The Balancing Act of Repurposing Feature Films and TV Series for University Teaching

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this entry.

The piece is very well written and extensively referenced. Your approach to the subject using Cognitive Load and Visual Literacy as core theoretical lenses is sound, but it limits important elements of the pedagogical research into use of feature film and television media. As your piece shifts from the theoretical literature to the findings of your study, many of the findings indicate concerns around values, access, inclusivity and emotions that are not sufficiently outlined in the literature that you are including. In an encyclopaedic entry, this balance is essential. It is recommended that you consider addressing additional recent literature in setting up the front end of the piece. Many of the participants in your study refer to attitude and the literature that might be useful for you to consider in addressing this might include:

Kubrak, T. (2020). Impact of films: Changes in young people’s attitudes after watching a movie. Behavioral sciences, 10(5), 86.

Pietri, E. S., Johnson, I. R., Majid, S., & Chu, C. (2021). Seeing what’s possible: Videos are more effective than written portrayals for enhancing the relatability of scientists and promoting black female students’ interest in STEM. Sex Roles, 84, 14-33.

Nicolaou, C. (2021). Media trends and prospects in educational activities and techniques for online learning and teaching through television content: technological and digital socio-cultural environment, generations, and audiovisual media communications in education. Education Sciences, 11(11), 685.

The research you outline is very relevant and serves to bring voice into entry in relevant ways. Setting up the literature to address the findings around values, attitudes and subjective cultural context more explicitly will strengthen the piece.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your fair and constructive feedback, alongside the positive remarks on the extensive referencing and well-founded theoretical approach in my manuscript. Your insights have been invaluable in guiding the enhancements made to my paper, ensuring it aligns with the journal's aims and scope.

I have thoroughly explored the literature on the interplay between film/television content and values, access, inclusivity, and emotions, as you recommended. This new research has been integrated into the revised manuscript, enriching the theoretical framework and expanding the discussion to encompass these critical dimensions. Specifically, I have addressed the nuances of how media influences learner attitudes and the transformative potential of visual narratives in promoting diversity and emotional engagement, both central to the pedagogical research into the use of feature film and television media. All of your suggested references were reviewed and integrated into the revised version as appropriate; this process also prompted me to review more recent publications to update several other references into the paper.

The revisions related to your comments are reflected in detailed analyses within the following sections of the revised paper:

• A comprehensive synthesis of the emotional dimension within cognitive load theory, discussing how film and TV can serve as both facilitators and barriers to learning (page 2, lines 56-69; pages 5-6, lines 179-255)
• An expanded review of multimedia learning, emphasising the active processing required for meaningful engagement with film and TV content, and a closer examination of the role of media in shaping values, with an emphasis on inclusivity and equitable access to educational resources. (page 5, lines 179-195)

These revisions based on your insights have significantly strengthened the paper, and I look forward to your thoughts on the updated manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The studies on the use of tv series as supplememtary material to teaching and learning i distance education are abundant. The contribution of this study to the field is quite limited.  Authors made some effort to state theories as a basis however, the theories stated such as dual coding, cognitive load were not amalgamated to constitite a basis for the rationale for conducting this research. Some important theories were missed such as Mayer"s cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In the era of new emerging technologies, the topic of the study seems rather outdated. Another issue is the use of quite outdated sources as reference implying that the study were undertaken quite some time ago. The findings of the study are already known. The methodology and the implementation of the research have some flaws i.e. the location, the timeline of the study are missing. It is not clear whether a researcher used a specific qualitative tool such as NVIVO to extract the stated main categories or not. How the researcher arrived those categories are not known. The study requires a thorough revision of the content.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thorough proofreading is needed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you for your evaluation of my manuscript. I have carefully reviewed your comments and incorporated substantial revisions to address your concerns, which have undoubtedly improved the paper to become a worthy contribution to the book Encyclopedia of Social Sciences.

Regarding the theoretical framework, I have further clarified the integration of visual literacy and cognitive load theories, and expanded upon the application of Mayer's cognitive theory of multimedia learning. These theoretical refinements have enhanced the rationale for my research.

I appreciate your note on the emergent technologies in distance education; however, the focus of my study is on the nuanced application of films, television series and other existing narrative (and affective) media in pedagogy, a topic that continues to be relevant in the humanities and social sciences. As for the reference sources, I have now included more recent literature while maintaining seminal works that provide foundational insights into the field.

I have also clarified the methodology, specifying the location and timeline of the study. Additionally, the categorisation process in the qualitative analysis has been detailed, with explicit mention of the tools and techniques employed, such as NVivo12, to ensure transparency and replicability.

I appreciate your feedback on the necessity of thorough proofreading. Upon reviewing the comments from all reviewers, I have taken extra steps to ensure the writing meets the highest academic standards. This was especially important given that your concerns contrasted with the evaluations of the other reviewers, who deemed the writing to be of good quality and not in need of further editing. In this context, your remarks about the writing quality have been considered with a view to your own communication style, as evidenced by several typographical and grammatical inaccuracies within your comments. It seems that both our communications were perceived differently regarding their respective standards. While this is a minor issue, it does underscore the importance of careful communication in professional discourse. It's crucial that we, as academics, maintain respect and integrity in our interactions, recognising the humanity behind the research efforts. Nonetheless, I have made a concerted effort to re-evaluate the manuscript to eliminate any oversights and uphold the scholarly excellence this journal is known for.

Lastly, the expectation for groundbreaking findings in every research endeavor is an ideal, not a practical standard for the continuous progression of knowledge. The incremental nature of scholarly work often involves building upon known foundations to advance understanding and application.

Your input has been instrumental in refining this manuscript, and for that, I am grateful. My revisions, I believe, reflect a sincere effort to address your concerns while maintaining the integrity and academic rigour of the research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe this paper is interesting, very well-written and appropriately organised. I would only suggest extending on how the interviews were analysed (content analysis? any software? any specific procedure?).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you for your constructive feedback and the positive remarks on my manuscript. Much appreciated. Regarding your request, I have included the following paragraph to the Methods section and updated the reference list to clarify the approach to thematic analysis mentioned at the beginning of Findings.

Analysis of the survey results was conducted in SurveyMonkey to identify major trends and common patterns. These findings then informed thematic analysis of the qualitative data from both the survey and interviews, which followed six recursive steps according to Braun and Clarke (2006) using Nvivo12 software. Initially data sets for thematic analysis were selected according to data collection methods for data familiarisation, code generation and early theme searching. Using an inductive (data-driven) approach to thematic analysis, identified codes and themes then guided cross-data set examination to collect all relevant instances from the data corpus.

I hope this sufficiently addresses your concern and I look forward to your thoughts on the revised manuscript. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to engage with your work in this Encyclopedia entry. I think the piece is now much stronger and addresses the nuances of emotional labour and cognitive load that were not fully realised in the original piece. The updated references and the resulting robustness makes this a worthy contribution to the reference works. I will be happy to send students considering the complexity of pedagogical decisions around the use of FF/TV.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author adequately addresses the previous shortcomings of the manuscript.  The manuscript is well organized and written to address the theoretical framework and methodology properly. Some recent references were added. The current version of the manuscript appropriately represents the necessities of the topic addressed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for mplementing the suggested changes. I believe the text is much clearer.