PONE-D-23-10329Developing an Observation Protocol for Online STEM CoursesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horvitz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Dr Daner Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"The authors would like to thank the National Science Foundation, the instructors who participated in this study, the project advisory board, and the staff members who helped facilitate this project."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"This was research was funded by a grant from the U.S National Science Foundation. All authors (BH, WD, RGM, MK, CS) were part of this award.

URL: https://www.nsf.gov/div/index.jsp?div=DUE

The funders did not play any role in this work beyond funding it. "

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"No authors have competing interests."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now  

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.  

Additional Editor Comments:

Please see reviewer's comments

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript presents a sequential mixed methods approach that was used to design, pilot-test, refine, and implement an observation protocol. The key contribution of this research is the development of a validated instrument that can collect non-evaluative data in online STEM courses. However, there are some major flaws that need to be addressed before accepting this manuscript.

1. Abstract: the implications of the study should be stated in the abstract. “The research team recommends reconsidering the inclusion of some items with low levels of agreement or continued revisions on such items.” What does this sentence refer to? Please elaborate it.

2. Introduction: The introduction cannot adequately justify this study.

In the Introduction of a research paper, authors usually include the background, purpose, scope, and significance of this research, as well as the need for conducting this study.

The introduction establishes the importance and relevance of the project by highlighting the gap in measuring instructional practices in online STEM courses. However, the current introduction was too short.

I suggest that it could be improved in several ways. First, it could cite more recent sources to support the claims about the growth of online STEM courses, as well as the lack of accurate methods to measure online instruction. Second, the authors may define “accurate” in this study. “Accurate” is a very subjective and ambiguous word. it could clarify what constitutes an observational protocol and how it differs from other instruments or tools for describing and measuring instructional practices. Third, it could specify the intended audience and scope of the project, such as whether it focuses on a particular discipline, level, or type of online STEM course.

3. Literature review:

3.1 The logic in the “Existing Measurement Instruments for STEM Classrooms” was loose. For example, the authors listed some instruments (face-to-face instruments) in the first and second paragraph. Then, in the third paragraph, the authors stated, “Although the adoption of online learning approaches is increasing across higher education (Johnson, Adams, Becker, Estrada, & Martín, 2013), there is still a need for instruments that measure online teaching practices.” In my humble opinion, I cannot see a strong connection between paragraph 2 and paragraph 3. The authors did not introduce the current online instruments for STEM courses.

I suggest a comprehensive review of instruments for teaching practices in both traditional classrooms and online courses are needed.

3.2 In addition, the literature should be updated. Some selected studies are not the latest.

3.3 there are some confusing terms need further explanation. For example, the second paragraph on page 4, “Significant effort by instructional designers, faculty developers, and online platform providers have provided checklists and rubrics of best practices (e.g., Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric, BlackBoard Exemplary Course Program Rubric, MERLOT Evaluation Standards for Learning Materials, Online Learning Consortium

Quality Scorecard). The terms in parentheses need to be explained, because they are difficult to understand for readers who see these terms for the first time.

3.4 The framework of CoI. Section of “Conceptual Framework for Describing Online Instruction” should be improved.

3.4.1. On Page 4, the authors should provide a clear definition of what they mean by effective online teaching practices and how they operationalize them in their instruments. They should also explain how the CoI framework aligns with their definition and operationalization of effective online teaching practices.

3.4.2. A more recent and relevant literature that supports the validity and reliability of the CoI framework for measuring online teaching practices are strongly needed. The authors should justify why they chose to use the CoI framework over other frameworks or models that have been proposed for online teaching practices. They should also discuss how their instruments address the gaps or challenges that have been identified in previous studies using the CoI framework.

3.4.3. The authors should avoid making general claims or implications based on the CoI framework without providing empirical evidence or data from their own study or other studies. They should also acknowledge the limitations and potential biases of their instruments and the CoI framework. The reason of “the framework has been extensively used, including in two special issues of the Internet and Higher Education in 2010” are not convincing.

3.4.4. The last paragraph (p6) in the literature review section should be put in “Methods”. The reasons of choosing mixed research methods should be further elaborated.

4. Instrument development and methods:

The methodology section is well-written and provides a detailed description of the sequential mixed methods approach used to develop the observation protocol. However, it would be helpful to provide more information on the selection criteria for the online STEM courses observed and the characteristics of the observers.

4.1 I suggest adding a figure showing the iterative process.

4.2. “four courses were observed”, what are the four courses? Detailed information is needed.

4.3. Do authors think the subjects in STEM courses will influence the observation items?

5. Results

The results section presents the agreement rates among observers for each item in the observation protocol. It is expected that each indicator could be explained in the section 4. What does these indicators refer to in the STEM courses.

6. Discussion

The discussion section provides a thoughtful analysis of the implications of the results for the future design and control of online STEM courses. However, it would be helpful to provide more information on how the protocol aligns the framework of CoI and how the current study relates to previous studies. Literature should be cited in the discussion section.

Overall, I believe that your manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the field of online STEM education and the development of validated instruments for studying and improving online instruction. I recommend that you address the above comments and revise your manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer #2: The study proposed an analogous tool for online instruction of undergraduate STEM courses. The development of this instrument used a sequential mixed methods approach with 4 phases, i.e. to the research (critical content analysis), design (developing the list of constructs), pilot-testing, refinement and implementation of the protocol (field testing in ten courses).

Overall all speaking, the study is worthwhile and provides useful instruments for educators to develop their online STEM courses, or to evaluation their courses through self-refection. The instruments can be a set of checklists for course developers’ reference too.

However, the article seldom mentioned the reason why the items were grouped in 7 criteria, namely General, Course Materials, Assignments, Activities, Lab work, Discussion and Testing. More literature can be added to support the use of the 7 criteria.

Besides, the four phases were not clearly defined in the article. In the abstract, they were put as “research, design, pilot-testing, refinement and implementation of the protocol.” In Line 163 to 216, the authors use different terms to explain them. It is advised to align with the team and clearly define the 4 phases. The authors may use a figure to illustrate this iterative process.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yin YANG

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-23-10329R1Developing an Observation Protocol for Online STEM CoursesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Horvitz,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Daner Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have well addressed the comments.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: 1. Row 34, please notice the use of brackets; Row 100, please notice the format. Row 203, add “,” after “completed”. Row 212, “each of the ten courses was”.

2. Please notice the concept of teaching presence when talking about the CoI framework. The description here, in rows 122 to 123, “instructors and students interact with each other and with course content,” is more connected to teaching presence and social presence. If social presence is also an important concept for the research?

3. The elements of teaching presence from 169–170 may be deleted to make this part clearer.

4. Can the number of participants or observations of the courses in phrase 4 be informed?

5. In the result part, can statistic analysis, for example, the chi-square test or t test, or other methods be used to examine the reliability or consistency of the results of two observers?

6. The section “Introduction” should be more powerful to emphasize the importance and significance of the development of the observation protocol.

7. There should be more connection with the former research in the section "Discussion". It may be from the perspective of, for example, the validation of the design or processing.

8. Content from rows 275 to 287 may be in the section “limitations and future”.

9. After the construction of the observation protocol, it should be displayed in the main body, and each section should be explained. Although the protocol is mainly developed from the CoI framework, the origin of each section should be referenced and explained well.

10. The definition of “STEM course” is different from science subject courses, such as math, geoscience, and biology. Thus, please clarify the definition of “STEM course” in the section “Introduction” or “Literature Review”. At the same time, please check if the references related to STEM courses or STEM education are correctly referenced.

Reviewer #4: The article has made general adjustments in response to the reviewers' suggestions. However, a few minor issues still need attention. First, it is recommended that the writing of the Review of Literature section be revised to Literature Review. Also, the Conclusion section was not found in the article, so it is suggested that a Conclusion section be added, or that the two be combined to change the subtitle to Conclusion and Discussion. Furthermore, there are some editorial concerns within the article, so it is kindly requested that the article format be carefully reviewed and refined.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: Yes: ZHENG Zhizi

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Developing an Observation Protocol for Online STEM Courses

PONE-D-23-10329R2

Dear Dr. Horvitz,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Daner Sun

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE