ReCODE to Re-Code: An Instructional Model to Accelerate Students’ Critical Thinking Skills

No

Suggestion and recommendation

Revision/Rebuttal

1

Exclude from the Introduction lines 39-46 and put them in Conclusion 

The Introduction lines 39-46 has already been put to the conclusion

2

Delete 1st sentence after the title 3

The first sentence after the title 3 has been deleted

3

Results, it is unnecessary- overall - all results are not stated and data that conclusions are referred to are not all presented - I recommend to present key results in Preliminary Research (survey results, interview quotes, critical thinking scores, statistical analysis on differences between 1st, 2nd and 3rd year...)

Conclusion has been corrected

Line 358-375

No

Suggestion and Recommendation

Revision/Rebuttal

1

Abstract

The modification of abstract shown on line 5

2

Data analysis

2.1. A severe drawback of the text is the lack of populations descriptions. Authors do not describe the respondents (students, teachers) and experts. Authors do not provide the information on the number of respondents (students, teachers) and experts, how many of them participated in the experiment. Authors fail to provide information on their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Expert validators and respondents are described on lines 149

2.2. The authors use statistical techniques designed for metric scale. Statistical software however smart is not able to distinguish whether the data is measured on a strong, metric scale (ratio or interval) or is coming from the weaker, nonmetric measurement scale (ordinal or nominal). The authors should consult an expert, whether their information is suitable for the selected quantitative analytical tools. Most of the techniques are designed for metric data, and it seems that in the analysed dataset, the measurement results are nonmetric.

Primarily, many authors inform that Likert scale and Likert type scales do not produce metric data. The measurement results may be considered, at most the ordinal data. Reviewer formulates serious doubt whether with such data type, serious statistical analysis is possible without choosing dedicated techniques for nonmetric data. 

2.3. The arithmetic mean is designed for metric scale measurement data with, at least, symmetric frequency distribution. Here the data is not of metric character and certainly not having symmetric frequency distribution. 

2.4. The percentage values may be used exclusively for datasets with at least one hundred items. Here there are less than one hundred observations; the percentages are not allowed. 

2.5. For the data type used, the interesting information comes out when using Median and other quantiles (quintiles?). Authors may check and see whether additional knowledge value comes with such indicators.

Critical thinking skill data in preliminary research was analyzed using a parametric statistic, while the critical thinking skill data in preliminary research were analyzed using descriptive statistic.

3

Discussion to literature

Included in the introduction

4

Unclear  statement

4.1. reading motivation (73.61%), less

how many respondents is equal to 73,61%?

4.1. The number of respondents, which is equivalent to 73.61%, has added a line 222

4.2. The expert validation how many experts?

4.2. the number of expert validations has already been explained in lines 149-151. Three experts (two experts in the instructional model and one expert in Plant Morphology)

4.3. worksheet were also considered valid with the scores of 4.25 and 4.10, respectively.

How many respondents, what was the scale span?

4.3. assessing the worksheet and tool is an expert validator; the validity criteria are shown in Table 1.

Three experts

(line 149-151)

4.4. validity of the lecturer and student questionnaires had also been confirmed

how many lecturer and student questionnaires were analysed, how?

4.4. The questionnaire for lecturers was filled out by one lecturer, and the questionnaire for students was filled out by 38 students

It has been described in the method section (line 173)

4.5. results showed that the instrument was valid (10 questions) with a score of 0.327-0.682.

details?

4.5. The validity of the critical thinking skills instrument has been described in detail in appendix 1(Line 559)

4.6. Table 7. The Feasibility of the ReCODE Components

details?

4.6. already presented details. The component of ReCODE included syntax, social system, reaction principle, and support system

4.7. The results of the observation on the feasibility of the ReCODE implementation can be seen in

details?

4.7. already presented details. The implementation of ReCODE syntax included reading, connecting, observing, discussing, evaluating, and classroom environment.

4.8. Based on Table 9, it was known that the students experienced 38.41% increase in critical 

What was the control (comparability, validation) group; what were the results in the validation group?

4.8.  38.41% is the difference between pretest and posttest

4.9. The effectiveness of the instructional model was also examined using the lecturer and student

how many respondents, lecturers and students? Examination technique and procedure?

4.9. The number of lecturers and students in the effectiveness test has been described in the method

4.10. According to experts, ReCODE was valid in terms of content, syntax, social system, the  

4.11. how many respondents, experts? Validation technique and procedure?

4.10. dan 4.11. the number of validators and validation techniques has been described in the method

5

Referencing

5.1. Piaget’s cognitive development theory, Vygotsky’s social interaction theory, J Brunner’s discovery learning theory, R. Gagne’s nine event instruction, and D. Ausubel’s meaningful learning theory.

Has been added (line 211)

6

Standards

there were 2 (20%)

There is a rule (standard) which recommends not to give percentage points values for quantity lower than one hundred items.

Here, the information should read, e.g.:

Two out of ten were (…).

Has been revised (Line 197-200)

7

The personification of inanimate phenomena

7.1. this study aimed to develop

The study (…) is a research tool; the study cannot show. People can. The sentence should be modified, e.g.

We (authors) aim at … 

7.2. results of the survey showed

7.3. This figure suggested

7.4. And many other of the type  

7.1.Already revised example line 9

8

Conclusion

Authors did not formulate Conclusions which are anchored in the research results. The text of the part contains NO conclusions. The text should be added with elements which are anchored in research findings.

The text should contain analytical statements describing the MERIT TOPIC. The further research recommendation should (might) be included.

Already revised

No

Suggestion and recommendation

Revision/Rebuttal

1

The instrument should be included, not only the results

The instrument has been added in the appendix (Line 565)

2

The conclusion needs to be completed, as it does not work as a conclusion.

A conclusion has been corrected (Line 358-375)

3

In some cases, authors are mentioned, instead of following the appropriate reference style

How to cite has been improved

-line 44, 106,135, 137, 179, 329, 350

No

Suggestion and recommendation

Revision/Rebuttal

1

In the first place, it is very important to provide more information within the theoretical-conceptual framework in which the importance of the digital competence of teachers is specified in order to develop innovative methodologies related to socioconstrictivist teaching and specifically in methodologies focused on the development of critical thinking. It is especially recommended to cite current articles:

Pozo-Sánchez, S., López-Belmonte, J., Fernández, M. F., & López, J. A. (2020). Análisis correlacional de los factores incidentes en el nivel de competencia digital del profesorado. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 23(1), 143-151. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.6018/reifop.396741

Pozo-Sánchez, S., López-Belmonte, J., Rodríguez-García, A. M., & López-Núñez, J. A. (2020). Teachers’ digital competence in using and analytically managing information in flipped learning. Culture and Education, 32(2), 1-35. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/11356405.2020.1741876

Line 348-352, already added a reference

“Besides, the provision of an online platform can familiarize lecturers with practicing digital skills according to the technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) framework. This is in line with Ref. [65] stated that to develope pedagogical skills and content knowledge, the teachers/lecturer are also required to be able to integrate technology in learning.

2

Secondly, it is important that the authors explain in depth the prospects of the study, providing the added value of the research and how the results obtained contribute to improve the knowledge of the educational context and to expand the information available in the scientific field.

Line 353-356