Using WhatsApp in Distance Education: Assessing the Impact on Academic Interaction and Influencing Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment for details and a complete list of items or recommendations to review. While most of the following recommendations can be quickly resolved, many will make a significant impact on the readability, implications, and contextual application of your research. Most importantly, for researcher transparency and when recommending a technology tool it is important that the security implications of the technology for students and the educator is disclosed. This is highlighted in the attachment in detail. It is highly recommended, to protect the authors from potential harm institutionally and professionally, that this be addressed in the limitations or implications section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Items or questions asked in the study, primarily located in Table 2, do not use the correct pronoun/noun usage, and/or the questions do not read fluently in English. This includes missing punctuation and some words do not align with what the question is inferring. It is recommended that a professional in English grammar review the "items" in both the original and translated form if applicable. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1:

"While most of the following recommendations can be quickly resolved, many will make a significant impact on the readability, implications, and contextual application of your research. Most importantly, for researcher transparency and when recommending a technology tool, it is important that the security implications of the technology for students and the educator be disclosed. This is highlighted in the attachment in detail. It is highly recommended, to protect the authors from potential harm institutionally and professionally, that this be addressed in the limitations or implications section."

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s valuable recommendation. Following this suggestion, we have incorporated detailed information on the security implications of WhatsApp in section 6. Limitations of the study and future perspectives, aiming to ensure research transparency and mitigate any potential institutional or professional impact.

 

Comment 2:

"More heading structures and organization need to be integrated to divide your manuscript into the four primary areas of a) management, communication and interaction, learning, and relevance and benefits, OR more heading structures and organization need to be integrated to explicitly align findings with the five research questions on page 3."

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Although the article was already structured based on research questions, we have modified section 4. Discussion by organizing it into subsections aligned with each of the five research questions. This enhances clarity and facilitates reader comprehension.

 

Comment 3:

"The research questions on page 3 need to be numbered and indented correctly. Please update the formatting."

Response 3: Thank you for the observation. The numbering and formatting of the research questions in the introduction have been corrected to ensure proper presentation.

 

Comment 4:

"Add a contextual definition of your setting explicitly and in more detail to improve transferability or define 'distance education.' For example, what is the difference between distance education, remote learning, online learning, e-learning?"

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. In the introduction, we have included a theoretical and contextual definition of distance education, detailing its academic implications. However, we did not expand on the differences between educational modalities, as the study primarily focuses on WhatsApp as an academic tool.

 

Comment 5:

"While it was briefly noted in the limitations section, the context of the research study itself needs to be more explicitly described (i.e., content area, level of academics, course format, course groupings). How were they grouped and why?"

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. In section 2.2 Participants, we have expanded the information on the characteristics of the student participants and the process of WhatsApp group formation, providing additional details to improve the study’s contextual understanding.

 

Comment 6:

"There is a 1-sentence paragraph on lines 35-37. Please add content or condense."

Response 6: We appreciate the observation. The context of the paragraph in the introduction was reviewed, and the necessary modifications were made to improve coherence.

 

Comment 7:

"Lines 80-81 indicate 'collective learning.' What does this mean? Provide examples or explain intent."

Response 7: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a theoretical explanation of collective learning in the introduction, providing bibliographic support to contextualize its relevance in the study.

 

Comment 8:

"Define what the code identifiers mean more clearly (i.e., D1P1, D2P5). This can be noted at the bottom of the table as a note or in the text."

Response 8: Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we have included an explanatory note in Table 2, clarifying the meaning of the item identification codes.

 

Comment 9:

"Line 174: Do not start a sentence with a number. It needs to be spelled out in English."

Response 9: Thank you for the observation. The sentence in section 2.4 Data Analysis has been reviewed and corrected to comply with proper formatting.

 

Comment 10:

"The survey questions in the table are not in proper English format and do not have punctuation at the end of the sentence/question. For example, why does he/his/him frequently occur? This does not read properly. The survey indicates women took the survey as well, so that would be she/her or 'the student' or 'they.' Please correct proper pronouns for readability."

Response 10: We appreciate the suggestion. The wording in Table 2 has been corrected to ensure inclusive and appropriate language, eliminating grammatical errors and inconsistencies in pronoun usage.

 

Comment 11:

"Define 'cluster' terminology differences from Table 1 to Figure 1."

Response 11: We have clarified the terminology used. In Table 1, the term group refers to WhatsApp groups, whereas in Figure 1, groups represent the associations generated through clustering analysis.

 

Comment 12:

"Include an 'Implications' section on how WhatsApp could be applied in similar contexts/course design."

Response 12: Thank you for the observation. We have incorporated a new section, 7. Implications of the Study, addressing the applicability of WhatsApp in similar contexts and its impact on course design.

 

Comment 13:

"Explicitly state in Table 1 what frequency means. Frequency of what (n = number of students)? While implied, it needs to be written in the methodology or design."

Response 13: We have added a footnote in Figure 5, specifying the total number of participants and clarifying the meaning of frequency in Table 1.

 

Comment 14:

"Align Table 1 and 2 correctly within the margins of the manuscript. They are very wide. This may be corrected in the editing process but needs to be updated."

Response 14: We have adjusted the formatting of the tables to comply with the recommended margins and alignment.

 

Comment 15:

"In the participant section, you noted three academic cycles, but they were not defined until observed in the table. Ensure that table content is described accurately and clearly in both the table and the text."

Response 15: More detailed information has been added in section 2.2 Participants, ensuring that the description of academic cycles is clear and consistent with the table content.

 

Comment 16:

"For context and transferability, note in the article the number of total students in the course(s), the total number of students with a phone and WhatsApp, and the number of students who did not participate or did not have a phone."

Response 16: In section 2.2 Participants, we have added the percentage of students who chose not to participate in the study. Since participation was voluntary, we did not investigate the reasons for non-participation.

 

Comment 17:

"All research questions should be in parenthesis, italicized, or identified in some way separate from the text in the paragraph." For example, in line 354 it states, “The results on How are students groups…” there should not be a capital H in how in the middle of a paragraph unless it is formatted differently to indicate a research question.

 

Response 17: We appreciate the observation. The formatting of research questions in the discussion section has been corrected to ensure they are easily identifiable. Additionally, the discussion has been reorganized into subsections aligned with the research questions.

 

Comment 18:

"For researcher transparency and when recommending a technology tool, it is important that the security of the technology is disclosed. It is highly recommended in order to protect the authors from potential harm institutionally and professionally, that the authors add in the limitations section of WhatsApp transparency related to:

• Multiple safeguarding steps to ensure confidentiality and security in using WhatsApp
• Privacy concerns about WhatsApp not being General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliant
• The inability of the school/university to monitor audit trails for proper records of communication for potential issues or investigations
• Data retention, sharing, and profile access in the app when an instructor leaves the content/discussion/group
• Personal information disclosure (phone numbers, synced contacts, and profile access or connections with social media through WhatsApp)
• Mixing of personal and professional communication."

Response 18: We appreciate this important observation. In section 6. Limitations of the Study and Future Perspectives, we have incorporated a detailed analysis of the aspects mentioned, including security measures, privacy concerns, data retention, and risks associated with personal information disclosure when using WhatsApp in academic settings. This ensures greater transparency in our research and minimizes potential risks for platform users.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a well-written manuscript, and I really enjoyed reading about how WhatsApp can be integrated into distance education to better support students. The study provides solid insights into how instant messaging enhances communication and interaction in academic settings.

One suggestion for improvement is to briefly address potential privacy concerns associated with using WhatsApp for academic communication. Also, it could be helpful to explore whether all students feel comfortable using WhatsApp or if there are any accessibility or preference-related barriers. Acknowledging these aspects could provide a more balanced perspective on its implementation in education. 

The manuscript acknowledges that the study is limited to a single country, but it might be helpful to briefly discuss what specific cultural or technological differences could impact the generalizability of the findings. For example, are there regions where WhatsApp is not widely used or where other messaging apps are preferred? Maybe even add, in the limitations, a discussion on how government policies and institutional regulations might affect the use of private messaging apps like WhatsApp in education.

Could be strengthened by mentioning specific alternatives like Microsoft Teams, or Slack, which might have different functionalities or privacy policies that affect educational use. Expand on why WhatsApp is the best choice?

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Comment 1:

"One suggestion for improvement is to briefly address potential privacy concerns associated with using WhatsApp for academic communication."

Response 1: Thank you for observing. In section 6. Limitations of the Study and Future Perspectives, we have included a subsection detailing privacy concerns related to WhatsApp usage in educational settings, covering its implications for confidentiality and data security for both students and educators.

 

Comment 2:

"Also, it could be helpful to explore whether all students feel comfortable using WhatsApp or if there are any accessibility or preference-related barriers. Acknowledging these aspects could provide a more balanced perspective on its implementation in education."

Response 2: We appreciate this suggestion. This topic is addressed in section 4. Discussion, where we compare WhatsApp usage with other communication tools used during classes. The results indicate that most students prefer WhatsApp over other communication options, though we acknowledge that some accessibility and preference-related barriers may exist.

 

Comment 3:

"The manuscript acknowledges that the study is limited to a single country, but it might be helpful to briefly discuss what specific cultural or technological differences could impact the generalizability of the findings. For example, are there regions where WhatsApp is not widely used or where other messaging apps are preferred? Maybe even add, in the limitations, a discussion on how government policies and institutional regulations might affect the use of private messaging apps like WhatsApp in education.
Could be strengthened by mentioning specific alternatives like Microsoft Teams or Slack, which might have different functionalities or privacy policies that affect educational use. Expand on why WhatsApp is the best choice?"

Response 3: We sincerely appreciate these observations. In section 7. Implications of the Study, we have expanded the discussion on cultural and technological factors that may influence the generalizability of the findings, considering contexts where WhatsApp may not be the dominant communication platform. Additionally, in section 6. Limitations of the Study and Future Perspectives, we have incorporated reflections on government policies, institutional regulations, and alternative platforms such as Microsoft Teams and Slack, explaining why WhatsApp was the most suitable choice for this study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper "Using WhatsApp in Distance Education: Assessing the Impact on Academic Interaction and influencing factors". Using a quantitative cross-sectional cross-sectional survey, the authors analysed the perceptions of WhatsApp as an educational tool among N=127 students enrolled in a distance learning programmes at an Ecuadorian university. The study contributes to research in the field of distance learning. However, before I can recommend it for publication, a few revisions need to be made.

• Unfortunately, the context of university teaching is not made clear throughout the first chapter (Introduction). Although this is stated in the abstract, the whole presentation of the background would benefit from a clearer focus here.

• The use of WhatsApp is considered quite uncritically throughout the article. I would recommend that the authors reflect more on ethical difficulties such as the dependence of the technical provision on a private company or the unclear handling of potentially sensitive student data (data protection).

• Lines 102f.: Please number the questions.

• Table 1: I assume the clusters are identical to the WhatsApp groups in the sample. Please use consistent terminology.

• Table 2: It makes no mathematical sense to report a Cronbach's alpha for individual items. Internal consistency can only be meaningfully specified and interpreted for scales consisting of several items (at least two items).

• I also wonder why the authors did not calculate corresponding scales for the four dimensions of their instrument and present the corresponding scale scores descriptively. Then there would be no need to make comparisons between groups at the level of individual items.

• This is also confusing because scales were apparently used for the cluster analyses. However, this is not made sufficiently clear in the text. I strongly recommend that the authors make it clearer which items were combined into which scales for the cluster analysis.

• For which data was the Shapiro-Wilk test calculated? For the distribution in each group?

• Line 180: One word is double.

• Figure 3: The data show a significant ceiling effect. Group differences should therefore be relatively small. Please also report the effect size for each of the tests.

• If many statistical inferences are considered simultaneously (here: 24 items), there is the problem of multiple comparisons and the more likely erroneous inferences become. I recommend a correction (e.g. Bonferroni correction) to avoid false positives.

   

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment 1:

"Unfortunately, the context of university teaching is not made clear throughout the first chapter (Introduction). Although this is stated in the abstract, the whole presentation of the background would benefit from a clearer focus here."

Response 1: We appreciate this observation. The introduction has been improved by incorporating more detailed information about distance higher education, providing a clearer context for the study.

 

Comment 2:

"The use of WhatsApp is considered quite uncritically throughout the article. I would recommend that the authors reflect more on ethical difficulties such as the dependence of the technical provision on a private company or the unclear handling of potentially sensitive student data (data protection)."

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. In section 6. Limitations of the Study and Future Perspectives, we have included a discussion on the ethical implications of using WhatsApp in educational settings, addressing concerns about dependence on a private company and student data protection.

 

Comment 3:

"Lines 102f.: Please number the questions."

Response 3: We appreciate the observation. The research questions in the introduction have been correctly numbered to improve organization and clarity.

 

Comment 4:

"Table 1: I assume the clusters are identical to the WhatsApp groups in the sample. Please use consistent terminology."

Response 4: Thank you for this observation. We have standardized the terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid confusion, clarifying that in Table 1, the term group refers to WhatsApp groups, while in Figure 1, the groups represent the clusters generated through clustering analysis.

 

Comment 5:

"Table 2: It makes no mathematical sense to report a Cronbach's alpha for individual items. Internal consistency can only be meaningfully specified and interpreted for scales consisting of several items (at least two items)."

Response 5: We appreciate the detailed review. In Table 2, we have removed Cronbach’s alpha values for individual items and calculated it only at the dimension level.

 

Comment 6:

"I also wonder why the authors did not calculate corresponding scales for the four dimensions of their instrument and present the corresponding scale scores descriptively. Then there would be no need to make comparisons between groups at the level of individual items."

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. In section 4. Discussion, we justify the analysis at the individual item level as part of the investigation into the first research question. However, comparisons with independent variables were performed at the dimension level, as explained in the methodology.

 

Comment 7:

"This is also confusing because scales were apparently used for group analyses. However, this is not explained clearly enough in the text. I strongly recommend clarifying which elements were combined into which scales for the group analysis."

Response: 7: Thank you for the observation. To avoid misunderstandings, we have revised and detailed the data analysis section in Materials and Methods, clarifying the methodology used for group analysis.

 

Comment 8:

"Line 180: One word is double."

Response 8: We appreciate the careful review. The repeated word has been removed from the indicated line.

 

Comment 9:

"Figure 3: The data show a significant ceiling effect. Group differences should therefore be relatively small. Please also report the effect size for each of the tests."

Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion. In the discussion of Figure 3, we clarify that this figure shows the distributions of means and standard deviations but does not directly measure the significance effect.

 

Comment 10:

"If many statistical inferences are considered simultaneously (here: 24 items), there is the problem of multiple comparisons and the more likely erroneous inferences become. I recommend a correction (e.g., Bonferroni correction) to avoid false positives."

Response 10: We appreciate the review. To improve clarity, we have detailed the statistical analysis procedures in Materials and Methods, justifying the use of multiple comparisons in the clustering analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for an in-depth analysis and edits to the manuscript based on the reviewer's recommendations. The only request or minor revision that is highly recommended is that the authors adapt lines 538-556 in the limitations section into a paragraph or explicit list form, versus single-line paragraphs, and ensure that all content from the reviewer's notes sent to the authors in the first review is not copied over directly as written into the article. While, I, the reviewer provided recommendations for you, it is best practice to ensure that they are re-written to the best of your ability in which it aligns with your study more specifically. 

In the future, please include both an edited copy and a final copy without the highlighted or noted revisions. It was difficult at times to read the edited version due to all the changes and a comparative version without the mark-outs would have been helpful.

Overall, you did an excellent job and I commend you on the work. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s additional observations and recommendations, which have further contributed to enhancing the clarity, structure, and coherence of the manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable in refining key sections and ensuring the study aligns with best academic practices. Below, we provide our responses to the suggested revisions.

 

Comments 1:

Thank you to the authors for an in-depth analysis and edits to the manuscript based on the reviewer's recommendations. The only request or minor revision that is highly recommended is that the authors adapt lines 538-556 in the limitations section into a paragraph or explicit list form, versus single-line paragraphs,

 

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to improve the structure of lines 538-556 in the Limitations of the Study and Future Perspectives section. We have restructured the content into a single, cohesive paragraph, ensuring that the information flows sequentially and enhances readability.

 

Comments 2:

ensure that all content from the reviewer's notes sent to the authors in the first review is not copied over directly as written into the article. While, I, the reviewer provided recommendations for you, it is best practice to ensure that they are re-written to the best of your ability in which it aligns with your study more specifically. 

 

Response 2: For clarification, some of the revisions suggested by the reviewer in the initial review were incorporated verbatim in specific instances, as we considered them to be highly relevant to the study’s thematic focus and aligned with the research objectives. The reviewers’ extensive expertise in the subject matter has undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the quality of the manuscript. However, we have carefully reviewed all suggested revisions to ensure that they are fully integrated into the study's framework and appropriately adapted to maintain consistency with our research approach.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have implemented all my comments well and adequately.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, the paper has improved considerably.