Innovative Strategies for Fostering Student Engagement and Collaborative Learning among Extended Curriculum Programme Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Brief Summary

 

The paper aims to explore strategies for fostering student engagement through collaborative learning. It employs a mixed-methods approach to gauge the effectiveness of different teaching strategies on student outcomes. While, the actual research question wasn't explicitly stated, and that the literature review needs revision to bolster its credibility – the paper has strengths in its detailed analysis of student responses.

 

General Concept Comments

 

There is not gap statement and no research question/hypothesis making it difficult to evaluate the testability.  The methodology could benefit from further elaboration, particularly on data collection and participant selection. Did you consider exploring potential confounding variables, such as students' previous experience with collaborative learning? Also, when you are exploring engagement, why is no engagement research cited, what is the definition and operationalization of engagement that you employ?

 

Specific Comments

 

In the abstract, it would be beneficial to specify the research question and the methods used. This gives readers a clearer overview of what to expect from the study. Also, you may want to include a sentence like "This study employs a purposeful sampling approach to investigate the effects of project-based learning on students enrolled in Foundation Biology and English Skills courses at the University of X."

 

For the introduction, stating the problem that your study aims to solve in the first few sentences would provide a context and rationale for your research.

 

In the literature overview, consider opening with a statement that directly addresses the problem your study aims to solve, such as "Student engagement in higher education has been a subject of considerable concern and research due to its impact on learning outcomes."

Directly relating the study's objectives to Vincent Tinto's social integration theory could provide a stronger theoretical grounding. This would also help in linking the objectives with the theoretical framework more explicitly. You may strengthen the link between your study's objectives and Vincent Tinto's social integration theory with a sentence like "This study adopts Vincent Tinto's social integration theory as a lens to explore how innovative teaching strategies can improve student engagement."

 

The literature review section needs revision to strengthen the relevance of the paper. The paper identifies gaps in knowledge but could benefit from a more explicit statement of these gaps.

Several statements and even whole paragraphs lack support for example:

“In addressing this shortcoming, a traditional learning approach that is teacher-centered is likely not to address students’ appetite in and off the classroom.”

“Several studies highlight the importance of gamification to aid students’ performance and enhance mastery of the taught concepts within the curriculum.”

“Nevertheless, it is generally expected that gamification may help students towards some highly dense mastery of the concepts being taught. Generally, various students' and teachers’ tastes on gamification concepts may differ, with some teachers and students not subscribing to gamification as part of their learning and teaching activities but rather prefer traditional learning and teaching. Moreover, there are some students and teachers who may find gamification to be helpful in the quest to master threshold concepts. However, it is upon teaching practitioners to help each student individually or collectively in aiding them towards understanding critical curriculum concepts either using the traditional methods or innovative methods such as gamification in their learning and teaching roll-out. Therefore, it is critical to highlight that amid the use of gamification and collaborative learning, students’ satisfaction is likely not going to be holistically achieved. Students’ taste in learning varies and this is brought about by their dimension of differences.”

 

These seem like bold claims, and sets the stage for a seemingly argumentative study, instead of an objective scientific exploration. This must be addressed. References should be used consistently and evenly.

 

Which is in stark contrast to this paragraph:
“Gamification aims to improve students’ concentration, engagement, performance, 52 and/or decrease students’ frustration and demotivation in educational systems 53 (Cozar-Gutierrez & Saez-Lopez, 2016; Shi & Cristea, 2016; Lopes et al., 2019; Met-54 wally et al., 2020); 55

ii. gamification can offer different ways for students to perform desired educational ac-56 tivities associated with game elements (Majuri et al., 2018; Koivisto & Hamari, 2019; 57 Bai et al., 2020); 58 iii. iii) gamification yields benefit to students, e.g., increasing students’ motivation, en-59 hancing learning performance, or improving training processes (Kapp, 2012; Larson, 60 2020; Shi et al., 2014; Cozar-Gutierrez & Saez-Lopez, 2016; Stuart et al., 2020; Lo & 61 Hew, 2020; Zainuddin et al., 2020).

This section has a number of problems: The numbering format changes from "i." to "ii." to "iii)"; it would be clearer to stick with one style. Points i and iii cover similar ground, both discussing the benefits of gamification on student motivation and performance. You could consider merging them or distinguishing them more clearly. The term "students' dimensions of differences" is somewhat vague. Are these cultural, educational, age-related, or other types of differences? Specifying this could add clarity.

 

In addition, while there where hardly any references on the first page, you now have a citation overload. While it's good to back up statements with citations, the high number of them here could potentially overwhelm the reader. No claim should be supported by more than three references. In addition, the referencing of these clusters of citations, in not properly executed. You should summaries the consensus among these studies instead.  In addition, the terms "educational activities" and "game elements" could be more specifically defined to give the reader a clearer understanding.

In sum, the literature review is descriptive, lacks synthesis and a deeper analysis. While there are indeed many references in one paragraph, the manuscript needs a thorough revision from this perspective. The theoretical framework needs a more thorough description. Also,

 “efficient and effective techniques and strategies to foster student engagement” How do you discern between these two?

Regarding the method section, an explanation of why a purposeful sampling research approach was best suited for this study would lend credibility to your research design. An example could be to clarify your choice of research design with a sentence like "A purposeful sampling method was chosen for its ability to provide rich, relevant data from a specific group of students."  You should be more explicit about the strategies used to mitigate challenges in collaborative learning. For example, "Three meditative mitigation strategies were employed to address challenges such as lack of self-confidence and passive participation."

Research Questions/Hypotheses: The methodology section does not clearly state the research questions or hypotheses, which is a significant gap, especially given the study's focus on complex topics like student engagement and project-based learning.

 

Sample Size: There's no mention of the number of students participating in the study, a crucial detail for assessing the study's scope and potential for generalisability.

 

Data Analysis Techniques: The methodology is vague on the data analysis techniques used. Are statistical methods employed for the pre- and post-tests? Is qualitative data considered?

 

Validity and Reliability: The section doesn't discuss how the study ensures the reliability and validity of the pre- and post-test instruments, affecting the study's credibility.

 

Timeframe: Although a timeframe for project work is provided, there's no mention of the overall duration of the study, including the phases of data collection and analysis.

 

Instrumentation: Information on the tools or instruments used for the pre-tests and post-tests is missing, as is detail on how talents were identified, which affects the study's replicability.

 

Operational Definitions: Terms like 'various talents,' 'mastery of Biology content,' and 'collaborative participation skills' are not clearly defined. The term 'engagement,' which is central to the study, is also not operationally defined.

 

Rationale for Method Choices: The paper doesn't provide a rationale for the choice of purposeful sampling or why the focus is on Biology and English Skills, which could make the methodology appear arbitrary.

 

References in Study Design: The study design does not cite any references, which affects its academic grounding.

 

Content Analysis: Although the methodology section mentions collaborative participation skills, it doesn't clarify how these will be analysed. Furthermore, there are no references to prior research, making it difficult to assess the method's validity.

 

In summary, the methodology section lacks several crucial elements that are integral to a comprehensive and credible research study. Major revisions are required to address these gaps.

 

 

For the discussion, elaborating on how your findings align or diverge from Vincent Tinto's social integration theory would strengthen the paper's theoretical basis. This is especially relevant in the context of the challenges and benefits of collaborative learning.

 

 

In the conclusion, a more focused summary of the most impactful findings and their relevance for educational practice would sharpen the paper's focus. Here you can include a sentence like "The challenges observed in this study, particularly in terms of student self-confidence and language barriers, align with Vincent Tinto's theory of social integration, thereby highlighting the importance of social factors in educational persistence."

 

In the implications and recommendations section, specifying which technology tools could be particularly effective in fostering collaborative learning would add value. This could be based on your findings or existing literature. Summarise key findings succinctly, e.g., "The study concludes that project-based learning significantly enhances student engagement, particularly when students are allowed to leverage their unique talents. The add specific examples like "Educators should consider integrating multimedia tools like interactive whiteboards to make lessons more engaging and visually stimulating."

 

 

Language

 

The vocabulary and layout require some adjustment. Firstly, the text includes clichés and infrequently used terms in scholarly discourse, that either are rather uncommon: such as 'conundrum' and 'populous,' (written twice on the first page), or colloquial – non-academic ‘timeously’, ‘zeal’, ‘walks of life’, giving  impression of a disparate language style. repetition of words in the same paragraph: i.e., ‘elucidated’ (written three times on the first page) , which disrupt the flow of reading. The first page is rather repetitive and will benefit from increased conciseness.

 

Additionally, unnecessary capitalisation, for example  'Participant Observation,' should be corrected. At the same time, some sentences could be more efficiently structured to avoid repetition and enhance clarity.” The trend has seen 28 an increase from 150 student intakes to 200 intakes per annum since the 2019 academic 29 year.” could be rephrase to  "The student intake has increased from 150 to 200 per annum since the 2019 academic year."

 

This version eliminates the repeated use of "intakes" and streamlines the sentence to improve clarity and readability. Close reading or proof reading is recommended to make sure to modify the text to better conform to standard academic language and style. Same kind of revision applies to a number of sentences, for example: “High enrolments within a specific course led to different students’ appetites brought 30 by students’ dimensions of differences.”

 

Referencing:

 

The referencing is not proper (e.g.,  Biggs (2012); Biggs (1999) and there are only two (old) references on the first page. The first page is expected to frame the content in a convincing way and include a gap statement. This must be adjusted.

 

 

The reference list is mostly complete but has some omissions (e.g., Hamari 2019, Osman 2014) that need to be addressed.

 

And avoid secondary referencing, i.e.:

Giannakis and Bullivant (2016) as argued by Hornsby and Osman (2014)

 

 

Did you require approval to re-use the table from Oxford (1997)? Source: Oxford (1997)

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See file

Author Response

Thank you so much for your continued support and valuable contribution to this paper and the shape and direction. given thereof. The file has been attached for reference with respect to the responses to the reviewer's comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Goal of the paper :

- not clear at the end of the introduction (particularly due to the "moreover" which led us to think there was a first objective stated before, which is not??)

- Literature review begin with talking about gamification, which was absent of the intro. At this point, the reader is very confused.

- study's objective described at the end of section 2.2, thanks. Therefore, the authors should write an intro and literature review that would naturally lead to this study's objective. e.g., gamification does not seem very relevant, while engagement is but is absent from the literature review.

2.3 The work from Tinto is more about persistence than engagement.

 

Study design: is not about engagement

Research tools and data analysis: participation observation and narrative inquiry are the main research tools, thus qualitative tools. However, the results are presented as descriptive statistics (quantitative results). This seems very contradictory to me, and it adds up to the previous comments related to the confusing sense when reading the paper. In my opinion, there is still lots of work to do before this proposition could be considered for publication.

 

Minor comments:

-       Please do not mix specific contextual elements from University of X and literature review

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you so much for your contribution and continued support. Therefore, the detailed file has been attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hi

 

There is substantial improvement to the paper. But… there is still some improvements to be done.

 

Introduction

However, there lack of references in the introduction is not corrected. The introduction is presenting your work and making it interesting to the readers. In order to do so, it must be framed with the relevant studies. A tip is to follow the “situation - > implication - > solution” design, where you describe the current state (with up-to-date references!) highlight the gap – and present how your study contributes to fill this gap.

 

References: there is still a problem with how references are dealt with.

 

1.     No more than three references should be given consecutively.

2.     Order references in alphabetical order using surname

3.     In brackets “()” use “&” not “and”

4.     Outside brackets, in running text, use and.

 

See here:  (McKeachie 1980; 97 Cooper and Robinson, 2000; Ehrenberg et al. 2001; Cuseo, 2007; Mulryan-Kyne 2010 and Hornsby and Osman, 2014).

 

Background

Still halting. Why did you use Bloom’s taxonomy to reference engagement? I know Blooms taxonomy very well and Bloom was not an engagement researcher. You have not included the expected references from the field of student engagement.

 

The interesting thing here, is that you located a paper on E-learning, that actually defines engagement in their background . However. – they do not make their own definition and description… so instead of using the engagement research they use, you use them .. You must go to the original source. I wrote this in the last paper too. Here you do it again. Do not use secondary sources – go to the paper that actually does the work.   

 

In conclusion

 

Of course, these days anyone can use intelligent writing support, such as Bard, Chat GPT et cetera..  but this does not mean that you can skip reading up on the topic that you aim to publish contributions in.

 

Introduction:

1.     Your framing and gap statement must be clear.

2.     What is the situation problem and your contribution. You must read up, and show that you are knowledgeable in the field.

Background:

1.     What is engagement?

2.     You have to read engagement literature: for example, Handbook of research on student engagement (I’m not one of the authors).  There are several engagement researchers and theories, and Bloom is not one of them.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Hi

 

There is substantial improvement to the paper. But… there is still some improvements to be done.

 

Introduction

However, there lack of references in the introduction is not corrected. The introduction is presenting your work and making it interesting to the readers. In order to do so, it must be framed with the relevant studies. A tip is to follow the “situation - > implication - > solution” design, where you describe the current state (with up-to-date references!) highlight the gap – and present how your study contributes to fill this gap.

 

References: there is still a problem with how references are dealt with.

 

1.     No more than three references should be given consecutively.

2.     Order references in alphabetical order using surname

3.     In brackets “()” use “&” not “and”

4.     Outside brackets, in running text, use and.

 

See here:  (McKeachie 1980; 97 Cooper and Robinson, 2000; Ehrenberg et al. 2001; Cuseo, 2007; Mulryan-Kyne 2010 and Hornsby and Osman, 2014).

 

Background

Still halting. Why did you use Bloom’s taxonomy to reference engagement? I know Blooms taxonomy very well and Bloom was not an engagement researcher. You have not included the expected references from the field of student engagement.

 

The interesting thing here, is that you located a paper on E-learning, that actually defines engagement in their background . However. – they do not make their own definition and description… so instead of using the engagement research they use, you use them .. You must go to the original source. I wrote this in the last paper too. Here you do it again. Do not use secondary sources – go to the paper that actually does the work.   

 

In conclusion

 

Of course, these days anyone can use intelligent writing support, such as Bard, Chat GPT et cetera..  but this does not mean that you can skip reading up on the topic that you aim to publish contributions in.

 

Introduction:

1.     Your framing and gap statement must be clear.

2.     What is the situation problem and your contribution. You must read up, and show that you are knowledgeable in the field.

Background:

1.     What is engagement?

2.     You have to read engagement literature: for example, Handbook of research on student engagement (I’m not one of the authors).  There are several engagement researchers and theories, and Bloom is not one of them.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

I am grateful for your valuable contribution towards the development of this manuscript. The detailed cover letter has been attached. 

 

 

 Dear Reviewer

I am grateful for your valuable inputs in shaping this manuscript, they have enabled the authors to revisit the blind spots and critical issues that were overlooked in the paper. Thank you ever so much for contributing as our mirror and the scale of measurement on the pertinent problems not given meticulous attention.

References: there is still a problem with how references are dealt with.

 

1. No more than three references should be given consecutively.
2. Order references in alphabetical order using the surname
3. In brackets “()” use “&” not “and”
4. Outside brackets, in running text, use and.-The suggested formats have been followed in the intext citation per the guidelines.

 

See here:  (McKeachie 1980; 97 Cooper and Robinson, 2000; Ehrenberg et al. 2001; Cuseo, 2007; Mulryan-Kyne 2010 and Hornsby and Osman, 2014)_The sources have been reduced to the reasonable number per recommendations.

 

Background

Still halting. Why did you use Bloom’s taxonomy to reference engagement? I know Bloom's taxonomy very well and Bloom was not an engagement researcher. You have not included the expected references from the field of student- The established authors are added to the validation of the discussion thereof.

 

The interesting thing here is that you located a paper on E-learning, that defines engagement in their background. However. – they do not make their own definition and description… so instead of using the engagement research they use, you use them .. You must go to the original source. I wrote this in the last paper too. Here you do it again. Do not use secondary sources – go to the paper that does the work.-The primary sources have been added to replace all the secondary sources.      

 

 

In conclusion

 

Of course, these days anyone can use intelligent writing support, such as Bard, Chat GPT et cetera..  but this does not mean that you can skip reading up on the topic that you aim to publish contributions in.

 

Introduction:

1. Your framing and gap statement must be clear.-The framing is presently articulated in the introduction
2. What is the situation problem and your contribution? You must read up and show that you are knowledgeable in the field.-The situation problem and contribution that this paper is making in the scholarship.

Background:

1. What is engagement?-The engagement is concisely and precisely defined in the context of the study.
2. You must read engagement literature: for example, the Handbook of Research on student engagement (I’m not one of the authors).  There are several engagement researchers and theories, and Bloom is not one of them.-The authors who conducted the studies in this area have been addressed

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf