Students’ Perception of the Use of a Rubric and Peer Reviews in an Online Learning Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theoretical framework for the article is not clear enough to the reader, how it connects to the reality of everyday life in classrooms

In recent years there has been a lot of writing about new assessment methods in academia. This is part of the new recommended pedagogies. I suggest you update the bibliography to write from the last five years

Write clearly what the main findings are and how they are affected by the new pedagogy

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Pleas note that I have made comments to your reviews on the document attached. 

Thank you for your valuable time. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The document is titled “Alternative assessment strategies for developing deep learning in online learning environments”.

I think it is a relevant and current topic, as deep learning is a trending research are. Also, research on online learning environments became even more relevant with the pandemic.

The document is formalized with the following sections: 1. Background; 2. Online learning environments; 3. Approaches to learning; 4. Assessment for learning; 5. Change in traditional assessments in online learning environments; 6. Materials and Methods; 7. Results; 8. Discussion; and 9. Limitations and future research. I think it could be considerably improved and easier to read if the document was restructured. We must think that the reading of the article, once published, should contemplate the most diverse audiences and reader profiles. I think the document could be considerably improved and easier to read if it were restructured. I would suggest to authors the use of the IMRED format for scientific writing, basically composed of the following sections:

·    Introduction: What was the problem investigated and why? What is the issue?

·   Methods: How was the research carried out? How will anyone try to answer the question?

·     Results: What were the results? What was found with the search?

·     AND

·     Discussion: what meaning or implication will the results have?

I would also recommend rewriting the Introduction section. I remind you that this section aims to explain why the study is necessary and why it should be published. It should summarize the study's justification and should arouse the interest of the editor and the reader. The introduction should clearly establish the nature and scope of the problem being studied.

I think that the text presented in the section is a little confusing and that it could have its construction improved. I leave as a suggestion the sequential structure below, although others can be used:

·         Enumeration of the general themes that cover the problem (theory);

·         Review of the problem's background;

·         Definition of the research problem (question);

·         Statement and location of variables (forecast and result) to be considered in relation to the problem;

·         Formulation of study objectives.

·         Importance and scope of the study.

·         Study limitations.

·         Document roadmap.

I would also suggest that the authors work better on the discussion of the results obtained, seeking to compare them with those of similar works by other authors. Also improve the section dealing with the conclusion. People usually read the abstract, introduction and conclusion. The content of the conclusion should start by emphasizing the main message and the main result that supports it. Emphasis should also be placed on the new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions that are derived from them. I think that, although the authors have been working on the section, it was still very brief and owed a little. I think this section has become extremely short and should be rewritten.

Below I present some specific observations about other parts of the document and some suggestions are presented for adjustments to the document.

The “summary” is very important because of its significant use in electronic databases.. I think that the average number of words used in the sentences is excellent and could make it easier to read, for those who are not very familiar with the subject. For example, for the best reader experience, according to the Oxford Guide for Writing (2020):

•             Sentences of up to 12 words are easy

•             Sentences of 13-17 words are acceptable

•             Sentences with 18-25 words are difficult

•             Sentences with more than 25 words are very difficult

Regarding construction, I think that the abstract presents structure problems and, in my opinion, does not present the necessary items for this part of the document. Namely: “What was studied” (Introduction); “How the study was carried out” (Materials and Methods); “What was found” (Results) and “What it means” (Conclusion). I think the text presented does not meet these requirements. Another pertinent observation is that the abstract must be written in the past tense, except for the last paragraph or the concluding sentence. Which does not occur in part of the text. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the abstract needs to be rewritten.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Pleas note that I have made comments to your reviews on the document attached. 

Thank you for your valuable time. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, 

The article would be interesting if it had some realistic and conceivable scientific solution/scientific sounding. Not just empirical results presented.

When I have read the abstract part, and full paper-manuscript I can state, that there is no scientific result in it: what is actually being constructed from this study: Model for improvement....? or system/Framework....how to improve? The author  just write that the results are obtained. What from this paper is important to the international scientific community; or can be valued to the international scientific community?

The theoretical part is poor, lacking a systematic analysis of the latest primary sources.

The goal of the study is certainly not interesting to the international community  (line: 271-274). It can be very valuable to the university due to the quality management aspect or to the teacher/person, who  teaches that module (line:274) "The module was Management Accounting Strategy".

Conclusion part???

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Pleas note that I have made comments to your reviews on the document attached. 

Thank you for your valuable time. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your time and provided feedback. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper in its revised form is clearer, the purpose of the study and the findings are written in a clear and precise manner

Author Response

Dear Dr./ Mr./ Ms

Thank you for the time you have taken to review my manuscript. Your feedback has been valuable. I have revised the manuscript further. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The document is titled “Alternative assessment strategies for developing deep learning in online learning environments”.

The main objective of the study was to investigate the perception of undergraduate students on the use of a heading assessment and peers as alternative assessments in the online learning environment. The target audience of the research was undergraduate students in Accounting at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Two online research instruments were applied, one with five questions open and one with 10 closed questions, arranged on a 5-point Likert scale, varying from disagree with I fully agree. For a universe of 654 students enrolled, 79 (12%) allowed their evaluations to be analyzed, and 48 (7%) completed the online questionnaire survey, with closed and open questions. I think that somewhat low numbers, however, do not invalidate the work done. Unfortunately, the students' adherence, especially in this period of the COVID-19 pandemic, has been very small in relation to instruments of this type. However, I consider the theme of the article relevant and current, as research on online learning environments has become even more relevant with the pandemic.

In the previous version, the document was formalized with the Following Sections: 1. Background; 2. Online Learning Environments; 3. Approaches to Learning; 4. Assessment for Learning; 5. Change in Traditional Assessments in Online Learning Environments; 6. Materials and Methods; 7. Results; 8. Discussion; and 9. Limitations and Future Research. It was suggested that the document be restructured, and if possible followed a formal structure for scientific articles. In this case, the IMRED format (Introduction; Methods; Results; and, Discussion) was suggested. The suggestion was accepted by the author, and the document currently presents the following sections: Introduction; Literature Review; Methods; Results; Discussion; Limitations and Future Research, and, conclusions. It would let it suggestions rename the Methods section for Materials and Methods and include the “Limitations and Future Research” section at the end of the completion section, not as a separate section.

Previously it was also suggested to restructure the introduction section. What was done by the author, who sought to follow the suggested sequential structure. My suggestion in this part is related to the writing of the general objective of the study. Observe the writing from line 112:

“Therefore, the objective of this study is twofold. The main objective of this study is to investigate the students' perception of using a rubric and peer assessment as alternative assessments in the online learning environment. Furthermore, the study sought to investigate whether the rubric and peer assessment helped the students and if it assisted them in adopting a deep approach to learning. By addressing this objective, the study aims to demonstrate the usefulness of peer assessments with rubrics in online learning environments”.

While in the discussion section, from line 586:

“The study's main objective was to investigate the student's perception of using a rubric and peer assessment as alternative assessments in the online learning environment. Furthermore, the study sought to investigate whether the rubric and peer assessment helped the students adopt a deep learning approach.”

The same text of the discussion is repeated in the conclusions section, from line 831. I suggest realigning the texts and work on a single general objective. Specific objectives may be described, if applicable.

The following are some specific comments on other parts of the document.

The title is of proper length, with 12 words, (Alternative Assessment Strategies for Developing Deep Learning 2 In Online Learning Environments). It should be noted that the reader can select the article for reading from the attributed title and, therefore, must reflect its content, be concise, and include the most relevant terms of the objective of the work. Regarding the newsroom, the title must answer three fundamental questions: 1. What was done? 2. What was done? 3. Where was it done? I think it superficially responds to the first two questions but does not respond to the third. In this case, the application took place undergraduate an institution in South Africa.

The "abstract" is very important due to its significant use in electronic databases. The text presented in the first version of the document had 198 words, distributed in 8 sentences and presenting an average of 24.75 words/sentence. In the current version, the summary is formalized with 172 words, distributed in 7 sentences, and having an average of 24.57 words/sentence. I think the number of words is appropriate, but the average number of words used in sentences remains high and may make it difficult to read, for those who are not very familiar with a theme. For example, for a better reader experience, it is recommended to write more objective phrases. According to Oxford Guide for Writing (2020):

• Phrases with up to 12 words are easy

• Phrases with 13-17 words are acceptable

• 18-25 words phrases are difficult

• Phrases with over 25 words are very difficult

Regarding construction, I think that the abstract still has structure problems and, in my opinion, does not satisfactorily present the necessary items for this part of the document. Namely: “What has been studied” (introduction); “How the study was done” (Materials and Methods); “What was found” (results) and “what it means” (conclusion). I suggest that it is rewritten.

The Materials and Methods Section (methodology) aims to describe the way in which it was collected, organized, and analyzed the data related to the objective of the study. It should also be possible to replicate/replicate. This section should describe the orderly and chronological sequence what has been done (not what was found), which does not occur in the document. In this sense, one must separate what is the result of methodology. Regarding the instruments used, the two questionnaires would be important to mention the origin of the instruments used. Were you validated earlier? Were they based on any author? Were it of its own construction?

It would also leave as a suggestion that the author compares the results obtained with those of similar work by other authors. It would be important for the author to comment on the relevant results of the study, highlighting the new and important aspects, but without repeating the data presented in the results.

The authors provide a list of 58 references that are all cited in the document. I think the number of references is suitable for the proposed profile, and composed of 23 pages. Regarding the current references, 49 (84.4%) have five or more years, and 42 (72.4%) are over ten years. I think it is not a good percentage for the document profile.

The figures, tables, and frames are intended to communicate the information visually and quickly. The authors present 3 tables, I think it is a good number for the document. I think Table 1 is very long as it occupies page 10 and part of 11. I suggest improving visualization, perhaps dividing data into categories to increase clarity. Table 1 is also not mentioned in the text. It is necessary to connect it with the text. Regarding Table 3 I suggest trying to put it only on one page, as this will facilitate viewing. Tables are a concise and effective way to present large amounts of data. Therefore, it should be developed carefully so that they can present the results clearly to employed or hasty readers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Author try to improove the paper- manuscript. And now I can see a new version: is not bad.     

Author Response

Dear Dr./ Mr./ Ms

Thank you for the time you have taken to review my manuscript. Your feedback has been valuable. I have revised the manuscript further.