Analysis of Drawings on Representations of COVID-19 among Senior High School Students: Case of the Dakhla-Oued Eddahab Region, Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

 This paper examines students’ perceptions of the coronavirus COVID-19 in a cross-sectional and descriptive study conducted as a drawing survey in two schools in Morocco. The participants were 94 high school students (aged 14-19). The drawings were analyzed by inductive and deductive content analysis. The results suggested that the majority of the students knew the archetypal representation of COVID-19 and knew how it spreads and how to stop it from spreading. Misrepresentations also related to fear with COVID-19 lead to mental health issues. Interestingly, younger children's representations were dominated by magical thinking that reduces COVID-19 to preventive measures.

 

This revised paper is enriched in terms of methodology and analysis and the issue is presented in a more clear way. The inductive and deductive content analysis add to the findings and to the reader's interest  

The authors have made a considerable attempt to improve the paper and have addressed many points of concern. Given the above,

I endorse the paper for publication in this form  

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

For the current form of the paper, I have one important observation: the authors need to make a more explicit argument for choosing the Mann-Whitney U test. I am convinced that the authors know very well the conditions in which this test is used.

In addition to this observation, authors should correct the use of bibliographic references, as it is not uniform. It can be seen in line 205.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The study of authors is interesting and able to provide useful results for children's education.

In my opinion, the study lacks a few elements.

The authors do not specify the objectives of their research, so that during the paper it is possible to ascertain whether the results obtained are based on what the authors have proposed in their research.

The authors do not present limitations of their research. Some details about the study participants are presented, but the authors do not indicate whether this group is relevant. For example, one can ask about the specifics of high schools, whether it is on Science or Humanities. Is this relevant for this study?

It is found that the analysis of the drawings made by the students is well described, and the results are well presented. In Chapter 5, the authors try to analyze students' perceptions of COVID19 through their drawings. In Chapter 6, the authors present some findings that they call Conclusions and Recommendations. Comparing the objectives of the study with the results of the analysis performed the authors must present aggregate conclusions. The recommendations made by the authors must be correlated with their conclusions. Using the data collected, the authors need to improve their conclusions. Conclusions should be a component of the authors' contribution.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting work for its theme. It would be necessary to apply some statistical test that supports the expression of differences between boys and girls

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents research where students’ representations of coronavirus COVID-19 are recorded. It belongs to a trend in science education that aimed to study the alternative conceptions, misconceptions, or alternative ideas of students. This trend, the last four decades, led to recording a great collection of student ideas, which were actually studied, under various theoretical respective, aiming to understand the nature of students’ knowledge before they attain the scientific view.

The present research have a lot of drawbacks and does not meet the standards of a robust endeavor that contributes to the field.

 First, it lacks a theoretical framework, from the start, and at the conclusion, it does not inform any theory. It presents merely a collection of drawings and it does not lead to firm conclusions, about the nature of students’ representations.

It has been a long-lasting discussion as far as the methodology of drawings collection, which has indicated the pitfalls of attempting to learn through them, because it depends on students’ skill to draw and the ability of a researcher to interpret them correctly. On the other hand, no vigorous treatment, e.g. a classification procedure has been applied that could lead to some generalized or simple but meaningful conclusions.

To this end, the merit of the paper is limited to local interest and descriptive presentations.

 

In my opinion, the paper does not meet the standards for an international journal and I do not recommend publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have improved the work.
However, the authors need to improve their conclusions presented in the paper, as mentioned in the previous comment. Basically, the authors have added a sentence to the Conclusions chapter, but this addition is not enough. The authors need to make this improvement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has not been improved, and in my opinion the paper does not met the standards for an international journal, for the reasons I explained in the first review  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf