Redesigning of Flexible Learning Itinerary Configurator (FLIC) for the Design of Learning Situations in Compulsory Education (FLIC-IPAFLEX)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The quality of the English language used in the text is generally strong, demonstrating clarity and coherence in presenting complex concepts. The quality of the English language used in the text is generally strong, demonstrating clarity and coherence in presenting complex concepts.
Author Response
We appreciate the time you have taken to review our work and the suggestions you have made about it. We attach the changes and response to your comments in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article presents the adaptation of a web application designed for the creation of personal learning pathways in higher education (FLIC). It shows how the FLIC-IPAFLEX platform is designed and developed from FLIC.
The article explains in detail the development process of FLIC-IPAFLEX as a functional web application for building personalised learning pathways, which can be used by primary and secondary education teachers.
One of the strengths of the work developed is to have integrated the SCRUM methodology into the Design-Based Research perspective on which the whole adaptation is based. Other strong points are the conceptual approach to the work carried out by the authors and the use of appropriate and current references. In addition, the web application facilitates the design of pathways in accordance with the current Spanish educational legislation and curricula. The structure of the article is good and explains in a precise and clear way the whole process followed in the adaptation of the web application. The figures and tables make a decisive contribution to the understanding of the process.
All this makes the article of interest to the scientific community interested in advancing in the personalisation of education with the support of digital technologies. In this sense, the proposal is original and innovative and contributes to increase scientific knowledge regarding this type of developments.
This reviewer raises some questions and expresses some suggestions that the authors of the article can take into consideration. This can surely contribute to the improvement of the manuscript. More specifically:
In section 1.3 it would be interesting for the authors to indicate in which type of tools they place FLIC according to the classifications of Celik and Magoulas [line 105], Persico and Pozzi [108] or Benito et al. [111].
In section 4, explain how the fact that only primary education pre-service teachers were involved in Sprint 4 may affect the quality and robustness of the results obtained.
To deepen the arguments that support the validity of FLIC-IPAFLEX, since it is the teachers -and not the students- who use it in the creation of personalised learning pathways.
In section 5, [lines 417-420], it is claimed that FLIC-IPAFLEX contributes to the co-design of learning. This claim should be better supported by the results shared [section 3] or in the discussion in section 4.
Add a period at the end of line 382.
In Appendix A.3 [line 438] the logo in the figure is that of FLIC. It is advisable to incorporate the FLIC-IPAFLEX logo.
Author Response
We appreciate the time you have taken to review our work and the suggestions you have made about it. We attach the changes and response to your comments in a separate document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
