Methods of Current Knowledge Teaching on the Cybersecurity Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Generally, this article bring promising research to fill gap between practical perspective with academician perspective. The delivered results were qualified. To enhance its quality, several items were advised as follow:

1. This article should deliver Literature Review to clarify its positioning and novelty.

2. In Methods, this article narrated the specification of each role (ex: team leader). However, it did not explain how to justify the selected people's qualification. Please explain much more about people's qualification and decision processes to select them.

3. Table 3 and Figure 5 were duplicate. The table was more accurate and effective. Figure 6 was also less-informative, please consider to change it into table by inform its specialization.

4. Table 4 suddenly presented final score processing without any explanation about its formula and categorization (good, enough, or bad?). The article can deliver the full score recap in appendix or separated hyperlink to strengthen its data reliability and availability.

5. Please confirm whether respondents who involved in Scrum method and usual approach same persons or different ones. If different, please argue the feasibility of comparison between them since their profile and learning preference were different. 

6. Please explain type of assessments used in Table 4, such as formative assessment, summative assessment, practical testing, or written testing!

7. The Discussion should be more strong by adding the authors' interpretations. They can highlight causative factors and implications that affected by the research results. It can be reviewed by contrasting or matching results with other related theories/literature.

 

Hope the authors can encourage the content towards more qualified and insightful article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Overall

The article is not easy to follow, and at times feels like it is written for an “internal audience” already familiar with the case presented/studied. For example, the need for the study (the research gap addressed) is not elaborated on or supported by research. It is therefore recommended that the article undergo major revision in its structure, how key concepts are explained in relation to this particular study, and how arguments are presented to help the reader better understand of what has been done previously in related research.

An example of this can be seen in the motivation (or rather, the lack thereof) as to why Scrum can aid in the educational process. There are several instances where claims are made without being backed up or supported by examples and references. For example (row 208), “To date, many lecturers are working on the use of eduScrum in their educational activities, as there is a positive feedback from students on this learning technology.” No references, nor any examples to support this (and other similar) claim.

Another, similar example is that Scrum in general is not explained and therefore makes it hard to understand how it is applied or adapted to be used in this particular study. Nor is eduScrum, or how “eduScrum” is applied to cyber-security. It is also not well explained how the “Cyber Hygiene E-Learning” course comes into the study and in what capacity. These areas needs to be clearly explained to the reader to better understand how the study was carried out.

Lastly, the English is sometimes hard to understand, and would benefit from being subjected to professional proof reading. Some hyperbole can be removed such as “the best method”, “the best one”, “very helpful”, “really interesting”, since it does not add anything to the study and are instances of examples that surely will vary from context, time, and culture.

 

1. Introduction

The first two paragraphs are without references to support the claims being made, yet quite a few claims are being made. Here you need to strengthen your argument by referencing recent and relevant research to underpin your arguments.

Furthermore, the introduction does a poor job in actually explaining the research gap. No relevant, recent and related research is presented that illustrates why and what is to be studied. This must be addressed so that the article is not simply a scientific project contribution specifically, but an actual scientific contribution in general. For example, why Scrum to enhance the cognitive activity of students, what do you mean with “cognitive activity” in this study, and lastly, is this something we don’t already know about – but ought to know more about, i.e., the research gap.

 

2. Materials and Methods

This section is difficult to follow, and lacks elaboration on key points, such as how data was collected and analyzed, how scrum/eduscrum was used and applied, how the final result (the calculation of marks in table 4?) was calculated and based on what premises, and how the “Cyber Hygiene E-Learning” course comes into the research.

You need to elaborate on what “cybersecurity” means in this particular study. Cybersecurity is a sensitive term in the sense that it has many, sometimes quite different, definitions. If you need some assistance in this regard, have a look at Von Solms (et al.) studies from 2013 and 2018 respectively. Particularly since you are switching over to “Information Security” at row 110, what is the difference here?

“cyberattacks are often based on bypassing passwords,” Well… Authentication bypassing is certainly one part of cyberattacks, but it is by no mean the only one, and possibly not the most common one. Here I would like to draw your attention to the CIA-triad: confidentiality, integrity, and availability. Perhaps, what you are referring to, is the compromise of confidentiality? But it is unclear why you are singling out this particular aspect.

“All the functions are quite easy to understand” (row 121), what functions? This is not easy to follow.

 

3. Results

What makes a “non cybersecurity specializations student”? Although not being enrolled in a cyber-related programme, might they not have had previous experience or hobbies within the field (particularly, considering many of the students seem to be from STEM programmes).

How the calculations of marks are made (as seen in table 4) is not well described.

 

4. Discussion

This section is not so much of a discussion as a summary of the result and needs to be rewritten.

In this section one would expect to find an interpretation and explanation of the result: what do we know now that we did not know before, and how does it add to existing research on the topic? One would also expect to find some discussion as to the justification of the research approach, are the relationships significant, weak, strong, or would you perhaps have done the study differently in hindsight (e.g., were there any limitations of you research and the implications of the findings)? In short, the result you explain what happened, and in the discussion one would expect to find some explanation as to why it happened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This article was improved much more since the points suggested/asked in previous round were solved. However, some aspect can be enhanced as follow:

1. Split the Introduction with Literature Review since their existence has difference functions.

2. To improve the readers' understanding, please add flowchart to illustrate how the research was performed!

3. Confirm again the research goal(s) whether it was (they were) about quantitative scoring only or not. The authors should remind that this research was in education science. Therefore, consider the measurement for teachers'/lecturers' and students' satisfaction and opinion about their performance!

4. Insert the data collection in Abstract!

5. Improve the language by split the long paragraph into two or three ones. Expand or merge the short paragraph (one or two sentences only)!

6. Sharpen the Discussion from theoretical perspective.

 

Hope the authors can fulfill these advices, thank you

Author Response

Thank you! Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf