Students’ Instructional Delivery Approach Preference for Sustainable Learning Amidst the Emergence of Hybrid Teaching Post-Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I congratulate the authors for choosing such an important topic as the implementation of new information technologies in education.

 

The article compares how students perceive different aspects of online, hybrid and face-to-face teaching systems. It should be noted that the hybrid modality consists of teaching part of the syllabus in person, and another part online, with the follow-up of the Lecturer. The study attempts to answer three research questions, the first on the preference between the three study modalities, the second on the factors that contribute to the popularity of the selected option, and the third on the factors that promote the lack of popularity of the least preferred study system. They used a qualitative case study design to conduct the survey campaign.

The study is well argued, but needs a restructuring of the content to be more balanced. Many of the quotes used in the discussion could perfectly be the basis of the study, and incorporated into the introduction. The following comments are made regarding the content and structure of the manuscript:

 

Abstract.

In the abstract, you indicate three points. “1. On-campus learner-environment challenges; 2. Perceived lack of faculty engagement and support in the online learning environment; and, 3. Student engagement through faculty presence and technology innovation.” However, I cannot see clearly the correspondence between these three points and the research questions. I would suggest the authors to change the sentence to make it coherent with the research questions.

 

In my view, the introduction is very specific and well argued. However, I think it focuses too much on what has not been reported on the topic of the study (lines 78-87) and there is almost no mention of content and results that address the three, two, and one of the study modalities considered, to give more substance to this section. Therefore, I would suggest the authors include and comment on bibliographical references related to the hybrid, online, and in-person modalities.

Methodology

The methodology is well argued, although it should be explained what type of clustering method is used to identify the codes according to their degree of association and the software used to calculate it

Results

The results are shown according to the research questions that were formulated.

In line 192 it is indicated that “clustering the identified coes based on their degree of association…” I would suggest to indicate as mentioned in the previous comment, which type of clustering method do you use

Tables 4, 5 and 6 are separated, and it seems that each one is related to a specific type of teaching. I would suggest that the authors highlight this differentiation, both in the Tables caption and in the explanation of the tables in the article.

Table 7 is also Split into three themes. Could you please indicate which theme is related to each learning modality?

Discussion

Lines 237-244. These lines, although they could fit in the discussion section, are, as the authors say, the “rationale for this paper”. Therefore, this inconsistency detected in the studies analyzed should be thoroughly mentioned in the introduction section.

I would suggest the authors to include in the discussion a “limitations of the study” section. Since the study has been conducted with students taking philosophy and classroom management, this introduces a significant bias in the repeatability of the study in other types of more practical courses, such as architecture or engineering, which may have other requirements that make the preference between one type of class and another different. Likewise, I would indicate whether the other studies with which comparisons are made have also been carried out among philosophy and classroom management students, and whether that can affect the existing differences, if applicable.

In addition, I would suggest that the authors indicate how their study affects the future sustainability of university education in the face of the new changes it is facing.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See the attachment, please

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents students' instructional delivery approach preference for sustainable learning amidst the emergence of hybrid teaching after the pandemic. Main notes:

1. In the Abstract and Introduction, you should clearly write what the purpose of the study is and link it to sustainable development. It should be remembered that analysis is not a goal, but only a research tool.

2. In the Introduction you should write what new research does the presented research bring to science? What is its added value? The authors did not justify the necessity and value of their work.

4. In the Conclusions section, write what the limitations of the study were and list directions for future research.

5. The article should be adapted to the requirements of the magazine. Table titles are formatted incorrectly. The title of subsection 2.1 appears twice (lines 102 and 103). Items in Referenes are formatted incorrectly.

6. What does Total mean in Table 7? Why are only these values given and only in this table.

7. What do entries such as n = 100/127 mean? Is N a natural number (cardinality) or a fraction? It seems that it should be a natural number, so entries of this type are incorrect.

8. The survey is interesting, but statistically very poorly prepared. Only a few numbers were given, and the relationships between the questions were not examined anywhere. No characteristics of the respondents were provided: age, gender, place of residence, field of study, etc. In fact, no scientific analysis of the results was carried out.

9. The title of the article mentioned the pandemic. The reader therefore expects conclusions related to the impact of the pandemic on research on the phenomenon. However, the survey was conducted during second-semester general education courses during the 2022/23 academic session. To consider the impact of the pandemic on the described issue, it would be necessary to have research from before the pandemic. However, no such research has been conducted. The forms of teaching mentioned in the article are not new. They were implemented in many universities also before the pandemic.

Author Response

Please, see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant issue. The study is well-conducted and provides valuable insights into student preferences for different instructional delivery approaches.

The introduction provides a good overview but can be enhanced by including a more detailed review of the literature on hybrid teaching models and their effectiveness.

The methodology is sound and clearly explained. However, explicitly stating the hypotheses would help in understanding the study's focus.

The results are clearly presented. The use of tables to summarize the data is effective.

The discussion section could be more engaging by including more specific references to examples. This would help to illustrate the practical implications of the findings more vividly.

The conclusion is strong and well-supported by the data. It effectively summarizes the key findings and their implications for future teaching practices.

Minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings should be corrected to improve readability. For example, "what the students valued most in the hybrid approach is the face-to-face technology-enhanced classroom interaction that is retained" can be rephrased for clarity.

The references are appropriate and relevant. Ensure that all citations are in the correct format as per the journal's guidelines.

Overall, the study makes a significant contribution to the field and provides a strong case for the adoption of hybrid teaching models in higher education. With minor revisions, this manuscript will be ready for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript addresses a timely and relevant issue. The study is well-conducted and provides valuable insights into student preferences for different instructional delivery approaches.

The introduction provides a good overview but can be enhanced by including a more detailed review of the literature on hybrid teaching models and their effectiveness.

The methodology is sound and clearly explained. However, explicitly stating the hypotheses would help in understanding the study's focus.

The results are clearly presented. The use of tables to summarize the data is effective.

The discussion section could be more engaging by including more specific references to examples. This would help to illustrate the practical implications of the findings more vividly.

The conclusion is strong and well-supported by the data. It effectively summarizes the key findings and their implications for future teaching practices.

Minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings should be corrected to improve readability. For example, "what the students valued most in the hybrid approach is the face-to-face technology-enhanced classroom interaction that is retained" can be rephrased for clarity.

The references are appropriate and relevant. Ensure that all citations are in the correct format as per the journal's guidelines.

Overall, the study makes a significant contribution to the field and provides a strong case for the adoption of hybrid teaching models in higher education. With minor revisions, this manuscript will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In their article, the authors took into account most of the comments included in the review. Unfortunately, the survey is still statistically very poorly prepared. These are just very simple percentages of responses. No relationships were investigated and no causal analysis was performed. Even these simple comparisons are mathematically incorrect. In Table 4, Total Per Category (128) is not equal to Total Per Group (127). And it should. Philosophy Class does not equal 55. Classroom Management Class does not equal 72. And this is the only quantitative study of the survey. The simplest possible and poorly developed. A proper statistical analysis of the survey would be a valuable contribution to science. Unfortunately, there is still no such study.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved in accordance with most of the comments in the review. I still think that the statistical analysis of the data from the surveys is very weak. And even if the authors call it qualitative analysis, it is still advisable to group the answers and evaluate them against the background of the other answers. And such an analysis requires counting something. How else can you draw conclusions about a given phenomenon?