Towards Inclusive Learning Management Systems Integration in South African Universities of Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article! The scope of teaching and learning with technology is important worldwide and sounds like relevant to focus on in your South-African context. On the other hand, just like you mention, your kind of LMS adoption studies have been published worldwide (though you don't mention a single one). In the European context, there have been LMSs since the previous century, and since years ago migrations from one LMS to another have been quite normal. This is, though your study is understandable in your local context, it still makes me worry on the novelty value for the international academic community. I don't quite understand what is the uniqueness of the study in the UoT:s in South Africa compared with UoTs allover the world.

The literature review has focused on South-African, relative recent studies. It is good to limit the scope, and still, using some studies in broader context would give comparative view and depth to your study background. To note that the heading 2.1 is not synchronized with the contents but promises a wider presentation of LMSs than is given. Maybe you could go top-down in the literature review context by starting world-wide and narrow gradually to what's unique in your context. Additionally, presenting the LMSs and their versions your interviewees have used would give more depth for the study background.

The methodology section will benefit from more structured and detailed information. I would recommend you to use the order Goals (incl research questions and their operationalization!), data collecting methods including participants, data analysis methods, and ethical considerations including how you've used AI. Additionally, you should use some methodological literature as references to present your methodological understanding and make the manuscript a piece of research. The methodology literature will also help you structure your findings in a meaningful way. You have a nice small case study and nice data. Now the research questions should be aligned with what you have instead of promising the world. You simply can't respond to the current research questions with the data from six interviewees from one single faculty of one single UoT in one single country in the world. Remember that the better you focus your study the more believable it becomes.

Additionally, I would recommend you to have an additional chapter either before or within the methodology, to describe the local context of the study. Now the context is hard to understand which makes also understanding the results more difficult.

Results:

Presenting study participants is part of methodology, not part of results. In the table presenting the interviewees, you use the character "<" in the meaning "less than" but the character ">" does not refer to "more than"; instead it might be an arrow though you should use a hyphen ("-") instead.

When your sample size is 6, presenting quantitative results (statistics) is not meaningful nor believable (though I know that it's nice to use excel and count numbers :). Instead, I would recommend you to describe most of the findings (instead of fig 2,5,6,7) in the text, use descriptive concepts or, in clear cases, comparison such as majority/ minority or typically/rarely, many/few, and discuss the findings. When listing teaching methods (fig 3 & 4), why do you mention methods that no-one has used - where do they come from, and what's the point? Documenting the findings is not here in line with how you have collected the data. Mobile learning is not in line with other concrete methods. Drawing lots of graphs from simple data gives the impression that you want to increase the number of pages.  

I don't quite understand how one institution or even one UoT can afford to provide Moodle, Blackboard and some other LMS at the same time. Is that the case, or are the interviewees anyway from multiple UoT:s and not one as you have described? Overall, return to the methodology section which should describe your context of study as well as data collecting and analysing methods unambiguously and in such detail that the results are understandable.

5.1.4: you have interviewed six (6) TEACHERS - reporting STATISTICS on STUDENTS' internet access is not believable at all! You should have used system data or collect data from students to document this type of findings. This is something you could document as part of the qualitative results?

When you have collected qualitative, interesting, in-depth, unique data with interviews, why do you focus on statistics on too small numbers?! Chapter 5.1 should be compressed to 1-2 paragraphs. With the help of compressing you also get rid of the problem that you end multiple chapters with figures which is not good writing style.

When you operationalize your research questions, that will help you align the sections of the manuscript, document the results and reflect them against the research questions. Now, there is no explicated connection between the research questions and the headings of results sections 5.2-5.11 which document seemingly random details on what interviewees have answered to your questions without any structure or abstraction or relation to background theory. Hope you find the connection!

Conclusions & discussion: here you should return to your research questions and reflect how your results answered to them. Now the discussion is heavy with lots of references connected with some findings but the reader can't find the connection to your goals of study, your research questions and the core of your study. Additionally, the style of the text in Discussion differs strongly from other parts of the text, which gives the impression of AI assistance. 

The idea of well structured (scientific) writing is to tell one thing at a time and tell it completely in that one place, instead of scattering the topic partly to multiple places in the text which gives an unfinished impression. I don't believe in doing things in a hurry which I think you have had. Overall, I encourage you to return to the manuscript once more, explicate your goals and relate your findings to them, and document the methodology in more detail. The reader needs a thread of argument through the whole document. Best wishes and success in your project!

Author Response

I have added PDF file that include all my responses to the reviewer's comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study entitled ‘Towards Inclusive Learning Management Systems Integration in South African Universities of Technology’ is well documented and presented in a coherent manner in relation to the methodological design employed. The study is novel in relation to the research problem in the context of Universities of Technology (UoT), which have a vocational and applied focus.

In short, the study addresses a current and necessary topic in the educational context of South Africa, namely Universities of Technology (UoTs).

The data are presented with detailed procedures and an explanation of the analysis and methodology used in the study. The suggestions for future research seem valuable and insightful. Below, I offer a more detailed review of the manuscript.

To this end, I will comment on the different sections.

The abstract of the article is adequate, although I suggest that the authors should specify the objectives of the study explicitly.

The keywords are also adequate.

The title of the article is appropriate for the content of the manuscript. I would also say that the document is well structured and contains all the sections of a scientific manuscript, maintaining consistency between the objectives, methodology and results, making it easy for readers to understand the study. It uses vocabulary that is understandable to a wide audience, without excessive technical terms. Another positive aspect is that you not only describe problems, but also propose possible solutions or reflections. An important aspect to highlight in the introduction is the explanation of the structure of the document.

The introduction details the basis on which the study is based. The literature review is consistent with the problem under study. Thus, the works referenced are current and novel. Future directions for the integration of LMS are also included. Another important aspect to highlight is that it expands the classic TPACK framework by introducing the perspective of equity as a central dimension, offering an original conceptual contribution that can inspire research in other contexts in the Global South.

 

Method: It is based on qualitative methodology, specifically from an interpretive phenomenological approach (IPA) with semi-structured interviews, which allows for a rich analysis of teaching experiences and systemic barriers.

With regard to the data collection instrument, the authors should explain how the interview script was developed and validated, as we know that the results of a study depend on valid and reliable instruments.

The data analysis is relevant for semi-structured interviews and when the sample is not very large.

In general, all the tables and figures used contribute to facilitating the reader's understanding. This evaluator considers that the results shown in relation to the study problem are presented appropriately in relation to each of the questions studied.

The discussion is carried out correctly with the various results of the literature review.

The conclusions are derived from the results and the limitations are explicitly stated.

This reviewer considers the section ‘Limitations, future directions and research gaps’ to be very positive, as it mentions the gaps that emerge and warrant further exploration.

With regard to ethical aspects, it should be noted that measures of informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality were applied, which gives the study ethical robustness.

Overall, the article stands out for its innovative approach to equity in technology integration and for its rich qualitative exploration of barriers and opportunities in resource-constrained settings. However, its scope is limited (a single institution, small sample size, and no triangulation). Despite this, it is a good piece of work.

 

 

 

Author Response

I have added a PDF file that includes all my responses to reviewer's comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript explores a highly pertinent issue—the integration of Learning Management Systems (LMS) within South African Universities of Technology—using an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to uncover lecturers’ lived experiences. It makes a noteworthy scholarly contribution by introducing the concept of “equity-sensitive TPACK,” which reimagines the traditional TPACK framework through the lens of inclusion, infrastructural inequality, and contextualized digital competence.

The paper is grounded in a robust theoretical and empirical foundation, drawing effectively on both local and international literature. Its discussion successfully bridges the empirical insights of the study with wider debates on digital inequality, access, and pedagogical transformation in the Global South. The chosen methodology—IPA—is particularly suitable for such an inquiry, offering rich interpretative depth and transparency about its scope and limitations. Importantly, the conceptual advancement of “equity-sensitive TPACK” provides a valuable framework for researchers and policymakers seeking to promote equitable technology integration in higher education.

Nonetheless, several areas could be improved to enhance the paper’s clarity and impact. Methodologically, the authors should clarify how codes and themes were derived—whether through manual coding or with NVivo support—and provide a more explicit justification for the small sample size of six participants, including a discussion of data saturation. Ethical considerations should also be detailed, including participant consent procedures and institutional approval. Structurally, the paper would benefit from condensing sections four and five to minimize overlap between results and interpretation, and from reorganizing subheadings so they align more closely with the stated research questions.

From a stylistic perspective, minor grammatical revisions and the simplification of long sentences would improve readability. Informal connectors such as “However” or “Needless to say” could be replaced with more formal transitions. Figures and tables should be fully labelled with explanatory captions, and the visual representation of the proposed model should clearly distinguish it from the original TPACK framework. To further strengthen scholarly relevance, the authors should incorporate recent works from 2023–2025 addressing digital inclusion and educational technology in African contexts, particularly references to the DHET (2023) and UNESCO (2024) strategies.

Finally, the conclusion could be expanded to highlight the practical implications of the “equity-sensitive TPACK” framework, outlining specific pathways through which policymakers, academic developers, and institutional leaders might operationalize it to address inequities in access and digital learning. Overall, this is a well-conceived and timely paper that holds considerable potential. By addressing the above refinements, the authors can substantially enhance the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and contribution to the scholarship on inclusive educational technology.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally well written and demonstrates a good command of academic English. The language is clear and precise, with appropriate terminology for qualitative educational research. However, minor refinements would improve readability and stylistic consistency. The authors are advised to:

• Shorten long sentences for better flow and clarity.

• Replace informal connectors (e.g., “However,” “Needless to say”) with concise academic transitions.

• Ensure subject–verb agreement and uniform tense throughout.

• Review punctuation, particularly comma placement and spacing around citations.

Overall, the English is competent and coherent, requiring only minor editorial polishing for enhanced fluency and academic tone.

Author Response

Please see the attached PDF file for a detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf