Project-Based Teaching in Organic Chemistry through Blended Learning Model to Develop Self-Study Capacity of High School Students in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

El trabajo organizado linealmente de acuerdo con el propósito del problema que plantea tiene bien sus aspectos metodológicos, aunque en algún momento estaría bien concretar los objetivos generales del trabajo.

 

También sería interesante que aclarase el tipo de muestreo que utilizó.

 

Finalmente, en el apartado de discusión deberían compararse los resultados con otros ya realizado y establecer científicamente el valor de este trabajo.

 

 

 

The work organized linearly according to the purpose of the problem that it raises has its methodological aspects well, although at some point it would be good to specify the general objectives of the work.

 

It would also be interesting if you clarify the type of sampling you used.

 

Finally, in the discussion section, the results should be compared with others already carried out and the value of this work scientifically established.

 

 

Author Response

C

Reviewers’ response

Dear Prof. Editor in Chief and Prof. Reviewers

We were pleased to have an opportunity to revise our manuscript now entitled
“Project-based Teaching in Organic Chemistry through Blended Learning Model to Develop Self- study Capacity of High School Students in Vietnam”. In revised manuscript, we have carefully considered reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As instructed, we have attempted to succinctly explain changes made in reaction to all comments. We reply to each comment in point-by-point fashion. The reviewers’ comments were very helpful overall, and we are appreciative of such constructive feedback on our original submission. Our English have already been revised. After addressing the issues raised, we think that the quality of the paper is much improved.

Sincerely,

 

Authors

 

 

 Reviewer: 1

1. Methods: This section must be completely reformulated and adapted to a recognizable structure in a research process (objectives, participants, instruments ... procedure, analysis ...).

Answer:

Thank you for noting this. We have completely structured this section (Objectives, Research Design, Participants, Instruments and Data analysis)

2. Results and discussion: The current section on results and discussion needs to be completely reworked. Look for an alternative to the handling of the Tables since in the current version they are very hostile for the transfer of the information to the reader. Take care of the presentation and layout of Tables, and create an independent section that does not currently exist in the discussion.

Answer:

We appreciate your insightful suggestions. We agree that it is better to divide some table into smaller part for the transfer of the information to the reader. All layout of tables were checked, and the part of results and discussion was separated.

Thanks very much to editors and Prof. Reviewer for your precious suggestions

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction chapter summarizes the topic and the specific education system, and the rationale for the level of training. Its second paragraph, however, is entirely unusual. The list of about 40 authors, without any specific references to content or critical remarks, is only a formal illustration of how well the authors are adequately informed about the topic. It would be worthwhile to present the theoretical background of the otherwise well-justified research task differently, if necessary, with fewer but referenced sources.

The second chapter is understandable in terms of content. Still, it is confusing that the division breaks down into phases (2), principles (6), steps (5), stages (2?), Thus forcing the reader to interpret the levels. It would be appropriate to use a more precise logical system and useless articulation in this respect. The first table related to the third chapter is well constructed, assigning research problems to project topics. The 30 issues in the given multi-page table, however, are voluminous. It is not easy to interpret Table 2, which informs about experts feedback on project topics.

Modest, only a short paragraph deals with the conclusions, which is disproportionate given the lengthy study. It is justified to present in more detail the methodological possibilities of the applied procedure, the tasks of further research and development.

Modest, only a short paragraph deals with the conclusions, which is disproportionate given the lengthy study. It is justified to present in more detail the methodological possibilities of the applied procedure, the tasks of further research and development. All in all, a better-written presentation of the research work, which is undoubtedly exciting and valuable from a scientific point of view, should be realized. Therefore I suggest revising the study and including it in a more coherent system.

Author Response

Reviewers’ response

Dear Prof. Editor in Chief and Prof. Reviewers

We were pleased to have an opportunity to revise our manuscript now entitled
“Project-based Teaching in Organic Chemistry through Blended Learning Model to Develop Self- study Capacity of High School Students in Vietnam”. In revised manuscript, we have carefully considered reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As instructed, we have attempted to succinctly explain changes made in reaction to all comments. We reply to each comment in point-by-point fashion. The reviewers’ comments were very helpful overall, and we are appreciative of such constructive feedback on our original submission. Our English have already been revised. After addressing the issues raised, we think that the quality of the paper is much improved.

Sincerely,

 

Authors

 

 Reviewer: 2

1. The introduction chapter summarizes the topic and the specific education system, and the rationale for the level of training. Its second paragraph, however, is entirely unusual. The list of about 40 authors, without any specific references to content or critical remarks, is only a formal illustration of how well the authors are adequately informed about the topic. It would be worthwhile to present the theoretical background of the otherwise well-justified research task differently, if necessary, with fewer but referenced sources.

Answer:

   Thank you for mention that. We had improved introduction chapter for present the theoretical background and unsolved problems relating to our topic.

2. The second chapter is understandable in terms of content. Still, it is confusing that the division breaks down into phases (2), principles (6), steps (5), stages (2?), Thus forcing the reader to interpret the levels. It would be appropriate to use a more precise logical system and useless articulation in this respect.

Answer:

Thank you for noting this. As you suggested, we reworked this chapter.

3. The first table related to the third chapter is well constructed, assigning research problems to project topics. The 30 issues in the given multi-page table, however, are voluminous.

Answer:

A: We appreciate your insightful suggestions. We have corrected it by dividing into 2 table to be suitable contents of project topic. 

4. It is not easy to interpret Table 2, which informs about experts feedback on project topics.

Answer:

Asking for expert opinions on proposed project topics and built-in research problems was only a preliminary assessment before we had conducted pedagogical experiments. The evaluation results on these topics and research questions will continue to be evaluated and confirmed through subsequent pedagogical experiments.

5. Modest, only a short paragraph deals with the conclusions, which is disproportionate given the lengthy study. It is justified to present in more detail the methodological possibilities of the applied procedure, the tasks of further research and development.

Answer:

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions for the conclusions part. We have improved this part.

Thanks very much to editors and Prof Reviewer for your precious suggestions!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author

Methods: This section must be completely reformulated and adapted to a recognizable structure in a research process (objectives, participants, instruments ... procedure, analysis ...).

Results and discussion: The current section on results and discussion needs to be completely reworked. Look for an alternative to the handling of the Tables since in the current version they are very hostile for the transfer of the information to the reader. Take care of the presentation and layout of Tables, and create an independent section that does not currently exist in the discussion.

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewers’ response

Dear Prof. Editor in Chief and Prof. Reviewers

We were pleased to have an opportunity to revise our manuscript now entitled
“Project-based Teaching in Organic Chemistry through Blended Learning Model to Develop Self- study Capacity of High School Students in Vietnam”. In revised manuscript, we have carefully considered reviewers’ comments and suggestions. As instructed, we have attempted to succinctly explain changes made in reaction to all comments. We reply to each comment in point-by-point fashion. The reviewers’ comments were very helpful overall, and we are appreciative of such constructive feedback on our original submission. Our English have already been revised. After addressing the issues raised, we think that the quality of the paper is much improved.

Sincerely,

 

Authors

 

 Reviewer: 3

1. The work organized linearly according to the purpose of the problem that it raises has its methodological aspects well, although at some point it would be good to specify the general objectives of the work.

Answer:

We sincerely appreciate your insightful comments. The general objectives was showed in chapter 2.

2. It would also be interesting if you clarify the type of sampling you used.

Answer:

In Vietnam, there are 3 regions with different economic and cultural conditions. Therefore, when experimenting, we selected 3 high schools representing all 3 regions of the country to better assess the feasibility and effectiveness of applying nationwide.

3. Finally, in the discussion section, the results should be compared with others already carried out and the value of this work scientifically established.

Answer:

Thank you for your suggestions. We have added into the discussion section.

Thanks very much to editors and Prof. Reviewer for your precious suggestions!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After reading the authors' itemized responses to my observations, the manuscript has been substantially amended. The introductory chapter has been revised to make the presentation of the theoretical background more visual. The amendment of chapter two also made the conceptual system used in the research more transparent. Revision of the table improved the sensitivity of the information, and the information about the authors' plans was also added. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

The authors have carried out a very thorough review giving all the requested modifications.

Sincerely