Cohesive Online Education Model Using Emergent Technologies to Improve Accessibility and Impact

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The proposed model is ambitious and includes many interesting features and promises to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of education. But further research testing and evaluation is needed to ensure the validity and effectiveness. Some more spesific suggestions and some questions to be answered for your further research: Introduction: It is crucial to shorthly describe the viewpoints and not only to mention the reference. Additionlly in the reference (line 361) you should include the Corporate author and the link UNESCO International Bureau of Education [12276] How the suggested combined model for online education addresses the identified shortcomings? How does this model reflect the views expressed by UNESCO that you mentioned at the beginning of your article? Specify the methodology: It would be beneficial to include information about the methodology used to review emergent technologies and techniques. This would help readers understand the rigor and reliability of the review process. Make pilot research on the implemendation of the sugested model and test the results

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences could be refined for clarity and conciseness.

For instance, in the sentence "This expansion has gained great traction in implementation dur-ing and following the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting social interaction limitations," consider breaking it down into simpler sentences for improved readability.

Author Response

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for the contributions and clarifications proposed during the review.  This has added greatly to the quality of the document.  The author hopes that the changes made have sufficiently addressed the concerns in the limited editing period allowed.  Please see the detailed responses and summary of changes made to the document in response to the review:

Reviewer 1
The proposed model is ambitious and includes many interesting features and promises to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of education. But further research testing and evaluation is needed to ensure the validity and effectiveness.	Agreed.  The aim of the paper has been better articulated.  The testing and validation have been added and outlined in the recommendation for future work.
Introduction: It is crucial to shorthly describe the viewpoints and not only to mention the reference.	The outline of the viewpoints has been added to the introduction.
Additionlly in the reference (line 361) you should include the Corporate author and the link UNESCO International Bureau of Education [12276]	The reference has been corrected.
Some more spesific suggestions and some questions to be answered for your further How the suggested combined model for online education addresses the identified shortcomings?	The identified shortcomings and scope of the study have been expanded upon in sections 1.3, 1.4 and, section 3.
How does this model reflect the views expressed by UNESCO that you mentioned at the beginning of your article?	This has been better articulated in section 1 and section 3.
Specify the methodology: It would be beneficial to include information about the methodology used to review emergent technologies and techniques. This would help readers understand the rigor and reliability of the review process.	The methodology was described in detail in section 1.4
Make pilot research on the implemendation of the sugested model and test the results	The exploratory nature of this study has been better articulated in section 1.3 and 1.4. The quantitative components of the research has been added to the recommendations for future study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents emergent technologies in education and online education methodologies. The literature review is very good. The paper has good flow. Please fix some typos. I would suggest the authors to write a small section regarding the rationale of the study to help readers to understand the research gap and therefore the contribution of this study.

Author Response

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for the contributions and clarifications proposed during the review.  This has added greatly to the quality of the document.  The author hopes that the changes made have sufficiently addressed the concerns in the limited editing period allowed.  Please see the detailed responses and summary of changes made to the document in response to the review:

Reviewer 2
The literature review is very good. The paper has good flow. Please fix some typos. I would suggest the authors to write a small section regarding the rationale of the study to help readers to understand the research gap and therefore the contribution of this study.	The rational and scope of the study was better articulated in 1.3

Kind regards and thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for describing the cohesive online education model. I appreciate the direction of your research and taken-up matter. It is really interesting and up-to-date.

The following issues should be revised:

1. There is a lack of research questions. I will recommend creating them in a clear way, it will help to provide valuable and clear discussion and conclusions.

2. What are the possible advantages of such a combination of technologies and techniques? Please be more specific.

3. What are the requirements you took into account while creating the model?

4. What are the benefits for various stakeholders?

5. There is a mistake with the numbers of figures - please check it again and correct it.

6. I strongly recommend extending the literature used as references in the manuscript (it is a base for this manuscript). Check the citation in the text and correct it (it should be consistent in the whole manuscript).

7. There are some language mistakes and you overuse the sentence with the "however", I will recommend checking the text and rephrasing some sentences.

8. Figure 2 (the number is wrong in the manuscript) - the diagram might be presented in a more attractive way. As it plays a central role in the manuscript, I will recommend making it visually attractive + misspelling ("Micro cRedential unit").

Author Response

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for the contributions and clarifications proposed during the review.  This has added greatly to the quality of the document.  The author hopes that the changes made have sufficiently addressed the concerns in the limited editing period allowed.  Please see the detailed responses and summary of changes made to the document in response to the review:

Reviewer 3
Thank you for describing the cohesive online education model. I appreciate the direction of your research and taken-up matter. It is really interesting and up-to-date. The following issues should be revised: 1. There is a lack of research questions. I will recommend creating them in a clear way, it will help to provide valuable and clear discussion and conclusions.	The research methodology and aim was better articulated in section 1.3
2. What are the possible advantages of such a combination of technologies and techniques? Please be more specific.	This was better articulated in section 3
3. What are the requirements you took into account while creating the model?	This was outlined in section 1.3, 1.4 and section 3
4. What are the benefits for various stakeholders?	This is outline in section 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and section 3
5. There is a mistake with the numbers of figures - please check it again and correct it.	The numbering was corrected.
6. I strongly recommend extending the literature used as references in the manuscript (it is a base for this manuscript). Check the citation in the text and correct it (it should be consistent in the whole manuscript).	The literature study has been expanded substantially and tabulated in detail.  This includes existing extensive reviews of the respective body’s of knowledge.
7. There are some language mistakes and you overuse the sentence with the "however", I will recommend checking the text and rephrasing some sentences.	The document was reviewed and updated through a third party language editing process.
8. Figure 2 (the number is wrong in the manuscript) - the diagram might be presented in a more attractive way. As it plays a central role in the manuscript, I will recommend making it visually attractive + misspelling ("Micro cRedential unit").	The diagram was updated and the numbering was corrected.  It is important to the author that the figure provides a technical guideline for future work.

Thanks and kind regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Now it is clear how you reached your model. 

For the improvement of the coherence of your text, I suggest the following:

18 line: use the title: Existing teaching paradigms

19-21 Rewrite it with more cohesion..eg. you could start with Unesco ..it is more strong ..

Please take care of the double space after full stops eg: 34, 35, 58

in 1.3. subchapter where the problem identification is presented there is no need for the first sentence of the paragraph. Focus on the problem identification and the need to develop a cohesive model. rewrite the aim cohesively. Separate the Research aim from the research  methodology (see next comment)

110 line:  use the title of the Research Methodology (no need for a title for the aim of the study)

In the conclusions, you could refer to your methodology and discuss how this helped develop your model.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

19-21 Rewrite it with more cohesion..eg. you could start with Unesco ..it is more strong ..

111 and 121 be careful of the use of tenses.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

 

The author greatly appreciates your detailed inputs.  Please see the updates to the manuscript:

Now it is clear how you reached your model.  For the improvement of the coherence of your text, I suggest the following: 18 line: use the title: Existing teaching paradigms	The section title has been updated as proposed.
19-21 Rewrite it with more cohesion..eg. you could start with Unesco ..it is more strong ..	The paragraph has been rephrased as proposed.
Please take care of the double space after full stops eg: 34, 35, 58	All double spaces throughout the document have been updated.
in 1.3. subchapter where the problem identification is presented there is no need for the first sentence of the paragraph. Focus on the problem identification and the need to develop a cohesive model. rewrite the aim cohesively. Separate the Research aim from the research  methodology (see next comment)	The first sentence of the paragraph has been removed. The aim has been rephrased as proposed.
110 line:  use the title of the Research Methodology (no need for a title for the aim of the study)	The Aim and the Research Methodology have been separated as proposed.
In the conclusions, you could refer to your methodology and discuss how this helped develop your model.	A reflection on how the methodology suited the study is added in the conclusion section.
19-21 Rewrite it with more cohesion..eg. you could start with Unesco ..it is more strong ..	This paragraph has been rephrased as proposed.
111 and 121 be careful of the use of tenses.	The Research Methodology section’s tense has been revised and improved, as proposed.

 

The author hopes that these updates have addressed all the concerns or shortcomings in the manuscript.

 

With thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate the changes in your manuscript, especially section 1.3, 1.4 and section 3. You have addressed my concerns and in my opinion the idea of your research is now clear and fully understandable. The greatest advanages are:

- clear aim of the work (with graphic distinction),

- chosen methodology (with explanation and graphical representative),

- several tables with literature references, which improves the quatility of the manuscript.

I hope that you will continue your research on the model, and there will be next article with some testing & implementation of the model. It will be very interesting and will fulfil the gap that can be seen at the moment - now you provide just a main concept of the model...

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Sir,

The author would like to thank the reviewer for the contributions to the quality of the document.  This publication serves as a proof of concept that can attract research support interest to formalise future work with more quantitative analysis on these topics.

With thanks.