Assessing Undergraduate Students’ e-Learning Competencies: A Case Study of Higher Education Context in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The research topic was not original.
2. The abstract could be more brief.
3. The study lacked a theoretical basis.
4. The measurement was only based on subjective tool, which was the questionnaire. An objective measurement tool should also be provide for a more accurate result.
5. The section Result should be separated from the section Method.
6. Tense agreements should be double checked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The wording can be improved in general to avoid constant repetition of terms within the same paragraph. There are only two references that allude to the Covid-19 pandemic, which are also not articles. It would be interesting to complete with more current bibliographic references and that similar studies have been carried out in other territories after the pandemic.

It would also be advisable to review the references to unify the form (in most cases the date appears in bold, but not in others, for example)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

After analysing the manuscript "Assessing undergraduate students' e-learning competencies: A case study of Higher Education Context in Indonesia" I can indicate that the manuscript is very relevant and interesting for the scientific community for two main reasons: because of the use of e-learning method, which is very relevant nowadays; and because of the context in which it is developed, since there are not many relevant studies in Indonesia on the use of e-learning method. The procedure followed in the study is rigorous and adequate. Even so, I recommend the authors to pay attention to the following issues:

1.- The theoretical framework is relevant, but I recommend the authors to come up with 40 references on the field of study. I recommend this manuscript to be included and referenced in other studies on e-learning:

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/8/5/840

2.- On line 276, -1.9 is repeated.
3.- I recommend the authors to include a new section, after conclusions, on the theoretical and practical implications of this study. I consider that this could be very interesting for the scientific community and for educational administrations.

I congratulate the authors on their work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The research topic, which was not originial, was not revised.
2. The abstract was not brief. 
3. A theoretical basis was added.
4. The Rasch model analysis was provided for an objective measurement.
5. The section Result was seperated from the section Method.
6. Tense agreements in the section Result should be double checked.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The research topic has been revised.
2. The length of the abstract is fine. 
3. English language and style is fine.