Curating Hybrid-Style University Experiences: Framework Development for Student Social Connectedness Using Interaction Design and Placemaking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is quite interesting and original and offers interesting reflections on current challenges to HE.

I would suggest, to enrich the theoretical framework and discussion, that the authors consider some aspects relating to environmental psychology constructs, namely place attachment. For example: Bonaiuto, M., Alves, S., De Dominicis, S., & Petruccelli, I. (2016). Place attachment and natural hazard risk: Research review and agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 33–53. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.007

I would also point that figures 3 and 4 are the same picture, which was likely a copy-paste mistake that needs to be corrected.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text has some odd sentences, and, as such, it would be useful to perform an overall revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review: University campus development: Managing the mix of being online and offline for student social connection

 

 

Introduction

• The paragraph starting at line 73 should be shortened to enhance text fluency and avoid repetition.

Problem Statement

• After the heading "Problem Statement," a brief introductory section summarizing what will follow would be helpful for better understanding the subsequent paragraphs.
• The elaborations on the problem statements for RQ1 and RQ2 are quite long; consider shortening them slightly.
• The authors might consider reorganizing the structure of the article by placing the description of the problem statement after the theoretical framing.

Theoretical Framing

• The sentence in line 269 should begin with a capital letter.

Methodology

• The full term for "HULE" should be provided before using the acronym for the first time in line 280.
• In line 292, the full expression should be given before introducing the acronym "SSC."
• It should be specified whether the learning management systems used in the classes were controlled by the research team or selected freely by the lecturers. Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify if the lecturers across different classes used the same or similar learning management systems. The same applies to the informal/private chat communication platforms the students were allowed to use during the courses.

Results and Discussion

• The results and discussion sections are clear. I have no further suggestions for the authors.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

In the document titled "University campus development: Managing the mix of being online and offline for student social connection," the authors present a study on how communication technologies can be utilized to build and maintain social connections in hybrid university environments. I understand that the article's objective was to develop a framework to assist in the management and curation of students' social connection experiences in digitally oriented university environments. To achieve this objective, the study aimed to understand how students' social connections were built and maintained in these environments. In this context, theories of placemaking and interaction design were explored to create a practical guide for university campus development in the digital age.

I consider this topic relevant and timely because, in my view, building and maintaining social connections in hybrid learning environments presents significant challenges. For instance, hybrid environments often hinder access to informal and private spaces, may pose communication challenges by making it fragmented, and can result in disparities in students' learning experiences, among other factors.

The document is structured with the following sections: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical framing: Interaction design and placemaking; 3. Methodology; 4. Finding and curating student social connection; 5. Discussion; 6. Limitations; and 7. Conclusion. I believe that these sections are adequate and meet the requirements for a scientific article.

Overall, the document is well-written; however, I believe that minor adjustments are needed in some sections, namely the Abstract, Introduction, Materials and Methods, and Conclusion. Below, I will comment on each of the sections that compose the document individually.

Specific Comments

Title

The title is of appropriate length, with 16 words, ("University campus development: Managing the mix of being online and offline for student social connection"). Regarding its composition, the title should answer three fundamental questions: 1. What was done? 2. What was it about? 3. Where was it done? I understand that it does not satisfactorily address these questions.

The title should correspond to the study's theme and objective, being concise while still comprehensive. However, the general objective of the work is not well-defined. I suggest adjusting the general objective based on the following text and then rewriting the title accordingly.

[Line 202] This article explores interaction design and placemaking as a means of managing and curating experiences in the hybrid-style university that support social connection… [line 206] Merging these perspectives from interaction design and placemaking offers a means of framework development, where experiences in the digitally-oriented university are managed and curated to support social connection. [208] Framework development is the second aim of this article, using an innovative multi-method approach to develop the research.

Abstract

The “abstract” is very important due to its significant use in electronic databases. The text presented in the document is of appropriate length, with 200 words, distributed across 8 sentences, averaging 25 words per sentence. I believe the average number of words used in the sentences is quite high, which may make it difficult to read, especially for those not very familiar with the topic. Simplifying some sentences and reducing complexity can aid in comprehension. Studies suggest that sentences should not exceed 15 or 16 words to make the reading more pleasant and uninterrupted. For a better reader experience, it is recommended to write more concise sentences.

According to the Oxford Guide for Writing (2020):

·         Sentences with up to 12 words are easy.

·         Sentences with 13-17 words are acceptable.

·         Sentences with 18-25 words are difficult.

·         Sentences with more than 25 words are very difficult.

Regarding the structure, I think the abstract has structural issues and, in my opinion, does not present the necessary elements for this part of the document. It could be rewritten for greater clarity and impact. For example, including specific examples or concrete data that illustrate how the barriers to building social connections manifest in hybrid environments. It would also be important to clarify the methodology used, especially in terms of data analysis and course selection, and to provide a more detailed overview of the practical recommendations that emerge from the study, including possible strategies to overcome the identified barriers.

I suggest the following organization:

·  Background: This section should summarize what is known about the research problem and the study's objective.

·  Methods: It should contain sufficient information to understand the research conducted, typically including a description of the type of research (field, experimental, documental), research design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), instrument, sample, sampling techniques, and research techniques.

· Results: This should be descriptive and sufficiently informative, ensuring it aligns with the stated objective.

·  Conclusions: These should present, in a few sentences, the final message or interpretation of the results, as well as other important or unexpected findings. The authors may also express a supported opinion on the practical or theoretical implications and the value of their research for future studies.

Another relevant point is that the abstract should be written in the past tense, except for the last paragraph or conclusion sentence, which is not consistently the case in the text. Therefore, I believe the abstract needs to be rewritten.

Keywords

Keywords are a tool to help indexers and search engines find relevant articles. If database search engines can find your journal manuscript, readers will be able to find it too. This will increase the number of people reading your manuscript and likely lead to more citations.

The authors present 6 keywords (affective atmospheres; framework development; student social connectedness; hybrid university; learning environment; online learning). I believe that the order of presentation of the keywords should ideally go from the most general to the most specific, which is not the case in the document. I would like to remind you that the keywords should represent the semantic content of the document, both in the primary and secondary content, with 2 or 3 of them being included in the title of the work.

Based on the new title, I suggest defining new keywords.

Introduction

The introduction should provide enough background for the reader to understand and evaluate the study, its necessity, and its importance without needing to consult other publications. I believe the text presented uses dense and technical language that may hinder comprehension, especially for readers who are not familiar with all the concepts discussed. This could discourage less experienced readers or those from other fields. Some important concepts, such as "affective atmospheres" and "intermediary space," are mentioned without clear definitions or initial explanations, which may cause confusion for the reader. I think that providing clear definitions of the main concepts at the beginning of the section could help the reader follow the arguments more cohesively.

I understand that the problem is the most critical point of a research study, as the entire process depends on it. For example, to define the objectives, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the problem being studied. Therefore, it is essential to identify and describe the origin of the problem and highlight its magnitude and importance. I believe that although the text mentions problems associated with the use of communication technologies and social connection, the justification for the research is not presented clearly and concisely. It is not evident why this study was necessary or what its practical contributions are.

In my opinion, the general objective should be a statement of a target action that answers the “why?” of the research. As mentioned earlier (when analyzing the title), the wording of the general objective is not clear. I think that the final part of the section could present the study's objective in a clear and direct manner, which would help guide the reader more effectively.

I believe the Introduction section, in terms of its structure, should follow a logical progression that leads the reader from a general overview of the topic to the specific objectives of the study. From my perspective, the text presented in the section is somewhat confusing and could benefit from improved construction. I suggest the following sequential structure, although other structures may also be used:

·  Enumeration of general themes that cover the problem (theory);

·  Review of the background of the problem;

·  Definition of the research problem (question);

·  Statement and identification of the variables (predictor and outcome) to be considered in relation to the problem;

·  Formulation of the study’s objectives;

·  Importance and scope of the study;

·  Limitations of the study;

·  Outline of the document.

Theoretical Framework

Once the study problem has been identified (i.e., when objectives and research questions have been established), and its relevance and feasibility have been assessed, the next step is to theoretically support the study. In this sense, the "Theoretical Framework" fulfills several functions within a research project, among which the following can be highlighted:

· Broadening the scope of the study and guiding the researcher to focus on the problem, avoiding deviations from the original approach.

· Providing a reference framework for interpreting the study's results.

The authors present the section "Theoretical framing: Interaction design and placemaking," which aims to combine interaction design and placemaking to explore the relationships between people, spaces, and technologies in the educational context. I believe it could include practical examples that illustrate how interaction design and placemaking theories can be applied in educational environments. Additionally, it would be beneficial to clarify the interrelationship between the concepts presented and their application in the specific context of digital education.

Materials and Methods

The Materials and Methods section, also known as methodological design or methodological approach, is crucial as it serves as a guiding standard for addressing the study's object and constitutes the pathway for solving the proposed problem.

This section should enable the "replicability or reproducibility" of the designs used to address the problem by other researchers or in different contexts; therefore, it must provide sufficient information to support such an effort. It should provide robust support so that the results are indisputable and the objectives can be achieved, ensuring that the results and conclusions are based on a solid scientific foundation.

The section includes the following subsections:

· 3.1. Study Design 

· 3.2. Data Collection 

· 3.3. Field Setting: Course Structure and Classroom 

· 3.4. Participants and Recruitment 

· 3.5. Data Analysis 

I understand that adopting a multi-method qualitative approach, which included observations, interviews, and photo elicitation, was a positive aspect as it allows for data triangulation and a more holistic understanding of the studied phenomenon. The use of photo elicitation was an innovative method that added value to the study, as it captures aspects of the learning environment that might be overlooked in more traditional approaches. Collecting data across different semesters and with different classes also enriched and strengthened the study.

As a suggestion, it would be beneficial to explain more clearly the reasons for choosing each data collection method, relating them directly to the research questions. Additionally, discussing the limitations of the convenience sample and the potential impact of these limitations on the study's conclusions would be valuable.

Results

The epilogue of a research study is to present the results. The results should align with the formulated objectives and be consistent with the proposed methodology, associated infrastructure, means, and capacity to develop the project. The goal of the results is to broadly describe the data obtained through the indicated method.

The authors present the section “4. Finding and Curating Student Social Connection,” which is structured as follows:

4.1. Adjustability: Inspiration ‘why’ phase 

4.2. Cultural/Social Norms: Ideation ‘what’ phase 

4.3. Materiality: Implementation ‘how’ phase 

4.4. Temporality: Implementation ‘how’ phase 

I believe the text is well-structured. By dividing it into three phases: inspiration, ideation, and implementation, the authors effectively address how students adjust and create social connections in both online and face-to-face learning environments.

Discussion

In the discussion, the authors aim to answer the two proposed research questions and also describe the Framework of Experience. I understand that this section is well-presented; however, I would suggest that the authors compare their results with those from similar studies conducted by other researchers.

Limitations

I find that this section is extremely brief and could be included in the conclusion section.

Conclusion

People typically read the abstract, introduction, and conclusion. The conclusion should start by emphasizing the main message and the primary result that supports it. The data reported in the results section should be mentioned (without repeating figures), its importance should be weighed, and its implications should be described. If possible, interpret and compare the results in relation to the main message. The new and important aspects of the study and the conclusions derived from them should also be emphasized. Although the authors have worked on this section, I think it could still be improved.

References

The authors provide a list of 35 references, all of which are cited in the document. The number of references seems adequate for the proposed profile, spanning 21 pages. Regarding the currency of the references, 21 (60%) are five years old or newer. This is a moderate percentage for the document’s profile.

Graphic Elements

Figures, tables, and charts are meant to communicate information visually and quickly. The authors present 7 figures, which seems appropriate. However, some of them are somewhat oversized and occupy too much space, making it difficult to view the text. Many readers will initially look at the graphic elements without reading the main text of the article. Therefore, it is very important that these elements “speak for themselves and clearly convey their most significant results.”

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I understand that the text is well written and that small adjustments to the writing are necessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf