Digital Transformation and Teaching Innovation in Higher Education: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study has made quite limited or no new contributions to the field.
The study's research questions were already investigated by numerous other studies in the existing literature. Authors could add updated research questions.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been over for a long time. The effects of the pandemic should have been investigated right after the epidemic, not now. I believe that this is an old study and authors want to publish it now.
I suggest authors to increase the number of participant to the study also. Also the limited number of participants are quite problematic even for a qualitative study.
The study does not have a proper a proper literature review section. I suggest authors to extend the introduction section and also add a separate related research section and link the relevant sources related to the addressed research questions.
My suggestion to the authors since their main aim is to conduct a mixed study. They can do a thorough systematic literature review with the given research questions and after that, they can compare and contrast the findings of their study to the outcomes of the systematic literature review. This will aid researchers in cross-checking the challenges and opportunities addressed by the participants in the study.
The discussion section should be written to address each research question and the findings discussed with the relevant studies.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Proof reading is required.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, we thank you for your comments and suggestions on the review. Below we detail our feedback to the comments you have made to us:
-The study has made quite limited or no new contributions to the field. The study's research questions were already investigated by numerous other studies in the existing literature. Authors could add updated research questions.
We have included new references in the introduction of the article to justify our contribution.
-The COVID-19 pandemic has been over for a long time. The effects of the pandemic should have been investigated right after the epidemic, not now. I believe that this is an old study and authors want to publish it now.
Our research is post-pandemic, and is currently continuing to deepen the consequences of this challenge, especially in terms of digitization.
-I suggest authors to increase the number of participant to the study also. Also the limited number of participants are quite problematic even for a qualitative study.
The interviews were conducted with all the people who manage ICT (managers and heads) at this university. That is, the total population.
-The study does not have a proper literature review section. I suggest authors to extend the introduction section and also add a separate related research section and link the relevant sources related to the addressed research questions.
We have included new references.
-My suggestion to the authors since their main aim is to conduct a mixed study. They can do a thorough systematic literature review with the given research questions and after that, they can compare and contrast the findings of their study to the outcomes of the systematic literature review. This will aid researchers in cross-checking the challenges and opportunities addressed by the participants in the study.
We find this proposal very interesting, but the objective of our study is not to perform a systematic analysis.
-The discussion section should be written to address each research question and the findings discussed with the relevant studies.
The research questions (resource management, challenges and opportunities, and their effects on Digital transformation) are in line with the questions asked in the interviews.
We thank you again, and hope that with this revision the article will be of interest to you.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors:
Thank you for submitting your paper to MDPI. The topic of the paper is interesting and up to date, with average academic soundness, as there is already a wide variety of post-pandemic case studies on the topic. However, it is important to highlight that scientific research also advances with case studies that aim to confirm or deny some previous research, allowing more contextualized scientific knowledge. Minor issues were detected, and some small notes are provided.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of English is good.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, we thank you for your comments and suggestions on the review. Below we detail our feedback to the comments you have made to us:
-Thank you for submitting your paper to MDPI. The topic of the paper is interesting and up to date, with average academic soundness, as there is already a wide variety of post-pandemic case studies on the topic. However, it is important to highlight that scientific research also advances with case studies that aim to confirm or deny some previous research, allowing more contextualized scientific knowledge. Minor issues were detected, and some small notes are provided.
We have corrected the article based on the comments you sent us in the PDF.
We thank you again, and hope that with this revision the article will be of interest to you.
Best regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting overview of the experiences of one particular university through the increased need for digital/online delivery and work situation due to Covid. As this was an unprecedented event for teaching, it is important that these studies are conducted.
However, it would be helpful to frame this one more specifically. I believe this university's experience is different from the majority due to the university's commitment to online learning processes prior to the pandemic; and financial issues did not seem to be a challenge re resourcing or widespread for the student body. Hence, positioning the university more clearly at the beginning would be helpful: number of students, socio-economic status of student body, number of staff, student-teacher ratios, amount of tutorial-based teaching, etc. The lack of a student voice in the study seems an glaring omission: that the experience of students is left out. Comparing this university's data of outcomes with others that are quite different - with public Spanish universities - would be a valuable inclusion: what is transferrable if resourcing is quite different?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
First of all, we thank you for your comments and suggestions on the review. Below we detail our feedback to the comments you have made to us:
-This is an interesting overview of the experiences of one particular university through the increased need for digital/online delivery and work situation due to Covid. As this was an unprecedented event for teaching, it is important that these studies are conducted.
Thank you very much.
-However, it would be helpful to frame this one more specifically. I believe this university's experience is different from the majority due to the university's commitment to online learning processes prior to the pandemic; and financial issues did not seem to be a challenge re resourcing or widespread for the student body. Hence, positioning the university more clearly at the beginning would be helpful: number of students, socio-economic status of student body, number of staff, student-teacher ratios, amount of tutorial-based teaching, etc. The lack of a student voice in the study seems an glaring omission: that the experience of students is left out. Comparing this university's data of outcomes with others that are quite different - with public Spanish universities - would be a valuable inclusion: what is transferrable if resourcing is quite different?
We have included a paragraph in relation to the university analyzed (trajectory, number of students enrolled, areas offered and number of employees). We have not included any reference in this section to maintain the confidentiality of the case.
We find it very interesting to know the opinion of the students, including replicating the study in other types of universities (public and/or private). We have indicated these two ideas as future lines of research.
We thank you again, and hope that with this revision the article will be of interest to you.
Best regards.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe categories given in the table 2 and the research questions do not match?
For example, which part of the research questions address opportunities?
In line 200, it was stated that Atlas.ti was conducted to analyze the interviews. However, in line 212 it was stated that word cloud was performed. However, it's depictions were not presented in the study. Please clarify exactly how you integrated word cloud and Atlas.ti in emerging the categories given in table 2.
Each category presented in the table 2 should be explained in detail in the results section. Authors mention roughly on some aspects while ignoring the other categories.
the discussion section still requires thorough discussion of the categories mentioned in the content with relevant studies.
Please also include the rationale, originality of the research. What exactly did the authors contribute to the existing literature. As far as I see, all the information acquired by this research is already known. Therefore, the novelty of the research is jeopardized. Please include the originality of the work.
What is the practical implications of this study?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThorough proof reading is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all feedback and made the following revisions to improve the quality and clarity of our work.
We believe these revisions have significantly improved our manuscript, and we appreciate your constructive feedback. We look forward to your further comments and suggestions.
Changes highlighted in yellow are related to the first round of review. The changes highlighted in cyan correspond to the 2nd round.
Best regards,
The authors
The categories given in the table 2 and the research questions do not match? For example, which part of the research questions address opportunities?
Question 1. What digital technology resources have been available to the faculty since the beginning of the pandemic?, is reflected in the category “tecnhological resources and devices”.The name of the category has been clarified, adding “and devices”.
Question 3.How have the technological support devices been distributed (how many per faculty, department, degree...)? has been reformulated in order to be more specific with the subcatgories inside the category “Others”. The question 3 is now redacted in this way: How have the technological support devices been managed?
Question 4. What changes and challenges have you seen with regard to the use of digital technology in teaching? has been reformulated to address the opportunities. In this sense, we have changed the word “changes” for “opportunities”: What challenges and opportunities have you seen with regard to the use of digital technology in teaching?
In line 200, it was stated that Atlas.ti was conducted to analyze the interviews. However, in line 212 it was stated that word cloud was performed. However, it's depictions were not presented in the study. Please clarify exactly how you integrated word cloud and Atlas.ti in emerging the categories given in table 2.
The word cloud elaborated in Atlas.ti is a previous step to the category table, in order to have a first approximation of the codes. This is explained in the following paragraph: “A fast way to have an overview of interview content is by creating a word cloud or word list”.
Each category presented in the table 2 should be explained in detail in the results section. Authors mention roughly on some aspects while ignoring the other categories.
The 4 subsections of results are according to the categories. We have reordered Table 2, placing the technological category at the top of the table so that it is consistent with the order of the questions (Section 3) and the subsequent explanation in the Results Section.
The discussion section still requires thorough discussion of the categories mentioned in the content with relevant studies.
Following your recommendation, we have made significant changes to the wording of this section. Specifically:
- It has been restructured following the order of the four categories identified in the Results section
- Explanations of the main results obtained have been added, relating them to existing references or adding new ones
- Added references:
- Rapanta, C.; Botturi, L.; Goodyear, P.; Guàrdia, L.; Koole, M. Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-Pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Sci. Educ. 2021, 3, 715–742, doi:10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1.
- Ironsi, C.S. Google Meet as a Synchronous Language Learning Tool for Emergency Online Distant Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Perceptions of Language Instructors and Preservice Teachers. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2021, 14, 640–659, doi:10.1108/JARHE-04-2020-0085.
- Pratama, H.; Azman, M.N.A.; Kassymova, G.K.; Duisenbayeva, S.S. The Trend in Using Online Meeting Applications for Learning During the Period of Pandemic COVID-19: A Literature Review. J. Innov. Educ. Cult. Res. 2020, 1, 58–68, doi:10.46843/jiecr.v1i2.15.
- Ulla, M.B.; Perales, W.F. Hybrid Teaching: Conceptualization Through Practice for the Post COVID19 Pandemic Education. Front. Educ. 2022, 7, doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.924594.
- Moorhouse, B.L.; Wong, K.M. Blending Asynchronous and Synchronous Digital Technologies and Instructional Approaches to Facilitate Remote Learning. J. Comput. Educ. 2022, 9, 51–70, doi:10.1007/s40692-021-00195-8.
- Singh, J.; Steele, K.; Singh, L. Combining the Best of Online and Face-to-Face Learning: Hybrid and Blended Learning Approach for COVID-19, Post Vaccine, & Post-Pandemic World. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2021, 50, 140–171, doi:10.1177/00472395211047865.
Please also include the rationale, originality of the research. What exactly did the authors contribute to the existing literature. As far as I see, all the information acquired by this research is already known. Therefore, the novelty of the research is jeopardized. Please include the originality of the work.
The originality of the work has been included in different parts of the paper, concretely:
- Lines 57-65 in the Introduction Section
- Lines 365-376 in the Conclusions Section
What is the practical implications of this study?
The work aims to analyze a real case of DT that began in 2010 by including online teaching in the institution's strategic plans but that was driven by the consequences of the pandemic. Based on interviews with the center's managers in a post-pandemic scenario, the challenges and opportunities that arise in this technological context are analyzed within the framework of the university's DT.
We hope that the changes introduced will make it possible to respond to the comments raised.
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors made an effort to improve the content.
The main problem from the beginning is that the research questions that this study addresses do not contribute to a new information in the field, which researchers could not change. Following are the research questions investigated by the study:
1. What digital technology resources have been available to the faculty since the beginning of the pandemic?
2. Which kind of technological support devices have been acquired by the faculty? How have technological support devices been managed?
4. What challenges and opportunities have you seen with regard to the use of digital technology in teaching?,
When we inspect the response categories provided in Table 2 by the administrative and academic staff, we do not encounter with a new information.
I would suggest that researchers should address the novelty of this study. Please compare and contrast your results, methods with those of other similar studies and explicitly mention the rationale and originality of this study.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate language proofreading will be beneficial
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We have made the changes to address your concerns and improve the clarity and quality of the article. Below are the details of the revisions made:
The UNIVERSITIC 2022 report (CRUE, 2022) provides global data on the digital maturity of participating universities in Spain. However, having specific data from a case study allows us to delve into the process, beyond quantifying data, giving voice to the people involved in the development of the digital transformation (in this case, it has been the managers and heads of the Online Training Units and the IT Service). According to Yin (2018), both exploratory and descriptive case studies have a place in the research. This idea is reflected in the article by Castañeda et al. (2023), La universidad digital: aproximación a un análisis crítico de los planes de transformación digital de las universidades públicas españolas.
The study by Romero et al. (2023), La transformación digital en la educación superior: el caso de la UOC, highlights the need to collect information on digital transformation in universities from a post-Covid-19 qualitative perspective. As this same study shows, the lessons learned can be useful for other universities that want to embark on a similar path.
Outside the scope of this research but to complement the answer to your question, it is worth mentioning that as the Rector Magnificent of the university analyzed pointed out at the opening of the academic year, the new panorama anticipates a drop in the birth rate, a different student profile and the difficulty of commuting to campus, which led the university to offer two online degrees for the first time: Bachelor's Degree in Law and Computer Engineering. In this line, in a globalized, digital world, with an increase in migration, low birth rates, social outbursts, economic uncertainty, etc., after Covid-19, new business models have been created, and organizations have had to adapt to these changes (Colchado, 2023).
Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to enhancing our manuscript. Please let us know if there are any further suggestions or areas that need attention.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
