The Praxis of User Experience (UX) in the Design of Undergraduate Online Classes: Framing the Perceptions of Engineering and Social Sciences Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Relevant study carried out in the field of Higher Education, with an optimal sample size, evaluating a design model from experience.
The design of the study is correct, the hypotheses raised are of interest, however, in order for the study to be published in this prestigious scientific journal, it is pertinent that the authors review the following issues:
-The writing is unclear and complex for the reader to follow. It is necessary for the authors to revise the wording and translation of the manuscript in all its sections.
-The participants of the study belong to two fields of knowledge (social sciences and engineering). This could influence the results achieved, as there is not a representative sample of all fields of knowledge. There are previous studies showing the influence of studies on students' ethical and moral perception. This would need to be addressed.
-Although the authors indicate that the survey was administered before the start of the class, they do not specify how it was administered (paper or virtual platform, time allowed, etc.). Nor do they specify the pre-validation phases of the survey (peer review, comprehensibility, etc.). It is also necessary to indicate the record of the ethics committee that approved this study.
-The results are presented correctly, although they are not discussed with the most recent literature, and there is practically no discussion with other authors.
-It is recommended that the authors introduce sections on the limitations of the study and future lines of research, given the originality of the study.
-The conclusion is excessive, not responding exhaustively and concretely to the objectives of the study.
-Authors should review the citation style, as there are errors in the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There are some minor revisions in the text. The authors should write the references according to the guidelines of the Journal. Additionally, it would be interesting to add at the end of the article an appendix with the research questionnaire. Additionally, the authors could refer to the discussion if there is any significant difference between the two countries.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- The referencing style The referencing is revised to conform with the journal requirements.
- Adding the survey as an Appendix We agree that attaching the survey can be beneficial. We will add the questionnaire items as an appendix.
- Including an aspect of the study comparing Saudi Arabia and the US results. There were no differences in the responses between the two results, which is why we excluded that hypothesis.
Many thanks,
Reviewer 3 Report
The main topic of the paper is highly interesting. Nonetheless, it is too much descriptive. There is a lack of a theoretical model proposed by authors to increase its relevance to the literature, for instance, which can use the latent variables from the factorial analysis within a more complex analysis using a dependent variable (for instance, through a regression model) or amongst the same set of variables used (for instance, through a structural equation modeling (SEM). For this purpose, of course, the literature must be reviewed and discussions improved afterward considering such a theoretical model. Besides this, the paper in its current version already needed to be reviewed as regards some citations (not totally according to the editorial requirements) and discussions, linking the findings with the literature review.
Author Response
The main topic of the paper is highly interesting.
- Nonetheless, it is too much descriptive. The manuscript was revised to remove "wordy' expressions while increasing the reflection by adding more recent literature.
- There is a lack of a theoretical model proposed by authors to increase its relevance to the literature, for instance, which can use the latent variables from the factorial analysis within a more complex analysis using a dependent variable (for instance, through a regression model) or amongst the same set of variables used (for instance, through a structural equation modeling (SEM). For this purpose, of course, the literature must be reviewed and discussions improved afterward considering such a theoretical model. A theoretical model specifies the survey items depending on previous literature on UX. We divided the Literature Review section 2 into a. context of UX section 2.1 (lines 53 - 82). and b. Concepts section 2.2 (lines 84 - 126).
- We have added more recent studies with similar topics, structure, and outcomes. The results are spread in the Literature review, the Methodology, the discussion, and the conclusion.
- A section about the validation of the data (lines 179 - 189) with a theoretical frame is added.
-
discussions, linking the findings with the literature review. References are added to the discussion to enhance the link to the core discussion in the literature review.
- The paper in its current version already needed to be reviewed as regards some citations. All citation was revised to conform with the journal's requirements.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors make substantial changes to the format of the manuscript, although the authors still do not indicate all the requirements made in the first revision, something that will not allow acceptance until they are resolved.
The introduction falls short. There is no structure to the knowledge gaps on the subject of the study.
They do not indicate the institution approving the study. Nor do they reflect in the title the importance of indicating the area of knowledge represented by the sample (social sciences and engineering). It should appear, as it does not represent the totality of students, and there are studies that show significant differences in aspects related to the types of academic motivations (see for example: Bailey, D.; Almusharraf, N.; Hatcher, R. Finding satisfaction: Intrinsic motivation for synchronous and asynchronous communication in the online language learning context. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 2563–2583; Liu, Y.; Hau, K.; Liu, H.; Wu, J.; Wang, X.; Zheng, X. Multiplicative effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on academic performance: A longitudinal study of Chinese students. J. Pers. 2020, 88, 584–595; Zhou, M.; Teo, T. Exploring Student Voice in Teachers’ Motivation to Use ICT in Higher Education: Qualitative Evidence from a Developing Country. Int. J. Educ. Technol. 2017, 4, 26–33..
The aspects studied in this manuscript are strongly related to the so-called soft competences, although the authors continue with a shallow discussion of this. Finally, the conclusion remains excessive. This last section of the study must respond faithfully to the objectives and therefore cannot carry citations from other studies.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors. Thanks for the improvements proposed. I consider that the paper would have a superior quality to be published if a little revision of the research model would be changed to add a more robust statistical method with a dependent variable, as I had proposed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has improved with the revisions made. We recommend the authors to include in the title of the manuscript the educational level of the students represented as well as the field of knowledge, as the conclusions are not valid for all students.
Author Response
New title with students' level and field of knowledge.
The praxis of user experience (UX) in the design of undergraduate online classes: Framing the perceptions of engineering and social sciences students
