Technology-Enhanced Learning: An Optimal CPS Learning Application

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is based on an interesting idea regarding technology enhanced learning. The most interesting part seems to be the results/findings of the research, especially regarding gender.

In order to further strengthen this work, I propose some alterations as presented below:

In page 1, line 24 the author mentions… ‘Important changes have been made in the way problems are dealt with’… This is rather general. What kinds of problems? Please generally explain (i.e., problems regarding this/that area).

In pp.1-2, after line 40, the analysis regarding new technology developments needs further elaboration in order to strengthen the theoretical part of the article. While the author briefly presents an overview of recent technologies, he/she needs to put emphasis and analyse the use of chatbots as the latest technological trend. Please, see analysis in (Veglis, A. & Maniou, T. (2019). Chatbots on the Rise: A new Narrative in Journalism. Studies in Media & Communication, 7 (1), 1-6. Doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.3986.) and revise accordingly, adapting the basic analysis of the use of chatbots in education.

Also, one of the main characteristics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution Age is disinformation/misinformation, since technology has brought forward a series of relevant issues. For the effects of disinformation on students, please see [Photiou, I. & Maniou, T.(2019).Changing audiences, changing realities: Identifying disinformation via new teaching curricula. In Veglis, A. & Drok, N. (eds.). Procceedings of the 2018 EJTA Conference Crisis Reporting, Mechelen, Belgium: European Journalism Training Association, pp. 64 – 72] so as you can enrich the theoretical framework.

The sample of the research (64 students) seems rather limited so as to generalize findings. I suggest that this should be mentioned in the LIMITATIONS part in p.10.

I find the method and analysis used for the study well structured and adequately presented in the FINDINGS section. ANOVA and t-tests seem to well serve the needs of this research. In this perspective, I recommend publication after the revisions mentioned above, as well as a thorough proofreading of the article.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

This paper is based on an interesting idea regarding technology enhanced learning. The most interesting part seems to be the results/findings of the research, especially regarding gender.

In order to further strengthen this work, I propose some alterations as presented below:

Point 1: In page 1, line 24 the author mentions… ‘Important changes have been made in the way problems are dealt with’… This is rather general. What kinds of problems? Please generally explain (i.e., problems regarding this/that area).

Response 1: In previous CPS related studies, learners seldom used skills that are relevant to daily work and life. It is self-evident that the skills that learners need to solve the problems that they encounter in their daily work and life differ from those that are usually needed to solve less practical problems. Consequently, we particularly focus on daily work and life problems and therefore adopt various strategies to teach these techniques. Please refer to the text on lines 135–142 on p. 3.

Point 2: In pp.1-2, after line 40, the analysis regarding new technology developments needs further elaboration in order to strengthen the theoretical part of the article. While the author briefly presents an overview of recent technologies, he/she needs to put emphasis and analyse the use of chatbots as the latest technological trend. Please, see analysis in (Veglis, A. & Maniou, T. (2019). Chatbots on the Rise: A new Narrative in Journalism. Studies in Media & Communication, 7 (1), 1-6. Doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.3986.) and revise accordingly, adapting the basic analysis of the use of chatbots in education.

Response 2: A paragraph that describes how the development of conversational agents (such as chatbots) with the advent of Web 2.0 creates the possibility of communication between a human and a computer via natural language has been added to the Introduction section, as suggested. Please refer to lines 65–68 on p. 2.

Point 3: Also, one of the main characteristics of the Fourth Industrial Revolution Age is disinformation/misinformation, since technology has brought forward a series of relevant issues. For the effects of disinformation on students, please see [Photiou, I. & Maniou, T. (2019). Changing audiences, changing realities: Identifying disinformation via new teaching curricula. In Veglis, A. & Drok, N. (eds.). Procceedings of the 2018 EJTA Conference Crisis Reporting, Mechelen, Belgium: European Journalism Training Association, pp. 64–72] so as you can enrich the theoretical framework.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion on the enrichment of the theoretical framework by adding issues that are relevant to disinformation/misinformation. It is important for students to have good analytical skills and good judgment, especially in the Fourth Industrial Revolution Age. We believe that CPS learning systems can be used as an apparatus to teach students to distinguish disinformation and fake news. However, we think the focus of this study is the development of the CPS platform with the use of computer agents. A suggestion for a future study that uses a CPS platform to train students to distinguish disinformation has been added to the Discussion and Conclusions section (lines 317–320 on p. 9).

Point 4: The sample of the research (64 students) seems rather limited so as to generalize findings. I suggest that this should be mentioned in the LIMITATIONS part in p.10.

Response 4: The fact that a larger sample size may be needed in a future study has been mentioned in the last paragraph of the “Discussion and Conclusions” section (please refer to lines 317–320 on pp. 9). “For further research, longer-term studies should involve a more diverse range of CPS scenarios (such as adding misinformation), a larger sample size (the sample size of the present study is relatively small), and a broader range of measures (such as including qualitative measurements).”

Point 5: I find the method and analysis used for the study well structured and adequately presented in the FINDINGS section. ANOVA and t-tests seem to well serve the needs of this research. In this perspective, I recommend publication after the revisions mentioned above, as well as a thorough proofreading of the article.

Response 5: Both the original manuscript and the revised one have received professional English editing from MDPI English Editing Team to ensure the correct usage of English.

Reviewer 2 Report

The research was conducted with due diligence. The study is interesting and has scientific and application values. However, I suggest that the text be rewritten so that individual chapters are proportionate. Please consider connecting 1.1 Collaborative Interaction with 1. Introduction, 2.2 The CPS Learning Application with 2.1 Participants, and 5. Limitations and Future Research with 4. Discussion and Conclusions. In the current version, the quality of the drawings is unacceptable. This concerns especially Fig. 1.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

The research was conducted with due diligence. The study is interesting and has scientific and application values. However,

Point 1: I suggest that the text be rewritten so that individual chapters are proportionate. Please consider connecting 1.1 Collaborative Interaction with 1. Introduction, 2.2 The CPS Learning Application with 2.1 Participants, and 5. Limitations and Future Research with 4. Discussion and Conclusions.

Response 1: The sections that you mention have been re-arranged to ensure that all of the sections of the manuscript are proportionate.

Point 2: In the current version, the quality of the drawings is unacceptable. This concerns especially Fig. 1.

Response 2: In the original Mnauscript, Figure 1 shows the eight tasks that were used in the CPS application. The diagram that shows the eight tasks might be too small to be of good quality. As the eight tasks have been described in detail in the text (lines 145–147 on p. 3–4), we have decided to remove the original Figure 1 from the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It is evident that the author (s) have made a significant effort to improve the manuscript and include most of the suggestions.

One final suggestion regarding Point 1. The phrase "Important changes have been made in the way problems are dealt with" is the first sentence of the manuscript. Therefore it needs to be more focused in the exact topic and not so general. This is the reason I suggested a minor addition... For example, "Important changes have been made in the way problems are dealt with in technology-enhanced learning", or which ever addition the authors feel that can be closer to their main topic (no more than 2-3 key words).

Overall, I believe that this article can be an interesting asset for SUSTAINABILITY.