Research on the Influence of Socially Regulated Learning on Online Collaborative Knowledge Building in the Post COVID-19 Period
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well-structured and clearly presented. The study size of 77 is good. The methodology figure (Figure 1) is clear.
Figure 2 can be enhanced for clarity
I'm not sure if Figure 4 is the best way to present the data. Perhaps just Table 3 is sufficient? This is just my early impression. Perhaps there is a good reason for this. This is not a strict requirement. I'm just not sure if Figure 4 provides much more additional value than what is already evident in table 3. Perhaps the remedy is to add a footnote to Table 3 to highlight CKB3?
The paper is of high quality and the suggestions/revisions are minor. This is good work.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is well-structured and clearly presented. The study size of 77 is good. The methodology figure (Figure 1) is clear.
Author’s response: Thank the reviewers for their efforts.
Figure 2 can be enhanced for clarity.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The original picture 2 has been replaced by a new picture with high quality.
Fig. 2 QQ group interaction interface. (Lines 185 and 186)
I'm not sure if Figure 4 is the best way to present the data. Perhaps just Table 3 is sufficient? This is just my early impression. Perhaps there is a good reason for this. This is not a strict requirement. I'm just not sure if Figure 4 provides much more additional value than what is already evident in table 3. Perhaps the remedy is to add a footnote to Table 3 to highlight CKB3?
Author’s response: Thank you very much. Compared with the data in Table 3, Figure 4 can intuitively show the transformation between collaborative knowledge building behaviors. The combination of Table 3 and Figure 4 can make the results more fully expressed. So, I think it's better to keep Figure 4.
The paper is of high quality and the suggestions/revisions are minor. This is good work.
Author’s response: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. The author has revised it according to the requirements of the reviewers.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall organization is good. Statistical processes are impressive. The description in methodology seemed too simplified when compared to the section of analyses and results. Ex. How the concept of ZPD supports the research design as the variables and terms?
I am recommending to translate the Chinese characters on Fig.2 to reflect how “live conversation” could reflect SoRL scripts (or somewhere else already shown) were utilized.
The demonstrations in Table S1 and in section 2.3.1 & 2.3.2 are still very confusing. Terms are mentioned such as “Shared task understanding phase”, and terms are mentioned in “shared metacognitive control/knowledge" are not specifically defined.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Overall organization is good. Statistical processes are impressive. The description in methodology seemed too simplified when compared to the section of analyses and results. Ex. How the concept of ZPD supports the research design as the variables and terms?
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The methodology part is further improved. The explanation of efficiency analysis and sample size estimation is added, and the basic situation of baseline level of subjects in terms of gender, basic knowledge reserve of digital media video creation and socially regulated learning ability is reported. (Lines 116-253)
I am recommending to translate the Chinese characters on Fig. 2 to reflect how “live conversation” could reflect SoRL scripts (or somewhere else already shown) were utilized.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The author re-selects the “live dialogue” of an experimental group in the history of group collaboration dialogue, including SoRL scripts and specific dialogue content. Relevant contents are shown in Table S2. (Sustainability-1993377-supplementary)
Table S2 Transcribed example of the experimental group’ regulation process.
|
Turns |
Transcript |
|
|
1 |
Teacher: (to the whole group) |
First of all, we should discuss the requirements of the clear task together, then determine the task division and collaboration plan. Everyone should put forward their own ideas on the basis of the peer's ideas in the process of discussion. It is recommended that everyone actively express their ideas and continue to push the discussion forward. |
|
2 |
Tan: (to the whole group) |
Hello, everybody, let's get started. |
|
3 |
Chen: (to the whole group) |
Start with a story-driven class?? |
|
4 |
Tan: (to Chen) |
Ok! |
|
5 |
Yao: (to the whole group) |
Who is in charge of the documentation of the discussion? |
|
6 |
Tan: (to Yao) |
Let me do it! |
|
7 |
Fen: (to Tan) |
Post an emoji of approval. |
|
8 |
Yao: (to the whole group) |
Next, we discuss the specific content. |
|
9 |
Tan: (to the whole group) |
For the audio-visual language features of story-driven micro-video, I think we should focus on composition, landscape, depth of field and so on. |
|
10 |
Yao: (to Tan) |
I quite agree with you. In addition, I think we should also strengthen the montage thinking, such as parallel montage, continuous montage, psychological montage, lyrical montage, etc. |
|
11 |
Tan: (to Yao) |
I agree with you that montage is too important for the creation of story-driven films. @ Yao Yan, can you give an example to explain specifically? |
|
12 |
Yao: (to Tan) |
Well, let me think @Tan |
|
13 |
Tan: (to Yao) |
Ok! |
|
14 |
Chen: (to the whole group) |
The content of the montage is really more, everyone pay attention to the control time, we still have a lot of content need to be discussed. |
|
15 |
Yao: (to the whole group) |
From the perspective of the whole, I think that montage can be used as the thinking of film structure. For example, the whole can be a psychological montage, with continuous and parallel montage in the middle. |
|
16 |
Fen: (to Yao) |
Ok, @Yao we should establish montage of three-dimensional thinking. |
The demonstrations in Table S1 and in section 2.3.1 & 2.3.2 are still very confusing. Terms are mentioned such as “Shared task understanding phase”, and terms are mentioned in “shared metacognitive control/knowledge" are not specifically defined.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The title of section 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 has been revised to section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. In section 2.4.1 of the article, the author further improved the expression of the text, and adjusted the metacognitive knowledge to share metacognitive knowledge. The goal of shared task understanding is to make team members reach a consistent understanding of task requirements. Shared metacognitive knowledge is about learners, tasks and learning strategies. Shared metacognitive control is mainly for students to understand, plan, monitor and reflect on shared tasks in the collaborative process. There is a big difference between the above three concepts. Among them, the connotations of sharing metacognitive knowledge and sharing metacognitive control are defined in the first sentence of section 2.4.1 and 2.4.2. For example, shared metacognitive knowledge included knowledge about learners, tasks and learning strategies.
Shared metacognitive control mainly involved learners' shared task understanding, planning, monitoring, evaluation and reflection in the process of collaborative learning, which showed obvious temporal characteristics. (Lines 187-212)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I found your article very interesting. Please find below some suggestions aiming to improve the quality of your manuscript.
Abstract: Could you please include information on the design and methodology of the study you have carried out? There is a mention on the volume of the sample, but more is needed.
Line 39: It is stated that online teaching and learning had a negative impact on both students and teachers. I suggest explaining what impacts were you referring to.
Line 55: I suggest using self-regulated learning instead of self-regulation learning.
Lines 56-57: It is stated that „There was 56 a significant positive correlation between SoRL and learning performance [15, 16].” - To what context does this affirmation refers? Is it valid for your study or for a more general context?
Lines 71-75: Please add some references in support of that paragraph.
Line 88: Please add some reference. It is stated that „Some studies proposed to explore the impact of collaboration scripts on the CKB results from the perspective of providing scaffolding”. Which studies?
Line 114: What do you mean by „representative university” („The author selected students from representative university to participate in the study”).
Lines 119-120: In addition to the mean age of the participants it is necessary to mention the standard deviation as well. What sampling method have you applied to select the participants? What type of „ online collaborative learning experience” did they have? (line 120).
Lines 236-239: It is stated that „ The prior knowledge level and SoRL level of the experimental group and control 236 group were tested, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in 237 prior knowledge level (p=0.213 > 0.05) and SoRL level (p=0.105 > 0.05).” How have they been tested?
Line 309: I would suggest replacing „ social regulatory learning” with socially shared regulation of learning” or socially regulated learning.
Perhaps more studies could be referenced and discussed in the Discussion section in relation to the current study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors,
I found your article very interesting. Please find below some suggestions aiming to improve the quality of your manuscript.
Author’s response: Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. The author has revised it according to the requirements of the reviewers.
Abstract: Could you please include information on the design and methodology of the study you have carried out? There is a mention on the volume of the sample, but more is needed.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The author provides more information on research design and methodology.
This study designed SoRL intervention strategies from the perspective of shared metacognitive scripts. A total of 77 undergraduate students participated in this study and were randomly assigned into experimental and control groups. The students in the experimental group received SoRL intervention, and the students in the control group learned with the traditional online collaborative learning approach. (Lines 13-17)
Line 39: It is stated that online teaching and learning had a negative impact on both students and teachers. I suggest explaining what impacts were you referring to.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The related influences include that it is difficult for teachers to monitor and guide students in a timely and all-round way, which easily leads to network teaching burnout. Second, students feel that online learning lacks interactivity. In order to explain the influence more clearly, the author adjusted the original article.
Online teaching has provided a guarantee to protect the safety of teachers and students, but it also has had a certain negative impact on them [5]. For example, one survey shows that it has been difficult for teachers to obtain timely and omni-directional monitoring of students in the process of online teaching, which has led to online teaching burnout. (Lines 40-44)
Line 55: I suggest using self-regulated learning instead of self-regulation learning.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. Self-regulation learning has been replaced with self-regulated learning in the article. (Lines 57 and 58)
Lines 56-57: It is stated that „There was 56 a significant positive correlation between SoRL and learning performance [15, 16].” - To what context does this affirmation refers? Is it valid for your study or for a more general context?
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The concept of learning performance has rich connotations, including cognitive aspects and non-cognitive aspects. The existing studies have only verified one dimension or one aspect of learning performance, but not all aspects that characterize learning performance. The academic performance mentioned in this study also reflects this feature. Of course, there are some shortcomings in the rigor of this expression, but it retains appropriate inclusiveness, which helps to summarize the relationship between socially regulated learning and learning performance. It is valid for a more general context. (Lines 59-62)
Lines 71-75: Please add some references in support of that paragraph.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. References have been added, and the way of expression has been adjusted.
The cognitive mechanism of CKB is composed of twelve principles on ideas, communities, and means, among which the principles of ideas include real ideas, authentic problems, improvable ideas, idea diversity, rise above, the principles of communities include epistemic agency, community knowledge, democratizing knowledge, symmetric knowledge advancement pervasive knowledge building and the principles of means include constructive uses of authoritative sources, knowledge building discourse, concurrent, embedded, transformative assessment [25]. (Lines 73-80)
Line 88: Please add some reference. It is stated that „Some studies proposed to explore the impact of collaboration scripts on the CKB results from the perspective of providing scaffolding”. Which studies?
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. Three references have been added.
Some studies proposed to explore the impact of collaboration scripts on the CKB results from the perspective of providing scaffolding[30-32]. (Lines 90-91)
Line 114: What do you mean by „representative university” („The author selected students from representative university to participate in the study”).
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The previous statement here is unreasonable. In this study, the students who participated in the experiment were selected from a comprehensive university in southwest China instead of representative universities. The author has adjusted the language expression.
The author selected students from comprehensive university to participate in the study. (Line 117)
Lines 119-120: In addition to the mean age of the participants it is necessary to mention the standard deviation as well. What sampling method have you applied to select the participants? What type of „ online collaborative learning experience” did they have? (line 120).
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The related data of standard deviation has been added in this paper. (Line 124)
The members of the experimental group and the control group were randomly selected.
Students' online learning experience includes three aspects. First, they can skillfully use the online collaborative learning platform. Second, they have the intention to collaborate with their peers in online situations to solve problems together. Third, they can actively adopt the intervention measures provided by teachers and reasonably respond to the challenges emerging in the online collaborative process. (Lines 134-141)
Lines 236-239: It is stated that „ The prior knowledge level and SoRL level of the experimental group and control 236 group were tested, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in 237 prior knowledge level (p=0.213 > 0.05) and SoRL level (p=0.105 > 0.05).” How have they been tested?
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The previous knowledge level test questions were developed and verified by two experienced teachers, including five single-choice questions, five right and wrong questions and five short-answer questions, with a maximum score of 100 points. As an index of test effectiveness, Cronbach's alpha of this test is 0.82.
The questionnaire of socially regulated learning ability was adapted from Olakanmi's collaborative regulated learning questionnaire, including shared metacognition, shared motivation, shared emotion, effort control strategy, and social help strategy. It was in the form of Likert's five-point scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the questionnaire is 0.950, ranging from 0.823 to 0.913 in each dimension. The above tests were completed at the initial stage of the collaborative activities.
(Lines 143-154)
Line 309: I would suggest replacing „ socially regulated learning” with socially shared regulation of learning” or socially regulated learning.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The author has unified the regulated learning at interpersonal level into socially regulated learning. (Line 328)
Perhaps more studies could be referenced and discussed in the Discussion section in relation to the current study.
Author’s response: We are thankful to the respected reviewer for valuable comments. The author further strengthens the dialogue between this research and existing research conclusion, and this expands the scope of discussion. The supplementary contents are in the main document of the paper. (Lines 328-388)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Aside from suggestting the authors sending the manuscript for proofreading by an English native speaker, I am satisfied with the current revision.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Aside from suggestting the authors sending the manuscript for proofreading by an English native speaker, I am satisfied with the current revision.
Author’s response: Thank the reviewers for their efforts. The paper has been edited by an English native speaker.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for improving your manuscript.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Thank you for improving your manuscript.
Author’s response: Thank the reviewers for their efforts.
