The Promotion of Originality Perceived in Two Multimodal Storytelling Applications: Storybird and Scratch
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents an interesting study on the potential of digital storytelling. The text includes interesting aspects in relation to digital storytelling and encourages further research in this area. However, there are certain aspects that the author(s) should revise:
- I suggest using bar graphs instead of pie graphs in all the cases. Pie graphs give show relative results, whereas bar graphs show absolute results. Bar graphs are more illustrative.
- The results include some subjective statements (even though based on the results) that should be moved to the discussion.
- Tables should include the source (even if they are authors’ own elaboration).
- In-text references with more than two authors should be revised (especially the use of “and”).
- Information regarding ethics to gather the data should be included.
In addition, additional comments have been included in the attached document which I hope will assist the author(s) in revising the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
I suggest revising the use of English as there are some mistakes that should be corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 1:
We thank you for the suggestions provided and for making it easier for us to improve the quality of the writing and English language usage. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations.
Authors´Answers for Comments and Suggestions of Reviewer 1
AU: The reviewer can see all the changes in the new version that have been underlined in yellow.
R1- I suggest using bar graphs instead of pie graphs in all the cases. Pie graphs give show relative results, whereas bar graphs show absolute results. Bar graphs are more illustrative.
AU:The suggestion has been taken into account.
R1 The results include some subjective statements (even though based on the results) that should be moved to the discussion.
AU:The suggestion has been taken into account.
R1 Tables should include the source (even if they are authors’ own elaboration).
AU:The suggestion has been taken into account
R1 In-text references with more than two authors should be revised (especially the use of “and”).
AU:The suggestion has been taken into account
R1:- Information regarding ethics to gather the data should be included.
AU:The suggestion has been taken into account
R1. In addition, additional comments have been included in the attached document which I hope will assist the author(s) in revising the article.
AU: about Methods.
We appreciate your suggestions to make it clearer. In the methodology section, we have provided a clearer explanation of the tests used specially we clarify that hypothesis testing is an inferential test. It is used to determine if there is enough evidence in a sample to reject a specific statement about the population in general. This involves comparing the observed results in the sample with what would be expected under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true.
First, descriptive tests were employed, illustrating frequencies represented in bar charts. Second, inferential tests such as hypothesis testing were utilized to demonstrate certainty regarding hypotheses, and the correlational Spearman test provided significant data (or the Student's T-test or Mann-Whitney test, as suggested by reviewer 2). We believe that the wording is now more precise. Also, we clarify the meaning of significance in both tests for better understanding of these two tests.
In the Results section, we have don´t avoided the term 'significant' because the term 'significant' can be applied to the results obtained from a hypothesis testing. When the test results indicate sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis, it can be said that the results are statistically significant. Statistical significance suggests that the findings are not merely the result of chance, and there is a real relationship or difference in the population being studied. In this context, 'significant' refers to the statistical importance of the results, not their practical relevance or scientific significance
In the Discussion section, we have further clarified by mentioning the descriptive test along with the hypothesis testing.
peer-review-33662793.v1.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
R1:I suggest revising the use of English as there are some mistakes that should be corrected.
AU: We very much appreciate the specific instructions of English and other issues (belonging to open review) that have undoubtedly helped to improve the quality of the text. Moreover, the new version has been proofread by a colleague.
Best regards,
the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found your exploration of multimodal storytelling applications like Storybird and Scratch engaging. This approach holds promising potential for pedagogy in the context of your study. However, there are several areas where I believe your manuscript could be strengthened. I invite you to consider the following suggestions:
Introduction: The current introduction is rather extensive, spanning four pages. I recommend restructuring this section to include a more 'traditional introduction' of 1-2 paragraphs. The rest of the content could be moved to a new section titled 'Literature Review.' In the literature review, aim to identify and articulate the gap in the existing literature by summarizing previous studies. The critical analysis expected in a literature review appears to be missing from your manuscript.
Methodology: Consider creating a new subheading titled 'Context.' This would provide a space to delve into additional details about the study's context, which are both interesting and pertinent to the overall research. Storybird and Scratch: I suggest adding a separate section to introduce and detail the software used in your research.
Discussion: While your discussion is comprehensive, it may benefit from a more structured presentation. Consider dividing it into distinct sub-sections for improved readability and navigation. For example, you could organize your discussion under the following headings: 'Discussion,' 'Limitations,' 'Further/Future Studies,' 'Implications for Practice,' 'Implications for Theory,' and 'Conclusion.' Notably, in the 'Limitations' section, there seems to be room for more discussion about the wide age range of participants. This structure would make it easier for readers to navigate your findings and highlight the key details of your research more prominently. Additionally, it's crucial that you explicitly state how each of the four research questions has been addressed.
While these suggestions may seem minor on the surface, they do entail a significant restructuring of the manuscript. However, I firmly believe that these changes will enhance the robustness of your research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageYour English language use is generally good. However, a thorough proofreading could further enhance your manuscript. This process will help to ensure language clarity, conciseness, and overall readability.
Author Response
Dear reviewer 2:
We thank you very much for the suggestions provided and for making it easier for us to improve the quality of the writing. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations.
AU: The reviewer 2 can see all the changes in the new version that have been underlined in yellow.
R2: Introduction: The current introduction is rather extensive, spanning four pages. I recommend restructuring this section to include a more 'traditional introduction' of 1-2 paragraphs. The rest of the content could be moved to a new section titled 'Literature Review.' In the literature review, aim to identify and articulate the gap in the existing literature by summarizing previous studies. The critical analysis expected in a literature review appears to be missing from your manuscript.
AU: Your indication has been taken into account. You can see that this has been done in the text.
R2: Methodology: Consider creating a new subheading titled 'Context.' This would provide a space to delve into additional details about the study's context, which are both interesting and pertinent to the overall research.
AU: We consulted that the subsection on “Participant Characteristics” should only provide data about the participants. Report participant genders (how many male and female participants) and ages (the age range and, if applicable, the standard deviation). In particular, if you are writing for an international audience, specify the country and the region or cities where the participants lived.
We have considered creating this subsection. However, we have consulted other recent articles in this journal and they do not include it and we would not like to extend the article further because it has already been extended into two other sections. We verified that all data about the participants (number, age and sex) had been included. We needed to include data about the city, region and country. We have included them. Based on your suggestion, we have also added a paragraph about Andalousia autonomy (region) and which provinces the students come from and their socioeconomic level. We understand that with this data the context has become more outlined.
R2: Storybird and Scratch: I suggest adding a separate section to introduce and detail the software used in your research.
AU: Two paragraphs have been added explaining what it is and what possibilities these two applications offer users. It has not been considered to create a separate section, respecting the journal's instructions on the sections that should appear in Methods. We understand that this added text enriches the description of the intervention.
R2: Discussion: While your discussion is comprehensive, it may benefit from a more structured presentation. Consider dividing it into distinct sub-sections for improved readability and navigation. For example, you could organize your discussion under the following headings: 'Discussion,' 'Limitations,' 'Further/Future Studies,' 'Implications for Practice,' 'Implications for Theory,' and 'Conclusion.' Notably, in the 'Limitations' section, there seems to be room for more discussion about the wide age range of participants. This structure would make it easier for readers to navigate your findings and highlight the key details of your research more prominently.
AU: Your indication has been taken into account. You can see that it is included four more sub-sections in the Discussion section: Discussion, Implications for Practice, Future Studies and Limitations
R2. Discussion. Additionally, it's crucial that you explicitly state how each of the four research questions has been addressed.
AU: Your indication has been taken into account. You can see that this has been added in the text. In fact, statements related to the research questions have been added to the Discussion section.
R2: While these suggestions may seem minor on the surface, they do entail a significant restructuring of the manuscript. However, I firmly believe that these changes will enhance the robustness of your research.
AU: We are very grateful to this reviewer 2 for all the indications, they undoubtedly represent an improvement for the new version of the writing.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
R2: Your English language use is generally good. However, a thorough proofreading could further enhance your manuscript. This process will help to ensure language clarity, conciseness, and overall readability.
AU: A review of text has been done by authors. It has taken into account the concrete suggestions of reviewer 1. Moreover, the new version has been proofread by a colleague.
Best regards,
the authors
