The Evolving Classroom: How Learning Analytics Is Shaping the Future of Education and Feedback Mechanisms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for the timely manuscript. A couple of suggestions:
1. It will be useful to highlight how all the research questions are being addressed.
2. It will be beneficial to include a methodology section (e.g., how the literature review is done?)
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his or her thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.
Reviewer Comments:
- It will be useful to highlight how all the research questions are being addressed.
Response: The comment is addressed now by adding sentences in relevant sections explicitly mentioning each research question, ensuring a clear and systematic approach to address them. This structure provides a direct link between the questions and the ensuing discussion, facilitating a focused and comprehensive exploration of the topic.
- It will be beneficial to include a methodology section (e.g., how the literature review is done?)
Response: A detailed methodology section is included now outlining the literature review process, data extraction, synthesis, and validation steps. This section also acknowledges potential limitations, enhancing the research's transparency and credibility.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is interesting and easy to read; it addresses artificial intelligence from different perspectives, highlighting current advantages and challenges, as well as potential challenges we might face in the future.
However, the authors state that it is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), and it clearly does not adhere to a clear methodology typical of such reviews.
The objective of an SLR is to synthesize the available evidence, reviewing both qualitative and quantitative aspects of primary studies to summarize the existing information on a given topic. The selected articles are analyzed and compared with similar ones. Typically, a series of methodological and systematic steps are followed, such as: (1) Planning the review with feasibility studies, a review protocol, and its validation; (2) conducting the review by searching for primary studies, evaluating them, extracting data, and synthesizing it, and (3) writing the article and validating it.
In this case, the authors have written an interesting article that takes into account a multitude of perspectives on artificial intelligence, including potential ethical challenges. However, it seems to be more of a description and reflection rather than a Systematic Literature Review (SLR).
On the other hand, the authors focus on higher education, a matter that should be indicated from the beginning and especially in the abstract.
In my opinion, it is an interesting article that addresses thought-provoking topics. However, it should not be presented as an SLR, or alternatively, it should include the methodology typically associated with an SLR.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for his or her thoughtful comments and efforts towards improving our manuscript.
Reviewer Comments:
- The authors state that it is a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), and it clearly does not adhere to a clear methodology typical of such reviews.
Response: The paper now adheres to a systematic approach typical of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR). It encompasses a comprehensive methodology section that thoroughly outlines each step of the review process, aligning with SLR standards.
- The authors focus on higher education, a matter that should be indicated from the beginning and especially in the abstract.
Response: The focus on higher education is now clearly indicated in the abstract and section 7, ensuring the paper's relevance and scope are immediately apparent to the readers.
