Sustainable Learning Process: Assessing the Effectiveness of Teaching Methodology by Analyzing Spatial and Temporal Properties of a Student as a Subject

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper.

There are several key points which require attention to further develop this paper:

1)    Abstract: It was very challenging to locate the core components, such as conceptual frameworks, research questions, methods, contexts, and participants, findings, implications of this study. These elements are not clear enough, necessitating revisiting the Methodology section multiple times for clarity. Addressing such aspects in the abstract will give a coherent and concise overview of your paper.

2)    Introduction & Problem background: This study includes a long reference list; however, it appears to lack synthesis, particularly when it comes to the problem background. It raises questions about the engagement with the existing literature and the identification of the research gaps that your research aims to fill. My questions are: Aren’t there any existing literature? What are the gaps between the existing research and your study? What are your research hypotheses? What are the critical ground for your research hypotheses?

The clarification of your research hypotheses, the rationale behind them, and the critical groundwork supporting these hypotheses are crucial. Elaborating on these points will solidify your arguments in the latter section of your paper.

After addressing these points, your paper can show more concrete arguments and implications which will bring a more broader international readership.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is good. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is of scientific interest. The topic of the article is relevant. The article is dedicated to the assessment of personal qualities of students. The authors propose a set of psychodiagnostic methods for studying subjectivity. However, the research objective of the article is not clearly formulated.

The article has several serious drawbacks:

1. The title of the article does not reflect its content.

2. There is a lack of a clear research objective. What is the purpose of evaluating the personal qualities of students?

3. Since the article lacks a clear objective, the conclusions are not specific.

4. The characterization of the empirical base is not provided. When was the study conducted? How many people participated in the study? Is the sample relevant? What is the difference between the experimental group and the control group? What is the age and gender composition of the respondents? What is the educational direction of the respondents?

5. The figures are poorly visible and contain Russian text (fig.14).

6. "What are the key conditions for the transition of educational science to a new paradigm?" (lines 453-454) seems to refer to: "educational paradigm based on 'smart education' and 'e-learning'." (line 53). The new education paradigm is not described. It would be helpful to understand how this study relates to this new paradigm.

I recommend rejecting the article. It may be resubmitted after revision and changing the title.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

 

After reviewing the article entitled “Sustainable Learning Process: Spatial and Temporal Properties of a Student as a Subject”, I think it needs some improvements which I attach below. I hope they are helpful.

 

·      Abstract: Although the abstract seems complete, I consider too much information about the background and too little about the research objective, as well as the methodology, the samples used or the conclusions found. I suggest a new wording that gives more importance and space to the research objective, the methodology, the samples used as well as the main conclusions/results of the study.

·      Introduction: Comprehensive, with recent and relevant quotations.

·      Methodology: Although it explains the three steps to be followed in the methodology, I consider that many initial and other quite important details are missing in this section. What is the research approach? What is the sample and its characteristics (it is mentioned later that there are control and experimental groups, this together with their characteristics should be introduced in the methodology section)? How did the data collection and research proceed? What ethical considerations were raised in the study? In addition, a short paragraph on the limitations of the study would also be quite pertinent. I would urge to identify the weaknesses of the study as reader also wishes to know what difficulties and challenges for you to conduct such study.

·      Discussion: There is no discussion of the results with the existing literature. An essential element. I believe that for the study to be even more valid, this discussion between the results of this study and the results of previous studies is necessary. The results need to be adjusted in the light of the argumentation that the author selects and relate it to the introduction and to previous research works.

·      Implications: Finally, should have a standalone section emphasizing on implications of this study to practice and society.

·      Tables and figures: They are appropriate and very clear. They are easy to read and they support the arguments. However, there are some where the text steps on the image. Be aware of this. (Figure 2)

·      References: Beware, the newest ones are from 2020. What is there on the subject in the last four years? A review would be necessary to include more recent literature.

 

The article is of great interest both for the scientific community and for practice. However, I believe that many changes (especially in the methodology and discussion section) should be made. Without the changes, the study loses rigor. Therefore, I believe that this text should be reconsidered after a thorough review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is of scientific interest. The topic of the article is relevant. The article is dedicated to the assessment of personal qualities of students. The authors propose a set of psychodiagnostics methods for studying subjectivity. But the research objective of the article is still not clearly formulated.

It is quite difficult for the reader to understand what purpose the authors set. This makes it difficult to understand the text

The article still has several serious drawbacks.

1.       Lines 124-125: «… meaning the relevant sample size large enough to make the data interesting». Where is the evidence of sample relevance?

2.       4.3 Web application. What is a web application? Need a brief description of it

3.       There are figures of poor quality (fig 2, fig 3)

 

Overall, the article has been improved. But it needs further improvement

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the text I have noted substantive changes in line with the comments made in the previous round of review.

Therefore, after reviewing the text again, I consider it suitable for publication.

Congratulations to the authors.

Author Response

Thank you for positive feedback, we appreciate all the comments that allowed us to improve the paper

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors took into account all comments and improved the article. I recommend accepting this manuscript for publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required