Proposal for a Flipped Classroom Program with Massive Open Online Courses to Improve Access to Information and Information Literacy in Primary School Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have completed my review of the manuscript titled “Teacher training program based on Flipped Classroom with MOOC to strengthen information and information literacy among primary teachers of Regular Basic Education in the Region of Lambayeque (Peru)". I appreciate the opportunity to evaluate this work, which addresses an important area within educational research. Below, I outline my observations and recommendations concerning the manuscript.

General comment:

The manuscript aims to contribute to the field of education by introducing a teacher training program using the flipped classroom approach designed to enhance information literacy. While the intention behind the study is commendable and the topic is of significant relevance, there are several critical aspects that require attention to ensure the manuscript meets the academic and scientific rigor expected for publication in the journal Societies. 

Specific comments:

Title: I suggest revising the title of the paper to reflect the study’s focus and findings more accurately. A concise and descriptive title will help attract the appropriate audience and facilitate a better understanding of the manuscript's core themes.

Research Question: The manuscript does not articulate a research question. A well-defined research question is fundamental to guiding the study's direction and framing the investigation within the broader field of study. I recommend the authors explicitly state the research question at the end of the introductory section.

Theoretical Background: The manuscript lacks a theoretical background that situates the study within the existing body of literature. A detailed review of relevant theories and prior research is essential to establish the study's foundation and significance. It would be beneficial for the authors to incorporate a comprehensive theoretical framework that clarifies how their work builds upon and contributes to existing knowledge.

Clarification of Terms: The term "the area of information" used in both the abstract and title is vague. Additionally, the definition of information literacy upon which the authors base their research is not specified. For clarity and to enhance the manuscript's contribution to the field, it is crucial to define key terms and concepts explicitly. This will also aid in situating the study within the broader discourse on information literacy.

Methods: The section titled "Instrument" mentions an original survey but fails to cite the specific scale adapted for the study. Providing detailed citations and descriptions of the methodologies employed is critical for the reproducibility of the research and for readers to fully understand the study's design and implementation.

 

Recommendation:

Given the major issues outlined above, particularly the absence of a clear research question, theoretical framework, and sufficient description of the adapted scale, my recommendation is to reject the manuscript in its current form. These elements are fundamental for establishing the study's validity, relevance, and contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Authors,

As part of the review of your manuscript, I have assessed the quality of the English language used throughout the document. While your work presents valuable insights into the topic under investigation, I have identified certain areas where improvements in language clarity and presentation could significantly enhance the manuscript's overall readability and impact. Below are my specific observations and suggestions:

Long Sentences: The manuscript contains several instances of long, complex sentences that are difficult to follow. These sentences often include multiple clauses and ideas, which can obscure the main points you are trying to convey. To improve readability and ensure that your findings are accessible to a broad audience, I recommend breaking down these long sentences into shorter, more concise ones. This practice will help in clearly communicating your ideas and maintaining the reader's attention.

Language Editing Suggested: Given the issues noted with sentence length and structure, I strongly suggest that the manuscript undergoes thorough language editing.

Clarification of Terms: I noticed the term "the area of information" is used in the abstract but is not clearly defined or explained. This term, as it stands, is quite broad and can be interpreted in various ways, potentially leading to confusion among readers. To improve clarity, I recommend providing a specific definition or context for this term early in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please find the answers in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Teacher training program based on Flipped Classroom with MOOC to strengthen information and information literacy among primary teachers of Regular Basic Education in the Region of Lambayeque (Peru)" addresses a significant challenge in the educational sector, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic which has necessitated a shift towards more digital and remote learning environments. This study meticulously identifies a gap in the digital competencies of primary teachers in Lambayeque, Peru, emphasizing their deficiencies in browsing, searching, filtering, evaluating, storing, and retrieving digital information and content. Utilizing a well-structured methodology that includes a questionnaire distributed among 917 primary teachers, the paper offers a quantitative analysis that underlines the basic level of information literacy skills among the teachers surveyed.

 

The proposed solution, a teacher training program incorporating the Flipped Classroom model supported by MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), is innovative and timely. It seeks to leverage digital tools to enhance teachers' information and digital literacy skills, which is crucial for adapting to the evolving educational landscape. The detailed presentation of the program design, which includes pre-class preparation, interactive in-class activities, and post-class assessments, is both comprehensive and practical.

 

However, the paper could benefit from a deeper exploration of the challenges and barriers to implementing such a program in the specific context of Lambayeque. While the research acknowledges the general advantages of the Flipped Classroom and MOOCs, a critical analysis of potential limitations, including technological access, teacher readiness, and sustainability of the program, would provide a more balanced view. Additionally, including qualitative feedback from the teachers involved in the pilot program, if available, could enrich the findings with practical insights and experiences.

 

In conclusion, the paper presents a well-argued case for the adoption of a Flipped Classroom with MOOC to address information literacy gaps among primary teachers in Lambayeque, Peru. Its strength lies in the clear identification of the problem, the detailed proposal of a solution, and the incorporation of expert opinions to validate the proposed program. Moving forward, the authors might consider expanding their research to include pilot program results, feedback from participants, and strategies to overcome implementation challenges, which would greatly contribute to the literature on digital literacy and teacher training in similar contexts.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please find the answers in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1-     Abstract

 

The abstract meets the expected appropriate conditions and academic writing standards for a journal article. Additionally, it provides important information regarding the purpose, population/sample, methodology, and analysis results in accordance with standard requirements.

 

2-     Introduction

 

The study presents a comprehensive review of the literature, highlighting the novelty and limitations of the research. It addresses situations that reveal the uniqueness and constraints of the study.

 

3-     Materials and Methods

 

The authors have explained the methodological approaches used in a way that is supported by the literature. However, in this part of the study, there is no information about whether the voluntary consent form was taken from the participants and whether the participants were given general information that shows transparency in the research.

 

4-     Discussion

 

In the discussion section, it is seen that the results of the research have been sufficiently compared with other studies in the literature and a cause-and-effect relationship has been established.

 

5-     Conclusions

 

The purpose of the study supports the resulting result. At the same time, suggestions were mentioned in line with the results of the study. This situation is important in terms of indicating which issues the future studies will address.

 

 

Author Response

Please find the answers in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to thank the authors for their revised article. However, there are still major issues that need to be addressed as pointed out in the following.

 

Title of the Article:

The authors mentioned in the cover letter that adjustments were made to the title of the article. Upon review, it appears that the title remains unchanged. I recommend that the title be revised to more succinctly reflect the focus and findings of the study. The current title is overly lengthy; a maximum of 12 words would be more appropriate and effective for readers to quickly grasp the core topic.

 

Research Questions:

The addition of a new research question in the revised manuscript is appreciated, yet it does not seem to be answered in this article as the information literacy of the participants is measured before the teacher training and the training is not evaluated. The question proposed, “How the proposal of a training program for educators based on Flipped Classroom with MOOC would strengthen information and information literacy in elementary Basic Education teachers of the Lambayeque Region (Peru)?”, is indeed pertinent but overly broad for this specific study. It could serve as an overarching question for a design-based research project. For the current study, a more focused sub-question that can be directly addressed within the bounds of the presented data is necessary. This would provide clarity and relevance to the research being reported.

 

Instrument Used in the Research:

The manuscript includes new details about the instrument used for data collection; however, these additions are not sufficient. It would be beneficial for the readers to see an example item from the survey to better understand the data collection process. Additionally, it is unclear in which language the survey was administered. Moreover, taking a look at the references in the section were the instrument was described I could not find the survey. I just found a health literacy survey questionnaire. Please ensure that all references directly pertain to the instrument used in this study.

 

Figure 1:

There is an issue with Figure 1 where some words are cut off at the lower end. This needs correction to ensure that all text in the figure is fully visible and legible. Figures play a critical role in conveying complex information succinctly and should therefore be presented without errors.

 

In conclusion, while the revisions made so far are a step in the right direction, addressing these pointed out issues will significantly enhance the clarity, quality, and impact of the research article. I look forward to the authors' response and the potential adjustments that will reflect these recommendations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We consider your comments to be important, therefore the information has been updated and is highlighted in yellow in the document.

Thank you very much for appreciating our academic work.

 

 

Point 1:

Article title:

The authors mentioned in the cover letter that adjustments were made to the article title. Upon review, it appears that the title remains unchanged. I recommend that the title be revised to more succinctly reflect the focus and findings of the study. The current title is too long; a maximum of 12 words would be more appropriate and effective for readers to quickly understand the central theme.

 

Response 1:

We believe it is important to include in the title of the article the full name of the first competency area of digital competencies, for a better understanding.

 

Point 2:

Research questions:

The addition of a new research question in the revised manuscript is appreciated, but it does not seem to be answered in this article, since the participants' information literacy is measured prior to teacher training and the training is not evaluated. The question posed “How would the proposal of an educator training program based on Flipped Classroom with MOOCs strengthen information and information literacy in Basic Basic Basic Education teachers in the Lambayeque Region (Peru)?”, is indeed relevant but too broad for this specific topic. study. It could serve as a general question for a design-based research project. For the current study, a more specific sub-question is needed that can be addressed directly within the confines of the data presented. This would provide clarity and relevance to the research being reported.

 

Response 2:

We believe that what you are saying is relevant, so we have updated the information, which is highlighted in yellow in the document.

 

Point 3:

Instrument used in the research:

The manuscript includes new details about the instrument used for data collection; however, these additions are not sufficient. It would be beneficial for readers to see a sample survey item to better understand the data collection process. In addition, it is not clear in what language the survey was conducted. Also, looking at the references in the section where the instrument was described I did not find the survey. I just found a health literacy survey questionnaire. Make sure all references pertain directly to the instrument used in this study.

 

Response 3:

The aspect of the instrument has been explained more explicitly, so the information has been updated and is highlighted in yellow in the document.

 

Point 4:

Figure 1:

There is a problem with Figure 1 where some words are cut off at the bottom end. This needs correction to ensure that all text in the figure is fully visible and legible. Figures play a key role in conveying complex information succinctly and therefore should be presented without errors.

 

Response 4:

We have reviewed Figure 1 and it does not present distortion as referred to, perhaps it is the Microsoft Word version.

 

Point 5:

In conclusion, while the revisions made thus far are a step in the right direction, addressing these noted issues will significantly improve the clarity, quality, and impact of the research article. I look forward to the authors' response and possible adjustments that will reflect these recommendations.

 

Response 5:

We consider your comments to be important, therefore the information has been updated and is highlighted in yellow in the document.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' efforts in addressing the comments and suggestions from the previous review. The revisions have improved the clarity, quality, and contribution of the paper. However, before publication, I recommend that the title of the paper is proofread by a native speaker as the current title is grammatically incorrect.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

As stated above, I recommend that the title is proofread by a native speaker.