Complexities, Challenges, and Opportunities of Mobile Learning: A Case Study at the University of Jordan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

1. Structured Abstract is suggested for better readability. (Context, objective, methodology, results and conclusion).

2. Don't write "Ref. [8]", instead write Mheidly et al. [8] explained,...

3.  The researchers found that the students suffered from boredom after 2 weeks of studying online [citation].

4. Change sub-section 4.1 to bold heading and other with one or few lines.

5. There are too many tables in the paper. Some of the papers can be shifted in the Appendix section for better readability. 

6. Explicitly mention the research gap, contribution in the introduction section.

7. Conclusion is not well-written. It must give us a complete picture what has achieved and concluded. Re-write/ extend the conclusion.

8. TS and EX - write full forms in the discussion section for better readability.

9. How game based education effect the learning? Rubia Fatima et al. have used game based strategy for social engineering education. I believe that can be beneficial to write a paragraph on that in the discussion section. 

10. Use MDPI format for the paper

11. Too many tables but the explanation of results is missing (explain more).

12. Work on the flow of the paper. Right now, it seems the paragraphs are not-linked.

1. Kindly review the English language. Its always great to review for better readability.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable time and effort in carefully reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper and enabling us to submit an improved version. Please consider the bellow and our modified manuscript.

1.    Structured Abstract is suggested for better readability. (Context, objective, methodology, results and conclusion).	Thank you very much for your feedback. We have reformatted the Abstract to improve readability
2.    Don't write "Ref. [8]", instead write Mheidly et al. [8] explained,...	Done  for all
3.     The researchers found that the students suffered from boredom after 2 weeks of studying online [citation].	This sentence is related to the previous one for Irawan et al. [9]. The wording was modified
4.    Change sub-section 4.1 to bold heading and other with one or few lines.	Done
5.    There are too many tables in the paper. Some of the papers can be shifted in the Appendix section for better readability.	Table 2 was moved to Appendix A, then the tables were reordered
6.    Explicitly mention the research gap, contribution in the introduction section.	Added on page 3
7.    Conclusion is not well-written. It must give us a complete picture what has achieved and concluded. Re-write/ extend the conclusion.	Thank you very much for your feedback. We have extended and reformatted the conclusion to improve readability
8.    TS and EX - write full forms in the discussion section for better readability.	DONE
9.    How game based education effect the learning? Rubia Fatima et al. have used game based strategy for social engineering education. I believe that can be beneficial to write a paragraph on that in the discussion section.	DONE
10. Use MDPI format for the paper	R
11. Too many tables but the explanation of results is missing (explain more).	DONE
12. Work on the flow of the paper. Right now, it seems the paragraphs are not-linked.	DONE
Comments on the Quality of English Language 1. Kindly review the English language. Its always great to review for better readability.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Useful subject, with medium and long term impact;
2. Properly developed research methodology;
3. A few questions, suggestions:
- What was de procedure for applying the questionnaire?;
-What was the questionnaire validation procedure?;
-There is an ethical procedure for accepting such type of research on human subjects in the university of which the collective of authors is a part?

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable time and effort in carefully reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper and enabling us to submit an improved version. Please consider the bellow and our modified manuscript.

 

1.Useful subject, with medium and long term impact;	Thank you very much for your feedback.
2. Properly developed research methodology;	---
3. A few questions, suggestions: - What was de procedure for applying the questionnaire?;	We used an online survey to collect data from a sample, as mentioned in p. 8. It was applied using Google forms
-What was the questionnaire validation procedure?;	The questionnaire was distributed to a panel of referees that consists of 6 professors, based on their notes we enter simple modifications to the items' wording, then exploratory factor analysis was used. P. 9
-There is an ethical procedure for accepting such type of research on human subjects in the university of which the collective of authors is a part?	R

Reviewer 3 Report

The theoretical content and projection, as well as the discussion and discusions are presented in a coherent and comprehensible manner.

The methodology lacks a lot of information, including the approach, methodological design, data collection tools and methodological procedure.

There is a multiplicity of tables without explanation It needs to go deeper into the data generated by the study.

The article is well written but does not comply with the Sustainability Journal template, omitting its format and the style of the references.

In general, the wording is correct but lacks more detail regarding the references.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable time and effort in carefully reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper and enabling us to submit an improved version. Please consider the bellow and our modified manuscript.

 

The theoretical content and projection, as well as the discussion and discussions are presented in a coherent and comprehensible manner.	Thank you very much for your feedback.
The methodology lacks a lot of information, including the approach, methodological design, data collection tools and methodological procedure.	Thank you very much for your feedback. These sections were explained on P. 9 and p10. More information were added to address this comment.
There is a multiplicity of tables without explanation It needs to go deeper into the data generated by the study.	Thank you very much for your feedback. More information were added to address this comment.
The article is well written but does not comply with the Sustainability Journal template, omitting its format and the style of the references.	R
Comments on the Quality of English Language In general, the wording is correct but lacks more detail regarding the references.

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks for the opportunity to review the article. The article is well referenced and well structured. The result reporting style is also very innovative and reveals the collected data comprehensively.

Following are some concerns that need to be addressed

It would be better to use “Article” or “Study” or any other term instead of “Ref”

Page 8 “online and remotely learning.” Please change to remote learning

Instead of using MANOVA it would be better to treat the factors like time spent, device etc. as control variables in AMOS software.

Regards,

Author Response

Thank you so much for your valuable time and effort in carefully reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback has been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our paper and enabling us to submit an improved version. Please consider the bellow and our modified manuscript.

 

Thanks for the opportunity to review the article. The article is well referenced and well structured. The result reporting style is also very innovative and reveals the collected data comprehensively.	Thank you very much for your feedback.
Following are some concerns that need to be addressed It would be better to use “Article” or “Study” or any other term instead of “Ref”	Done
Page 8 “online and remotely learning.” Please change to remote learning	Done
Instead of using MANOVA it would be better to treat the factors like time spent, device etc. as control variables in AMOS software.	R

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All the comments are addressed. 

Author Response

Thank you so much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract is not following the instructions.
Author's don't follow the template.

About the other comments. It fullfil the expectations.

Best Regards.

Abstract is not following the instructions.
Author's don't follow the template.

About the other comments. It fullfil the expectations.

Best Regards.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments. Abstract has been modified as the journal's instructions, please consider the attachment. Also, we will follow the template for the whole manuscript in coopperation with the editorial office soon.

Best Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf