Factors Influencing Students’ Attitudes and Readiness towards Active Online Learning in Physics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The detailed comments available in the attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses the estimation of which factors affect readiness for active online learning. It is an interesting topic and the augmenting focus on online education due to the pandemic further increases its importance.

Unfortunately, the experimental set up could be enhanced. The main concern is the small sample that does not allow for the extraction of reliable conclusions. The writing can also be enhanced, particularly regarding the contents of the abstract, references to neuroscience and proof reading.

More specific comments:

In the abstract, in the list of factors that affect active online learning, "computer skill(s)" is listed twice.

The abstract is meant to act as an overview of the article, not as a teaser to entice people to read it. The phrase "The results were not what we expected" does not achieve this goal, as it does not tell the readers what the results actually were. Similarly, whilst there is a reference to "giving suggestions how to improve active online learning" and "guidelines for teachers who intend to implement effective, active online learning", there is no actual information regarding what these suggestions and guidelines might be. Overall, the abstract does not serve the purpose an abstract is expected to serve.

The beginning of section 2.2 is quite problematic. The authors state that whilst in the literature there are other parameters to consider, for this work they "believe" that the factors to consider are computer skills, motivation, prior knowledge and learning preferences. An explanation is needed regarding why these factors are chosen when the scientific literature (that the authors cite) identifies different ones. Currently, it seems like an arbitrary choice. Given the importance of this choice for the specific work, this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Section 3 does not add anything to the paper. It mentions as a general principle that understanding how the brain learns can be used to inform how teaching should be done, but then offers no specific relevant knowledge from neuroscience and no specific teaching modifications based on neuroscience. The whole section can be omitted and nothing will be missing from the paper.

The survey includes only 24 students. This is a very small number. Taking into account that convenience sampling was used, limiting the representativeness of the sample, a larger sample would be expected for the results to be statistically sound.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The theme is quite pertinent considering the need to think new formats in educational contexts, particularly online. In the Introduction, theoretical contextualization is adequate. The articulation between learning processes and neurosciences is well done.

In Methodology, the whole methodological process is well constructed and chained, and equally clear in the presentation of the results. However, the fact that the sample is quite small and constituted from a single school raises doubts about the extrapolation of the results. Thus, both in Discussion and Conclusion, a more cautious approach is suggested, assuming an exploratory perspective, providing possible indications, and paving the way for further studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

all the comments available in attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We rephrased the conclusion part as suggested. We also put reasons why we chose this particular college as our case study.

These statements were highlighted in red color.

Thank you very much for the constructive comments again.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have provided a revised version of their work. Unfortunately some of the core concerns have not been addressed.

The sample remains too small to support any analysis with statistical significance. The important of the topic, that is used as an argument, does not affect the statistical significance of the sample. The authors mention that they are currently conducting more research, I would recommend that they re-submit their work when they have gathered enough data for a meaningful analysis.

The discussion on neuroscience has been extended and more links to education have been inserted, but the fact remains that the paper would stand the same if that section was missing. The argument (mentioned in the responses to another reviewer's comments) that the author has been conducting research in this field for a long time is not relevant. It might be within the scope of the author's work, but it does not seem to be that well within the scope of the present article.

Author Response

We rephrased the conclusion part as suggested. We also put reasons why we chose this particular college as our case study.

These statements were highlighted in red color.

Thank you very much for the constructive comments again.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

the vast majority (almost all) of comments from the second round of review was ignored and none of the crucial issues signalized there was solved. You did not address the second review's comments and did not explain the reason for omitting them while working on the revised version of the article. 

If it's due to some technical mistake (not reading the review or swapping the review file), then I suggest revising the article and uploading it once again in the system, as in the current form it should be rejected.

I believe that the article is really intriguing and with the implementation of suggested modifications, it might be accepted for publication. 

In the attachment, the second round review is repeated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

There are no changes in the manuscript with respect to the issues I identified in the previous round of reviews: The sample is too small and the section on neuroscience is still unconnected, Thus, my recommendation is not changed.

The authors' response that they have changed the conclusions as I suggested is a bit confusing, I had not made any suggestions regarding the conclusions, perhaps they have mixed up the review comments?