Constructing an Online Sustainable Educational Model in COVID-19 Pandemic Environments
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The proposed educational model includes, in addition to the existing part of social media and also the challenges of online education. Some online educational models, e.g., those offered by EdX have already implemented social media applications in their courses.
I saw that you made a very good list of the challenges of online education.
Reflection questions - future research
How can the proposed educational model integrate/ interrelated these challenges into the system?
How can online education solve these difficulties?
Thank you!
Author Response
Response to review 1
Dear Reviwer,
Thank you very much for your careful review. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your constructive comments. Please see the following descriptions for details.
We would greatly appreciate you if you could seriously consider our revisions.
Best wishes!
Sincerely yours,
Authors
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The proposed educational model includes, in addition to the existing part of social media and also the challenges of online education. Some online educational models, e.g., those offered by EdX have already implemented social media applications in their courses.
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your comments. I have included your constructive comments in the “For instance, most of previous online educational models failed to combine social media with online assessment systems and digital literacy to improve online educational outcomes.”
Online learning technologies, e.g. through EdX, include some tools, e.g. social media, mobile phones, and podcasts [28], which could be used to support online and offline education.
I saw that you made a very good list of the challenges of online education.
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your positive comments.
Reflection questions - future research
How can the proposed educational model integrate/ interrelated these challenges into the system?
How can online education solve these difficulties?
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your comments. The reflection questions have been answered in the part of future research directions as follows.
In the future, it may be hard to establish an onine educational model to address all the challenges in an online educational system. To address the challenges may be an urgent issue to sustain an online educational model. Besides, there may be other challenges excluded from this model. For instance, the online assessment is a great challenge for an online educational model. The online assessment may involve formative and summative methods. Both methods may be unreliable due to different systematic conditions, online cheating, and difficulty in invigilation. Lack of emotional exchanges may cause misunderstandings among learners and teachers. Future research could try to address various challenges to a large extent.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The Microsoft Teams platform can be written as MS Teams (line: 281). This name is used in correspondence and other documents.
The numbers of cited articles in the text are given in the order they are cited. It seems to me that this rule was not followed in the article. For example, on line 299 the publication [69] was cited, although the publications with the preceding numbers were not previously cited. In my opinion, the numbering of citations in the text and their order should be reviewed and corrected once again. In the text I could not find the citation of the article [72] in References. I am asking for a correction.
I think that in subchapter 5.3 (Implications for future research) it would also be worth mentioning that improving education is related to ideas on how to improve the quality of education by implementing new student assessment ideas. Such an idea was presented in the article "The Topic of the Ideal Dairy Farm Can Inspire How to Assess Knowledge about Dairy Production Processes: A Case Study with Students and Their Contributions". In this way, it will be possible to show that one of the directions of future research in the sustainable educational model aims to develop the creativity of teachers and students, including checking knowledge, which is a particularly sensitive element of on-line education.
I think that in the summary (final part) of the article / in the conclusions, it could be stated that the considerations presented in the article may constitute the basis for conducting surveys among students and teachers in the next stage. In this way, it will be possible to verify the analysis carried out in the article and the theses made on the basis of practical research.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
Dear Reviwer,
Thank you very much for your careful review. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your constructive comments. Please see the following descriptions for details.
We would greatly appreciate you if you could seriously consider our revisions.
Best wishes!
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The Microsoft Teams platform can be written as MS Teams (line: 281). This name is used in correspondence and other documents.
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your comments. The Microsoft Teams platform have been changed to MS Teams.
The numbers of cited articles in the text are given in the order they are cited. It seems to me that this rule was not followed in the article. For example, on line 299 the publication [69] was cited, although the publications with the preceding numbers were not previously cited. In my opinion, the numbering of citations in the text and their order should be reviewed and corrected once again. In the text I could not find the citation of the article [72] in References. I am asking for a correction.
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your comments. We have corrected all the citations and refences carefully.
I think that in subchapter 5.3 (Implications for future research) it would also be worth mentioning that improving education is related to ideas on how to improve the quality of education by implementing new student assessment ideas. Such an idea was presented in the article "The Topic of the Ideal Dairy Farm Can Inspire How to Assess Knowledge about Dairy Production Processes: A Case Study with Students and Their Contributions". In this way, it will be possible to show that one of the directions of future research in the sustainable educational model aims to develop the creativity of teachers and students, including checking knowledge, which is a particularly sensitive element of on-line education.
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your comments. We have included your suggestions in the “Implications for future research” as follows.
Another direction of future research in the sustainable educational model may be to develop the creativity of teachers and students, including checking knowledge, which is a particularly sensitive element of online education. The strong creativity could also help students and teachers to innovate new approaches to solve difficult problems and to address various unexpected issues in online education in the future.
I think that in the summary (final part) of the article / in the conclusions, it could be stated that the considerations presented in the article may constitute the basis for conducting surveys among students and teachers in the next stage. In this way, it will be possible to verify the analysis carried out in the article and the theses made on the basis of practical research.
Response of the authors: Thank you very much for your comments. We have included your suggestions in the “major findings”.
The findings and considerations presented in the article may constitute the basis for conducting surveys among students and teachers in the next stage. In this way, it will be possible to verify the analysis carried out in the article and the theses made on the basis of practical research.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting theme but unfortunately the manuscript could not keep up with its promise title. There are inconsistences in terms of methodology, lack of an accurate literature review regarding the PRISMA-P protocol, lack of coherent structure of ideas and data. The manuscript is very repetitive and does not explore all the possible information retrieved from the literature review. The conclusions are poor and incomplete. This manuscript also refers its authorship reduce to one author/researcher but in page 6 of 21, lines 250 to 252, the manuscript refers the existence of two other researchers and then a third one. It would be ethical to acknowledge at least their existence in the authors contribution in page 17 of 21. How can only one author state that “All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript” (see page 17 of 21, lines 674 to 675)?. The manuscript main idea is a good one, but the author should be encouraged to resubmit the manuscript with a comprehensive systematic literature review according PRISMA-P and reorganize ideas and data into a coherent structure with a serious and improved conclusion.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3
Dear Reviwer,
Thank you very much for your careful review. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your constructive comments. Please see the following descriptions for details.
We would greatly appreciate you if you could seriously consider our revisions.
Best wishes!
Sincerely yours,
Authors
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
|
Is the article adequately referenced? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is a very interesting theme but unfortunately the manuscript could not keep up with its promise title. There are inconsistences in terms of methodology, lack of an accurate literature review regarding the PRISMA-P protocol, lack of coherent structure of ideas and data. The manuscript is very repetitive and does not explore all the possible information retrieved from the literature review. The conclusions are poor and incomplete. This manuscript also refers its authorship reduce to one author/researcher but in page 6 of 21, lines 250 to 252, the manuscript refers the existence of two other researchers and then a third one. It would be ethical to acknowledge at least their existence in the authors contribution in page 17 of 21. How can only one author state that “All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript” (see page 17 of 21, lines 674 to 675)?. The manuscript main idea is a good one, but the author should be encouraged to resubmit the manuscript with a comprehensive systematic literature review according PRISMA-P and reorganize ideas and data into a coherent structure with a serious and improved conclusion.
Response of the authors: Many thanks for your comments and constructive suggestions! We have enhanced an accurate literature review regarding the PRISMA-P protocol and coherent structure of ideas and data. We enhanced the methodology. We also revised it to avoid repetitions. Two authors were added because they work hard and continue to invest their efforts in the study so that they are qualified for the authorship. We also enhanced the conclusion part based on your constructive suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
You have carefully revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. The authors were fully acknowledged and the PRISMA protocol is now accurately used. The manuscript was improved significantly thus is publishable after minor english gaps revisions..
Best regards
Author Response
Many thanks for your constructive comments. We feel that your comments are greatly beneficial to our manuscript. We have carefully revised the whole manuscript by proofreading three times.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- I did not fully understand the research methodology and the relevance of the hypotheses.
- I would have found this study interesting if it was based on the feedback of students and teachers (application of a questionnaire) which would show the advantages / weaknesses / recommendations for improvement / methods actually used by teachers to teach, evaluate and shape skills.
- It would have been interesting to read in the paper information regarding the number of users of the e-learning Platforms or at least a list of them by countries / universities;
- I think that the proposed model is already used by the vast majority of teachers involved in the educational process.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to congratulate the authors for taking up a timely and relevant research topic. However, I think the manuscript needs significant changes before it can be considered for publication.
1. The introduction fails to justify the contribution of the study. The overall introduction is brief and neither does justify the need for this review nor does it explicitly justify the contribution.
2. I couldn't understand the literature review conducted by the authors. The themes highlighted through the systematic review are exactly the same themes that are already explained in the literature review. This puts the overall contribution of the paper in jeopardy. If the themes are already well explained in the literature then why are you doing this whole systematic review? How are you adding any new context to these already well-established themes?
3. Methodology needs some revision. Please go through Tranfield (2003) paper. I believe this might help you in improving the methodology.
4. The model highlighted in the study looks complicated. I believe it would be better if you show some relationships in your study. That way you could develop some prepositions.
5. The overall implications of the study can be improved.
Wishing you all the best!
Reviewer 3 Report
I am in favour of precisely formulating the aim of the research in a scientific article, using the statement at best: "The aim of the study / research was ...". The author of the article wrote what he did in the research, what are the challenges and opportunities. However, it would be worth presenting in the form of a study / research objective. The remark concerning the unambiguous formulation of the research objective applies to both the Abstract and the Introduction chapter. The chapter Introduction should end with the formulation of the research objective. Moreover, when formulating the research goal(s), it would be worth writing down what was the cognitive (scientific) goal and what was the utilitarian (useful) goal.
Before stating the purpose of the work, it would be worth formulating the research problem. In general, the overview of the state of knowledge in the Introduction contains a lot of data and information on the basis of which a research problem can be formulated. I suggest that in the summary of the knowledge review, write the sentence: "The research problem is ...".
The author often uses the concept of sustainable in connection with the concept of education. For example, line 82 uses the phrase: sustainable educational model. I think it would be worth defining the concept of sustainable education somewhere in the article. In other words, how the Author understands and interprets: sustainable education. This concept was used in the questions summarizing the considerations in subchapters 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, therefore it requires - in my opinion - a precise interpretation.
In lines: 80-81 the author wrote "Therefore, we propose the second question, i.e. … ”. This sentence indicates the plural form used in relation to the authors of the article, meanwhile, the article was written by one person. This sentence therefore needs to be corrected. The plural in questions was also used in sentences written on lines 63-64, 93-95, and 104-106. These sentences also need to be corrected, taking into account the fact that there is only one author of the article. The first paragraph and other paragraphs in Research methods also begin with the word "We", so these sentences also need to be revised. The term "The authors" is also used in the Conflicts of Interest formula (line: 473), so in this part of the article, you also need to adapt the sentences to the number of authors (one author) of the article.
I would like to ask why the online databases include databases related to chemical sciences such as Current Chemical Reactions and Index Chemicus? Are these databases particularly important in terms of the educational goals pursued, especially in the on-line version, or the construction of an online sustainable educational model? Please comment / explanation.
Figure 1 shows the linear relationship between the various concepts in the analysis. Wouldn't the Figure be more legible without these linear connections?
I think that in the part presenting the platforms popular for teaching classes, it would be worth mentioning the MS Teams platform. This platform is used in many European countries and is leading in many universities and in primary and secondary schools.
In the text, the Author referred to Figure 3 (line: 316). It is worth including references to Figure 1 and Figure 2 in the text.
I think that the Conclusions section should be supplemented with an example / examples of new, practical solutions in education, inspired by the transition to on-line education. One such example is the development of a homework assessment method for students taking a distance learning course due to Covid-19. This was presented in the article "The Topic of the Ideal Dairy Farm Can Inspire How to Assess Knowledge about Dairy Production Processes: A Case Study with Students and Their Contributions". Such examples would significantly enrich the utilitarian value of the considerations undertaken in the article. They would also show that the new (pandemic) situation stimulates the search for new solutions in education that can be disseminated in wider practice and fit into one of the elements of the model, i.e. Online evaluation systems.
In chapter 2 (Literature review), four research questions were formulated / proposed. I wanted to find answers to such precisely formulated research questions, but I could not find them in the content of the other chapters / subchapters. In the Discussion chapter, questions were also formulated, but these are five questions and I am not sure if these are the same research questions as proposed in chapter 2, with a full answer / description to the research issues formulated in the second chapter.
I could not find in the article the quoted publications [69] and [70] that were included in the References. The same remark applies to publication [3] in References, which is not cited in the text. Please clarify / correct and review the entire text of the article for correctness / completeness of the citation. In citation [23] (line: 148) the term (PRISMA) was included, while in the article mentioned in References (line: 529) it was mentioned (PRISMA-P). Does the difference between these concepts affect the accuracy of the cited material?
