Exploring the Effects of Computer and Smart Device-Assisted Learning on Students’ Achievements: Empirical Evidence from Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presented has great current relevance. The statistical model used assumes fixed effects, therefore it imposes that the time effects are independent for each identity that is possibly correlated with the regressors. From the results obtained, the contribution of the CSDL continues to have a very low impact on academic performance, compared to traditional teaching, so more research is needed to better validate the findings.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We really appreciate your considerate comments.
For the specific response to your comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- Usually keywords don't take (over) sequences from the title (eg. Computer and Smart Device-assisted Learning and so on) – reformulate them in the way to reflect the article ideas and not just be redundant, please
- Please specify the source of each figure / table (e.g. “Author's own processing” or other expressions / sources) between square or round brackets after the name of the table. Improve each figure / table (which is not “self- processing) with your own contribution
- The section of introduction should include (even briefly at the end of the chapter): the context of the study, which are the main results presented in short, which is the originality of this paper, the main implication policy of these results and a description of the structure of the paper - the role of each section of the paper. Some of them are missing - please fill it accordingly
- The “Literature Review” (part / sub(chapter) of Introduction chapter or – my recommendation - separate chapter after Introduction chapter) should include in more detail the “gap” in existing literature / studies and the innovative aspects brought by this paper (analysis for “existing literature” and the novelty and originality brought by this paper should be highlighted regarding “previous stidies”) - please detail the gaps in the existing literature (partially done in different chapters) and state more clearly / more explicitly the manner in which the article “addresses these gaps”.
- Would be really appreciated (actually is a request) if you wil (can) formulate (a few or at least one or two) Objective/s of the study with (minimum) two Hypotheses for each Objective/s (e.g. Hypothessis 1, 2, 3… - introduced perhaps at the end of Introduction chapter or at the beginning of Materials and Methods aria / chapter) in the way to be validated by the research in Results, Discussion & Conclusions chapters (with clear reference to hypotheses 1 & 2 & (and so on) of the objective/s of the research). This would prove that there is a line of argumentation - that starts from (minimum) one or two objective/s (with minimum 2 or 4 hypotheses) and reaches a conclusion (proven with the help of the study). Besides this, please detail more clear what are the advantages of your study method / concept compared to other methods / concepts, what are the similarities, what are its shortcomings, what exactly differentiates it and how this aspect is reflected on the “results”
- An uninformed reader can think that it is a descriptive article (which is not really just descriptive – my oppinion) and that’s why, I recommend (actually is a request) that the “concrete” proposals with “practical” applicability and if possible ... “measurable” be more clearly individualized (in a separate subsection / (sub)chapter of Results and / or Discussion chapters). Actually, it would be interesting if the study would present some aspects more clearly related to the practical application of the study (even examples) and its results (where could be applied, how could be applied and so on). Thus, please detail further the interpretation of the data analysis performed and its implications by reference to the scope of the research (partialy done in Results and Discussion chapters).
Please mentione (in a separate / individualized area after Conclusions) more clear (the subjective and) limiting nature of the study (the limits of the research and the way in which these limits will be addressed in the future – if will be) and argue opinion regarding a possible modification of the investigation indicators also to reflecte and to have a holistic view on the topic
Author Response
We really appreciate your considerate comments.
For the specific response to your comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
There are a couple of issues plaguing the manuscript. First, the data used here dates back to 2015-17, a pre-COVID-19 era and when we are in 2023, the entire teaching-learning ecosystem has been altered almost permanently. However, the study doesn't reflect any such interventions and therefore the outcome lacks the strength of the confounding role of similar interventions. Either, the authors should declare there is potentially no effect/ no discerning behavioral changes among the students and teachers or it should be explained categorically. Simply, excluding the scenario doesn't help.
Secondly, the study lacks novelty. Numerous studies show the positive impact of technology in primary education. Therefore, It is paramount to bring the novelty of the research to the surface in terms of new phenomena in learning among youngsters.
The language needs improvement.
Author Response
We really appreciate your considerate comments.
For the specific response to your comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper does not contain a specific section mentioning the limitations of the study, which are mainly found in the demographic context, the specific educational level, and the purely statistical cut of the paper. The paper could be improved by including this section.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We really appreciate your considerate comments.
For the specific response to your comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
References 15 and 59 are self-references? If the amswer is yes, please remove them. The elimination of self citations also presupposed the "reformulation" of the paragraph in the article - corresponding to the quoted source
Author Response
We really appreciate your considerate comments.
For the specific response to your comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have read the arguments placed by the authors which somehow falls through the time horizon chosen for the study and the newer models being used to explain universality of computer education as respective student cohorts like Rhizomatic learning etc.
I am afraid, I am unable to recommend it.
Author Response
We really appreciate your considerate comments.
For the specific response to your comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
