Educational Technologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- There are long sentences. The language needs to be revised. 

For example: "These technologies include 25 software, online platforms, hardware devices (such as tablets, computers and interactive 26 whiteboards but also virtual reality, augmented reality and artificial intelligence) and, if 27 one wants to give special relevance, as it should be these days, to the issue of inclusion in 28 education, assistive technologies, all aimed at improving access to education, personaliz-29 ing learning paths and fostering a more dynamic interaction between students and teach-30 ers in formal contexts [1][2][3], such as educational institutions like schools and universi-31 ties, or in courses that have been specifically designed to offer the opportunity to develop 32 digital skills [4][5] as well as in informal settings including museums, art galleries, librar-33 ies, sculpture galleries, or archaeological sites, to name just a few examples [6]."

2- What does Universal Design for Learning (UDL mean? How is technology integrated?

3- References should be appropriately cited. (2)(3)(4) order requires to be cited as (2-4).

4- For citation Laurillard [10], you do not have to use the University of COllege London Department of Technology. The surname of the research is enough.

5.  [40][41][42][43] should be cited as  [40-43]

6. The article discusses about artifial intelligence. However, it does not address the benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence in education. There are multiple studies conducted on the use of artificial intelligence in education. A literature review part is necessary to discuss the examples of integration of Artificial intelligence in education settings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language editing is required. There are very long sentences that are not suitable for the emotional well-being of the reader. 

Author Response

1- There are long sentences. The language needs to be revised. 

“Educational technologies refer to the set of digital tools, resources, applications, and methodologies used to facilitate the teaching-learning process. These technologies include software, online platforms, hardware devices (such as tablets, computers, and interactive whiteboards), as well as virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence. Additionally, if one wishes to give special relevance— as is increasingly necessary these days— to the issue of inclusion in education, assistive technologies play a key role, all aimed at improving access to education. This can be accomplished through various approaches, such as personalizing learning paths and fostering a more dynamic interaction between students and teachers in formal contexts [1][2][3], including educational institutions like schools and universities or courses specifically designed to offer the opportunity to develop digital skills [4][5]. This can also occur in other contexts, such as informal settings, including museums, art galleries, libraries, sculpture galleries, or archaeological sites, to name just a few examples [6].”

 

2- What does Universal Design for Learning (UDL mean? How is technology integrated?

 

done

3- References should be appropriately cited. (2)(3)(4) order requires to be cited as (2-4).

done

4- For citation Laurillard [10], you do not have to use the University of College London Department of Technology. The surname of the research is enough.

done

5. [40][41][42][43] should be cited as  [40-43]

done

6. The article discusses about artifial intelligence. However, it does not address the benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence in education. There are multiple studies conducted on the use of artificial intelligence in education. A literature review part is necessary to discuss the examples of integration of Artificial intelligence in education settings.

a paragraph was created on this subject entitled:

‘Benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence in education’.Obviously, the topic would be vast and an attempt has been made to summarise it by referring to other specific articles and the history of evulzone, even beyond the historical expectations of this type of algorithms that are only at the beginning of their “evolution”.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting work and will challenge this in the area of educational technologies. However, there are too many speculations, where citations are needed to make them scientific. I have indicated some of these places needing citations in the manuscript.

Also, some subheadings or paragraphs seem not sufficiently developed.

There were a lot more instances where acronyms are repeatedly defined.

 

This entry (manuscript) is interesting and timely. However, there are issues that need reddressing. For instance, the aspect of self-citation or overreliance on a single published material.

Also, some subheadings were not well developed.

The author mentioned a model, but I read of no model in the entry. This is a serious shortfall for me.

The aspects of inclusivity are not clear. That is, it was everywhere; however, it was not clear how the model should help achieve inclusivity.

The conclusion is too long reading, almost like a discussion of findings. The author is encouraged to use a coincisive paragraph that reflects the title and the purpose of this entry.

There should also be an implication of this entry to teaching and learning.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language editing could contribute to the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

There were a lot more instances where acronyms are repeatedly defined.

 At times, I considered it useful to write out the full form of an acronym and provide a brief definition to ensure that readers, especially those less familiar with the subject matter, would not need to repeatedly refer back to earlier sections.

This entry (manuscript) is interesting and timely. However, there are issues that need reddressing. For instance, the aspect of self-citation or overreliance on a single published material.

In my subject area in Italian, self-citation is quite usual (because my scientific field is not scopus-matched). I need it to have the guarantee that the reader can find an article that I am sure extends the sentence I propose and that the sources used are the ones I want

Also, some subheadings were not well developed.

Could I have more details?

The author mentioned a model, but I read of no model in the entry. This is a serious shortfall for me.

I have added a justification for this in the text, I hope it is comprehensive, I quote it below: “It is beyond the scope of this discussion to enumerate and connect all these models to technologies in and for education. However, consider how a teacher or educator might apply, among others, the following models: the frontal teaching model, rote learning model, disciplinary model, Montessori model, Dewey model (emphasizing active and experiential learning), flipped classroom, inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, blended learning, gamification, differentiated instruction, cooperative learning, peer-to-peer learning, and the sociocultural model (drawing on Vygotsky’s foundational studies). Let us consider a few examples: the Montessori Model, for instance, can incorporate the use of 3D printers to create educational materials directly within the school setting; the flipped classroom can leverage online educational platforms to facilitate teaching, while the Frontal Teaching Model can also benefit from the use of slides, interactive whiteboards, and videos to support the instructor's delivery”.

The aspects of inclusivity are not clear. That is, it was everywhere; however, it was not clear how the model should help achieve inclusivity.

I have included a justification for this in the text, and I hope it is thorough. I have provided the relevant excerpt below: “To clarify, inclusion is achieved through the use of technologies that serve as a 'universal language' for students, particularly the younger generation, as well as through the application of assistive technologies, as clearly supported by the European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education”.

I quoted the famous document as a source:

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2012). Profile of inclusive teachers. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/te4i-profile-of-inclusive-teachers_Profile-of-Inclusive-Teachers-EN.pdf

 

 

The conclusion is too long reading, almost like a discussion of findings. The author is encouraged to use a coincisive paragraph that reflects the title and the purpose of this entry.

I have divided the conclusions into two parts, first a short paragraph entitled ‘10. Enhancing learning through digital tools' and then “11.Conclusions”.

There should also be an implication of this entry to teaching and learning.

 I have perhaps taken it for granted that the reader is aware of the concept of the teaching-learning process, so as not to lengthen my encyclopedia entry, which is already very long.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 27 has bold font on two words

I would personally advise you alter the text in the abstract so it does not directly repeat the sentences from the opening paragraph/section 1.

Line 34 ‘More in details’ isn’t a phrase. Perhaps ‘Furthermore, ….’ And then the next two words should be capitalised as they aren’t proper nouns, even if they are the subject of the paper.

Line 38 why are there words in bold font?

Line 37 claim about developing cognitive and critical skills is a contentious and ungrounded statement without proof – at least provide a citation. Again ‘Educational’ does not need a capital letter here.

Line 57 the full-stop should be a comma with the sentence continuing ‘, especially with the ….’

Line 94 I would replace the word ‘adaptation’ with ‘application’ for better accuracy

Line 117 citation is inaccurately applied. I would simply cite Laurillard if no centre is named.

The two studies randomly selected to support an argument in lines 185 to 191 make the argument a little strange: what is meant by platforms? VLEs, apps, networks, communication channels, meeting software? All of the above? These were already widely in use before the pandemic and would not have simply stopped after it, so I find it odd to claim this proves their efficacy. They are efficient, and were for a long time, for a variety of reasons, including distance learning or for flipped learning, by sharing resources.

UDL is continuously mentioned but never explained. Why is this pedagogy singled out? Some discussion of it is needed beyond 226-7. Who are its proponents? Why this approach? How does it dovetail with ET?

Line 236  ‘behaviours, and activities where educators and students must navigate’… I think is better phrasing.

Line 311 I think it’s a bad idea to introduce new terms into a conclusion if not previously discussed, e.g. blockchain, which has not been discussed or defined and is not a particularly new concept. Thereafter, you have a full-stop, which I think should be a comma, so the sentence continues. Overall, I would make the conclusion shorter as it waffles a bit and should really focus on emphasising the main contributions of the paper.

This seems a very one-sided presentation on ET for an encyclopaedia entry and I am surprised there is no discussion of the wider ethical issues inherent to integrating large scale corporations into our public systems. These are well understood, as discussed by Neil Selwyn and Ben Williamson (among many others) who routinely expose failing or extractive and exploitative practices by commercial companies. Issues surround how educators induce students into systems that act as surveillance mechanisms, collecting data and profiling students. This surely must be discussed here for balance, because at the moment the entry is purely focused on affordances and grand claims that, I must say, are not particularly original. 

I might also advise that this entry be called 'assistive technologies' as ET is such a broad discipline in itself to be covered. This may be why the points I raise above are overlooked. The ethical issues around technologies are complex and any neutral view must take things like datafication or student profiling or algorithm discrimination into account, if we are also arguing that we have a responsibility to induce students to use these systems, we have a duty to make them vigilant of the issues that come with them (surveillance, reduced privacy, anonymity, tracking, targeted advertising, etc). 

Referencing in the bibliography is inconsistent and needs to be formatted properly according to the house style. For example, please note where dates are used sometimes after authors names, and sometimes after titles at the end. It needs checking and consistency. 

 

Author Response

Line 27 has bold font on two words

modified, they are now normal

I would personally advise you alter the text in the abstract so it does not directly repeat the sentences from the opening paragraph/section 1.

I paraphrased the one in the paragraph not to be equal

Line 34 ‘More in details’ isn’t a phrase. Perhaps ‘Furthermore, ….’ And then the next two words should be capitalised as they aren’t proper nouns, even if they are the subject of the paper.

I replaced following the advice line 34.

Sorry, it's a habit we have in Italy (we use capital letters or italics when we want to highlight something), I have modified it

Line 38 why are there words in bold font?

modified, they are now normal

Line 37 claim about developing cognitive and critical skills is a contentious and ungrounded statement without proof – at least provide a citation. Again ‘Educational’ does not need a capital letter here.

The citations and explanations are provided in the following paragraph; therefore, I have added the phrase "cognitive and critical skills (in this regard, further details and sources are provided in the next paragraph)" in parentheses.

I removed the capital letter.

 

Line 57 the full-stop should be a comma with the sentence continuing ‘, especially with the ….’

I have modified

Line 94 I would replace the word ‘adaptation’ with ‘application’ for better accuracy

I have modified

 

Line 117 citation is inaccurately applied. I would simply cite Laurillard if no centre is named.

I have modified

 

The two studies randomly selected to support an argument in lines 185 to 191 make the argument a little strange: what is meant by platforms? VLEs, apps, networks, communication channels, meeting software? All of the above? These were already widely in use before the pandemic and would not have simply stopped after it, so I find it odd to claim this proves their efficacy. They are efficient, and were for a long time, for a variety of reasons, including distance learning or for flipped learning, by sharing resources.

I made a long edit, to motivate the reasoning that goes through the years of the pandemic (which sped up the process of using educational technology) and changed one of the two quotations.

 

UDL is continuously mentioned but never explained. Why is this pedagogy singled out? Some discussion of it is needed beyond 226-7. Who are its proponents? Why this approach? How does it dovetail with ET?

I was very supportive of UDL in the entry because it was created by experts in educational technology, they are world-renowned and their guidance is easy to understand by teachers and educators who are not very familiar with technology (think of those who teach humanities subjects or those who do not like technology)

Line 236  ‘behaviours, and activities where educators and students must navigate’… I think is better phrasing.

I changed

Line 311 I think it’s a bad idea to introduce new terms into a conclusion if not previously discussed, e.g. blockchain, which has not been discussed or defined and is not a particularly new concept. Thereafter, you have a full-stop, which I think should be a comma, so the sentence continues. Overall, I would make the conclusion shorter as it waffles a bit and should really focus on emphasising the main contributions of the paper.

This seems a very one-sided presentation on ET for an encyclopaedia entry and I am surprised there is no discussion of the wider ethical issues inherent to integrating large scale corporations into our public systems. These are well understood, as discussed by Neil Selwyn and Ben Williamson (among many others) who routinely expose failing or extractive and exploitative practices by commercial companies. Issues surround how educators induce students into systems that act as surveillance mechanisms, collecting data and profiling students. This surely must be discussed here for balance, because at the moment the entry is purely focused on affordances and grand claims that, I must say, are not particularly original. 

I might also advise that this entry be called 'assistive technologies' as ET is such a broad discipline in itself to be covered. This may be why the points I raise above are overlooked. The ethical issues around technologies are complex and any neutral view must take things like datafication or student profiling or algorithm discrimination into account, if we are also arguing that we have a responsibility to induce students to use these systems, we have a duty to make them vigilant of the issues that come with them (surveillance, reduced privacy, anonymity, tracking, targeted advertising, etc). 

Referencing in the bibliography is inconsistent and needs to be formatted properly according to the house style. For example, please note where dates are used sometimes after authors names, and sometimes after titles at the end. It needs checking and consistency. 

 

changing the title of the entry should be proposed to the publisher, which is fine with me. I could not go too far into the ethical theme I dealt with in the other entry I edited entitled ‘Media Education’. I usually leave the ethical part to the discipline called ‘Media Education’ and as I said before, here I deal with technologies from a point of view that only excludes the ethical factor. In any case, following another reviewer's suggestion, I divided the conclusion into two parts.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 237- apps (you can restate the references)

Line- 280: "Global EdTech market- you should close "".

There are many studies on Artificial Intelligence. In Part 9, you can refer tı these studies and reference already published studies. 

What does this study suggest? Future implications should be added to conclusions section

Author Response

Line 237- apps (you can restate the references)

Done

Line- 280: "Global EdTech market- you should close "".

Done

There are many studies on Artificial Intelligence. In Part 9, you can refer tı these studies and reference already published studies. 

Done 

What does this study suggest? Future implications should be added to conclusions section

Done

About the image:
I have verified that the image should be removed because it is not Creative Common but copyrighted: udlguidelines.cast.org © CAST, Inc. 2024, and I have left the link to view the image and understand the concept expressed in the text.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the amendments which have been undertaken quickly and carefully, with close attention to feedback. Well done. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
thank you for your reply. I will proceed with the minor revisions indicated by the other reviewers Best regards