Online Group Student Peer-Communication as an Element of Open Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer to the appended .pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks to Dr. Reviewer for such an attentive attitude to our work.
Moreover, we would like to note that implementation of all recommendations would make our research much more scientifically significant and important than it really is.

In this case, we did not claim to fully analyze the phenomenon of student-led communication. Probably our task was to pose a question to the scientific community than to give an answer to it. This position is related to the choice of the main qualitative and quantitative methods (as you accurately noted they are insufficient for a full analysis) which were used not to draw conclusions about the phenomenon within a particular culture / country, but to determine possible techniques for further research. We tried to formulate this more clearly in our work.

We really hope that despite the fact that we were not able to implement your recommendations in full; with your assistance, we were able to improve the paper.

Further answers to the review items:

General thoughts

1. Thanks for recommendation! The goal is formulated. Done (12-14 lines)
2. Let us disagree with you here. The method we use is not the individual approach but It exactly implies ethnographic approach to online communication eхplaining social interaction in contemporary digital communication contexts. Since the task was the primary study of this online phenomenon, netnography is the most appropriate method.
3. Thanks! The data set is Done (98-104 lines)

Why is the course teacher involve here? The teachers were mentioned in the text of the messages

Whether this approval is valid for whole country research? Yes, it is

4. We almost never tried to describe individual data for groups or universities, where they are given for individual group communications (part 2 of the study), this is done as an example of a possible description. The conclusions of the first part of the study are of a general nature and serve for the primary description of the phenomenon. The second part serves as an example of possible quantitative estimates. Only the end of the second part presents concrete data. We have noted this point (396-397 lines).
5. The Introduction section has been updated with description of open education (31-40 lines). The construction of the section helps to introduce the reader to a further research topic, gradually narrowing from open education in general to the use of social media, then to group communication and to several studies presenting the problems associated with student-led communication.
6. We did not quite understand what kind of comparison we are talking about, if (as far as we know) this type of communication has not been studied earlier as a separate phenomenon
7. The discussion section provides open education theses that support our findings.
8. As it noted above, our task was not to present the results of a quantitative study, but only to propose a possible quantitative approach to the phenomenon.
9. Thank you. Broader findings added. Done (discussion was rewritten)

Detailed remarks

1. We have expanded the abstract, added a general description of the goal. Unfortunately, the detailed version of the abstract, proposed by the reviewer, could not fit into the required volume of up to 200 words.
   • Thank you very much for the recommendation to develop the concept of open education. We have included a discussion of this topic at the beginning of the introduction. We dare to hope that this provided the necessary link to make clear the starting point for the reasoning in the discussion section.
   • Open education is based on information and communication technologies. Besides group communication has a completely different meaning than a dialogue.
   • No
   • Done,thanks
   • Done,thanks

Massive open online course (MOOC) is a common term.

• Done,thanks
• Done,thanks
• ?
• The proposed indicators are developed by the authors. Calculation is arithmetic.
• Done, thanks
• We tried to correct the illustration a bit to make it more readable.

With your permission, we would leave the quotes, which support our findings, as this is a traditional requirement for the Discussion section. However, we tried to formulate broader conclusions and possible application of the results obtained.

Thank you very much for your work!

Best wishes,

the authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The article follows the academic rigor and quality to be published, although some changes are necessary to complete. In the first place, the title is very generic and does not include the subject of the investigation. The discussions are scarce, and it lacks a conclusion, which makes it difficult to assess the contribution and progress made to the scientific community. As well, the description of the method can be improved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much!
We tried to draw broader conclusions in the discussion section, describing the methods used in more detail.

The title was changed to Online group student peer-communication as an element of open education.