Online Learning Self-Efficacy as a Mediator between the Instructional Interactions and Achievement Emotions of Rural Students in Elite Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyses how online learning self-efficacy impacts rural students from top universities and the quality of their instructional interactions, based on a research conducted on 479 students

The title is well chosen, explaining the content of the paper, yet not being too long. The abstract presents the purpose of the research, methods and results, summarizing key aspects of the paper, but I recommend that the last sentence should be revised as it can be confusing - I recommend that the acronym should be explained (SEM)

The paper respects the scientific rigors, having an appropriate structure. The underlying problem in the context of the present knowledge in this field is clearly stated in the introduction - the purpose of this study was to explore the mediating role of OLSE between teachers’ and peers’ interaction in online learning and the impact on the three types of emotion of rural students engaged in online learning provided by elite universities during the COVID-19 lockdown.

The authors acknowledge timely research papers relevant for the research topic and adequately refer them into the manuscript.

The methodology is well explained and the authors present the reasons for using this specific methodology. The sample is large enough and the statistical analysis is performed correctly.

The data presented in tables are well-organized and structured and the research instruments are presented, while the conclusion is well motivated and discussed.

I have minor recommendations regarding the acronyms used throughout the paper. I suggest that before using one acronym the authors should explain it (e.g. MOOCs). Also, I noticed that figure 1 is not completely visible (the term "hopelessness" is not visible).

Congratulations!

Author Response

We do appreciate your positive comments.

We have revised the last sentence in abstract.
Also, we have added the full names of the acronyms.
The missing word "hopelessness" in Figure 1 has been modified for visible.

Reviewer 2 Report

very well structured article.

Author Response

We do appreciate your positive comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

There are many good things about this paper. It is clearly written, and you have carried out some substantial empirical work. However I have some concerns about some aspects of the conceptual framework you use, and the presentation of the results. I will discuss the sections of the paper in turn, in a mix of minor points and more substantial issues.

 

1. Introduction

“As posited by the control-value theory, by combining values and activation, four types of achievement emotion can be generated, that is, positive activation, positive deactivation, negative activation, and negative deactivation (Pekrun et al., 2017)”. This is not really comprehensible unless you go into more detail about the categories. I would merge this with the discussion of Pekrun in section 2.4.

 

2.3 OLSE

I would prefer the expansion of the acronym to be used in the heading, rather than the acronym.

“Student-student interaction occurs at a high rate in online learning” I do not think that it is necessarily true. There are many online learning courses and activities that are solitary.

“and student-student interaction is generated by engagement, communication, and student discussion in either asynchronous or synchronous learning without the teacher needing to be directly involved.”   One could equally well say that engagement and student discussion are generated by student-student interaction.

“However, previous studies rarely focused on elite university rural students' online self-efficacy during the COVID-19 lockdown.” This is an extremely focused topic, and I would not think of it as a discrete area of study, as this formulation suggests. I suggest that you present this as an interesting and previously unstudied case which can shed light on the wider issues of self-efficacy in online learning.

 

3. Research Hypothesis

Figure 1. The word “hopelessness” does not fit in its oval shape. I think that the figure could be more informative. Although it is labelled H1, H2, etc. it does not explain what the hypotheses are, and these have not yet been discussed. You could treat the figure as preparation for the discussion of the hypotheses, showing the relationships between the entities that you are working with. From this perspective it would be more useful to label the arrows to show hypothesised positive or negative impact, rather than H1, H2…

“Therefore, in an online learning climate”. I would prefer “…online learning environment”. If you mean something different to this, then you should explain what constitutes a ‘climate’.

I have a major concern about hypothesis 6.

“H6: Two types of social interactions are significantly related to three types of achievement emotion mediated by OLSE.”  In the introduction you write “Previous studies have focused on enjoyment, anxiety, boredom, and pride; however, few studies have examined the three types of achievement emotion of enjoyment, shame, and hopelessness; thus, in this study, an attempt was made to explore the factors influencing the three online academic emotions of enjoyment, shame, and hopelessness”. So, as I understand it, your study does not enumerate the types of emotion mediated by OLSE, but rather focuses on three emotions which have not previously been examined in relation to OLSE. Your hypothesis is misleading because it suggests that the two types of social interactions are related to only three types of achievement emotion. The hypothesis should be adjusted and/or an explanation should be provided.

 

4. Method

SEM should be expanded on first use.

 

5. Result

You write:

“The results showed statistically significant indirect effects in all of the models, with the 95% confidence interval excluding zero (see Table 2), which means that the relations between teacher-student instruction, student-student instruction, and enjoyment, hopelessness, and shame were mediated by self-efficacy.”

I find “were mediated by self-efficacy” to be problematic. I think that this comes from a confusion between, on the one hand, your research model as a representation of the statistical analysis which you have carried out, and, on the other hand, its possible interpretation as a flow chart showing causation. OLSE is one of the myriad distinctions that we make in order to generate concepts which we can use to discuss the complexity of human behaviour and cognition, and these distinctions are elaborated into models. Through your statistical analysis you have shown something interesting about the usefulness of the components of your model, and how they relate to each other. But I do not think that you have demonstrated the much stronger claim of “were mediated by self-efficacy”, for example that student-student interactions lead to shame only by being mediated through the cognitive entity of OLSE. On the contrary, it seems entirely likely to me that such interactions could lead directly to shame, and also in parallel have an impact on OLSE. If this seems unreasonable to you, please consider that peer interactions can lead to shame in all kinds of contexts, not only in eLearning or in education. Relatively minor edits are needed, but you should think hard about them in your results and discussion, bearing in mind that the map (the research model) is not the territory (the domain of social interactions and emotional responses), but rather a useful way of conceptualising that domain. You can do this using the language you prefer, you do not need to follow my terminology.

If you do not agree with my comments on this aspect of the paper, then you should show in the discussion how such a critique could be answered.

 

6. Discussion

In my view the discussion of social capital in the paper is more extensive than is warranted by the work that is reported. I can see that the citation to justify the study of teacher-student and student-student interactions is useful, and that there is a case for contextualising the work in terms of social capital. But you do not use social capital as a tool in your method, or in your analysis. You do mention social capital in your discussion, but I do not see that this sheds light on your results, nor that your results contribute to a refined understanding of social capital. Please limit your discussion of social capital to what is necessary for the purposes of your paper, or add some discussion of how social capital helps you to carry out your research or interpret your results.

“..,social capital theory, which is an emerging concept in the literature on digital education…”.  Social capital has been discussed in eLearning for decades, and I do not think it is reasonable to describe it as emerging. I would delete “which is an emerging concept in the literature on digital education,”

You write that “As a theoretical framework, social capital theory is suitable for applying to students’ concerns about social network interactions, especially in online learning contexts (Zheng et al., 2020). The focus of this theory is on identifying what online resources are available in social networks and how they can be accessed and used to shape students’ behaviors (Nordin, 2001).”  This seems to me to be a strange description of the focus of social capital theory, which in my view concerns the dynamics of social networks. It is not consistent with your later statement that “Social capital depends on subjective relationships of trust and reciprocity and other positive emotions (Paxton, 1999)” Perhaps the confusion is due to a lack of clarity about what you mean when you refer to ‘online resources’. The term ‘resource’ is used by Bourdieu to refer to the construction of social presence, and if you are using it in this sense please provide a quotation to clarify. Alternatively avoid talking about resources. As it stands, ‘online resources’ seems to refer to documents, or equipment, or functionality of some sort.

“Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, social interactions have received limitations.” It would be better to write “have been limited”.

“Students were unable to participate in normal social activities; therefore, their self-efficacy was an important factor in achieving online learning (Zheng et al., 2020).”  I do not follow the logic here. Surely self efficacy (according to your argument) is always an important factor in online learning. I think that you mean that because more education moved online, OSLE became a more important factor in students’ academic success.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The publication presents an interesting, innovative and relevant approach to analyzing the relationship between instructional interactions and achievement emotions of rural students in elite universities in the context of online learning. Due to the increasing importance of online learning, there is a high relevance of associated learning effects, also with regard to different social groups with differentiated social backgrounds. The focus on students at elite universities in China who come from a more rural environment represents an interesting and new reserach question.

The contribution is based on a solid and clearly recognizable conceptual approach and the structure of the content presented makes sense. The contents of the article are explained in a comprehensible manner and implemented in a methodologically adequate manner.

Author Response

We do appreciate your positive comments.