The Role of Digital Collaboration in Student Engagement towards Enhancing Student Participation during COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Even though it is an interesting topic, the authors did not state very clear the purpose of the paper. The results of the paper are well explained.
However, I suggest that the authors develop more the conclusions, by including a new paragraph regarding future implications and research directions.
Also, more recommendations for the educational institutions are required, based on the obtained results, especially since authors mention that the online learning “is expected to continue in the next couple of years as it is important as a new norm of learning”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest that the authors review statements like this "Therefore, the situation left educators to pose as content creators and entertainers who had to have a strong sense of showmanship to attract the attention and participation of students rather than just being mere information providers such as in the pre pandemic situation. "which disqualify teachers, and offer the false claim that the use of technology and the pandemic produced changes without the presence and collaboration of teachers. But unfortunately, the authors provide no empirical evidence to support such claims.
I suggest that Figure 3 be commented on; there is a lot of information, categories, and numbers, but it is not indicated from where such numbers are obtained, and they are not commented on in the text. I suggest linking or commenting on their relationship with tables 2, 3, and 4.
The Beta, T-Statistic and P-Value, should be commented on, and their interpretations presented in the text. They should not only be offered for the informed public to interpret but they should be shown to the public uninformed in statistical techniques.
It seems that all the participants had access to technological resources without problems, such as the Internet and computers. However, this is not the case in all countries, so it is convenient to comment on this aspect that seems hidden in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study dealt with a survey on digital collaboration and the role of the cloud-based and modern digital tools, especially during the covid-19 situation.
The researchers made a survey, which answers was processed in this paper. The introduction of the paper is very short and tries to answer the motivation of using collaborative learning environments by the covid-19 situation, it would be important to put this question more into context. The introduction also should show the novelty of the paper, it was mentioned in later parts, but it should be placed and discussed here.
The literature review section seems deep. However, it was not clear in the methodology section what was the research questions and the main questions for the methodology. It should be focused on the given scholarship value, not the value of other researchers. The questionnaire methodology should be discussed, here more in details.
The conclusion section should show the usefulness of this research shortly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
TITLE
The title is a bit general. It is recommended that the authors reflect on whether it is possible to improve the title to be more precise with the research carried out.
ABSTRACT
The abstract should be improved. The abstract relates the context of the situation. However, it does not correctly address the problem to be solved (or advance the state of knowledge), nor the results obtained.
INTRODUCTION
The Introduction should be considerably improved. It only gives some aspects of the context. However, it does not address all the aspects necessary to clarify the full context, the problem, a summary of the background, the research questions, and the article's objectives. While a literature review is conducted in the next chapter, these elements should be in the introduction section.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review is shown correctly. The authors provide an updated review of the methods and elements associated with the Digital Collaboration and Theoretical Model. However, two relevant aspects need to be addressed:
- What were the criteria for the literature search? (years, databases, search words, methods, etc). The aspects identified are recent. Therefore it is important to clarify these search criteria.
- What are the problems motivating the research? The literature review highlights issues associated with collaboration. However, what are the elements underlying the need for this research? These elements must be clear (and justified) since they are the basis for this article. Several aspects are mentioned. However, they do not clarify these elements.
What is the objective of Figure 1? It is recommended to complement it, as it does not add much value to the article (the content is already present in Table 1). Interesting would be a scheme showing the process the authors have followed to define those six elements from the literature (probably they have found many more aspects than those, but the authors have summarized only those, which is correct). Also, complement the schema toward "student engagement" and "Enhanced student participation".
METHODS
This section is incomplete. It is not clear about the questionnaire conducted or the characteristics of the study group. It is recommended that this section be considerably improved. Remember that the objective of this section is to show all the necessary aspects so that, hypothetically, other authors could replicate the method developed.
DATA ANALYSIS
This section should be improved. The results are shown correctly. However, further analysis should be added.
DISCUSSION
While the Discussion addresses previous research and purchases with the results obtained, it does not properly discuss this research's practical applications and lessons. The authors are recommended to improve this section.
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions should be considerably improved. Take the recommendations this reviewer indicates and add the necessary elements in this section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper improved significantly during the revision. Now the paper got a separate chapter that shows the research questions. However, before that the introduction still does not show the originality of the research, there is a relatively long description of Covid-19, which is a bit catastrophizing and steals the focus of the questionnaire and the scientific content, which should be on the focus. Please use neutral statements instead of sentences like in a tabloid paper: 'The world’s greatest threat since 2020'. Please summarize at the end of the introduction or after the problem statement that what is the novelty expectations of the current research compared to other similar surveys.
The researchers conducted collaborative learning.
Conclusions - improved a lot, but it is very long and repeats much information from the introduction, please insert some parts into the previous discussion section and make more concise conclusions.
Minor comments:
- There are some errors in the references.
Author Response
Comment 1: The introduction does not show the originality of the research. There is a relatively long description of Covid-19 which is a bit catastrophizing and steals the focus of the questionnaire and scientific content, which should be the focus.
Answer 1: The authors have reworked on the introduction and removed the long description of Covid-19.
Comment 2: Please use neutral statements instead of sentences like in a tabloid paper. "The world's greatest threat since 2020".
Answer 2: The authors have changed it to a neutral statement.
Comment 3: Please summarise at the end of the introduction or at the end of the problem statement that what is the novelty expectations of the current research compared to other similar surveys.
Answer 3: The authors have included a paragraph in the Problem Statement section regarding this matter.
Comment 4: Conclusion improved a lot but it is very long and repeats much information from the introduction. Please insert some parts into the previous discussion section and make more concise conclusions.
Answer 4: The authors have inserted some parts into the Discussion section.
Comment 5: There are some errors in the references.
Answer 5: The authors have amended the errors which we have noticed.
Reviewer 4 Report
The document has been improved but still needs to be improved.
Seven research questions and seven objectives are presented. This amount seems to be large. However, the authors should verify that the research questions are answered and the objectives are met. Although these aspects are shown in the indicators, the analyses and conclusions regarding each research objective should be explicitly shown.
The literature review method is incomplete. The databases and inclusion criteria and years, among other aspects, are not detailed.
Author Response
Comment 1: The authors should verify that the research questions are answered and the objectives are met. Although these aspects are shown in the indicators, the analyses and conclusions regarding each research objective should be explicitly shown.
Answer 1: The authors have included a table in the Discussion section to address this.
Comment 2: The literature review method is incomplete. The databases and inclusion criteria and years, among other aspects, are not detailed.
Answer 2: The authors have listed the databases, inclusion criteria, years and an additional method (backward searching). A table on the literature review summary was also added.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors answered all of my questions.
Author Response
Comments have been addressed and Figure 4 has been renamed as suggested.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
