Using Active Methodologies for Teaching and Learning of Exploratory Test Design and Execution
, Isaac Souza Elgrably, Anderson dos Santos Guerra, Elziane Monteiro Soares and Iuri Victor Ferreira Costa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It must be admitted that the article's topic is rather exciting and up-to-date, but the paper's novelty is rather vague, it should be more specified.
The results obtained in the research are based on the experiment, but the validity of it is doubtful due to the number of respondents: 24 people.
Nevertheless, the reference section is quite substantial, and some modern research dedicated to the topic must be added.
The English language must be thoroughly reconsidered: the grammar structures are often incorrect, the syntax and stylistics must be improved due to the scientific paper demands, spelling mistakes have to be corrected, etc. Also, several identical paragraphs must be paraphrased or joined.
All the suggestions and comments are presented in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for all the requested adjustments to improve the manuscript. We make all requested adjustments and make them available in a file organized by each requested adjustment item.
We hope that all items have been fulfilled, otherwise we are available to fulfill additional items.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The author(s) need to explain some main findings in the abstract
2. The structure of writing this manuscript needs to be rearranged, in general the sections of a research paper consist of: Introduction, Literature Review, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions. While the order of writing in this manuscript looks confusing. for example the "2.background section” contains an explanation of the main concepts, it is best if "background" is removed because it is included in the introduction section. The second part after the introduction should be "Literature Review" which contains: Main concept explanation, Related Work/previous research, ….etc
3. The introduction should briefly define the purpose of the work and its significance
4. It is necessary to summarize the explanations of the main concepts, specifically in lines 68 to 141. After explain the relevant literature review about the theories, concepts, and related prior research, the author(s) should explain the research framework and propose a research hypothesis in this section. However, the research hypothesis appears in the research methodology section of this paper.
5. Research Methodology in this paper is suggested to be summarized. Figure 4. Verbs of cognitive level can be omitted, the Teaching Plan Approach is too detailed and can be summarized, the Teaching Plan Evaluation Strategy also needs to be summarized. Table 3 begs to be summarized, tables in paper should not exceed 1 page.
6. Some of the limitations in this paper that the author should pay attention including: the number of participants is only 12 students for each group, then in each group is taught by a different teacher which might affect the results.
7. This paper has significant similarity to this paper “Development of a teaching plan to support learning activities of exploratory test design and execution”, therefore the author(s) should take attention to this issue
8. There are many references (ref. no: 2,7,18,19,21,40,41,42,43,44,45,49) from local journals that are not written in English. The author (s) should add or use the article in English, therefore it is highly recommended to use reference from reputable international journal and reduce local reference.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for all the requested adjustments to improve the manuscript. We make all requested adjustments and make them available in a file organized by each requested adjustment item.
We hope that all items have been fulfilled, otherwise we are available to fulfill additional items.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author(s) are suggested to add the small sample size and different teachers in the limitations section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for the requested adjustment to improve the manuscript. We have made this requested adjustment and made it available in a file organized by each requested adjustment item.
We hope that the item has been fulfilled, otherwise we are available to fulfill additional items.
Yours sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
