Bringing Out-of-School Learning into the Classroom: Self- versus Peer-Monitoring of Learning Behaviour
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Interesting topic and good to see this topic which is able to provide practical applications to secondary schools. Very bold abstract to suggest that your research is one of the first.
"We intended to waken the interest of both genders by the
124 multitude of diverse experiences within our learning environment."
This suggested that there's a certain presumption made of the different genders, do you meant different gender has a different degree of interest level on the topic?
Not much discussion and not much focus were made on gender in this paper.
Overall, a very good paper.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
thank you for your positive feedback and your constructive comments. In order to make my changes transparent, I have noted your remarks on the respective changes directly in the text in the comment mode (marked your comments with 1.1., 1.2. …). In addition I described the changes directly below your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript represents an attempt to investigate the degree of structure to support and promote students` learning engagement and improve academic performance. There is little literature exploring how to balance between external control and students` autonomy in semi-formal learning environments. Although I find the topic of potential interest and worth investigating, several important aspects need to be considered by the Authors to make this manuscript publishable. Hence, I am outlining my concerns below.
Introduction
- lines 24-26: The introduction starts with 3 lines of text taken from an article dated in 2008. Although I see the idea still valid, a more recent citation would better support the need for such an article.
The aim of the article should be visible at the end of the introduction (following line 52) to better guide the reader in the theoretical framework.
- lines 77-78: I suggest defining these concepts before introducing the objective.
- lines 84-88: The relevance of SDT is somehow implicit and I suggest better explaining the need to use this theory to support the research objective. The same for engagement.
- lines 93-94: the sentence lacks the predicate
I also found the review of the previous literature incomplete. More specifically, I have not seen the previous results on the relationship between monitoring and learning outcomes (either cognitive or emotional) or the learning behaviors in students of different ages or at least the age of participants in the current study. Also, related to my previous point, it would be useful to provide a review of the most recent (there are only two references from 2010 and 2019) and relevant research on self and peer monitoring, cognitive achievements, intrinsic motivation and learning emotions, student learning engagement.
Without this clarification, the current study’s contribution to the literature remains quite unclear and difficult to ascertain.
Method
- Even though a lot of details about participants are provided, a Participants section is missing. A cleared presentation of the three study groups would help. How many participants were in the control group? The mean age in each group should be added as well.
- Figure 1. - there are two identical groups. As I understood, one group is “the self-monitored group”
- Lines 211 – 218: Psychometrical instruments – please provide one item from each instrument.
Results
- The decision to run nonparametric tests to analyze the data should be explained.
- The results presented in this section are sometimes difficult to follow. For instance, lines 232-237: it is unclear to me the title: 1. Control versus treatment. As I understood, the results refer to testing the within-group difference in the control group.
Discussion
- Start the discussion by reiterating the objective of the study
- Besides this, the Discussion is a reflection of the findings presented in the current study
- I am missing a section regarding the limitations of the current study and an outline of future research venues.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
thank you for the time and energy that you have invested in the article and your constructive comments. I have tried to implement them and I think that the article has benefited a lot. I have also tried to implement your structural remarks and have changed the arrangement of several passages. Unfortunately this made the display within the correction mode very overloaded. In order to make my changes transparent, I have noted your remarks on the respective changes directly in the text in the comment mode (marked your comments with 2.1., 2.2. …) In addition I described the changes directly below your comments. I would like to ask you for feedback in case certain changes are not comprehensible.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors:
thank you for your interesting manuscript.
It is a relevant study.
Here are some suggestion and remarks:
. in the summary: put the 1st sentence as the final sentence. The 1st sentence should show why the study is relevant (framework).
. lines 77-78: "We propose peer-monitoring of students` activities as an instructional guidance within semi-formal learning environments and compared it with self-monitoring. "; I suggest that this sentence be included in sub-section 1.4.
. Sub-section 1.4 needs to be rewritten. How it is written is theoretical framework. I suggest writing clearly the research question(s) and/or objectives of the study.
We read in section 5: "5.1. Bringing science centers into school by the combination of mobile exhibits with workbook guidance" and "5.2. Peer-monitoring`s effectiveness for students` engagement". This can only be related to sub-section 1.4. I hope I have been clear in my reasoning for the suggested improvement to this sub-section, because as you have written this subsection, it devalues this research.
. Line 111: "existing syllabus"- specify.
. Line 123-124: "We intended to waken the interest of both genders by the multitude of diverse experiences within our learning environment. I suggest that this sentence be included in sub-section 1.4.
. I suggest including a sub-section "Limitations and Recommendations”.
REW
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
thank you for the time and energy that you have invested in the article and your constructive comments. I have tried to implement them and I think that the article has benefited a lot. I have also tried to implement your structural remarks and have changed the arrangement of several passages. Unfortunately this made the display within the correction mode very overloaded. In order to make my changes transparent, I have noted your remarks on the respective changes directly in the text in the comment mode (marked your comments with 3.1., 3.2. …) In addition I described the changes directly below your comments. I would like to ask you for feedback in case certain changes are not comprehensible.
Thank you!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
