Flipped Learning in Higher Education for the Development of Intrinsic Motivation: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved ostensibly.

Figure 1 is repeated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. 

Thank you very much for your comments. 

Figure 1 is no longer duplicated.  

Best Regards. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 2 is repeated.

Figures numbering is not sequential.

Section 3 and section 4 are repetitive. Separate the evaluation framework (section 3) from the results (section 4).

Use references for tables in text. For example, you say in two places "To achieve this, the information collected 155 from the original publications is presented in three tables: The first [INSERT A REFERENCE HERE] presents, the aim of 156 the study, country, sample, area, measurement methods, results, and conclusions. The 157 second one [INSERT A REFERENCE HERE], details year of studies, duration of FL, whether it is gamified or not and the 158 detailed intervention. The third [INSERT A REFERENCE HERE] table shows, the..."

Table 4 and table 5 should be presented before table 3 because they are the context of each paper from results in table 3 are derived.

In discussion, the answer to the first research question cannot be stated as if you produced that answer. Your work is a review of other works that have found those conclusions. What you did was to organize all that information in a single reference (not a simple work, of course). In this sense, question 2 has a better redaction as "this review has identified...". 

Paragraph that starts at line 397 is your contribution. It is the result of your analysis over the papers you found. To make it stronger and to put it in your paper framework, you should talk here about intrinsic motivation and its relationship with FL. You can use the last two points for this. But it should be evident in your redaction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 404, is badges instead of budgets.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer. 

Thank you very much for your comments. 

Please, see the attachment with our response to your comments. 

Best Regards. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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 and Suggestions for Authors

Please, find attached my report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is about a bibliometric analysis of studies related to the application of the flipped classroom model in higher education and its relationship with intrinsic motivation. The abstract and introduction are correct. The method section could have been explained in a clearer and more organized manner. For example, Figure 1 appears on page 2, but the actual explanation of the selection process is at the end of page 4. The STROBE assessment is mentioned but not explained or referenced in the text. Table 2 seems to be intended for the results section.

Regarding the results, I believe it was necessary to go beyond a descriptive analysis of the 17 articles. A more in-depth analysis, including content analysis and proposing elements such as clusters of the flipped classroom's connection with motivation, could have been performed. From my point of view, the analysis falls short.

Finally, the study's limitations and future proposals should have been included in the conclusions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The underlaying idea of this work is very interesting and has great potential. However, the analyze is short and superficial. 

Conclusions derived from the analyze and discussion are vague and general. They need to be organized in such a way to allow people to follow a clear path to extend those research and find new knowledge about the relationship between FL and IM. As for now, this work says that an implementation of FL that aims to scaffold IM should have 4 things: "- Must be well-design the courses' content, - Promote teacher support, - Must provide an appropriate learning environment, - Must offer rich materials, and - Can incorporate gamification", but this is something that every course must have even if they are not designed under FL.

A way to improve this part is to organize the analysis over the characteristics of the FL methodologies used by authors. For example, analyze what characteristics and roles some elements have like sample size (here, we have two studies with a low sample size that are not strong enough to extract a conclusion), area, type of study (quantitative vs. qualitative), duration of the implementation. But we have a risk by doing this: not being able to find a pattern because we have many variables and a low amount of papers. 

On the other hand, Section 2.4 needs specification of criteria used.

Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are a summary of section 2. Maybe they should be moved to that section. 

It would be nice to have a graphical representation of section 3.3 and section 4 to categorize the analyzed works. This would be useful to find patterns.