The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education Among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is focused on the blended learning among university students. The manuscript has got a quantitative approach toward obtaining and analyzing data. The used statistical methods are adequate toward the character of data. The text is divided inti the chapters typical for this kind of research. The text is written in understandable form and by scientific language. I have got some comments toward the manuscript and they are presented below.

 

1. The kinds of information about respondents could be more detailed. Authors wrote, that only students of first and second year were chosen. So only add the explanation, why only this kind of students were chosen, not older ones.

 

2. Results and discussion should be separate chapter. In the discussion part the presented hypotheses should be verified and reflected. In the present form it is not very well readable, so please revise the text.

 

3. Please read the whole text again, it contains some typographical errors.

 

I hope my comments are helpful

Author Response

Dear Editors and reviewers:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript “The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes” (ID: sustainability-3265480). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:

1. Comment: The kinds of information about respondents could be more detailed. Authors wrote, that only students of first and second year were chosen. So only add the explanation, why only this kind of students were chosen, not older ones.

Responds: Because in China, only first and second year students have compulsory physical education in universities, other grades not. And PE in the article refers to physical education, so only first and second year students were chosen.

 

2. Results and discussion should be separate chapter. In the discussion part the presented hypotheses should be verified and reflected. In the present form it is not very well readable, so please revise the text.

Responds: Results and discussion had been revised by request, as adjusted in lines 347 to 477 of the text.

 

3. Please read the whole text again, it contains some typographical errors.

Responds: We are really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder. We have corrected the mistakes like line 311 “Towards” to “towards” and line 291 “Three” to “three”.

 

There are some highlights of other colors to respond to suggestions by peer reviews. The red font is the language polish made by the professionals.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Here we did not list the changes but marked them in red in the revised paper.

We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper with the title - The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes - offered for review, is an extensive study on BL (Blended Learning), attitude, behavior, technology and the impact that these elements can exert on the human being from the complex point of view of its becoming. It is an original study, new as well as a proposal for future work. Its implementation in the school system would bring new perspectives on the movement but also changes in attitude and behavior for life in the positive sense of the approach. This is why I recommend the article for publication.I would add a small amendment, there would probably be, in order for the article to be complete, a component that would bring the whole to the current research, but here I am referring to the affective component that should perhaps have been added to the study, but considering that it is a confirmatory study, it could be studied as the topic in a future research.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for there viewer comments entitled “The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes” (ID: sustainability-3265480). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. As the suggestion of an “affective component that should perhaps have been added to the study”, I would like to study as the topic in future research. I have added it in the part of future works in line 557-558.

There are some highlights of other colors to respond to suggestions by peer reviews. The red font is the language polish made by the professionals.

Once again, thank you very much for your approval of this paper and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes, takes a unique examination of the topic. However, there are numerous points of concern the authors should address:

Ø  The introduction and literature review are well cited; however, the paper would benefit from significant revision of both of these sections to allow for greater flow and readability. Both sections read as though the sentences were taken from another document and placed together. Thus, the syntax and clarity are lacking. In particular, section 2.1 lines 73 to 87.

Ø  The introduction would benefit from consideration in the following ways:

o   Line 37, the sentence that begins with “Blended,” please clarify what is meant by “blended”? Do the authors mean learning or pedagogy?

o   Lines 45 to 50 lack clarity and would benefit from unpacking the literature more clearly, i.e., line 46, “Students’ attitude has a great influence on what they learn during PE. However, issues such as lack of interaction and technical problems do not disappear [7]”. What exactly does this mean relative to the study at hand?

o   Lines 52 to 60 read as part of the results and not the introduction.

o   In general, the introduction and literature review should highlight more keenly physical education at the university level. What types of classes do students take? Are the courses compulsory or elective? What is the training of the teachers? Given the examination of the mediating role of attitudes, these elements need support from the literature more specifically in the paper.

o   Sections 2.2 through 2.5 need revision to better provide clarity. The mini-sections read as if sentences were pulled from another source and placed in proximity to each other.

Ø  In section 3.0, the authors noted that they employed a mixed-methods design. What is the design specifically, i.e., Convergent Design, Explanatory Sequential Design, or Exploratory Sequential Design?

o   Please specify the design in light of identifying the processes undertaken for the study.

Ø  Section 3.1, please discuss what the “10 times rule” is so the reader understands the decision made relative to the sample size for the study.

Ø  Line 223 do not capitalize “Three.”

Ø  In line 224, the authors note the BL PE courses lasted one to three semesters. Please clarify whether participants were enrolled in all three semesters and at which point they completed the survey. Also, what was the nature of the courses, i.e., compulsory, fitness, sport?

Ø  Section 3.3 What was the total number of questions for the survey?

Ø  On line 247, the authors note, “To ensure the validity and reliability of the self-reported measures for the Chinese student sample, the translation process followed three steps as outlined by Agbuga et al. [51]”. 

o   What were the steps followed?

o   What are the validity and reliability metrics for the survey, given the survey items for each variable were adapted from previous instruments?

Ø  Section 3.4, the authors do not provide detail regarding the qualitative component of the stated mixed method design.

o   What was undertaken for this component?

o   How were participants selected to participate?

o   How was data collected? How were interviews transcribed and analyzed?

o   How was trustworthiness ensured?

Ø  Line 267, revise awkward wording, “no major hiccups”.

Ø  Line 271 states “used in this dissertation” should be deleted.

Ø  Section 5, I am not sure what or how the Five-star model comes into play relative to the study. Is this a finding?

 

Ø  English language usage is adequate, but the manuscript would benefit from copy editing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language usage is adequate, but the manuscript would benefit from copy editing.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for there viewer comments entitled “The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes” (ID: sustainability-3265480). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments and corrections which met with approval. Revised portions are marked in yellow highlight in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows:

1. The introduction and literature review are well cited; however, the paper would benefit from significant revision of both of these sections to allow for greater flow and readability. Both sections read as though the sentences were taken from another document and placed together. Thus, the syntax and clarity are lacking. In particular, section 2.1 lines 73 to 87.

Responds: According to the comments, 2.1 had been revised, which is embodied in lines 116-131.

 

2. The introduction would benefit from consideration in the following ways:
   • Line 37, the sentence that begins with “Blended,” please clarify what is meant by “blended”? Do the authors mean learning or pedagogy?

Responds: The blended learning is illustrated in line 38, “ Blended learning as a learning method” had been revised.

 

2.2  Lines 45 to 50 lack clarity and would benefit from unpacking the literature more clearly, i.e., line 46, “Students’ attitude has a great influence on what they learn during PE. However, issues such as lack of interaction and technical problems do not disappear [7]”. What exactly does this mean relative to the study at hand?

Responds: Here, the sentence was revised in lines 45-60, mainly about the existing problems of traditional teaching.

2.3 Lines 52 to 60 are read as part of the results and not the introduction.

Responds: This part had been deleted.

2.4 In general, the introduction and literature review should highlight more keenly physical education at the university level. What types of classes do students take? Are the courses compulsory or elective? What is the training of the teachers? Given the examination of the mediating role of attitudes, these elements need support from the literature more specifically in the paper.

Responds: This problem has been clarified in line 61-87.

2.5 Sections 2.2 through 2.5 need revision to better provide clarity. The mini-sections read as if sentences were pulled from another source and placed in proximity to each other.

Responds: Sections 2.2 through 2.5 had been revised with the yellow highlight.

3. In section 3.0, the authors noted that they employed a mixed-methods design. What is the design specifically, i.e., Convergent Design, Explanatory Sequential Design, or Exploratory Sequential Design?

Responds: The mixed- method refers to the combined qualitative and quantitative approaches. The yellow and highlighted part in line 264-270 had been illustrated.

3.1 Please specify the design in light of identifying the processes undertaken for the study.

Responds: This study introduces the five-star teaching model into course teaching. It underscores the importance of instructional cycles that revolve around problem-solving, involving a sequence of activating existing knowledge, showcasing new knowledge, and engaging in applications and achieving full mastery. The outer layer of the diagram delineates an additional cycle encompassing structure, guidance, direction, and reflection. This approach embodies quality and efficiency in teaching, aligning with the psychological development needs of students. The specific design is shown as follows:

• Course Design (CD)

Integrate digital technology, digital technology ATT, digital literacy, digital self-efficacy, and online engagement into the CD. CD focuses on a combination of online and offline activities. Online tasks are announced to activate prior knowledge and demonstrate new exemplar knowledge. Offline, new knowledge is demonstrated through practice and finally mastered through a final exam. Then, students are promoted to the next task.

• Learning Experience (LE)

In the LE, students sort out the tasks they have received. Then they recall previous experiences, supplement the original experience, and organize the knowledge structure around the goal, clearly organizing the learning of new knowledge online. In the Offline, through practical exercises, students work in groups to complete learning tasks and present them, then integrate feedback to improve their abilities, and finally carry out innovative design.

• Face to face (F2F)

In F2F, teacher-student interaction and teacher guidance are the most critical links. Teachers should set up a teaching environment to stimulate students’ enthusiasm for exercise and correct their learning attitudes. Teachers should correct errors promptly and answer questions raised by students in the process of practice. After the course is completed, it is not static. It is also necessary to reflect on and improve the course based on teaching effectiveness and evaluation. After all the students have mastered the knowledge, the teacher should collect learning data and expand extracurricular materials. Then enter the next cycle.

I'm not sure if this part will be added to the paper. Can you give me some advice?

4. Section 3.1, please discuss what the “10 times rule” is so the reader understands the decision made relative to the sample size for the study.

Responds: 10 times rule is the number of samples should be at least 10 times the number of indicators. It had been modified in lines 276 – 279.

5. Line 223 do not capitalize “Three.”

Responds: We feel sorry for our careless mistakes. In our resubmitted manuscript, the typo is revised. Thanks for your correction.

6. In line 224, the authors note the BL PE courses lasted one to three semesters. Please clarify whether participants were enrolled in all three semesters and at which point they completed the survey. Also, what was the nature of the courses, i.e., compulsory, fitness, sport?

Responds: Line 287-290 “These students participated in a PE compulsory course with BL lasting one to three semesters, which included weekly 90-minute F2F sessions. Participants completed the survey at the end of the third semester” was added.

7. Section 3.3 What was the total number of questions for the survey?

Responds: There were 25 questions in the questionnaire. Line 305 to 312 were detailed detail.

8. On line 247, the authors note, “To ensure the validity and reliability of the self-reported measures for the Chinese student sample, the translation process followed three steps as outlined by Agbuga et al. [51]”.

8.1 What were the steps followed?

Responds: It had been illustrated in line 315-320: “Initially, two researchers proficient in both Chinese and English, along with a bilingual physical educator, scrutinized all questionnaire items. A reverse translation from Chinese to English was then executed, revealing only minor word adjustments that did not significantly impact the content. Subsequently, a pilot study was conducted with 30 students who did not participate in the formal survey to validate the readability of the translated questionnaire items. No questions were raised.”

8.2 What are the validity and reliability metrics for the survey, given the survey items for each variable were adapted from previous instruments?

Responds: The reliability of the survey was verified with Colonbach’s alpha and composite reliability, and the requiring reliability greater than 0.708 was retained based on Hair (2017). Convergent validity is considered for the AVE, requiring the AVE to be greater than 0.5. Discriminant validity is considered cross-loading, Fornell-lacker criterion, and HTMT. Where cross-loading requires that the external loading on the index is greater than its cross-loading on other structures. The Fornell-lacker criterion requires that the square root of the AVE is greater than its highest correlation with any other structure. The HTMT requirements are less than 0.9. During the pilot study, all the indicators met the requirements.

9. Section 3.4, the authors do not provide detail regarding the qualitative component of the stated mixed method design.

9.1 What was undertaken for this component?

Responds: Section 3.4 was mainly conducted quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis of this paper mainly interviewed 10 teachers and 30 students for the current situation. At last, proposed the teaching strategy of "five-star teaching mode" and invite three outstanding experts from the Curriculum Evaluation Group and the Curriculum Education Division of the Ministry of Education to give the evaluation on the strategy. The evaluation is mainly through the form of interviews, aiming at the rationality of teaching content, the effectiveness of teaching methods, the compatibility of teaching methods and the scientific nature of the evaluation methods. And then give a comprehensive evaluation on the teaching strategy.

9.2 How were participants selected to participate?

Responds: Since not all PE courses include blended learning, stable participants are surveyed at students with blended learning through convenient sampling.

9.3 How was data collected? How were interviews transcribed and analyzed?

Responds: Data collection was conducted centrally during the first 20 minutes of PE class at the end of the third semester. The interviews in this article are mainly based on the status quo of students' engagement and attitude in PE learning. There are six main questions for teachers and students：

1. How about the students‘ engagement in PE learning？
2. What factors do the students reflect through them？
3. What aspects do students' learning engagement status show？
4. How about the attitude of the students toward PE？
5. What are the problems of students existing in PE learning？
6. What factors do you think that lead to insufficient participation in PE learning among students?

There are six main questions for students：

1. How about your engagement in PE learning？
2. What factors doyou reflect through them？
3. What aspects doyour learning engagement status show？
4. How about your attitude toward PE？
5. What problems do you think in physical education？
6. What factorsdo you think that lead to insufficient participation in PE learning?

Due to the small number of interviewees, we sorted out all the interview results, and summarized and stated the content proposed by most of them.

9.4 How was trustworthiness ensured?

Responds: We invited three outstanding experts from the Curriculum Evaluation Group and the Curriculum Education Division of the Ministry of Education to give the evaluation of teaching strategies. The evaluation is mainly through the form of interviews, aiming at the rationality of teaching content, the effectiveness of teaching methods, the compatibility of teaching methods and the scientific nature of the evaluation methods. And then give a comprehensive evaluation on the teaching strategy.

10. Line 267, revise awkward wording, “no major hiccups”.

Responds: Line 333, “there appeared no major problem in that time” had changed the “hiccups”.

11. Line 271 states “used in this dissertation” should be deleted.

Responds: The states “used in this dissertation” had been deleted.

12. Section 5, I am not sure what or how the Five-star model comes into play relative to the study. Is this a finding?

Responds: It is a design of a teaching strategy, which is explained in detail in section 3.1.

13. English language usage is adequate, but the manuscript would benefit from copy editing.

Responds: Thank you very much for your sincere advice. This article has been polished by professional English teachers.

 

There are some highlights of other colors to respond suggestions by peer reviews. The red font is the language polish made by the professionals.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Line13:  Please confirm whether your inquiry pertains to students' attitudes towards the mixed method of teaching physical education.

Lines 13 to 14: It would be preferable if you were to include a sentence such as, "We endeavored to construct a theoretical model that is pertinent to the interconnection of the aforementioned factors, drawing on a comprehensive review..." This would facilitate comprehension of the content in lines 13 and 14. Otherwise, the objective of the study remains unclear.

Line 16: Attitudes….towards the ….. please specify.

Lines 17 to 18: … affects their engagement in physical education significantly. Positively or negatively? Please specify.

Introduction

Lines 37 to 38: According to other bibliography sources the term "blended teaching" is used to describe a method of instruction that combines in-person, classroom-based, synchronous teaching with elements of online learning and technology-enhanced pedagogies. It is my contention that the term "computer-based learning" is not an optimal fit within the context and overarching principles of physical education. It would be preferable to use the term "technology-enhanced learning" in this context.

Lines 38 to 42: In the initial paragraph of the introduction (lines 28 to 35), the reference is made to physical education courses. Nevertheless, in the second paragraph (lines 38 to 42), the terms "class" and "classrooms" are employed. The use of this terminology is somewhat confusing, as it is unclear whether the discussion pertains to blended learning in general at the university level or specifically to physical education courses. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide further clarification or move this paragraph to a more appropriate position.

Line 43: Replace “Most” with “most”. It would be beneficial to have the term "classroom" defined as the location where the physical education class is conducted. Such a space may be a track and field stadium, a swimming pool, a basketball court, and so forth. It is evident that the term "classroom" does not refer to these spaces.

Lines 52 to 60: It is proposed that this paragraph be relocated to Chapter 3, Section 3.1, entitled 'Population and Sampling'. This information is more appropriately included in this chapter, as it describes the research process in question.

Lines 67 to 68. As correctly stated on line 101, the attitudes under examination pertain to attitudes towards blended learning. In the context of research with a specific objective, it is not feasible to make a generalised reference to attitudes. It is essential to be explicit about the specific attitudes under consideration, as indicated by the title if possible. This may entail delineating attitudes towards people with disabilities, attitudes towards the use of anabolic steroids, and so forth. I must confess that I am somewhat perplexed by RQ2. I am uncertain as to the precise nature of the information you are seeking. Please provide a more detailed clarification.

Literature review

Lines 70 to 198: In my view, this entire chapter is not of a nature that can be subjected to scientific investigation. It is more akin to a master's or doctoral thesis. It would be beneficial to retain the research hypotheses from this chapter, as well as Figure 1, and integrate them into the conclusion of the introduction chapter. This will ensure that your study is aligned with the established guidelines for composing journal articles. Nevertheless, should the editor have no objection to this presentation of the research, it is recommended that it be maintained in its current form.

Research Methodology

Line 206: Please correct "Towards" and spell it with a "t".

Line 213 to 214. Please confirm whether a G-power analysis was conducted to ascertain the precise number of individuals included in the sample.

Line 216: This determination was made based on the number of items included in the questionnaire. Please specify which questionnaire you are referring to.

Results and discussion

Line 276: It is requested that the results chapter be separated from the discussion chapter. These are always two distinct chapters.

Line 278: Please provide details of the statistical analysis software you employed in order to analyze the data.

Discussion

Line 349: This is a new chapter. Chapter No 5. Discussion.

Line 350: I would be grateful if you could provide a brief overview of the methodology employed to assess the impact of BL on student engagement in physical education.

Line 359: Please remove Figure 2 to the Results section and provide an explanation thereof. In the discussion section, we offer commentary on our findings and present evidence drawn from the preceding bibliography.

Line 414 and line 426: This is not pertinent to the discussion section. Should therefore be relocated to the most appropriate section, namely the introduction or the methodology.

Line 477. The chapter entitled "Conclusions" should be written here. A single paragraph of approximately five to ten lines is sufficient to convey the key findings of the study in a straightforward manner.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer:

Thank you for your careful review of our manuscript entitled “The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in Physical Education among University Students in China: The Mediating Role of Attitudes” (ID: sustainability-3265480). We have taken the reviewers’ comments into serious consideration and made significant revisions to the paper. We have addressed all the major issues raised and revised the corresponding sections accordingly. Revised portions are marked in green highlight in the paper. We believe that the manuscript has been improved significantly and now meets the journal’s standards.

1. Please confirm whether your inquiry pertains to students' attitudes towards the mixed method of teaching physical education.

Responds: Questions about attitudes in the questionnaire were closely related to blended learning in physical education. For example, the questions contain:

(1) The blended learning makes me get excited about the PE class.

(2) I think blended learning makes my study in PE class very interesting.

(3) I think blended learning is very valuable to me.

To make the attitude more significantly toward blended learning, the abstract is clearly illustrated, with 17 lines.

 

2. Lines 13 to 14: It would be preferable if you were to include a sentence such as, "We endeavored to construct a theoretical model that is pertinent to the interconnection of the aforementioned factors, drawing on a comprehensive review..." This would facilitate comprehension of the content in lines 13 and 14. Otherwise, the objective of the study remains unclear.

Responds: Thanks very much for your suggestions. Line 14-16 had been revised.

 

3. Line 16: Attitudes….towards the ….. please specify.

Responds: In line 19 had revised to “attitude toward blended learning”.

 

4. Lines 17 to 18: … affects their engagement in physical education significantly. Positively or negatively? Please specify.

Responds: Line 20 had revised that: Face-to-face sessions and students’ attitudes in blended learning have positive effects on their engagement in physical education.

 

5. Lines 37 to 38: According to other bibliography sources the term "blended teaching" is used to describe a method of instruction that combines in-person, classroom-based, synchronous teaching with elements of online learning and technology-enhanced pedagogy. It is my contention that the term "computer-based learning" is not an optimal fit within the context and overarching principles of physical education. It would be preferable to use the term "technology-enhanced learning" in this context.

Responds: Thanks so much for your advice, which has been adjusted in line 39.

 

6. Lines 38 to 42: In the initial paragraph of the introduction (lines 28 to 35), the reference is made to physical education courses. Nevertheless, in the second paragraph (lines 38 to 42), the terms "class" and "classrooms" are employed. The use of this terminology is somewhat confusing, as it is unclear whether the discussion pertains to blended learning in general at the university level or specifically to physical education courses. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide further clarification or move this paragraph to a more appropriate position.

Responds: This article is a study of blended learning in PE in universities. The “class” and “classrooms” mentioned in the second part are closely related to physical education learning. Class is the foothold of PE teaching. Classroom refers to the place where PE teaching is implemented. These two factors are very important carriers and environments for PE learning. So the class and classrooms are used.

 

7. Line 43: Replace “Most” with “most”. It would be beneficial to have the term "classroom" defined as the location where the physical education class is conducted. Such a space may be a track and field stadium, a swimming pool, a basketball court, and so forth. It is evident that the term "classroom" does not refer to these spaces.

Responds: We apologize for this formatting issue. It should now have been fixed in line 44. In order to more clearly explain the problems existing in traditional PE teaching, the 45-60 lines were fully adjusted.

 

8. Lines 52 to 60: It is proposed that this paragraph be relocated to Chapter 3, Section 3.1, entitled 'Population and Sampling'. This information is more appropriately included in this chapter, as it describes the research process in question.

Responds: This part is retained in lines 88-97 because this part is mainly based on the current situation of university students' learning engagement in PE from the perspective of teachers and students.

 

9. Lines 67 to 68. As correctly stated on line 101, the attitudes under examination pertain to attitudes towards blended learning. In the context of research with a specific objective, it is not feasible to make a generalized reference to attitudes. It is essential to be explicit about the specific attitudes under consideration, as indicated by the title if possible. This may entail delineating attitudes towards people with disabilities, attitudes towards the use of anabolic steroids, and so forth. I must confess that I am somewhat perplexed by RQ2. I am uncertain as to the precise nature of the information you are seeking. Please provide a more detailed clarification.

Responds: We have carefully considered your question, and it is clear that it is an attitude towards blended learning in PE in RQ2 of line 104.

 

10. Lines 70 to 198: In my view, this entire chapter is not of a nature that can be subjected to scientific investigation. It is more akin to a master's or doctoral thesis. It would be beneficial to retain the research hypotheses from this chapter, as well as Figure 1, and integrate them into the conclusion of the introduction chapter. This will ensure that your study is aligned with the established guidelines for composing journal articles. Nevertheless, should the editor have no objection to this presentation of the research, it is recommended that it be maintained in its current form.

Responds: The literature review in lines 111-224 has been substantially modified to make this section more logical and more fluent in language.

 

11. Line 206: Please correct "Towards" and spell it with a "t".

Responds: We were really sorry for our careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminder.

 

12. Line 213 to 214. Please confirm whether a G-power analysis was conducted to ascertain the precise number of individuals included in the sample.

Responds: Thanks so much for your reminder. The method of the ten-fold rule of the number of indicators we used when choosing the number of samples. Under your reminder, we added the G-Power analytical method in line 279.

 

13. Line 216: This determination was made based on the number of items included in the questionnaire. Please specify which questionnaire you are referring to.

Responds: The source of the questionnaire was explained in lines 305-312.

 

14. Line 276: It is requested that the results chapter be separated from the discussion chapter. These are always two distinct chapters.

Responds: The results and discussion have been divided into two sections based on your request in line 342 and 422.

 

15. Line 278: Please provide details of the statistical analysis software you employed in order to analyze the data.

Responds: This article used smart pls 4.0 for the data analysis. Smart PLS 4.0 is the main method of all PLS-SEM analysis. Smart PLS 4.0 software is currently a widely used software in management, organizational behavior, information systems, and other fields. Its principle is to use the partial least squares (PLS) method for statistical analysis.

 

16. Line 349: This is a new chapter. Chapter No 5. Discussion.

Responds: Chapter 5 had been a new chapter from line 422.

 

17. Line 350: I would be grateful if you could provide a brief overview of the methodology employed to assess the impact of BL on student engagement in physical education.

Responds: We invited three outstanding experts from the Curriculum Evaluation Group and the Curriculum Education Division of the Ministry of Education to give the evaluation of teaching strategies. The evaluation is mainly through the form of interviews, aiming at the rationality of teaching content, the effectiveness of teaching methods, the diversity of teaching methods, and the scientific nature of the evaluation methods. And then give a comprehensive evaluation of the teaching strategy.

 

18. Line 359: Please remove Figure 2 to the Results section and provide an explanation thereof. In the discussion section, we offer commentary on our findings and present evidence drawn from the preceding bibliography.

Responds: Thank you very much for your advice, as we had removed Figure 2 to line 393.

 

19. Line 414 and line 426: This is not pertinent to the discussion section. Should therefore be relocated to the most appropriate section, namely the introduction or the methodology.

Responds: We are very grateful for your advice, as we had deleted this part.

 

20. Line 477. The chapter entitled "Conclusions" should be written here. A single paragraph of approximately five to ten lines is sufficient to convey the key findings of the study in a straightforward manner.

Responds: Your advice is very effective, and we added this content to this section from line 529.

 

There are some highlights of other colors that are also suggested by peer reviews. The red font is the language polish made by the professionals.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors and Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have undertaken revisions that assist in strengthening the paper. I recommend deleting lines 44-52 as the revised section that follows is stronger. However, there is still a major issue in regards to the study design, data collection and analysis. The authors note interviews were completed and the qualitative data was used to create a teaching strategy. However, the authors provide no information regarding the the manner in which interviews were conducted or analyzed. In section 3.0, the authors noted that they employed a mixed-methods design. What is the design specifically, i.e., Convergent Design, Explanatory Sequential Design, or Exploratory Sequential Design? Please specify the design in light of identifying the processes undertaken for the study.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful review and constructive feedback provided. We agree with your suggestions and will incorporate the recommended changes into the manuscript.

1. I recommend deleting lines 44-52 as the revised section that follows is stronger.

Responds: This part has already been deleted from the article.

 

2. However, there is still a major issue in regard to the study design, data collection, and analysis. The authors note interviews were completed and the qualitative data was used to create a teaching strategy. However, the authors provide no information regarding the manner in which interviews were conducted or analyzed. In section 3.0, the authors noted that they employed a mixed-methods design. What is the design specifically, i.e., Convergent Design, Explanatory Sequential Design, or Exploratory Sequential Design? Please specify the design in light of identifying the processes undertaken for the study.

Responds: As in this study, we focused on using quantitative analysis and proposed a teaching strategy based on it, we finally determined the research method of using quantitative analysis in this study. And highlighted with a red mark at line 290.

 

        We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. We appreciate for reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

        Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier. I hope you have a great weekend.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I commend you for your efforts to correct this article.
Nevertheless, the article remains faithful to its original design, which gives it the appearance of a small master's or doctoral thesis. The article contains a number of repetitions and lacks the structure typically found in articles published in this journal.
Notwithstanding the additional effort you have made, you have not provided clear hypotheses that are adequately supported by the discussion.
It would be advisable to rewrite the article from scratch, with due consideration for the format required by the journal, and to use a larger sample.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate your professional review work on our article. As you noted, several problems need to be addressed. Based on your suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft; the detailed corrections are listed below.

1. It would be advisable to rewrite the article from scratch

Responds: Considering your opinion, we have combed the structure of the article and mainly revised the literature review section to make it look more like the requirements of a journal article, see lines 108-288. 

 

2. To use a larger sample.

Responds: Based on your opinion on expanding the sample size, we have added 101 more samples. Our responses are given in normal font; additions to the manuscript are given in orange text; see lines 306 and 310.

        We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes. We appreciate your warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

        Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I'm sorry I didn't reply earlier. I hope you have a great weekend.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the care and attention to the revisions made for the manuscript #3265480. You have addressed all my concerns brought forward in both of my reviews. The paper has been greatly improved in both method and overall readability. Well done!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and providing us with your valuable comments and suggestions. Your professional feedback has not only helped us identify areas for improvement but also inspired us to think more deeply about the research topic. We greatly appreciate your constructive critique and recommendations, which will significantly enhance the quality and academic value of our work.

Once again, thank you for your time and effort in supporting our research. We look forward to benefiting from your guidance and insights in the future. I wish you a Merry Christmas in advance.

Sincerely,
Yanan Yu

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review round 3

 The Effects of Blended Learning on Learning Engagement in 2 Physical Education among University Students in China: The 3 Mediating Role of Attitudes 4

Yanan Yu,; Khairudin Bin Che Tak; Richard Bailey; Nadia Samsudin; Ce Ren.

 

Abstract

Lines 11 to 13. “Under the pedagogical concept of sustainable development, an increasing number of 11 interdisciplinary pedagogies are being applied in physical education, moving away from traditional 12 face-to-face teaching methods”.

Comment 1: The conventional approach to teaching physical education relies predominantly on the human element and the expertise of the instructor (communication skills, authority, subject matter knowledge, leadership, etc.). The integration of new technologies and the blended learning methodology has been in existence for several years and has even been effectively implemented in numerous sports teams. It would be interesting to ascertain whether this approach could be successfully adopted across all universities in China. Additionally, it would be valuable to determine whether the necessary financial resources are available to support this endeavour.

Lines 14 & 15. Comment 2: What is the precise nature of this questionnaire? It would be beneficial to provide a reference to the author who conducted the factor analysis and validated the questionnaire, as well as an assessment of its reliability and integrity.

Lines 19 to 21. “The findings revealed that face-to-face sessions and students’ attitude toward blended learning positively affect their physical education engagement.”. Conclusion, Lines 562 to 564. “The results of this study confirmed that university learners’ adoption of BL practices needs to play a mediating role in students’ attitudes.
Comment 3: I am uncertain as to the interpretation of the results. Although the idea is sound, the presentation is unnecessarily complex and opaque. Furthermore, the terminology used in the research is not clearly defined, which hinders the reader's ability to comprehend the results.

Introduction

Lines 103 to 105. Comment 4: The research questions you have formulated are appropriate and clearly defined. It would have been preferable to adhere to the style of these questions and to construct the research project on the basis of this framework. The eight hypotheses presented in the study contribute to a lack of clarity regarding the objectives of the research.

2.3. Attitudes

Lines 143 to 161.

2.4. Blended Learning

Lines 162 to 184

2.4.1. Face to Face

Lines 185 to 206.

2.4.2 Course Design

2.4.3. Learning Experience

2.5. The intermediary role of attitude

General Comment: The aforementioned concepts are well documented and have been the subject of extensive study in the international literature for several decades. It would be preferable to restrict these three paragraphs to the fundamental concepts and to cite only the most pertinent literature. The maximum length for all paragraphs should be approximately 20 lines, with a comprehensive bibliography.

Discussion

Line 459. Comment 5: It is not our practice to incorporate the results of our analyses into the discussion. The results are presented in a clear and unambiguous manner.

Conclusion: Comment 6: The conclusion must be straightforward and unambiguous, and it should not include sub-paragraphs. It is requested that paragraph 8.2 be relocated above the conclusion and positioned in a logical sequence at the conclusion of the discussion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

I have made some revisions and the responses are in the attachment. Thank you very much for your patient guidance.  

Merry Christmas Eve!

Yanan Yu 

24/12/2024

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf