Adapting an Educational Software Internationally: Cultural and Linguistical Adaptation
Kirsi Korkealehto
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting attempt to apply the method.
Poor table representation.
Most of the sources of literature are dated to the last century. Considering the need to demonstrate the relevance of the study, more sources dated no later than 5 years should be added. The methodology is described very briefly. The paper states that "Descriptive statistics was used to analyze and report the face validity survey data, calculating frequencies, measures of central tendency, and standard deviations." What kind of statistical characteristics were used and the values ​ ​ were obtained? It should be specified in more detail. In general, it seems that only part of the study is presented.
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “Adapting an Educational Software Internationally: Cultural and Linguistical Adaptation” to Education Sciences. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated to providing valuable feedback. We are grateful for the insightful comments and incorporated changes.
As requested, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments and revisions are marked up using the “tracked changes” function. We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Samia Dutra
Sidenote: As indicated in this manuscript cover letter, another article detailing the results of this method was submitted and is currently in press at the journal. This manuscript type is “Study Protocol”. We believe that this study protocol publication detailing the methodology favors transparency and replication of the method, whose results will be published in the same journal.
…
Reviewer 1:
|
Section |
Reviewer comments |
Author’s response |
|
General review report form: |
Moderate English changes required |
Authors did another round of spell check and content clarification throughout the manuscript. |
|
Reviewer comments and suggestions for Authors |
1.An interesting attempt to apply the method. 2.Poor table representation.
3.Most of the sources of literature are dated to the last century. Considering the need to demonstrate the relevance of the study, more sources dated no later than 5 years should be added. The methodology is described very briefly. The paper states that "Descriptive statistics was used to analyze and report the face validity survey data, calculating frequencies, measures of central tendency, and standard deviations." What kind of statistical characteristics were used and the values ​ ​ were obtained? It should be specified in more detail. In general, it seems that only part of the study is presented.
|
1.No need to be changed.
2.Edited to improve presentation.
3.Added updated references throughout the manuscript to demonstrate relevance of the study (Page 1, line 27-29, 34-36, 41-43; 56-58, 70-75, 104-105, 121-122. Page 2, line 132. Page 4, line 154, 165-168. Page 5 line 266-269. Page 6, line 291. Page 7, line 319, 328. Page 8, line 348-350.Page 9, 463-464, 468-469. Page 10, 510-515).
Considering this is a study protocol, we made sure to keep the primary sources to cross-cultural adaptations, emic and etic perspectives, and cognitive style of mathematics. For example: Brislin is a classic theorist for cross cultural adaptation so using him makes it grounded in the literature. The process was fathered by him and so he must be referenced as a foundational source.
We added clarification that this is a study protocol throughout the publication. (Page 1, line 9, 24, 107-122. Page 10, 472). Table 3 was removed and cited as published in the results paper.(Page 9, line 595-597)
|
Reviewer 2:
|
Section |
Reviewer comments |
Author’s response |
|
General review report form: |
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required |
Authors did another round of spell check and content clarification throughout the manuscript.
|
|
Reviewer comments and suggestions for Authors |
1.Thank you for asking me to review your manuscript. It was an interesting read. I have few remarks: 2.The order of the chapters is confusing, the analysis and participants are in the Results-chapter. It would be clearer to have first participants, then analysis and results as a separate chapter before discussion.
3.You mention "Whereas other teaching methods treat students as passive recipients" You should clarify, because I do not agree, there are many activating teaching methods! |
1.No need to be changed.
2. Order of the content revised and edited according to reviewer’s suggestions. An introductory paragraph was added to the results to guide the reader to its content.
3. Edited to clarify that the purpose of the sentence is to cite an example and that the software aligns with current trends of applying active teaching and learning methods. (Page 1, lines 40-43) |
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for asking me to review your manuscript. It was an interesting read. I have few remarks:
The order of the chapters is confusing, the analysis and participants are in the Results-chapter. It would be clearer to have first participants, then analysis and results as a separate chapter before discussion.
You mention "Whereas other teaching methods treat students as passive recipients" You should clarify, because I do not agree, there are many activating teaching methods!
Author Response
Dear editors and reviewers,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript entitled “Adapting an Educational Software Internationally: Cultural and Linguistical Adaptation” to Education Sciences. We appreciate the time and effort dedicated to providing valuable feedback. We are grateful for the insightful comments and incorporated changes.
As requested, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments and revisions are marked up using the “tracked changes” function. We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
the authors
Sidenote: As indicated in this manuscript cover letter, another article detailing the results of this method was submitted and is currently in press at the journal. This manuscript type is “Study Protocol”. We believe that this study protocol publication detailing the methodology favors transparency and replication of the method, whose results will be published in the same journal.
…
Reviewer 1:
|
Section |
Reviewer comments |
Author’s response |
|
General review report form: |
Moderate English changes required |
Authors did another round of spell check and content clarification throughout the manuscript. |
|
Reviewer comments and suggestions for Authors |
1.An interesting attempt to apply the method. 2.Poor table representation.
3.Most of the sources of literature are dated to the last century. Considering the need to demonstrate the relevance of the study, more sources dated no later than 5 years should be added. The methodology is described very briefly. The paper states that "Descriptive statistics was used to analyze and report the face validity survey data, calculating frequencies, measures of central tendency, and standard deviations." What kind of statistical characteristics were used and the values ​ ​ were obtained? It should be specified in more detail. In general, it seems that only part of the study is presented.
|
1.No need to be changed.
2.Edited to improve presentation.
3.Added updated references throughout the manuscript to demonstrate relevance of the study (Page 1, line 27-29, 34-36, 41-43; 56-58, 70-75, 104-105, 121-122. Page 2, line 132. Page 4, line 154, 165-168. Page 5 line 266-269. Page 6, line 291. Page 7, line 319, 328. Page 8, line 348-350.Page 9, 463-464, 468-469. Page 10, 510-515).
Considering this is a study protocol, we made sure to keep the primary sources to cross-cultural adaptations, emic and etic perspectives, and cognitive style of mathematics. For example: Brislin is a classic theorist for cross cultural adaptation so using him makes it grounded in the literature. The process was fathered by him and so he must be referenced as a foundational source.
We added clarification that this is a study protocol throughout the publication. (Page 1, line 9, 24, 107-122. Page 10, 472). Table 3 was removed and cited as published in the results paper.(Page 9, line 595-597)
|
Reviewer 2:
|
Section |
Reviewer comments |
Author’s response |
|
General review report form: |
English language and style are fine/minor spell check required |
Authors did another round of spell check and content clarification throughout the manuscript.
|
|
Reviewer comments and suggestions for Authors |
1.Thank you for asking me to review your manuscript. It was an interesting read. I have few remarks: 2.The order of the chapters is confusing, the analysis and participants are in the Results-chapter. It would be clearer to have first participants, then analysis and results as a separate chapter before discussion.
3.You mention "Whereas other teaching methods treat students as passive recipients" You should clarify, because I do not agree, there are many activating teaching methods! |
1.No need to be changed.
2. Order of the content revised and edited according to reviewer’s suggestions. An introductory paragraph was added to the results to guide the reader to its content.
3. Edited to clarify that the purpose of the sentence is to cite an example and that the software aligns with current trends of applying active teaching and learning methods. (Page 1, lines 40-43) |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for reworking some text fragments/tables and providing clarifying/necessary information. There are no more significant comments.
with best regards
