Online Delivery of Teaching and Laboratory Practices: Continuity of University Programmes during COVID-19 Pandemic
, Dilani I. Wijesuriya 2, Sakunthala Y. Ekanayake 2, Allan E. W. Rennie 3,*, Chris G. Lambert 3,4 and Nanda Gunawardhana 5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The researchers are focusing on too many topics at once and also use inappropriate references. For example, their study focuses on how universities are implementing teaching and laboratory practices online during the pandemic, but the authors refer to a K-12 school district. If the authors want to use previous research to support their conclusions, they need to focus exclusively on research at the higher education level. Parts of the article also do not fit well together. For example, section 3.2 on "Changing of Teacher's Roles" drifts away from the main topic. Universities have implemented online teaching before the pandemic and have had to deal with changing roles, so this is not a topic that is really related to the pandemic.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
The authors thank Reviewer 1 for their comments and for pointing out where the manuscript may cause confusion with the readership. The authors have addressed the comments made (re-stated below) and hope that the revisions satisfactorily address Reviewer 1’s concerns.
Comment #1: The researchers are focusing on too many topics at once and also use inappropriate references. For example, their study focuses on how universities are implementing teaching and laboratory practices online during the pandemic, but the authors refer to a K-12 school district. If the authors want to use previous research to support their conclusions, they need to focus exclusively on research at the higher education level.
Response #1: As advised, we have now removed this part and revised section 3.2 paragraph 2 using available data [17].
“According to the National Center for Education Statistics (USA), only 87% of U.S. households own or use a computer at home, where only 77% had access to the Internet. It also reported that the United States had higher percentages of students with computer and internet access when comparing the United States with other countries. This clearly highlights the scale of the challenge of reaching every single student during an online delivery mode.”
- KewalRamani, A.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Rathbun, A.; Corcoran, L.; Diliberti, M.; Zhang, J.; Synder, T.D. Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside of the Classroom (NCES 2017-098), U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, April 2018. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098.pdf (accessed on 07 October 2020).
Comment #2: Parts of the article also do not fit well together. For example, section 3.2 on "Changing of Teacher's Roles" drifts away from the main topic. Universities have implemented online teaching before the pandemic and have had to deal with changing roles, so this is not a topic that is really related to the pandemic.
Response #2: We appreciate Reviewer 1’s point here, and as a consequence, section 3.2 on "Changing of Teacher's Roles" has been removed.
Reviewer 2 Report
Abstract:
Improve the abstract by stressing / underlining the fact that this paper is about learning in laboratories / laboratory learning / practical learning / laboratory and workshop based learning (or whichever the term that best explain the focus of the paper. Also highlight that the paper is based on a review of literature published on laboratory learning using online methods. Also if relevant, specify the subject areas covered in the review, eg., Engineering, Physics, etc. are you able to provide a summary of methodology used to locate, and review the teaching and learning programmes in universities?
Good section in the introduction identifying the focus of the paper – effectiveness of distance learning methods in laboratory-based courses.
After line 39 before line 40:
Write a clear outline of the paper to tell the reader the section covered in the paper. If you are not struggling with the word length, add a one sentence summary of what is covered in each chapter. This can be just a short paragraph. This outline would help structure the paper well.
General:
The use of online and remote methods for laboratory learning is a good focus. Try to cut down the coverage of online teaching for content related learning. This dilutes the strength of the paper.
Line 41 – 42. The sentence is confusing. “Traditionally, theoretical and practical aspects related to educational courses/modules were introduced through lectures and experiments were conducted using the face-to-face mode.” But most of the lectures delivered on campuses prior to Covid-19 were ‘face-to-face” too. It is not clear what the intended meaning was. Please try to improve this sentence.
Lines 180 – 183. Improve the following sentence to avoid generalisations based on what looks like personal views. “Historically, it was recognised that the teacher is the centrepiece of instruction, where students passively absorb pre-processed information and then repeat or rehearse it in an examination. In other words, the major role of a teacher was to transmit information and assess understanding and retention (knowledge).” Do you have empirically-based evidence to support this claim made by authoritative figures in pedagogic research? If not, re-write this sentence.
Line 183 states “With the shift to online delivery, teachers and students play an equally active role in the learning process.” This implies shift to online teaching would do this role change automatically which is not the case. There are many online courses where the learner play a passive role of reading / note taking.
Line 216 – 217. Replace the statistics with more relevant data connected the paper, eg., university students’ access to technology from home. 6 – 17 age group is less relevant for the paper. If you are using this data, try to show how they are relent to the university students you are talking about.
Discussion:
Try to improve this by restructuring it to communicate clear messages around few key themes, for example, challenges / issues of using online methods for laboratory and workshop based leaning, key pedagogical considerations in delivering online learning for these specific learning situation, good practice models, etc.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2
The authors thank Reviewer 2 for their in-depth review of the manuscript and providing many comments that will allow us to further improve the manuscript. The authors have addressed the comments made (re-stated below) and hope that the revisions satisfactorily address Reviewer 2’s concerns.
Comment #1: Abstract: Improve the abstract by stressing / underlining the fact that this paper is about learning in laboratories / laboratory learning / practical learning / laboratory and workshop based learning (or whichever the term that best explain the focus of the paper). Also highlight that the paper is based on a review of literature published on laboratory learning using online methods. Also if relevant, specify the subject areas covered in the review, e.g., Engineering, Physics, etc. are you able to provide a summary of methodology used to locate, and review the teaching and learning programmes in universities?
Response #1: This paper reviews sudden changes and their impacts to teaching and laboratory delivery of university programmes, as a result of COVID-19. As advised, the focus of the paper is further highlighted in the abstract:
“As a result, students have not been receiving face-to-face teaching, and access to laboratory facilities has been limited or nearly impossible. This paper reviews numerous approaches taken by universities to deliver teaching and laboratory practices remotely, in consideration of the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst also considering the potential impacts on the student learning experience. This review is primarily focused on the fields of engineering, science and technology, based on published literature including books, reviewing web-based provisions of selected universities, institutional and national policy documents.”
Comment #2: Good section in the introduction identifying the focus of the paper – effectiveness of distance learning methods in laboratory-based courses. After line 39 before line 40: Write a clear outline of the paper to tell the reader the section covered in the paper. If you are not struggling with the word length, add a one sentence summary of what is covered in each chapter. This can be just a short paragraph. This outline would help structure the paper well.
Response #2: As advised, we have included a paragraph at the end of the introduction section.
“In this review, we first discuss online teaching and laboratory practices before COVID-19, while summarising examples from published literature. This is followed by presenting the transformation from traditional face-to-face delivery to online delivery, in which we examine technologies used for online delivery, including associated challenges and impacts on assessment practices implemented as a result of COVID-19. There follows a discussion on student experience, highlighting the impacts on their learning experience as well as on their wellbeing. Finally, consideration is made of the policies implemented by educational and other agencies to support universities to uphold quality assurance procedure during online delivery of teaching.”
Comment #3: The use of online and remote methods for laboratory learning is a good focus. Try to cut down the coverage of online teaching for content related learning. This dilutes the strength of the paper.
Response #3: As advised, we have removed some content from section 2 to strength the focus of the paper.
Comment #4: Line 41 – 42. The sentence is confusing. “Traditionally, theoretical and practical aspects related to educational courses/modules were introduced through lectures and experiments were conducted using the face-to-face mode.” But most of the lectures delivered on campuses prior to Covid-19 were ‘face-to-face” too. It is not clear what the intended meaning was. Please try to improve this sentence.
Response #4: To avoid any confusion, we have removed this sentence.
Comment #5: Lines 180 – 183. Improve the following sentence to avoid generalisations based on what looks like personal views. “Historically, it was recognised that the teacher is the centrepiece of instruction, where students passively absorb pre-processed information and then repeat or rehearse it in an examination. In other words, the major role of a teacher was to transmit information and assess understanding and retention (knowledge).” Do you have empirically-based evidence to support this claim made by authoritative figures in pedagogic research? If not, re-write this sentence. Line 183 states “With the shift to online delivery, teachers and students play an equally active role in the learning process.” This implies shift to online teaching would do this role change automatically which is not the case. There are many online courses where the learner play a passive role of reading / note taking.
Response #5: The authors agree that section 3.2 does slightly drift away from the main topic and hence we have removed that section to strengthen the focus of the paper. This aspect was also suggested by another reviewer of this manuscript.
Comment #6: Line 216 – 217. Replace the statistics with more relevant data connected the paper, eg., university students’ access to technology from home. 6 – 17 age group is less relevant for the paper. If you are using this data, try to show how they are relent to the university students you are talking about.
Response #6: As advised, we have revised section 3.2 paragraph 2 using available data [17].
“According to the National Center for Education Statistics (USA), only 87% of U.S. households own or use a computer at home, where only 77% had access to the Internet. It also reported that the United States had higher percentages of students with computer and internet access when comparing the United States with other countries. This clearly highlights the scale of the challenge of reaching every single student during an online delivery mode.”
- KewalRamani, A.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Rathbun, A.; Corcoran, L.; Diliberti, M.; Zhang, J.; Synder, T.D. Student Access to Digital Learning Resources Outside of the Classroom (NCES 2017-098), U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, April 2018. Available online: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017098.pdf (accessed on 07 October 2020).
Comment #7: Discussion: Try to improve this by restructuring it to communicate clear messages around few key themes, for example, challenges / issues of using online methods for laboratory and workshop based leaning, key pedagogical considerations in delivering online learning for these specific learning situation, good practice models, etc.
Response #7: We have restructured this section to include key themes of the learning experience, pedagogic implications for teachers and inequality over internet access. We have highlighted good practice and believe having addressed the feedback provided above, the section benefits from these changes.
Reviewer 3 Report
1: 27 - Include a like statement to – Although the origin of the virus is contested it was Wuhan when the first official recognition was declared.
Are there any examples that the reader can actually tap into – so are some of the virtual resources available and if so what are the URLs. This would be very useful.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
The authors thank Reviewer 3 for their suggestions to further enhance the quality of the manuscript. The authors have addressed the comment made (re-stated below) and hope that the revisions satisfactorily address Reviewer 3’s concerns.
Comment #1: 1: 27 - Include a like statement to – Although the origin of the virus is contested it was Wuhan when the first official recognition was declared. Are there any examples that the reader can actually tap into – so are some of the virtual resources available and if so what are the URLs. This would be very useful.
Response #1: As advised the sentence has been reworded to highlight the location of the official declaration of COVID-19; an appropriate URL is also included in the narrative.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have improved the previous version. A short conclusion would improve this manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1
The authors thank Reviewer 1 for their suggestions to further enhance the quality of the manuscript. The authors have addressed the comment made (re-stated below) and hope that the revisions satisfactorily address Reviewer 1’s concerns.
Comment #1: The authors have improved the previous version. A short conclusion would improve this manuscript.
Response #1: As our manuscript was a Review Article, there were no specific conclusions to be made based on the content, hence why the authors felt that it would be better to end the paper with a reflective discussion.
