Democratic Didactics in Digitalized Higher Education: The DEA Framework for Teaching and Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Many thanks for the development of your manuscript. In the following lines, you will find several criteria aimed at enhancing the academic soundness and coherence of your proposal:

1. The introduction begins by addressing political and social tensions in the contemporary world. Although these phenomena are familiar to us as current witnesses, it would be important to include references that provide a shared conceptual and empirical foundation for readers.

2. In line 44, the word “educa-tional” is misspelled.

3. One of your statements affirms that “universities appear as hinge institutions that connect knowledge production, civic formation, and processes of societal transformation.” Could you provide theoretical or empirical support for this assertion?

4. The paragraph covering lines 55–87 contains multiple ideas and topics. Although it discusses tensions within educational institutions and contexts, it does not explore any of them in depth, as it tends to shift from one theme to another.

5. While you offer a coherent theoretical perspective on democracy, didactics, and subjectivity, it would be valuable to further develop the notion of Artificial Intelligence, given its recurrent presence across several sections of the manuscript.

6. Is there any methodological or epistemological grounding for the development of the DEA model? Beyond presenting its main components, it would strengthen the paper to explain the process through which the model was conceived. I understand it derives from a reflective exercise, but describing this process in detail would enhance the rigor and clarity of your proposal.

7. Section 5 (Theoretical and democratic pedagogical implications in HE) would benefit from a deeper discussion of how other academic works and contributions relate to your topic. Rather than focusing solely on a self-reflective approach, linking your arguments to existing research would significantly improve the scholarly robustness of your paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, excellent work. The complexity of the topics combined with the sentence structures make it great but challenge to read. At first I was a bit concerned whether the manuscript would be suitable for educational fields--due to the writing style, foot notes, and the works cited--but throughout the manuscript you convinced me it is. I have some minor aspects. The integration of information is done well (the textual structure can be improved; see below). 

"a decisive arena" = Odd term, and in education evokes questions. 

"but also through code" = I do not know what you mean with this. 

"To explore this problem" = You haven't really listed a problem in the aforementioned sentences. Please clarify. 

The introduction can benefit from more engagement with research. Some of the claims here need to be supported with research (and I know they can be; see. p.1.31/34).

p.2.44 Check spelling. 

p.2.47 Avoid intensifiers such as "very". They often do not add anything relevant to your message.

p.2.51/52 and p.2.58/59 You repeat the information here. Can you take a look at it? 

p.2.56 "The pressure" = From what exactly?

I would suggest to check your manuscript for the words "very" and "only". Both are overused. The words are losing meaning. 

Signal words can be used for the introduction of new research (p.2.71 and p.2.73). Also for p.3.124, p.3.130... Every time you refer to a new author a signal word can be used to guide the reader. Otherwise it is just a summary of information and it is more than that: you want to make a compelling story. This can be applied to page 4 as well. 

"are brought into being" (p.2.86) = Odd. Can you rephrase this? 

p.3.99 Requires references. 

p.3.107 Can you find a different word for "pressure points" that fits the context a bit better?

p.4.161 A en dash isn't an em dash. Please revise. 

p.4.167 "mediation makes this..." = To what does the word "this" refer?

p.4.171 "The pedagogical horizon" = What does this mean? 

p.4.175 "... et al.".

After referring to an author, please insert the publication year (apply this throughout your manuscript). 

p.6.247 "Across these" = You are referring back to a previous section. Please concisely repeat it here.

p.6.276 A hyphen is not an em dash.

Table 1 is presented in a larger font. 

Teh footnotes are rather lengthy. Can you try to make these more concise (max. three concise sentences). 

p.9.343 En dash is not an em dash. Also see p.9.359/361. 

Ref. list contains a lot of inconsistencies (e.g., capital letter use in the titles of the documents, hyphen versus en dash in between the page numbers). Biesta (2010) and Habermas (1981) have been presented in a different colour? Make sure you insert a comma after the journal name. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

“This article addresses the question of how subjectivity, recognition, and pedagogical responsibility can be conceptualised when formative encounters are mediated not solely  through pedagogical practice but also through code” The research question presented here is unclear; please simplify it for readers and refer to it as a research question (RQ) rather than just a question.

Introduction

The introduction section can be divided into subheadings to improve the logical flow and clarity of the paper. Please include the following subheadings or similar to improve your paper -

Background and Context – Briefly introduce the current transformation in higher education driven by digitalisation. Discuss how technology has reshaped teaching, learning, and assessment practices.

Problem statement/research gap- Despite the pedagogical benefits that technology offers throughout, there is a significant tension between digital efficiency and democratic education. The present models often prioritise data-driven performance (include a few modules here for examples) and scalability over student engagement, which demonstrates the importance of a framework for restoring democratic values within digital learning contexts.

The purpose of this study includes outlining the aims, research objectives, and key questions.

Theoretical Background

From line 95 to 105, narrative writing is significant; you must include relevant papers and citations to enhance academic quality.

You must discuss the other models before developing the DTA model in education. I suggest studying and critically evaluating the following models to ensure this section has proper depth.

• Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework — Garrison, Anderson & Archer (2000)
• TPACK Model (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) — Mishra & Koehler (2006)
• SAMR Model (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, Redefinition) — Puentedura (2013)
• Dewey’s Democratic Education Theory — John Dewey (1916)
• Freire’s Critical Pedagogy — Paulo Freire (1970)
• Biesta’s Democratic Education Model — Gert Biesta (2011)
• DigCompEdu Framework (EU, 2017) https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC107466

Since authors are requested to do significant structural and theoretical changes, model development and other areas should be changed accordingly; therefore, I will confirm it in the revised manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has addressed the multiple observations. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adequately replied to my response. There are no further questions; the manuscript can be accepted.