Podcasts Created by University Students: A Way to Improve Subject Understanding, Connection with Peers, and Academic Performance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.6 Where? What is the context? 

p.1.6 This sentence isn't correct. Please revise. 

p.1.8 The benefits for what exactly? 

p.1.10 It is unclear to what "this" refers to (in particular if you have two paragraphs in your abstract). The double "this" in the sentence doesn't work. 

p.1.10 Remove the enter here (make it one abstract).

p.1.24 Avoid the intensifier "very". This doesn't add anything relevant to your message.

p.1.34 "For some time now" = Rather vague. Can you rephrase? 

p.2.53 This doesn't follow logically. 

p.2.72 Please check the reference. It is a Spanish names and individuals often have two last names. 

p.2.75-80 The discussion about GenAI can be more used as an argument (currently it is not convincing). We will move to a future in which GenAI will be used for various purposes. Students will use it in education, regardless of the legitimacy of its use. As a result, teachers will look for more GenAI-proof assessments. Podcasts can be one of those options.

p.3 I do not understand the citation of these benefits. Write this in a more compelling way. Why does the reader need to know this? Why is this relevant? Just presenting bits of information one after the other isn't cutting it. 

p.3 In a similar vein, that also applies to the posible limitations. Use signalling words to guide the reader.

p.4.159 What specialized literature? What do you mean with that? 

p.5 If you are using a case study, please mention this in the title of your work. Otherwise readers aren't sufficiently informed. 

p.6.243-246 "At the second level, we separately consider the students of each of the degrees to which the activity participants belong. The objective at this level is to research whether the results of the effects of the proposed activity differ depending on the degree to which the student belongs." = I do not know what you mean with this. 

p.7 The font in table 2 is inconsistent. Please revise. In a similar vein, the foot note displays a different font. Please keep this consistent. 

The number of hypotheses is a bit much for a rather simple design. I think you are making thing more complex by deriving a hypothesis for each item. 

Please reformat table 4 (for the column names). I would also suggest to place the table in landscape orientation so all information is presented in one table rather than split up in two. 

What is the relevance of table 6? This can be presented in the appendix. 

Table 8 contains orange borders. I assume this will be turned into black? My comment about presenting the information in one table applies to this table as well. 

I would present the table in the Results section (not in the discussion section). This is probably a lay-out thing, but it is oddly presented. In particular because you have subheaders in the discussion. 

I would refrain re-iterating the percentages. You want a meaningful discussion (not a repetition of the results).

Ref. list: you use both a hyphen and en dash to separate the page numbers. This should be an en dash. I would also suggest to have all hyperlinks presented in the same colour. Some ref. do not have issue and volume numbers. Please check. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Reaching out to a Native English speaker is recommended as well. 

Author Response

Open Review R1

Reviewer 1’s Responses to Questions

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Reply: We have carefully considered the comments and we have sought the expertise of a native speaker to refine the linguistic accuracy and elevate the sophistication of the English employed in the text.

- Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 1´s approval.

- Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Can be improved

Reply: We are grateful for the feedback provided by Reviewer 1, which has led to the incorporation of an additional Materials and Methods section to further strengthen methodological rigor and transparency.

- Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved

Reply: We firmly believe that the arguments and discussion of the findings align coherently with the initial research framework established for the experiment presented in the article. Accordingly, the text has been refined to ensure greater clarity and precision, in addition to removing the first occurrence of '4. Discussion' and the paragraph that followed, which had been mistakenly retained due to the use of the Template file.

- For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Must be improved

Reply: We appreciate the feedback provided by Reviewer 1. The text in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 (Results) has been improved by reducing the continuous reference to percentages, which previously contributed to a tedious reading experience.

- Is the article adequately referenced? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 1´s approval.

- Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 1´s approval.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate all the questions and suggestions made by the reviewer 1, and we have tried to take them into account by making significant modifications to the paper. We hope this new version of the manuscript better aligns with your expectations.

p.1 6 Where? What is the context?

Reply: We completely agree with the reviewer and have changed the abstract. The expression "the beneficial effects" has been removed from the abstract because these effects are already detailed in the Introduction. In this case, its inclusion led to confusion due to insufficient supporting arguments, given the limited space of the abstract.

p.1 6 This sentence isn't correct. Please revise.

Reply: We completely agree with the reviewer and have changed the abstract. The beneficial effects are detailed in the Introduction.

p.1 8 The benefits for what exactly?

Reply: We have changed the abstract. The benefits are detailed in the Introduction.

p.1 10 It is unclear to what "this" refers to (in particular if you have two paragraphs in your abstract). The double "this" in the sentence doesn't work.

Reply: We appreciate the suggestion and have changed the abstract. The abstract now consists of a single paragraph and has been revised in a way that, in our opinion, clarifies the objective of the article more effectively.

p.1 10 Remove the enter here (make it one abstract).

Reply: We appreciate the suggestion and have incorporated it accordingly.

p.1 24 Avoid the intensifier "very". This doesn't add anything relevant to your message.

Reply: Upon considering your question, we became aware that the adverb 'very' was indeed unnecessary, and we have refined the paragraph where it appeared accordingly..

p.1 34 "For some time now" = Rather vague. Can you rephrase?

Reply: Indeed, that expression was too vague, and the paragraph in which it appeared has been rephrased accordingly.

p.2 53 This doesn't follow logically.

Reply: We have considered the suggestion and have modified the corresponding paragraph.

p.2 72 Please check the reference. It is a Spanish names and individuals often have two last names.

Reply: The referenced author signs with a single last name, as you can verify at the following link: www.igi-global.com/chapter/bridging-the-language-gap-with-emergent-technologies/242299.

p.2 75-80 The discussion about GenAI can be more used as an argument (currently it is not convincing). We will move to a future in which GenAI will be used for various purposes. Students will use it in education, regardless of the legitimacy of its use. As a result, teachers will look for more GenAI-proof assessments. Podcasts can be one of those options.

Reply: As artificial intelligence is not within the scope of this article, and since we agree with you that its future and its impact on podcast usage remain uncertain, we have considered it more appropriate to remove these comments from the article.

p.3 I do not understand the citation of these benefits. Write this in a more compelling way. Why does the reader need to know this? Why is this relevant? Just presenting bits of information one after the other isn't cutting it.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have made an effort to provide a new formulation of the benefits and limitations of podcast usage, establishing a categorization of them and highlighting the most relevant references for each. We believe this approach helps to contextualize why this audio tool is used in educational settings and aids in understanding the lack of research on this topic, particularly in cases where the student is responsible for its structure, content, and final production.

p.3 In a similar vein, that also applies to the posible limitations. Use signalling words to guide the reader.

Reply: The paragraph addressing the limitations of using podcasts in the classroom has also been rephrased to streamline the Introduction.

p.4 159 What specialized literature? What do you mean with that?

We fully agree with the reviewer and have removed the term 'specialized'. The entire text has been thoroughly reviewed and rewritten, taking into account the considerations and comments of the reviewers.

p.5 If you are using a case study, please mention this in the title of your work. Otherwise readers aren't sufficiently informed.

Reply: The phrase 'A Case Study' is not included in the title to avoid methodological confusion. In the revised version of the article, the Materials and Methods section now explains that this research follows a quasi-experimental design and describes the context in which it was conducted.

p.6 243-246 "At the second level, we separately consider the students of each of the degrees to which the activity participants belong. The objective at this level is to research whether the results of the effects of the proposed activity differ depending on the degree to which the student belongs." = I do not know what you mean with this.

Reply: Given that the tourism degree is not directly related to teaching, whereas the pedagogy degree prepares future educators, it is important to assess whether the results obtained differ between these two groups of students. The text has been revised to include an explanation that helps the reader better understand this second level of analysis.

p.7 The font in table 2 is inconsistent. Please revise. In a similar vein, the foot note displays a different font. Please keep this consistent.

Reply: We appreciate the comment and have reviewed all the tables and their fonts to ensure they comply with the guidelines outlined in the journal's Template.

The number of hypotheses is a bit much for a rather simple design. I think you are making thing more complex by deriving a hypothesis for each item.

Reply: It is true that the number of hypotheses may seem high for the small-scale study conducted. However, despite the list of specific hypotheses included in what is now Table 1, there are only three fundamental types of hypotheses, which are subsequently disaggregated to enhance their precision and refutability.

Please reformat table 4 (for the column names). I would also suggest to place the table in landscape orientation so all information is presented in one table rather than split up in two.

Reply: We completely agree with the reviewer and have changed the format of Table 4.

What is the relevance of table 6? This can be presented in the appendix.

Reply: The relevance of this table lies in its contribution to understanding the results obtained. Although a Likert scale (1-7) was used, the results do not include individual comments for all 7 values, but rather for the recoding that was ultimately applied. We believe that excluding this table could make the interpretation of the results more confusing. However, in line with the reviewer's suggestion, we have decided to include it in Appendix (A.2), and all tables in the text have been renumbered accordingly.

Table 8 contains orange borders. I assume this will be turned into black? My comment about presenting the information in one table applies to this table as well.

Reply: In Table 8 (now Table 7 in the results section), the orange borders that previously appeared have been modified. Unfortunately, on this occasion (unlike Table 4), it was not possible to present all the information in a single table with a landscape orientation. However, we believe its appearance has improved significantly.

I would present the table in the Results section (not in the discussion section). This is probably a lay-out thing, but it is oddly presented. In particular because you have subheaders in the discussion.

Reply: We completely agree with the reviewer and have included the Table in the results section (now Table 7). We kindly apologize for this error in the text layout.

I would refrain re-iterating the percentages. You want a meaningful discussion (not a repetition of the results).

Reply: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion and have revised the results section, removing some references to percentages drawn from the tables, and aiming to present and discuss the results in a clearer and more precise way.

Ref. list: you use both a hyphen and en dash to separate the page numbers. This should be an en dash. I would also suggest to have all hyperlinks presented in the same colour. Some ref. do not have issue and volume numbers. Please check.

Reply: We have significantly revised the reference list and have made an effort to incorporate the suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

This article addresses an innovative approach to teaching by using student-created podcasts, which enhances engagement and practical learning. The research methodology is clear, with detailed hypotheses and statistical analysis. Results provide actionable insights into how different academic disciplines perceive podcasting. 

Suggestions:
More recent studies to locate findings using podcasting in education might have been included. 
Sample size is small and no suggestions for future research are found.

 

Author Response

Open Review R2

Reviewer 2’s Responses to Questions

Quality of English Language

(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 2´s approval. Nevertheless, we have revised the article and made efforts to improve the language editing of the manuscript.

- Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 2´s approval.

- Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 2´s approval.

- Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 2´s approval.

- For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Can be improved

Reply: We appreciate the feedback provided by Reviewer 2. The text in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 (Results) has been improved by reducing the continuous reference to percentages, which previously contributed to a tedious reading experience.

- Is the article adequately referenced? Can be improved

Reply: We appreciate the feedback provided by Reviewer 2. The bibliographic references included in the text have been reviewed, and five new, more recent references related to the use of podcasts in higher education have been incorporated.

- Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 2´s approval.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate the comments and suggestions made by the reviewer 2. We have tried to take them into account by making significant modifications to the paper. We hope this new version of the manuscript better aligns with your expectations.

 

This article addresses an innovative approach to teaching by using student-created podcasts, which enhances engagement and practical learning. The research methodology is clear, with detailed hypotheses and statistical analysis. Results provide actionable insights into how different academic disciplines perceive podcasting

Reply: We greatly appreciate the comments regarding the article's innovative approach, as well as the research methodology and results.

 More recent studies to locate findings using podcasting in education might have been included. Sample size is small and no suggestions for future research are found.

Reply: We appreciate the suggestion and have included new and recent references on the use of podcasts in education to provide a more comprehensive overview of current research trends and enhance the understanding of our study.

Regarding the sample size, The records used in this experiment are not the result of a random selection of individuals from a population; rather, they encompass the records of all individuals within the studied population. In the newly added Section 2, dedicated to Materials and Methods, an effort has been made to present all aspects related to the experiment more clearly.

Finally, we have taken your last comment into account and have outlined future research directions based on the limitations of the experiment conducted. We hope this revised version of the manuscript meets your expectations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is weak in terms of coherence. For example, the list of the benefits given in the introduction hinders the readability. They should be integrated in discussion of literature given in a coherently and cohesively organized paragraphs.

The method section is weak. There is no clear and sufficient information on the data collection tools and methods. The scientific procedures, along with the measures taken for reliability and validity, are not explained. And the statistical tests conducted are not justified. The results are also given in a confusing way lacking reliability and clarity.  

Having section 4. Discussion and another section 5. Discussion is confusing. Why are there two different discussion section, which include mostly repetitive information? And, Why would some of the results be introduced under Discussion section? 

What is the reason for providing Appendix A.1 Non-parametric test proposed on the median for each item?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript displays many errors of language use. It should be revised in terms of improving the language use and the writing quality.

Author Response

Open Review R3

Reviewer 3’s Responses to Questions

Quality of English Language

(x) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research

Reply: We have carefully considered the comments and we have sought the expertise of a native speaker to refine the linguistic accuracy and elevate the sophistication of the English employed in the text. 

- Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? Must be improved

Reply: We appreciate the feedback provided by Reviewer 3. Section 1, Introduction, has been revised to achieve greater conciseness, thereby enhancing the contextualization of the study’s objective within both the existing and prior literature. This refinement ensures a more precise articulation of the research aims and the rationale underlying the experiment conducted.nd hope that the new version of the manuscript is more in line with your expectations.

- Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? Must be improved

Reply: We are grateful for the feedback provided by Reviewer 3, which has led to the incorporation of an additional Materials and Methods section to further strengthen methodological rigor and transparency.

- Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Must be improved

Reply: We firmly believe that the arguments and discussion of the findings align coherently with the initial research framework established for the experiment presented in the article. Accordingly, the text has been refined to ensure greater clarity and precision, in addition to removing the first occurrence of '4. Discussion' and the paragraph that followed, which had been mistakenly retained due to the use of the Template file.

- For empirical research, are the results clearly presented? Can be improved

Reply: We appreciate the feedback provided by Reviewer 3. The text in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 (Results) has been improved by reducing the continuous reference to percentages, which previously contributed to a tedious reading experience.

- Is the article adequately referenced? Can be improved

Reply: We appreciate the feedback provided by Reviewer 2. The bibliographic references included in the text have been reviewed, and five new, more recent references related to the use of podcasts in higher education have been incorporated.

- Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Yes

Reply: We appreciate Reviewer 3´s approval.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate all the questions and suggestions made by the reviewer 3, and we have tried to take them into account by making significant modifications to the paper. We hope this new version of the manuscript better aligns with your expectations.

The manuscript is weak in terms of coherence. For example, the list of the benefits given in the introduction hinders the readability. They should be integrated in discussion of literature given in a coherently and cohesively organized paragraphs.

Reply: We appreciate the suggestion and have changed the Introduction Section. We have re-explained the benefits derived from using podcasts as an educational tool, with the intention of clarifying what has been done and what remains to be done in the research on this tool, particularly when it is the student who designs and creates it.

The method section is weak. There is no clear and sufficient information on the data collection tools and methods. The scientific procedures, along with the measures taken for reliability and validity, are not explained. And the statistical tests conducted are not justified. The results are also given in a confusing way lacking reliability and clarity.

Reply: We have restructured Section 2. The newly added Section 2, dedicated to Materials and Methods, delineates the research context, study design, data collection methods, and the procedures employed to derive the results.

Having section 4. Discussion and another section 5. Discussion is confusing. Why are there two different discussion section, which include mostly repetitive information? And, Why would some of the results be introduced under Discussion section?

Reply: We fully acknowledge the reviewer’s observations and sincerely apologize for the layout errors. The text in Sections 4 (Discussion) and 5 (Conclusions) has been thoroughly revised to enhance clarity and precision. Additionally, the first occurrence of '4. Discussion' and the subsequent paragraph, which had been inadvertently retained due to the use of the template file, have been removed.

 What is the reason for providing Appendix A.1 Non-parametric test proposed on the median for each item?

Reply: The reason is provided in Section 2.5 (Data processing and statistical analysis) of the revised version of the article. The reason is that hypothesis testing for the median of a random variable is typically conducted under the assumption that the variable is continuous. However, in the case under study, the random variable corresponding to an item measured on a Likert scale is discrete. Therefore, although the extension from the conventional case is straightforward, it has been deemed appropriate to explicitly explain the process of deriving the critical region in these specific cases. This ensures that a reader without specialized knowledge in statistics can fully understand how the hypothesis test is being conducted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript displays many errors of language use. It should be revised in terms of improving the language use and the writing quality.

Reply: As indicated, we have carefully considered the comments and we have sought the expertise of a native speaker to refine the linguistic accuracy and elevate the sophistication of the English employed in the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you kindly for the rigorous revisions. The implementation of feedback seems to be thorough. 

p.3.97 I would avoid a construction with "among others". In addition, with listing those references, you do not need to use "and" in between references. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Tha manuscript still requires improvement in terms of coherence and the explanations of methodological procedures followed.