E-Learning as a Development Tool
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present research is relevant to the increasing use of E-learning which has given rise to numerous research activities with the advent of Covid. The theoretical and methodological frameworks are well explained. However, in The Discussion, it would be essential to provide details in Table 2 comparing the “Traditional, today’s learning” and the “Connected learning in the school of tomorrow.” For example, how do students develop constructivist ideas in connected learning? I suggest clarifying these points by drawing on the work of Gregorczyk and Kozak and other works on this subject.
Regarding the abstract, I suggest removing the first paragraph to limit it to the present research results.
Finally, the three sections: ʽIntroductionʼ, ʽMaterials and Methodsʼ and ʽResultsʼ are disproportionate to the ʽDiscussionʼ section. Also, we do not understand the links between what is advanced in the three sections and the Discussion section. To be reworked for the clarity of the article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for all the comments and suggestions, I tried to apply them. In order to organize te structure of the work, I added a part: Review of the Literature, to which I also transferred theoretical considerations.
All changes are marked in yellow.
I hope that the corrections I have applied will improve the quality of the work.
I realize that the article required editorial corrections, which I will make immediately, now I have focused mainly on the content.
Yours faithfully,
Małgorzata Schulz
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
I read your research with great interest. I still have some questions/uncertainties and can point you to some revisions to improve the current version of your work:
The title of the paper is very general!
I think that the structure of the work is incomprehensible and must be changed:
- At the end of the introduction, author can clearly present the structure of the scientific work (section). It may be useful to specify the purpose of the research and the working hypothesis;
- The discussion is actually a broader introduction, with a review of the literature (consider moving to the introduction);
- Chapter 2 (Materials and methods) and 3 (Results) are contained in discussion chapter (section 4.5) - it should not be repeated twice.
Section 4.5 - The research methods are stated but there are not clearly presented. Please describe the research in detail. There is no an extended presentation of the measurement tool and the results (tables). The reviewer's concern is about if this is enough. I think the author should further analyse their findings and discuss them and then draw the conclusions; discussion of findings could be improved according to the hypotheses or the questions of the research.
Conclusion is suggested to be further condensed according to the important findings, give the key results and highlight the innovation of this paper.
My essential question would be: limits of the study, what is the goal of the work, what is the theoretical contribution of the work and what now in a practical sense?
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for all the comments and suggestions, I tried to apply them. In order to organize the structure of the work, I added a part: Review of the Literature, to which I also transferred theoretical considerations.
All changes are marked in yellow.
I hope that the corrections I have applied will improve the quality of the work.
I realize that the article requires editorial corrections, which I will make immediately, now I have focused mainly on the content.
Yours faithfully,
Małgorzata Schulz
Please see the attachement.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic covered in the article is very interesting, although it has already been covered many times in the scientific literature.
My main comments, which may improve the quality of the article:
1. What is the relationship of the described study to sustainable development? Describe it with reference to relevant literature.
2. Please write that Ciechanow is a town in Poland. This is not known to the whole world.
3. Abstract should be adapted to the requirements of the journal. It should include such elements as Background, Methods, Results, Conclusion. The abstract should contain the purpose of the study.
4. In the introduction, please write what is new to science that the study carried out brings? What is its added value?
5. Please write in which country the survey was conducted. Are they Polish students? From which university/-ties?
6. There is a lack of hypotheses or research questions.
7. Refer to the posted tables and figures in the article.
8. Please remove the title "Sex" from the chart area of the Figure 1. The term "gender" was used under Figure 1.
9. Figure 2 is superfluous. It duplicates with the contents of Table 3.
10. The article is missing a discussion section. It can be combined with the Results section.
11. The article lacks discussion and reference to other studies. There are many articles about the e-learning in academic education. The authors should compare their findings with other studies.
12. In the Conclusions, there should be references to the hypotheses or research questions raised, describe the research limitations and provide directions for future research.
13. References contain very few items (only 25). The topic addressed in the article is broad and often addressed in research. The authors should perform a comprehensive literature review.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for all the comments and suggestios, I tried to apply them. In order to organize the structure of the work, I added a part: Review of the Literature, to which I also transferred theoretical considerations.
All changes are marked in yellow.
I hope that the corrections I have applied will improve the quality of the work.
I realize that the article requires editorial corrections, which I will make immediately, now I have focused mainly on the content.
Yours faithfully,
Małgorzata Schulz
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author, I accept all the changes that have been made, but I still have an objection to the title of the paper. I still find that very general!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am sending the corrected article. All changes are marked in yellow.
I changed the title of the article, which better reflects the specificity of my research and the entire issues discussed in the work.
I hope that the introduced changes will receive your approval.
Yours faithfully,
Małgorzata Schulz
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
For the most part, my comments were not taken into account in the revised article. The author in her reply only included a corrected version of the article. I expected a response to every comment I made. If the author did not agree with them, she should write why she did not agree.
1. The article has an incorrect layout.
2. . It is not written what is the added value of this study. What's new in this research?
3. The Results section is very short. The Discussion section is overly extensive. What it contains should be in the Results section.
4. In the Discussion section, the author should refer to the results of other studies
5. Refer to the posted tables and figures in the article. A reference to a Figure or Table should contain the number of that Figure or Table.
6. Figure 2 is superfluous. It duplicates with the contents of Table 3.
7. Conclusions should include references to hypotheses or research questions. It must be written whether the research hypotheses have been verified.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am sending the coreccted article. I took into account all your comments, which are marked in yellow.
I included the added value of my study and what's new in this research. In the Discussion section I referd to the results of other studies. Furthermore, I transfered part of this section to Review of the Literature and the Results section.
Moreover, I referd to the posted tables and figures in the main text. Figure 2 has been removed.
Conclusions include references to hypothesis and it is written whether they have been verified.
Finally, the layout of the article has been improved.
I hope that the introduced changes will receive your approval.
Yours faithfully,
Małgorzata Schulz
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The author still hasn't responded to all my comments. The author does not understand the term added value of the article. You should write what new things the article brings to science? What is new about it compared to other research in this area? The Discussion section is still too extensive. It contains the results of the study, which should be in the Results section. The Results section is very short.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I hope I have responded to all your comments. I wrote what new things this article brings to science. Moreover, I changed the Discussion and the Results section.
Yours faithfully,
Małgorzata Schulz
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 4
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been corrected with accordance to my remarks.
