Emergency Digital Teaching during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Students’ Perspectives

Reviewer’s comments

Changes made by us to meet the review

However, in the introduction, I would expect to have more clearly stated problems and motivation, as well as clearly stated research questions.

We clarify the purpose of the article in the following research question:

How do students in higher education experience digital teaching and learning during the Covid-19 pandemic?

It would be nice to also state already in the introduction that the study is a part of another study, otherwise, it is a bit confusing when you first state it is a qualitative survey and then Likert scales are mentioned. 

Done. References to quantitative data removed, because these are not used in the paper. Sorry for the confusion.

Please, check English language too, in some places it needs editing.

Edited for clarity and language. Please let us know if there is additional need for proofreading.

Reviewer’s comments

Changes made by us to meet the review

The paper, in its current form, lacks novelty. There already have been a number of papers published in online teaching / learning specifically in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. The novelty / need / significance of the paper need to come out strongly.

We highlighted some findings that have not been clearly articulated yet. Maybe the most surprising among these are:

-Technical quality of audio and video.

-The need for breaks.

Check this sentence in the abstract “From our study we see show some clear trends and patterns in students perception of digital teaching during lockdown”. Grammar needs to be corrected.

Rewritten whole section.

Please check this: “In the search for an answer, this paper draws on qualitative data collected through an online survey among Bachelor students in Norway”. Do you mean a student who is a bachelor? Or students pursuing bachelor courses / programs? Rephrase accordingly.

Rewritten whole section.

The literature review (LR) section is more like a collection of executive summaries / abstracts of previously published papers. This is not what literature review is. LR is to identify methodological shortcomings/ limitations in existing research which led to research gaps. It is these research gaps that would be the source of your research problem statement / aim of the study followed by research questions and research objectives.

Section now includes a clear statement of gaps in the literature.

Some papers that may be added to strengthen the LR section:

Mittal, A., Mantri, A., Tandon, U. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), "A unified perspective on the adoption of online teaching in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic", Information Discovery and Delivery, ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-09-2020-0114

Tandon, U., Mittal, A., Bhandari, H. and Bansal, K. (2021), "E-learning adoption by undergraduate architecture students: facilitators and inhibitors", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-05-2021-0376

Added Mittal et al. (2021) to related work, helping us to put other references on how educators make use of technology and what they experience are the challenges in a perspective of the theory in the article.

Added Tandon et al. (2021) to related work to add more findings on the driving factors to what helps students to choose to use e-learning.

In the methods section the survey form (instrument) development needs to be described in detail. The selection of the sample / sampling design also needs to be described in detail.

Method section rewritten to explain the process of creating questions and now includes a list of the questions used.

Sample design clarified.

You may consider shifting section 3.4 (limitations) towards the end of the paper.

Limitations moved to end of discussion, as 5.4

The section 5.4 ((final notes) is not needed. This makes the paper verbose and repetitive.

Section deleted.

Add 4-5 recent articles from this journal Education Sciences (ISSN 2227-7102) to enhance the positioning of your paper with the journal.

We have added:

Peimani, N.; Kamalipour, H. Online Education in the Post COVID-19 Era: Students’ Perception and Learning Experience. Education Sciences 2021, 11. doi:10.3390/educsci11100633.

Kovačević, I.; Anđelković Labrović, J.; Petrović, N.; Kužet, I. Recognizing Predictors of Students’ Emergency Remote Online Learning Satisfaction during COVID-19. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110693

Almazova, N., Krylova, E., Rubtsova, A. and Odinokaya, M. Challenges and Opportunities for Russian Higher Education amid COVID-19: Teachers’ Perspective. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10(12), 368; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10120368

Zawacki-Richter, O. The current state and impact of Covid-19 on digital highereducation in Germany. Hum Behav & Emerg Tech.2021;3:218–226.

Reviewer’s comments

Changes made by us to meet the review

Introduction: It is necessary to explain the objective of the research and the gap that this study wants to cover.

We clarify the purpose of the article in the following research question:

How do students in higher education experience digital teaching and learning during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Theorical Background: I recommend changing the title “Related Work” to “Theorical Background”. It is recommended to organize the theoretical part taking into account how the Covid affected and how they adapted since, for example, some references refer to the perceptions of the students and others to how the teaching methodologies were adapted. It is important to focus the references of the theoretical part on the objective of the research

This is an exploratory study, and we have not focused on a specific theoretical foundation, thus we prefer “related work”. However, this section has been expanded and clarified to explain the gap we are trying to fill.

We have also modified the method section to clarify the exploratory nature of the study.

Methodology: It is necessary to include a table with the questions that were formulated and the theoretical foundation of the questions. Could you explain the Thematic Analysis part more? If qualitative information has been analyzed, how has it been analyzed?

Added the questions in the methods chapter.

Expanded the explanation on what Thematic analysis and our process in doing thematic analysis, going from response data to codes and themes.

Limitations should be included at the end of the study and not in the methodology section.

Limitations moved to end of discussion.

The Results section is missing, although I understand that it is the Findings section. If a questionnaire with Likert scales was made, why are there no tables?

Our article is based on the qualitative data from a survey consisting of both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data was presented in its own separate paper, while our article here presents the qualitative findings. We have made this more explicit in this article.

Implications: I cannot assess the implications because I do not understand how the analysis of the results has been carried out

We hope the above changes clarified the implications.

Reviewer’s comments

Changes made by us to meet the review

Please share the details of the Pilot Study (method, process, sampling, timeframe etc.)

We have clarified this in the text.

What is the justification for the sample size of 200? Is the pilot study sample included in this?

We have included more explanation around this. We made the survey available to around 600 students and 200 of these responded.

Towards the end of the paper you need to highlight in 30-40 words how your findings may be generalized in other geographical contexts.  

We have done so.

An additional round of proofreading shall help. 

Article was sent to external proofreading.

Thank you very much for the clarifications and answers. The article has improved. However, I still do not agree with the title "Related Work", which I suggest modifying.

Changed to Background

The conclusions could be developed a little more, relating the results with implications for management.

We have added a subsection for implications for management.