Predictors of the Effectiveness of Different Approaches to Pandemic Distance Learning
, Dana Buršíková, Jan Frank, Jindřich Lukavský, Pavel Masopust, Iva Motlíková, Lucie Rohlikova, Jan Slavík, Václav Stacke, Jana Vejvodová and Michaela VoltrováRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject of the paper “Towards a screening tool helping teachers to identify students endangered by distance learning ineffectiveness and to select appropriate teaching approach” is timely and valuable to the audience of the Educational Sciences. Researchers presented results building a performing a comprehensive survey on learning and teaching during pandemic time.
Overall, the paper is well structured, reads quite well, and covers the existing literature quite well. The analysis of the data is interesting and well documented. However, to my view, some minor amendments are required prior to publication.
I have concerns regarding the tile of the paper. Although the paper is a continuation of previous work from the Czech research team, the title suggested, and I was convinced before accepting to review, that it would be about a tool for screening the learning and teaching process. Yet, it is about the method and narrowing variables for the model. About the tool is one sentence in the last paragraph that is built. I suggest rewriting the title to reflect better what this paper is about.
Minor comments:
Line 259: Perhaps a missing letter in „conduc”
Line 525: I believe sentence is missing a verb.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments regarding our manuscript. We addressed these remarks as follows:
- the title of the manuscript was completely changed in order to better reflect the content presented. We agree with the reviewer that the screening tool is not the main point of the study despite the fact that presented modelling results are crucial for its further development.
- the manuscript was very carefully checked for grammatical and stylistic errors by an expert with substantial background in scientific writing and proofreading. Significant changes were done based on his suggestions.
Once again, many thank for the valuable feedback to our work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Grammatical errors were spotted from the beginning. I would urge the authors to send the document through a proof reading service. If MDPI do not have such a service, I would suggest: https://www.proof-reading.com
They have a very quick turn around time.
Further, additional references are needed in the introduction section. I would like to see double the amount of references when discussing intro background, lit. review type of sections.
Besides that interesting article and good job with the data.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her valuable comments regarding our manuscript. We addressed these remarks as follows:
- The manuscript was very carefully checked for grammatical and stylistic mistakes by an expert with substantial background in scientific writing and proofreading. Significant changes were done based on his suggestions.
- Seven additional references are included in the introduction of the new version of the manuscript. Please note that we focused especially on reviews and meta-analyses of the current literature in the previous version. In these overview articles, detailed information on many particular empirical studies relevant to this topic may be found. For these reasons, we do not feel necessary to include references to all these potentially relevant studies here.
Once again, many thanks for the valuable feedback to our work.
