Prolonged Emergency Remote Teaching: Sustainable E-Learning or Human Capital Stuck in Online Limbo?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this paper brings an interesting perspective on sustainability of E-Learning. It is not common to read a qualitative study like this in this field and it is my opinion that it contributes significantly to a better understanding of the phenomenon of distance learning in the COVID19 context. The paper has been structured properly, usage of English language is satisfactory and main results are presented clearly.

That being said, I also think that there are some minor issues that should be addressed prior to publication. In particular:

- Human capital should be discussed in more detail and additional relevant studies on COVID19 impact on human capital should be presented in introductory section. This will provide a better background for the reader while simultaneously making this paper even more relevant in the context of the special issue of this journal.

- In the segment related to e-learning, it is necessary to put the topic in the context of the specifics of the education of young people, who later prepare for faculty. Also, the paper should more clearly highlight the aspect of managing educational institutions in the context of the topic, i.e. challenges for educational policy.

- Are there any more recent findings regarding COVID19 impact on engineering education than those presented in section 2.2? They appear to be slightly outdated, given the pace of the COVID19 situation development. The authors should consider including recent publications that employ phenomenological methods for COVID19-related issues.

- The section where methodology is presented might be made a bit more concise.

- In section 4.2.2 the authors should provide more details on how the validation was performed.

- There seem to be some similarities between the ideas and themes appearing in both studies presented; the authors might wish to consider structuring them in a more concise and easily understandable format. Perhaps put them side by side in a table?

- In section 5.3, results presented in the table should be further elaborated.

- Section 6 could perhaps provide additional details on how research results relate to sustainability of E-Learning.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Pont 1: Overall, this paper brings an interesting perspective on sustainability of E-Learning. It is not common to read a qualitative study like this in this field and it is my opinion that it contributes significantly to a better understanding of the phenomenon of distance learning in the COVID19 context. The paper has been structured properly, usage of English language is satisfactory and main results are presented clearly.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback and constructive comments. A number of improvements was made, according to the issues identified by both reviewers.

Point 2: Human capital should be discussed in more detail and additional relevant studies on COVID19 impact on human capital should be presented in introductory section. This will provide a better background for the reader while simultaneously making this paper even more relevant in the context of the special issue of this journal.

Response 2: We have provided additional references in the introductory section regarding this issue, advocating the link between the pandemic and loss in human capital.

Point 3: In the segment related to e-learning, it is necessary to put the topic in the context of the specifics of the education of young people, who later prepare for faculty. Also, the paper should more clearly highlight the aspect of managing educational institutions in the context of the topic, i.e. challenges for educational policy.

Response 3: In the mentioned segment and in the conclusion section, we have added a reference related to the preferences of new generations towards learning tools and methodologies, as well as a number of relevant statements. We have also mentioned the aspect of managing educational institutions in the context of this topic, and provided a few relevant references.

Point 4: Are there any more recent findings regarding COVID19 impact on engineering education than those presented in section 2.2? They appear to be slightly outdated, given the pace of the COVID19 situation development. The authors should consider including recent publications that employ phenomenological methods for COVID19-related issues.

Response 4: We have added a few newly published references related to engineering education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Point 5: The section where methodology is presented might be made a bit more concise.

Response 5: While we do understand reviewer's comment regarding this issue, we believe that this section is valuable in its current form. We are afraid that the possible elimination of some parts of the methodology description might jeopardize the replicability of this study. We therefore kindly ask the reviewer to allow the methodology description to remain in its current form.

Point 6: There seem to be some similarities between the ideas and themes appearing in both studies presented; the authors might wish to consider structuring them in a more concise and easily understandable format. Perhaps put them side by side in a table?

Response 6: We have performed additional analysis to identify similar ideas between the two studies. The results are presented in Appendix C.

Point 7: In section 5.3, results presented in the table should be further elaborated.

Response 7: We have further elaborated on this, as suggested.

Point 8: Section 6 could perhaps provide additional details on how research results relate to sustainability of E-Learning.

Response 8: We have provided additional comments related to sustainability of E-learning in the Section 6.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research in the article is topical. The description of the methodology states that a phenomenological interview is used. However, 4.1.2. In the chapter describing Study 2, a survey is used instead of a phenomenological interview. An appropriate clarification is needed in Chapter 4.

It is necessary to supplement with an explanation of how the respondents were selected for both studies. Assessing the information in Table 1, it can be seen that the distribution of respondents by study year and study programs is not even. Study 2 also does not have an even distribution by study programs. How were the respondents selected? By what criteria? Has the uneven distribution of respondents according to their characteristics affected the results of the study? This aspect has not been considered in the study.

Information in rows 403-404. and 422-424. repeats.

The article would be of higher value if the obtained results were considered, taking into account the characteristics of the respondents (eg study program, study courses to be taught, etc.).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The research in the article is topical. The description of the methodology states that a phenomenological interview is used. However, 4.1.2. In the chapter describing Study 2, a survey is used instead of a phenomenological interview. An appropriate clarification is needed in Chapter 4.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback and constructive comments. A number of improvements was made, according to the issues identified by both reviewers. An additional clarification was added in Chapter 4 to shed more light on the data collection method in Study 2. The observed word count produced by Study 2 participants goes into favor for this statement, as the word count like this should not be expected as a survey response.

Point 2: It is necessary to supplement with an explanation of how the respondents were selected for both studies. Assessing the information in Table 1, it can be seen that the distribution of respondents by study year and study programs is not even. Study 2 also does not have an even distribution by study programs. How were the respondents selected? By what criteria? Has the uneven distribution of respondents according to their characteristics affected the results of the study? This aspect has not been considered in the study.

Response 2: Additional clarifications were suggested in the revised manuscript for both studies, with an explanation on why a phenomenological study differs from the usual (mostly quantitative) research in the means of sampling techniques. We hope that these clarifications are sufficient.

Point 3: Information in rows 403-404. and 422-424. repeats.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this issue, it was corrected.

Point 4: The article would be of higher value if the obtained results were considered, taking into account the characteristics of the respondents (eg study program, study courses to be taught, etc.).

Response 4: While we agree that analysis of different subgroups of study participants is interesting in the pandemic context, the aim of this manuscript and the corresponding phenomenological analysis is to identify common topics and the essence of a phenomenon – not to compare individuals or groups within the sample regarding some properties. Phenomenological study typically has only one or two dozen of study participants, as it is more interested in the depth of the experience, rather than its manifestation.