Young Pupils’ Joint Creation of Multimodal Fairy Tales Using Analogue and Digital Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This review provides an assessment of the article “Young pupils creating multimodal texts with a digital tool”. The article is very well-written, well-structured, and interesting. It needs only minor editing when it comes to quality of the English language and some proof-reading since it contains some minor spelling and grammatical mistakes.

 

However, there are some other areas that need some more attention in order to reach its full potential. This review will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article and provide recommendations for improvement.

 

Title

The title of the article is too general on one hand (there is no indication that it is about fairy tales for example) and too narrow at the same time (only focus on digital but the study includes many resources ­– not only digital ones). It is important that the title provides an indication for the reader of what the study will be about, and I suggest that the authors discuss how they can choose another title more descriptive of the content.

 

The introduction and previous research

The authors of this article have failed to adequately motivate why their study was conducted in the introduction. While they provide a brief overview of the topic, they do not provide a comprehensive explanation of the significance and originality of the study or why it is particularly relevant or timely. Without this information, it is difficult for the reader to understand the importance of the research and the implications of the findings.

 

When it comes to the previous research (sections 2-4) the authors present a thorough analysis of the research topic, providing an in-depth review of relevant literature. However, they do not show any clear research gaps that motivates the present study. The absence of a clear research gap in the previous section may limit the readers’ ability to appreciate the significance of the proposed study and needs to be addressed.

 

Theory

The theory works well and I only have two comments:

The concept of "affordance" is discussed by the authors as a central concept in social semiotics in the theory section, but the concepts does not seem to be further utilized in the analysis.

 

The authors of this text fail to provide any meaningful justification for why they employ the concept of "grit". This is unsatisfactory, given the criticism which this concept has received in recent years and the connection to “deficit thinking”. It is unclear why the authors choose to overlook these critiques and instead focus on the merits of "grit" without providing an adequate explanation for why it is a useful concept for this study. See for example:

 

Linda F. Nathan, When Grit Isn't Enough: A High School Principal Examines How Poverty and Inequality Thwart the College-for-All Promise (Boston, MA: Beacon, 2017).

 

Marcus Credé, Michael C. Tynan, and Peter D. Harms, "Much Ado about Grit: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Grit Literature," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 113, 3 (2017): 492–511; Daniel J. Almeida, "Understanding Grit in the Context of Higher Education," in Michael B. Paulsen, ed., Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Volume 28 (New York: Springer, 2016), 559–609.

 

Method

The method section is clear and well-structured. My only comment to the authors: As a reader I struggle to see the scientific contribution when it comes to the action cameras strapped on the children’s heads. The authors write that it generated fine-tuned details of the students’ multimodal interactions, but this in not at all visible in the results. It would be helpful to explore this more to make it clear and why it was necessary.

 

 

Results and discussion

The results section requires considerable revisions. Overall, the results often read more like a narrative or summary of events rather than an analytical review. Also, in several instances, the authors do not provide enough detail in their analysis which makes it less convincing. Some statements and conclusions are therefore left unsubstantiated. As such, the results section needs to be amended to provide deeper analytical insights into the subject to make it more informative and engaging.

 

In the discussion, there are also some instances where there are some claims that might be substantiated but are too vaguely formulated to be convincing: “appears to have a great impact” (line 469). Finally, the authors do not draw any conclusions from their findings or offer any implications for future research. As a result, the article provides an interesting overview of the study's findings but does not provide any additional insight apart from the claim that it could support teachers.  

The English language of the article under consideration is of a satisfactory standard and requires only minor editing before being published. It is recommended that any errors in spelling and grammar be addressed to ensure that the article is presented in the best possible light.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

You have written a quality paper but you need to address some major errors to improve the standard of the paper. I explain my concerns in more detail below. I ask that the authors specifically address each of my comments in their responses.

1.     In the Abstract section, the number of participants, the number of groups used in the study and the research method used in this study should be written.

2.     Since this study is structured according to the Learning Design Sequence Model theory, it would be useful to give it in keywords.

3.     On page 3, line 143, the section “Theory” can be changed to “Learning Design Sequence Model”. It will be easier for the reader to understand the learning model used in the study.

4.     The following sections can be moved into the "Introduction "section as a sub-title:

·       Children and the Digitized Media Landscape

·       Young Children’s Multimodal Text Creation with Digital Tools

·       Teachers’ Design for Learning

5.     The research method of the study (e.g., experimental, case study, etc.) should be written in the “Methods” section.

6.     Page 6, lines 239-147: At the beginning of the study, consent forms were obtained from the families ("children’s caregivers" aren't their parents?) of the children who would participate in the study. But then, it is understood that the families were either unaware of the working structure of the study or were given incomplete information while describing the withdrawal of one of the children from the study. How would you explain this?

7.     In the "Participants and ethical considerations" section:  The age of pupils or average age and classes of them should be written.

8.     Page 5, line 224: 5, line 235: It was written, "Data was collected in her second grade class consisting of 19 pupils, of which five girls and five boys consented to participate in the study". Five girls and five boys and a total of 19. Could you explain how?

9.     Page 5 line 235: It was written "The teacher divided the class into two groups when data was generated...". For this reason, writing the functioning of the 2 groups in the study separately in the "Data" section will provide a better understanding of the study. Moreover, how long the work took should also be written. Furthermore, in the "Results" section, both groups' results should be explained separately.

10.  In the discussion section, the author(s) discussed the results obtained in the study in line with their own views. However, scientific studies should be discussed by giving similar or contradictory results obtained by other researchers in the relevant literature. In other words, the discussion section should be supported by the literature.

11.  The "Conclusion" section should be added to the paper.

12.  The limitations of the study should be explained.

13.  Recommendations for future studies should be given.

14. In the "References" section it can be seen that the author(s) used 6 own studies as references in the study. It is an ethical issue that can not be accepted in the scientific papers. I advise only 2 or max 3.

Minor editing of the English language is required in the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article contributes to the body of knowledge, as it provides an interesting exploratory study to understand how young pupils create multimodal texts with digital tools in small groups.The proposed methodology is based on design for learning, with the Learning Design Sequence Model utilized as an analytical tool. The methodology sounds well and fits the investigated research aim. Both the methodology and the performed study comply with a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

The paper is written in a quite good methodological manner, in accordance with the traditional IMRD (introduction, methodology, results, and discussion) structure of scientific papers, even if too manu sections (Sections 2-4) are dedicated to the related work. Therefore, I suggest to merge them (see specific comments below). The linguistic level should be improved due to a lot of grammatical mistakes and not well formulated sentences. The results are interesting and well described. A conclusion Section should be added in which the authors provide some conclusive remarks (highlighting also who will benefit from the obtained results) and future research. Moreover, the limits of the research should be briefly discussed in the conclusion or in the discussion.

As a summary, the paper is written in a nice scientific style. However, some restructuring, mainly regarding the presentation of some paragraphs (see comments below), the discussion section, and conclusion would be welcome. 

More detailed comments to improve the quality of the manuscript are given below:

Line 56: this paragraph is too repetitive. This sentence has been used both in the abstract and in the first part of the introduction.

Sections 2 and 4 are very short and there is not the necessity to take them separate from Section 3 because all these 3 sections deal with related work. Therefore, I suggest merging Sections 2, 3 and 4 in one Section on related work, and using sub-sections (2.1 for Section 2, 2.2 for Section 3, and 2.3 for Section 4).

Moreover, the literature Section should better justify the need, relevance and originality of your study. To enrich the literature, you could have a look at the following articles:

Murcia, K. (2014). Interactive and multimodal pedagogy: A case study of how teachers and students use interactive whiteboard technology in primary science.

Caschera, MC et al. (2013). Multimodal Interaction in Gaming.

Jovanovic, M., et al. (2011). Motivation and multimodal interaction in model-driven educational game design. 

 

Line 213: Please correct "to to be able to study....".

The discussion should explicitly mention the 3 research questions defined in Section 1.1 and discuss how the results of the study (described in Section 7) respond to them.

 

The linguistic level should be improved due to a lot of grammatical mistakes and not well formulated sentences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Your revisions have improved the paper significantly. The clarity of the introduction, the result and discussion are much better than before. The writing is concise and easy to understand. Your responses to the reviewer comments demonstrate a strong commitment to producing a good article. In my opinion, your article is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you so much for valuable comments during the revision process!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

I think this version of your text is much more understandable than before, as you have successfully made all the desired corrections.

Author Response

Thank you so much for valuable comments during the revision process!

Reviewer 3 Report

In their revised manuscript, the authors have addressed most of my comments satisfactorily. I have the following two further suggestions to improve the structure of the paper.

1. The introduction contains too many information about the background (i.e., sub-sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 ) that should be put in a separated Section, as l suggested in my previous review.

2. Analogously, the conclusion (sub-section 5.1) should be put in a separated Section, not included in the discussion.

Minor editing is necessary

Author Response

In their revised manuscript, the authors have addressed most of my comments satisfactorily. I have the following two further suggestions to improve the structure of the paper.

1. The introduction contains too many information about the background (i.e., sub-sections 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 ) that should be put in a separated Section, as l suggested in my previous review.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion, however we have chosen to not make this revision since Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 now are content with the structure of the paper. We hope that this is OK.

2. Analogously, the conclusion (sub-section 5.1) should be put in a separated Section, not included in the discussion

Response: We have now placed the conclusion in a separated Section.