Comparative Case Study of Teamwork on Zoom and Gather.Town
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study has a great results and the interviews were amazing. So, i really congrats you. However, i found that table 3 is not explained in any sentence in the manuscript. Also, the explanation of figure 1 is well explained in the paragraph (347-351) but inside the figure i can not identified who is the instructor, I suggest if is possible translate to english language the words.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the three reviewers. The reviewers’ comments and suggestions greatly improved the quality of this article. We describe in detail below our responses to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers, as well as the reasons and grounds regarding the points that we found difficult to accept. Once again, we would like to thank the three reviewers.
Reviewer 1
This study has a great results and the interviews were amazing. So, i really congrats you. However, I found that table 3 is not explained in any sentence in the manuscript.
There was a typo in the numbers of the tables that has been corrected on line 248. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Also, the explanation of figure 1 is well explained in the paragraph (347-351) but inside the figure I can not identified who is the instructor, I suggest if is possible translate to english language the words.
Good point! YUNA was the instructor. We admit that it is hard to identify her without knowing Korean. We changed the figure by replacing Korean with English.
Reviewer 2
1.Essay writing doesn't contribute much. It is impossible to understand the significance of the author's research.
2.Small sample size leads to poor reliability of research results.
Response: In terms of the sample size, we note this point in the section on Limitations and Future Research. However, we would like to note that having one case for research is not an issue, methodologically speaking. Certainly, many case studies have taken only one case for their studies when they could have included several. In terms of reliability, this study took a qualitative research approach following an interpretative research paradigm. This research paradigm does not seek the replicability of the study but instead its trustworthiness. To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, we took actions common in qualitative research, such as data triangulation, researcher triangulation, reflexivity, member checking, and peer examination. We hope that this response satisfies the reviewer’s concerns.
Regarding trustworthiness, please see the references below:
- Lincoln, YS., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435.
Reviewer 3
The main question addressed by the research is whether the use of a certain online platform (Zoom) is more efficient or not than the use of another online platform (Gather.Town) with regard to Teamwork (within a tertiary education setting).
The topic of online work is certainly not original, but it may be relevant with respect to this comparative study between Zoom and Gather. Town - especially from the standpoint of the efficiency of using either platform by student teams.
I personally don't see how the study can cover any (significant) gap in the field but it may be of interest (to some) to know that using a certain platform or the other may be more effective when students are organized as teams.
The fact that comparing Zoom and Gather.Town leads to the possible conclusion that one is more efficient than the other. Gather.Town is more efficient to use when it comes to teams of students - that's the study's main finding - but I fail to see how this is relevant to tertiary education study in the absence of investigating the educational/pedagogical efficiency of that platform with respect to acquiring knowledge. But - I must admit - this was not the purpose of the study.
The methodology is all right - I don't see any problems with this aspect; perhaps the scope of the study should have been expanded to demonstrating not only team work on Gather.Town is more efficient than on Zoom but also that acquiring knowledge is more efficient on the same platform.
As the reviewer noted above, that was not the purpose of the study, which instead sought to understand how the students experienced the environments of the platforms, specifically regarding teamwork. Additionally, we sought to determine the different characteristics of their experiences by comparing the two platforms. However, in the acquisition of knowledge, we note that the purpose of the teamwork of the course that we studied was to produce teaching materials through collaboration among the team members. In this respect, student participants experienced Gather.Town as more highly effective in many respects for conducting the given learning projects than the Zoom environment. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, as this issue should be studied in future research, as we suggest in the section on Limitations and Future Research.
I find the conclusions to be consistent with the evidence and arguments presented to the extent that they do address the main question posed - what I find problematic is that the question posed is irrelevant to immediate pedagogical/educational results (learning outcomes). What I mean is that, yes, I do understand that working as a team is more efficient on Gather.Town than on Zoom but I don't see how this can improve the learning process.
In terms of improving the learning process and the quality of outcomes, we would l argue that “teamwork has been promoted because it is a positive effect on the learning process and outcome by inducing the active participation of learners,” as indicated in sources [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Thus, it is possible to argue when the quality of teamwork is enhanced, students’ learning can be highly effective.
Additionally, the instructor has added a couple of paragraphs at the end of the research results providing her evaluation of students’ learning products on lines 579–600.
We hope that this resolves the reviewers’ questions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1.Essay writing doesn't contribute much. It is impossible to understand the significance of the author's research.
2.Small sample size leads to poor reliability of research results.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the three reviewers. The reviewers’ comments and suggestions greatly improved the quality of this article. We describe in detail below our responses to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers, as well as the reasons and grounds regarding the points that we found difficult to accept. Once again, we would like to thank the three reviewers.
Reviewer 1
This study has a great results and the interviews were amazing. So, i really congrats you. However, I found that table 3 is not explained in any sentence in the manuscript.
There was a typo in the numbers of the tables that has been corrected on line 248. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Also, the explanation of figure 1 is well explained in the paragraph (347-351) but inside the figure I can not identified who is the instructor, I suggest if is possible translate to english language the words.
Good point! YUNA was the instructor. We admit that it is hard to identify her without knowing Korean. We changed the figure by replacing Korean with English.
Reviewer 2
1.Essay writing doesn't contribute much. It is impossible to understand the significance of the author's research.
2.Small sample size leads to poor reliability of research results.
Response: In terms of the sample size, we note this point in the section on Limitations and Future Research. However, we would like to note that having one case for research is not an issue, methodologically speaking. Certainly, many case studies have taken only one case for their studies when they could have included several. In terms of reliability, this study took a qualitative research approach following an interpretative research paradigm. This research paradigm does not seek the replicability of the study but instead its trustworthiness. To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, we took actions common in qualitative research, such as data triangulation, researcher triangulation, reflexivity, member checking, and peer examination. We hope that this response satisfies the reviewer’s concerns.
Regarding trustworthiness, please see the references below:
- Lincoln, YS., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435.
Reviewer 3
The main question addressed by the research is whether the use of a certain online platform (Zoom) is more efficient or not than the use of another online platform (Gather.Town) with regard to Teamwork (within a tertiary education setting).
The topic of online work is certainly not original, but it may be relevant with respect to this comparative study between Zoom and Gather. Town - especially from the standpoint of the efficiency of using either platform by student teams.
I personally don't see how the study can cover any (significant) gap in the field but it may be of interest (to some) to know that using a certain platform or the other may be more effective when students are organized as teams.
The fact that comparing Zoom and Gather.Town leads to the possible conclusion that one is more efficient than the other. Gather.Town is more efficient to use when it comes to teams of students - that's the study's main finding - but I fail to see how this is relevant to tertiary education study in the absence of investigating the educational/pedagogical efficiency of that platform with respect to acquiring knowledge. But - I must admit - this was not the purpose of the study.
The methodology is all right - I don't see any problems with this aspect; perhaps the scope of the study should have been expanded to demonstrating not only team work on Gather.Town is more efficient than on Zoom but also that acquiring knowledge is more efficient on the same platform.
As the reviewer noted above, that was not the purpose of the study, which instead sought to understand how the students experienced the environments of the platforms, specifically regarding teamwork. Additionally, we sought to determine the different characteristics of their experiences by comparing the two platforms. However, in the acquisition of knowledge, we note that the purpose of the teamwork of the course that we studied was to produce teaching materials through collaboration among the team members. In this respect, student participants experienced Gather.Town as more highly effective in many respects for conducting the given learning projects than the Zoom environment. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, as this issue should be studied in future research, as we suggest in the section on Limitations and Future Research.
I find the conclusions to be consistent with the evidence and arguments presented to the extent that they do address the main question posed - what I find problematic is that the question posed is irrelevant to immediate pedagogical/educational results (learning outcomes). What I mean is that, yes, I do understand that working as a team is more efficient on Gather.Town than on Zoom but I don't see how this can improve the learning process.
In terms of improving the learning process and the quality of outcomes, we would l argue that “teamwork has been promoted because it is a positive effect on the learning process and outcome by inducing the active participation of learners,” as indicated in sources [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Thus, it is possible to argue when the quality of teamwork is enhanced, students’ learning can be highly effective.
Additionally, the instructor has added a couple of paragraphs at the end of the research results providing her evaluation of students’ learning products on lines 579–600.
We hope that this resolves the reviewers’ questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The main question addressed by the research is whether the use of a certain online platform (Zoom) is more efficient or not than the use of another online platform (Gather.Town) with regard to Teamwork (within a tertiary education setting).
The topic of online work is certainly not original, but it may be relevant with respect to this comparative study between Zoom and Gather. Town - especially from the standpoint of the efficiency of using either platform by student teams.
I personally don't see how the study can cover any (significant) gap in the field but it may be of interest (to some) to know that using a certain platform or the other may be more effective when students are organized as teams.
The fact that comparing Zoom and Gather.Town leads to the possible conclusion that one is more efficient than the other. Gather.Town is more efficient to use when it comes to teams of students - that's the study's main finding - but I fail to see how this is relevant to tertiary education study in the absence of investigating the educational/pedagogical efficiency of that platform with respect to acquiring knowledge. But - I must admit - this was not the purpose of the study.
The methodology is alright - I don't see any problems with this aspect; perhaps the scope of the study should have been expanded to demonstrating not only team work on Gather.Town is more efficient than on Zoom but also that acquiring knowledge is more efficient on the same platform.
I find the conclusions to be consistent with the evidence and arguments presented to the extent that they do address the main question posed - what I find problematic is that the question posed is irrelevant to immediate pedagogical/educational results (learning outcomes). What I mean is that, yes, I do understand that working as a team is more efficient on Gather.Town than on Zoom but I don't see how this can improve the learning process.
References: given the multitude of references in the field, I think they are adequately and appropriately used in the study.
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the three reviewers. The reviewers’ comments and suggestions greatly improved the quality of this article. We describe in detail below our responses to the comments and suggestions of the reviewers, as well as the reasons and grounds regarding the points that we found difficult to accept. Once again, we would like to thank the three reviewers.
Reviewer 1
This study has a great results and the interviews were amazing. So, i really congrats you. However, I found that table 3 is not explained in any sentence in the manuscript.
There was a typo in the numbers of the tables that has been corrected on line 248. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Also, the explanation of figure 1 is well explained in the paragraph (347-351) but inside the figure I can not identified who is the instructor, I suggest if is possible translate to english language the words.
Good point! YUNA was the instructor. We admit that it is hard to identify her without knowing Korean. We changed the figure by replacing Korean with English.
Reviewer 2
1.Essay writing doesn't contribute much. It is impossible to understand the significance of the author's research.
2.Small sample size leads to poor reliability of research results.
Response: In terms of the sample size, we note this point in the section on Limitations and Future Research. However, we would like to note that having one case for research is not an issue, methodologically speaking. Certainly, many case studies have taken only one case for their studies when they could have included several. In terms of reliability, this study took a qualitative research approach following an interpretative research paradigm. This research paradigm does not seek the replicability of the study but instead its trustworthiness. To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, we took actions common in qualitative research, such as data triangulation, researcher triangulation, reflexivity, member checking, and peer examination. We hope that this response satisfies the reviewer’s concerns.
Regarding trustworthiness, please see the references below:
- Lincoln, YS., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Connelly, L. M. (2016). Trustworthiness in qualitative research. Medsurg Nursing, 25(6), 435.
Reviewer 3
The main question addressed by the research is whether the use of a certain online platform (Zoom) is more efficient or not than the use of another online platform (Gather.Town) with regard to Teamwork (within a tertiary education setting).
The topic of online work is certainly not original, but it may be relevant with respect to this comparative study between Zoom and Gather. Town - especially from the standpoint of the efficiency of using either platform by student teams.
I personally don't see how the study can cover any (significant) gap in the field but it may be of interest (to some) to know that using a certain platform or the other may be more effective when students are organized as teams.
The fact that comparing Zoom and Gather.Town leads to the possible conclusion that one is more efficient than the other. Gather.Town is more efficient to use when it comes to teams of students - that's the study's main finding - but I fail to see how this is relevant to tertiary education study in the absence of investigating the educational/pedagogical efficiency of that platform with respect to acquiring knowledge. But - I must admit - this was not the purpose of the study.
The methodology is all right - I don't see any problems with this aspect; perhaps the scope of the study should have been expanded to demonstrating not only team work on Gather.Town is more efficient than on Zoom but also that acquiring knowledge is more efficient on the same platform.
As the reviewer noted above, that was not the purpose of the study, which instead sought to understand how the students experienced the environments of the platforms, specifically regarding teamwork. Additionally, we sought to determine the different characteristics of their experiences by comparing the two platforms. However, in the acquisition of knowledge, we note that the purpose of the teamwork of the course that we studied was to produce teaching materials through collaboration among the team members. In this respect, student participants experienced Gather.Town as more highly effective in many respects for conducting the given learning projects than the Zoom environment. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment, as this issue should be studied in future research, as we suggest in the section on Limitations and Future Research.
I find the conclusions to be consistent with the evidence and arguments presented to the extent that they do address the main question posed - what I find problematic is that the question posed is irrelevant to immediate pedagogical/educational results (learning outcomes). What I mean is that, yes, I do understand that working as a team is more efficient on Gather.Town than on Zoom but I don't see how this can improve the learning process.
In terms of improving the learning process and the quality of outcomes, we would l argue that “teamwork has been promoted because it is a positive effect on the learning process and outcome by inducing the active participation of learners,” as indicated in sources [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Thus, it is possible to argue when the quality of teamwork is enhanced, students’ learning can be highly effective.
Additionally, the instructor has added a couple of paragraphs at the end of the research results providing her evaluation of students’ learning products on lines 579–600.
We hope that this resolves the reviewers’ questions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper can be used as a research report, but it is not appropriate as an academic paper. Because it doesn't cover any significant gap.
Author Response
Dear editors
I am writing on behalf of the authors of sustainability-2093495.
First of all, we express our deepest gratitude to the reviewers’ comments on our work.
However, we would like to ask the editor to consider finding another reviewer with expertise of qualitative research methodologies. We are suggesting this because we find the “Reviewer 2’s second comments” hard to agree with.
Reviewer 2’s comments can be summarized as below:
1.Essay writing doesn't contribute much. It is impossible to understand the significance of the author's research.
2.Small sample size leads to poor reliability of research results.
3. This paper can be used as a research report, but it is not appropriate as an academic paper. Because it doesn't cover any significant gap.
First, he or she judges the article is “essay writing”. Alternative academic writings, especially for qualitative research, has been used in the fields of education. We find our article is rather “traditional format of qualitative research writing” which is considered as an appropriate format of journal article.
Second, the matter of sample size cannot be an issue because the article came out of a single-case study which is commonly used in qualitative research projects. Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 3 were satisfied with the research methodology.
Third, we do believe that our research makes contribution to the discourse of online learning, if not “significant” for a couple of reasons. First of all, there is little study on university students’ experience and perception of their teamwork comparing Zoom and Gather.Town. learning environment. In this respect, this study fills the gap in the discourse of online learning at least in South Korea. Secondly, in terms of catalyst validity, the study process itself gave valuable experiences to the instructor and the students. For the former, the instructor gained deeper insights of how to organize online learning environments to facilitate teamworks. For the latter, the experience as research participants gave the students, most of whom will become schoolteachers, with opportunities to think about how to design online learning instructions and platform for students they will teach in the future given online learning has already become a “new normal” form of teaching and learning.
Given what we have addressed, we find that Reviewer 2’s comments are too harsh for us.
Yet, please know that we remain open to further discussions and are willing to revise the article if there are comments and suggestions are reasonable and productive.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jung-Hoon Jung
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I'm very regrettable to say that I don't see how the study can cover any (significant) gap in the field .
