Exploring University Students’ Acceptance and Satisfaction of the Flipped Learning Approach in Instructional Technology Related Class

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses an under-researched population and offers useful descriptive data, but substantial revisions to the methodological design and reporting are required before the work can reach publishable standard. The study employs a one-shot, cross-sectional survey administered only after students experienced the flipped-learning intervention; it neither gathers baseline data nor includes a comparison cohort exposed to a different instructional model. In the absence of these safeguards, any favourable (or unfavourable) perceptions observed may simply reflect learners’ pre-existing attitudes toward technology, the lecturer, or the subject, rather than the flipped approach itself.

Because no pre-test was conducted, the research cannot establish whether students’ acceptance or satisfaction rose, fell, or remained static over the semester, information crucial to instructors seeking evidence of genuine pedagogical impact. Moreover, history, maturation and selection effects all remain uncontrolled: for example, students’ growing familiarity with Microsoft Teams across the three semesters could inflate perceived ease of use irrespective of classroom format.

Finally, the paper describes certain variables as “determinants” or “influences,” yet a cross-sectional, single-group design supports only associative claims, not causal ones. The regression findings should therefore be interpreted cautiously or re-examined within a longitudinal or experimental framework that can more convincingly test directional hypotheses.

1 Conceptual framing
Condense the literature review to the strands that lead directly to your research questions; several paragraphs repeat earlier points or summarise studies with tenuous links to your model. A tighter focus will make the contribution clearer.

2 Research design

2.1 Design mis-match. You describe the work as a “descriptive cross-sectional design” yet interpret regression coefficients as evidence that variable X predicts satisfaction. Cross-sectional survey data can identify associations but not temporal or causal direction. Re-phrase claims accordingly or adopt a longitudinal or experimental design in future.

2.2 Sampling and generalisability. The frame is a single undergraduate course across three consecutive semesters; the sample is small (N = 137) and 95 % female. Discuss how gender imbalance, disciplinary homogeneity and repeated exposure to the same instructor limit external validity. A priori power analysis would demonstrate whether 137 observations are sufficient for a six-predictor model.

2.3 Cohort effects unaddressed. Data were gathered over three semesters, but the analysis treats responses as independent. At minimum, report whether mean scores differed by semester and control for cohort in the regression, or explain why such adjustment is unnecessary.

2.4 Instrument validity. Reliance on Cronbach’s α alone is insufficient. Two sub-scales fall below accepted thresholds (PEOU α = .64; and something with α = .61 in line 365 – may be a typo?). Provide exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis or AVE/CR to support construct validity, or revise/remove weak items.

2.5 Score categorisation. Converting scale means into “low/moderate/high” by fixed 1.00–2.33, 2.34–3.66, 3.67–5.00 intervals assumes equal interval properties and masks variance. Justify these cut-offs or report raw means and SDs only.

2.6 Statistical assumptions. The regression explains 70 % of variance (Adj R² = .706), but no diagnostics (normality, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, independence) are presented. Supply VIF, residual plots and Durbin-Watson statistics to support model adequacy.

2.7 Terminology. Terms such as “predict” and “significant predictor” should be tempered given the non-experimental, cross-sectional nature of the data.

3 Results
Table 4 list “PEOD” instead of “PEOU”. Retitle tables to reflect research questions and insert confidence intervals for β coefficients. A visual path diagram would aid interpretation. Also, there is no table 6?

4 Discussion and conclusions
Sections 3.3-3.4 restate numeric findings before engaging with theory. Integrate results with Technology Acceptance Model studies that report conflicting evidence, and explain why usefulness and ease-of-use drop out in the multivariate model. Limitations (self-report bias, convenience sample, same instructor) need fuller treatment.

5 Ethical considerations
The manuscript omits institutional review-board approval and informed-consent procedures. Provide these details or the study cannot be published.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Numerous grammatical slips (“hadronic motivation”; “perceived educational equity”) and long sentences hinder clarity.

A professional copy-edit is advisable.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions in the red color in the re-submitted files.

 Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: Conceptual framing Condense the literature review to the strands that lead directly to your research questions; several paragraphs repeat earlier points or summarize studies with tenuous links to your model. A tighter focus will make the contribution clearer.
Response 1: The literature review was revised by removing unrelated studies and refining the presentation of the remaining ones.

Comments 2 : 2 Research design 2.1 Design mis-match. You describe the work as a “descriptive cross-sectional design” yet interpret regression coefficients as evidence that variable X predicts satisfaction. Cross-sectional survey data can identify associations but not temporal or causal direction. Re-phrase claims accordingly or adopt a longitudinal or experimental design in future.

Response 2: Accordingly, we have revised the terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid causal language. Terms such as “predict” and “influence” were replaced with more appropriate alternatives such as “are associated with” or “relate to.” In addition, we have added a clear statement under the limitations section to acknowledge that the findings are based on cross-sectional data and, therefore, do not imply causality. We appreciate your guidance in ensuring methodological clarity and consistency.

Comment 3 : 2.2 Sampling and generalisability. The frame is a single undergraduate course across three consecutive semesters; the sample is small (N = 137) and 95 % female. Discuss how gender imbalance, disciplinary homogeneity and repeated exposure to the same instructor limit external validity.

Response 3: I added the following on the limitation to address this comment:

One notable limitation of the study lies in its limited external validity. The research was conducted within a single undergraduate course across three consecutive semesters, with a relatively small sample size (N = 137) and a highly skewed gender distribution (95% female). This demographic imbalance, combined with the disciplinary homogeneity of the participants, may restrict the generalizability of the findings. The results, therefore, should be interpreted with caution when considering their applicability to other educational contexts, disciplines, or more diverse and balanced student populations.

Comment 4: A priori power analysis would demonstrate whether 137 observations are sufficient for a six-predictor model.

Response 4: A priori power analysis was conducted during the planning phase of the study to ensure the adequacy of the sample size for the multiple regression model, which included six predictors. Although the power analysis results were not presented in the manuscript, it was determined that approximately 100 participants would be required to detect a medium effect size (f² = 0.15) with an alpha level of 0.05 and a statistical power of 0.80. To meet this requirement, data were collected over the course of three consecutive semesters, resulting in a final sample of 137 participants, which exceeds the minimum threshold and supports the statistical validity of the regression analysis.

Comment 5: 2.3 Cohort effects unaddressed. Data were gathered over three semesters, but the analysis treats responses as independent. At minimum, report whether mean scores differed by semester and control for cohort in the regression, or explain why such adjustment is unnecessary.

Response 5: Data were gathered over three consecutive semesters to reach the required sample size. However, all participants were enrolled in the same course, taught by the same instructor, and under identical instructional conditions, including course content, flipped learning implementation, and assessment structure. Given the consistency of delivery across cohorts, responses were treated as independent.

Comment 6:  2.4 Instrument validity. Reliance on Cronbach’s α alone is insufficient. Two sub-scales fall below accepted thresholds (PEOU α = .64; and something with α = .61 in line 365 – may be a typo?). Provide exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis or AVE/CR to support construct validity, or revise/remove weak items.

Response 6: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the instrument section and added the following text in red color:  Face validity was assessed by experts in educational technology and curriculum and instruction, who reviewed the questionnaire to ensure it appears to measure what it is intended to. Ibn addition, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component extraction and Varimax rotation was conducted on the 21 questionnaire items. The KMO value was .935, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .001), indicating the data was suitable for factor analysis. Two components were extracted based on eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining a cumulative 57.6% of the total variance. Items loaded meaningfully onto two factors, with some overlap across constructs, suggesting that students' perceptions of flipped learning cluster into broader dimensions. These findings support the questionnaire’s construct validity while indicating that learners may view flipped learning experiences in more integrated ways than suggested by separate theoretical dimensions.

Comment 7:  2.5 Score categorisation. Converting scale means into “low/moderate/high” by fixed 1.00–2.33, 2.34–3.66, 3.67–5.00 intervals assumes equal interval properties and masks variance. Justify these cut-offs or report raw means and SDs only.

Response 7: In response to the reviewer’s comment, we acknowledge that fixed-interval categorization assumes equal intervals. However, it is widely used in educational research to provide verbal description of the data. To address this, we have already reported raw means and standard deviations in Table 3 to allow both categorical and continuous interpretation of the results.

Comment 8:  2.6 Statistical assumptions. The regression explains 70 % of variance (Adj R² = .706), but no diagnostics (normality, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, independence) are presented. Supply VIF, residual plots and Durbin-Watson statistics to support model adequacy.

Response 8:  I add ed the following: Multiple regression analysis was conducted to answer this research question. Prior to the analysis, the assumption of multicollinearity among the independent variables was examined using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). All VIF values ranged between 2.17 and 3.09, which are well below the commonly accepted threshold of 5, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern. Additionally, the assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were assessed. The scatterplot of standardized residuals versus predicted values displayed a random pattern, supporting the assumption of homoscedasticity. The histogram and normal P–P plot indicated that the residuals were approximately normally distributed. Furthermore, the Durbin–Watson statistic was 2.103, which falls within the acceptable range of 1.5 to 2.5, indicating independence of residuals.

Comment 9 : 2.7 Terminology. Terms such as “predict” and “significant predictor” should be tempered given the non-experimental, cross-sectional nature of the data.

Response 9: Accordingly, we have revised the terminology throughout the manuscript to avoid causal language.

Comment 10:   ResultsTable 4 list “PEOD” instead of “PEOU”. Retitle tables to reflect research questions and insert confidence intervals for β coefficients. A visual path diagram would aid interpretation. Also, there is no table 6?

Response 10: PEOD was fixed. Tables were retitled. Table 6 already exist underneath table 5. confidence intervals for β coefficients were added.

Comment 11:  4 Discussion and conclusions
Sections 3.3-3.4 restate numeric findings before engaging with theory. Integrate results with Technology Acceptance Model studies that report conflicting evidence and explain why usefulness and ease-of-use drop out in the multivariate model. Limitations (self-report bias, convenience sample, same instructor) need fuller treatment.

Response 11: I add the following in the discussion, "While TAM posits that perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU) are core determinants of individuals’ attitudes and intentions toward using technology (Davis, 1986), their predictive strength appears to diminish when considered alongside contextual variables such as enjoyment, confidence, and quality perceptions. " and I addressed self-report bias, convenience sample, same instructor in the limitation section

Comment 12: Ethical considerations The manuscript omits institutional review-board approval and informed-consent procedures. Provide these details or the study cannot be published.

Response 12: We confirm that the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University, under the oversight of the Deanship of Scientific Research and Graduate Studies. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. These details will be included in the revised manuscript.

Comment 13: Comments on the Quality of English Language: Numerous grammatical slips (“hadronic motivation”; “perceived educational equity”) and long sentences hinder clarity.

Response 13: the language was reviewed and the grammatical slips fixed

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a study focused on the effectiveness of using portfolios to develop students' writing skills. The introduction and theoretical framework are well-founded, integrating classical and current references in a balanced manner, which contributes to adequately contextualizing the topic and situating the study within the current academic framework, providing a solid theoretical basis for the research.

Although the initial proposal is promising, the development of the manuscript presents some difficulties that affect its overall impact. There are aspects that raise questions and that should be clarified to strengthen the soundness and coherence of the work.

• Abstract. The abstract clearly communicates the objective, methodology, and main findings of the study. The structure is coherent and the language, in general, appropriate. However, it is recommended to avoid lexical repetitions and improve terminological precision. With minor stylistic adjustments, the text could gain in conciseness and academic formality.
• Study procedure. We suggest dividing the “Study Procedure” section into two separate sections to improve organization and clarity. The first could describe the temporal context and development of the study (semesters, subject, implementation of flipped learning), and the second could detail the data collection process and statistical analysis (electronic questionnaire, voluntariness, anonymity, descriptive analyses, correlations, and multiple regression). This division would facilitate reading and present the methodology in a more structured and professional manner.
• Discussion. There is no section dedicated to discussion, which limits the critical interpretation and contextualization of the results in relation to the existing literature. It is recommended to include a discussion that delves into the meaning of the findings and their practical and theoretical relevance.
• Conclusions. It is advisable to make the conclusions clearer and more concise, organizing them to highlight the main findings first. In its current form, the text is dense and somewhat repetitive; a segmented structure would improve the comprehension and impact of the message.Bibliography. The references need to be carefully reviewed. Errors were detected, such as the incorrect use of “pp.” in reference 24.
• Formal aspects. There is a lack of uniformity in the numerical presentation, where some numbers have two decimal places and others have three. It is recommended that these criteria be standardized to ensure consistency and formal quality of the work.

Addressing these recommendations will significantly contribute to strengthening the quality, clarity, and academic rigor of the manuscript, thereby enhancing its impact and relevance in the field of study.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please specify the sampling method, the year of the study, and the research method used. Briefly explain these in the abstract section.
2. A transition sentence should be added after line 52.
3. It is good that “active learning and problem-based learning” have been added at the beginning of the sentences in lines 60 and 62. However, for better coherence and flow, it would be more effective to also add the third element, “the design of cooperative learning environments,” at the beginning of the relevant sentence.
4. The sentence in lines 84-85 disrupts the flow. Please revise it to ensure a more coherent and organized structure.
5. In line 99, the pronoun “they” seems unclear. Consider replacing it with “it” to more accurately refer to flipped learning.
6. The significance of the study and the specific gap it aims to address should be presented more clearly. Additionally, the distinct difference between this study and similar studies in the literature should be stated more explicitly.
7. In line 154, the number of participants (300) appears to be quite large for a qualitative study. Kindly review and clarify the sampling method applied in this research.
8. Please correct the spelling errors in the "Theoretical Framework" section. Additionally, revise all punctuation errors throughout the text. Currently, the theoretical framework section contains very few citations; it is recommended to include more references to strengthen this part of the study.
9. Research questions should not be presented in the methodology section. It would be more appropriate to include them after the theoretical framework section.
10. It is important to present the results of the questionnaire’s Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). This allows researchers to determine whether the questionnaire is statistically appropriate. The absence of EFA and CFA results may significantly weaken the methodology section.
11. Which analysis program was used? It should be clearly stated in the methodology section. The absence of this information is a highly critical omission.
12. The discussion section is quite weak, and no citations are provided.

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- A good presentation of the study problem, as the researcher explained the research gap correctly.

- After listing previous studies, the researcher must specify the scientific contribution of the current study, which did not appear in the text.

- The methodology adopted in the study must be precisely defined; it is the descriptive methodology based on exploration and then correlation.

- Why was the study population not specified?

- Since the study population is known, a probability sampling must be conducted. However, here, the method of selecting the sample was not clearly defined! Or, to put it another way: On what basis was the study sample selected?

- Why was the validity value not calculated for the questionnaire?

- The discussion of the results is brief, but it is necessary to enrich it sufficiently.

Author Response

Comments 3&4: Why was the study population not specified? - Since the study population is known, a probability sampling must be conducted. However, here, the method of selecting the sample was not clearly defined! Or, to put it another way: On what basis was the study sample selected?

Response 3&4: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the participants section and add the following text in red color: The target population for this study included undergraduate students enrolled in the “Computer Applications in Education” course offered by the College of Education over three consecutive semesters: the second semester of the 2023/2024 academic year, and the first and second semesters of 2024/2025. All students in this course experienced the flipped learning model as part of their instructional activities. The number of these students were 180 students. The study sample was 137 students from that population who agreed to participate in the current and study voluntarily completed the questionnaire. Due to the limited number the target population, all the students were invited to participate in the current study. 

Comments 5: Why was the validity value not calculated for the questionnaire?

Response 5: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the instrument section and added the following text in red color:  Face validity was assessed by experts in educational technology and curriculum and instruction, who reviewed the questionnaire to ensure it appears to measure what it is intended to. Ibn addition, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component extraction and Varimax rotation was conducted on the 21 questionnaire items. The KMO value was .935, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .001), indicating the data was suitable for factor analysis. Two components were extracted based on eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining a cumulative 57.6% of the total variance. Items loaded meaningfully onto two factors, with some overlap across constructs, suggesting that students' perceptions of flipped learning cluster into broader dimensions. These findings support the questionnaire’s construct validity while indicating that learners may view flipped learning experiences in more integrated ways than suggested by separate theoretical dimensions.

Comments 6: The discussion of the results is brief, but it is necessary to enrich it sufficiently

Response 6: Agree. Accordingly, we have revised the discussion section and added the following text (highlighted in red) under discussion of the first research question, as we believe it previously lacked sufficient depth and required further enrichment:

The findings indicate that students generally view the flipped learning approach positively. Their perception reflects that the method is beneficial, manageable, enjoyable, and educationally sound. At the same time, there are noticeable variations in how confidently students feel about their ability to succeed using this approach. The findings reveal a notable difference between the highest-and lowest-rated dimensions of students’ perceptions of the flipped learning approach, where hedonic motivation received the highest mean score, indicating that students found the approach intrinsically rewarding. A possible explanation of such results might be attributed to its flexibility as well as its learner-centered nature. In contrast, perceived usefulness scored the lowest, suggesting that while students were emotionally engaged, they were less convinced of the approach’s effectiveness in enhancing academic outcomes. This suggests that while many students adapt well to the flipped classroom, others may experience uncertainty in fully embracing the new learning approach. In addition, the gap between hedonic motivation and perceived usefulness suggest that flipped learning may succeed in fostering students' motivation, but it requires more explicit alignment with learning objectives to strengthen its perceived academic value. The findings align with the findings of previous studies (Andujar, Salaberri-Ramiro, and Crúz Martínez, 2020; Osman, Noor, Hat, Rouyan, & Saad, 2023).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Please revise Research Questions 3 and 4 to ensure greater clarity.

2. The EFA and CFA results should be presented in tabular format. The CFA data should also be incorporated.

3. The results and the discussion must be presented under distinct headings, with each section clearly separated.

Author Response

Comment 1:  Please revise Research Questions 3 and 4 to ensure greater clarity.
Answer: we did revise the language of questions 3and 4 for grater clarity. 

Comment 2: The EFA and CFA results should be presented in tabular format. The CFA data should also be incorporated.

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of CFA data. However, we would like to clarify that the primary aim of the current study was not to develop or validate a new instrument but rather to employ the questionnaire as a tool for examining students’ perceptions of flipped learning. Accordingly, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to ensure basic construct validity and suitability of the instrument within this context. While a full CFA would provide additional evidence, it was beyond the intended scope of this study.

Comment 3: The results and the discussion must be presented under distinct headings, with each section clearly separated.
The results and discussion have now been revised to appear under distinct and clearly separated headings in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- Unfortunately, the manuscript did not reveal any scientific additions worthy of further research, as it merely confirms the value of current know ledges.

- The comprehensive survey is considered a non-probability sample, and therefore it is necessary to measure the normality of the distribution before parametrically processing the study results.

Author Response

Comment 1: Unfortunately, the manuscript did not reveal any scientific additions worthy of further research, as it merely confirms the value of current know ledges.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s time and feedback. We respectfully note that while the study builds on existing knowledge, our aim was to contextualize these constructs within a specific educational setting (Jordanian one) and contribute applied insights into how they interact in the flipped learning environment. We believe that examining these relationships in this context provides practical implications for instructional design and implementation, which adds value to the ongoing discourse in this area.

Comment 2: The comprehensive survey is considered a non-probability sample, and therefore it is necessary to measure the normality of the distribution before parametrically processing the study results.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the assumptions of parametric analysis. We have carefully examined the assumptions of normality, homoscedasticity, multicollinearity, and independence of residuals, and the results confirmed that the data met the required criteria. The detailed statistical checks (VIF, residual analysis, Durbin–Watson statistic) have been added to the manuscript to ensure transparency. (see lines 570 to 580)