Who Needs Zoom? Female Arab Students’ Perceptions of Face-to-Face Learning and Learning on Zoom
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study refers to the comparison between face to face and Zoom learning of female students at a College of Education in Israel during the COVID-19 pandemic. With that aim, a mixed design was used to collect data about the level of social presence, social interaction and satisfaction. One interesting result is that Zoom learning seems to be regarded as positive by graduate students in contrast with undergraduate ones. However, some improvements are suggested. First, the fact that participants were all women studying at the same college and in the same area of education, limit the generalization of the results. It would have been wise that some men participated, since they represented 10% of the target population. If this has not been possible, suitable explanation would be wise. Second, the state of the art doesn’t seem complete. E.g., since the study takes place during COVID-19, this is not a usual online intervention, so the study should decide whether they are describing usual or COVID learning and accordingly describing so in the state of the art. Besides, more insight on other factors that influence learning, e.g., the ones that are analysed in this study, religion, age, employability, etc. As to methodology, many aspects remain unknown, such as how the translation of the questionnaire was carried out, the construction of the semi-structured interview which is only said to “revolve around the factors influencing student satisfaction”. The procedure of the study should also be further described (e.g., the conduction of the interviews), neither we know why and how seven out of 220 students were selected for the semi-structured interview. Overall, assessing the value of this study seems difficult since we don’t know anything about the type of zoom learning they were participating neither we have any type of feedback from teachers. In this way, direct observations in the classes could have served well. Presenting the results, it is said that face to face learning is “relatively higher” than online learning, but the significance level of this data is not facilitated. From here, it is not clear if face to face learning is superior in all the cases or only in the case of undergraduate students as it seems from the qualitative results. In the linear regression model of online satisfaction, only social presence and interaction are considered, we don’t know anything about the other variables. In the discussion, it doesn’t sense right to say that interaction prior to an online class can be “hardly achieved” (462). Nothing is said about the ethics approval of this research and concerning data needs to be provided. In short, although the results of this study could be insightful, the main issues are methodological limitations concerning its generalization and validity and lack of clarity in its description.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Please see attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Who needs Zoom? Female Arab students’ perceptions of face-to-face learning and learning on Zoom” illustrates an interesting and timely study on social perception within an understudied population of female students. In my modest opinion, the study is a valuable and original addition to the extant literature if a few issues are addressed by the authors.
In the abstract, the following sentence is vague: “This implies the necessity to employ methods suitable to each degree level as well as major when offering courses”. Can the authors comment on the implications and/or applications of their findings in a way that reveals the relevance of the study’s findings to human development, academic attainment, or some other noteworthy factor?
In the introductory section, the authors may want to offer a more explicit and robust rationale for their selection of female students. Furthermore, the study and each of its aims need to be explicitly connected with the notion of sustainable development.
Each research question may need to be accompanied by its corresponding hypothesis. Of course, hypotheses may be formulated after the literature review if the authors wish to use the materials of the literature review as a rationale for each of the predictions made.
Some research questions are formulated as cause-effect links. The research is correlational in nature. Thus, I would avoid mentioning causal links.
Social presence, social interaction, and student satisfaction are worthwhile variables. However, the rationale for their selection needs to be expanded and their potential links explored in more detail.
The sampling frame needs to be theoretically justified. Namely, why did the authors select female graduate and undergraduate students? Was the sample of participants who were given structured interviews from the same subject pool as the one used for the questionnaire? What was the participation rate? Even though convenience sampling was used, one may consider
The data analyses need to be organized by the question they answer and the hypothesis they test. Why were specific demographic variables considered? To what extent do the interview data support and/or clarify the data collected via a questionnaire?
The results of the study are interesting. The implications and applications of such results need to be clarified. The relationship between the current findings and those of the literature review also needs to be further explored. How do these results relate to sustainable development in education?
The text requires further proofreading to ensure that anomalies are corrected. For instance, “data” is a plural noun. Thus, in line 196, the text should read “data were collected…..”.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. zoom is presented as a teaching process. While zoom is only a tool in order to offer distance learning.
2. It is extremely strange for the reader to understand, while reading the abstract why the study concentrates on females only.
3. I wonder if there was a need to have a study in order to see that the social presence is lower in the case of distance learning, and I wonder whether the expression of ideas depended on the use of the zoom or the general social difficulties due to the covid
4. I believe that authors need to analyze separately two dimensions theoretically:
a. the distance learning in comparison to the conventional teaching
b. the use of zoom in comparison to other platforms
5. The research questions could be fewer. For example, the questions 4 and 5 could be joined talking about the relevant comparison.
6. I could accept the main goal of the study is the comparison between face to face and distance learning. I cannot accept the comparison of the face to face the use of zoom.
7. There are many recent studies developed on the distance learning at higher education during the pandemic. Authors could present few of those references. The theoretical framework needs to be enriched accordingly.
8. At the methodology the types of analysis could be explained according to each research question.
9. Explanations about the qualitative methods of analysis are necessary.
10. The limitations of the study need to be presented.
11. While I was reading the results, I was wondering which of them are not expected.
In general the manuscript needs to be improved by making all the necessary changes.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Although I appreciate the authors' efforts in trying to bring out in-depth understandings of female student's perceptions of and satisfaction about online learning, as compared with face-to-face learning, I would not think that this paper has made significant contribution to the field of knowledge, particularly with reference to sustainability.
One major concern is that the research questions do not seem to be justifiably motivated by a clearly articulated gap in the literature. In other words, given the abundance of research investigating the same or similar issues, why did the authors still conduct a study as such? This is, I believe, is where the most crucial problem lies.
Furthermore, the selection of variables to be examined, i.e., social interaction, presence, and satisfaction, also needs to be more strongly justified and elaborated. Why these variables were chosen to be the foci of the research also plays a key role in determining the crucial contribution of the study.
Since these fundamental issues have not been sufficiently argued and analysed, I believe the manuscript would benefit from major reworking, which, in its current form, is not suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments, please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The study is formed only by female students because they couldn't recruit male students, but in line 132 they say the aim is "female Arab students" and again in line 461, but then when they describe the target population, they say it to be "students". They shouldn't say that the aim of the study was female students because this was incidental. Also, the sample is not representative of Arab students because they come from one single institution. Statements referring the study as representing "Arab students" should be corrected (e.g. line 461).
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised manuscript has been improved and authors seem to respect reviewers' comments and suggestions.
Author Response
Thank you very much!
Reviewer 4 Report
I would like to thank the authors for their carefulness and patience in addressing the major concerns I raised in the first round of review. I now can see the research gap more clearly illustrated, thus the contribution of the study better highlighted. I am also happy with the authors' changes in response to other reviewers' comments.
Author Response
Thank you very much!
