Developing Pedagogical Principles for Digital Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article centres on the discussion of an extremely relevant topic. The use of technology for assessment purposes and the concern with the pedagogical principles that should underpin it is very pertinent, especially if we consider, as the author advocates, that assessment is part of a learning process and not something that emerges separately and with objectives merely associated with identifying what has or has not been learnt. The literature review is extensive, appropriate to the topic and mostly up-to-date. The theoretical framework is aligned with the purposes of the research and the article, although it could have explored more the results of other similar studies and the conclusions obtained in certain teaching-learning contexts. 

As far as the methodological framework is concerned, it would have been important to know (globally) the selection criteria and the profile of the research participants. The perception of teachers of technological or non-technological areas, for example, is a fundamental element for framing the conclusions. Age and type of previous experience with digital assessment is also another element to consider, among others. 

In terms of the conclusions of the study, the article would benefit from a greater analytical foundation of the five pedagogical principles. They are presented in a self-declarative way (what they mean) and not in a substantive way. For example, the ‘choice of adequate technology’ should explore the criteria for assessing this adequacy. The same applies to the other principles so that the article's contribution can be truly useful for pedagogical practice.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the article is very well written, well-founded and framed in the current educational context. On the other hand, it contains an updated bibliography appropriate for the subject matter.

Author Response

Thank you for such positive feedback! It inspires for the future.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their work and attach a file containing feedback that I hope we are helpful to the authors in improving their work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) provided some conceptual and methodological clarifications and explanations that contributed to the quality of the article.

Although the conclusions could have been more in-depth, especially with regard to the content of the pedagogical principles, the author's justification of the need to contextualise the analyses in this sense and the possibility of doing so in future publications is accepted as reasonable.

Author Response

Comment 1: "The author(s) provided some conceptual and methodological clarifications and explanations that contributed to the quality of the article."

Response 1: Thank you!

Comment 2: "Although the conclusions could have been more in-depth, especially with regard to the content of the pedagogical principles, the author's justification of the need to contextualise the analyses in this sense and the possibility of doing so in future publications is accepted as reasonable."

Response 2: Thank you for accepting!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review aims to highlight the paper's strengths after the first revision, while also offering constructive suggestions for improvement. 

Strengths:

The paper now presents a clear structure, making it easy to follow the progression from the introduction, methodology, to the final conclusions. The logical flow of ideas enhances readability, especially for readers unfamiliar with digital assessment methodologies.

The focus on pedagogical principles in digital assessment is timely and relevant, particularly in the wake of the pandemic-induced shift to digital education. The exploration of formative and summative assessment techniques, along with the integration of digital tools, aligns well with current educational challenges.

 

Areas for Improvement:

- Depth of literature review: While the paper references various sources, the literature review could be more comprehensive. Including key works such as Spagnolo et al. (2021), which examine formative assessment within LDL frameworks, would enrich the theoretical foundation of the paper. Some references:

- Spagnolo, C., Giglio, R., Tiralongo, S., & Bolondi, G. (2021). Formative assessment in LDL workshop activities: Engaging teachers in a training program. In International Conference on Computer Supported Education (pp. 560-576). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

- Spagnolo, C., Giglio, R., Tiralongo, S., & Bolondi, G. (2021). Formative assessment in LDL: A teacher-training experiment. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education-Volume 1 (Vol. 1, pp. 657-664). SciTePress.

These references provide valuable insights into formative assessment strategies in teacher training and would support the paper’s discussions on effective digital assessment practices.

- Practical application: The discussion on the practical implications of the proposed pedagogical principles could be expanded. While the principles are theoretically sound, more concrete examples or case studies illustrating their implementation in classroom settings would strengthen the paper. This would make it easier to visualize how these principles can be translated into practice.

- Discussion of limitations: The paper touches briefly on its limitations but could benefit from a more thorough examination of the challenges faced during the research process, such as participant recruitment and potential biases. A deeper reflection on how these limitations might affect the findings would provide a more balanced perspective.

 

Conclusion: Overall, the paper provides valuable contributions to the field of digital assessment, particularly with its formulation of pedagogical principles. However, it would benefit from incorporating a broader range of literature, including more detailed practical examples, and a more critical analysis of both its findings and the limitations of digital assessment.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The form of English is much improved, just lacking some minor editing.

Author Response

Comments 1 "- Depth of literature review: While the paper references various sources, the literature review could be more comprehensive. Including key works such as Spagnolo et al. (2021), which examine formative assessment within LDL frameworks, would enrich the theoretical foundation of the paper."

Response 1: Thanks for the suggestion, I have included one of the previously suggested references in the manuscript. The rest will be useful to me in future research.

Comments 2: "Practical application: The discussion on the practical implications of the proposed pedagogical principles could be expanded. While the principles are theoretically sound, more concrete examples or case studies illustrating their implementation in classroom settings would strengthen the paper. This would make it easier to visualize how these principles can be translated into practice"

Response 2: I have added (see page 9, line 433-434).

Comments 3: "Discussion of limitations: The paper touches briefly on its limitations but could benefit from a more thorough examination of the challenges faced during the research process, such as participant recruitment and potential biases. A deeper reflection on how these limitations might affect the findings would provide a more balanced perspective."

Response 3: From my research experience so far, I am convinced that challenges are not always limitations. The challenge of participants recruitment is mentioned in the Methods section. The sentence about bias is expanded (see page 10, line 443-444). 

Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss!