Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good introduction covering key reports and issues.

A small point for consideration: 'students with disabilities' would make more sense as the disabilities are often multiple, rather than 'students with disability'. The same should be considered when this is used in the introduction and other sections.

Perhaps the last sentence of this first section "...there are few studies that focus on the application and effectiveness of these media in the university context, as well as the potential of these media in the learning of students with disability" needs a sharper focus? There is quite a lot written, for example, about the potential of assistive technologies in universities, some of which is already cited here, but also for example: 

Fichten, C. S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J. V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., ... & Wolforth, J. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241-256.

McNicholl, A., Casey, H., Desmond, D., & Gallagher, P. (2021). The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(2), 130-143.

Seale, J. K. (2013). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. Routledge.

So I wonder if you could revise this to a more specific description of where there is a gap in research which you seek to fill?

On page 3, line 102, it says that these technologies 'are intuitive'. This is perhaps too strong a statement? It could be better to say that they can be intuitive but are not always. 

A strength of the paper is the really good approach to use student perceptions of which faculty are being inclusive.

Page 4 Line 187-188: Can you clarify the statistic given here. Is this the number of students across these six institutions, across all Spanish public universities? Or all Spanish higher education? Also, what proportion of the total number of students does this represent? For an international audience it is good to be very clear and give this wider context.

Could you expand the detail about the data analysis approach? E.g. Was a particular process followed to establish the codes? Was it an iterative process going back and reviewing? Were multiple people involved in this?

Training is raised as a key area in the discussion, but it is less clear how this theme emerged from the findings. Some of this is implicit in the quotes related to the third objective, but the link could be clearer. How / where does the evidence of a lack of training really arise in this? The strength of this research is that it has identified those who have good practices. Perhaps the argument needs to be added (using the data and literature) that these practices need to be shared more widely through training?

The results presented around diversity (page 9 line 377 onwards) do link well to UDL and it would be good to see a clearer analysis of which principles / criteria of UDL are being referred to here. Are there some elements of UDL that faculty are doing, and some that they are not? UDL is both a recognised framework and something that has been critiqued. It would be good if the paper could contribute further to how elements of UDL are being seen in practice or not. 

Overall this is a good paper but could be improved in the areas above to make it as strong as possible.

Author Response

Good introduction covering key reports and issues.

A small point for consideration: 'students with disabilities' would make more sense as the disabilities are often multiple, rather than 'students with disability'. The same should be considered when this is used in the introduction and other sections.

We agree with this assessment. However, we have decided to keep the term "Students with disability", in accordance with the international reports produced by UNESCO (Salamanca Declaration, for example) and thus maintain continuity with the papers we have been publishing within our research team.

Perhaps the last sentence of this first section "...there are few studies that focus on the application and effectiveness of these media in the university context, as well as the potential of these media in the learning of students with disability" needs a sharper focus? There is quite a lot written, for example, about the potential of assistive technologies in universities, some of which is already cited here, but also for example: 

Fichten, C. S., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J. V., Chwojka, C., Barile, M., Nguyen, M. N., ... & Wolforth, J. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241-256.

McNicholl, A., Casey, H., Desmond, D., & Gallagher, P. (2021). The impact of assistive technology use for students with disabilities in higher education: a systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(2), 130-143.

Seale, J. K. (2013). E-learning and Disability in Higher Education: Accessibility Research and Practice. Routledge.

So I wonder if you could revise this to a more specific description of where there is a gap in research which you seek to fill?

Thank you for the recommendation. We have reworded this paragraph and added some recommended references, with the aim of putting the focus on moving towards technologies for all learners, without the need to differentiate between "assistive technology" and "technology".

On page 3, line 102, it says that these technologies 'are intuitive'. This is perhaps too strong a statement? It could be better to say that they can be intuitive but are not always. 

We have included this indication in the document.

A strength of the paper is the really good approach to use student perceptions of which faculty are being inclusive.

Thank you for this very positive assessment of the paper.

Page 4 Line 187-188: Can you clarify the statistic given here. Is this the number of students across these six institutions, across all Spanish public universities? Or all Spanish higher education? Also, what proportion of the total number of students does this represent? For an international audience it is good to be very clear and give this wider context.

Thank you for your comment. The section has been modified to refer more specifically to the data.

Could you expand the detail about the data analysis approach? E.g. Was a particular process followed to establish the codes? Was it an iterative process going back and reviewing? Were multiple people involved in this?

This is a very pertinent comment, for which we are grateful. More detailed information has been added on the data analysis process that has been followed.

Training is raised as a key area in the discussion, but it is less clear how this theme emerged from the findings. Some of this is implicit in the quotes related to the third objective, but the link could be clearer. How / where does the evidence of a lack of training really arise in this? The strength of this research is that it has identified those who have good practices. Perhaps the argument needs to be added (using the data and literature) that these practices need to be shared more widely through training?

Thank you for your appreciation. We have added the argument you recommended, which undoubtedly reinforces the discussion in the article.

The results presented around diversity (page 9 line 377 onwards) do link well to UDL and it would be good to see a clearer analysis of which principles / criteria of UDL are being referred to here. Are there some elements of UDL that faculty are doing, and some that they are not? UDL is both a recognised framework and something that has been critiqued. It would be good if the paper could contribute further to how elements of UDL are being seen in practice or not. 

Considering this suggestion, a paragraph has been added after the mention of UDL, making explicit the reasons why faculty members apply the principles of UDL to their inclusive practices with ICTs.

Overall this is a good paper but could be improved in the areas above to make it as strong as possible.

Thank you very much for all your comments, recommendations and suggestions. They have undoubtedly helped to strengthen the article. We hope that all these modifications are in line with the review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the study is an important issue for society. It is also suitable for the purpose and scope of the journal. If the title consists of a single sentence, it will make the identity of the article more obvious. The summary of the study is in a good structure. The problem is clearly stated in the Introduction section. However, the theoretical background for using educational technologies in higher education can be added. A table reflecting the demographic characteristics of the participants can be added. The results part can be given in 3 subtitles following the purposes of the study. It will be in a better structure. The discussion section is clear and understandable. However, the limitations of the study should be presented.

In future studies, conducting detailed interviews with students may be recommended.

Author Response

The subject of the study is an important issue for society. It is also suitable for the purpose and scope of the journal.

Thank you for such a positive review of the paper. We hope that the changes made will meet your expectations.

If the title consists of a single sentence, it will make the identity of the article more obvious. The summary of the study is in a good structure. The problem is clearly stated in the Introduction section.

We have changed the title of the article to conform to your recommendation.

However, the theoretical background for using educational technologies in higher education can be added

We have added a few more references to support the theoretical background.

A table reflecting the demographic characteristics of the participants can be added.

The table with the profile of the participants has been added.

The results part can be given in 3 subtitles following the purposes of the study.

Three subtitles have been included to respond to your suggestion, which certainly helps the reader to find their way around the results section.

It will be in a better structure. The discussion section is clear and understandable. However, the limitations of the study should be presented.

The limitations of the study have been included

In future studies, conducting detailed interviews with students may be recommended.

Thank you for your recommendation. We are currently carrying out an R+D research project where we are interviewing students with disabilities to find out what are the academic success factors, both internal and external, for students with disabilities at university.