Automatic Generation of Moodle Cloze Questions for the Assessment of Knowledge About Lexical Analysis Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research titled „Automatic generation of Moodle cloze questions for the assessment of knowledge about lexical analysis algorithms“ presents a tool that solves Moodle quizzes problems allowing the automatic and massive generation of questions to evaluate the knowledge about lexical analysis algorithms. The paper is well presented, and structured and analyze an issue of topical importance in the knowledge area. All the arguments and discussion of findings are coherent, balanced, and compelling. One of the excellent contributions of the research along with the developed algorithm is the implementation of the students' Self-assessment. There are some recommendations that the authors should pay attention to towards the manuscript improvement. No research limitation has been set. It is not clear, how competencies can be assessed. The authors should give more details about the future development of the tool. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is generally well-written; however, the methodology section needs significant revision as the flow is difficult to follow. The methodology should also include details about the experimental setup or procedure, such as information on the respondents and how the experiment was conducted. Additionally, the explanation of the regular expression method is insufficient and requires more detail to enhance understanding and reproducibility.

The results indicating time savings lack clarity, as there is no detailed discussion on the exact amount of time saved using the application or the specific context in which these savings occur. Additionally, the negative result presented is not sufficiently justified or explained. The discussion should be more thorough, addressing possible reasons for the negative outcome and the contributing factors. Test case results should also be included to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

The related work section is well-prepared. However, the references are mostly outdated, with only one source from 2020 or later. More recent references should be incorporated to improve the paper’s relevance.

Additionally, the manuscript should be checked for spelling and grammatical errors to ensure clarity and professionalism.

Ethical approval is needed for the participation of student in the research and need to be stated in methodology phase.

Lastly, the paper does not include a conclusion summarizing the main contributions, limitations, and future directions of the work, which should be added.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf