How Do K–12 Students’ Perceptions of Online Learning Environments Affect Their Online Learning Engagement? Evidence from China’s COVID-19 School Closure Period

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excelent study, probably the best I have read as a reviewer for this journal. I have only minor points for consideration or editing:

1. How is the Gender of the respondents known? Is there no one with a gender other than Male/Female in such a sample? Isn't "gender" and "sex" being confused here?

2. Figure 1 is unclear at all - I would consider whether it could be made differently so it is understandable. For example, what does the black hemisphere by the box with "Student engagement" mean?

3. I would avoid "for example" in the text; this does not belong in a professional study, and in none of the occurrences does this statement have any specifically needed place.

4. To identify the research gap, I would point out that the research is representative of the data in China; it cannot be completely generalized.

5. I would consider adding a conclusion to the paper, briefly summarizing the content of the paper and critical findings. I think this is a convenient guide for the reader.

6. You are writing for the magazine Sustainability - I recommend to somehow linking and framing the topic with this phenomenon. Otherwise, it is unclear to me why the study is not aimed at a journal with a psychological or pedagogical focus.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The research presented is interesting and adds value to the literature in the field. I have to recognize that I was surprised to see that not much has been done on K-12 students, and more on students.

Please find below a few recommendations/issues to be considered:

-The year of data collection is missing

-Line 252 – not sure “subsequently” is the right word unless the internal consistency and other indicators were checked using other software.

-Recommend to change the title of subsection 4.1.1. – for example: Reliability and validity – because the section does not present all descriptive stats of the variables

-Same for section 4.2 it is more correct to entitle it: “Student engagement by demographic variables” or something similar because the table indicates this and not demographic statistics.

-In Table 2 please explain why was F value reported. What was tested exactly? IF differences among gender for each variable then please revise what test is appropriate for such a case.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I commend you for the subject matter and the work you present.

The title is coherent and reflects the idea of the research you are proposing.

The introduction is correct.

The literature review is quite complete, I recommend the inclusion of these two papers related to COVID-19 and education: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105452

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030183


With respect to the model presented for the study of the variables proposed, I believe that the hypotheses should predict one or several research objectives that would be specified in the hypotheses presented.

Regarding the hypotheses, the division of the 4 hypotheses into sub-hypotheses is not clear to me, with the figure they offer it is more than clear how the study model is structured, so it is not necessary to subdivide it, rather it is to add them with their own entity.

Regarding the results, I only have to comment that in table 2 and 3 the *** do not appear at the bottom of the table. As for the rest, I see that the necessary analyses have been carried out correctly.

I miss a section dedicated to the conclusions.

Congratulations on your work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf