Integration of Blended Learning in the Advent of COVID-19: Online Learning Experiences of the Science Foundation Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your paper presents a thoughtful exploration of a timely issue, but appears to be lacking in citation of existing research. It is important to remember that a substantial part of academic writing involves situating your work within the broader academic discourse. Given the wealth of research available on blended learning and online education, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, incorporating a more robust review of the literature could greatly enhance your paper. Including more references will not only lend additional credibility to your work, but it can also provide further insight and nuance to your findings. Therefore, I recommend revisiting the literature, identifying key studies, and integrating those references into your paper to strengthen your argument and increase its quality.

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to the development of the manuscript. It has enlightened us to deeply look at the missing points and to have a concise and coherent articulation of the results and effective problematization. Moreover, this manuscript has taken a dynamic approach and paradigm shift in addressing the issue through a detailed discussion. Below find the responses to the reviewers’ comments and concerns attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article ‘Integration of Blended Learning in the Advent of COVID-19: Online learning experiences of the Science Foundation Students’ explored issues when deploying online learning in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Format issues (structure of the article).- ‘Educational Sciences’ do not enforce strict formatting requirements to the articles. However, the manuscripts should have at least these sections: Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions. In fact, the article includes the mandatory sections. However, in my opinion the structure of the paper is a little bit confusing to read.

Comments and suggestions

Minor issues

·         The format of the different sections is different

·         Line 123.- Writing the statement as an idea, it could be included in the next paragraph (lines 124-131). In that case, ‘Figure 1’ would appear immediately once it has been mentioned.

·         Figures and included in the article without being mentioned in the previous paragraph.

 

Other comments

Line 33.- it refers to an article supposedly written by Liu and Long -> see comment in the ‘References’ of this review.

Line 37.- see comment in the ‘References’ of this review.

I think that a review of the entire article in order to check that what is included in the text in the text should done previously to continue reviewing the article.

-

Section 5.- this paper is supposed to include a ‘mixed method approach’ (line 94). Which one is the quantitative data? Which one is the statistical treatment of the quantitative data?

-

Which ones were the questions asked to the surveyed students? When were asked the questions?

--

References

There are a lot of recent published research studies which are not mentioned that are related with the topic that is analyzed (only 4 references -out of -18 were written from 2019 on). Including some of them in the article would add value to this contribution.

Reference number 1.- Liu, J and Long, Y (2014). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. High. Educ.Res. Dev Higher Education Research 416 and Development, 32(4), 529– 544

-

The author of this article is diferent -> Martin Davies (2013) Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered, Higher Education Research & Development, 32:4, 529-544, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.697878

--

Reference number 2.- 2. Hwakoh, Y. 2002. Internet-based distance learning in higher education. Tech Directions, 62(1): 28–32

-

The author of this article is different -> Internet-Based Distance Learning in Higher Education.

Hofmann, Donald W.

Tech Directions, v62 n1 p28-32 Aug 2002

…

-

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to the development of the manuscript. It has enlightened us to deeply look at the missing points and to have a concise and coherent articulation of the results and effective problematization. Moreover, this manuscript has taken a dynamic approach and paradigm shift in addressing the issue through a detailed discussion. Below find the responses to the reviewers’ comments and concerns attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 252-254: I noticed in your response that you have included the findings of other studies to validate the claims, which is commendable. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the specific study I recommended, which assessed the use of media devices for educational purposes, has not been cited. I believe that incorporating this particular study could further enrich the discussion and contribute a unique perspective to your work.

 

Thank you for the comprehensive insights presented in the "Implications and Recommendations" section. The recommendations are thoughtful and practical. One comment that I would like to make is to suggest providing more specificity on the financial implications mentioned in line 448. It would be helpful for the readers if you could elaborate on what aspects of financial constraints might be encountered and propose potential strategies for academic institutions to overcome these financial barriers in order to effectively integrate online platforms and Learning Management Systems. This will provide a more robust understanding of the practical challenges involved and offer feasible solutions that academic institutions could employ.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to the development of the manuscript. It has enlightened us to deeply look at the missing points and to have a concise and coherent articulation of the results and effects. Below find the responses to the reviewers’ comments and concerns attached.

Point 1: Line 252-254: I noticed in your response that you have included the findings of other studies to validate the claims, which is commendable. However, I would like to bring to your attention that the specific study I recommended, which assessed the use of media devices for educational purposes, has not been cited. 

 

Response to the reviewer: The source has been included per the recommendations.

 

 

Point 2: One comment that I would like to make is to suggest providing more specificity on the financial implications mentioned in line 463. It would be helpful for the readers if you could elaborate on what aspects of financial constraints might be encountered and propose potential strategies for academic institutions to overcome these financial barriers in order to effectively integrate online platforms and Learning Management Systems.

Response to the reviewer: in line 463-467, the potential strategies for overcoming financial barriers were proposed in the recommendations ad implications of the study.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

New version of the article ‘Integration of Blended Learning in the Advent of COVID-19: Online learning experiences of the Science Foundation Students’.

Format issues.- ‘Educational Sciences’ do not enforce strict formatting requirements to the articles. However, the manuscripts should have at least these sections: Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Conclusions. In fact, the article includes the mandatory sections. However, in my opinion the structure of the paper keep on being  confusing to read.

Comments and suggestions

Minor issues

·         The format of the different sections keeps on being different

·         Line 15.- ‘… the academic year 2021The findings ...’ lacks a point

·         Line 35.- ‘... these requirements [2], access].’

·         Line 134.- ‘... respondents (75%)) s ...’

·         Figures and included in the article without being mentioned in the previous paragraph (e.g. Figure 1,…).

 

Other comments

Line 31.- it refers to an article supposedly written by Liu and Long -> see comment in the ‘References’ of this review.

Line 35.- It refers to an article supposedly written by an author … (see comment in the ‘References’ of this review).

-

Section 5.- This paper is supposed to include a ‘mixed method approach’ (line 92) ‘to address the objective of this paper’. Which one is the quantitative data?

-

Which ones were the questions asked to the surveyed students? These questions should be displayed in the article.

--

References

Several references keep on being wrong, as mentioned in a previous revision …

Reference number 1.- Liu, J and Long, Y (2014). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. High. Educ.Res. Dev Higher Education Research 416 and Development, 32(4), 529– 544

-

The author of this article is diferent -> Martin Davies (2013) Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered, Higher Education Research & Development, 32:4, 529-544, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.697878

--

Reference number 2.- 2. Hwakoh, Y. 2002. Internet-based distance learning in higher education. Tech Directions, 62(1): 28–32

-

The author of this article is different -> Internet-Based Distance Learning in Higher Education.

Hofmann, Donald W.

Tech Directions, v62 n1 p28-32 Aug 2002

…

Author Response

Dear reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments and contributions to the development of the manuscript. It has enlightened us to look deeply at the missing points and to have a concise and coherent articulation of the results and effects. Below find the responses to the reviewers’ comments and concerns attached.

 

Point 1: ·         The format of the different sections keeps on being different.

• Line 15.- ‘… the academic year 2021The findings ...’ lacks a point: it has been reorganised to convey meaning
• Line 35.- ‘... these requirements [2], access].’ The problem has been attended and a transitional word was placed to punctuate it.
• Line 134.- ‘... respondents (75%)) s ...’ The second close brack has been removed to capture appropriate content
• Figures and included in the article without being mentioned in the previous paragraph (e.g. Figure 1,…). The details were captured accordingly.

 

Other comments

Line 31.- it refers to an article supposedly written by Liu and Long -> see comment in the ‘References’ of this review. The references have been revisited and revised based on the provided corrections.

Line 35.- It refers to an article supposedly written by an author … (see comment in the ‘References’ of this review). It has been revised

-

Section 5.- This paper is supposed to include a ‘mixed method approach’ (line 92) ‘to address the objective of this paper’. Which one is the quantitative data?. The qualitative has been established alone.

-

Which ones were the questions asked to the surveyed students? These questions should be displayed in the article. It has been attached below the references

--

References

Several references keep on being wrong, as mentioned in a previous revision …

Reference number 1.- Liu, J and Long, Y (2014). Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered. High. Educ.Res. Dev Higher Education Research 416 and Development, 32(4), 529– 544

-corrected

The author of this article is diferent -> Martin Davies (2013) Critical thinking and the disciplines reconsidered, Higher Education Research & Development, 32:4, 529-544, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2012.697878

--corrected

Reference number 2.- 2. Hwakoh, Y. 2002. Internet-based distance learning in higher education. Tech Directions, 62(1): 28–32

-removed and replaced

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf