Computers & Education (CAE) 저널에 투고된 어느 한 manuscript 투고본에 대해서 제가 작성하였던 reviewer’s comment입니다.
여러가지 형태의 weakness가 있었던 manuscript이었는데, 그 중에서 연구가설을 만드는 과정과 이를 테스트 하는 부분에서 많은 허점이 있었습니다.
Completely reject 판정을 받은 manuscript입니다.
——
The manuscript describes research of potential interest to CAE readers. The author(s) conducted a survey study to examine the impacts of information and communication technology use on mathematics achievements. The proposed model (hierarchical linear model) was empirically validated through large-scale survey dataset.
The empirical work performed suffers from several major weaknesses, which are highlighted in the following:
1. The first weakness of the manuscript is that there is no theory that is able to justify the author(s)’s claims. The description of the manuscript is very light and makes the study non-replicable and as a result of less value. The author(s) should employ theoretical underpinnings to present their claims, this would enable the reader to better understand the stated relationships This is evident throughout the paper, starting from the abstract to the end.
2. The second weakness of the manuscript is that the author(s) fails to clarify how the use of ICT is related to the mathematics achievement. In other words, it is not very clear why the author(s) choose to use ‘mathematics achievements’ as a subject domain.
3. The sections of both ‘The Impacts of ICT Use on Learning Environment’ and ‘Methods’ actually deal with the research model, the proposed research questions, and the model validation. These two sections are where the manuscript appears to be extremely weak. The author(s) should elaborate on how the research questions were tested and validated. First, the constructs should be well described and defined so as to provide a clear conceptualization for each one of them, specific for the context of this research. Second, the description of each construct should show the relation to the constructs they are related to according to the proposed research questions. The proposed links between the model constructs should be justified and explained. At the current state of the manuscript, the hypothesized relationship among the model construct did not follow from the text and their proposal lacks theoretical support and background. . Importantly, it is not clear what measurements were used and if they were valid and reliable. For example, the author(s) stated that “Self-efficacy was measured using six items of three sub constructs (alpha = .86): intrinsic motivation toward learning, self-efficacy, and autonomous learning.” How the constructs of intrinsic motivation and autonomous learning are related to the construct of self-efficacy? Does the author(s) claim that the construct of self-efficacy should be approached on multi-dimensional constructs? Previous work from literature related to the model constructs should be included to explain the rationale leading to each construct used.
4. Lastly, there is a lack of appropriate references which should be provided in order to cite previous work or provide support for the statements made.
In its current form, the manuscript is not ready for publication and is in need of significant changes.
——
