The Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Remote Learning in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

line 235-236 - it is not very clear what you mean

line 237 - between with - not understandable

line 253-260, 282-292, 307-311 - there should be a title for the figure and all the explanations put in a new paragraph

line 322 - active methodology learning strategies - difficult  to understand what you mean, I can only assume

line 356, 382 - it is not very clear what you mean, probably some words are missing

Although I can infer the hypothesis, they should be stated in the study.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the reviewers’ responses to our case report entitled “The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in remote learning in higher education.” The revisions were important to present the findings in a clear and concise form and, at the same time, discussing them in a broader perspective. Not only we included the recommended suggestions but also responded to the reviewers’ questions on the rebuttal letter. The revisions were interesting, allowing a better integration of our findings with previous reports, and for us it is of great importance to be able to share these discussions in this journal edition. Original reviewer comments are in blue text, our responses are in black text, and indications for where the manuscript has been subsequently altered are highlighted in yellow. We sincerely hope that the manuscript meets the criteria of approval and can add to the discussion of the pandemic impact in mental health in the learning context.

line 235-236 - it is not very clear what you mean

We elaborated the sentence a bit more – please see below:

"Therefore, although not all students answered the same number of pairs of questions during this study (i.e., some students did not participate in all study modules), the proportion of correct and incorrect answers were consistent in all four study modules."

line 237 - between with - not understandable

We removed the word “with”

line 253-260, 282-292, 307-311 - there should be a title for the figure and all the explanations put in a new paragraph.

Authors are thankful for the corrections and titles were included in legends in bold, as indicated:

“Figure 1. Correct and Incorrect answers in study modules.”

“Figure 2. Profile of students’ performance in pairs of multiple-choice questions according to GAD-7 and WSAS scores.”

“Figure 3. Profile of students’ performance in pairs of multiple-choice questions according to GAD-7 and WSAS scores.”

line 322 - active methodology learning strategies - difficult  to understand what you mean, I can only assume

Thanks for this observation - we elaborated the sentence a bit more to make it clear to the reader:

“According to students' perception of learning strategies, it is probable that the use of active learning strategies (i.e., the teaching method, the use of multiple-choice questions, and the synchronous online lectures) was able to encourage students’ engagement. Different from the passive learning approach, active learning strategies are likely to contribute positively to remote teaching.”

line 356, 382 - it is not very clear what you mean, probably some words are missing

We completely agree and appreciate the suggestion. The mentioned paragraphs were restructured in a more concise and clear fashion as indicated below:

"Functional impairment is often considered in tandem with anxiety during clinical assessment. Despite the multidimensional nature of the first, it is argued that GAD-7 seems to be more deeply related to the social dysfunction dimension [18]. However, extreme higher scores on the GAD-7 scale may be related to a decline in overall functional status [11]. Surprisingly, most of the participants reported they have never been diagnosed with anxiety disorder in our study, and healthy controls usually present low scores on these scales [19]."

"Even though most students learned despite the high dysfunctionality, lower GAD-7 scores were associated with better learning performance in pairs of multiple-choice questions. We also found a negative correlation between WSAS scores and the percentage of pairs of pre- and post-tests that were changed from incorrect to correct. Taken together, our data suggest a negative association between anxiety-related psychological distress and students' ability to learn new content. Therefore, this data highlights the need to investigate the impact of anxiety and dysfunctionality on students' learning during remote teaching."

Although I can infer the hypothesis, they should be stated in the study.

Please, have a look at the last paragraph of the introduction:

"The main objective of this study was to determine whether high levels of anxiety and functional impairment impact students' learning performance in remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our first aim was to assess the impact of psychological distress and anxiety on students' performance in pairs of pre- and post-classes multiple-choice questions. To test the working hypothesis that students with high levels of psychological distress and anxiety would have a negative performance during remote learning, we correlated changes from an incorrect to a correct answer to pairs of pre- and post-tests with psychometric instruments that measure functional impairment (Work and Social Adjustment scale; WSAS), generalized anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale; GAD-7), and coronavirus anxiety (Brazilian adapted version of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale; CAS-BR). Our second aim was to perform a qualitative analysis on protective factors that were likely to contribute to effective learning in the context of remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed students' perceptions of learning strategies to test the hypothesis that active methodologies can overcome dysfunctional and anxiogenic states to favor the learning process."

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has some merit, but it needs some rewriting.
The structure of the paper has an introduction, but no section on literature review. It has some review, but in the introduction. In my opinion they should be different sections (although this may depend on an editorial decision).
The research presents a methodology, but lacks a structure of objectives (general and specific) or research questions/propositions. This structure is easy to elaborate, as it is implicit in the investigated elements.
The conclusion is very short (one paragraph). It should be expanded to respond to the objectives or the questions or propositions to be elaborated.

Author Response

We deeply appreciate the reviewers’ responses to our case report entitled “The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in remote learning in higher education.” The revisions were important to present the findings in a clear and concise form and, at the same time, discussing them in a broader perspective. Not only we included the recommended suggestions but also responded to the reviewers’ questions on the rebuttal letter. The revisions were interesting, allowing a better integration of our findings with previous reports, and for us it is of great importance to be able to share these discussions in this journal edition. Original reviewer comments are in blue text, our responses are in black text, and indications for where the manuscript has been subsequently altered are highlighted in yellow. We sincerely hope that the manuscript meets the criteria of approval and can add to the discussion of the pandemic impact in mental health in the learning context.

The paper has some merit, but it needs some rewriting

We sincerely appreciate the comments, and all suggestions were included in the revised manuscript.

The structure of the paper has an introduction, but no section on literature review. It has some review, but in the introduction. In my opinion they should be different sections (although this may depend on an editorial decision).

Authors understand and agree with the reviewer suggestion on including a brief background in a form of literature review at the discussion section. To address the reviewer suggestion, we moved paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 from the introduction to the discussion. We also expanded some sections of our discussion and all changes are highlighted in the revised article.

The research presents a methodology, but lacks a structure of objectives (general and specific) or research questions/propositions. This structure is easy to elaborate, as it is implicit in the investigated elements. 

We wrote a new paragraph and added it to the end of the introduction section:

"The main objective of this study was to determine whether high levels of anxiety and functional impairment impact students' learning performance in remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our first aim was to assess the impact of psychological distress and anxiety on students' performance in pairs of pre- and post-classes multiple-choice questions. To test the working hypothesis that students with high levels of psychological distress and anxiety would have a negative performance during remote learning, we correlated changes from an incorrect to a correct answer to pairs of pre- and post-tests with psychometric instruments that measure functional impairment (Work and Social Adjustment scale; WSAS), generalized anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale; GAD-7), and coronavirus anxiety (Brazilian adapted version of the Coronavirus Anxiety Scale; CAS-BR). Our second aim was to perform a qualitative analysis on protective factors that were likely to contribute to effective learning in the context of remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed students' perceptions of learning strategies to test the hypothesis that active methodologies can overcome dysfunctional and anxiogenic states to favor the learning process."

The conclusion is very short (one paragraph). It should be expanded to respond to the objectives or the questions or propositions to be elaborated.

Thanks - we organized a more elaborated conclusion:

"In conclusion, psychometric measures of generalized anxiety and functional impairment were associated with lower performance in measures of learning. Therefore, the data presented here highlight the need for college institutions to investigate how psychometric instruments relate to learning in disruptive situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic as part of the remote-learning curriculum. Furthermore, according to students' perception of learning strategies, we conclude that active learning strategies could support students and promote psychological protection in adverse contexts. Even teachers who already used online environments in their practices had to abruptly adapt to the new teaching context with the advent of emergency remote education [40]. Thus, there is a need for a more in-depth discussion on teacher training and the role of pedagogical practices for remote education. On the other hand, new contexts and necessities in education generate learning communities that facilitate and perpetuate learning. Interaction and collaboration between educators and learners must occur in a dynamic, flexible, and adaptable fashion."

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report