Bloom’s Taxonomy Student Persona Responses to Blended Learning Methods Employing the Metaverse and Flipped Classroom Tools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The papper adds to the large number of publications on the beneficial effects of invested classroom and flipped learning models on learning, providing new visions and proposals for their implementation in classrooms. However, we believe that the contribution can be improved through three elements:

1. Reform the title and summary to include references to Bloom's taxonomy, since this is part of the core of the writing.

2. Reduce the number of hypotheses through the inclusion in the theoretical framework of a section on the main personalities of the students.

3. Include references to the figures in the body of the text prior to them in order to announce them and show the relationship.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 response

Thank you for the very constructive feedback. We are pleased to inform you that the following corrections have been made by authors:

1. The tittle has been reformed and the final is “Bloom’s Taxonomy Students’ Personas response to Blended Learning Methods employing Metaverse and Flipped Class-room Tools”. In addition, reference to Bloom's taxonomy is included to the summary of the paper, emphasizing to the research core.
2. The hypotheses have been clarified to main and secondary ones and literature review about main personalities of the students and the learners’ characteristics has been incorporated in the theoretical framework literature review.
3. The figures have been fully described in the body of the text prior to announce them and show the relationship; also, centrality values have been included in order to demonstrate its centrality category.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper represents good work that deserves to be accepted for publication. However, there are some aspects that, if implemented, could improve the quality of the paper. For instance,

-         -   Could the method used to determine the personas vary depending on the sample? Why not employ a more objective method?

-           -  It is difficult to clearly determine the number of instruments/questionnaires used and their contribution to the general questionnaire. It is suggested that these aspects be clarified. For example, it is mentioned that the questionnaire consists of 44 questions divided into four sections. However, the explanations from lines 249-269 do not clearly specify the instruments used for each section. Including all the questions used in an annexe would also be desirable. Additionally, when were these questionnaires administered and in what contexts?

-         -  It is also noted that during both the in-person and digital courses, a member of the writing-research team made observations regarding the student's participation and its intensity. However, these observations were not analyzed or discussed.

The paper could be revised for minor inaccuracies.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 response

Thank you for the very constructive feedback. We are pleased to inform you that the following corrections have been made by authors:

1. According to Kline (2016)[1], "factors are typically named by considering what their most salient manifest variables have in common. Both pattern and structure coefficients should be used for this purpose, but structure coefficients may be more useful because they reflect factor-variable correlations without the confounding effect of other factors". Researchers of the paper support the argument that naming factor methodology is subjective and largely depended on the researchers’ judgement. The contribution of the methodological concept of the paper lies on the transparency of naming factors, using network analysis which through centrality tests and more specifically Betweeness, Closeness, Strength and Expected Influence centrality tests, robust the subjective naming procedure. As final remark the methodology, as presented, adds value to the paper and the EFA naming factors objectivity.
2. The sections of the qualitative research tool, the questionnaire, have clearly specified the instruments used for each section, an annexe is included at the end of the paper and has been referred the date of their administration.
3. The authors analyzed and discussed the observation results further, at the final chapter of the paper to provide deeper analysis and understandings into student engagement and learning processes.

[1] Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.