Supporting Inclusive Online Higher Education in Developing Countries: Lessons Learnt from Sri Lanka’s University Closure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract does not reflect any problem situation. What is the problem here? Maybe lack of support hinder effective online meeting? The authors should indicate the problem in the abstract.

First two paragraphs in the introduction. The authors should connect support and inclusiveness concepts. How are these concepts related to each other? Please elaborate this.

It would be great if the authors justify the importance of the current study. Maybe little is known about the support concept during online learning? Or maybe due to novel challenges from pandemic students can have different support different from previous studies? Some previous paper (such as https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221078401) may also empower your argumentation.  In the relevant paper, timely support is also emphasized.

The authors may add further previous research investigating SDT and online learning if any.

I am not sure if the information about the reliability or validity of the instrument is enough.  Show sample items, how many items measure three SDT concepts? How about exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis?

How did the authors define open-ended questions? Inter-rater reliability is recommended in qualitative data analysis. 

I do suggest the authors present their findings in a different section.

“The questionnaire has 62 items, including the background in-126 formation of students, the access to digital devices and software, the support offered at 127 the institutional level and class level, and the online learning experience”

What are the quantitative results? Mean, SD? The method section needs further work, even though the paper has potential.

It can be added more research in the discussion showing that pandemic-related support can be different from regular times.  

Author Response

The abstract does not reflect any problem situation. What is the problem here? Maybe lack of support hinder effective online meeting? The authors should indicate the problem in the abstract.

Response: The problem situation has been added in Lines 5-8.

First two paragraphs in the introduction. The authors should connect support and inclusiveness concepts. How are these concepts related to each other? Please elaborate this.

Response: We have elaborated in Lines 27-35.

It would be great if the authors justify the importance of the current study. Maybe little is known about the support concept during online learning? Or maybe due to novel challenges from pandemic students can have different support different from previous studies? Some previous paper (such as https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103221078401) may also empower your argumentation.  In the relevant paper, timely support is also emphasized.

Response: We have elaborated in Lines 67-70.

The authors may add further previous research investigating SDT and online learning if any.

Response: References [23], [24] which investigated SDT and online learning have been added.

I am not sure if the information about the reliability or validity of the instrument is enough.  Show sample items, how many items measure three SDT concepts? How about exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis?

Response: We have revised Lines 141-150 to provide more information about the validity of the instrument. As the questionnaire aimed to investigate the overall online learning experiences in Sri Lankan universities and develop corresponding support strategies, it is not customized to measure SDT concepts at that time. The authors used SDT as an analytical framework rather than a development protocol for the questionnaire.

How did the authors define open-ended questions? Inter-rater reliability is recommended in qualitative data analysis. 

Response: Lines 173-182 have been revised to elaborate on the qualitative data analysis and inter-rater reliability.

I do suggest the authors present their findings in a different section.

Response: We have kept the findings and discussions in the same section to have a consistent flow and linkages under the constraint of the word limit.

“The questionnaire has 62 items, including the background in-126 formation of students, the access to digital devices and software, the support offered at 127 the institutional level and class level, and the online learning experience”

What are the quantitative results? Mean, SD? The method section needs further work, even though the paper has potential.

Response: The quantitative results are descriptive in the section of key findings and discussion.

It can be added more research in the discussion showing that pandemic-related support can be different from regular times.  

Response: Lines 320-322 have been added to show pandemic-related support.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper addresses the inclusiveness of the migration to telematics environments of higher education in Sri Lanka. The approach chosen by the authors is a quantitative and qualitative descriptive study based on the results of a questionnaire passed to university students. The number of responses that the authors have achieved is indeed very large. Although the study is very geographically localized and it is not clear to what extent the results are generalizable to other geographical areas, the topic covered may be of interest to many researchers interested in the subject. However, there are some aspects of the manuscript that, in my opinion, detract from the quality of the work. I point out some of them:

1. The aspect that, in my opinion, is the most important is that, surprisingly, one can hardly read a quantitative analysis of the answers of the quantitative part of the questionnaire. This is a major shortcoming, because the questionnaire is very large and the sample seems very representative, so that the authors could certainly describe statistically significant results. Moreover, as far as I have been able to understand, the methodology announces a quantitative analysis that, in reality, is reduced to the exposition of some proportions of certain responses.

2. Qualitative analysis should also be strengthened. As it stands, the results presented are too few for what such a large questionnaire could provide in such a large sample.

3. It would be useful to specify which independent variables were measured that affect the participants (sex, age, education, etc.). It would be possible to analyze whether any of these variables discriminate against the responses given.

4. A more detailed explanation of the instrument used should be given.

5. It would be useful to discuss the results obtained in comparison with other studies referring to other geographical areas, in order to identify, if any, specificities for geographical reasons.

Author Response

This paper addresses the inclusiveness of the migration to telematics environments of higher education in Sri Lanka. The approach chosen by the authors is a quantitative and qualitative descriptive study based on the results of a questionnaire passed to university students. The number of responses that the authors have achieved is indeed very large. Although the study is very geographically localized and it is not clear to what extent the results are generalizable to other geographical areas, the topic covered may be of interest to many researchers interested in the subject. However, there are some aspects of the manuscript that, in my opinion, detract from the quality of the work. I point out some of them:

1. The aspect that, in my opinion, is the most important is that, surprisingly, one can hardly read a quantitative analysis of the answers of the quantitative part of the questionnaire. This is a major shortcoming, because the questionnaire is very large and the sample seems very representative, so that the authors could certainly describe statistically significant results. Moreover, as far as I have been able to understand, the methodology announces a quantitative analysis that, in reality, is reduced to the exposition of some proportions of certain responses.

Response: The quantitative results are descriptive in the section of key findings and discussion.

2. Qualitative analysis should also be strengthened. As it stands, the results presented are too few for what such a large questionnaire could provide in such a large sample.

Response: More qualitative extracts from participants have been added in Lines 206-211, Lines 256-257, and Lines 310-313.

3. It would be useful to specify which independent variables were measured that affect the participants (sex, age, education, etc.). It would be possible to analyze whether any of these variables discriminate against the responses given.

Response: Analyzing whether pendent variables were measured that affect the participants (sex, age, education, etc.) discriminate against the responses given may be possible. However, as the study aims to examine the support needed from students’ perspectives by using SDT as an analytical framework, such analysis is not the focus of this study. We would consider it in our further research plan.

4. A more detailed explanation of the instrument used should be given.

Response: Lines 133-150 have been added to provide a more detailed explanation of the instrument design.

5. It would be useful to discuss the results obtained in comparison with other studies referring to other geographical areas, in order to identify, if any, specificities for geographical reasons.

Response: Lines 320-322 have been added to show the findings are in line with other studies.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled „Supporting Inclusive Online Higher Education in Developing Countries: Lessons Learnt From Sri Lanka’s University Closure “. The article is of interest for the readership of Education Sciences journal as it explores how the support or lack of support that students have experienced during the university closure influenced inclusive online learning.

I found the theme interesting and suitable for this journal. The text is clear and well written. Data used comes from a relevant source and the process of data collection is adequately described.

The methodology employed to analyze and explore data is appropriated and the use of quantitative and qualitative data is properly presented.

The results and correspondent interpretations and discussion are satisfactory and are in agreement with main theoretical and conceptual framework.

The conclusions provided are consistent with the objectives previously defined in the introduction of the paper.

Please revise your statement in lines 189-190: ”The majority of the respondents (65%) were female, while 33% were female”.

Concluding, I believe that the manuscript now warrants publication.

Author Response

We have addressed all the comments and suggestions in the first round of revision. Thank you!!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Citation recommendation can be added for online education challenges during pandemic even if the relevant study does not include SDT. This may empower to address problem situation.

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestion. References [18] and [19] are added in lines 73-75.

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their responses to my comments. However, the most important criticisms remain after the modifications made. Specifically:

1. The authors have given some data from the questionnaire carried out. However, it is not clear to me the specific nature of the questions of a quantitative nature, if any (Likert type, etc.), nor what variables are measured. 

2. Precisely because there is no precise description of the instrument or definition of the variables, the quantitative analysis remains very weak and inconclusive.

3. The discussion of the results is still very weak and poorly linked to previous work.

As a minor consideration, I point out to the authors that they have repeated the word "female" twice in lines 189-190. This should be corrected, to clarify what the proportion of males and females is.

Author Response

I thank the authors for their responses to my comments. However, the most important criticisms remain after the modifications made. Specifically:

1. The authors have given some data from the questionnaire carried out. However, it is not clear to me the specific nature of the questions of a quantitative nature, if any (Likert type, etc.), nor what variables are measured. 

Response: Thank you. More explanation is added in lines 148-154.

2. Precisely because there is no precise description of the instrument or definition of the variables, the quantitative analysis remains very weak and inconclusive.

Response: Thank you. More explanation is added in lines 155-164.

3. The discussion of the results is still very weak and poorly linked to previous work.

Response: Thank you. Literature is added in lines 272-274, lines 300-303, lines 312-313, lines 319-320, lines 363-373, and lines 392-395.

As a minor consideration, I point out to the authors that they have repeated the word "female" twice in lines 189-190. This should be corrected, to clarify what the proportion of males and females is.

Response: Thank you for pointing it out. It is revised in lines 216-217.