아래의 내용은 Computers & Education 저널로부터 받았던 reviewer’s comment의 complete version입니다.
심사위원의 전반적인 평은 매우 우호해(favorable) 보입니다. 하지만 논문의 저자에게 9개의 사항에 대해서 수정을 요구하고 있습니다. 반드시 9개의 수정사항에 대해서 모두 대응을 해야 합니다. 단 하나라도 수정을 회피하거나 무시한다는 논문 저자의 행동이 엿보이기라도 한다면, 논문의 심사기간은 불필요하게 연장되거나 reject이 될 수 있는 경우가 발생하기도 합니다.
——
Reviewer #1: The paper reports an empirical study who engaged in procedural learning tasks using YouTube and then completed questionnaires to assess the researchers’ proposed model. The paper has a strong theoretical background and grounds the proposed model in existing literature. The paper includes appropriate literature and is clearly presented. There are a few points that I would like to raise regarding the paper:
1. In the first part of the introduction (page 4), additional information is needed as to why there is a need to develop YouTube to meet the learning goals of users.
2. In comparison to the other sections of the paper, I feel that there is scope for the introduction to be shortened.
3. A range of previous research is cited and for those studies that are directly comparable to the procedural learning element reported in the present study (e.g., Eiriksdottir &Catrambone, 2011), I wonder if more detail concerning the samples in the previous research would allow readers to make direct comparisons with the present study.
4. The section on data collection could be clarified by presenting the information according to the various scales that were used. Also, when the items are discussed in section 4.1, it would be helpful to articulate what the abbreviations are used to denote and say which items were reverse coded.
5. In section 4.1 more detail should be given about the nature of the qualitative comments sought and what they revealed about the items.
6. In section 4.3, why were participants asked to search for five procedural tasks and how similar were these tasks across participants?
7. A range of SEM and CFA is used int he paper and although appropriately conducted, the author(s) should discuss the issue of power for the sample size, given the number of variables included in the various models.
8. As the authors developed the scale using EFA and then used CFA with the same sample, they should justify this decision as normally two separate samples are recommended for this process.
9. The discussion section seems somewhat brief in comparison to the introduction. The authors should include details of the applications of the findings should be included.
——
논문작성의 경험이 적은 초심 연구자는 9개의 요구사항에 대해서 어떻게 대응(reaction to reviewer’s comment)을 해야 하는지에 대해서 많은 고민을 합니다.
방법은 매우 간단합니다, 수정 요구사항 별로 차근 차근 대응하는 방법이 가장 현명한 방법입니다.
아래의 예문은 각각의 커멘트에 대해서 대응하는 방법을 보여주고 있습니다.
——
Reviewer #1: The paper reports an empirical study who engaged in procedural learning tasks using YouTube and then completed questionnaires to assess the researchers’ proposed model. The paper has a strong theoretical background and grounds the proposed model in existing literature. The paper includes appropriate literature and is clearly presented. There are a few points that I would like to raise regarding the paper:
1. In the first part of the introduction (page 4), additional information is needed as to why there is a need to develop YouTube to meet the learning goals of users.
The authors’ action: The authors agree with the reviewer’s concern. We have added the following sentence to the section of ‘4.2. Sampling’ (in pp.18) in order to address the issue of statistical power for the structural equation model analysis:
“There has been little consensus in the literature so far on how to calculate statistical power or sample size for structural equation model analysis (Chin, 1988). As a rule of thumb, Hair et al. (2006) suggested that a sample size of between 150 and 400 may be sufficient to achieve statistical power necessary for structural equation models with three or more measurement items per construct. In present study, minimum sample size was set at 400 respondents.”
2. In comparison to the other sections of the paper, I feel that there is scope for the introduction to be shortened.
The authors’ action: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment. The first two sentences in the section of the introduction have been re-written in a single sentence as below (in pp.3):
“Procedural learning is an integral part of many common activities (Rodriguez, 2002). It is characterized as psychomotor skill acquisition about “how-to-do something” through step-by-step procedural instructions (Ellis & Whitehill, 1996; Gordon, 1994). Much effort has been invested in studying how the mode of procedural instructions can affect learning, transfer, and performance within the conceptual frameworks of cognitive processing (Van Hooijdonk & Krahmer, 2008; Palmiter, & Elkerton, 1993; Zacks & Tversky, 2003). At the most practical level, however, people usually desist from using procedural instruction in application to real work settings (Eiriksdottir & Catrambone (2011). This may be due to the fact that they encounter problems in understanding procedural materials designed in complicated layouts or presented in technical terms.”
3. A range of previous research is cited and for those studies that are directly comparable to the procedural learning element reported in the present study (e.g., Eiriksdottir &Catrambone, 2011), I wonder if more detail concerning the samples in the previous research would allow readers to make direct comparisons with the present study.
The authors’ action: ……. (생략)
——
