YouTube as a Digital Resource for Sustainable Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the paper “YouTube, as a digital resource for sustainable education”. The paper addresses an interesting and well researched theme in the recent period about the implications of using the online service of YouTube as a formal, informal and nonformal channel or medium for education and educational resources. The paper is also in line with the section “Sustainable Education and Approaches” and with the special issue it was submitted to: “Digital Learning for Education Sustainability”.

The authors responded and explained with reasonable arguments and corrected all the remarks and observations highlighted in the previous review and the results suggest a more consistent and logical text.

To sum it up, the authors developed a more in-depth theoretical presentation about the subject, integrating some of the suggested aspects of the review.

-          I consider that the paper is publishable after a final check from the authors and after considering the revision of the Line 49: “Although there are studies on the use of social networks [16]”, as stated in the previous review. The authors are suggesting a plural: “there are studies”, but the cited work contains only one study “Este artículo presenta los resultados de un estudio sobre la utilización que hacen los jóvenes andaluces de las redes sociales.”

-          To correct and enhance Line 45, please add more studies to support the idea that “Although there are studies on the use of social networks [16]” in different fields: “Participatory culture and tourist experience: Promoting destinations through YouTube”; “Communities and networks: using social network analysis to rethink urban and community studies”; “The relationship between online social networking and depression: A systematic review of quantitative studies”, etc.

Author Response

Greetings,
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for his work, which helps to improve the quality of published works. 
Secondly, the following corrections have been made:
Revision of the English text.
Correction of line 49, incorporating more quotations as requested and making the text more coherent. Thank you for your comment.
Finally, regarding the final comment on the inclusion of research articles expressing the value of YouTube as a tool in many fields, the suggestion is appreciated. However, the authors feel that the entire paper focuses on YouTube as a learning tool, and therefore the papers cited should follow this line of research. The aim is to contextualise the subject matter for the reader as much as possible.
Kind regards

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Love your revision. Clearly I can see what your manuscript was improved. Thanks

Author Response

Greetings,
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for his work, which helps to improve the quality of published works. 
Secondly, the authors would like to thank you for your positive evaluation.
Kind regards

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall feature and flow of this manuscript looks excellent!! A logical flow of introduction, literature, methods, results, and conclusions included relevant descriptions for a complete manuscript. However, for the potential readers, please consider several issues to improve the quality of this manuscript.

[Abstract] looks perfect!! But please consider including implication or recommendation or contribution of this study to the area in the last part of the abstract. It will be a meaningful and useful abstract for the readers.

[Methods] For factor analysis, you should mention the validity by expert before going to the statistical analysis. Also, this manuscript contained the exploratory factor analysis to identify the number of factors withing the instrument. You should provide detailed information to the readers regarding the EFA. (e.g. Eigen value, interpretative explanation for insufficient sample..). Please check the IRB (not applicable??)

[Discussion & conclusions] Please build up this part. Particularly, this manuscript needs recommendations for further studies or implications of the conclusions to the field of educational field related to the sustainable education.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article “YouTube, as a digital resource for sustainable education”. The paper addresses an interesting and well researched theme in the recent period about the implications of using the online service of YouTube as a formal, informal and nonformal channel or medium for education and educational resources. The paper is also in line with the section “Sustainable Education and Approaches” and with the special issue it was submitted to: “Digital Learning for Education Sustainability”.

This study represents a new approach in the field, discussing the subject that needs to be comprehensively analyzed because “the use of YouTube as an educational resource in formal education is becoming more frequent and its use is increasingly widespread at all levels of education”, as the authors underline.

Also, the study is written in an adequate manner and the results are presented clearly and coherently, using visuals and text. The tables presented in the paper were relevant to explore the results of the research and the ways these were adapted to the explanations in the text.

As the authors say, one conclusion assumes that “the constructs of preference and mediation, belonging to the sociocultural approach, applied in this study to analyze the interaction of users with YouTube, constitute a new prism to observe technological interaction for informal learning”, informing the readers about limits of the study at the end of the paper.

Moreover, there are some important observations that should be addressed in this revision.

-          Line 45, please add more studies to support the idea that “Although there are studies on the use of social networks [16]” in different fields: “Participatory culture and tourist experience: Promoting destinations through YouTube”; “Communities and networks: using social network analysis to rethink urban and community studies”; “The relationship between online social networking and depression: A systematic review of quantitative studies”, etc.

-          Line 86-87 these ideas need citations.

-          Section 6. Discussion and conclusions should be divided into Discussions; Conclusions and add Limitations and Future directions of the theme of the study.

-          Delete section 7. Patents

-          Develop more the idea of “digital natives and immigrants”

-          Correct all the typos in the text (e.g., line 308, 343, 345, etc.) and delete the empty lines between paragraphs.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the paper “YouTube, as a digital resource for sustainable education”.    

The authors responded and explained with reasonable arguments and corrected all the remarks and observations highlighted in the previous review and the results suggest a more consistent and logical text.

To sum it up, the authors developed a more in-depth theoretical presentation about the subject, integrating some of the suggested aspects of the review.

I consider that the paper is publishable after a final check from the authors and after considering the revision of the Line 49: “Although there are studies on the use of social networks [16]”, as stated in the previous review. The authors are suggesting a plural: “there are studies”, but the cited work contains only one study “Este artículo presenta los resultados de un estudio sobre la utilización que hacen los jóvenes andaluces de las redes sociales.”