Combining Virtual and Hands-on Lab Work in a Blended Learning Approach on Molecular Biology Methods and Lab Safety for Lower Secondary Education Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objectives of the work, the bibliographic sources used, the methodology, and the presentation of the results demonstrate a brilliant approach by the authors of the research. Undoubtedly, the area on which they have focused their research—studying the effectiveness of virtual laboratories for teaching molecular biology content—is of great interest to a large portion of secondary school teachers, who may find significant challenges in the use and availability of resources for biology labs. Furthermore, it is noteworthy to highlight the conclusion (substantiated by the obtained data) that the primary strength of virtual laboratories lies in their capacity to prepare students for the use of traditional laboratories in the near future. Congratulations on the research and its presentation in the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. This is an interesting study. However, there were components that were unclear. 

- are there any literature that found that inschool verses out of school have impact on learning outcomes? 

- what do you mean by 'cognitive activiation and communication skills'? 

- Methodology 

- it was not clear whether the BL, VL, WL and RT were comparable to measure the outcomes against each other. How did you ensure the 1 group did not receive more struture or support than the other? 

- the declarative knowledge scale looks like a multiple-choice test. i am not sure what you were trying to measure with the scale other than the participant's knowledge. what were the variables you were trying examine in the factor analysis? 

 

- Results

- it was not clear which group did better than which group. 

- there were effect sizes missing

- need to add a means table

- with the interaction, what was found significant? was a simple effect analysis conducted? 

 

- the role of cognitive load theory is missing. this is needs to be clear in the literature, results and discussion

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents the results of virtual simulations within the context of a biology course.  I found the results to be of interest; however, the article is quite difficult to read.  The introduction is not focused, and was difficult to follow.  I suggest the authors thoroughly revise this component of the manuscript to place the importane of the work in context and better differentiate the lab safety vs lab components.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Acceptable

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Pg2 What are traditional safety briefings? Why is it important that it s boring? 

Pg2. 55-57 – is this study in a virtual lab?

Pg3 . did any of the literature also look at learning?  

Pge 3. section – 2.2 needs more on scientific interest and how it was fostered and how it was measured

Pg3 – Scharfenberg and Bogne 

Pg4 . more detail of Scharfenberg & Bogne Is needed. What did one group and the other group do differently? What was the difference in instruction?

-              Did the study look at cognitive maturity and cognitive load? Was there an association? What was the association with blending learning model? 

The literature review needs to focus a lot more on blending learning – what it is, is the effective? Who is it effective for?  

 

Pg4. What is declarative knowledge? This needs to be discussed in more depth in the literature and why is it needed in building knowledge? 

 

Pg4 – 5. Methodology – the group processes are difficult to follow. Can this also be presented as a flowchart? 

Please use either delayed or follow up test so it is not confusing. 

Pg6. What did the pre, post and delayed tests consist of?

Pg 6. What was the maximum mark a student can get for each test? 

Pg8. Need to be more clear with which group performed better than the other. It is not clear which group outperformed which

Pg 8. What was the reason of examining the difference between pre-test and the follow up? The follow up test should be examined against the post test

Pg 9. 352. What are highly significant differences?  

Pg 9. Was there a significant difference in the pre-test between the 4 groups? If so, consider using it as a covariate 

Pg 11. Not clear what is meant by. ‘had prior knowledge of lab safety’. If this means the students already had high prior knowledge, comparing between groups makes its difficult. I suggest, reanalysing with prior knowledge as acovariate 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Alot of more work on clarity and flow is needed 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides a valuable study comparing the use of virtual simulations, in-person laboratories, and traditional teaching methods in a molecular biology course.  The findings should have broader impact across other disciplines where laboratory learning is emphasized.  In the revision, the authors have restructured the introduction to improve comprehension for the reader and clarity.  I can recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf