Investigating the Impact of Education 4.0 and Digital Learning on Students’ Learning Outcomes in Engineering: A Four-Year Multiple-Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to analyze the impact of Education 4.0 and digital learning on the learning outcomes (cognitive and affective) of engineering students, through four case studies conducted over four years.

There are a number of aspects that could be improved.

1. The literature is predominantly descriptive, and the theoretical debate is rather instrumental than critical. The concept of Education 4.0 is sometimes treated as an "umbrella term", without a clear delimitation from blended learning.
2. At the level of research methodology, several limitations are found. First, the lack of a real control group is noted, which reduces the power of causal inferences. Second, the number of participants is reduced in some studies, especially case D. Third, the context is unique, because the study is conducted at a single university, which leads to limited generalization. Fourth, the assessment of academic performance is partly based on grades, which can be influenced by external factors.
3. Discussions remain predominantly at the affirmative level, without analyzing possible negative effects, such as excessive frustration, anxiety in students with low self-efficacy.

Author Response

Hi, dear Reviewer:

Please see in the attached file the responses to your observations.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript is well written, with excellent structure, and the adopted methodology is sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions regarding learning outcomes, skill development, and collaborative work. The results appear promising and well substantiated; however, the authors would benefit from incorporating several points to enhance the discussion and clearly demonstrate the study's potential limitations.

• Suggestion (1): Discuss alternative explanations for the observed increase in learning outcomes and FT skills compared to TT. It is possible that students' growing familiarity with the assessment process throughout the terms contributed to improved evaluation metrics (i.e., learning cohort relative to assessment types). Additionally, comment on possible biases related to the Hawthorne effect.
• Suggestion (2): The study was conducted in four cohorts from an institution in Colombia. How might results differ in other countries or institutions with distinct characteristics?
• Suggestion (3): Include a more in-depth discussion of critical issues related to case study C and case study D, as these seem to be critical analytical consequences and are aligned with the objectives of the manuscript.
• Suggestion (4): Address minor textual, formatting, and presentation issues. For example, ICT is mentioned in the introduction without clarification of the acronym. Additionally, the manuscript is rather lengthy for a journal article; consider making it more concise and direct. Limit the total number of keywords in the text to a maximum of five.

I reiterate that the manuscript is, in general, very well written and aligned with the journal's scope. After these revisions, it has strong potential for publication in Informatics.

Author Response

Hi, dear Reviewer:

Please see in the attached file the responses to your observations.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study tries to address a very important topic of education, that is, how Education 4.0 influences students’ cognitive and affective outcomes. A mixed-methods study was conducted to answer the relevant research inquiries.

The manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and appropriately sectioned, and it provides strong engagement with recent scholarship. However, some improvements can further strengthen the manuscript.

The main limitation of this study that the authors should take care of is the fact that it uses FT vs. TT comparisons, and without a control group it tries to interpret differences as evidence of “impact.” As such, authors should reframe claims from “impact” to associations.

Further, authors are suggested to consider adding a cross-case matrix (case × mechanism/feature × outcome) with relevant evidence per case.

Moreover, the authors suggested that they should provide case D a descriptive/qualitative discussion of results, as McDonald’s ω couldn’t be computed.            

Author Response

Hi, dear Reviewer:

Please see in the attached file the responses to your observations.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf