Blending Academic and Professional Learning in a University Course for Future E-learning Specialists: The Perspective of Company Tutors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I find the study very appealing and relevant to the present pandemic that compels using innovative and alternative e-learning methods. The authors described the research process in a detailed way and they explained the logic of the steps that they followed. This emphasizes the reliability of the research. The relevance to the previous research and prior theoretical framework can be improved, though. The literature used in the introduction part can be updated and more recent sources can be used. That can also apply to the discussion of the results. In addition, in the manuscript, there are two different usages "WhatApp" and "WhatsApp". I would suggest checking the manuscript one more time. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments that we believe helped us to improve the quality of our paper.

 According to your suggestion, we took the following actions:

1. We expanded the introduction, by including the results of three recent reviews related with Blended Learning in Higher Education;
2.  We included a flowchart to illustrate the course and we reduced the description of the course;
3. We tried to give more visibility to research questions through a bulleted list;
4. We expanded the discussion according to the literature review mentioned in the introduction. We triedto better highlight the theoretical contribution provided by this research on adding a new dimension of blended learning.
5. We included a new section concerning pedagogical and practical implications of this research;
6. The article was proofread for conciseness, cohesiveness, and coherence;
7. We corrected typo errors like “WhatsApp”;

We hope you can consider our paper in this new version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, I really appreciated learning a little bit more about a new definition of blended learning in your context. Your manuscript is well-written and looks like a promising approach to pedagogy in your context. However, I feel that the manuscript could be strengthened. So, I invite you to take the following suggestions into consideration as your revise your article.

First, in proposing a new definition of blended learning the authors must first in detail review BL. Currently, the literature review is very minimal in terms of BL, especially BL in higher education which is a rich research area. I had expected to see a thorough review including several of the key scholars in this field. Therefore, I feel the introduction and literature review need to be rewritten. Perhaps, the author could include a table/flowchart illustrating previous BL models. There are a number of these available in the existing literature. 

Also, I strongly suggest the first paragraph of Section 2 – Blended learning… is removed.

Section 3.1

This section is quite wordy, and it would be helpful to include a flowchart to illustrate the course. Then the discussion could be shortened and refer to the flowchart. This would make it easier to understand the context of the research.

Section 3.2

I suggest the research questions are not hidden in a paragraph.

Data analysis and results are very clear. Easy to replicate and follow how its been presented. Great job!

Section 5

More relevant literature needs to be integrated into the Discussion / Conclusion. Currently, it is more like he said this and she said that… This section is not written critically about the issue the author investigated.

I suggest a new heading – Pedagogical Implications or Practical Implications to be added to section 5.  

Specifically, in Section 5 I had expected to see a highlight of the importance of the study, and how it can contribute to the research problem within the field of the study. However, as the authors have not established the research field in the introduction/literature review it is not possible to fill the existing gap.  The conclusion should demonstrate the importance of their ideas, introduce possible new/expanded ideas – the new BL model. Perhaps, the implications could be highlighted by a flowchart/graph etc. 

Finally, this article needs to be thoroughly proofread for conciseness, cohesiveness, and coherence to make the manuscript easier to follow.  I believe this article can contribute a new understanding to BL which will have an impact on how we as educators decide to structure our BL courses. However, to make such a claim we need to first establish existing BL models and the gap presented. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 Thanks for your comments that we believe helped us to improve the quality of our paper.

 According to your suggestion, we took the following actions:

1. We expanded the introduction, by including the results of three recent reviews related with Blended Learning in Higher Education;
2.  We included a flowchart to illustrate the course and we reduced the description of the course;
3. We tried to give more visibility to research questions through a bulleted list;
4. We expanded the discussion according to the literature review mentioned in the introduction. We triedto better highlight the theoretical contribution provided by this research on adding a new dimension of blended learning.
5. We included a new section concerning pedagogical and practical implications of this research;
6. The article was proofread for conciseness, cohesiveness, and coherence;
7. We corrected typo errors like “WhatsApp”;

We hope you can consider our paper in this new version.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author(s)

I would like to congratulate you on successfully revising your article. Your revisions have strengthened the article and made it possible to clearly see your contribution to new knowledge. There are still some formatting errors (font size, extra period, etc.) but these can be corrected during the proofreading phase. I believe the article is now ready for publication and I gladly accept it. Thank you for your contributing your research to the wider community.