Online Learning and Experiences in Higher Education during COVID-19: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

In the following lines you will find my recommendations to strengthen the overall quality and foundations of your paper: 

1) Introduction outlines a coherent perspective on the topic, including both pedagogical and political challenges in the Chilean context within the Covid-19 pandemic. 

2) Although the introduction presents a clear justification for this research, it needs to have a clearer connection with "3. Background". Both seem to have different writing purposes and paradigms. Furthermore, I suggest adjusting the order of the different sections: 1. Introduction and 2. Background, in order to link the research questions with the methodological procedures (in this case, Purpose and research questions would be the third section of the paper). 

3) The methodology is well described. I only suggest mentioning the dates in which the literature review was done and the period of time in which you selected the documents (you can include month and year). 

4) Give a deeper description on the thematic analysis that was applied during your research procedures. Did you use any software? Did you retrieve any theoretical or methodological perspective? You need to improve the systematic perspective of your literature review.  

5) Table 3 is useful to summarize and give insights on the first research question (with 17 articles). Nevertheless, it needs to be included in the the results section. On the other hand, you can include another table to summarize the findings of the rest of the documents (11). 

6) Even though you posit three research questions regarding the main concepts and theories of the literature review, it would be interesting to analyze more elements of the systematic literature review such as: (a) demographic data of the papers, (b) most cited documents, (c) Type of access in the publication, (d) Journals that have published these types of studies. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is well developed and allows the reader to understand the main argument of the literature review. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

This review represents a worthwhile contribution to research into the experiences of university students and staff during the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly in relation to the pivot to online teaching and learning. The review methodology (PRISMA) is clearly described, as are the findings and their implications for policy and practice in higher education beyond emergency-driven online learning. It is a valuable addition to research in this area globally.

General comments

The rationale for RQ2 may need more explanation for general readers. The term 'virtual professional practices' may not be immediately clear. Some explanation around why this aspect of student experience was taken as a separate research question would also be useful (e.g. why this and not labs, field trips, practicals, etc.?).

Specific comments 

The suggestion at the conclusion of 5.2 is not necessarily backed up by the review--i.e. the reasons for some students' feeling that the quality and experience of learning was negatively impacted by online learning are not discussed, so it is not clear whether the suggested response would address the actual issue(s). The discussion in section 6 and the recommendations in section 7 are more clearly aligned with the findings of the review and other literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are only a few issues here, which standard proofreading would fully address.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses a relevant topic that has been the focus of studies over the last three years. The literature review can be useful for higher education professionals and academics to reflect on the process and the knowledge produced after this time apart.

From the point of view of background, it would be necessary for the authors to deepen the theoretical framework on student engagement in higher education and to reference the state of the art before COVID-19, which would serve as a basis for discussing the results.

In the conclusions, they could revisit the original questions. The study's limitations and prospects for future studies could be developed further.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed the suggestions to improve the paper. It now contains a better structure and coherence through the different sections. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the proposed changes and the article can now be published in its present form.