The Past, Present, and Future of Clickers: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors of the document I have received. I would like to congratulate you on the work you have done and on the subject you have addressed. I would like to make a few comments in order to add to the value of your work.
I have missed, in the introduction, to reference or indicate some examples of Clickers (technological applications), as indicated by Kahoot, applied to different areas of knowledge, activities and methodologies. This would help to understand the subject.
On the other hand, the review methodology has been presented very succinctly, without specifying a review model (e.g. NECIR, PRISMA or Equator Network). Furthermore, it is not indicated whether and how Boolean operators have been used to perform combinations between the defined search criteria. Moreover, research objectives, questions and hypotheses are not specified.
The coherence between the initial approach of the two forms or trends of clicker use and the results obtained is good, allowing a detailed view of the results to be obtained.
Therefore, the methodological part should be improved, as well as the presentation of the results (including a table or graph) and the conclusions.
Thank you very much for your work.
Author Response
Comment 1: I have missed, in the introduction, to reference or indicate some examples of Clickers (technological applications), as indicated by Kahoot, applied to different areas of knowledge, activities and methodologies. This would help to understand the subject.
Response 1: Thank you for this feedback. We have added a citation to an article by Wang and Tahir (2020) that provides a review of ways Kahoot! can be used for learning and applied to different areas of knowledge. We have also added some text in the Introduction section to hopefully better explain how clicker technologies are used in classrooms. These revisions are highlighted in the Introduction section and the References section.
Comment 2: The review methodology has been presented very succinctly, without specifying a review model (e.g. NECIR, PRISMA or Equator Network). Furthermore, it is not indicated whether and how Boolean operators have been used to perform combinations between the defined search criteria. Moreover, research objectives, questions and hypotheses are not specified.
Response 2: We have attempted to be more specific about the iterative nature of our literature search method. More specifically, we describe multiple search rounds and how additional rounds made possible additional combinations of keywords. We also heeded your advice and mentioned our use of Boolean operators. These revisions are highlighted in the Method section.
Comment 3: The methodological part should be improved, as well as the presentation of the results (including a table or graph) and the conclusions.
Response 3: In addition to our efforts to better explicate the review method (see Response 2), in Table 1 we provide a matrix depicting how our literature review research on clickers falls into four possible combinations of clicker technology and novel pedagogy.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccepted for publication, without the need for review.
Author Response
Comments 1: Accepted for publication, without the need for review.
Response 1: Much appreciated!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript undertakes a remarkable developmental historical task, analyzing the appearance of clickers in our pedagogical culture using qualitative methods. In agreement with the author's thoughts expressed in the introduction, the raised problem is undoubtedly famous, has serious references in the literature, and is beyond doubt relevant.
The second chapter (Materials and Methods) is relatively modest, but simultaneously, it is to the point where the author presents the analysis sources and search terms. The number of references in the literature is significant (116), and the references to the works are correct and strive for quality analysis. However, it should be noted that the first cited item in the manuscript (Honoa, 2020) was not identifiable to the reviewer.
The division of the manuscript and the use of subtitles should be indicated as formal criticism. The five-level decimal scoring makes it challenging to understand the processing of the information-rich technical reviews. In general, the three-level decimal numbering can make the division of a given manuscript sufficiently differentiated; in this case, it should be considered to reduce the number of levels by using the graphic highlights already used, for example, "bold." The result of the qualitative research, which also excitingly deals with the future, mainly from a methodological point of view, is reflected in the complex Table 1, which illustrates the development in the context of clicker types and pedagogical cultures, based on the analysis of the relevant literature of the last decade. This result of the author's work is undoubtedly worthy of recognition, and it can presumably be a significant reference for future research. Highlighting this value, however, after the relatively short Discussion, the absence of conclusions creates a feeling of missing. A fascinating question would be the present and future transition for a perspective proposal with research questions. Presumably, the dilemma of online compulsion and opportunity perceptible in the 2020s is also connected to the pedagogical use of clickers. This expansion of the final part of the study (mainly because the closing sentence of the abstract refers to it) could contribute significantly to the further implementation of the research work and the initiation of scientific debate on the topic.
Author Response
Comment 1: It should be noted that the first cited item in the manuscript (Honoa, 2020) was not identifiable to the reviewer.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The Hanoa (2020) citation has been fixed in the revised manuscript. We have also added a citation to an article by Wang and Tahir (2020) that provides a review of ways Kahoot! can be used for learning:
Wang, A. I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning–A literature review. Computers & Education, 149, 103818.
These revisions are highlighted in the Introduction section and the References section.
Comment 2: The division of the manuscript and the use of subtitles should be indicated as formal criticism. The five-level decimal scoring makes it challenging to understand the processing of the information-rich technical reviews. In general, the three-level decimal numbering can make the division of a given manuscript sufficiently differentiated; in this case, it should be considered to reduce the number of levels by using the graphic highlights already used, for example, "bold."
Response 2: We appreciate this feedback and have heeded your advice to use a combination of three-level decimal numbering and boldface font.
Comment 3: A fascinating question would be the present and future transition for a perspective proposal with research questions. Presumably, the dilemma of online compulsion and opportunity perceptible in the 2020s is also connected to the pedagogical use of clickers. This expansion of the final part of the study (mainly because the closing sentence of the abstract refers to it) could contribute significantly to the further implementation of the research work and the initiation of scientific debate on the topic.
Response 3: To your good point about the closing sentence of the abstract, in the Discussion section we have utilized some of the papers found in our literature review to suggest future research questions (see the highlighted text in the Discussion section). This includes the Fies and Marshall (2006) call for, instead of just comparing clicker classrooms to classrooms that don’t use clickers, researchers should compare classrooms that use clickers in different ways. We point to additional studies to make a case that future research questions should examine potential interaction effects between clicker use and gender and/or ethnicity.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has been improved. There are no further comments. Thanks to the author(s) for the improvements and the very interesting work they have done.
