Norwegian Public Health Nursing Students’ Experiences with the Transition from Classroom to Online Lectures: Benefits and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the author(s) for their valuable efforts on this paper submitted to Educational Sciences.

As a reviewer, I would like to suggest the author(s) clarify their definitions of the concept of "emergency online teaching" because in their manuscript (lines 41 to 43).  The e-learning, distance learning, and emergency online teaching (which happened during Covid-19 lockdown) concepts are so diverse. The author(s) should review the literature carefully when using these concepts and should avoid using them as they are substitutes. 

Therefore, I recommend the author(s) rewrite this section after an intense literature review of "emergency online teaching". 

Secondly, I strongly recommend the author(s) revise the methodology and research design part. There is only descriptive analysis telling the reader how but not why. This analysis method is not efficient enough to explain the problem stated in the introduction part. However, the problem statement can also be revised. 

Lastly, there is one internal coherency problem in the paper that is not understood by an average reader: Why did the author(s) make this research on the experiences of PHN students on the transition from face-to-face to online learning if they were already doing it before? 

It is said that "Norway is rated among the world's leading in terms of access to information and communication technology equipment [30], where 98% of the population has an internet connection [33]. Even if plenary lectures were mainly used before the Covid-19 closedown, the PHN students were familiar with at least parts of online learning because they all use learning management system (LMS) platforms in their studies, correspond with teachers and fellow students online, and submit exams and written mandatory assignments online" (lines 249 to 254). 

So, what is the point here of giving some statistics and basic descriptive analysis if there is strong prior experience of PHN students with online learning?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English is adequate in the manuscript. However, mostly basic English is used. I may recommend author(s) enrich vocabulary to sound more academic. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper examines how postgraduate students experienced the transition to online lectures and what self-reported advantages and challenges they identified. Such a topic is quite popular during the last four years, and a lot of papers were published, so what is the novelty of your research?

A comparative analysis with previous papers should be made, the theoretical and practical implications should be clearly indicated in Conclusion section and explanations how to use the results of the study should be given.

Also, the research questions or hypothesis could be added in Introduction section to enhance the scientific soundness.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Although your research may offer some specific insights in the Norwegian context, the quality is still poor. Among other things, you need to have research questions and a literature review section to ensure that this article has guidance and strong foundational frameworks. Your data analysis relies solely on descriptive statistics, which is a significant weakness. You need to include inferential statistics. I have left some notes in the manuscript for your revision. 

Best, 

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for you improvements!  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. While the quality has improved, several areas still require attention:

1. Writing Style: The manuscript would benefit from enhanced coherence and criticality. Given that the COVID-19 pandemic has ended, you should present a more convincing argument to emphasize the relevance and urgency of your research.

2. Paragraph Structure: Avoid writing sentences as standalone paragraphs. Ensure that each paragraph is sufficiently developed and avoid breaking up short sentences into separate paragraphs.

3. Research Questions: Formulate research questions that clearly guide your study.

4. Statistical Results: Your statistical results lack critical interpretation. Please add comprehensive analyses after presenting specific statistical results.

I have also included additional comments within the manuscript for your further revision.

Best regards,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Abstract

Line 11-13. From referee no 3. Briefly mention ethe data collection tools

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript to include the following: The questionnaire was specifically developed for this study and covers student motivation, perceived benefits and challenges of transitioning to online lectures, peer collaboration, and self-assessed learning outcomes. It was distributed to the PHN students via their respective education’s LMS system.

 

Line 14-15. From referee no 3. Unnecessary

Thank you for the feedback. We have removed following sentences: Categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages.

 

Line 15-16. From referee no 3. These findings do not have a direct connection to the focus of your study.

Thank you for the feedback. Associations between pairs of categorical variables were assessed with Pearson’s chi-square test (P-values < 0.05).

 

 

Introduction

Line 26. From referee no 3. References are needed.

Thank you for the feedback. A reference has been inserted.

 

Line 36-41. From referee no 3. Fix the format of this paragraph.

Thank you for the feedback. We apologize for the issue with the paragraphs. After comparing the submitted manuscript with the version returned with the referee’s comments, we noticed changes likely introduced during the editing process. We have contacted the journal to address this and ensure it doesn't happen with this manuscript.

 

 

 

Line 59-76 From referee no 3. Avoid writing short sentences into paragraphs. Write a proper paragraph not short sentences. Revise accordingly.

 

Thank you for the feedback. Also here, there is some issues with the paragraph. We refer to comment above.  We have rewritten this part to improve the flow and coherence.

 

 

Background and previous research

Line 78. From referee no 3. Why is there a dot here?

Thank you for the feedback. The dot was put there by a mistake. We apologize and have removed it.  

 

Line 79. From referee no 3. Why is there a dot here?

Thank you for the feedback. The dot was an error and has been removed.

 

Line 103. From referee no 3. be consistent with your reference style.

Thank you for the feedback. We have removed the reference to the publication year to maintain consistency.

 

Line 114. From referee no 3 For this sub section (online learning), you need to improve the coherence among the paragraphs and be more critical. Revise it and accordingly. Make sure that you have more resent references cited in this sub section.

Thank you for the feedback. We have rewritten this section to improve coherence and have included more critical points, as well as more recent references. We have also addressed critical aspects in the discussion.

 

Benefits and challenges with online learning

Line 136. From referee no 3. Why is there a dot here?

Thank you for the feedback. The dot was an error and has been removed.

 

Line 174. From referee no 3. This sub section also lacks coherence. Also need to be more critical. Revise accordingly.

Thank you for the feedback. We have rewritten this section to enhance coherence and have included more critical analysis. Critical aspects have also been expanded upon in the discussion.

 

Line 233 From referee no 3. I have read the whole section (background and previous research).

1. My biggest concern is about the coherence and criticality in your writing. Your writing lacks urgency and variety. The rhythm feels flat, lacking a strong sense of urgency and critical writing. I am not saying this is bad. It's just that you need to significantly improve the coherence and criticality of this section so that your research feels more appealing, especially given that COVID-19 is already over.

Thank you for the feedback. We acknowledge any limitations in our English, as none of the authors are native speakers. Although the original manuscript was proofread by a professional, we no longer have the budget for additional proofreading. However, we have made collective efforts to improve the manuscript based on your comments

 

2. You should elaborate on how the reviewed findings inform and integrate into your research at the end of each sub-section.

Thank you for the feedback. In the discussion, we compare the elements presented in the background with our findings.  

 

 

 

Materials and Methods

Design and sampling

Line 233 From referee no 3. Integrate this sentence into the next paragraph. Do not consider a sentence as a paragraph.

Thank you for this comment. After comparing the submitted manuscript with the version returned with the referee’s comments, we noticed changes likely introduced during the editing process. We have contacted the editor of the journal to address this and ensure it doesn't happen with this manuscript.

 

The questionnaire

Line 270-279 Comment from referee no 3. Again, revise these short sentences. They are not paragraphs).

Thank you for this comment. Also here, as above.

 

Statistical analysis

Line 308-312 Comment from referee no 3. You have neither research questions nor hypotheses. That is why your research is not specifically focused from the beginning. Try to create research questions. Revise it accordingly).

Thank you for the comment. I have collaborated with our statistician, and we have made changes in the manuscript by formulated hypotheses. The statistical methods are in line with our hypotheses and the hypotheses are answered in the Results and Conclusions.

Line 391 Comment from referee no 3. I've read the entire results section. After you report the statistical results, you need to add interpretations.

 

Thank you for the comment. All our results and tables are thoroughly commented in the Results section. In addition, we have added a sentence to the Discussion section that summarizes our findings. Due to formatting issues, the tables were moved after the manuscript had been submitted so perhaps it was difficult for the reviewer to find the relevant interpretation of a given table in the Results section? We have now reformatted the manuscript and hope that the new version is easier to read, further on This issue is addressed to the editor for the journal.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx