Unplugging for Student Success: Examining the Benefits of Disconnecting from Technology during COVID-19 Education for Emergency Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this paper's aim and methodology are relevant to the Special Issue " Embracing Online Pedagogy: The New Normal for Higher Education" of Education Sciences. I think this paper's aim and methodology are relevant to the Special Issue " Embracing Online Pedagogy: The New Normal for Higher Education" of Education Sciences. But, many parts including the Abstract, Background, Methodology, ...,  Discussion and conclusion need to be revised.

 

1. The format of references cited in the article does not conform to the format of this journal. It is recommended to revise.

 

2. The description of the abstract should be improved. The content of this part does not mention the degree and correlation of the various effects of the research subjects. It is suggested that the abstract needs to be revised and adjusted according to the subsequent research structure and results. For example, other results and analyses of important information should be added and shown in the new version. The author(s) should try to describe constructive and helpful comments that have improved the abstract.

 

3. On pages 2-5, lines 98-250, About Section Background. It is suggested that subtitles can be added to the descriptions of different paragraphs on time, which can make readers more aware of the relationship between this study and various documents.

 

4. On page 5, line 251, About Section Methodology. It is recommended to add the research purpose, question, and architecture diagram before this section. To make readers more clear about the context of the research. Like adding relevant what-if scenarios.

 

5. On page 7, lines 264-303, About Section Data collection procedures. It is suggested that Figure 1 be presented in a tabular form. And the content needs to include the relevant demographic variable information of this study.

 

6. On page 7, lines 304-315, About Section Survey. About "In order to collect information related to students’ perception of their well-being, we designed a survey (Supplementary Table 1) inspired by their most relevant confinement emotions (Camacho-Zuñiga et al., 2021), school-related or academic emotions (Ochoa de Alda et al., 2019), sleeping quality (Zhou, Wang, et al., 2020), and academic stress (Lin and Chen, 2009)." The reviewers did not see the relevant content of the questionnaire design. Please fill in the relevant information and the scale used in the scale.

 

7. On pages 7-8, lines 316-344, About Section Results. It is suggested that the description of this paragraph can be rewritten, and the relevant contents of Figure 2 and Figure 3 should be removed. Change to show the average value, standard deviation, and statistical number (n) of the relevant research variables in the form of a table.

 

8. On pages 9-12, lines 345-419, About Section Results. It is suggested that the description of this paragraph can be rewritten, and the content of the relevant Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6 should be changed to show the relevant values in the form of a table. It is also suggested that the author can check the relevant table to indicate the statistical number (n) value.

The author collects data using scales and suggests that relevant analysis methods can at least use statistical methods such as the T-test or ANOVA to present the research results. The reviewers wholeheartedly suggest that the content of this chapter needs to be reworked to present the results of the research analysis.

 

9. On pages 12-16, lines 420-586, About Section Discussion. Because of the proposed rewriting of the section on the results, the content of the discussion section needs to be stated according to the way the data are presented after the rewriting. More appropriate suggestions can only be made after the content expressed at present is updated.

 

10. On pages 16-17, lines 605-642, About Section Conclusions. According to the content of the current version, it is in line with the results, but the reviewer suggested that the content of this chapter should be adjusted after rewriting according to the above suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please find our response attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Notable perspective on a topic of the article within the Covid-19 pandemic. The authors have grasped the issue of dependence on technologies from a completely different point of view then common practice. The introduction part involves the up-to-date literature review, sources from the years 2020-2022 prevail. The research methodology is clearly stated, as is te data collection and research sample. The statistical processing of the results is adequate, the graphs are legible and clear. I also appreciate that factors that could be influenced by unplug day are listed in the discussion part. Moreover, the authors did not forget to mention the limits of the research, which primarily includes voluntary participation in the research. 

 

Author Response

Please see the revised manuscript attached 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for submitting your work. I would like to point out a number of changes. First, formulate the research objective and hypotheses. Place this information after the theoretical framework. I found the theoretical framework interesting, although it is important that you cite theoretical meta-analysis studies to make the framework more solid.

Regarding the methodology, you have used different fonts. It is also important that they explain the survey, as I do not understand what instrument they have used, or if they have used different subscales. Please revise this section to make it clearer and easier to understand. In the results, the tables are not adjusted to the standards of the journals. In the results, the text appears again in different fonts. Finally, separate the results section from the discussion section. In the discussion section, do not forget to talk about limitations and practical applications.

Author Response

Please see the revised manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors:

The content of the reworked paper has been well-revised. However, this article will be perfect if some adjustments can be made to the following content.

 Remind the author to re-examine all figures and tables when converting the article into a formal pdf file. Make sure they are typographically centered for easy reading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I believe that with the changes you have made, the research has improved considerably. Although it is true that you could introduce some more systematic review or meta-analysis in your theoretical framework to give it more robustness. But this is a mere opinion. I see it as quite well designed and constructed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx