A Long-Life Predictive Guidance with Homogeneous Competence Promotion for University Teaching Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should be more informative, presenting in more detail the tool and its use.   "Following Heraclitus quote that you cannot step twice into the same river, it can be said that no teacher lectures twice the same students (at least not all of them)." I do not understand the connection with Heraclitus quote to this study. Also, in many cases, the teacher does lecture the same students more then once.   What is meant by pedagogical optimally (line 30)?   The manuscript could be elaborated with the open-loop and closed-loop design context.   The aim of the study should be rephrased to be more concrete.   The figure texts should be much more informative.   Overall, the sections 3 and 4 are heavy to read. The manuscript would benefit of reorganization to have the tool details and results easily accessible.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the reply to reviewers.

Thank so much for your efforts and my best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work presented is very good, the predictive tool shown can help more than one teacher to make recommendations for appropriate activities to avoid the exclusion of students. 

My recommendations are the following:

 

Include a literature review on the exposed problem, also should be placed the works that do something similar to your research and how your tool differs from others. 

It seems to be an experimental methodology, although I would recommend you review the Design Science Research (DSR) methodology and review the article (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352101287_Exploring_the_technological_acceptance_of_a_mobile_learning_tool_used_in_the_teaching_of_an_indigenous_language).

It would also be necessary for the research to answer one or more research questions. 

On the other hand, in the introduction, there is no reference to the list in lines 41- 53, why do they list those activities as ideal? who says so? why those activities and not others?

There are also missing references to many statements made in lines 55 - 92; 128 - 145.

 

On the other hand, the results are interesting but lack a discussion. It is important to compare the results with other results obtained in other initiatives that have the same objective in the educational field. 

Finally, they should include some future work based on their results or on the application of the proposed tool.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find attached the reply to reviewers.

Thank so much for your efforts and my best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revisions in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

the authors have answered all questions and included several suggestions in their final article.