Online Professional Learning in Response to COVID-19—Towards Robust Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current work has significance and should be published. I have three recommendations to be improved the readability of this study. The first, is to be strengthen the problem statement in the introduction. Moreover, some questions and purposes should be provided in the end. Second, I would suggest having information in regard to participants’ socio-cognitive background. Third, some limitations their consequences in the study need to be provided.

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have attached the pdf with highlights to show where some attention needs to be given to the use of language/typos. I'm not sure the graphs are necessary on page 9 when you provide detailed text about this data. Unless, perhaps you could put them all into one succinct graph. In your analysis of the data make sure you stay in the same tense and avoid using We - unless you are going to do it consistently.

Section 5.2 starts with information that I feel you have told us multiple times before. At this stage, I am wondering if your paper is about the survey data in relation to the participants or if it is about the eb=valuation model. The two ideas have become confused.

Going back to the abstract you state that you are reflecting upon the efficacy of workshop evaluation approaches. This in itself is quite interesting. But when you apply it to your one workshop with 28 participants it raises questions about why you would go to so much trouble when what you discussed could come out of simply getting them to fill in a survey. However, your idea at the end about using the same process again in another iteration of the workshop would provide some interesting comparisons.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 "Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf