Predicting Learners’ Agility and Readiness for Future Learning Ecosystem
, Ismi Arif Ismail 1, Aini Marina Ma’rof 1, Chee Leong Lim 2, Nurhanim Hassan 2 and Nur Raihan Che Nawi 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The content of the article needs to be refined in relation to the title of the article.
It is possible to consider the role of information and communication technologies in the educational process and their contribution to increasing the suitability and agility of learners.
It is necessary to argue the importance of the flexibility of learners for future socio-economic development.
The statistical methods of research and hypothesis testing are excellently presented, it is necessary to clarify the technology of the research, the scope of the sample, and the selection criteria.
To strengthen the author's view in section 5 Implications of the article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a very interesting paper, examining the relationship between future-readiness, learning agility and various educational factors.
The analysis methods chosen are suitable for the task and the findings presented in the discussion are strongly based on the data. So, from this point of view, the paper is fine.
One thing that is missing is the data. In the abstract the authors mention that they query 209 students, but in the article itself there is no mention of the sample used or the data collected.
How were the participants selected? What are their demographics and how representative are they? How were data collected? How were the research parameters estimated from the gathered data? What was done to avoid bias? These are some of the important questions that need to be clearly answered, so that the work can be evaluated in full.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
My recommendations are reflected. The quality of the article is much better in this second version.
Congratulations to the authors!
Reviewer 2 Report
My only concern in the previous version of this article was the lack of presentation of the data upon which the findings were based. This has now been fully addressed, so I see no point not to go ahead with the publication. I congratulate the authors on their work.
