Online Support for International Students’ Engagement in Learning: A Case Study on Padlet Usage at a University in Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper that examines the satisfaction of one group of students in one course.  As such it has limited generalisability however, it does relate to international students who are an under-researched group so it does contribute to improved knowledge and understanding of teaching practice.

The literature review is detailed and well structured providing a good background to the paper.

However, the literature on ‘digital natives’ and ‘learning styles’ is not up to date enough, so I have recommended some more recent papers.

The research methodology and methods used are appropriate.

However, further information on the data analysis methods would improve the paper.

I am concerned about anonymity of participants, so please clarify whether or not these are pseudonyms.

The discussion is good but please be careful with some claims which are too strongly made and so lack credibility.

Specific issues are:

1. In the abstract you say that the study is about how students benefit “from the Padlet platform”.  Can you be more specific about which Padlet platform and what they use it for? e.g. use of Padlet to support class communication/dialogue.
2. Prensky’s (2001) research on ‘digital natives’ has now been questioned and is viewed by many as an oversimplification, so I suggest that you avoid using this term.  See these papers.
• Bennet, Maton & Kervin (2008), The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology (2008). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x   
• Bennett & Mason 2010, Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate.  Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, p321-331. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x
• Jones & Czerniewicz (2010) Editorial, JCAL, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00379.x
• Brown & Czerniewicz (2010) Debunking the ‘digital native’JCAL doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00369.x
• Jones & Healing (2010) Net generation students. JCAL doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00370.x
•  
3. I strongly advise that you do not perpetuate the myth of learning styles in your paper (section 3.3.2), see: Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth, Computers & Education, 106, 166-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.006
4. 4. In the research subjects section 3.1, you mention how many participants completed the survey but not how many participated in the interviews - add this detail to this section.
5. 5. It is important for the reader to be able to understand how you arrived at your results.  How did you analyse your data.  In section 3 explain how you analysed the interview and essay question data.  Also, how you analysed the Likert scale data from the survey.  Add a new section on Data Analysis Methods.
6. 6. It is important from an ethical perspective, to keep the identity of participants anonymous.  Are you using the initials of participants?  If so, change to numbers or pseudonyms.  I like that you’ve added the country they’ve come from.
7. 7. In the discussion you say that “Padlet improves the sense of belonging…”.  I’m not convinced that Padlet (the technology) has actually done this.  Padlet has facilitated communication between participants through the activities which have improved the sense of belonging.  It is not credible to claim that Padlet has done this.  You can say that “there is improved sense of belonging…”.
8. 8. In the discussion, you say that “it is necessary of the instructors to mitigate the manifestation of antisocial and negative behaviour…” .   What is your evidence for this.  The instructor did warn the students and set ground rules, but how do you know that this was needed?
9. 9. It is rare for any social science study to ‘prove’ anything conclusively, so when you say “as proven in previous research” I am not convinced.  This statement needs to be modified to be less definitive.

Grammatical and Referencing Issues

• In the abstract “this findings of this study” should be “the findings of this study”.
• p2 when you refer to Concole et al 2010 - do you mean Conole?  I can’t see this reference in the reference section.
• p2, is Teng et al referring to Teng & Wang 2021?  Add/amend this reference.
• line 232 and 236 there are two references without year.  Add year of publication.
• p3 Is it Abdelaziz or AbdelAziz?  Check all occurrences.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The mixed-methods survey was a very good idea to combine numeric rating items with more in-depth information in words. Reporting of findings and conclusions was very well detailed. I would recommend adding a research question, following Question 1, also identifying any areas of dissatisfaction and recommended improvement of use of Padlet, so that it aligns even more with the survey questions. I agree with the inherent limitations of a small sample size. I would recommend including specific recommendations for future related research, such as adding inferential statistics (analytic, testable statistics) such as differences in average attitudes by selected demographics of students, given a larger sample size. Also, differences in prior technology use and expertise could influence the results. The study was engaging and well written overall.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf