Identification of Writing Strategies in Educational Assessments with an Unsupervised Learning Measurement Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an important area in writing assessment by aiming to identify examinees’ writing strategy patterns through a proposed framework. However, several critical issues need to be addressed to improve the clarity, coherence, and scholarly rigor of the study.

• The research gap is not well substantiated with evidence from the literature. While the study touches on the need to identify writing strategies, it lacks a clear and compelling rationale supported by recent studies that underscore this necessity.

• The manuscript should more explicitly demonstrate why current approaches are insufficient and how the proposed study fills this gap.

• The term "proposed framework" appears in the research question but is not clearly defined or described in the manuscript. Readers need a detailed and well-illustrated explanation of the framework, including its components and how it was developed or adapted.

• The lack of a visual or tabulated representation of the framework reduces the clarity of the study’s conceptual foundation.

• The study currently does not apply any guiding theoretical framework. While Cognitive Load Theory is briefly mentioned in the discussion, it is not theoretically integrated across the manuscript.

• A robust study design should be underpinned by theory. Cognitive Load Theory, or another relevant theoretical lens, should be introduced early and consistently applied throughout the methodology, findings, and discussion to provide coherence and depth.

• The discussion section reads more like an extended literature review rather than an interpretation of the study’s findings.

• There is little to no engagement with the study's results in relation to existing literature. The authors need to compare and contrast their findings with prior work to establish the contribution of their study.

• The discussion should highlight the unique contributions of the study to the field of educational assessment and writing pedagogy.

• Implications for research, identifying how the findings inform future theoretical or methodological advancements.

• Implications for practice, suggesting actionable insights for educators, curriculum designers, or test developers.

• This section is underdeveloped. A transparent and reflective limitations section is essential to contextualize the study’s findings and improve its credibility.

• Suggestions for future research should stem from the study’s insights and be clearly articulated.

The study addresses a meaningful topic but requires significant revisions to clarify the research design, articulate the theoretical framework, strengthen the discussion, and emphasize its contributions to both research and practice.

Author Response

Please find the attached response letter for Reviewer 1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: effective writing involves both coordinated implementation of complementary strategies rather than isolated skill acquisition. (by saying both, the authors mean at least two things. One is coordinated implementation of complementary strategies. What is the second?

Did the authors follow the ethics while gathering the answers from the examinees? 

One fourth of the used sources are dated earlier than 2020. Does it mean that there are no new research materials to rely on?

The results are logically done. However, the conclusions are short. Perhaps, the authors could enlarge it.

Author Response

Please find the attached response letter for Reviewer 2.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has improved significantly since the previous version. The authors have addressed my comments and feedback thoroughly and appropriately.