Teachers and Students as Promoters or Repressors of Sustainable Education: Navigating the Blended Learning Landscape

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

The presented article creates an ambivalent impression

On the one hand, it is externally quite well structured

On the other hand, there are shortcomings in it, the correction of which is necessary for the possible publication of the article

 

 

1. Relevance.

It is unclear why this article is relevant. Why now, when Coursera has been working for more than 10 years you are talking about it.

In addition, humanity has a huge experience of digital learning in the conditions of Covid-19, about which you say nothing (this word is used once in your article)

It is not clear why today, in 2023, students and teachers are not familiar with digital learning fees after the pandemic?

Maybe they know other learning platforms besides Coursera

 

2. In continuation of this

Literature review

 

You are talking about terms “blended learning” or “hybrid learning”

Next you describe what Cursera is

But don’t say anything about the attitude of students and teachers towards Coursera in the world or in your country and whether there were similar studies, and they certainly were. So why is your research fundamentally new? What does it give from a scientific point of view? What does it mean for other studies?

 

 

Thus, by reviewing these points, you may reconsider the goals and results of the article

 

I wish you success in your scientific activities

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Comments to the Author(s):

The presented article creates an ambivalent impression. On the one hand, it is externally quite well structured. On the other hand, there are shortcomings in it, the correction of which is necessary for the possible publication of the article.

Authors' answer:

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the acknowledgment of the external structure's strength. We will promptly address the identified shortcomings to enhance the manuscript's quality for potential publication.

Comments to the Author(s):

1. Relevance. It is unclear why this article is relevant. Why now, when Coursera has been working for more than 10 years you are talking about it. In addition, humanity has a huge experience of digital learning in the conditions of Covid-19, about which you say nothing (this word is used once in your article) It is not clear why today, in 2023, students and teachers are not familiar with digital learning fees after the pandemic? Maybe they know other learning platforms besides Coursera.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for the comment. A better rationale for this is provided in the paper, similar as:

Even though Coursera has been around for more than ten years, different geographical areas have diverse adoption and effects from it. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the exceptional issues brought up by the COVID-19 outbreak were the driving force behind the widespread use of platforms such as Coursera.

In 2023, we will be strategically focusing on Coursera to investigate the ongoing and changing role of online education in the aftermath of the epidemic. Despite the pandemic's effects on digital learning around the world, our research highlights particular potential and problems for Bosnian and Herzegovinian educators. Due to a lack of funds for institutional subscriptions and the growth of regional learning networks, a unique situation has emerged in which Coursera, with its freely available content, has become an invaluable tool for instructors and students at the University of Sarajevo.

We hope to provide important insights into the continued relevance and difficulties of online learning platforms like Coursera in areas with unique socioeconomic and educational dynamics by exploring the particularities of this region. Our research goes beyond a simple description of the platform's existence and instead concentrates on its subtle application in a specific setting, contributing to a more comprehensive conversation about digital education that goes beyond the worldwide account of the pandemic's effects.

Comments to the Author(s):

2. In continuation of this Literature review You are talking about terms “blended learning” or “hybrid learning”. Next you describe what Coursera is but don’t say anything about the attitude of students and teachers towards Coursera in the world or in your country and whether there were similar studies, and they certainly were. So why is your research fundamentally new? What does it give from a scientific point of view? What does it mean for other studies? Thus, by reviewing these points, you may reconsider the goals and results of the article.  I wish you success in your scientific activities.

Authors’ answer:

We improved the literature review in the revised manuscript by adding perspectives on the views that teachers and students have, both locally and globally, about Coursera. Additionally, we included a subchapter about sustainable education before everything to make connection with the special issue topic. By doing this, we want to effectively communicate how our research fills in any gaps or limits in the corpus of existing knowledge. Also, the specific objectives of the research are outlined as follows:

“The aim of our research was to determine teachers' and students’ (a) awareness of the development of digital platforms for teaching and learning, (b) perception of their own digital skills, (c) use and experience of Coursera and (d) attitudes towards the content and benefits of digital platforms such as Coursera for teaching and learning.  Being aware that developing a high quality and results-oriented e-learning facility is an expensive process and that teachers still need support in the planning and implementation of e-learning facilities, we focused on assessing teachers' readiness to combine their traditional teaching with directing students to freely available online educational content, such as Coursera”

Also, we highlighted the scientific significance of our results and talked about how they might affect future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

According to the authors, this paper "is focused on assessing teachers' readiness to enhance traditional teaching by providing additional online educational content". This is a very relevant focus. However, the authors also state that the focus includes "evaluating students’ readiness to advance their knowledge either to fill in the gaps in  learning or to excel in the field". This is not so clear.

It was no possible to find explicit research questions or research goals.

Furthermore, in order to follow the abovementioned focus, the paper "used a quantitative research approach to examine Coursera's function in preparedness educational institutions, teachers and students are for blended learning"

The used method is not soundly linked to the focus. Coursera is a platform, and it is not possible to generalyze what is found about attitudes and actions of students and teachers regarding Coursera to attitudes and actions towards blended learning.

In the Conclusion, the authors state that "It seems that students at the University of Sarajevo are not open to new, non-traditional learning sources." This conclusion cannot be derived from the obtained results, which are only linked to Coursera.

The terms "sustainable education" and "sustainable development teaching" are not used in a clear and supported way.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is easy to read, although some sentences are not clear. Example: "There is a huge space to improve teachingat the University of Sarajevo by implementing blended learning and including online platforms in the teaching process ass the effect of education of sustainable development teaching approach is effective for the development of action competence for sustainability among students"

A careful revision is needed.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Below we explain how we addressed each of the issues raised by reviewer.

Comments to the Author(s):

According to the authors, this paper "is focused on assessing teachers' readiness to enhance traditional teaching by providing additional online educational content". This is a very relevant focus. However, the authors also state that the focus includes "evaluating students’ readiness to advance their knowledge either to fill in the gaps in  learning or to excel in the field". This is not so clear.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. We appreciate your attention to detail and the opportunity to provide clarification. Yes, you are absolutely right regarding the research goal stated from the student perspective. We rearranged it and we believe that now is in line with research results: “To evaluate and comprehend students' digital competencies, investigate how they use Coursera, learn about their experiences with it, and explore their perspectives on the benefits and implications of incorporating it into the online learning environment.”

Comments to the Author(s):

It was no possible to find explicit research questions or research goals.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, the research questions are added at the end of the first chapter as follows:

“The aim of our research was to determine teachers' and students’ (a) awareness of the development of digital platforms for teaching and learning, (b) perception of their own digital skills, (c) use and experience of Coursera and (d) attitudes towards the content and benefits of digital platforms such as Coursera for teaching and learning.  Being aware that developing a high quality and results-oriented e-learning facility is an expensive process and that teachers still need support in the planning and implementation of e-learning facilities, we focused on assessing teachers' readiness to combine their traditional teaching with directing students to freely available online educational content, such as Coursera”.

Comments to the Author(s):

Furthermore, in order to follow the abovementioned focus, the paper "used a quantitative research approach to examine Coursera's function in preparedness educational institutions, teachers and students are for blended learning". The used method is not soundly linked to the focus. Coursera is a platform, and it is not possible to generalyze what is found about attitudes and actions of students and teachers regarding Coursera to attitudes and actions towards blended learning.

Authors’ answer:

The methodology section is now updated and offers details regarding the research design. Additionally, a limitation section is also added at the end of the paper as follows:

“Though our study offers insightful information about the beliefs and actions of teachers and students in the examined educational institutions, it's critical to acknowledge the limitations of generalizability. The results could be context-specific, impacted by things like regional variances, institutional regulations, and cultural differences. Therefore, when extrapolating these findings to a larger educational landscape, care should be taken. The use of self-reported data presents a possible restriction because participants submitted information based on their subjective viewpoints. This raises the prospect of self-reporting bias, in which participants provide false or socially acceptable information. Because self-reporting is inherently subjective, the results' accuracy could be affected.

Our research focuses on Coursera in particular, which limits the applicability of our findings to other online learning platforms even while it enables a thorough analysis of attitudes and behaviors associated with this platform. It's possible that distinct platforms would generate different attitudes and experiences, and our findings might not be directly applicable to conversations regarding blended learning preparedness on various platforms. The survey information gathered for this research provides an instantaneous picture of opinions and actions at a particular moment. Our approach's cross-sectional design offers a transient perspective, but it is unable to capture the dynamics and changes that might take place over a longer time frame. A longer-term investigation would be required to have a more thorough comprehension of how perceptions regarding Coursera and blended learning.”

Comments to the Author(s):

In the Conclusion, the authors state that "It seems that students at the University of Sarajevo are not open to new, non-traditional learning sources." This conclusion cannot be derived from the obtained results, which are only linked to Coursera.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for the suggestion. The conclusion section is now rewritten and better reflects main goal and results of the research.

Comments to the Author(s):

The terms "sustainable education" and "sustainable development teaching" are not used in a clear and supported way.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. This part is now rewritten and new references added.

Comments to the Author(s):

Comments on the Quality of English Language. The paper is easy to read, although some sentences are not clear. Example: "There is a huge space to improve teaching at the University of Sarajevo by implementing blended learning and including online platforms in the teaching process ass the effect of education of sustainable development teaching approach is effective for the development of action competence for sustainability among students"

Authors’ answer:

The whole text is checked for spelling and grammar and corrected accordingly.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to read your research. The present study aims to evaluate the readiness of the teachers and the students to use the experience of online teaching. However, the title of the article suggests that Blended Learning promotes (or not) sustainable education. In the literature review this discussion is not made and it is not understood why the authors establish this relationship. One of the possible definitions for sustainable education is “a change of educational culture, one which develops and embodies the theory and practice of sustainability in a way which is critically aware” (Sterling, S. (2008). Sustainable education – Towards a deep learning response to unsustainability. Policy & Practice. A Development Education Review, 6(Spring), 63–68). As you can see it is a different concept from the one used by the authors. This clarification (and discussion) must be done in the literature review.

 

Additionally, more work is needed on the theoretical framework, more details are needed to justify the methodology and the discussion of the results needs further development.

The authors did not state the objectives of the study, no hypotheses or research questions were defined, the discussion fails to contextualize and explain some of the results found.

As for the data collection instruments, the authors claim to be using standard questionnaires but do not identify their origin, nor have they been previously validated. The article does not present any validation of the questionnaires used. The scales used are confusing and 3-point Lickert scales are ill-advised.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Below we explain how we addressed each of the issues raised by reviewer.

Comments to the Author(s):

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to read your research. The present study aims to evaluate the readiness of the teachers and the students to use the experience of online teaching. However, the title of the article suggests that Blended Learning promotes (or not) sustainable education. In the literature review this discussion is not made and it is not understood why the authors establish this relationship. One of the possible definitions for sustainable education is “a change of educational culture, one which develops and embodies the theory and practice of sustainability in a way which is critically aware” (Sterling, S. (2008). Sustainable education – Towards a deep learning response to unsustainability. Policy & Practice. A Development Education Review, 6(Spring), 63–68). As you can see it is a different concept from the one used by the authors. This clarification (and discussion) must be done in the literature review.

Authors’ answer:

We understand and acknowledge your concern regarding the apparent disconnect between the article's title, which implies a focus on the promotion or hindrance of sustainable education through blended learning, and the absence of a corresponding discussion in the literature review. Upon reflection, we recognize the importance of addressing this discrepancy and providing a clearer rationale for the chosen title. The section 1.1. is added.

Comments to the Author(s):

Additionally, more work is needed on the theoretical framework, more details are needed to justify the methodology and the discussion of the results needs further development.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. In the revised manuscript, we added section 1.1. that reflects better on theoretical underpinnings in our study. This will involve a detailed exploration of relevant theories or conceptual frameworks establishing a stronger foundation for the study. Also, methodology and discussion section is updated.

Comments to the Author(s):

The authors did not state the objectives of the study, no hypotheses or research questions were defined, the discussion fails to contextualize and explain some of the results found.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, the research questions are added at the end of the first chapter as follows:

“The aim of our research was to determine teachers' and students’ (a) awareness of the development of digital platforms for teaching and learning, (b) perception of their own digital skills, (c) use and experience of Coursera and (d) attitudes towards the content and benefits of digital platforms such as Coursera for teaching and learning.  Being aware that developing a high quality and results-oriented e-learning facility is an expensive process and that teachers still need support in the planning and implementation of e-learning facilities, we focused on assessing teachers' readiness to combine their traditional teaching with directing students to freely available online educational content, such as Coursera”.

We have extended the discussion section, including the limitations.

Comments to the Author(s):

As for the data collection instruments, the authors claim to be using standard questionnaires but do not identify their origin, nor have they been previously validated. The article does not present any validation of the questionnaires used. The scales used are confusing and 3-point Lickert scales are ill-advised.

Authors’ answer:

The instrument section is now updated as follows:

“The two comparative survey questionnaires were developed to obtain data on demographics, self-assessment of digital skills, awareness of learning platforms, passive/active behavior in the use of learning platforms and attitudes towards learning platforms.

The demographic section included questions on gender, status (students/academic staff), degree program for students and academic title for staff.

Self-assessment of digital skills was assessed with a general question: “How would you rate your own digital skills?" on a three-point scale, where 1 meant “advanced user”, 2 meant " average user" and 3 meant " basic user".

Awareness of digital platforms was assessed with two questions with binary answers (yes/no). The first question was a filter question: “Do you know Coursera?”. If they answered yes, the second question was “Are you a registered user on Coursera?”.

The usage and experience scale contained 11 binary questions (yes/no) and was designed to assess whether participants were passive or active users. For example, the question on passive use was “I have attended a few Coursera seminars to get an overview of online courses," while the questions on active use referred to paid membership, earning certificates, being an evaluator, or being an active teacher of online courses.

Attitudes towards Coursera were assessed with 10 questions with three options (Yes, No, I have no opinion). Examples of questions include: “Coursera courses can help students understand the subjects better” and “I think the way online courses are taught resonates with young people”. Two reverse questions were used (“Many important topics are not found on Coursera” and “I do not trust the credibility of certificates earned on online platforms”).

The research instrument was distributed by email via the Google Forms tool. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.”

Regarding your comment about 3-point Lickert scale, we found following reference that states: “We studied these questions in a sample of 1,358 undergraduates who were randomly assigned to groups to complete a common personality measure using response scales ranging from 2 to 11 options, and a visual analog condition. Results revealed attenuated psychometric precision for response scales with 2 to 5 response options; interestingly, however, the criterion validity results did not follow this pattern. Also, no psychometric advantages were revealed for any response scales beyond 6 options, including visual analogs. These results have important implications for psychological scale development. “ (Simms et al., 2019)

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Further elaboration is necessary within the discussion and conclusion sections to emphasize the significance of this research when compared to other studies in the same field. These supplementary details will strengthen the paper's overarching goals and enhance its prominence.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Further elaboration is necessary within the discussion and conclusion sections to emphasize the significance of this research when compared to other studies in the same field. These supplementary details will strengthen the paper's overarching goals and enhance its prominence.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Below we explain how we addressed each of the issues raised by reviewer.

Comments to the Author(s):

Further elaboration is necessary within the discussion and conclusion sections to emphasize the significance of this research when compared to other studies in the same field. These supplementary details will strengthen the paper's overarching goals and enhance its prominence.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for your valuable insights. The section discussion and conclusion are now updated.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant topic at this time about the importance and quality of online training in the variety of courses offered through this channel. Some of the aspects to improve would be:

- Specify the objectives of the research at the end of the theoretical framework or at the beginning of the subject and method, indicating the objectives specifically.

- Expand the information on the instrument used in data collection, if it is a newly created questionnaire, its validity and reliability should be indicated, or if it is an already constructed instrument, indicate its author and validity result.

- Tables 13 and 14 would be appropriate to put in the results, when we are in the discussion it is about discussing our results with those of other studies, therefore, it is not possible to indicate results in it. Furthermore, the information presented corresponds to the results section.

- Expand the references and review those that are collected, specifically, the year of each of the references, which is sometimes placed after the author and in others is at the end.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Below we explain how we addressed each of the issues raised by reviewer.

Comments to the Author(s):

The article addresses a relevant topic at this time about the importance and quality of online training in the variety of courses offered through this channel. Some of the aspects to improve would be:

Specify the objectives of the research at the end of the theoretical framework or at the beginning of the subject and method, indicating the objectives specifically.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, the research objectives are added at the end of the first chapter as follows:

“The aim of our research was to determine teachers' and students’ (a) awareness of the development of digital platforms for teaching and learning, (b) perception of their own digital skills, (c) use and experience of Coursera and (d) attitudes towards the content and benefits of digital platforms such as Coursera for teaching and learning.  Being aware that developing a high quality and results-oriented e-learning facility is an expensive process and that teachers still need support in the planning and implementation of e-learning facilities, we focused on assessing teachers' readiness to combine their traditional teaching with directing students to freely available online educational content, such as Coursera”.

Comments to the Author(s):

Expand the information on the instrument used in data collection, if it is a newly created questionnaire, its validity and reliability should be indicated, or if it is an already constructed instrument, indicate its author and validity result.

Authors’ answer:

The instrument section is now updated as follows:

“The two comparative survey questionnaires were developed to obtain data on demographics, self-assessment of digital skills, awareness of learning platforms, passive/active behavior in the use of learning platforms and attitudes towards learning platforms. We created a thorough questionnaire specifically designed to handle the complexities of the online training environment for this study. We put our instrument through a rigorous validation process to make sure its validity. Pilot testing and expert assessments were part of the validation process. Professionals in the domain offered input, and the questionnaire was modified to improve its applicability. We used a small sample of participants in a pilot test to determine the reliability of our questionnaire. Statistical techniques were used to assess the data, and any ambiguities or inconsistencies were fixed. The completed survey showed a high degree of reliability, guaranteeing that replies would be consistent over several administrations.

The demographic section included questions on gender, status (students/academic staff), degree program for students and academic title for staff.

Self-assessment of digital skills was assessed with a general question: “How would you rate your own digital skills?" on a three-point scale, where 1 meant “advanced user”, 2 meant " average user" and 3 meant " basic user". Awareness of digital platforms was assessed with two questions with binary answers (yes/no). The first question was a filter question: “Do you know Coursera?”. If they answered yes, the second question was “Are you a registered user on Coursera?”.

The usage and experience scale contained 11 binary questions (yes/no) and was designed to assess whether participants were passive or active users. For example, the question on passive use was “I have attended a few Coursera seminars to get an overview of online courses," while the questions on active use referred to paid membership, earning certificates, being an evaluator, or being an active teacher of online courses.

Attitudes towards Coursera were assessed with 10 questions with three options (Yes, No, I have no opinion). Examples of questions include: “Coursera courses can help students understand the subjects better” and “I think the way online courses are taught resonates with young people”. Two reverse questions were used (“Many important topics are not found on Coursera” and “I do not trust the credibility of certificates earned on online platforms”).

The research instrument was distributed by email via the Google Forms tool. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.”

Comments to the Author(s):

Tables 13 and 14 would be appropriate to put in the results, when we are in the discussion it is about discussing our results with those of other studies, therefore, it is not possible to indicate results in it. Furthermore, the information presented corresponds to the results section.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. The results section is restructured. Several tables are merged and the discussion is revised and rewritten.

Comments to the Author(s):

Expand the references and review those that are collected, specifically, the year of each of the references, which is sometimes placed after the author and in others at the end.

Authors’ answer:

The reference section is updated accordingly.

 

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which I found to be generally well-written and interesting. Empirical studies in the field of sustainable education are part of an increasing body of literature, which attracts interest by a broad audience. Below. I present a number of suggestions, which aim at strengthening the article further.

 

Introduction

The introduction provides a clear theoretical background.

However, it seems that the introduction currently misses a very important component, namely, ‘sustainable education’. In other words, while you place your study within the context of sustainable education, you neither define it, nor explain what it is. This is a major drawback. It’s a relatively new concept so don’t assume that everyone know what sustainable education is. Therefore, I urge to read the following article and cite it in the analysis, towards setting the frame in which the study is taking place:

Doukanari, E., Ktoridou, D., Efthymiou, L. and Epaminonda, E. (2021) The Quest for Sustainable Teaching Praxis: Opportunities and Challenges of Multidisciplinary and Multicultural Teamwork. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137210.

 

Moreover, the abstract mentions: ‘The aim of the paper is to examine the readiness of the teachers and the students of the University of Sarajevo to use the experience of online teaching and its advantages to transform their teaching and learning in order to encourage the individualization of instruction.’. This aim is clear.

However, in line 66, the analysis mentions: ‘Paper offers insight into Coursera's efficiency in modifying educational content to match the particular needs of students, while contributing to the more general objectives of sustainable education.’ This aim is quite problematic and needs to be rephrased. If your aim is to offer insights into Coursera’s efficiency in modifying educational content, let me clarify that this is something that is currently over-saturated; it has been examined repeatedly in the past. Therefore, I would advice you to stick to the aim presented in the abstract, and repeat it clearly in the introduction.

 

Also, in the last paragraph of the Introduction, you can add another sentence, explaining to the reader the structure of the paper. This would be beneficial to the reader, who will be able to formulate a clearer understanding in terms of organization and navigation within the text.

 

Methods

The Methods’ section needs to provide additional information concerning the research process. For instance, did students and faculty had access to Coursera? It’s not clear. If they didn’t haver access, how did you evaluate it? Also, perhaps it may be helpful to include a sentence, explaining the ethical considerations of the study (e.g. students awareness about their participation in the study; informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality et cetera).

 

Presentation and Analysis of Results

You have some very interesting findings. Very good use of graphic material.

 

Conclusion

In the Conclusion, in the last sentence, make a stronger case for the original contributions the paper makes. In other words, why is this study needed now and how does it advance our understanding of relevant theoretical or empirical matters? Then, include a sentence on future research.

 

Very good work overall. I look forward to receiving a revised version of the paper.

Cordially,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Below we explain how we addressed each of the issues raised by reviewer.

Comments to the Author(s):

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which I found to be generally well-written and interesting. Empirical studies in the field of sustainable education are part of an increasing body of literature, which attracts interest by a broad audience. Below. I present a number of suggestions, which aim at strengthening the article further.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate the fact that you found this article interesting in well-written. We will promptly address the identified shortcomings to enhance the manuscript's quality for potential publication.

Comments to the Author(s):

The introduction provides a clear theoretical background. However, it seems that the introduction currently misses a very important component, namely, ‘sustainable education’. In other words, while you place your study within the context of sustainable education, you neither define it, nor explain what it is. This is a major drawback. It’s a relatively new concept so don’t assume that everyone know what sustainable education is. Therefore, I urge to read the following article and cite it in the analysis, towards setting the frame in which the study is taking place:

Doukanari, E., Ktoridou, D., Efthymiou, L. and Epaminonda, E. (2021) The Quest for Sustainable Teaching Praxis: Opportunities and Challenges of Multidisciplinary and Multicultural Teamwork. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137210.

Authors’ answer:

The introduction section is now updated and section 1.1 About sustainable education  is added. Thank you for the references. It was useful and included in the paper.

Comments to the Author(s):

Moreover, the abstract mentions: ‘The aim of the paper is to examine the readiness of the teachers and the students of the University of Sarajevo to use the experience of online teaching and its advantages to transform their teaching and learning in order to encourage the individualization of instruction.’. This aim is clear.

However, in line 66, the analysis mentions: ‘Paper offers insight into Coursera's efficiency in modifying educational content to match the particular needs of students, while contributing to the more general objectives of sustainable education.’ This aim is quite problematic and needs to be rephrased. If your aim is to offer insights into Coursera’s efficiency in modifying educational content, let me clarify that this is something that is currently over-saturated; it has been examined repeatedly in the past. Therefore, I would advice you to stick to the aim presented in the abstract, and repeat it clearly in the introduction.

Authors’ answer:

We formulated specific goals of the study as follows and corrected it within the manuscript:

“The aim of our research was to determine teachers' and students’ (a) awareness of the development of digital platforms for teaching and learning, (b) perception of their own digital skills, (c) use and experience of Coursera and (d) attitudes towards the content and benefits of digital platforms such as Coursera for teaching and learning.“

Comments to the Author(s):

Also, in the last paragraph of the Introduction, you can add another sentence, explaining to the reader the structure of the paper. This would be beneficial to the reader, who will be able to formulate a clearer understanding in terms of organization and navigation within the text.

Authors’ answer:

The paragraph is added. Thank you.

Methods

The Methods’ section needs to provide additional information concerning the research process. For instance, did students and faculty had access to Coursera? It’s not clear. If they didn’t haver access, how did you evaluate it? Also, perhaps it may be helpful to include a sentence, explaining the ethical considerations of the study (e.g. students awareness about their participation in the study; informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality et cetera).

Authors’ answer:

The methodology section is updated as follows:

“The two comparative survey questionnaires were developed to obtain data on demographics, self-assessment of digital skills, awareness of learning platforms, passive/active behavior in the use of learning platforms and attitudes towards learning platforms. We created a thorough questionnaire specifically designed to handle the complexities of the online training environment for this study. We put our instrument through a rigorous validation process to make sure its validity. Pilot testing and expert assessments were part of the validation process. Professionals in the domain offered input, and the questionnaire was modified to improve its applicability. We used a small sample of participants in a pilot test to determine the reliability of our questionnaire. Statistical techniques were used to assess the data, and any ambiguities or inconsistencies were fixed. The completed survey showed a high degree of reliability, guaranteeing that replies would be consistent over several administrations.

The demographic section included questions on gender, status (students/academic staff), degree program for students and academic title for staff. Self-assessment of digital skills was assessed with a general question: “How would you rate your own digital skills?" on a three-point scale, where 1 meant “advanced user”, 2 meant " average user" and 3 meant " basic user".

Awareness of digital platforms was assessed with two questions with binary answers (yes/no). The first question was a filter question: “Do you know Coursera?”. If they answered yes, the second question was “Are you a registered user on Coursera?”.

The usage and experience scale contained 11 binary questions (yes/no) and was designed to assess whether participants were passive or active users. For example, the question on passive use was “I have attended a few Coursera seminars to get an overview of online courses," while the questions on active use referred to paid membership, earning certificates, being an evaluator, or being an active teacher of online courses.

Attitudes towards Coursera were assessed with 10 questions with three options (Yes, No, I have no opinion). Examples of questions include: “Coursera courses can help students understand the subjects better” and “I think the way online courses are taught resonates with young people”. Two reverse questions were used (“Many important topics are not found on Coursera” and “I do not trust the credibility of certificates earned on online platforms”).

The research instrument was distributed by email via the Google Forms tool. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

All teachers and students were given thorough information about the study's goals, methods, and possible consequences prior to enrollment. Every participant gave their informed consent, confirming that they were participating in the study voluntarily. Additionally, all data was anonymized and all identifying information was kept private in order to respect the participants' right to privacy. Participants received guarantees that the information they provided would be combined and presented in a manner that would make it impossible to identify any particular response.”

Comments to the Author(s):

Presentation and Analysis of Results

You have some very interesting findings. Very good use of graphic material.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you so much! We appreciate it!

 

 

Comments to the Author(s):

In the Conclusion, in the last sentence, make a stronger case for the original contributions the paper makes. In other words, why is this study needed now and how does it advance our understanding of relevant theoretical or empirical matters? Then, include a sentence on future research.

Very good work overall. I look forward to receiving a revised version of the paper.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. We appreciate the comment. The conclusion section is restructured.

 

Reviewer 7 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a significant number of surveys of students and teachers at the University of Sarajevo, which are of interest and can be the basis for scientific research. However, I found no such studies. Instead, the authors of the article put forward a number of assumptions regarding the potential uses of the Coursera platform. Indeed, the potential benefits of using Coursera in the learning presented in the conclusion seem compelling, but are not supported by previous research cited in the article. I think that the authors need to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the data they obtained so that the article acquires greater scientific value

Below are a few comments regarding the text of the article.

 

1. Explanations for tables 2,3,4 are unnecessary, since they repeat information from the tables.

2. It is difficult to understand the surprise of the authors that a significant part of students are not familiar with Coursera. To do this, you need to know what the additional question was, which the authors mention below. Namely: in addition to international learning platforms, were data requested on national platforms or data on the use of e-courses developed by university teachers? Therefore, the conclusion about e-learning platforms (line 329) is questionable.

3. Explanations to table 11 do not contain any new information compared to the table, do not contain analysis of data from the table, and are therefore redundant.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript
sustainability-2667942 “TEACHERS AND STUDENTS AS PROMOTERS OR REPRESSORS OF SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION: NAVIGATING THE BLENDED LEARNING LANDSCAPE" which we submitted to the Sustainability.

You will find that the manuscript has been negligibly altered. Specifically:

• Section 1 has undergone substantial revision, and we have included a new subsection (1.1) that delves into the essential aspects of sustainable education. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive foundation for the readers.
• The methodology section has been refined to offer a clearer and more detailed explanation. We trust that these enhancements will contribute to a better understanding of our research approach.
• The results section has been reorganized for enhanced clarity. Some tables have been merged strategically to facilitate a more straightforward comprehension of the presented results. We believe this modification will improve the overall readability of our findings.
• The discussion and conclusions sections have undergone substantial revisions. Notably, a new sub-section on limitations has been added to provide a nuanced perspective on the scope and constraints of our study. We believe this addition will contribute to a more thorough understanding of the implications of our research.

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you and the reviewers have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. Your guidance has been instrumental in refining our contribution. We are genuinely thankful for the constructive feedback that has shaped the evolution of our work.

We appreciate the rigorous review process and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We eagerly await your further feedback and hope that these revisions align with the expectations of the journal. Thank you once again for your commitment to advancing scholarly discourse.

Below we explain how we addressed each of the issues raised by reviewer.

Comments to the Author(s):

The authors conducted a significant number of surveys of students and teachers at the University of Sarajevo, which are of interest and can be the basis for scientific research. However, I found no such studies. Instead, the authors of the article put forward a number of assumptions regarding the potential uses of the Coursera platform. Indeed, the potential benefits of using Coursera in the learning presented in the conclusion seem compelling, but are not supported by previous research cited in the article. I think that the authors need to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the data they obtained so that the article acquires greater scientific value

Authors’ answer:

The theoretical framework and well as representation of the data as long with discussion and conclusion section is now restructured and rewritten. We really hope that paper now reflects better goal of special issue.

Comments to the Author(s):

 

Explanations for tables 2,3,4 are unnecessary, since they repeat information from the tables.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you for the suggestion. The results section is restructured. Several tables are merged and the discussion is revised and rewritten.

Comments to the Author(s):

 

It is difficult to understand the surprise of the authors that a significant part of students are not familiar with Coursera. To do this, you need to know what the additional question was, which the authors mention below. Namely: in addition to international learning platforms, were data requested on national platforms or data on the use of e-courses developed by university teachers? Therefore, the conclusion about e-learning platforms (line 329) is questionable.

Authors’ answer:Thank you for your comment that indicated that we did not explain properly the reason for choosing Coursera and situation with national eleraning platforms. This is due to the fact that we do not have national platforms and very few examples of e-courses developed by teachers, not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but even broader regionally. We have explained this in subsection “1.3 About Coursera and its use in Bosnia and Hercegovina” and also we added limitiations to our study in subsection of Disccussion

 

Comments to the Author(s):

 

Explanations to table 11 do not contain any new information compared to the table, do not contain analysis of data from the table, and are therefore redundant.

Authors’ answer:

Thank you. The results section is restructured. Several tables are merged, and the discussion is revised and rewritten.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors thoroughly reviewed the presented article.

They corrected all of these comments, in addition, they added new data, which even better allows the reader to understand the essence of the work and its connection with the subject of the journal in which they plan to publish.

The authors reviewed the literature and clarified the objectives of the study.

It should also be noted that the authors provided a detailed response to each comment, which makes it possible to understand their motivation and why they resorted to such consistency in writing and structuring the article. The intent of the article, its hypothesis and main results also become clearer.

Thus, I believe that the article in this version can be accepted for publication.

 

I wish the authors success in their scientific activities.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing revised version of our manuscript and accepting our changes. The final version of the manuscript is significantly improved after incorporating valuable reviewers' comments.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the paper solves the major problems of the previous version. So, in my opinion the paper can be accepted, after correction of typing  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language fine. A revision is only needed to assure that some typing errors can be solved, as well as the style problems of the References.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing revised version of our manuscript and accepting our changes. The final version of the manuscript is significantly improved after incorporating valuable reviewers' comments.

We have corrected the typos in the manuscript and reformatted references according the MDPI formatting recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to read the updated version of your manuscript. The paper is now in a much better shape than in your first submission. The suggestions made in the previous review have been incorporated into the paper and in my opinion have increased its quality. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing revised version of our manuscript and accepting our changes. We agree that the final version of the manuscript is significantly improved after incorporating valuable reviewers' comments.

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All suggested changes have been addressed. 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing revised version of our manuscript and accepting our changes.

Reviewer 7 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reworking the article, it improved significantly, and the goals of the study became clearer. The authors significantly reworked the composition of the tabular data and their analysis. Although I am forced to note that the research carried out does not have significant breadth and the results can only be explained by the characteristics of the university where the research was conducted, it seems to me that the article can be published in this version.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing revised version of our manuscript and accepting our changes. The final version of the manuscript improved after incorporating valuable reviewers' comments.