Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Results Analysis of Russian Students’ Participation in the Online International Educational Project X-Culture
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Factors of the Readiness for Information Exchange in Pre-School Education Establishments
Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Correlation between the Practical Aspect of the Course and the E-Learning Progress

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2019, 9(3), 167; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030167
Received: 30 May 2019 / Revised: 26 June 2019 / Accepted: 27 June 2019 / Published: 30 June 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First of all I would like to thank you for submitting the paper with tittle: “Correlation between the practical aspect of the course and the e-learning progress”, for consideration at Education Sciences.

The work deals with an interesting topic; the follow-up of Internet courses, using a very large sample of students and data mining techniques. The work is clearly within the scope of the journal. In this sense the work is very interesting.

The introduction is correctly referenced and frames and enunciates the objectives of the work.

In the methodology section, courses where the experience is developed, and the methodologies used are correctly described. You should clarify whether they requested informed consent from the students. There is some novelty in the use of personal data, but there are clear ethical considerations that must be taken into account.

With Regard to sections: “results” and “discussion”.

In my opinion the discussion of the results is the weak point of this work, you should contrast their results with others previously published in the bibliography. In fact, they only refer to two papers. You should discuss their results with others previously published.

In addition, I think we should go deeper into the low time students devote to the virtual platform. As indicated in the paper, students should dedicate 22 hours to online activities (table 2), the actual number of hours dedicated is much lower as can be seen from the results shown in figure 2. You should reflect on this issue and provide alternatives and solutions.

With respect to lines 247-251, could a normal test be done to check what is shown in the figure?

On the other hand, throughout the work there are several occasions in which the same information is shown in duplicate. For example: Table 3 and lines 210-216, Table 4 and Figure 2, Table 5 and Figure 3, Table 6 and Figure 4. The authors should unify the information and choose by one of the options.

Perhaps it would be interesting to include a section on conclusions.

At the end of the work authors’ contribution should be included.

With regard to minor corrections:

1)      In lines 64 y 65, a learning management system (LMS) should be typed Learning Management System.

2)      In line 63, [33.45] should be typed [33, 45].

3)      The size between the lines in lines 76-78 is not correct.

4)      The first time an acronym is used it must be indicated in the text, its use must be consistent throughout the article. There are differences for example in lines 147 and 156.

5)      The format of the tables must be in accordance with the journal.

6)      In my opinion the outer box of the figures should be removed.

7)      The format of the references should be in accordance with the journal's instructions. For example, the DOI should be incorporated, the year of references 14 and 39 should be incorporated, reference 3 should be revised and so on.

8)      In the journal references to tables and figures are usually figure and table and not Fig. or tab.

I hope that my comments and suggestions can contribute to the improvement of the article.


Author Response

Dear reviewer:

The authors are very grateful for your careful reading of the manuscript and the comments made, which allowed us to improve the presented research results. Your opinion is valuable to us and we have tried to correct all the places you indicated.

 And we tried to clarify the unclearly stated points. Changes are highlighted.


In the methodology section, courses where the experience is developed, and the methodologies used are correctly described. You should clarify whether they requested informed consent from the students. There is some novelty in the use of personal data, but there are clear ethical considerations that must be taken into account.

Before starting the study, SPbPU students agree to the processing of personal data. The processing of personal data is carried out on a lawful and fair basis and is limited to the achievement of specific, predetermined and legitimate goals. It does not allow the processing of personal data that is incompatible with the research objectives of the collection, access to information is possible only in a generalized and non-personalized form.

With Regard to sections: “results” and “discussion”.

In my opinion the discussion of the results is the weak point of this work, you should contrast their results with others previously published in the bibliography. In fact, they only refer to two papers. You should discuss their results with others previously published.

We have tried to include in discussion and comparison with previous research.

However, in the introduction, our research was included in a wider context of research studying the factors affecting e-learning. We sought to show the direction of possible future research, at the intersection of computer and educational sciences. We have suggested that the data from the LMS can be used for broader topics than only students' assessments on the course, in particular for course design

In addition, I think we should go deeper into the low time students devote to the virtual platform. As indicated in the paper, students should dedicate 22 hours to online activities (table 2), the actual number of hours dedicated is much lower as can be seen from the results shown in figure 2. You should reflect on this issue and provide alternatives and solutions.

The problem of academic hours inconsistence was noted in discussions

Some confusion overcome. The study is calculated in academic hours, where 1 hour is 45 minutes, while on the distance course the automated collection system displays online activities in astronomical hours. For a better perception of the study material and after the reviewer's comment, the authors decided to change the description of time and list it in astronomical form right away.

On the other hand, throughout the work there are several occasions in which the same information is shown in duplicate. For example: Table 3 and lines 210-216, Table 4 and Figure 2, Table 5 and Figure 3, Table 6 and Figure 4. The authors should unify the information and choose by one of the options.

The authors choice is to display in the form of a table in the first case, the lines 210-2016 are deleted. In three other cases, pictures were left and tables were deleted.

Perhaps it would be interesting to include a section on conclusions.

Conclusions included

At the end of the work authors’ contribution should be included.

Contributions of authors included.

 

With regard to minor corrections:

1)      In lines 64 y 65, a learning management system (LMS) should be typed Learning Management System.

Done. Thanks!

2)      In line 63, [33.45] should be typed [33, 45].

Done. Thanks!

3)      The size between the lines in lines 76-78 is not correct.

Done. Thanks!

4)      The first time an acronym is used it must be indicated in the text, its use must be consistent throughout the article. There are differences for example in lines 147 and 156.

5)      The format of the tables must be in accordance with the journal.

Done. Thanks!

6)      In my opinion the outer box of the figures should be removed.

Done. Thanks!

7)      The format of the references should be in accordance with the journal's instructions. For example, the DOI should be incorporated, the year of references 14 and 39 should be incorporated, reference 3 should be revised and so on.

Thanks for the detailed comments. We revise all references.

8)      In the journal references to tables and figures are usually figure and table and not Fig. or tab.

Done. Thanks!

 





Reviewer 2 Report

Brief Summary:

 

The study presented by this paper is interesting. It presents research the answer to the research gap on the application of e-learning in a class. Studies in the application of e-learning often focus only on the application in individual subject. This study highlights the effect of the application in different subjects.

 

Broad comments:

 

The author(s) are suggested to organize the manuscript into the structure which is easier to follow and commonly followed by other journal papers. The suggested structure is the following: (1) Introduction, (2) Materials and Methods, (3) Results and Discussions, (4) Conclusions (and recommendation).

 

Specific comments:

1. The author(s) need to check and recheck the manuscript regarding technical aspects of writing and communication and presentation aspects of the manuscript. For example, in the abstract, LMS is mentioned without prior explanation. Since the abstract is the paper’s front-window, avoid presenting any confusing terms as well as abbreviations in the abstract without prior explanation. At least, mention what the abbreviation stands for.


2. The author(s) are requested to review the Instruction for Author regarding the number of keywords. The six keywords seem to be too many.


3. The Figure 1 seems to be lack of description. Since if describes the key elements of the study, the author(s) need to provide more explanation regarding the Figure 1. Especially on the arrow(s) coming out from rectangular shapes and trapezoidal shape, and irregular curve(s) within oval shape. What the meaning of different shapes and colors, etc.


4. This paper is missing one crucial explanation whose relation is presented in this study; the degree of practice orientation. Therefore, the author(s) are requested to add more information regarding degree of practice orientation with some previous studies as its references.


5.  A novelty of this study is to understand the effect of e-learning application between two different subjects; history and project activity foundations. History is a common subject in school, every reader understands what it studies about. However, “project activity foundations” is not that common course in school, including university. Due to various background of this journal’s readers, the author(s) are requested to provide a short explanation what the course is about.


6. The author(s) are requested to revise Table 4 and Figure 2 in order to be more informative. The table and figure do not mention what the numbers under “History” and “Project activity foundations” and Y-axis are telling about. The similar request is also applied to the Table 5, 6 and Figure 3, 4.


7. The author(s) are also suggested to revise Figure 4 to be identical with Figure 2 and 3 since there is no scientific reason that data presented by the figure requires different style of figure based on the previous figure (and table).

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

The authors are very grateful for your careful reading of the manuscript and the comments made, which allowed us to improve the presented research results. Your opinion is valuable to us and we have tried to correct all the places you indicated.

 And we tried to clarify the unclearly stated points. Changes are highlighted.

 

The author(s) are suggested to organize the manuscript into the structure which is easier to follow and commonly followed by other journal papers. The suggested structure is the following: (1) Introduction, (2) Materials and Methods, (3) Results and Discussions, (4) Conclusions (and recommendation).

For the first submittng Education Sciences, we found it right to save the subtitles of the template for this journal:(1) Introduction, (2) Materials and Methods, (3) Results (4) Discussions, (5) Conclusions (This section is not mandatory, but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex).

Although the conclusion section is marked as not mandatory in the template, we added small conclusions if reviewers do not consider them unnecessary for our small study:

Specific comments:

1. The author(s) need to check and recheck the manuscript regarding technical aspects of writing and communication and presentation aspects of the manuscript. For example, in the abstract, LMS is mentioned without prior explanation. Since the abstract is the paper’s front-window, avoid presenting any confusing terms as well as abbreviations in the abstract without prior explanation. At least, mention what the abbreviation stands for.


Thank you, we decided to remove this term and slightly simplify the abstract so as not to mislead potential readers.

 

2. The author(s) are requested to review the Instruction for Author regarding the number of keywords. The six keywords seem to be too many.


Cut the keywords down to 4, since you think that there are too many 


3. The Figure 1 seems to be lack of description. Since if describes the key elements of the study, the author(s) need to provide more explanation regarding the Figure 1. Especially on the arrow(s) coming out from rectangular shapes and trapezoidal shape, and irregular curve(s) within oval shape. What the meaning of different shapes and colors, etc.


Added a more detailed description of figure 1, which includes an idea of the relationship of key elements in research, and a description of the irregular curves as a symbolic representation of the student's measurable behavior in the online environment

4. This paper is missing one crucial explanation whose relation is presented in this study; the degree of practice orientation. Therefore, the author(s) are requested to add more information regarding degree of practice orientation with some previous studies as its references.

Added a description of the degree of practical orientation of the course and the various possibilities of its implementation in an electronic environment based on new references (added to the list of references)

5.  A novelty of this study is to understand the effect of e-learning application between two different subjects; history and project activity foundations. History is a common subject in school, every reader understands what it studies about. However, “project activity foundations” is not that common course in school, including university. Due to various background of this journal’s readers, the author(s) are requested to provide a short explanation what the course is about.

Expanded course project activity foundations description

 

6. The author(s) are requested to revise Table 4 and Figure 2 in order to be more informative. The table and figure do not mention what the numbers under “History” and “Project activity foundations” and Y-axis are telling about. The similar request is also applied to the Table 5, 6 and Figure 3, 4.


Descriptive information about the figures added to the text of the article, the axes are signed

7. The author(s) are also suggested to revise Figure 4 to be identical with Figure 2 and 3 since there is no scientific reason that data presented by the figure requires different style of figure based on the previous figure (and table).

Figure 4 is presented in the form identical to figures 2 and 3.

 

 

 


Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

You have made a substantial modification to the manuscript which has improved considerably.

Firstly, I would like to say that the discussion of the results has improved considerably by comparing the results obtained with others previously published in the bibliography. Congratulations!

However, I believe that some minor corrections should be made:

1)      Figure 1 should be smaller in size.

2)      Table 3 should be revised conforming instructions for authors of the journal. 90-100 should not be in bold, the line should be removed.

3)      I believe that there is an error in figures 2, 3 and 4. Honestly I think they should be revised. In bar chart is not necessary to include the legends in the axes. You should modify the “Figure caption” and the description of each of the fields. In any case, the new values introduced: "number of students" and "number of hours" in figure 2, "number of students" and "number of references" in figure 3 and "number of students" and "grades" in Figure 4 are not clear and their disposition generates doubts.

4)      The space before reference 65 (line 404) should be checked.

5)      Finally, I believe that the ethical considerations that have been explained in the responses to the reviewer should be included in some way in the text of the manuscript. For future work I recommend requesting informed consent and asking the Bioethics Committee for permission to do this type of work.

I hope my comments can be useful in the editing process. Hoping to read the work published in the magazine soon.


Author Response

Dear authors,

You have made a substantial modification to the manuscript which has improved considerably.

Firstly, I would like to say that the discussion of the results has improved considerably by comparing the results obtained with others previously published in the bibliography. Congratulations!

Thank you for your attention to our work.

 

However, I believe that some minor corrections should be made:

1)     Figure 1 should be smaller in size.

The authors reduced the size of the picture

2)     Table 3 should be revised conforming instructions for authors of the journal. 90-100 should not be in bold, the line should be removed.

.For some reason, the formatting of the table has changed in docx document. Excuse us. Could you consider the manuscript in pdf?

I believe that there is an error in figures 2, 3 and 4. Honestly I think they should be revised. In bar chart is not necessary to include the legends in the axes. You should modify the “Figure caption” and the description of each of the fields. In any case, the new values introduced: "number of students" and "number of hours" in figure 2, "number of students" and "number of references" in figure 3 and "number of students" and "grades" in Figure 4 are not clear and their disposition generates doubts.

                The authors revised the graphics and removed unnecessary information, and also made                 changes to the titles of figures.

3)     The space before reference 65 (line 404) should be checked.

Done. Thanks!

4)     Finally, I believe that the ethical considerations that have been explained in the responses to the reviewer should be included in some way in the text of the manuscript. For future work I recommend requesting informed consent and asking the Bioethics Committee for permission to do this type of work.

            The authors included a more detailed explanation in the text of the manuscript.

            In future we will follow your recommendations. Thank you!

 

I hope my comments can be useful in the editing process. Hoping to read the work published in the magazine soon.

Thank you for your comments, they are very important and useful to us.


Educ. Sci. EISSN 2227-7102 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top