Collaborative Learning Supported by Blockchain Technology as a Model for Improving the Educational Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper proposes a Collaborative Learning and Student Work Evaluation (CLSW) model that includes Multi-Frontal Teaching Method (VFN) and combines scientific peer-review standards. The topic is interesting, but you should revise the manuscript with the following comments.
1. The abstract should describe the methods employed; it must state how to use blockchain technology to support collaborative learning more clearly to lead the reader. In addition, lines 32-34 indicate, “Additionally, this study adds to the body of knowledge on educational process sustainability and BCT based collaborative learning,” but what is the evidence to “the body of knowledge”?
2. In the introduction, the background and definition of the problems need to be better defined. In addition, it is better to state the main difference between the current collaborative learning approaches and the proposed method to orient the reader.
3. As the key topic is Collaborative Learning Supported by Blockchain Technology, In section 4, some of the procedures used in this study could be clearer to me; the authors are requested to present their rationale for such procedures. It should make it possible to repeat the systems, but I cannot find sufficient details.
4. In the evaluation section, how to evaluate the value of the blockchain? It’s better to compare it with other collaborative learning approaches.
5. If there are limitations in the proposed approach, I recommend discussing the limits of the approach in the discussion section.
Author Response
The authors thank for excellent and useful suggestions. We made our best to answer all the requirements and we are ready to further improve the manuscript, if the reviewer considers it necessary. All in order to improve our work. We inserted all (text in red color, presented in attached Letter) in the original version of the manuscript. We currently prepare graphs and pictures. Soon, when we finish we will set new version of the manuscript into the system. Also we made changes to improve language (as it was suggested). Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors developed a global accreditation system for teaching and applied it to learning practice and business communication using blockchain. Also, the outcomes of the particular study implemented globally may improve the educational system like as flip model teaching methodology.
Some recommendations are given below:
Concise Figures of the framework are required to express the detailed methodology adopted in this research work.
The discussions and results sections are relatively not clear. The authors required more clear description.
some expressions are very limited and need to be elaborated them.
The authors conducted a survey for data collection. How can ensure the validity of the questionnaire?
| Which statistical techniques are adopted in this research? |
In the research, no proper evidence was found to adopt blockchain technology.
The analysis part is so weak in this research, As this research is based on a hypothesis so there should be multiple graphs and comparisons with other approaches are required.
Author Response
The authors thank for excellent and useful suggestions. We have made our best to answer all the requirements and we are ready to further improve the manuscript, if the reviewer considers it necessary. All in order to improve our work. We inserted (text in red color, figures, presented in attached Letter) in the original version of the manuscript. Also we made changes to improve language (as it was suggested) and add additional references. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed my concerns.
