Quality Assurance in E-Learning: A Proposal from Accessibility to Sustainability
, Mary Sánchez-Gordón 2, José Ramón Hilera-Gonzalez 3 and Salvador Otón-Tortosa 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Quality Assurance in E-learning: A proposal from accessibility to sustainability
This paper presents a proposal for self-assessment virtual education and concerns higher education. It is a bibliographic review conducted by following the Multivocal Literature Review (MLR) guidelines and included scientific and professional sources related to the topic. In addition, accessibility criteria were integrated into an evaluation model and a methodology for the self-assessment process of quality in eLearning. The model is divided into four dimensions: organizational, student body, teaching, and infrastructure, and a set of standards, requirements, and evidence that apply to each dimension. Furthermore, a self-assessment guide system for accessible virtual education were proposed, which includes three sections: the conceptual /theoretical framework, the self-assessment model, and the methodology for applying this model.
The paper is a theoretical one including literature review and consequently building on this review it proposed an applicable model founded on some theoretical aspects.
The paper is well written and the propose model, is explicated and comprehensible, providing a problematization on the quality assurance in eLearning. The overall picture suggest that this text is very useful to the scientific community, adding to the field, by promoting the discussions and providing new ideas to the general concerns about the quality assurance in eLearning.
Author Response
There are no observations by Reviewer 1 that suggest changes in the paper. A general review of English language and style is carried out
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read the material. I have just some minor suggestions:
Line: responding to the formal literature: QA1 ¿The author's recognition is clearly identified.... maybe the ¿ is a typing error.
I suggest that table 3,4,5, and 6 to move as annexes because they are a bit long.
Good luck!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Line: responding to the formal literature: QA1 ¿The author's recognition is clearly identified.... maybe the ¿ is a typing error.
Response 1: Yes, is a typing error. Fixed bug
Point 2: I suggest that table 3,4,5, and 6 to move as annexes because they are a bit long.
Response 2: Tables 3, 4 and 5 are included as an appendix. Table 6 is kept in the main text, as it is a short table and has important information related to the focus and result of the research.
Additionally, a general review of English language and style is carried out
Reviewer 3 Report
The work presented is of high quality.
It conforms to what is expected in a scientific article and each of its parts contains the necessary information.
All the sections are developed in an excellent way and I do not find any element that needs to be modified so that the work can be accepted and subsequently published in this journal.
Regarding the theme and the objectives set, they are very pertinent and their study is really interesting today.
In addition, the results have been presented in a clear way and the conclusions are derived directly from what has been exposed in the previous sections.
Author Response
There are no observations in the review that suggest changes in the paper.
A general review of English language and style is carried out
