The Ethical Dimension of Emerging Technologies in Engineering Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a position paper (line 35, 308, 422), about emerging technologies in engineering education, focusing on the ethical dimension according to the title of the article. The position of the author is that when analyzing emerging technologies in engineering education, an ethical dimension should be considered.
Comments and suggestions
Minor issues:
EdTech is defined in line 222. However, the term EdTech appears previously, without detailing what the term stands for in lines 39, 50, 63. It should be defined the first time the term is written.
MOOC. The acronym is first defined in line 208. How, the acronym is previously cited, in lines 44 and 90. It should be defined the first time the term is written.
Line 41.- complicated development! ; perhaps a full stop at the end of the sentence?
Line 89.- human consequences! ; perhaps a full stop at the end of the sentence?
Some considerations …
Would not be better to change the name of epigraph 2 (Material and Method) and epigraph 3 (Results) in order to reflect the content?
Epigraph ‘2.4 The Ethical Dimension’
This epigraph deals with ‘online education’, ‘MOOCs’, and ‘EdTech industry’. The subsection apparently is not related specifically with the ethical dimension.
Focusing more in deep on the ethical dimension in subsection 2 would allow to reinforce the statement in line 353 to 356, besides supporting what is stated in the conclusion section.
References
Some issues:
4. Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (Pandemic Privatisation in Higher Education : Edtech & University Reform (p. 80). 2021.
24. Hartong, Sigrid (2022) The complexities of understanding the datafication of schooling: disentangling infrastructures, people 500 and practices. Keynote at the conference “Digital education governance beyond international comparative assessment: complex 501 histories, contested presents, and contingent futures”, 2022, online, 25.-26.5.22. Link.
DOI is missed in…
29. The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo, surveillance and a performative classroom culture
Jamie Manolev; Anna Sullivan; Roger Slee. Pages 36-51. 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1558237
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review. This was helpful to correct the minor issues mentioned.
Furthermore, the consideration about changing the name of the epigraph 2. I have moved some text from epigraph 3 to 2 and edit some text so the introduction of 2 is now more in line with what one can expect of the title Material and Methods and 3. Results.
I have moved epigraph 2.4 ‘the Ethical Dimension’ to position 2.5 which was on ‘the EdTech Reality’ and added more substance to this epigraph to reinforce the ‘Ethical Dimension’.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for writing this paper that nicely summarises the state of art in ed-tech literature and provides an ethical analysis of this literature.
I think the paper can be accepted as it is, after undergoing some minor revisions.
I suggest to the author to do a search for the term "very" and delete it from where is possible. Sometimes we find constructs such as "very many" which are incorrect. The word "very" does not add much to the argument in most instances.
Some other edits that are needed:
page 1, lines 31-32: i suggest removing the "and other realities".
page 2, lines 48-49: the claim that educational policies are not embracing technical opportunities needs substantiation - a reference. If it is an opinion of the author, this needs to be stated clearly.
page 4, line 202: i suggest replacing the word "vivid" with "active"
page 5, line 230: the author claims that MOOC providers are non-profit initiatives. Given that most of these providers do demand taxes for their courses, either for the full version or for some tier of courses, I wonder if this is the case. Perhaps the author could look closer into the matter if these are indeed non-profits and where does the money for their courses go to. I think it is important to not represent them as companies providing free education to the public, when they clearly have a for-profit model behind them.
page 6, line 292: please mention who organized said conference.
page 9, line 449: perhaps rephrase more clearly the phrase "an ethics of futures thinking in education" - it is not clear what it refers to, who does the thinking...
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review which was helpful to correct some issues.
I have followed your suggestions for edits by replacing, removing and or rephrasing the different issues mentioned.
Reviewer 3 Report
Topic is suitable for the journal. There are very few references in this paper, since paper is based on al literature review, additional 70-100 references necessary to bring more dept to the study.
Technologies selected are appropriate. Perhaps refer to various universities around the globe or in a particular country if country focus. Also bring out some facts, numbers, percentages to better get the points across.
Great start but I do not think this is a complete study as is.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review which was helpful to reconsider some issues.
This clearly is a position paper aiming to clarify the complexity and lower the threshold to achieve a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies in higher engineering education. The target groups really are those who want to become familiar with the subject and not so much a profound study on the entire field, which would be of another scale.
The paper relates to experiences in the field combined with research. I have added some references, but not the number you mentioned.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Updates to the paper has been made.
