The Effect of the Flipped Learning Approach on Engineering Students’ Technology Acceptance and Self-Directed Learning Perception

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper, titled "The Effect of the Flipped Learning Approach on Engineering Students' Technology Acceptance and Self-Directed Learning Perception," addresses an important and timely topic. The subject matter of the article is fascinating and aligns well with the scope of the journal. However, in its current form, it has several shortcomings. The paper aims to develop the FLTAM scale, which assesses individuals' decisions to accept and adopt technology based on factors such as ease of use, usefulness for tasks, positive attitude, intention to use, and relevance to their job. The main contributions include the development of a 5-point Likert-type questionnaire and the validation of the scale's scope, face validity, and reliability through a pilot study involving 270 students. The strengths lie in the extensive literature review, consultation with subject-area and language experts, and the use of statistical analysis, including exploratory factor analysis, to examine the scale's structure. The paper falls within the scope of the journal as it presents a comprehensive validation of the FLTAM scale, including assessments of its reliability and validity through statistical analyses such as exploratory factor analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure, and Bartlett's test of sphericity. The consultation with subject-area and language experts for face and content validity further demonstrates the rigor and relevance of the study to the journal's focus on empirical research and scale development. The paper demonstrates several areas of strength, such as the use of quantitative data collection methods, including pre-tests and post-tests, to evaluate students' perceptions in both the experimental and control groups. However, it also exhibits some weaknesses, including a relatively young and homogeneous sample, with approximately 94% of participants under 25 years old, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study's reliance on self-reported opinions in the experimental group may introduce response bias. Methodologically, the paper's experimental model and data collection procedures align with common practices in social science research, enhancing the testability of the hypothesis and the reliability of the results. However, the study's limitations, such as the lack of diversity in the sample and potential response bias, should be carefully considered when interpreting the implications of the findings and their relevance to broader educational contexts. The main question addressed by the research is the development and validation of the FLTAM scale, which assesses individuals' decisions to accept and adopt technology based on factors such as ease of use, usefulness for tasks, positive attitude, intention to use, and relevance to their job. The topic is relevant in the field as it addresses the need for a comprehensive scale to assess technology acceptance, filling a specific gap in the literature by providing a validated tool for measuring individuals' technology adoption decisions. The paper adds to the subject area by presenting the development and validation of the FLTAM scale, which contributes a new, validated instrument for assessing technology acceptance. This adds to the existing literature by providing a reliable and validated tool for researchers and practitioners in the field. The authors should consider addressing the relatively young and homogeneous sample, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, they could implement further controls to mitigate potential response bias, such as using a more diverse sample and employing objective measures in addition to self-reported opinions. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, effectively addressing the main question posed regarding the development and validation of the FLTAM scale. The references appear to be appropriate, aligning with the research topic and providing relevant sources to support the study's development and validation of the FLTAM scale. The abstract correlates with the manuscript content, accurately summarizing the study's aims, methods, and findings. The paper lacks diversity in the sample, with approximately 94% of participants under 25 years old, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the study's reliance on self-reported opinions in the experimental group may introduce response bias. The authors should consider addressing these limitations by including a more diverse sample and implementing further controls to mitigate potential response bias. Furthermore, the paper could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the implications of the FLTAM scale's development and validation for both research and practical applications in technology acceptance. Additionally, the abstract correlates with the manuscript content, accurately summarizing the study's aims, methods, and findings.

I suggest including discussions in the veterinary medicine education introduction regarding the integration of modern technological devices to enhance data collection and equip future veterinarians with advanced knowledge. This recommendation can be substantiated by referencing a pertinent source (e.g., 10.3390/educsci12080573). Additionally, recognizing the significance of student perceptions in facilitating this technological transformation is vital for the development of innovative teaching methods in equine veterinary medicine courses, as emphasized in a recent study (Reference: 10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104537).

Please see the attached file for specific comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 1

First of all, we would like to thank you very much for reading our article carefully and for your positive evaluations and constructive suggestions.

By carefully considering your suggestions, we have made improvements to the article.

We have added additional information and limitations. We have made to the appropriate places in the article.

You can see the changes we have made in the document named "Revised Document with Tracked Changes.22.12.2023-H_B".

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper explored the impact of a flipped learning intervention in an entry-level Engineering course.  The paper is generally well-written, and I provide the follow feedback for consideration as the authors work towards strengthening this submission:

- there is some outdated terminology throughout (e.g. internet-based learning, do you mean online, blended learning? Most learning, even in-person learning includes internet-based activities.). I would recommend more emphasis on current literature and practices, especially as it relates to research-informed practices for teaching and learning in postsecondary education.

-the terms sustainability were mentioned a couple of times in the paper.  As a reader, I struggled to see the explicit connection this research had to sustainability.  I recommend that the connection to the aims and scope of this journal be made much more explicit prior to publication.

-in the introduction, I recommend a more comprehensive review of flipped learning be presented.  What is presented seemed to acknowledge a very limited view/scope of flipped learning in higher education. (e.g. on line 46 – flipped learning activities often extend much beyond reviewing online videos)

-there is an incomplete sentence at the end of line 55

-pg. 73, as a reader I would have liked to learn more why flipped learning is so appropriate within the discipline of Engineering.  This is likely the most important piece of feedback I would recommend the authors consider. Overall, the context of Engineering could be strengthened and situated better in the introduction to further emphasize the gaps, context, and the importance of this study.  I was surprised to see that much of the literature cited in sections 1.1 are situated beyond Engineering.

-line 203 what is meant by “design instructions”?

-line 148 – what is DO (M.Y.)?

-line 162 – I believe the citation number is missing for this sentence.

-line 222 – I believe the citation number is missing here too.  A careful copy edit and review of citations is needed moving forward.

-did this study received ethics approval?  I would recommend the authors state this explicitly. If not, I would have liked to have learned more about its exemption from these processes.

-As a reader, I would like to have learned more about the context of this study.  What type of university and what country?

-Line 543 – there is a typo at the beginning of this sentence.

-Line 600 – I believe there is an error in this sentence as well.

-In the discussion, I would recommend including a discussion of recommendations you have for those implementing a flipped learning approach based on the findings and approach taken for this study. For example, it seemed like the study was based on carefully designed learning activities. What made this particular intervention successful?  How does this align with research-informed practices for flipped learning in higher education?

-Figure 2 – ensure all axis are labeled for figures.

Very minor edits are needed moving forward as noted in my comments above.  A quick copy-edit should catch these errors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 2

Likewise, Reviewer 1, we would like to thank you very much for reading our article carefully, your positive evaluations, and your constructive suggestions.

By carefully considering your suggestions, we have made improvements to the article.

You can see the changes we have made in the document named "Revised Document with Tracked Changes.22.12.2023-H_B".

- there is some outdated terminology throughout (e.g. internet-based learning, do you mean online, blended learning? – UPDATED

-there is an incomplete sentence at the end of line 55

- Additional information has been added explaining why flipped learning is so relevant within the Engineering discipline.

-line 203 what is meant by “design instructions”? - Updated

-line 148 – what is DO (M.Y.)? - Updated

-line 162 – I believe the citation number is missing for this sentence. – no missing citation.

-line 222 – I believe the citation number is missing here too.  A careful copy edit and review of citations is needed moving forward. – no missing citation.

-did this study received ethics approval?  I would recommend the authors state this explicitly. If not, I would have liked to have learned more about its exemption from these processes. - Yes

-As a reader, I would like to have learned more about the context of this study.  What type of university and what country? – AAB College, Prishtina, Kosovo

-Line 543 – there is a typo at the beginning of this sentence. - Updated

-Line 600 – I believe there is an error in this sentence as well. - Updated

-In the discussion, I would recommend including a discussion of recommendations you have for those implementing a flipped learning approach based on the findings and approach taken for this study. For example, it seemed like the study was based on carefully designed learning activities. What made this particular intervention successful?  How does this align with research-informed practices for flipped learning in higher education? – Updated

Very minor edits are needed moving forward as noted in my comments above.  A quick copy-edit should catch these errors. - Updated

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors reported The Effect of the Flipped Learning Approach on Engineering Students' Technology Acceptance and Self-Directed Learning Perception.

After careful review, I have some suggestions:

- English needs a revision;

- the section introduction is too much extensive, To make the article more readable, it would be better to shorten the content;

- tab 2 overlap some results or word. Correct the size or format of tab 2;

- need some improvement in section discussion;

- some flowcharts or imaging could be helpful to understand better the key points of the article

The authors reported The Effect of the Flipped Learning Approach on Engineering Students' Technology Acceptance and Self-Directed Learning Perception.

After careful review, I have some suggestions:

- English needs a revision;

- the section introduction is too much extensive, To make the article more readable, it would be better to shorten the content;

- tab 2 overlap some results or word. Correct the size or format of tab 2;

- need some improvement in section discussion;

- some flowcharts or imaging could be helpful to understand better the key points of the article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 3

Likewise, other reviewers, we would like to thank you very much for reading our article carefully, your positive evaluations, and your constructive suggestions.

By carefully considering your suggestions, we have made improvements to the article.

You can see the changes we have made in the document named "Revised Document with Tracked Changes.22.12.2023-H_B".

- English needs a revision; Updated

- tab 2 overlap some results or word. Correct the size or format of tab 2; - Updated

- need some improvement in section discussion; - Updated

Reviewer 4 Report

According to the Flipped Learning Network (FLN), the definition of flipped learning is: "Flipped learning is a pedagogical approach that shifts the act of direct instruction from a group (group) learning space to an individual learning space, and the resulting group space becomes a dynamic, interactive learning place where students apply concepts to practice and engage more actively with classroom topics, while the teacher's role is that of a facilitator. This article conducted a systematic study of software engineering students who chose an introductory JAVA course using the flipped teaching method, and the study found that the students in the experimental group were enhanced and strengthened in a number of competencies. Thus, it shows that flipped learning decentralization has positive effects. The study has certain significance for practical teaching in higher education. The paper is recommended for acceptance if there no academic misconduct.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 4

Thank you for reading our article carefully and suggesting its acceptance and subsequent publication to contribute to the flipped learning and engineering education areas.

You can see the changes we have made, within the framework of the suggestions made by other referees, in the document named "Revised Document with Tracked Changes.22.12.2023-H_B".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I have noticed that several of my previous comments and suggestions have not been addressed. As peer reviewers, we dedicate our time and expertise to provide constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the quality and rigor of academic research. It is crucial that this effort is acknowledged and reflected in the revision process.

The purpose of peer review is to ensure the highest standards of scholarship, and when suggestions are overlooked without justification, it undermines this collaborative effort. I understand that not all comments may be applicable or feasible to integrate, but in such cases, it is important to provide a rationale or explanation for their omission.

I kindly request that the authors review the comments more thoroughly and consider integrating them into the manuscript, or at least provide clear justifications for not doing so. This will not only improve the quality of the paper but also uphold the integrity and collaborative nature of the academic review process

I noticed that some of my key comments, particularly regarding the need for additional citations to support your statements on flipped learning, were not addressed. These suggestions are aimed at strengthening the arguments and ensuring the manuscript's academic rigor. If there were specific reasons for not incorporating these comments, I would appreciate an understanding of your perspective. As reviewers, we invest significant time and effort in providing constructive feedback, and it's crucial for this collaborative process to be effective. More specifically, my previous comment was: “In this part here, you elaborate on the effectiveness and rising popularity of flipped learning in higher education (the citations are missing). To add depth to your arguments, it would be beneficial to cite a recent study I came accross, that explores the application and student perceptions of flipped learning approach https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104537”.

 Unfortunately, I do not see any change in this part, you could have cited another study as well, to support this part, or add an explanation why the comments cannot be addressed, but please do not underestimate our dedication. 

Line 78-88:  In this part here, while the assertions made are compelling, they would greatly benefit from supporting citations on the field. Incorporating citations not only validates the claims that you have made, which is a relevant point in the education research but also provides readers with resources to further explore these ideas, thus enriching the academic discourse. 

Line 483-515: In my previous review, I suggested adding a sentence on how feedback from experts specifically influenced or changed the video materials used in the flipped learning model. However, I noticed that this comment has not been integrated into the revised manuscript, nor has there been any justification provided for its omission. If there is a reason for not including this information, I kindly ask for an explanation to understand your perspective on this matter.

Moreover, in the same part when you affirm” In accordance with the best practices in online education…. “please do insert the adequate reference, as research in this field is continuously evolving and the other researcher's work should be evaluated.

I have noticed that my previous comments regarding the discussion and future directions sections have not been integrated into the revised manuscript. It's essential for a research paper to not only mention relevant studies but also to critically analyze how these studies align with or differ from the current research. This approach provides depth and context, allowing readers to understand the unique contributions and positioning of your work in the broader academic landscape.

General comment: Please do consider to maintain the same writing style throughout all the manuscript, I have noticed that flipped learning, in some parts is written in capital letters.  Generally, it is written as “flipped learning”. In addition, make sure that your affirmations are based on research, since I noticed in this second revision several sentences without citations. I would recommend you to verify and adapt for the rest of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 1

Thank you very much for your valuable criticism and suggestions, which you spent time and effort on. We tried to make the necessary corrections, taking into account all your suggestions and criticisms. Our responses to your suggestions and criticisms are written below.

Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I have noticed that several of my previous comments and suggestions have not been addressed. As peer reviewers, we dedicate our time and expertise to provide constructive feedback aimed at enhancing the quality and rigor of academic research. It is crucial that this effort is acknowledged and reflected in the revision process.

Reply: Thank you very much,

Criticism: The purpose of peer review is to ensure the highest standards of scholarship, and when suggestions are overlooked without justification, it undermines this collaborative effort. I understand that not all comments may be applicable or feasible to integrate, but in such cases, it is important to provide a rationale or explanation for their omission.

Reply: We agree with you; that's why we are grateful to you.

Criticism: I kindly request that the authors review the comments more thoroughly and consider integrating them into the manuscript, or at least provide clear justifications for not doing so. This will not only improve the quality of the paper but also uphold the integrity and collaborative nature of the academic review process.

Reply: I agree with you; as the contact author of this article, I also serve as a reviewer for many journals with high impact factors. I can understand you easily. I think you've seen my name on the author list. You can see my articles and refereeing at the link below.

https://www.webofscience.com/wos/author/record/179327  

It's not that we didn't take your suggestions seriously, but we may not have been able to respond to some of your criticisms due to the large word count of the article and the limited revision time limit. We apologize for this.

Criticism: I noticed that some of my key comments, particularly regarding the need for additional citations to support your statements on flipped learning, were not addressed. These suggestions are aimed at strengthening the arguments and ensuring the manuscript's academic rigor. If there were specific reasons for not incorporating these comments, I would appreciate an understanding of your perspective. As reviewers, we invest significant time and effort in providing constructive feedback, and it's crucial for this collaborative process to be effective. More specifically, my previous comment was: “In this part here, you elaborate on the effectiveness and rising popularity of flipped learning in higher education (the citations are missing). To add depth to your arguments, it would be beneficial to cite a recent study I came accross, that explores the application and student perceptions of flipped learning approach https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2023.104537”.

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We integrated the results of both studies in appropriate places in our study. We highlighted them with yellow. Now our article has become more qualified.

Criticism: Lines 78–88:  In this part, while the assertions made are compelling, they would greatly benefit from supporting citations in the field. Incorporating citations not only validates the claims that you have made, which is a relevant point in the education research, but also provides readers with resources to further explore these ideas, thus enriching the academic discourse. 

Reply: Thank you very much for your recommendation. We added the citation. You can see line 88.

Criticism: Line 483-515: In my previous review, I suggested adding a sentence on how feedback from experts specifically influenced or changed the video materials used in the flipped learning model. However, I noticed that this comment has not been integrated into the revised manuscript, nor has there been any justification provided for its omission. If there is a reason for not including this information, I kindly ask for an explanation to understand your perspective on this matter.

Reply: The answer to this question is given in lines 510 and 514. This paragraph is highlighted in yellow.

Criticism: Moreover, in the same part when you affirm” In accordance with the best practices in online education…. “please do insert the adequate reference, as research in this field is continuously evolving and the other researcher's work should be evaluated.

Reply: Thank you very much. The required citation is written on line 488.

I have noticed that my previous comments regarding the discussion and future directions sections have not been integrated into the revised manuscript. It's essential for a research paper to not only mention relevant studies but also critically analyze how these studies align with or differ from the current research. This approach provides depth and context, allowing readers to understand the unique contributions and positioning of your work in the broader academic landscape.

General comment: Please do consider to maintain the same writing style throughout all the manuscript, I have noticed that flipped learning, in some parts is written in capital letters.  Generally, it is written as “flipped learning”. In addition, make sure that your affirmations are based on research, since I noticed in this second revision several sentences without citations. I would recommend you to verify and adapt for the rest of the manuscript. 

Reply: "Flipped learning" was corrected to "flipped learning." The paragraphs were re-checked, and citations were made where necessary.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author(s) have addressed previous feedback. 

As a reader the connection to the intent of the journal as it relates to Sustainability remains unclear to me, but I will leave this up to the editor's final discretion.

I missed this during my initial review.  On line 111 the author(s) make reference to "learning styles."  I'd recommend that this reference be removed, as research related to learning styles are no longer supported. See:

https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/LearningStylesMyth

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 2

Thank you very much for your valuable criticism and suggestions, which you spent time and effort on. We tried to make the necessary corrections, taking into account all your suggestions and criticisms. Our responses to your suggestions and criticisms are written below.

Criticism: As a reader the connection to the intent of the journal as it relates to Sustainability remains unclear to me, but I will leave this up to the editor's final discretion.

Reply:  In this research report; The concept of sustainability was written 7 times in total, including line 225, line 231, line 233, 717, line 726, line 719 and line 720. Additionally, the last paragraph in the future direction section has been enriched with an additional sentence. This paragraph is highlighted in yellow.

Criticism: I missed this during my initial review.  On line 111 the author(s) make reference to "learning styles."  I'd recommend that this reference be removed, as research related to learning styles are no longer supported. See:

https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/LearningStylesMyth

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We respect your opinions and those of the relevant source. However, when we scan the Web of Science database, we see that more than 50 studies were conducted directly on "learning styles" in 2023 alone.

Reviewer 3 Report

Good improvements , ok! 

Good improvements 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 3

Good improvements, ok!

Reply: Thank you very much,

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I wanted to extend my heartfelt congratulations to you and your team for the outstanding job you've done in revising your paper. I am genuinely impressed by the way you have meticulously incorporated the suggested revisions. Your commitment to improving the article's quality is evident, and I must say that the final result is nothing short of exceptional. The transformation from the initial draft to the current version is remarkable and a testament to your dedication to excellence.