A Progressive Digital Narrative Teaching Method to Improve Learning Motivation as a Lifelong Learning Skill
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is focused on a proposal for educational innovation in the university consisting of using storytelling as a way of presenting the contents, and also of collaborative work by the students. The proposal is interesting and the process and examples described give a detailed idea of the experience and its results.
It is based on computational thinking, CSCL and Digital narratives, which are the aspects that underpin the study and are relatively well worked on in the background.
The innovation process carried out is clearly described and illustrated. The pedagogical approach is coherent with the planning, evolving from less to more in-depth learning activities.
The design of the study is coherent with the pedagogical approach.
The results show that the use of the digital narrative teaching method improves students' understanding of learning, and that activities that introduce visual narratives in groups project creativity on the part of the students and increase their motivation.
As important or more important than the results obtained can be considered the detailed description of the innovation process developed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article deals with an original, interesting, very current and contextualized topic to the needs generated by the global pandemic situation.
- The following corrections are recommended:
- The introduction presents a summary of the paper. This is what should be described in the abstract and not repeat the abstract in the introduction. Both sections begin with the same sentences. It is recommended to use the introduction to describe the theoretical framework and the background to present the contextualization. Another option would be to unify them and use one of the two terms.
- The stem method is presented in the theoretical framework but is not used, in the program.
- The abbreviation CSCL is used on line 126. The first time you should put it next to the words that are abbreviated in parentheses so that the reader can associate them.
- No description of the population is presented. It is only referred to as generation Z. You must describe the population.
- The method section should be restructured.
- It only presents the design of the activities. This section should present:
- Method of the research.
- Design of the program.
- Evaluation of the program. The evaluation instruments are presented in the results section. The evaluation design should be presented in this section and reflect how and when it is evaluated.
- In Figure 1: Research and design process.
- Should include program design and evaluation. The figure only refers to the choice of evaluation methods and rubrics. The program uses more instruments than rubrics.
- Table 1. The objective of stage III is not in the infinitive.
- Many of the figures and tables are not in the correct sections. They should be after they are referred to so that the reader does not get lost and can understand them when they see them.
- Line 452: It is a conclusion, not a result.
- Section 5 (Learning Outcomes) and Section 6 (Learner Feedback) are the results. They should go in a single section called results. Within this section, you can make sub-sections.
- The results should be presented according to the evaluation instruments mentioned. Examples are described but not the data collected through all instruments listed in line 365.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for introducing the suggestions in the text. You have done a good job. After reviewing your contributions, I recommend:
Unify point 3 and 4.
Punto 3: Materials and methods.
Introduction you have in point 3
3.1. Method of the Research
3.2. Design of the Program
3.3. Teaching Methods and Materials
3.4. Evaluation Design of the Proposed Progressive Teaching Method.
I also recommend that you clearly describe the objective of the research in the introduction section. It is true that it describes what this research pursues, but it should be written like this: The objective of this research is....
Kind regards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
