Personalized Learning in Virtual Learning Environments Using Students’ Behavior Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
After reading and analyzing the article, I have nothing to say in terms of formality or even compliance with all the rules for writing and conducting a scientific investigation. The problem is that the central question of the article, that is, adapting the contents and activities to be carried out by the students to their predominant learning style, whatever the theory and model used, has not been confirmed by experimental research in cognitive psychology. There is a wide range of investigations, never mentioned in the article, about this "myth" that students learn better and have better results when teaching adapts to their different learning styles, determined by means of questionnaires and scales, embedded in certain theory about human learning.
I know what I'm talking about because I teach Developmental Psychology and Learning Psychology and I investigate in the domain of Instructional Design and Technology at the University of Lisbon.
Therefore, my problem with this article is its starting point, that is to say, the formulation of the problem (an important part of the logical dimension of an investigation or, as the great French mathematician Henri Poincaré said: with so many facts and phenomena that can be to be investigated, the most important thing is to know how to choose the correct facts and phenomena.
That is why I do not comment on the publication of this article, leaving this value judgment to the journal editor. I repeat: the article follows all the standard criteria of scientific writing and publication but starts from a false problem.
If you want to have an idea of the most conclusive results of research on learning styles and whether or not teaching should adapt to them, read: Urban Myths about Learning and Education; and More Urban Myths About Learning and Education, by Pedro De Bruuckere, Paul A. Kirschner and Carper Hulshof.
We wish you all the best
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors
The idea of your research is brilliant and you did a great work to introduce your argument. Although, there are some comments to improve the quality of this manuscript.
-The introduction is full of good ideas but the authors are advised to restructure these ideas (See lines 52-83, 84-105).
- The researchers are encouraged to present a hypothetical model for the research variables.
- What are the research questions? These questions will guide the results and the discussion.
- It is familiar to have statistical results and tables in the results section. Authors could move the tables of the discussion section to the results section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors now refer more prominently to the adaptation of activities to students, based on their interactions with the online teaching system. It seems to me the best way to develop adaptive systems and support students to solve their difficulties and improve their performance.
I am still reticent about adapting teaching based on learning styles (LS). These exist, but fundamental research tells us that there is no advantage in adapting teaching strategies after determining the students' SL.
But for me the article can be published.
