Use of Information Technology for Communication and Learning in Secondary School Students with a Hearing Disability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It is clear what the research questions are and the outcomes of the questionnaire. There are some minor things to address to increase the clarity.
"Handicap" and "disability" are not synonymous. Please edit your abstract and paper to reflect "disability".
Person first language should be used throughout the paper. The paragraph startign line 68 must be revised to people with a disability- not disabled persons. This issue occurs in line 309, line 172, line 181 that I saw.
You only need to discuss agreement (not disagreement) in several places as agreement is what you report. Delete "and disagreement" in several locations (e.g., line 268, line 177, line 184, etc.). Line 177 needs to include what you measured the agreement on- use of IT? type of IT? not sure without more information about what variables you are measuring.
You need more detail about your stratified random sample. How as the sample stratified and how was it random?
There are several sentences that are confusing as written and should either be edited or deleted.
Line 35 is confusing for what you mean by "deprived by the chance to develop themselves".
Think about using a different word than "developed" twice within such close proximity for line 39.
Line 194 should be deleted. It gives the impression the data was supplemental to something else.
Lines 216-219 should be deleted and the idea revised. Samplings is a strange word. "Other research has successfully used Thai sign language as a response option [24]."
6. You speak of "challenges" in line 409 and I didn't read any read challenges for adopting technology in the body of the paper.
7. The abstract needs to be edited. Line 11 should replace "for" with "to meet". Line 15 should be revised "Data was collected from 192 students with a hearing disability using a self-administered questionnaire." There is one questionnaire, correct? Line 16 "Most of these students knew...." Results can't find anything. Line 22 needs more information "...high and moderate levels of use" - use of what? Continuing on "Most of them agreen that IT equipment contributed to..." Delete "also" from line 24.
8. Every time you write students with hearing disability it should be corrected to "students with a hearing disability". You are missing the "a" every time.
9. Line 41 should be "skills to use it". There should be no comma in line 60. Line 314 should replace accordance with agreement. Line 301 should replace "This study" with "Results". Line 152 needs to be revised for the beginning of the first sentence. I am not sure what you mean there.
10. You need to add "persons with a hearing disability in Thailand" in line 127 as the statement isn't true without the Thailand reference.
11. There was a 34 year old student? Maybe clarification about how students can be 20 and up should be included.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer1,
I greatly appreciate your response and the reviewers’ comments regarding the manuscript “Use of Information Technology for Communication and Learning in Secondary School Students with a Hearing Disability”. I have rewritten and checked the revised version by following the 11 comments and suggestions in the following below.
"Handicap" and "disability" are not synonymous. Please edit your abstract and paper to reflect "disability".
Response 1: The word “handicap” has been corrected to “disability”.
Person first language should be used throughout the paper. The paragraph starting line 68 must be revised to people with a disability- not disabled persons. This issue occurs in line 309, line 172, line 181 that I saw.
Response 2: The word “disabled persons” has been revised to “people with a disabilities” throughout the paper.
You only need to discuss agreement (not disagreement) in several places as agreement is what you report. Delete "and disagreement" in several locations (e.g., line 268, line 177, line 184, etc.). Line 177 needs to include what you measured the agreement on- use of IT? type of IT? not sure without more information about what variables you are measuring.
Response 3: The phrase “and disagreement” has been deleted. Line 173 (previously line 177) has been corrected as the agreement on the use of IT for communication and learning.
You need more detail about your stratified random sample. How as the sample stratified and how was it random?
Response 4: The stratified random sample has been rewritten with more information in lines 187-189.
There are several sentences that are confusing as written and should either be edited or deleted.
- Line 35 is confusing for what you mean by "deprived by the chance to develop themselves".
Response: Line 35 "…are deprived by the…" has been revised to “lack” in new lines 33-34.
- Think about using a different word than "developed" twice within such close proximity for line 39.
Response: "……as in developed countries" in line 38 (previously line 39) has been deleted.
- Line 194 should be deleted. It gives the impression the data was supplemental to something else.
Response: The first sentence in line 192 (previously line 194) has been deleted.
- Lines 216-219 should be deleted and the idea revised. Samplings is a strange word. "Other research has successfully used Thai sign language as a response option [24]."
Response: Lines 216-219 (new lines 209-210) have been either deleted or rewritten.
You speak of "challenges" in line 409 and I didn't read any read challenges for adopting technology in the body of the paper.
Response 6: More information has been added in lines 410-412 (previously line 409).
The abstract needs to be edited. Line 11 should replace "for" with "to meet". Line 15 should be revised "Data was collected from 192 students with a hearing disability using a self-administered questionnaire." There is one questionnaire, correct? Line 16 "Most of these students knew...." Results can't find anything. Line 22 needs more information "...high and moderate levels of use" - use of what? Continuing on "Most of them agreen that IT equipment contributed to..." Delete "also" from line 24.
Response 7: The word "also" in line 24 (new line 23) has been deleted. Line 11 "for" has been replaced by "to meet". Line 15 has been revised. The results in line 16 (new lines 17-18) can be found in line 224 and Table 2. Line 22 (new line 21) "...high and moderate levels of use" has been deleted. "Most of them agreed that IT equipment contributed to..." has been revised in lines 21-22.
Every time you write students with hearing disability it should be corrected to "students with a hearing disability". You are missing the "a" every time.
Response 8: “…..with hearing disability” has been corrected to "…….with a hearing disability" throughout the paper.
Line 41 should be "skills to use it". There should be no comma in line 60. Line 314 should replace accordance with agreement. Line 301 should replace "This study" with "Results". Line 152 needs to be revised for the beginning of the first sentence. I am not sure what you mean there.
Response 9: The beginning of the first sentence in line 152 (new line 149) has been deleted. Line 41 (new line 39) "skills to use it" has been replaced. The comma in line 60 (new line 58) has been deleted. Line 314 “accordance with agreement” has been replaced. Line 301 (new line 296) "This study" has been replaced with "Results".
You need to add "persons with a hearing disability in Thailand" in line 127 as the statement isn't true without the Thailand reference.
Response 10: "……in Thailand" has been added in new line 124.
There was a 34 year old student? Maybe clarification about how students can be 20 and up should be included.
Response 11: “…..a 34 year old” has been corrected to a 24 year old.
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Very interesting and important descriptive study. As to the stratified randomina sampling I suggest to describe in more detail How it was conducted.
Also, I do not understand the notation Mean + SD, is it not +-?
In Table 5 standard deviations are missing.
As to the limitations, I suggest to discuss possible gender bias in sample and its possible impact on results.
Otherwise the article is in order.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer2,
I greatly appreciate your response and the reviewers’ comments regarding the manuscript “Use of Information Technology for Communication and Learning in Secondary School Students with a Hearing Disability”. I have rewritten and checked the revised version by following the four comments and suggestions in the following below.
As to the stratified random in a sampling I suggest to describe in more details. How it was conducted.
Response 1: The stratified random sample has been rewritten with more information in lines 187-189.
Also, I do not understand the notation Mean + SD, is it not +-?
In Table 5 standard deviations are missing.
Response 2, 3: The notation mean +SD in Table 4 and 5 was deleted and then revised to the percentage instead of SD, as the editor suggested.
As to the limitations, I suggest to discuss possible gender bias in sample and its possible impact on results.
Response 4: “gender bias” has been added in line 426.
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
