
Following on from the contributions made by Reviewer 3, in relation to the presentation of results, our contribution presents the results of a quantitative research with a descriptive character. Using a descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational methodology with the aim of finding out the vision of future education professionals on the use of educational technology for students with Specific Learning Difficulties.
In agreement with Reviewer 1, the conclusions section has been revised in relation to the research objective.
In accordance with Reviewers 1 and 3, the numbering has been included in the list of bibliographical references on pages 11 and 12.
Without further ado, we submit the new version of the manuscript for your consideration and remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper presents the topic of the use of Educational Technology as a support tool for students with Specific Learning Difficulties (SLD). The aim of the research is to know the vision of future education professionals regarding the use of educational technology for students with SLD. Responding to this objective will allow contributing to the professional development of future professionals who will in the future intervene with students with special educational needs. The study population of the research was 130 students from different teaching degrees at the Faculty of Education of the University of Burgos.
The paper discusses an important topic. Research and its results are clear. The paper is well prepared and well organized. However, as a reviewer, I have the following remarks:
- The research population consists of students of only one university and, moreover, of only one faculty. It may not provide universal and objective results. It is worth expanding the research with students from other universities or at least other faculties.
- The research is too straightforward / simple and too ordinary. I suggest considering using some more sophisticated methods, for example statistics methods of the results. When the presentation of the results improved, the novelty of research may appear. Otherwise, the document has only a questionnaire and responses values. I am afraid that it is not good enough for Sustainability
- I suggest considering setting the research hypothesis.
- I suggest shortening the introduction. I suggest using some of the text from the introduction and creating a chapter called Literature review.
- The references are not numbered in the end of the article. They are just listed. Please follow the template. It must be improved. Currently it is a problem to find the proper literature position because of the lack of numbers.
- I suggest correcting the size of the columns of the table. They should follow the template.
- There are errors in numbering. For example, chapter Results, and then there is 1.1. - instead of 3.1. etc.
- Line 82. ‘level and that’ has not been finished.
Author Response
Burgos, April 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
Following your recommendations, we have made the suggested changes in each of the aspects outlined, making substantial improvements to our article.
Regarding the language and style in English, a revision has been carried out in order to correct grammatical errors, as well as to improve the clarity of the writing in English.
Regarding the formal aspects, the article has been reviewed in its entirety in order to correct and improve them, adapting them to the reviewers' suggestions.
Regarding the size of the columns, the recommendations established by the journal have been followed, which indicate that "To facilitate the copy-editing of larger tables, smaller fonts may be used, but no less than 8 pt. in size". In this respect, the font size used in Tables 1, 2 and 3 is 9 pt.
The introductory section has been revised taking into account the suggestions of Reviser 2.
With regard to the suggestion to include a specific section on literature review, the bibliographic contribution has been expanded in accordance with the suggestions made by Reviewers 3 and 4.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, the objective of the research has been reformulated to improve the structure of the article in accordance with the conclusions.
In relation to the suggestion to establish research hypotheses, in our work there is no room for the formulation of hypotheses as we do not study cause-effect relationships.
As for the comment made by Reviewer 3, we are aware of the sample limitations of our study since the sample is made up of students from a single university. In this respect, we appreciate the suggestion and will take it into account in future research.
The current manuscript deals with the context of Educational Technology with specific learning difficulties. This is an important topic since learning difficulties reduce the student's ability to acquire and develop some educational skills, so we consider important the research that is developed around the knowledge of this topic in university students in order to improve their training in the field of educational technology and inclusive education. We thank Reviewers 2 and 3 for these contributions.
Following on from the contributions made by Reviewer 3, in relation to the presentation of results, our contribution presents the results of a quantitative research with a descriptive character. Using a descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational methodology with the aim of finding out the vision of future education professionals on the use of educational technology for students with Specific Learning Difficulties.
In agreement with Reviewer 1, the conclusions section has been revised in relation to the research objective.
In accordance with Reviewers 1 and 3, the numbering has been included in the list of bibliographical references on pages 11 and 12.
Without further ado, we submit the new version of the manuscript for your consideration and remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The current manuscript is dealing with the context of Educational Technology with specific learning difficulties. This is important topic as ED reduce the student’s ability to acquire and develop some educational skills, such as: reading, writing or pronunciation . However, this manuscript was presented descriptively only and through a questionnaire for some of the tools used, and the results were expected and traditional and were discussed in many previous researches, for example of the first part of the questionnaire in table 1.
The theoretical framework of the research also needs to develop and determine the motivation of the research and what is the relationship of the research questions with the procedures outlined within the study and its relationship to the development of results and recommendations. I think that the research needs a comprehensive review, and I suggest that researchers review the following papers that may be useful in developing this manuscript.
Author Response
Burgos, April 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
First of all, we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
Following your recommendations, we have made the suggested changes in each of the aspects outlined, making substantial improvements to our article.
Regarding the language and style in English, a revision has been carried out in order to correct grammatical errors, as well as to improve the clarity of the writing in English.
Regarding the formal aspects, the article has been reviewed in its entirety in order to correct and improve them, adapting them to the reviewers' suggestions.
Regarding the size of the columns, the recommendations established by the journal have been followed, which indicate that "To facilitate the copy-editing of larger tables, smaller fonts may be used, but no less than 8 pt. in size". In this respect, the font size used in Tables 1, 2 and 3 is 9 pt.
The introductory section has been revised taking into account the suggestions of Reviser 2.
With regard to the suggestion to include a specific section on literature review, the bibliographic contribution has been expanded in accordance with the suggestions made by Reviewers 3 and 4.
In agreement with Reviewer 2, the objective of the research has been reformulated to improve the structure of the article in accordance with the conclusions.
In relation to the suggestion to establish research hypotheses, in our work there is no room for the formulation of hypotheses as we do not study cause-effect relationships.
As for the comment made by Reviewer 3, we are aware of the sample limitations of our study since the sample is made up of students from a single university. In this respect, we appreciate the suggestion and will take it into account in future research.
The current manuscript deals with the context of Educational Technology with specific learning difficulties. This is an important topic since learning difficulties reduce the student's ability to acquire and develop some educational skills, so we consider important the research that is developed around the knowledge of this topic in university students in order to improve their training in the field of educational technology and inclusive education. We thank Reviewers 2 and 3 for these contributions.
Following on from the contributions made by Reviewer 3, in relation to the presentation of results, our contribution presents the results of a quantitative research with a descriptive character. Using a descriptive, cross-sectional, correlational methodology with the aim of finding out the vision of future education professionals on the use of educational technology for students with Specific Learning Difficulties.
In agreement with Reviewer 1, the conclusions section has been revised in relation to the research objective.
In accordance with Reviewers 1 and 3, the numbering has been included in the list of bibliographical references on pages 11 and 12.
Without further ado, we submit the new version of the manuscript for your consideration and remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have tried to improve the text. However, they need to carefully read the phrases (especially added and highlighted in yellow) and ask a specialist in academic English to help them make the text clearer and more precise.
Author Response
Burgos, May 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
Once again we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
We are grateful for the contributions of reviewers 2 and 4, who acknowledge that we authors have made efforts to improve our contribution.
According to reviewer 2, in relation to the academic English writing, the translation service of the journal has been requested to improve the quality of the article.
Regarding the suggestions of reviewers 3 and 4:
- The article has been improved by responding to the suggestions received and the article has been changed as much as possible following the indications.
- In relation to the structure of the article, it has been improved, renumbering sections and including the literature review in the context of the introductory chapter.
- In relation to the methodology used, we reiterate that this is a quantitative research of a descriptive nature, whose methodology allows us to determine the vision of the participant sample with respect to the subject.
- We consider that the research carried out responds to the initial objective, which was to find out what students know about the use of Educational Technology, the perceived usefulness of the use of educational applications and the use of Educational Technology as a support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties. To answer it, a questionnaire was administered consisting of three blocks correlated with the use of Educational Technology, the perceived usefulness of the use of educational applications and the use of Educational Technology as a support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties. Finally, the results are presented according to the above-mentioned blocks.
- The presentation of the results has been improved by including two figures with bar graphs for better visualisation.
- We are aware that the participating sample is not large, but it is a first study and our intention is to continue with this research, expanding the sample with students from different universities in order to obtain more generalisable results. However, we are grateful for these suggestions.
We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors did not put much effort to improve their paper. Only small errors were corrected. The authors did not try to work on more important issues suggested by the reviewer.
The structure of the article was not corrected – there is no literature review chapter still.
No sophisticated statistical methods were added / used in the research - despite the fact that the reviewer clearly suggested that. The presentation of the results has not been improved. Therefore, the article shows only very simple results. There is only a survey and its results – just in numbers / percentage. In my opinion, the research is just poor then.
Lines 16 and 17 are neglected.
Author Response
Burgos, May 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
Once again we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
We are grateful for the contributions of reviewers 2 and 4, who acknowledge that we authors have made efforts to improve our contribution.
According to reviewer 2, in relation to the academic English writing, the translation service of the journal has been requested to improve the quality of the article.
Regarding the suggestions of reviewers 3 and 4:
- The article has been improved by responding to the suggestions received and the article has been changed as much as possible following the indications.
- In relation to the structure of the article, it has been improved, renumbering sections and including the literature review in the context of the introductory chapter.
- In relation to the methodology used, we reiterate that this is a quantitative research of a descriptive nature, whose methodology allows us to determine the vision of the participant sample with respect to the subject.
- We consider that the research carried out responds to the initial objective, which was to find out what students know about the use of Educational Technology, the perceived usefulness of the use of educational applications and the use of Educational Technology as a support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties. To answer it, a questionnaire was administered consisting of three blocks correlated with the use of Educational Technology, the perceived usefulness of the use of educational applications and the use of Educational Technology as a support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties. Finally, the results are presented according to the above-mentioned blocks.
- The presentation of the results has been improved by including two figures with bar graphs for better visualisation.
- We are aware that the participating sample is not large, but it is a first study and our intention is to continue with this research, expanding the sample with students from different universities in order to obtain more generalisable results. However, we are grateful for these suggestions.
We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
I think that the researchers tried to make an effort to improve this manuscript, but there are many issues that show the lack of correlation of the idea of the research with the results or recommendations, in addition to the weakness of the methodology, so it is preferable to rewrite the current manuscript in a more comprehensive way and I wish them success.
Author Response
Burgos, May 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
Once again we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
We are grateful for the contributions of reviewers 2 and 4, who acknowledge that we authors have made efforts to improve our contribution.
According to reviewer 2, in relation to the academic English writing, the translation service of the journal has been requested to improve the quality of the article.
Regarding the suggestions of reviewers 3 and 4:
- The article has been improved by responding to the suggestions received and the article has been changed as much as possible following the indications.
- In relation to the structure of the article, it has been improved, renumbering sections and including the literature review in the context of the introductory chapter.
- In relation to the methodology used, we reiterate that this is a quantitative research of a descriptive nature, whose methodology allows us to determine the vision of the participant sample with respect to the subject.
- We consider that the research carried out responds to the initial objective, which was to find out what students know about the use of Educational Technology, the perceived usefulness of the use of educational applications and the use of Educational Technology as a support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties. To answer it, a questionnaire was administered consisting of three blocks correlated with the use of Educational Technology, the perceived usefulness of the use of educational applications and the use of Educational Technology as a support for students with Specific Learning Difficulties. Finally, the results are presented according to the above-mentioned blocks.
- The presentation of the results has been improved by including two figures with bar graphs for better visualisation.
- We are aware that the participating sample is not large, but it is a first study and our intention is to continue with this research, expanding the sample with students from different universities in order to obtain more generalisable results. However, we are grateful for these suggestions.
We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I have suggested that there should be two different sections: 1. Introduction. 2. Literature review, instead of one long.
Author Response
Burgos, May 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
Once again we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
We resubmit the version of our article responding to the minor revisions demanded by the reviewers.
In response to Reviewer 3 suggestion, the text has been restructured, including two different sections: 1. Introduction and 2. Literature review.
On the other hand, we appreciate the contributions of Reviewer 4, which have been included in section 2.1. Educational Technology.
We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for your work in modifying your paper. This version is much better than the initial one. I think it would be better to support section 1.1. Educational Technology included some AI features e.g.
Williamson, B., & Eynon, R. (2020). Historical threads, missing links, and future directions in AI in education. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(3), 223-235. Yousef, A. M. F., Atia, A., Youssef, A., Eldien, N. A. S., Hamdy, A., Abd El-Haleem, A. M., & Elmesalawy, M. M. (2021, December). Automatic Identification of Student’s Cognitive Style from Online Laboratory Experimentation using Machine Learning Techniques. In 2021 IEEE 12th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON) (pp. 0143-0149). IEEE. Miao, F., Holmes, W., Huang, R., & Zhang, H. (2021). AI and education: A guidance for policymakers. UNESCO Publishing.Author Response
Burgos, May 2022
Dear editor and reviewers of the journal Sustainability,
Once again we would like to thank you for taking the time to read and review our contribution. Your contributions and suggestions have undoubtedly contributed to the substantial improvement of our research article.
We resubmit the version of our article responding to the minor revisions demanded by the reviewers.
In response to Reviewer 3 suggestion, the text has been restructured, including two different sections: 1. Introduction and 2. Literature review.
On the other hand, we appreciate the contributions of Reviewer 4, which have been included in section 2.1. Educational Technology.
We remain at your disposal for any questions you may have.
Thank you very much for your attention, and we send you our best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
