Quality, Effectiveness and Outcome of Blended Learning in Dental Education during the COVID Pandemic: Prospects of a Post-Pandemic Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The text is written in a direct style that makes it easy to read. The sample size is considerable. There are some aspects that should be reviewed such as the use of numbers in text (eg 2-3 on p. 2), repeated phrases as in the Design section. There is no information about the validation process of the questionnaire and the categorization. The sample needs to be described in detail and the information in the questionnaire should be placed in the section dedicated to the instrument, not in participants. It would be interesting to know the date on which the information was collected, in order to place the reader at the exact moment regarding the evolution of the pandemic. Although the references are current (the majority published from 2018 onwards) they are insufficient. A literature review is recommended to incorporate recent texts that support the theoretical framework and the discussion of the results. In addition, it is necessary to review the rules for a correct citation (eg missing page numbers).

Author Response

The text is written in a direct style that makes it easy to read. The sample size is considerable. There are some aspects that should be reviewed such as the use of numbers in text (eg 2-3 on p. 2) : corrected 

repeated phrases as in the Design section (repeated phrases removed).

There is no information about the validation process of the questionnaire and the categorization (a sentence was added to clarify that the questionnaire was adopted from a previous research).

The sample needs to be described in detail and the information in the questionnaire should be placed in the section dedicated to the instrument, not in participants (done as requested).

It would be interesting to know the date on which the information was collected, in order to place the reader at the exact moment regarding the evolution of the pandemic (the date was added in the methodology section/data collection).

Although the references are current (the majority published from 2018 onwards) they are insufficient (more studies were added).

A literature review is recommended to incorporate recent texts that support the theoretical framework and the discussion of the results (more relevant research was included/highlighted yellow in the text).

In addition, it is necessary to review the rules for a correct citation (eg missing page numbers) (page numbers were corrected).

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This is a meaningful study.
2. This manuscript contributes toward the further development of blended learning in dental education during the COVID pandemic.
3. The value of this study as a reference for the quality and effectiveness of dental education is high.
4. Appropriate statistical methods for data analysis.
5. The author must review the report of TurnIitIin (attached; lines 82~88)
6. A conclusion is an important part of the paper, adding a conclusion section, please.

Author Response

1. This is a meaningful study.
2. This manuscript contributes toward the further development of blended learning in dental education during the COVID pandemic.
3. The value of this study as a reference for the quality and effectiveness of dental education is high.
4. Appropriate statistical methods for data analysis.
5. The author must review the report of TurnIitIin (attached; lines 82~88): Reviewed
6. A conclusion is an important part of the paper, adding a conclusion section, please: the conclusion was added

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper discusses the topic of blended learning in the dentistry field, in a Jordanian institution of higher education. Although it shows some potential, the current presentation of research results is very confusing. Tables are extremely difficult to read, which leads to a recommendation that authors present the results graphically, or by consolidating multiple tables into several, better constructed ones. 

I do not see why authors would want to report non-significant statistical results. It's also useful to follow the usual way of reporting 1% and 5% level significance by using the asteriks (one for 5% and two for 1% significance levels).

While it makes sense to distinguish between male and female students' attitudes, this should be followed by a discussion of gendered differences toward e-education. Distinguishing Jordanian from non-Jordanian students does not make any sense from the theoretical point of view. It could be useful for a local journal, or another publication of local interest, but not for a global research journal. 

I also miss a discussion of the pre-clinical vs. clinical students, as clinical students should be the main target of blended learning. The logical way of thinking is that Covid should have been a relevant trigger for transforming the clinical medical and dental education, as pre-clinical courses can be delivered fully online, without a significant loss of competencies acquired. Authors need to analyze this issue in the literature and comment on the eventual difference in empirical results from other countries, as compared to Jordan. We would need to know what is specific in the Jordanian educational environment and policies, as compared to other educational contexts.

Author Response

This paper discusses the topic of blended learning in the dentistry field, in a Jordanian institution of higher education. Although it shows some potential, the current presentation of research results is very confusing. Tables are extremely difficult to read, which leads to a recommendation that authors present the results graphically, or by consolidating multiple tables into several, better constructed ones.

(Tables were consolidated and Figures were added)

I do not see why authors would want to report non-significant statistical results. It's also useful to follow the usual way of reporting 1% and 5% level significance by using the asteriks (one for 5% and two for 1% significance levels).

(Results & discussion were altered to focus on the statistically significant findings)

While it makes sense to distinguish between male and female students' attitudes, this should be followed by a discussion of gendered differences toward e-education. (gender differences were discussed)

Distinguishing Jordanian from non-Jordanian students does not make any sense from the theoretical point of view. It could be useful for a local journal, or another publication of local interest, but not for a global research journal. (Results and discussion about Jordanian vs. non-Jordanian students ware removed)

I also miss a discussion of the pre-clinical vs. clinical students, as clinical students should be the main target of blended learning. The logical way of thinking is that Covid should have been a relevant trigger for transforming the clinical medical and dental education, as pre-clinical courses can be delivered fully online, without a significant loss of competencies acquired. Authors need to analyze this issue in the literature and comment on the eventual difference in empirical results from other countries, as compared to Jordan. We would need to know what is specific in the Jordanian educational environment and policies, as compared to other educational contexts.

(discussion of preclinical vs. clinical students was added , as well as impact of COVID on clinical training and future implications)

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is quite improved, compared to the original version. At this point, you might want to add a more detailed discussion of your results, in comparison to the results of e-learning and blended/hybrid learning during the Covid pandemic, in courses and programs of biomedical education, as well as in other disciplines. It would be interesting to see what are your lessons learned/implications/recommendations to those across biomedical and other disciplines.

Author Response

More detailed discussion added and highlighted in yellow in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf