Standard Measuring of E-Learning to Assess the Quality Level of E-Learning Outcomes: Saudi Electronic University Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for conducting this study. You addressed a valuable question; however, the manuscript needs some revisions before publication.
- What is the difference between E-learning and e-learning? Please use a consistent version instead of two versions.
- Line 204: The following countries were selected in order to identify the key e-learning quality assessment standards they employ. Can you explain why these countries were chosen? Provide a rationale for the selection.
- Methods: Did you use a rubric to observe? Add more details about the observation process. In line 313, what year is it? You just mentioned August. Also include the year. How many departments are there? Line 330 -333; Is this survey related to your data collection? Could you please elaborate? Line 341-342; Is this survey conducted by you? Line 358: Open-ended questions were asked…? It would be helpful if you rewrite/restructure your methodology. There is a lot of confusion in the current form. Make use of subheadings. Please add more details about the questionnaire, observation, and documents. Data analysis: how did you do it? Please provide some examples.
- There is a Key observation and discussion heading, but it is not a proper discussion. The discussion is an integral part of the process. You must compare your findings to previous studies and explain whether they agree or disagree. Without discussion, it is merely a report or a description.
- Conclusion: An excellent concluding section notes the limitations of the study. It should mention the scope for further research as well as the implications/application of the study.
- Suggested Readings from MDPI & others: The following papers would assist you with revising your manuscript (Methodology, Discussion, etc.). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141911813, https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211055724, https://peerj.com/articles/12061/
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1- Please compare your results with the literature.
2- Please proofread the text for grammar.
3- Please provide descriptive statistics of data by interpreting these values.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This research is an attempt to address the existing gaps observed following a review of the literature, by developing a reliable and valid e-learning quality standard measurement model in order to assess quality from both the instructors’ and the students’ perspectives in the context of higher education. The research collected qualitative data using an observation method.
This is a well written text with appropriate literature and structure/order. Some more explanation and reference in the abstract could be made on the specific observation method used , not just the survey, etc. but also through the online software used at the university, etc.. This is quite a novel approach and it is worth mentioning. For some/traditionally observation methods refer to observing the subjects (people in a setting), and perhaps the reader maybe misled by the use of the word at first sight. This doesn't imply that it is wrongly used as a method, but it will help if all the methods (form the surveys to the digital platforms, as well as numbers of students etc..) used are referred to in the abstract.
A longer conclusion section could enlighten the reader as of the contribution to current discourse. Aldo, limitations of research could be noted more elaborately.
Section 2.1.4. Maybe here it is good to include also Belgium, as Flanders is part of Belgian territory. Please check.
Some minor editing/typos, missing info (e.g., in lines: 306, typesize of text between 333-337, 522)
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. This one looks much better in its current form.
It only needs a few minor corrections.
Line 172-180; Please add a citation to support your claim.
Line 599 Limitations and Further Research Directions
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
