Bringing Science to the Periphery Through Distance Learning: Barriers and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. More than a third of references, i.e., 32 out of 81, are older than ten years. The article explores current barriers to distance learning DL. It is inappropriate to make arguments and comparisons with the research and conditions ten years ago, considering the fast development and penetration of a wide range of ICT in all social and economic areas, including education. That is why the introduction has to be updated to reflect the most recent research on the topic.

2. Formulating some hypotheses related to the research questions could benefit the research.

3. Including more information about limitations in teaching science in the periphery could help explain the context of the study.

4. The research should clarify if there is consistency between the attitudes to DL of teachers and students presented in statements in Table 2 and answers of school principals given to questions in Appendix A. Survey questions passed to students and teachers should also be provided as an appendix.

5. A graphical representation of most of the results reported in Table 2 could outline the differences (if any) in students' and teachers' attitudes to DL and will contribute to their straightforward comprehension.

6. The discussion section should provide answers about why the results were the way they were and authors to support them with arguments.

7. The study limitations and future work should be pointed out explicitly.

 

8. The conclusion barely reflects the results presented in the article. It should summarize findings about RQs and stress on the main results of the survey. Further, it has to demonstrate what values the research could provide to the general research community and who will benefit from the presented study. 

9. Survey questions passed to students and teachers should also be provided as an appendix.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal is relevant and in line with the focus of the journal and has an impact on other similar studies about the post-COVID.

The authors have drawn up an interesting literature review suitable for studying factors hindering distance learning (DL) in remote regions.  It should be emphasised that one of the characteristics of DL is that it is independent of the place where we are, which makes it, precisely, ,suitable for the study of factors hindering distance learning in remote regions.

The methodological design of the research fulfils the requirements and is aligned with the research questions. The instruments are appropriate, well described and rigorous, and the questionnaire is provided in the annex. The presentation of the results obtained is detailed  and the discussion held allows conclusions to be drawn for future implementation and to guide good practice and comparitive studies.

However, one recommendation in these conclusions: the issue of teacher training is in itself an issue, since in order to change perceptions and attitudes it needs a transformative learning design.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is focused on barriers and opportunities to using distance learning technologies and methodologies in science education for students living at the periphery of a country and studying in small schools. Schools in regions far from the central regions were equipped with advanced technological infrastructure, but these facilities remained largely unused in many schools. In the article, the psychological barriers are deeply discussed.

In the introduction, the main idea seems to be to debunk barriers to admission to university and raise academic achievement via applying distance learning to some elective courses. It is clear that there is no possibility of opening some elective courses at small schools, far from bigger schools, because of the small number of students, and too expensive and time-consuming travel to far centres. The relevance of the courses for the students is discussed only in relation to acceptance to higher education. It seems this could be one of the weaknesses of this study, even if the research on the relevance of the goals of the courses is another topic, here could be mentioned slightly more.

I highlight that the article mentions the importance of TPACK skills and TAM model. However, these could be discussed in more detail related to the research presented, not only in the introduction. As noted in the article, there are more open questions for future research, however, it seems, deeper details can be based on the results of this research. Some results related to these ideas are in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376747059.

In some parts of the article, the wording evokes an idea that education in rural areas is at a lower level comparing to central areas. Generally, it could be preferable to discuss the level of education in clearly given aspects (for example, percentage of graduates accepted to higher education), and somewhere in the article offer also aspects in which the schools can have a higher level of quality (I guess that in small schools the students do know each other, but there could be also other aspects). Do the students and staff in rural schools consider the distance learning technologies managed in central areas to interfere with their competencies? Do the courses fulfil the goals and aims set in the minds of the students, parents and staff at rural schools? In some aspects, are the teachers (and principals) in rural schools different from teachers in central schools https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380652180 ?

I see the article is of interest to readers all over the world - wherever we have busy, crowded centers and quiet rural sprawls; there are people who prefer to live in one or the other; there are curriculum developers who try to establish relevant goals and objectives.

Author Response

Pleas see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf