E-Learning Model to Identify the Learning Styles of Hearing-Impaired Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is very interesting. The abstract is very legible and well designed. The strength of the work is the methodology, the way it is conducted and presented. The work's weaknesses are a review of the literature that isn't very good in terms of the most recent studies and a conclusion that is short and doesn't say much. Introduction. At this point, the authors explain the importance of the topic in a very interesting way. However, there is no information on what the purpose of the work is, what the novelty of the work is, or what the gap fills in the work. I also recommend that you describe how the manuscript is structured. The methodology is presented in an interesting way. Figure 1 - illegible, it is recommended to enlarge it and insert it separately as an attachment. Table 3 - only style symbols are given without description. They are given in the text of the work, but the reader must look for them, so it would be better if they were explained as a legend under the table or in the table. Figures 5 and 6 lack a description of the X and Y axes. It is not known what the numbers 1-50 mean. I recommend that you complete this. Conclusion: quite short and general. I recommend that you refer to the purpose of the methodology and the results achieved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract section can be revised clearly for better understanding. I recommend this section can briefly mention the Objectives/purposes/aims, Method and Results of the study.
2. The title of the manuscript can be shortened as the current title is lengthy.
3. A short note on the reset of the section can be mentioned at the end of the Introduction section.
4. What is the novelty of the study? It does not mention anywhere. The authors can include the same in the Introduction section.
5. The authors can include the research gap at the end of the literature review.
6. Why did the hypotheses are not framed? They can give more validity to the study.
7. Table 1 caption can be shortened.
8. When has the data been collected from the respondents? The authors can mention the duration of the study as well.
9. Which subject(s) is taken into consideration in the present study for assessing HI students’ learning? It does not mention anywhere. The authors have mentioned more generics in relation to the subject.
10. Instead of revealing the results in the discussion section, the obtained results can be compared with the results of the existing related research. For instance, how far the present research findings are different from the existing research findings or parallel to them, etc.
11. In the conclusion section, the authors have elaborated the summary of the overall research; instead, they can give unique outcomes of the present study.
12. Please give the direction for future research.
13. The citations older than 2010 can be replaced by new ones.
14. The following articles can be cited in the revised manuscript as it is more related to the present study.
· Srivani, V., Hariharasudan, A., Nawaz, N., & Ratajczak, S. (2022). Impact of education 4.0 among engineering students for learning English language. PLoS ONE, 17(2 February) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261717
· Hariharasudan, A., & Kot, S. (2018). A Scoping Review on Digital English and Education 4.0 for Industry 4.0. Social Sciences, 7(11) doi:10.3390/socsci7110227
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to revise the paper “E - Learning Model to Identify the Learning Styles of Hearing-Impaired Students through Learning Preference and Principles of Universal Design for Learning”.
The paper seems to deal with an interesting and relevant topic, and it is well written in general. It can therefore make a good contribution to the literature, but there are some aspects that I consider the authors should pay attention to:
First of all, I think it would be important to clarify the specific geographic context in which the study has been conducted, in the title, abstract, and introduction, so it is clear for the reader.
Second, the introduction should clearly state the goal and/or research question of the paper.
Third, the second section should be called “Literature Review”.
Please avoid too many references as a batch (see for example section 2.4 and 2.5). Please discuss the different papers more individually, or cite only the most relevant ones.
In the literature review it is not needed to discuss what the estimations methods do (see for example sections 2.6; 2.7 and 2.8). This information could be included, if needed, in the methods section.
If the paper employs t-tests and such, how is that the authors indicate the paper is qualitative?
Section 6 could be merged with section 5; and section 7 is not needed as it does not add much.
It would be good to include a paragraph with the limitations of the paper and the specific areas for future research that arise from them.
The sentence: “The whole research method can be concluded as follows:” should be reworded, the verb “concluded” does not fit well here.
Good luck with your research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors put a lot of effort into improving the manuscript. Thank you very much for this effort. The work looks very good. The drawings are legible thanks to the addition of a short interpretation in the text. The authors could add some more studies from 2022 that would be of value to the work.
Author Response
We already added the suggested content and added some more studies to the revised manuscript.
- citation 69 to paragraph 4 page 7
- citation 74 to page 9
Once again, we greatly appreciate your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript well, as suggested. It may consider for publication after a necessary check from the journal.
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 3 Report
I see the authors have improved the paper based on the recommendations they received from the reviewers, but I see some of my comments were not addressed.
First, please do not cite many articles as a batch. Instead, cite them more individually and discuss them.
Second, my point about the t-test was misunderstood. I understand what was done, but my question is, why do you say the paper is qualitative (and not quantitative?).
Good luck
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no further comments
