Ergonomic Factors Affecting the Learning Motivation and Academic Attention of SHS Students in Distance Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

REPORT
Ergonomic Factors Affecting the Learning Motivation and Academic Attention of SHS Students in Distance Learning

COMMENTS:

·         First impressions when reading the introduction was that the information was originally from a thesis as there was so much that was not relevant to the title of the paper.  Critical editing is needed.

·         The Introduction lacks focus and is very long (10 pages).  It contains information that is not linked and does not flow from paragraph to paragraph.  New information may appear at random, and relevance is questionable.

·         Some information presented in the Introduction appears to be more appropriate for the discussion as it talks about the findings of the study.

·         Some paragraphs state the findings from a published paper but there is no link to the current study

Because there is so much information that appears randomly, it is difficult to make sense of what is being said.  For example:

·         There are four stated hypotheses, (lines 339, 383, 454, and 490) However, only one hypothesis is addressed (proven/unproven), that is Hypothesis 3, lines 700-703. Lines 790-799 then (after 2 pages) appear to suddenly introduce  hypotheses again but gives no indication whether the brief information is relevant to the remaining three hypotheses or all four.

·         Some errors are small and easily corrected but contribute to the muddle:  Line 156 states “The five ergonomic factors - cognitive, physical, environmental and social”. Only four are stated, what is the fifth, is it important? 

 OVERALL:

Considerable editing of length and removal of non-relevant information, linking information for coherence and correcting errors is required. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Strengths:

·      The investigation of ergonometric factors related to student motivation/attention is innovative.

·      Thorough lit review

·      Analyses are appropriate and clearly described.

 

 

 Recommendations:

·      Note the limitations of SEM as a causal design. Causality is described as “When the change in one thing—an independent variable—causes or, on average, leads to the change in an- other thing—a dependent variable—it is said to have a causal effect. However, in this SEM design no independent variables are being changed. Instead, variables are labeled as independent or dependent based on an priori conceptual framework, and then analysis is done to see if relationships in the data support the model. It may be true that results are consistent with this causal model, but these data might also be consistent with other causal models.

·      Page 13 notes, “After validating the study instruments . . .” How were the instruments validated? Items were drawn from prior research. What other work was done to validate the instruments? Note that validation checks of the results were part of the analyses.

·      It appears that the sample from Mapua University comprises more than half of the total sample. How might this be a limitation of the sampling, and influence the results?

·      Figure 1 appears to have a typo, listing H1 twice, and no H4.

·      Conventionally, methods and results should be described in past tense because the work has already been completed.

·      It appears that there is only one instrument, but the manuscript repeatedly revers to “instruments” plural.

 

·      Be careful about referring to the instrument as a questionnaire and then later as a survey. Use the same word consistently, to avoid confusion. Some readers might conclude that the questionnaire is a different instrument from the survey.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

REPORT
Ergonomic Factors Affecting the Learning Motivation and Academic Attention of SHS Students in Distance Learning

COMMENTS:

·         The revisions to the manuscript have improved the focus and flow and have resulted in a paper that is easy to read and understand.

·         Two minor points:

o   As you have observed abbreviations should be written in full the first time they are used, and this has been followed apart from:

Line 138 abbreviation LMS not in full (first time used)

o   Acknowledgements, Lines 637-643.  These are very personal and are usually included in a thesis.  However, I am not sure how appropriate these are for a journal article and acceptability by MDPI

 

·         An important point, Line 300:

o   Could you please explain how the study was validated

o   Could you please explain how the respondents were validated.

Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx