Transformation of Educational Models in Higher Education During and After “Emergency Remote Teaching”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is well-structured and presents a thorough cross-sectional analysis of the perceptual aspects of members of the university community. Qualitative studies of this nature offer valuable depth, which could be further supported by analyses of digital behaviours within the virtual environments of both students and lecturers. I believe the study effectively illustrates the transformation of the institution, as well as the levels of uncertainty experienced by university groups (both teaching staff and students).

Author Response

Comments 1:

Response 1. Thank you very much for reviewing the document and for your comments. We fully agree with your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a solid and well-structured research study. It offers a thorough review of the literature and clearly justifies the relevance and necessity of the study. The methodology is clearly described, and the results are presented in an organized and understandable way. The discussion is appropriate and well-argued, and the conclusions are logically derived from the findings.

However, the authors are encouraged to explicitly include the project funding information in the acknowledgements section, even though it is already mentioned within the main text. This would improve transparency and ensure proper institutional recognition.

Overall, the manuscript is of high quality and makes a valuable contribution to the field. I commend the authors for the work they have carried out.

Author Response

Comments 1:

Response 1. Thank you very much for reviewing the document and for your comments. We fully agree with your comments.

 

Comments 2:

Response 2. We fully agree with your comments. We have added the title and code of the project in the acknowledgements on page 19.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a clear and well-structured study with a solid presentation of methodology, results, and discussion. The abstract and introduction are informative and demonstrate the relevance of the research. However, there are a few areas that need attention: (1) in line 50, there is no space before the parenthesis in the citation (“education(Hodges et al., 2020...)”), which should be corrected; (2) the introduction, although rich in literature, could be more concise, with part of the content reorganized into a “Theoretical Background” section with subheadings; (3) it may be beneficial to add a short concluding section that synthesizes the main contributions and recommendations of the study. These adjustments would enhance the clarity, structure, and impact of the paper.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the document and for your comments. We fully agree with your comments.

 

Comments (1): in line 50, there is no space before the parenthesis in the citation

Response (1). We have corrected

 

Comments (2) the introduction, although rich in literature, could be more concise, with part of the content reorganized into a “Theoretical Background” section with subheadings;

Response (2). We have corrected. We have added the following subtitles to the introduction: 1.1. Educational context during the COVID-19 pandemic, 1.2. “Emergency Remote Teaching” (ERT), 1.3. Hybrid teaching, 1.4. Transformations in the return to normality

 

 

Comments (3) it may be beneficial to add a short concluding section that synthesizes the main contributions and recommendations of the study. These adjustments would enhance the clarity, structure, and impact of the paper.

Response (3) It is already included in section 4.4. A section summarising the main contributions and recommendations. However, taking into account the above comments, the conclusions have been identified in a separate section.