Self-Regulation in E-Learning Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has improved remarkably. Thanks for the opportunity to read a very interesting article. The study addresses an important issue and poses the challenge of developing the self-regulated model for e-learning, taking into account the particularities of learning in a digital environment. The pandemic and the move to online education has generated doubts and uncertainties that can be clarified with articles like this one.
Overall, the article should have a very high rating. I just have a few specific questions and suggestions.
- I think a section with research limitations should be included.
- In table 2 the title of figure 8 has been inserted, it is a document layout problem.
These problems do not affect the quality of the text. The article is carefully prepared. I congratulate the authors. My criticism is minor issues that do not affect the complete conception of the investigation.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thanks for the comments and positive feedback.
Reviewer 1
The article has improved remarkably. Thanks for the opportunity to read a very interesting article. The study addresses an important issue and poses the challenge of developing the self-regulated model for e-learning, taking into account the particularities of learning in a digital environment. The pandemic and the move to online education has generated doubts and uncertainties that can be clarified with articles like this one.
Overall, the article should have a very high rating. I just have a few specific questions and suggestions.
- I think a section with research limitations should be included.
thank you done
- In table 2 the title of figure 8 has been inserted, it is a document layout problem.
thank you done
These problems do not affect the quality of the text. The article is carefully prepared. I congratulate the authors. My criticism is minor issues that do not affect the complete conception of the investigation.
Thank you very much for your words.
Reviewer 2
Dear authors,
The paper has improved deeply. I only have one suggestion that for me is the only barrier between the acceptation of the paper. In the result section you have improved the paper and you present correlations and descriptive statistics. However it remains unclear the relation between the study objectives and research questions and the presented results. How did the analysis and data results respond to your research question? This should be clear in the justification of the analysis that you propose, on discussion, but on the introduction and relevance/gap of the paper it should be very clear what you intend to test, what are your hypothesis? You still don´t present hypothesis…! Do you confirm or not your hypothesis? What are they and how the data confirm or not your hypothesis?
We understand your bewilderment about the lack of a research hypothesis. However, we would like to point out that since this article is only a part of the project, it was very difficult for us to limit its scope. As a result, this part of the study aims to present and empirically test the self-regulated model for e-learning for its further use in the subsequent part of the research. Thus, our goal was first of all to check the relevance of the model for its further use. The study showed several shortcomings of the model and the need for its improvement (we indicated this at the end of the discussion section)
The paper still lacks coherence and solid results. The authors don´t present a relation between their objectives and the proposed analysis. You still don´t have hypothesis to confirm or infirm.
We strongly suggest a minor revision along all the paper working on the connection between the proposed objectives, the development of hypothesis that afterwards will confirm or not the goals by the achieved data.
Many thanks.
The aim of the research is to present and practically evaluate the model. The results showed the importance and interdependence of the factors considered in the model, however, they revealed several shortcomings that will be eliminated in the future and will make it possible to establish the directional dependence of the key factors.
Reviewer 3
No more comments or suggestions.
Thank you
Reviewer 4
Self-Regulated Learning Model ..."The theory of self-regulation combines cognitive, motivational, social, and behavioral factors taking into account cultural organizational, and contextual variables [51]"..
- The authors should add more relevant self-regulation theory to the article.
Thank you, we made a small theoretical and historical excursion into self-regulation theories
- The authors should elaborate more about the relationships in Figure 4.
we added description of key variable dependencies of the model in Figure 4
Good job
Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
The paper has improved deeply. I only have one suggestion that for me is the only barrier between the acceptation of the paper. In the result section you have improved the paper and you present correlations and descriptive statistics. However it remains unclear the relation between the study objectives and research questions and the presented results. How did the analysis and data results respond to your research question? This should be clear in the justification of the analysis that you propose, on discussion, but on the introduction and relevance/gap of the paper it should be very clear what you intend to test, what are your hypothesis? You still don´t present hypothesis…! Do you confirm or not your hypothesis? What are they and how the data confirm or not your hypothesis?
The paper still lacks coherence and solid results. The authors don´t present a relation between their objectives and the proposed analysis. You still don´t have hypothesis to confirm or infirm.
We strongly suggest a minor revision along all the paper working on the connection between the proposed objectives, the development of hypothesis that afterwards will confirm or not the goals by the achieved data.
Many thanks.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thanks for the comments and positive feedback.
Reviewer 1
The article has improved remarkably. Thanks for the opportunity to read a very interesting article. The study addresses an important issue and poses the challenge of developing the self-regulated model for e-learning, taking into account the particularities of learning in a digital environment. The pandemic and the move to online education has generated doubts and uncertainties that can be clarified with articles like this one.
Overall, the article should have a very high rating. I just have a few specific questions and suggestions.
- I think a section with research limitations should be included.
thank you done
- In table 2 the title of figure 8 has been inserted, it is a document layout problem.
thank you done
These problems do not affect the quality of the text. The article is carefully prepared. I congratulate the authors. My criticism is minor issues that do not affect the complete conception of the investigation.
Thank you very much for your words.
Reviewer 2
Dear authors,
The paper has improved deeply. I only have one suggestion that for me is the only barrier between the acceptation of the paper. In the result section you have improved the paper and you present correlations and descriptive statistics. However it remains unclear the relation between the study objectives and research questions and the presented results. How did the analysis and data results respond to your research question? This should be clear in the justification of the analysis that you propose, on discussion, but on the introduction and relevance/gap of the paper it should be very clear what you intend to test, what are your hypothesis? You still don´t present hypothesis…! Do you confirm or not your hypothesis? What are they and how the data confirm or not your hypothesis?
We understand your bewilderment about the lack of a research hypothesis. However, we would like to point out that since this article is only a part of the project, it was very difficult for us to limit its scope. As a result, this part of the study aims to present and empirically test the self-regulated model for e-learning for its further use in the subsequent part of the research. Thus, our goal was first of all to check the relevance of the model for its further use. The study showed several shortcomings of the model and the need for its improvement (we indicated this at the end of the discussion section)
The paper still lacks coherence and solid results. The authors don´t present a relation between their objectives and the proposed analysis. You still don´t have hypothesis to confirm or infirm.
We strongly suggest a minor revision along all the paper working on the connection between the proposed objectives, the development of hypothesis that afterwards will confirm or not the goals by the achieved data.
Many thanks.
The aim of the research is to present and practically evaluate the model. The results showed the importance and interdependence of the factors considered in the model, however, they revealed several shortcomings that will be eliminated in the future and will make it possible to establish the directional dependence of the key factors.
Reviewer 3
No more comments or suggestions.
Thank you
Reviewer 4
Self-Regulated Learning Model ..."The theory of self-regulation combines cognitive, motivational, social, and behavioral factors taking into account cultural organizational, and contextual variables [51]"..
- The authors should add more relevant self-regulation theory to the article.
Thank you, we made a small theoretical and historical excursion into self-regulation theories
- The authors should elaborate more about the relationships in Figure 4.
we added description of key variable dependencies of the model in Figure 4
Good job
Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
No more comments or suggestions.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thanks for the comments and positive feedback.
Reviewer 1
The article has improved remarkably. Thanks for the opportunity to read a very interesting article. The study addresses an important issue and poses the challenge of developing the self-regulated model for e-learning, taking into account the particularities of learning in a digital environment. The pandemic and the move to online education has generated doubts and uncertainties that can be clarified with articles like this one.
Overall, the article should have a very high rating. I just have a few specific questions and suggestions.
- I think a section with research limitations should be included.
thank you done
- In table 2 the title of figure 8 has been inserted, it is a document layout problem.
thank you done
These problems do not affect the quality of the text. The article is carefully prepared. I congratulate the authors. My criticism is minor issues that do not affect the complete conception of the investigation.
Thank you very much for your words.
Reviewer 2
Dear authors,
The paper has improved deeply. I only have one suggestion that for me is the only barrier between the acceptation of the paper. In the result section you have improved the paper and you present correlations and descriptive statistics. However it remains unclear the relation between the study objectives and research questions and the presented results. How did the analysis and data results respond to your research question? This should be clear in the justification of the analysis that you propose, on discussion, but on the introduction and relevance/gap of the paper it should be very clear what you intend to test, what are your hypothesis? You still don´t present hypothesis…! Do you confirm or not your hypothesis? What are they and how the data confirm or not your hypothesis?
We understand your bewilderment about the lack of a research hypothesis. However, we would like to point out that since this article is only a part of the project, it was very difficult for us to limit its scope. As a result, this part of the study aims to present and empirically test the self-regulated model for e-learning for its further use in the subsequent part of the research. Thus, our goal was first of all to check the relevance of the model for its further use. The study showed several shortcomings of the model and the need for its improvement (we indicated this at the end of the discussion section)
The paper still lacks coherence and solid results. The authors don´t present a relation between their objectives and the proposed analysis. You still don´t have hypothesis to confirm or infirm.
We strongly suggest a minor revision along all the paper working on the connection between the proposed objectives, the development of hypothesis that afterwards will confirm or not the goals by the achieved data.
Many thanks.
The aim of the research is to present and practically evaluate the model. The results showed the importance and interdependence of the factors considered in the model, however, they revealed several shortcomings that will be eliminated in the future and will make it possible to establish the directional dependence of the key factors.
Reviewer 3
No more comments or suggestions.
Thank you
Reviewer 4
Self-Regulated Learning Model ..."The theory of self-regulation combines cognitive, motivational, social, and behavioral factors taking into account cultural organizational, and contextual variables [51]"..
- The authors should add more relevant self-regulation theory to the article.
Thank you, we made a small theoretical and historical excursion into self-regulation theories
- The authors should elaborate more about the relationships in Figure 4.
we added description of key variable dependencies of the model in Figure 4
Good job
Thank you!
Reviewer 4 Report
Self-Regulated Learning Model ..."The theory of self-regulation combines cognitive, motivational, social, and behavioral factors taking into account cultural organizational, and contextual variables [51]"..
- The authors should add more relevant self-regulation theory to the article.
- The authors should elaborate more about the relationships in Figure 4.
Good job
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thanks for the comments and positive feedback.
Reviewer 1
The article has improved remarkably. Thanks for the opportunity to read a very interesting article. The study addresses an important issue and poses the challenge of developing the self-regulated model for e-learning, taking into account the particularities of learning in a digital environment. The pandemic and the move to online education has generated doubts and uncertainties that can be clarified with articles like this one.
Overall, the article should have a very high rating. I just have a few specific questions and suggestions.
- I think a section with research limitations should be included.
thank you done
- In table 2 the title of figure 8 has been inserted, it is a document layout problem.
thank you done
These problems do not affect the quality of the text. The article is carefully prepared. I congratulate the authors. My criticism is minor issues that do not affect the complete conception of the investigation.
Thank you very much for your words.
Reviewer 2
Dear authors,
The paper has improved deeply. I only have one suggestion that for me is the only barrier between the acceptation of the paper. In the result section you have improved the paper and you present correlations and descriptive statistics. However it remains unclear the relation between the study objectives and research questions and the presented results. How did the analysis and data results respond to your research question? This should be clear in the justification of the analysis that you propose, on discussion, but on the introduction and relevance/gap of the paper it should be very clear what you intend to test, what are your hypothesis? You still don´t present hypothesis…! Do you confirm or not your hypothesis? What are they and how the data confirm or not your hypothesis?
We understand your bewilderment about the lack of a research hypothesis. However, we would like to point out that since this article is only a part of the project, it was very difficult for us to limit its scope. As a result, this part of the study aims to present and empirically test the self-regulated model for e-learning for its further use in the subsequent part of the research. Thus, our goal was first of all to check the relevance of the model for its further use. The study showed several shortcomings of the model and the need for its improvement (we indicated this at the end of the discussion section)
The paper still lacks coherence and solid results. The authors don´t present a relation between their objectives and the proposed analysis. You still don´t have hypothesis to confirm or infirm.
We strongly suggest a minor revision along all the paper working on the connection between the proposed objectives, the development of hypothesis that afterwards will confirm or not the goals by the achieved data.
Many thanks.
The aim of the research is to present and practically evaluate the model. The results showed the importance and interdependence of the factors considered in the model, however, they revealed several shortcomings that will be eliminated in the future and will make it possible to establish the directional dependence of the key factors.
Reviewer 3
No more comments or suggestions.
Thank you
Reviewer 4
Self-Regulated Learning Model ..."The theory of self-regulation combines cognitive, motivational, social, and behavioral factors taking into account cultural organizational, and contextual variables [51]"..
- The authors should add more relevant self-regulation theory to the article.
Thank you, we made a small theoretical and historical excursion into self-regulation theories
- The authors should elaborate more about the relationships in Figure 4.
we added description of key variable dependencies of the model in Figure 4
Good job
Thank you!
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
COMMENTS ON “Self-Regulation in E-Learning Environment”
Introduction:
-Introduction provides enough background and references.
Research:
-Research objectives or questions should be clearly specified, otherwise results are vague.
Results:
-Figures 5,6,7 have been inserted with no explanation around them.
-In my opinion, this text “The empirical part of the study, presented in the form of a questionnaire of students, consisted of 9 blocks of arguments united by a common problem: Self-directed Learning, Self-regulated Learning, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on human system interaction, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on content.” Should be part of methodology as the questionnaire is described.
-Please, be consistent when placing the Tables numbers.
-Results should answer specific research objectives that need to be clearly stated.
Discussion:
-This needs to be related to objectives that have not been clearly stated.
-Discussion is too short.
English language and style:
-Revise grammar, e.g. “Pintrich developed four phases-model of self-regulation” should say “Pintrich developed a four phases-model of self-regulation” (page 4).
-Use of capital letters in “The phases are Fore-thought, Planning and Activation; Monitoring; Control; and Reaction and reflection.”… Reflection in capital letters.
-Check grammar in “But we also would like to note that…” (page 6).
- Revise style in “Also, to have an idea about the respondents, you should specify information about the percentage of courses that they took online and about the time spent on them” (page 6).
-Heading 3.2. on page 13 is in Russian.
References:
-Quite a lot of references.
-Inconsistent use of initials as in “Zimmerman, B.J.; Moylan” (page 4).
-When authors are cited in the body of the text or as source for figures, page numbers should be added.
15 September 2021 (Report)
Authors:
Paper would require further revision based on detailed recommendations.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you very much for your valuable remarks
Reviewer 1
COMMENTS ON “Self-Regulation in E-Learning Environment”
Introduction: -Introduction provides enough background and references.
Research: -Research objectives or questions should be clearly specified, otherwise results are vague.
Results: -Figures 5,6,7 have been inserted with no explanation around them.
Thank you, we changed the place of the pictures and expanded the description
-In my opinion, this text “The empirical part of the study, presented in the form of a questionnaire of students, consisted of 9 blocks of arguments united by a common problem: Self-directed Learning, Self-regulated Learning, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on human system interaction, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on content.” Should be part of methodology as the questionnaire is described.
Thanks. Done.
-Please, be consistent when placing the Tables numbers.
Thanks. Done.
-Results should answer specific research objectives that need to be clearly stated. Discussion: -This needs to be related to objectives that have not been clearly stated. -Discussion is too short.
English language and style:
-Revise grammar, e.g. “Pintrich developed four phases-model of self-regulation” should say “Pintrich developed a four phases-model of self-regulation” (page 4).
Thanks. Done.
-Use of capital letters in “The phases are Fore-thought, Planning and Activation; Monitoring; Control; and Reaction and reflection.”… Reflection in capital letters.
Thanks. Done.
-Check grammar in “But we also would like to note that…” (page 6).
Thanks. Done.
- Revise style in “Also, to have an idea about the respondents, you should specify information about the percentage of courses that they took online and about the time spent on them” (page 6). -Heading 3.2. on page 13 is in Russian.
References:
-Quite a lot of references. -Inconsistent use of initials as in “Zimmerman, B.J.; Moylan” (page 4).
Thanks. Done.
-When authors are cited in the body of the text or as source for figures, page numbers should be added.
Thanks. Done.
15 September 2021 (Report)
Authors: Paper would require further revision based on detailed recommendations
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the manuscript.
It is relevant and addresses a relevant issue. In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with the need for more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result. The paper is a very initial perspective on the topic. It has potential but as it is it does not gather quality for publishing.
Regarding introduction the authors present Zimmerman as the founder of the idea. We suggest reframing, introducing Zimmerman as an author that presents the construct/model which the authors value as relevant in their research (authors need to consider that self-regulation has deepest roots in psychology, therefore it´s relevant to reframe Zimmerman model). Also there are several models on self-regulated learning, therefore the idea needs to be developed. A strong objection to the publishing of this paper is that you don´t present the relevance of the model you have selected, which theoretical model specifically are you focusing in. Authors present several models, their evolution, but it would be relevant to present which one is more relevant to this research and which one do you will follow on this research. We suggest that authors should enhance the model they have selected and also reinforce their relevance according to their research.
Thank you for your clarification. We reframed the sentence.
The goal of this research is to create new model (considering models of self-regulation at traditional environment, but the new one that underline the specific of digitalization of education). We highlighted the goal and made some link to previous models
The authors present in page 5 the following sentence, “In more recent models, self-regulated learning often becomes one of the factors in a number of other factors that affect academic performance. “ We strongly suggest this sentence to be reframed. Also authors need to consider the need to deepen this information, probably relating it to its gap or the relevance of the theoretical question of this paper. The gap of this paper is not well established on the introduction. We suggest authors to present it clearly. The paper doesn´t present strong theoretical arguments that sustain the presented research.
Thank you. The sentence is reframed. In introduction we added goals and brief description of relevance of the work
There is a need to clarify the options used in the methodological section. The authors use qualitative methodologies first. Is this an exploratory approach? An epistemological decision? It is not clear if the qualitative methodology was used in 12 people or in several groups with 12 people each. There is a need to clarify also the participants characteristics.
108 students were interviewed, 9 groups of 12 people were formed, on the basis of three universities (St. Petersburg University, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia). This description has been added to the text along with the demographic characteristics of the participants.
The authors used content analysis. Why? Also it´s not clear were the answers were included. In a new questionnaire? Where are the results?
The results were used for the questionnaire developed and used in this study. Since each stage of the research project and its results are presented by the authors as a separate paper, it was not possible to present in more detail the methodology of the preliminary stage,
The sample is adequate and we don´t understand the need to state this “But we also would like to note that this study is only a part and the first stage in the project, which provides comparative (within 163 the framework of partnerships with universities National Taiwan Normal University, 164 University of Geneva, Sultan Qaboos University) and longitudinal methods. “
It was done because this part may have impression of unfinished one. We added a diagram of the research stages, for a more visual representation of the entire research project.
In the demographic profiles which is school for? Also it would be interesting to have the number of participants and not only the percentage.
Schoolchildren are also enrolled in the universities in question (according to the "small university" program), so we considered it possible to add them to the sample. Added information about the number of participants.
Also in this section the authors state this “an interdisciplinary approach that allowed us to consider self- 198 regulation in the learning process from the perspective of communication theories, peda- 199 gogy, and sociology of education”. The interdisciplinary approach is important but the paper needs to make clear what is the theoretical model that is selected, as we mentioned earlier. Also, there is the need to make clear what variables were selected and why, considering the gap in the research as mentioned earlier. Authors mentioned in page 8 the proposed research questions. We suggest they can be integrated in the introduction and also earlier on the methodology. Also, considering the research questions, the development of the self-regulated model for e-learning that the authors propose need to be placed earlier in the paper.
Thank you. We added research questions to the introduction.
The main goal of the paper is to establish the model because there is no self-regulation learning model for e-learning. We mentioned what models were considered for our variant. The variables was chosen based on focus group research
The authors present in the result section the theoretical introduction pg 8, 9... We strongly suggest modification. This should be a part of the introduction section.
Thanks. Done.
Also regarding this sentence “And if the purpose of students is to have good marks, usually 266 they have some variants of how to do it without learning. “ This is a strong objection to publishing this paper. We suggest reframing.
Thanks. Done
3.2. Is in a foreign language.
Thanks. Translated
Results from the questionnaire are very scarce. A strong objection to the publication of this paper is the lack of scientific results. There is a theoretical model that must be improved and developed accordingly to the empirical results, but data are not explored nor presented, neither qualitative nor quantitative. We don´t have the access to the qualitative results and the quantitative results don´t have enough quality to be published. Authors don´t present any statistical correlations, neither reliability measures, nothing, only averages.
Thank you. We added reliability measures and correlation
At the beginning we had decided to present only the level of key factors and conclusion based on contradiction between learning and digital environment (even at those state it was long and overloaded)
In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result.
Thank you for your detailed review
Reviewer 3
Dear authors: the following issues should be improve:
-line 15, the expression "in the field of environment" What means? It could be clearer
Thanks. Done
-line 78, two dots ".."
Thanks. Done
- line 322, you have to translate the title into english
Thanks. Translated
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the manuscript.
It is relevant and addresses a relevant issue. In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with the need for more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result.
The paper is a very initial perspective on the topic. It has potential but as it is it does not gather quality for publishing.
Regarding introduction the authors present Zimmerman as the founder of the idea. We suggest reframing, introducing Zimmerman as an author that presents the construct/model which the authors value as relevant in their research (authors need to consider that self-regulation has deepest roots in psychology, therefore it´s relevant to reframe Zimmerman model). Also there are several models on self-regulated learning, therefore the idea needs to be developed. A strong objection to the publishing of this paper is that you don´t present the relevance of the model you have selected, which theoretical model specifically are you focusing in. Authors present several models, their evolution, but it would be relevant to present which one is more relevant to this research and which one do you will follow on this research. We suggest that authors should enhance the model they have selected and also reinforce their relevance according to their research.
The authors present in page 5 the following sentence, “In more recent models, self-regulated learning often becomes one of the factors in a number of other factors that affect academic performance. “ We strongly suggest this sentence to be reframed. Also authors need to consider the need to deepen this information, probably relating it to its gap or the relevance of the theoretical question of this paper.
The gap of this paper is not well established on the introduction. We suggest authors to present it clearly. The paper doesn´t present strong theoretical arguments that sustain the presented research.
There is a need to clarify the options used in the methodological section. The authors use qualitative methodologies first. Is this an exploratory approach? An epistemological decision? It is not clear if the qualitative methodology was used in 12 people or in several groups with 12 people each. There is a need to clarify also the participants characteristics.
The authors used content analysis. Why? Also it´s not clear were the answers were included. In a new questionnaire? Where are the results?
The sample is adequate and we don´t understand the need to state this “But we also would like to note that this study is only a part and the first stage in the project, which provides comparative (within 163 the framework of partnerships with universities National Taiwan Normal University, 164 University of Geneva, Sultan Qaboos University) and longitudinal methods. “
In the demographic profiles which is school for? Also it would be interesting to have the number of participants and not only the percentage.
Also in this section the authors state this “an interdisciplinary approach that allowed us to consider self- 198 regulation in the learning process from the perspective of communication theories, peda- 199 gogy, and sociology of education”. The interdisciplinary approach is important but the paper needs to make clear what is the theoretical model that is selected, as we mentioned earlier. Also, there is the need to make clear what variables were selected and why, considering the gap in the research as mentioned earlier. Authors mentioned in page 8 the proposed research questions. We suggest they can be integrated in the introduction and also earlier on the methodology. Also, considering the research questions, the development of the self-regulated model for e-learning that the authors propose need to be placed earlier in the paper.
The authors present in the result section the theoretical introduction pg 8, 9... We strongly suggest modification. This should be a part of the introduction section.
Also regarding this sentence “And if the purpose of students is to have good marks, usually 266 they have some variants of how to do it without learning. “ This is a strong objection to publishing this paper. We suggest reframing.
3.2. Is in a foreign language.
Results from the questionnaire are very scarce.
A strong objection to the publication of this paper is the lack of scientific results. There is a theoretical model that must be improved and developed accordingly to the empirical results, but data are not explored nor presented, neither qualitative nor quantitative. We don´t have the access to the qualitative results and the quantitative results don´t have enough quality to be published. Authors don´t present any statistical correlations, neither reliability measures, nothing, only averages.
In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result.
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you very much for your valuable remarks
Reviewer 1
COMMENTS ON “Self-Regulation in E-Learning Environment”
Introduction: -Introduction provides enough background and references.
Research: -Research objectives or questions should be clearly specified, otherwise results are vague.
Results: -Figures 5,6,7 have been inserted with no explanation around them.
Thank you, we changed the place of the pictures and expanded the description
-In my opinion, this text “The empirical part of the study, presented in the form of a questionnaire of students, consisted of 9 blocks of arguments united by a common problem: Self-directed Learning, Self-regulated Learning, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on human system interaction, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on content.” Should be part of methodology as the questionnaire is described.
Thanks. Done.
-Please, be consistent when placing the Tables numbers.
Thanks. Done.
-Results should answer specific research objectives that need to be clearly stated. Discussion: -This needs to be related to objectives that have not been clearly stated. -Discussion is too short.
English language and style:
-Revise grammar, e.g. “Pintrich developed four phases-model of self-regulation” should say “Pintrich developed a four phases-model of self-regulation” (page 4).
Thanks. Done.
-Use of capital letters in “The phases are Fore-thought, Planning and Activation; Monitoring; Control; and Reaction and reflection.”… Reflection in capital letters.
Thanks. Done.
-Check grammar in “But we also would like to note that…” (page 6).
Thanks. Done.
- Revise style in “Also, to have an idea about the respondents, you should specify information about the percentage of courses that they took online and about the time spent on them” (page 6). -Heading 3.2. on page 13 is in Russian.
References:
-Quite a lot of references. -Inconsistent use of initials as in “Zimmerman, B.J.; Moylan” (page 4).
Thanks. Done.
-When authors are cited in the body of the text or as source for figures, page numbers should be added.
Thanks. Done.
15 September 2021 (Report)
Authors: Paper would require further revision based on detailed recommendations
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the manuscript.
It is relevant and addresses a relevant issue. In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with the need for more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result. The paper is a very initial perspective on the topic. It has potential but as it is it does not gather quality for publishing.
Regarding introduction the authors present Zimmerman as the founder of the idea. We suggest reframing, introducing Zimmerman as an author that presents the construct/model which the authors value as relevant in their research (authors need to consider that self-regulation has deepest roots in psychology, therefore it´s relevant to reframe Zimmerman model). Also there are several models on self-regulated learning, therefore the idea needs to be developed. A strong objection to the publishing of this paper is that you don´t present the relevance of the model you have selected, which theoretical model specifically are you focusing in. Authors present several models, their evolution, but it would be relevant to present which one is more relevant to this research and which one do you will follow on this research. We suggest that authors should enhance the model they have selected and also reinforce their relevance according to their research.
Thank you for your clarification. We reframed the sentence.
The goal of this research is to create new model (considering models of self-regulation at traditional environment, but the new one that underline the specific of digitalization of education). We highlighted the goal and made some link to previous models
The authors present in page 5 the following sentence, “In more recent models, self-regulated learning often becomes one of the factors in a number of other factors that affect academic performance. “ We strongly suggest this sentence to be reframed. Also authors need to consider the need to deepen this information, probably relating it to its gap or the relevance of the theoretical question of this paper. The gap of this paper is not well established on the introduction. We suggest authors to present it clearly. The paper doesn´t present strong theoretical arguments that sustain the presented research.
Thank you. The sentence is reframed. In introduction we added goals and brief description of relevance of the work
There is a need to clarify the options used in the methodological section. The authors use qualitative methodologies first. Is this an exploratory approach? An epistemological decision? It is not clear if the qualitative methodology was used in 12 people or in several groups with 12 people each. There is a need to clarify also the participants characteristics.
108 students were interviewed, 9 groups of 12 people were formed, on the basis of three universities (St. Petersburg University, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia). This description has been added to the text along with the demographic characteristics of the participants.
The authors used content analysis. Why? Also it´s not clear were the answers were included. In a new questionnaire? Where are the results?
The results were used for the questionnaire developed and used in this study. Since each stage of the research project and its results are presented by the authors as a separate paper, it was not possible to present in more detail the methodology of the preliminary stage,
The sample is adequate and we don´t understand the need to state this “But we also would like to note that this study is only a part and the first stage in the project, which provides comparative (within 163 the framework of partnerships with universities National Taiwan Normal University, 164 University of Geneva, Sultan Qaboos University) and longitudinal methods. “
It was done because this part may have impression of unfinished one. We added a diagram of the research stages, for a more visual representation of the entire research project.
In the demographic profiles which is school for? Also it would be interesting to have the number of participants and not only the percentage.
Schoolchildren are also enrolled in the universities in question (according to the "small university" program), so we considered it possible to add them to the sample. Added information about the number of participants.
Also in this section the authors state this “an interdisciplinary approach that allowed us to consider self- 198 regulation in the learning process from the perspective of communication theories, peda- 199 gogy, and sociology of education”. The interdisciplinary approach is important but the paper needs to make clear what is the theoretical model that is selected, as we mentioned earlier. Also, there is the need to make clear what variables were selected and why, considering the gap in the research as mentioned earlier. Authors mentioned in page 8 the proposed research questions. We suggest they can be integrated in the introduction and also earlier on the methodology. Also, considering the research questions, the development of the self-regulated model for e-learning that the authors propose need to be placed earlier in the paper.
Thank you. We added research questions to the introduction.
The main goal of the paper is to establish the model because there is no self-regulation learning model for e-learning. We mentioned what models were considered for our variant. The variables was chosen based on focus group research
The authors present in the result section the theoretical introduction pg 8, 9... We strongly suggest modification. This should be a part of the introduction section.
Thanks. Done.
Also regarding this sentence “And if the purpose of students is to have good marks, usually 266 they have some variants of how to do it without learning. “ This is a strong objection to publishing this paper. We suggest reframing.
Thanks. Done
3.2. Is in a foreign language.
Thanks. Translated
Results from the questionnaire are very scarce. A strong objection to the publication of this paper is the lack of scientific results. There is a theoretical model that must be improved and developed accordingly to the empirical results, but data are not explored nor presented, neither qualitative nor quantitative. We don´t have the access to the qualitative results and the quantitative results don´t have enough quality to be published. Authors don´t present any statistical correlations, neither reliability measures, nothing, only averages.
Thank you. We added reliability measures and correlation
At the beginning we had decided to present only the level of key factors and conclusion based on contradiction between learning and digital environment (even at those state it was long and overloaded)
In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result.
Thank you for your detailed review
Reviewer 3
Dear authors: the following issues should be improve:
-line 15, the expression "in the field of environment" What means? It could be clearer
Thanks. Done
-line 78, two dots ".."
Thanks. Done
- line 322, you have to translate the title into english
Thanks. Translated
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors: the following issues should be improve:
-line 15, the expression "in the field of environment" What means? It could be clearer
-line 78, two dots ".."
- line 322, you have to translate the title into english
Author Response
Dear reviewers, thank you very much for your valuable remarks
Reviewer 1
COMMENTS ON “Self-Regulation in E-Learning Environment”
Introduction: -Introduction provides enough background and references.
Research: -Research objectives or questions should be clearly specified, otherwise results are vague.
Results: -Figures 5,6,7 have been inserted with no explanation around them.
Thank you, we changed the place of the pictures and expanded the description
-In my opinion, this text “The empirical part of the study, presented in the form of a questionnaire of students, consisted of 9 blocks of arguments united by a common problem: Self-directed Learning, Self-regulated Learning, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on human system interaction, Self-efficacy of Online Learning on content.” Should be part of methodology as the questionnaire is described.
Thanks. Done.
-Please, be consistent when placing the Tables numbers.
Thanks. Done.
-Results should answer specific research objectives that need to be clearly stated. Discussion: -This needs to be related to objectives that have not been clearly stated. -Discussion is too short.
English language and style:
-Revise grammar, e.g. “Pintrich developed four phases-model of self-regulation” should say “Pintrich developed a four phases-model of self-regulation” (page 4).
Thanks. Done.
-Use of capital letters in “The phases are Fore-thought, Planning and Activation; Monitoring; Control; and Reaction and reflection.”… Reflection in capital letters.
Thanks. Done.
-Check grammar in “But we also would like to note that…” (page 6).
Thanks. Done.
- Revise style in “Also, to have an idea about the respondents, you should specify information about the percentage of courses that they took online and about the time spent on them” (page 6). -Heading 3.2. on page 13 is in Russian.
References:
-Quite a lot of references. -Inconsistent use of initials as in “Zimmerman, B.J.; Moylan” (page 4).
Thanks. Done.
-When authors are cited in the body of the text or as source for figures, page numbers should be added.
Thanks. Done.
15 September 2021 (Report)
Authors: Paper would require further revision based on detailed recommendations
Thank you for your valuable comments.
Reviewer 2 Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the manuscript.
It is relevant and addresses a relevant issue. In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with the need for more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result. The paper is a very initial perspective on the topic. It has potential but as it is it does not gather quality for publishing.
Regarding introduction the authors present Zimmerman as the founder of the idea. We suggest reframing, introducing Zimmerman as an author that presents the construct/model which the authors value as relevant in their research (authors need to consider that self-regulation has deepest roots in psychology, therefore it´s relevant to reframe Zimmerman model). Also there are several models on self-regulated learning, therefore the idea needs to be developed. A strong objection to the publishing of this paper is that you don´t present the relevance of the model you have selected, which theoretical model specifically are you focusing in. Authors present several models, their evolution, but it would be relevant to present which one is more relevant to this research and which one do you will follow on this research. We suggest that authors should enhance the model they have selected and also reinforce their relevance according to their research.
Thank you for your clarification. We reframed the sentence.
The goal of this research is to create new model (considering models of self-regulation at traditional environment, but the new one that underline the specific of digitalization of education). We highlighted the goal and made some link to previous models
The authors present in page 5 the following sentence, “In more recent models, self-regulated learning often becomes one of the factors in a number of other factors that affect academic performance. “ We strongly suggest this sentence to be reframed. Also authors need to consider the need to deepen this information, probably relating it to its gap or the relevance of the theoretical question of this paper. The gap of this paper is not well established on the introduction. We suggest authors to present it clearly. The paper doesn´t present strong theoretical arguments that sustain the presented research.
Thank you. The sentence is reframed. In introduction we added goals and brief description of relevance of the work
There is a need to clarify the options used in the methodological section. The authors use qualitative methodologies first. Is this an exploratory approach? An epistemological decision? It is not clear if the qualitative methodology was used in 12 people or in several groups with 12 people each. There is a need to clarify also the participants characteristics.
108 students were interviewed, 9 groups of 12 people were formed, on the basis of three universities (St. Petersburg University, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia). This description has been added to the text along with the demographic characteristics of the participants.
The authors used content analysis. Why? Also it´s not clear were the answers were included. In a new questionnaire? Where are the results?
The results were used for the questionnaire developed and used in this study. Since each stage of the research project and its results are presented by the authors as a separate paper, it was not possible to present in more detail the methodology of the preliminary stage,
The sample is adequate and we don´t understand the need to state this “But we also would like to note that this study is only a part and the first stage in the project, which provides comparative (within 163 the framework of partnerships with universities National Taiwan Normal University, 164 University of Geneva, Sultan Qaboos University) and longitudinal methods. “
It was done because this part may have impression of unfinished one. We added a diagram of the research stages, for a more visual representation of the entire research project.
In the demographic profiles which is school for? Also it would be interesting to have the number of participants and not only the percentage.
Schoolchildren are also enrolled in the universities in question (according to the "small university" program), so we considered it possible to add them to the sample. Added information about the number of participants.
Also in this section the authors state this “an interdisciplinary approach that allowed us to consider self- 198 regulation in the learning process from the perspective of communication theories, peda- 199 gogy, and sociology of education”. The interdisciplinary approach is important but the paper needs to make clear what is the theoretical model that is selected, as we mentioned earlier. Also, there is the need to make clear what variables were selected and why, considering the gap in the research as mentioned earlier. Authors mentioned in page 8 the proposed research questions. We suggest they can be integrated in the introduction and also earlier on the methodology. Also, considering the research questions, the development of the self-regulated model for e-learning that the authors propose need to be placed earlier in the paper.
Thank you. We added research questions to the introduction.
The main goal of the paper is to establish the model because there is no self-regulation learning model for e-learning. We mentioned what models were considered for our variant. The variables was chosen based on focus group research
The authors present in the result section the theoretical introduction pg 8, 9... We strongly suggest modification. This should be a part of the introduction section.
Thanks. Done.
Also regarding this sentence “And if the purpose of students is to have good marks, usually 266 they have some variants of how to do it without learning. “ This is a strong objection to publishing this paper. We suggest reframing.
Thanks. Done
3.2. Is in a foreign language.
Thanks. Translated
Results from the questionnaire are very scarce. A strong objection to the publication of this paper is the lack of scientific results. There is a theoretical model that must be improved and developed accordingly to the empirical results, but data are not explored nor presented, neither qualitative nor quantitative. We don´t have the access to the qualitative results and the quantitative results don´t have enough quality to be published. Authors don´t present any statistical correlations, neither reliability measures, nothing, only averages.
Thank you. We added reliability measures and correlation
At the beginning we had decided to present only the level of key factors and conclusion based on contradiction between learning and digital environment (even at those state it was long and overloaded)
In our opinion it seems a very interesting study with more developments. It is in a very initial phase of definition, theoretical and does not present any relevant data result.
Thank you for your detailed review
Reviewer 3
Dear authors: the following issues should be improve:
-line 15, the expression "in the field of environment" What means? It could be clearer
Thanks. Done
-line 78, two dots ".."
Thanks. Done
- line 322, you have to translate the title into english
Thanks. Translated
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Fine to be published.
