Faculty and Student Perspectives on Online Learning in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is clear that the 16 interviews that were conducted for this study provided valuable insights from the participants. The main concerns here are:

1. The context of the study: the 'online learning' in this scenario refers to online learning that took place due to Covid-19 restrictions in the academic year 2021-22 (although the details of what the online learning entailed for the different participants remains unclear). Most of the literature cited in Sections 1 and 3 refers to this unprecedented situation, but the article does not refer to this once. As some of the references themselves emphasise, this situation did not constitute 'normal' online learning (which has been researched for over 25 years), but rather an 'emergency' situation that university staff and students were not necessarily prepared to deal with (Hodges and Fowler, 2020; Scherer et al., 2021). This cannot be ignored as a contextual factor, and likewise claims cannot be made about 'online learning' generally given this context.

2. Identified themes: the themes are backed up by the data, but are not very helpful in structuring the discussion or in bringing to light new insights. The first theme appears to be more akin to an interview question, with the sub-themes as answers to the question, and overlaps quite a bit with the second theme, which seems to be a sub-theme of the first. The third theme again seems more like an interview question than a theme. For all three, it would help to be more specific in drawing out common responses.

The following are comments on specific aspects of the article. 

1. Introduction

• The literature review is quite cursory. A more thorough review of the literature could be presented here, or in the Discussion section.
• I also note that all of the research cited here is directly related to pandemic-era online learning. Again, this needs to be clearly stated.

2. Materials & Methods

2.1 Interpretive Paradigm 

Lines 81-84: The definition of social constructivism seems to be referring to cognitivism, or the cognitivist elements of social constructivism only. The methodological use of social constructivist interpretivism as described in the rest of the paragraph seems more consistent with my understanding.

2.2 Participants

Lines 100-104: The article states that people were recruited ‘based on’ gender, age, teaching experience or level. Does this mean that these characteristics were used to ensure a diverse selection of participants, or that participants were relatively homogeneous, or something else?

2.4 Data Collection & Data Analysis 

Line 117: 'IRB' may need to be explained for an international audience.

2.6 A Search for Meaning

• Line 170: The article cannot really claim that the findings provide ‘a comprehensive understanding of online learning.’ This is too broad a statement to be justified.

• Lines 182 and 195: It is unclear whether this means that all participants in the study, although they came from different institutions, used Zoom.
• Lines 197-201 are repeated in Lines 239-243.

2.6 Overall comments:

• We need to know how the participants were teaching/learning online. Most of the findings are about live sessions, but there are bits about other things (e.g. reading and videos students are supposed to read/view in their own time). It’s very important to know what kinds of online learning experiences were involved before the findings can make sense.
• We also need to know if students chose to study online (and staff chose to teach online) or if it was a result of the pandemic—this makes a huge difference, as much of the research from the past few years has shown.

3 Discussion

3.1 Challenges Encountered

• Lines 355-358: This statement doesn’t seem to be supported by the findings--references to the findings and/or the literature are needed.
• Lines 373-375: This does not seem to be supported by the findings or the literature-references to the findings and/or the literature are needed.
• Paragraph starting on Line 357: There is a lot of literature to support these findings that should be included here (if not in the literature review).

3.2 Student Engagement

• Wang et al. (2019) is the only reference in this section that does not refer to online teaching during Covid, and refers to a MOOC, which is very different from online learning that is part of a university degree, and/or the online pivot during the pandemic.
• Line 386: This is the first time it is specified that theme 2 means 'student engagement' in live online sessions—this needs to be clarified much sooner, as 'engagement' could mean many different things.
• Lines 407-420 and 443-446: These claims aren't coming from the findings for the most part—they need to be properly referenced from the literature.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Only minor corrections to the language are needed.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

• The literature review is quite cursory. A more thorough review of the literature could be presented here, or in the Discussion section.
• I also note that all of the research cited here is directly related to pandemic-era online learning. Again, this needs to be clearly stated.

Response:  

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the introduction to include a more thorough review of the literature, highlighting both the positive and negative outcomes of online learning as reported in various studies. Additionally, we have clarified that the cited research pertains to the pandemic-era online learning context. This provides a clearer backdrop for the study and underscores the unique challenges and opportunities presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. The sections highlighted in yellow indicate our additions, while those highlighted in gray are the content we have removed from the manuscript.

Comment 2:

Lines 81-84: The definition of social constructivism seems to be referring to cognitivism, or the cognitivist elements of social constructivism only. The methodological use of social constructivist interpretivism as described in the rest of the paragraph seems more consistent with my understanding.

Response:

  The initial description of social constructivism in our manuscript indeed leaned towards emphasizing cognitive processes, which may not fully encompass the broader aspects of social constructivism as it pertains to our interpretive paradigm. We appreciate this observation and have revised the relevant section to clearly articulate the social and cultural dimensions of social constructivism. This revision ensures alignment with the methodological use of social constructivist interpretivism throughout the manuscript. The revised text now accurately reflects the importance of social interactions and cultural contexts in the construction of knowledge, aligning with the overall interpretive framework of our study. Thank you for highlighting this important distinction. The sections highlighted in yellow indicate our additions, while those highlighted in gray are the content we have removed from the manuscript.  

Comment 3:  

Lines 100-104: The article states that people were recruited ‘based on’ gender, age, teaching experience or level. Does this mean that these characteristics were used to ensure a diverse selection of participants, or that participants were relatively homogeneous, or something else?  

Response:  

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the participant recruitment criteria. The characteristics mentioned (gender, age, teaching experience, or level) were used to ensure a diverse selection of participants. Our aim was to gather a wide range of perspectives and experiences to provide a comprehensive understanding of the online learning environment. We have revised the manuscript to clarify this point.

Comment 4:  

Line 117: 'IRB' may need to be explained for an international audience.  

Response:  

Thank you for pointing out the need to explain 'IRB' for an international audience. We have revised the manuscript to include a brief explanation of 'IRB'. We have provided the IRB approval code to the journal.   

Comment 5:

• Line 170: The article cannot really claim that the findings provide ‘a comprehensive understanding of online learning.’ This is too broad a statement to be justified.

• Lines 182 and 195: It is unclear whether this means that all participants in the study, although they came from different institutions, used Zoom.

• Lines 197-201 are repeated in Lines 239-243.

Response:

• We agree that the term "comprehensive understanding" may be too broad. We have revised this statement to more accurately reflect the scope of our findings.
• We have clarified this point in the manuscript to specify the use of Zoom among participants from different institutions.
• Thank you for identifying this repetition. The redundant content was within the direct quotes of participants, and we do not change them to preserve the authenticity and integrity of their responses.

Comment 6:

• Lines 355-358: This statement doesn’t seem to be supported by the findings--references to the findings and/or the literature are needed.

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. However, we believe the statement in lines 355-358 is supported by our findings.

• Lines 373-375: This does not seem to be supported by the findings or the literature-references to the findings and/or the literature are needed.

Response:

We appreciate your insight. However, we believe the statement in lines 373-375 is supported by our findings. It is not necessary for every statement to be supported by the literature.

• Paragraph starting on Line 357: There is a lot of literature to support these findings that should be included here (if not in the literature review).

Response:

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have incorporated additional literature that supports the findings discussed in the paragraph starting on line 357. This addition enhances the depth and context of our discussion.

Comment 7

• Wang et al. (2019) is the only reference in this section that does not refer to online teaching during Covid, and refers to a MOOC, which is very different from online learning that is part of a university degree, and/or the online pivot during the pandemic.

Response:

Thank you for your observation. We acknowledge that Wang et al. (2019) references a MOOC, which is distinct from traditional online learning in a university setting, especially after the pandemic. However, we included this reference to illustrate broader trends and findings in online education. We have clarified this distinction in our revised manuscript to ensure the context is properly conveyed.

• Line 386: This is the first time it is specified that theme 2 means 'student engagement' in live online sessions—this needs to be clarified much sooner, as 'engagement' could mean many different things.

Response:

Thank you for this feedback. However, we don't think this is the first time we specify that.

• Lines 407-420 and 443-446: These claims aren't coming from the findings for the most part—they need to be properly referenced from the literature.

Response:

We appreciate your input. While statements in the discussion section are not always necessarily derived from findings, and our statements are mainly based on our findings, we recognize the need for additional literature support. We have revised these sections to include appropriate references from existing literature to substantiate our claims.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to offer insights into the utilization of information technology and online learning within higher education, with the goal of informing future practices. To accomplish this, a qualitative study was undertaken, examining the online learning experiences of both university faculty and students. However, several issues necessitate attention before the article can be considered for publication.

- Abstract: The abstract exhibits structural clarity, providing a well-organized overview of objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is imperative to include additional details regarding participants and the specific methodology employed.

- Introduction: The introduction is inadequately developed, lacking a thorough review of prior studies on the subject matter. Furthermore, the study fails to clearly identify the gap it addresses. Why is such a description crucial? What insights does this analysis offer to readers of the journal? Will this research be relevant to a diverse, international audience? Additionally, what further insights could this analysis yield, and how does it relate to previous works that have explored similar issues?

- Methodology: There is ambiguity regarding the methodology. Where is the instrument used? What about its validity and reliability? Without these details, the study's rigor remains uncertain. Were the participating students informed of the research's purpose? Moreover, there is no mention of obtaining informed consent from participants, a critical aspect of any human study.

- Results: The absence of tables or graphs to illustrate the findings is noted.

- Discussion and conclusions: Both sections are exceedingly brief. There is limited engagement with prior research, suggesting that the theoretical framework may be too succinct. It is imperative to contextualize the findings within existing literature and to analyze their implications more deeply.

- Bibliographical References: Corrections are needed in this section.

Finally, obtaining ethical approval from the University Ethics Committee and securing informed consent from all participants, along with providing the authors' IRB approval number, is essential.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Abstract: The abstract exhibits structural clarity, providing a well-organized overview of objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is imperative to include additional details regarding participants and the specific methodology employed.

Response:

We appreciate your feedback on the abstract. We have revised the abstract to include additional details regarding the participants and the specific methodology employed. This revision aims to provide a clearer overview of the study's scope and methods. The parts highlighted in yellow are what we added, while the parts highlighted in gray are what we have removed from the manuscript.

Comment 2:

Introduction: The introduction is inadequately developed, lacking a thorough review of prior studies on the subject matter. Furthermore, the study fails to clearly identify the gap it addresses. Why is such a description crucial? (Response: Please refer to the introduction section: These studies often focus on specific courses or programs within single institutions, highlighting a need for more comprehensive research across various contexts to understand not only whether online learning is effective but also why. Therefore, there is an urgent need to collect data from both faculty and students who have completed a wider range of online courses to explore their experiences with the courses and the practices they found satisfying. ) What insights does this analysis offer to readers of the journal (Response: Please refer to the introduction section: This will assist institutions in gaining deeper insights into the needs of both faculty and students, enabling them to provide students with more meaningful online learning experiences and promote more equitable teaching practices. Hence, this qualitative study aimed to delve into the nuanced dynamics of online learning, offering insights gleaned from comprehensive interviews with stakeholders immersed in the online learning environment.)? Will this research be relevant to a diverse, international audience? Additionally, what further insights could this analysis yield, and how does it relate to previous works that have explored similar issues (Response: Our research is particularly relevant to an international audience as it addresses universal themes of equity, access to digital resources, and inclusive policies in online learning. By highlighting the importance of these factors, our study contributes to the global discourse on promoting equity and social justice in education. Additionally, our findings provide practical recommendations for educators and policymakers to improve the effectiveness of online learning, making this research pertinent to diverse educational contexts worldwide.)?

Comment 3:

Methodology: There is ambiguity regarding the methodology. Where is the instrument used? What about its validity and reliability? Without these details, the study's rigor remains uncertain. Were the participating students informed of the research's purpose? Moreover, there is no mention of obtaining informed consent from participants, a critical aspect of any human study.

Response:

Unlike quantitative research, which relies on numerical and statistical measures of validity, qualitative research uses different criteria and methods to evaluate its data. Credibility, transferability, dependability, and conformability are four common criteria used for validation in qualitative research, as we have clearly stated in the "Trustworthiness of Interpretation" section.

Please refer to the "Data Collection & Data Analysis" section:

They were informed that there would be no risks associated with participating in the interview beyond those of everyday living, participation was completely voluntary, and they could withdraw at any time or refuse to answer any question without penalty. They were also informed that during data analysis, the researchers would consult with them on how well the themes accurately represented their intended meanings and experiences, whether the phenomenon under study was accurately described, and that they would be requested to comment on the accuracy of verbatim quotes and provide permission for the researchers to use direct personal quotes in the final written report of the study.

Comment 4:

The absence of tables or graphs to illustrate the findings is noted.

Response:

Thanks for your comment. While we don't believe tables and graphs are always necessary for qualitative studies, we have included tables showing the participants' demographics.

Comment 5:

Discussion and conclusions: Both sections are exceedingly brief. There is limited engagement with prior research, suggesting that the theoretical framework may be too succinct. It is imperative to contextualize the findings within existing literature and to analyze their implications more deeply.

Response:

We appreciate your feedback. To address this, we have expanded both sections to provide a more thorough engagement with prior research. We have contextualized our findings within the existing literature and provided a deeper analysis of their implications. 

Comment 6:

Bibliographical References: Corrections are needed in this section.

Response:

Thank you for pointing out the need for corrections in the bibliographical references section. We have carefully reviewed and corrected the references to ensure they adhere to the required format and standards. We have also verified the accuracy of all citations to ensure that they correspond correctly to the sources referenced in the manuscript.

Comment 7:

Finally, obtaining ethical approval from the University Ethics Committee and securing informed consent from all participants, along with providing the authors' IRB approval number, is essential.

Response:

Thanks for the feedback. We have that information included in the manuscript. Please refer to the "Data Collection & Data Analysis" section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following the changes made to the first version of this article, I recommend that it be published in its present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response to my comments. The slight changes you have made have significantly improved the quality of the article, strengthening its rigor and clarity. I have reviewed the justifications provided for not making some of the suggested modifications and I consider that they are well founded, so there is no objection in this regard.

I would like to highlight the effort and dedication you have shown in revising and updating the manuscript. I am sure that this work will be of great interest and value to the scientific community.

I wish you every success in the publication process.