Hybrid Events as a Sustainable Educational Approach for Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article's writing style confuses the reader. The English language makes the story difficult to comprehend. Authors must use the correct terminology for a variety of terms. Moreover, they should justify the usage and application of the terms in their experimental design, as they assert that it is the case. In general, authors should exert greater effort to present a logical rationale for their research and effectively communicate their findings in a manner that is compatible with their conceptual and framework.

Before final publication, the authors should have their text proofread at several points because the language is not easily comprehensible.

Methodology should be separated into its own section and expanded upon. The evaluation section seems extremely intriguing and should be clarified further. Moreover, the findings are positive, and the future work appears promising.

The authors should include more references regarding other related fields, such as game-based learning and serious games (e.g. CMX MMORPG), and how they have been designed utilizing relative design frameworks, evaluated utilizing relative evaluation frameworks, and implemented utilizing learning analytics.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your attention to our article

Regarding your observations and requirements:

- We have shown why we consider the autoethnographic approach appropriate in the case of the theme of our article, in the Materials and Methods chapter.

- We modified the title of subchapter 3.2, to show that it is an observation report, in accordance with the previous methodological specifications.

-We expanded the Materials and Methods chapter

-We have modified the sub-chapter titles of Results and made some additions to the content, hoping to clarify it.

- We highlighted in Disscusions chapter the motivating role of digital game-based learning in general and in a pandemic context.

-We requested a review of the text by a professional english translator.

All changes made are marked Track Changes.

Respectfully,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

*The literature review up to line 93 tapped into many issues of adapting to covid in online education but did not delve deep into any issue with good enough details

*Professional poof-reading recommended

*the separate 3 stages could use a more informative stage name signifying the change and evolution of the plural "we" professors....instead of beginning, during and after

*Was the TELL event in any way related to the 3 separate stages of reflection?

*line 379-380 much agreed

*Line 435-467 pointers on how to implement successful TELL hybrid events are helpful.

*Did the autoethnography inform the design and delivery of the TELL event?

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your attention to our article.

Regarding your observations and requirements:

-We have added to the Introduction a few paragraphs in which we have repeated and detailed the main ideas previously presented.

-We requested a review of the text by a professional translator.

-We looked for more suggestive variants for the titles of the subchapters of autoethnography.

-We stated in the Materials and Methods chapter that the TELL event took place during the period corresponding to the second stage of the autoethnographic presentation.

- We also stated in Materials and Methods chapter that the TELL event was designed in accordance with the observations and experience accumulated by the organizers since the beginning of the pandemic

All changes made are marked Track Changes.

Respectfully,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading this paper and feel that it is well worth publishing.  It is well written and the English is completely fluent.  The subject matter is very much up-to-date and relevant and presents a fascinating insight into the challenges of hybrid teaching at a Romanian university, whilst engaging nicely with the current discussion.  The autoethnographic approach is a nice one and only practical in the context of a single institution case study. However, as a non-Romanian, I wanted to know a little more about the Romanian context - not so much descriptive details but what is unique or unusual about the Romanian context. For example, in the UK, an assumption about online/ hybrid teaching is that students (and staff) will have suitable technology and internet connections. What does all this mean for the Romanian HE system?  This could be given a little consideration but otherwise, I liked this paper very much.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your appreciation and attention to our article.

Regarding your suggestion, we have added at the end of the first subchapter of autoethnography some clarifications regarding the Internet connection in Romania.

Respectfully,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which I found to be generally well-written and interesting. Hybrid learning can be beneficial to learners in many way, including at times of crisis.  Below, I present a number of suggestion, which aim at strengthening the article further.

 

Introduction

Good review of the background literature.

The introduction needs a good copy edit. For example, the transition from paragraph 1 to paragraph 2 is not clear. Paragraph 1 refers to the problems generated by COVID and the need for universities to adapt and support students. Then, suddenly in paragraph 2, you refer to online learning, without explaining that online learning in this context offered the opportunity to replace face-to-face learning during lockdowns.

Then, in paragraph 4, you refer to nursing students. Is this paper focusing on nursing/ clinical programmes and students? This is not clear in the title and abstract. You have to state the context in which this study is taking place early in the analysis, title, abstract and introduction.

In the same paragraph you mention: ‘The pandemic highlighted opportunities to improve pedagogy’. What do you mean by pedagogy? This is a strong term that needs to be unpacked. Are you sure you mean pedagogy and not learning strategies or learning modes?

 

Suggestions:

1.      The Introduction could present a set of research questions

2.      In paragraph four, you can clearly refer to the paper’s research method (auto-ethnography)

3.      On the last paragraph of the Introduction, at the end, perhaps you can add another sentence, explaining the structure of the paper. This would be beneficial to the reader, who will be able to formulate a clearer understanding in terms of organization and navigation within the text.

 

 

Material and Methods

Suggestions:

1.      While auto ethnography is discussed, it seems that there is no discussion on the observation method. Was it participant observation? What was the sample? When did it take place? Did you gain written access and consent? Was it virtual or physical? Overall, the methodology section requires greater nuance: some decisions could be justified in a clearer manner. It’s good to explain the rationale behind your research-method decisions.

 

 

Conclusion

Some summary of key points. Good analysis on limitations and future research.

Suggestions:

1.       In the conclusion, perhaps you can a) discuss in more depth the main points of the paper, and b) make a stronger case for the original contributions the paper makes. In other words, why is this study needed now and how does it advance our understanding of relevant theoretical or empirical matters?

2.      In the sentence referring to sustainability in the Conclusion (1st Pragraph), I would suggest utilizing/ citing the following material and source:

Doukanari, E., Ktoridou, D., Efthymiou, L. and Epaminonda, E. (2021) The Quest for Sustainable Teaching Praxis: Opportunities and Challenges of Multidisciplinary and Multicultural Teamwork. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7210. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137210.

 

Very good work overall. I look forward to receiving a revised version of the paper.

Cordially,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your appreciation and attention to our article.

Regarding your suggestions and requirements:

-We made the connection between the first and the second paragraph of the Introduction.

- We stated in paragraph 4 of the Introduction that the reference to medical students is only to exemplify the fact that the Covid-19 restrictions were perceived differently by students from different specializations.

- We replaced "pedagogy" with "learning strategies" in the same paragraph.

-We added the research questions to the last part of the Introduction.

-We have added at the end of paragraph 4 a reference to autoethnography as a useful research method in the context of the article's theme.

- We have attached at the end of the Introduction some explanations regarding the structure of the article.

- We have added clarifications regarding participatory observation in the second part of the Materials and Methods chapter.

- We completed the conclusions of the paper, emphasizing the main points and highlighting our own contributions.

-We have linked the references to sustainability in the Conclusions to the suggested bibliographic source.

All changes made are marked Track Changes.

Respectfully,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 100 -172 addition provides good detail and set the backdrop of study well

The edits throughout the revised manuscript addressed my raised questions well

The abstract needs to be revised to reflect fully the findings of the study. Include relevant information about the local context of study Romania and the TELL project.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your observation! We changed the abstract according with your observation.

Best regards,

Florin Nechita