Co-Creating OERs in Computer Science Education to Foster Intrinsic Motivation

Change Log

Reviewer 1

Comment

Change made

1

However, a sample of only 3 students might not be representative - it is a rather small sample.

Agree. We acknowledge the concern regarding the small sample size. As this was a postgraduate Honours module with only three enrolled students, the sample reflects the full population of the course. We have added this contextual explanation in Section 2.3 and included a discussion of this limitation in Section 4.6.

2

The first paragraph of section 2.5 is not well organized - it is not clear, and identical sentences are repeated in the beginning and the end of the paragraph. 

Agree. The first paragraph of Section 2.5 has been revised to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. Repeated sentences were removed and the description of the IPA process was streamlined to present a coherent and concise explanation of the analysis method.

3

"An example of the coding process is included in Addendum B" is stated - there is no Addendum B in the submitted paper.

Agree. We apologise for the reference to Addendum B, which was mistakenly included. The sentence has been removed. The coding process is clearly described in the main text, and the addendum is available upon request should further detail be required, although we believe it is not essential for publication.

4

Section 4.3: "Students described how informal peer interactions played a significant role in shaping their thinking". Did the three students collaborate amongst themselves or did they collaborate with other students (not included in the set of participants)?

Agree. Section 4.3 has been updated to clarify that informal peer interactions occurred exclusively among the three participants, who represented the entire class cohort. This provides clearer context for the discussion of collaborative learning.

5

In terms of formatting, tables (unless very large) should be placed on a single page (not broken on two pages).

Agree. We acknowledge the formatting concern regarding the placement of tables. As the manuscript is still undergoing revisions, we will ensure that all tables are appropriately formatted to appear on a single page (where possible) during the final layout and copyediting stage.

The authors might also need to consult more related work.

Numerous additional sources were integrated throughout the manuscript to strengthen the theoretical foundation and situate the study within current literature on self-directed learning, intrinsic motivation, and renewable assessment. These additions enhance the rigour and relevance of the conceptual framework.

Reviewer 2

1

Beyond a few small corrections and suggestions, my main disappointment is that the sample is both small (n=3) and very specific (the capstone for an honors program) and thus it's difficult to judge how much the findings might generalize to larger courses, groups with more heterogenous motivation, or different phases of the academic career. 

Agree. We acknowledge the concern regarding the small sample size. As this was a postgraduate Honours module with only three enrolled students, the sample reflects the full population of the course. We have added this contextual explanation in Section 2.3 and included a discussion of this limitation in Section 4.6.

2

 I still find it makes a contribution, although it may benefit from somewhat more detailed discussion (ideally in the first portion of the manuscript) of some of the pedagogical scaffolds alluded to in section 4.4. 

Agree. A more comprehensive literature-based paragraph on SDL was added after line 76

3

There are some comments on my PDF on the thematic coding and descriptions that I think would be very helpful to address in clarifying the coding scheme

Agree. Comment to follow are from the Pdf

4

Ambiguous whether this references "critical pedagogy" or a key component of pedagogy. Consider using a different word to clarify and disambiguate.

Agree. We revised the phrase “a critical pedagogical component” in Section 1 to “an essential pedagogical feature” to avoid ambiguity with the term “critical pedagogy.”

5

There's a strong implication in the wording through the theory and methods sections that we assume the described activity DOES enhance intrinsic motivation and support SDL. Ideally, from a scientific perspective, even for a qualitative, constructivist, phenomenological study - we would want to take a step further back to ask "does it have the positive consequences we intended in designing the activity" and only then consider how.

Agree. We revised the abstract,  opening sentence of Section 2.2 to read: “To explore whether co-creating OERs as renewable assessments enhances students’ intrinsic motivation and supports self-directed learning (SDL), this study adopted a qualitative, phenomenological approach.”

6

Is the experience of those in this Honours programme likely to differ from the more general population of graduate students in Computer Science to which you are generalizing in your conclusions? If not, it's worth clarifying why the findings are likely to generalize. If so, the distinctive characteristics of the study population should be indicated as a potential limitation in the discussion. The same limitations may apply to the fact that this is a final project for their program and thus may not be replicable at other stages of a program.

Agree. A limitations paragraph was added in Section 4.6 to acknowledge the small and context-specific nature of the study. The revised section discusses the influence of the Honours-level capstone context, the small sample size, and the personalised learning environment on the findings. It also notes that these factors may limit generalisability and recommends future research with broader and more diverse samples to validate the outcomes in other educational settings.

7

You state that the purpose was not to generalize and then immediately state a research question that generalizes to "students... in Computer Science Education". Also, your study is not structured like a more observational, non-generalizing, observation so much as a qualitative study that is well-designed to generate some semi-generalizable insights. This is not the same as a study designed to draw a firm conclusion about a population, but you are repeatedly drawing inference beyond the study population to suggest that your study matters in a more general sense, and that's good.

Agree. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding potential overgeneralisation. By adding Section 4.5 to outline the study’s limitations, we hope to address this issue and clarify that our intention is to offer transferable insights rather than broad generalisations.

8

Three is a particularly small sample and limits the ability to draw conclusions from the study beyond the particular cohort.

Agree. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding potential overgeneralisation. By adding Section 4.5 to outline the study’s limitations, we hope to address this issue and clarify that our intention is to offer transferable insights rather than broad generalisations.

9

If this is part of the final project in a computer science education program for postgraduate students, why do none of them have any experience in computer science teaching? This section seems inconsistent with previous information.

Agree. In the South African context, the BEd is a four-year undergraduate teaching qualification. Students may enrol in the BEd Honours programme directly after completing their degree, without prior teaching experience. All participants in this study were full-time Honours students who had not yet taught in schools.

10

This paragraph repeats the first half almost verbatim within the second half. The two halves need to be consolidated.

Agree. The first paragraph of Section 2.5 has been revised to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. Repeated sentences were removed and the description of the IPA process was streamlined to present a coherent and concise explanation of the analysis method.

11

extra period at end of 1.3

Agree. Removed

12

Where are the thick contextual descriptions that support transferability? I would have assumed these would be part of the quotes in reporting your findings, otherwise they don't seem to support transferability by anyone but the research team.

Agree. The sentence on transferability in Section 2.6 was revised to emphasise the use of contextual detail about the setting, participants, and learning task. Together with the addition of Section 4.6 (Limitations), we hope this addresses the concern regarding the applicability of findings beyond the immediate study context.

13

The quote here is almost identical to that in 3.1.1, which seems to reflect some conceptual slippage where both have very similar content (for example 3.1.1's talk about motivation). It would be helpful to revise these sections to clarify how they differ (even if they do end up relying on the same quote).

Agree. Section 3.4.1 was revised to replace the overlapping quote with a paraphrased excerpt and a distinct motivational focus.

14

Each theme name here should be offset in the text in some way (for example by double quotes) to avoid the confusing possibility that these are 4 themes (not just 2) - and similar care should be taken elsewhere in the discussion.

Agree. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we formatted the theme names by using quotation marks to clearly distinguish them from surrounding text.

15

SDL also presents challenges that are less present in guided learning related to this topic - specifically in relation to long-term time management. It would be useful to have discussed (somewhere in the paper) any tools that were used to support long-term task management, particularly if they might be beneficial to neurodivergent individuals or others not in the (presumably somewhat select) group of high academic achievers in an honors program. Put differently, I'd like to better be able to judge how these findings are likely to generalize to a wider variety of classrooms beyond the somewhat-ideal circumstances described here.

Agree. In response to the reviewer’s comment on long-term time management and accessibility, we added a paragraph in Section 2.1 detailing the scaffolding tools used to support student time management during the OER task. This includes interim deadlines, check-ins, and design exemplars. We also noted in Section 4.5 that such scaffolds may help extend the findings’ relevance to a wider variety of learners, including those with executive functioning challenges.

Change Log

Reviewer 1

Comment

Change made

1

However, a sample of only 3 students might not be representative - it is a rather small sample.

Agree. We acknowledge the concern regarding the small sample size. As this was a postgraduate Honours module with only three enrolled students, the sample reflects the full population of the course. We have added this contextual explanation in Section 2.3 and included a discussion of this limitation in Section 4.6.

2

The first paragraph of section 2.5 is not well organized - it is not clear, and identical sentences are repeated in the beginning and the end of the paragraph. 

Agree. The first paragraph of Section 2.5 has been revised to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. Repeated sentences were removed and the description of the IPA process was streamlined to present a coherent and concise explanation of the analysis method.

3

"An example of the coding process is included in Addendum B" is stated - there is no Addendum B in the submitted paper.

Agree. We apologise for the reference to Addendum B, which was mistakenly included. The sentence has been removed. The coding process is clearly described in the main text, and the addendum is available upon request should further detail be required, although we believe it is not essential for publication.

4

Section 4.3: "Students described how informal peer interactions played a significant role in shaping their thinking". Did the three students collaborate amongst themselves or did they collaborate with other students (not included in the set of participants)?

Agree. Section 4.3 has been updated to clarify that informal peer interactions occurred exclusively among the three participants, who represented the entire class cohort. This provides clearer context for the discussion of collaborative learning.

5

In terms of formatting, tables (unless very large) should be placed on a single page (not broken on two pages).

Agree. We acknowledge the formatting concern regarding the placement of tables. As the manuscript is still undergoing revisions, we will ensure that all tables are appropriately formatted to appear on a single page (where possible) during the final layout and copyediting stage.

The authors might also need to consult more related work.

Numerous additional sources were integrated throughout the manuscript to strengthen the theoretical foundation and situate the study within current literature on self-directed learning, intrinsic motivation, and renewable assessment. These additions enhance the rigour and relevance of the conceptual framework.

Reviewer 2

1

Beyond a few small corrections and suggestions, my main disappointment is that the sample is both small (n=3) and very specific (the capstone for an honors program) and thus it's difficult to judge how much the findings might generalize to larger courses, groups with more heterogenous motivation, or different phases of the academic career. 

Agree. We acknowledge the concern regarding the small sample size. As this was a postgraduate Honours module with only three enrolled students, the sample reflects the full population of the course. We have added this contextual explanation in Section 2.3 and included a discussion of this limitation in Section 4.6.

2

 I still find it makes a contribution, although it may benefit from somewhat more detailed discussion (ideally in the first portion of the manuscript) of some of the pedagogical scaffolds alluded to in section 4.4. 

Agree. A more comprehensive literature-based paragraph on SDL was added after line 76

3

There are some comments on my PDF on the thematic coding and descriptions that I think would be very helpful to address in clarifying the coding scheme

Agree. Comment to follow are from the Pdf

4

Ambiguous whether this references "critical pedagogy" or a key component of pedagogy. Consider using a different word to clarify and disambiguate.

Agree. We revised the phrase “a critical pedagogical component” in Section 1 to “an essential pedagogical feature” to avoid ambiguity with the term “critical pedagogy.”

5

There's a strong implication in the wording through the theory and methods sections that we assume the described activity DOES enhance intrinsic motivation and support SDL. Ideally, from a scientific perspective, even for a qualitative, constructivist, phenomenological study - we would want to take a step further back to ask "does it have the positive consequences we intended in designing the activity" and only then consider how.

Agree. We revised the abstract,  opening sentence of Section 2.2 to read: “To explore whether co-creating OERs as renewable assessments enhances students’ intrinsic motivation and supports self-directed learning (SDL), this study adopted a qualitative, phenomenological approach.”

6

Is the experience of those in this Honours programme likely to differ from the more general population of graduate students in Computer Science to which you are generalizing in your conclusions? If not, it's worth clarifying why the findings are likely to generalize. If so, the distinctive characteristics of the study population should be indicated as a potential limitation in the discussion. The same limitations may apply to the fact that this is a final project for their program and thus may not be replicable at other stages of a program.

Agree. A limitations paragraph was added in Section 4.6 to acknowledge the small and context-specific nature of the study. The revised section discusses the influence of the Honours-level capstone context, the small sample size, and the personalised learning environment on the findings. It also notes that these factors may limit generalisability and recommends future research with broader and more diverse samples to validate the outcomes in other educational settings.

7

You state that the purpose was not to generalize and then immediately state a research question that generalizes to "students... in Computer Science Education". Also, your study is not structured like a more observational, non-generalizing, observation so much as a qualitative study that is well-designed to generate some semi-generalizable insights. This is not the same as a study designed to draw a firm conclusion about a population, but you are repeatedly drawing inference beyond the study population to suggest that your study matters in a more general sense, and that's good.

Agree. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding potential overgeneralisation. By adding Section 4.5 to outline the study’s limitations, we hope to address this issue and clarify that our intention is to offer transferable insights rather than broad generalisations.

8

Three is a particularly small sample and limits the ability to draw conclusions from the study beyond the particular cohort.

Agree. We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding potential overgeneralisation. By adding Section 4.5 to outline the study’s limitations, we hope to address this issue and clarify that our intention is to offer transferable insights rather than broad generalisations.

9

If this is part of the final project in a computer science education program for postgraduate students, why do none of them have any experience in computer science teaching? This section seems inconsistent with previous information.

Agree. In the South African context, the BEd is a four-year undergraduate teaching qualification. Students may enrol in the BEd Honours programme directly after completing their degree, without prior teaching experience. All participants in this study were full-time Honours students who had not yet taught in schools.

10

This paragraph repeats the first half almost verbatim within the second half. The two halves need to be consolidated.

Agree. The first paragraph of Section 2.5 has been revised to eliminate redundancy and improve clarity. Repeated sentences were removed and the description of the IPA process was streamlined to present a coherent and concise explanation of the analysis method.

11

extra period at end of 1.3

Agree. Removed

12

Where are the thick contextual descriptions that support transferability? I would have assumed these would be part of the quotes in reporting your findings, otherwise they don't seem to support transferability by anyone but the research team.

Agree. The sentence on transferability in Section 2.6 was revised to emphasise the use of contextual detail about the setting, participants, and learning task. Together with the addition of Section 4.6 (Limitations), we hope this addresses the concern regarding the applicability of findings beyond the immediate study context.

13

The quote here is almost identical to that in 3.1.1, which seems to reflect some conceptual slippage where both have very similar content (for example 3.1.1's talk about motivation). It would be helpful to revise these sections to clarify how they differ (even if they do end up relying on the same quote).

Agree. Section 3.4.1 was revised to replace the overlapping quote with a paraphrased excerpt and a distinct motivational focus.

14

Each theme name here should be offset in the text in some way (for example by double quotes) to avoid the confusing possibility that these are 4 themes (not just 2) - and similar care should be taken elsewhere in the discussion.

Agree. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we formatted the theme names by using quotation marks to clearly distinguish them from surrounding text.

15

SDL also presents challenges that are less present in guided learning related to this topic - specifically in relation to long-term time management. It would be useful to have discussed (somewhere in the paper) any tools that were used to support long-term task management, particularly if they might be beneficial to neurodivergent individuals or others not in the (presumably somewhat select) group of high academic achievers in an honors program. Put differently, I'd like to better be able to judge how these findings are likely to generalize to a wider variety of classrooms beyond the somewhat-ideal circumstances described here.

Agree. In response to the reviewer’s comment on long-term time management and accessibility, we added a paragraph in Section 2.1 detailing the scaffolding tools used to support student time management during the OER task. This includes interim deadlines, check-ins, and design exemplars. We also noted in Section 4.5 that such scaffolds may help extend the findings’ relevance to a wider variety of learners, including those with executive functioning challenges.