Collaborative Learning in the Flipped University Classroom: Identifying Team Process Factors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Very well written article.
It is suggested that section 5. Discussion could be split with a section 6, Conclusions, in order to highlight the contributions and limitations of this study.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and effort to provide feedback. Based on your suggestion, we have split the discussion and conclusion sections in our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented paper is interesting and pertinent, through which we intend to understand the team process factors that are present in collaborative learning in the context of flipped learning.
However, it seems to fall outside the subject areas of the journal, not focusing on sustainability and related aspects.
In any case, the abstract clearly reflects the content of the paper, giving an account of the objectives and the main results of the research, but the literature review needs to be more up-to-date. Of the 55 references mobilized, only 11 are from after 2017.
The deepening and updating of the bibliography will also improve the analysis of the results.
In methodological terms, the paper clearly describes the methodological procedures adopted, which are consistent with the objectives.
In the discussion it would be interesting to analyze what the direct impact of the results are for the implementation of flipped learning, in particular, in university context.
Author Response
We appreciate the opportunity to revise and strengthen our manuscript. We have updated the manuscript with more recent references.
In addition, based on your suggestions, we have added further discussion focusing on the implementation of flipped learning as follows:
“From this perspective, we can conclude that trust is a critical element in facilitating teamwork processes such as allocation of individual responsibilities, effective communication with team members, and engagement in in-class activities in a flipped learning course.” (p. 15)
“Thus, an instructor planning to implement teamwork in an in-class activity for flipped learning needs to consider their students’ work preferences and provide guidance that engages lone wolves in teamwork processes.” (p. 16)
“Students were asked to learn key concepts and theories by watching lecture videos and reading material before class as part of their individual activities. However, during the in-class activity, though students were involved in teamwork, in-depth communication and collaborative work were not required.” (p. 16)
Reviewer 3 Report
This study aims to demonstrate how team process factors relate to self-efficacy, attitude, and learning satisfaction of students in flipped learning.
As the author says, since lone wolf students tend to have little patience for the group work process and show a lack of organizational commitment, this study also explores how students' preferences for collaborative work or individual work affect their self-efficacy, attitude and satisfaction with learning in a flipped classroom.
I consider that the topic is of great interest and can provide more information on this problem.
The methodological approach followed in the study is consistent and robust, however the sample is extremely small to obtain generalizable conclusions.
The article is well structured and correctly written.
The results, discussion and conclusions are perfectly linked and are consistent with the evidence provided by the data.
In this sense, I congratulate the authors for their work.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments and feedback on our manuscript. We agree that our sample size is relatively small and that it is one of the limitations of this study. Thus, we have addressed this issue as a limitation in the Conclusion section as follows:
“First, the sample size was relatively small and focused on business students, so further research should articulate the findings with larger samples in different settings.” (p. 17)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The questions that were asked were duly answered.
