Enhancing ICT Literacy and Achievement: A TPACK-Based Blended Learning Model for Thai Business Administration Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an attempt to  extend the TPACK model for application in a blended learning context . It offers sufficient evidence of statistical tests applied to assess the student experience. 

There are a few places in the work that assume prior knowledge without these such being provided through references or appropriate explanation, e.g. line 91 and 92: the Flipper PARSER.

The secondary research provides some underpinning for this research and the proposed B-TPACK model, which needs to be better embedded in the body of the paper. For example, in the discussion of the advantages and challenges of Blended Learning (BL) [row 134- ], each of the points needs to be supported by one or more references. 

Bold generalisations for 'all' [184-186, 203, etc] should be avoided or detailed better. 

The work needs to provide stronger evidence of how the proposed model emerged - there needs to be critical justification of the decision been taken to apply Dick and Carey's instructional design model (this needs to be referenced in Section 3.1.1) to TPACK. It is not clear what questions were used to study the current environment (Phase 1) and how there were derived. Data supporting the methods is normally not included in the Methods section, but in a follow-up section, or at least after the design of the primary research was introduced and critically justified.  The current approach needs to be reviewed to avoid confusion related to the logical sequence of the design/implementation/analysis steps.

It is not clear what the B-TPACK (or is it BL-TPACK) model looks like and how the hypotheses that were tested through the primary research emerged.
A clear outline of the ten steps of the new model would also be beneficial to enhance reader's understanding of the proposed model. Referencing Fig.3 on p.6 [249] and presenting it on page 13 does not help. It is also illogical to have Fig. 1 mentioned first after Fig. 3 [278].

Please note that on Fig. 1 the examples provided for the PCK category of the model are questionable. Further explanation 'Hardware/software' and 'MS Powerpoint; and 'social media' constitute Pedagogical and Content knowledge.
The logic for the mapping of the After-class phase on the TPACK model on Fig. 2 is also questionable without any further explanation.

Whilst the quantitative analysis was meticulously executed, the lead to this through clear definition of its design is missing. Using figures, rather than tables, to illustrate some of the results will make the results easier to comprehend.

The discussion is interesting and highlights a few points for further research that need to be better highlighted through the overall formatting of the section. 

Please note that:
- There is a typo in the name of the TPACK model on row 179

- The label of Table 1 should is not grammatically correct. DId you mean "The drivers of (the) BL model"?
The title of the column 'Propose' is also confusing. 
The table should be positioned immediately after the paragraph where it is mentioned, rather than at the end of the page. 

- The use of the word 'Materials' in the title of Section 3 [190] is confusing.

- Row 273 - it is not clear how many of these who have a PC also have a laptop.

I hope the above comments would help the author(s) to enhance the quality of their paper. Good luck with the revisions.

The work would require proof-reading to improve the clarity of the expressions and enhance reader's understanding.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Title of the Article

The title of the article could benefit from revisions to become more informative and shorter.

2) Language and Clarity

The article requires significant language editing to enhance clarity and coherence. Several instances of unclear and illogical sentence structures, such as the phrasing “The Driven of BL model” found in Table 1, detract from the readability and scholarly tone of the work. 

3) Theoretical Framework

The description of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework within the article is found to be overly simplistic and insufficient. A more comprehensive and nuanced explanation of TPACK is necessary to provide readers with a clear understanding of how this model informs the study's theoretical underpinnings and its application within the research context.

4) Methodological Clarity

The presentation of the research methods and procedures is ambiguous and lacks clarity. Specific elements typically associated with the “Methods” section, such as test results, are inappropriately positioned within the “Instruments” subsection, thereby confusing the delineation between these two aspects of the research design. 

5) Instruments and Data Analysis

— The description of the instruments used in the study, including scales and descriptive statistics, is inadequately detailed. A thorough depiction of these instruments is essential for enabling replication and for providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the research tools and their application.

— Data Analysis: The section on data analysis is unclear, particularly regarding whether the review and analysis of qualitative data is a part of the literature review or constitute a distinct methodological approach. 

6) Ethical Considerations

Typically, such considerations are addressed after the manuscript, in this journal under dedicated subsections for “Institutional Review Board Statement” and “Informed Consent Statement.” 

7) Conceptual Integration and Results Interpretation

A significant shortfall of the article is its inadequate exploration of how TPACK models influence the design and implementation of blended learning (BL) models. The results primarily focus on evaluating students' CICT skills, thereby neglecting the conceptual implications for BL models. A more balanced approach that integrates the evaluation of CICT skills with a conceptual analysis of BL models' adaptation and evolution in response to TPACK frameworks is recommended. 

8) Articulation of the Research Problem and Research Questions

The research problem is presented in an unclear way. Authors should revisit and refine their articulation of the research problem and write it in a separate section. 

Closely related to the research problem is the formulation of specific research questions and objectives. The article lacks explicitly stated research questions and clearly defined objectives. It is essential that the authors incorporate well-formulated research questions and clear objectives in the research design. These elements should be directly aligned with the articulated research problem, ensuring a coherent and purpose-driven study. 

The article's content is valuable, however, the quality of the English language usage is subpar and would greatly benefit from some thorough editing and refinement to enhance its readability and credibility.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment." 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

While the authors have made notable improvements to the manuscript based on previous feedback, several critical areas need further refinement. 

Bellow, specific recommendations for each identified area of concern are listed.

Structure and Organization

The inclusion of Figure 1, which illustrates various blended learning models, appears superfluous within the context of this research article. Its relevance and contribution to the core objectives of the study are not adequately justified. It is recommended that the authors reconsider the necessity of this figure in their submission.

The current placement of the “Research Objectives” section appears after the “Research Questions,” which might disrupt the logical flow of the manuscript. It is advisable to relocate the “Research Objectives” to precede the “Research Questions,” ideally within the “Problem Statement” section.

Methodological Consistency

The title “3.1.1. Methods” closely mirrors that of “3. Materials and Methods,” leading to potential confusion. A distinct and descriptive title for section 3.1.1 is suggested to clearly differentiate it from the overarching methods section and accurately reflect its contents.

The presentation of the “Instruments” section remains insufficiently detailed. A comprehensive description of the scales utilized in the research, alongside basic descriptive statistics for each scale, is imperative. 

Similar to the initial phase, the methodology description in “Phase 2” lacks clarity and detail. The comments provided in section 3.1.3 equally apply here, emphasizing the need for a thorough exposition of the research instruments and procedures employed.

Currently structured as a standalone section, the “Instrument Validity and Reliability Assessment” should be integrated into the “Instruments” section. This integration will streamline the methodology narrative, facilitating a more cohesive understanding of the instruments' robustness and applicability.

Presentation of Results

The “Results” section should exclusively present findings that directly address the research questions posed by the study. Therefore, subsection “4.1.1. Learner Characteristics” does not align with this directive and should be reevaluated for its relevance and placement within the manuscript.

The current organization of the results section is still very disorganized and difficult to comprehend. It is strongly recommended that the authors restructure this section to align with the research questions, thereby providing a clear and logical presentation of their findings. Authors should also reconsider which results are more effectively presented in table format and which should be conveyed through the text.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf