Review Reports - Post-Pandemic E-Learning Practices in Higher Education: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Students and Academic Staff Across Eight Institutions in Southeastern Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Terms such as “hybrid models” and “blended formats” are used without clear definitions. The author should clarify how these concepts are understood and applied in the context of this study.

It would be helpful to specify the level at which the surveyed students were enrolled (e.g. BA or MA), rather than reporting only their year of study. The authors should also clarify whether, for example, “fourth year” refers to the fourth year of a bachelor’s programme, the first year of a master’s programme, or a year within an integrated programme, as it seems unlikely that all programmes follow an integrated five-year structure. (lines 151-152). This also presents a conceptual problem, as coding the year of study from 1 to 5 assumes a continuous progression from bachelor’s to master’s study. This may not apply to students who entered a master’s programme after a period of professional experience or completed their previous degree at another institution. Such differences may be relevant to the analysis and should be considered or, at a minimum, acknowledged.

The coefficients for the seven institutional indicator variables and the intercepts have been intentionally omitted from the table with the results. However, they should be reported and discussed, as differences between institutions may reflect contextual factors such as whether the class attendance is compulsory for students, are they enrolled in fully online or blended formats of study, which learning activities are compulsory, which are awarded/credited/assessed and which rely only on student’s own motivation and similarly for the teachers – which activities are required by the institutions regulations and which constitute teachers’ own readiness and willingness to use online tools. All these factors may influence the outcomes and are important for interpreting the results.

The third research question appears to combine two distinct questions: one concerning students’ awareness of the availability of training and another concerning academics’ completion of training. These relate to different populations and also capture different concepts. The author should consider formulating them as separate research questions.

Given that the identified research gap concerns the association between training and the use of specific e-learning practices, the third research question’s focus on students’ awareness of training availability addresses this relationship only indirectly. It would be more appropriate and informative to examine whether, and to what extent, students actually participated in such training and then, consequently the association between the participation in the trainings and the use of e-learning practices.

The Conclusion repeats the results. Instead, it should be streamlined and focus more clearly on the study’s overall contribution.

The implications for higher education institutions do not appear to follow directly from the analysis, as several of the elements addressed were not examined in the study. They may derive from the authors’ professional experience or from a broader project, but it is not clear how they come out from the analysis.

The author has adequately explained why and how the non-probability sampling method was selected, acknowledged its limitations, and clearly stated that the observed associations do not establish causality. However, further limitations, such as those related to the questionnaire used, are mentioned only in the Conclusion section (not with other limitations). All limitations should be consolidated in the dedicated Limitations section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful assessment of my manuscript and for your constructive comments. I particularly appreciate your suggestions concerning the definitions of learning formats, the interpretation of students’ year of study, the reporting of institutional effects, and the distinction between awareness of training availability and actual participation in training. These observations have helped me clarify both the scope of the study and the interpretation of its findings.

In response, I have revised the terminology and research questions, expanded the reporting of the regression results, and clarified the limitations associated with information not collected in the survey. I have also revised the practical implications, streamlined the conclusions, and consolidated the limitations in the dedicated section.

Below, I provide a point-by-point response explaining the revisions made and, where additional information was unavailable, how this limitation has been acknowledged.

Comments 1:

Terms such as “hybrid models” and “blended formats” are used without clear definitions. The author should clarify how these concepts are understood and applied in the context of this study.

Response 1:

Thank you for identifying this ambiguity. I have revised the Introduction to define blended learning as the planned combination of face-to-face teaching and online learning activities within a course or programme. I have also clarified that “hybrid learning” is used in the same broad sense, rather than as a separately measured delivery mode. The revised paragraph distinguishes these concepts from the broader use of e-learning tools and practices examined in the questionnaires. It explicitly states that the study did not classify courses or programmes as face-to-face, blended, or fully online. This clarification is supported by the existing reference to Hrastinski (2019).

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 1, Introduction, p. 2, lines 49–58.

Comments 2:

Response 2:

Thank you for this important observation. The questionnaire recorded reported year of study but did not separately collect degree level, programme structure, or previous educational trajectories. These characteristics cannot be reliably reconstructed from the available data. I have therefore clarified this limitation in the sample description and the Limitations section. The reported categories should not be interpreted as a verified continuous progression from bachelor’s to master’s study.

To examine sensitivity to the linear coding of year of study, I conducted an additional analysis using four year indicators, with year 1 as the reference category, while retaining the same analytical sample and other predictors. The association between awareness of training availability and the student index remained similar to the primary estimate (B = 0.461; HC3 SE = 0.049; 95% CI [0.364, 0.557]; p < 0.001). The gender coefficient was borderline in this specification (p = 0.0498, compared with p = 0.056 in the primary model), which is also reported. This analysis addresses sensitivity to the linear specification but does not resolve the absence of information on degree level or educational trajectories.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 2.2, p. 4, lines 178–186; Section 2.6, p. 7, lines 300-305; Section 3.4, p. 12, lines 456–463; Section 4.6, p. 17, lines 693–697.

Comments 3:

Response 3:

Thank you for this comment. I have expanded Table 6 to report all seven institution coefficients and the intercept for each model, together with HC3 standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and p values. The University of Rzeszów is explicitly identified as the reference institution.

I have also expanded the discussion of institutional variation. Attendance requirements, course delivery modes, assessment arrangements, and mandatory versus voluntary use of digital tools are now identified as possible contextual explanations. However, these specific characteristics were not systematically measured, so the observed contrasts cannot be attributed to them.

The revised text interprets the coefficients as exploratory adjusted contrasts within the analytical samples. It acknowledges the non-probability sampling, unequal institutional sample sizes, and particularly small subsamples. The table note also explains why the uncentred intercepts should not be interpreted as expected scores for typical participants.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 2.6, p. 8, lines 312–317 and 322–326; Table 6, p. 11, caption at lines 435, with its explanatory note on pp. 11–12, lines 437–446; Section 4.1, p. 13, lines 497–507; Section 4.6, p. 15, lines 618–624.

Comments 4:

Response 4:

I agree that the original question combined two distinct populations and constructs. I have divided it into two separate research questions: one concerning the association between students’ reported awareness of training availability and the student exploratory index, and another concerning the association between academic staff members’ reported training completion and the academic staff exploratory index. The question concerning prior remote-teaching experience is retained as the fifth research question.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 1, research questions 3–5, p. 3, lines 110–115.

Comments 5:

Response 5:

Thank you for this observation. I agree that personal participation in training would address this relationship more directly. However, the student questionnaire asked whether the institution provided training; it did not ask whether individual students had participated in or completed that training. Personal participation therefore cannot be established from the available responses.

I have revised the research-gap statement and research questions to align them with the variables actually collected. The manuscript now consistently distinguishes students’ reported awareness of institutional training provision from academic staff members’ reported training completion. It also clarifies that item-level analyses describe specific practices, whereas the regression models examine associations with group-specific exploratory composite indices.

The Discussion and Limitations sections explicitly state that the student finding does not establish an association between personal training participation and e-learning practices, nor does it demonstrate training effectiveness. Future research is recommended to measure awareness, access, participation, and completion separately.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 1, p. 3, lines 96–104 and 110–120; Section 2.2, p. 4, lines 185–190; Section 4.4, p. 14, lines 549–556; Section 4.6, p. 17, lines 693–702.

Comments 6:

The Conclusion repeats the results. Instead, it should be streamlined and focus more clearly on the study’s overall contribution.

Response 6:

Thank you for this suggestion. I have substantially shortened the Conclusions and removed the repeated presentation of individual results and statistical findings. The revised section focuses on the study’s contribution: a differentiated, multi-institutional account of reported post-pandemic e-learning practices and a clear distinction between the training-related characteristics measured in the two respondent groups. It also identifies questions for subsequent research.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 5, Conclusions, p. 17, lines 711–720.

Comments 7:

Response 7:

Thank you for pointing out that the original implications extended beyond the evidence presented. I have rewritten this section to connect each implication explicitly to the study’s findings and to distinguish issues for further investigation from demonstrated intervention effects.

The revised section identifies topics for local needs assessments: students’ awareness of existing training provision, the relationship between staff development and specific teaching activities, and the contextual reasons for the relatively limited reporting of certain digital practices. Recommendations concerning particular training formats or minimum course standards have been removed because their effectiveness was not examined.

The section also clarifies that the compound barrier item does not distinguish the separate contributions of time, competencies, and institutional support. The implications are therefore framed as questions institutions could investigate, rather than as interventions whose effectiveness has been established by this study.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 4.5, Implications for Higher Education Institutions, pp. 14–15, lines 587–605.

Comments 8:

Response 8:

Thank you for this suggestion. I have consolidated the methodological limitations in Section 4.6 and removed the separate discussion of limitations from the Conclusions.

The revised Limitations section brings together the existing concerns about sampling, self-reporting, instrument development, response categories, and the cross-sectional design. It also addresses the absence of direct measures of pedagogical quality and effectiveness, the compound barrier item, the missing information on degree level and educational trajectories, the lack of a measure of students’ personal training participation, and the institutional contextual characteristics that were not systematically measured.

The Conclusions now focus on the study’s overall contribution.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 4.6, Study Limitations, pp. 15–17, lines 608–709; Section 5, Conclusions, p. 17, lines 711–720

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Paper on Post-Pandemic E-learning Practices in higher education examines the e-learning practices of students and academic staff in the post-pandemic period, based on a cross-sectional survey of eight institutions in southern Poland. The aim of the paper was to examine which specific e-learning practices are used in Polish higher education institutions several years after the pandemic and how their reported use is associated with training and prior practices. The research used a web-based survey questionnaire and a non-probability sampling strategy. The data analysed in this article were collected as part of a broader research project, and this article formulated separate research questions. The research strategy included the construction of exploratory composite indices, assessment of their internal consistency, regression models with institution fixed effects and HC3 robust standard errors. Exploratory composite indices are used when the aim is to combine multiple individual variables into a single composite measure that describes a broader, multidimensional construct. Use HC3 when you do not have a large sample and want to be more cautious in your inferential conclusions. The research results showed that students and teachers used a range of e-learning practices during the post-pandemic period. The most frequently reported practices were those that could be readily integrated into the conventional organisation of classes, including videoconferencing, online tests, and online consultations. More extensive LMS-based courses, recordings and specialised collaboration tools were reported less frequently. However, the findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations, such as participant recruitment; students and academic staff were two independent samples; and the study relied on self-reported data.

The paper's main contribution is insight into how e-learning has been implemented in teaching and learning in higher education in the post-pandemic period. It also shows that e-learning requires, beyond appropriate infrastructure, systematic competence development, support for course design, and measures to reduce the time costs of creating digital resources.

The topic is relevant to the current discussion on digital transformation in higher education. The title of the paper is consistent with the content of the paper.

The introduction clearly defines the paper's focus. The literature review is relevant and includes recent literature. The research design is relevant and results have been presented appropriately.

The only thing I would advise checking are the research questions. I did not understand research questions 3 and 4. I suggest splitting research question 3 into two: one about students and one about academic staff, to make them clearer and easier to understand.

For research question 4, I suggest rewriting it to make it more comprehensible.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging evaluation of my manuscript. I appreciate your positive assessment of the relevance of the topic, the literature review, the research design, and the presentation of the results.

Your suggestions regarding the research questions have been particularly helpful. In response, I have separated the question concerning students’ awareness of training availability from the question concerning academic staff’s completion of training. I have also reformulated the final research question to make its focus clearer and ensure consistency with the analyses presented.

Thank you for helping me improve the clarity of the manuscript. My detailed responses to your comments are provided below.

Comments 1:

Response 1:

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. I have divided the original third research question into two separate questions, each referring to one respondent group and the specific training-related variable measured in that group. The revised questions are:

“3. Is students’ reported awareness of training availability at their institution associated with their exploratory e-learning practice index scores?”

“4. Is academic staff members’ reported completion of training in remote teaching associated with their exploratory e-learning practice index scores?”

This revision makes the distinction between awareness of training availability and personal training completion explicit. To improve readability, the explanation of the group-specific indices and statistical adjustment is now provided in a short paragraph immediately after the research questions.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 1, research questions 3 and 4, p. 3, lines 110–115; clarification of the exploratory indices and analytical approach, p. 3, lines 117–120.

Comments 2:

For research question 4, I suggest rewriting it to make it more comprehensible.

Response 2:

Thank you for this suggestion. I have rewritten the original fourth research question to specify the respondent group, the period to which prior experience refers, and the outcome examined. Following the division of the original third question, this question is now numbered 5:

“5. Is academic staff members’ reported experience of remote teaching before the COVID-19 pandemic associated with their exploratory e-learning practice index scores?”

The paragraph following the research questions identifies the academic staff index as N-PD1–N-PD8 and explains that the association was examined with adjustment for the other predictors and institution fixed effects specified in Section 2.6.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 1, research question 5, p. 3, lines 114–115; clarification of the exploratory indices and analytical approach, p. 3, lines 117–120.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this to be a well-written paper describing a study examining the use of e-learning post-pandemic. I did find the research design complex. My main complaints as the paper stands is that I would be unable to replicate it from the research methods provided, so it needs some tweaking in this respect, and the discussion needs to delve a little deeper; please see my comments below.

Abstract: reasonably clear, though when you mention ‘each group’ (L12) you haven’t made it clear that you mean students and staff at each university (later this is clear in the methods); this does not read particularly well.

Introduction

You have provided a very good background to the use of e-learning, including how you have defined it for your study, with reference to the literature covering those authors which would be expected for this type of paper (Watermeyer et al, Garrison et al etc).

Your research questions are clearly written.

Methods

You do not say whether there was any validation of the specific questionnaire before you used it for this sub-project from your larger project. Was there any piloting of the questionnaire before the link was sent out to the institutions? I see you have answered these questions in the paragraph starting L183; it would be better to mention this earlier rather than near the end of the methods.

Why is the distribution of the sample by HE institution in the methods rather than the results? The numbers in table 1 will not help me replicate the method, which is what you should be aiming for when you write the methods.

L250: I wonder how much longer it will be before direct comparisons between men and women will be published if they exclude others in the global population! Difficult to be inclusive with binary categories.

L293: Perhaps you could add something a little more detailed about the IRB statement here so we don’t have to wait for the end of the paper.

Results

Interesting that so many students reported the use of quizzes, but so few used learning platforms. How did they access their quizzes?

Results are clearly displayed. However, I do get the feeling that your study design is an over-complex approach to gathering data.

Discussion

It would be interesting if, in your discussion, you compared the situation you have described in Poland to other countries by using the literature available.

L417: you need to justify your comment on flexibility in light of the lack of recordings/LMS platform use described in the previous sentence.

I totally agree that on-going systems for training in online pedagogy are important.

I couldn’t find anything on how students can receive training in how to learn online, also an important facet. If 68.8% of your students were aware of training, that’s over 30% who were not which is worth a mention in discussion.

L541: although don’t you think that is likely to be causal?

I very much agree with your final paragraph in the limitations section.

Conclusions: I agree with your comments.

References: appear to be fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful review, your encouraging assessment of the manuscript, and your constructive suggestions. I particularly appreciate your emphasis on providing a methodological description that supports replication and on developing a deeper discussion of the findings.

In response, I have expanded and reorganized the description of the research procedures, presented the information on questionnaire development earlier, and clarified the study’s ethical status in the Methods section. I have also addressed your observations concerning the reporting of gender categories and strengthened the discussion of online quizzes and learning platforms, international comparisons, and students’ awareness of training opportunities. The interpretation of flexibility and the distinction between plausible causal explanations and the conclusions supported by cross-sectional data have also been clarified.

Your comments have helped improve the transparency and interpretive depth of the manuscript. Below, I provide a detailed response to each point.

Comments 1:

Results are clearly displayed. However, I do get the feeling that your study design is an over-complex approach to gathering data.

Response 1:

Thank you for identifying the need for a clearer account of the procedure. I have added an overview explaining the sequence from questionnaire completeness screening to item-level description, index construction, and the two separate regression models. This distinguishes the primary descriptive findings from the supplementary analyses of associations.

The completeness criteria now specify the number of questionnaire items screened in each respondent group. The statistical description also explicitly identifies ordinary least squares estimation, the intercepts, the reference institution, and the calculation of confidence intervals and p values. The instruments, response coding, equal weighting of index items, and sensitivity analyses are described in the corresponding methodological subsections.

I have also expanded the Discussion through international comparisons and more precise interpretations of quiz use, flexibility, training awareness, and possible causal explanations.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 2.2, p. 4, lines 156–165; Section 2.3, p. 5, lines 201–209; Section 2.6, p. 8, lines 322–325; expanded discussion in Section 4.1, pp. 12–13, lines 472–507, Section 4.3, p. 13, lines 526–534, and Section 4.4, p. 14, lines 549–566.

Comments 2:

Abstract: reasonably clear, though when you mention ‘each group’ (L12) you haven’t made it clear that you mean students and staff at each university (later this is clear in the methods); this does not read particularly well.

Response 2:

Thank you for this suggestion. I have replaced “each group” with an explicit reference to students and academic staff. The revised wording also clarifies that the ten practice-related items constituted a block within each respondent-specific questionnaire. The indices were constructed separately for the two respondent populations across the participating institutions.

Location in the revised manuscript: Abstract, p. 1, lines 10–13.

Comments 3:

Response 3:

Thank you for this recommendation. I have moved the paragraph describing questionnaire development and the absence of separate pilot testing or formal expert review to the beginning of Section 2.1, immediately after the description of the study setting. The instruments were author-developed and were not adaptations of a previously validated scale. Their limitations remain explicitly acknowledged in Section 4.6.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 2.1, p. 3, lines 128–134; related limitations in Section 4.6, p. 16, lines 641–652.

Comments 4:

Response 4:

I agree that the realised distribution of respondents is better presented with the results. I have moved the institutional sample-distribution table to the beginning of Section 3. It is now Table 2, while the questionnaire-item table appearing in the Methods is now Table 1. The captions and corresponding references have been updated. The former methodological subsection containing the distribution table now provides an overview of the analytical procedure.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 3, Results, Table 2, pp. 8–9, caption at line 360. The analytical overview is provided in Section 2.3, p. 5, lines 201–209.

Comments 5:

Response 5:

Thank you for raising this concern. The questionnaire offered an additional gender response category, selected by ten students. These respondents were included in the descriptive sample, although the primary regression specification was restricted to respondents selecting woman or man.

To address this restriction, I conducted an additional sensitivity analysis including all 1,049 students and representing gender responses through three categories. The association between awareness of training availability and the exploratory index remained similar (B = 0.461; HC3 SE = 0.049; 95% CI [0.365, 0.557]; p < 0.001). The revised Results also acknowledge sensitivity in the secondary year-of-study association.

The Methods and Limitations clarify that the response labelled “Other” cannot be interpreted as a single homogeneous gender group and that its small size limits conclusions about gender diversity.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 2.6, p. 7, lines 280–293; Section 3.4, p. 11, lines 429–434; Section 4.6, p. 15, lines 613–617.

Comments 6:

L293: Perhaps you could add something a little more detailed about the IRB statement here so we don’t have to wait for the end of the paper.

Response 6:

Thank you for this suggestion. I have expanded Section 2.7 to report the official determination issued by the Bioethics Committee of the University of Rzeszów on 27 August 2026, reference KB.UR.004.144.2026. The Committee confirmed that the survey conducted between 2 and 31 October 2025 did not require its opinion because it did not constitute a medical experiment under Chapter 4 of the relevant Polish Act. The Institutional Review Board Statement has also been updated to identify this document and refer readers to the methodological description of participant safeguards.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 2.7, p. 8, lines 350–357; Institutional Review Board Statement, p. 17, lines 724–728.

Comments 7:

Interesting that so many students reported the use of quizzes, but so few used learning platforms. How did they access their quizzes?

Response 7:

Thank you for identifying this point. The quiz item concerned completing online quizzes and tests, whereas the LMS item concerned accessing learning materials through Moodle or similar platforms. These are different activities. The questionnaire did not record the application or access route used for assessments, so the data cannot establish how respondents received their quizzes.

I have added this clarification to the Discussion. Standalone assessment applications or links shared through other communication channels are identified as possible explanations, rather than as observed delivery routes.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 4.1, p. 12, lines 472–479.

Comments 8:

It would be interesting if, in your discussion, you compared the situation you have described in Poland to other countries by using the literature available.

Response 8:

Thank you for this recommendation. I have expanded the Discussion to compare the present findings with studies from Australia, the United States, and Spain already included in the reference list. The comparison identifies differences in asynchronous provision, shared concerns about social interaction, and the relevance of institutional support. It also acknowledges that differences in sampling, instruments, study periods, and research designs prevent direct numerical comparisons or conclusions about national performance. The introductory description of the Australian study has been revised for greater accuracy.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 1, p. 2, lines 43–48; Section 4.1, pp. 12–13, lines 480–496.

Comments 9:

L417: you need to justify your comment on flexibility in light of the lack of recordings/LMS platform use described in the previous sentence.

Response 9:

I agree that the original wording attributed flexibility too broadly. I have revised the paragraph to distinguish students’ reported time-management benefit from a direct assessment of flexible course design. The relatively limited reporting of recordings and LMS-based access to materials means that this benefit cannot be attributed to extensive asynchronous provision. Other possible explanations are now explicitly identified as unmeasured, and the interpretation distinguishes perceived organisational convenience from resources enabling learning independently of scheduled classes.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 4.3, p. 13, lines 526–534.

Comments 10:

I totally agree that on-going systems for training in online pedagogy are important.

Response 10:

Thank you for highlighting the student perspective. I have added a paragraph reporting that 327 students (31.2%) did not report institutional training provision. The revised text explains that these responses cannot distinguish limited awareness from an absence of available training.

It also clarifies that the questionnaire item concerned operating e-learning platforms and remote-learning tools. It did not establish whether students received preparation in online learning strategies, time management, collaboration, or the use of feedback. The Discussion now identifies this as an unresolved question and recommends examining the content, accessibility, and uptake of student support in future research.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 4.4, p. 14, lines 557–566.

Comments 11:

L541: although don’t you think that is likely to be causal?

Response 11:

Thank you for this observation. I agree that a causal contribution of training or prior experience is plausible. I have revised the limitation to make clear that the study does not rule out such a contribution; rather, its design does not identify causal effects.

The revised paragraph explains the absence of information on training timing and pre-training practices, possible selection into training, and the possibility that prior engagement increases awareness of available provision. It also acknowledges that pre-pandemic experience precedes the current survey, while temporal precedence alone does not remove confounding. Longitudinal measurements or evaluations of training interventions are identified as ways to investigate these explanations more directly.

Location in the revised manuscript: Section 4.6, p. 16, lines 674–685.

Thank you also for your positive assessments of the Introduction, research questions, final paragraph of the Limitations section, Conclusions, and References.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript following my comments.