Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Tasks 1  English  View Site  andreiparaschiv

Review: Student experience and new media to leverage an Infocommunicational case study model

1. Request 2. Guidelines 3. Download & Review 4. Completion

Submissions

Review Files  Search

 2058-1 Article Text, IxD&A_55_SI_N593.pdf January Article Text

28,
2023

Reviewer Guidelines
Review Guidelines

IxD&A Evaluation form

Paper title (insert paper title) *

Student experience and new media to leverage an Infocommunicational case study model

Short summary (insert short summary) *

The paper reports a study performed at the Maria II Schools Group, in Vila Nova de Famalicão, Portugal, involving 236
participants, comprised students, teachers and parents, aimed at identifying the students' infocommunicational experience on
their smartphones and to co-design a model aligned with a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) approach. By using a Design-Based
Research (DBR) process, the authors performed two iterations in order to better co-design and to validate the model with the
stakeholders following a Double Diamond participatory design path, leveraging the divergence and convergence reflection.

Relevance: is the paper on a topic that is relevant to the special issue/focus section?

1 = completely irrelevant; 10 = fully in-line with the special issue/focus section *

10

Relevance (comments for the authors):

The paper is relevant for the special issue of IxD&A

Originality: does the paper break new ground or just re-hash old issues?

1 = nothing new; 10 = a completely new approach *

7
Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Tasks 1  English  View Site  andreiparaschiv
Originality (comments for the authors):

the paper addresses the present issue of the use of personal mobile devices in the educational context in a participatory research
manner. Although it does not propose some innovative services or paradigms for the Infocommunicational Model, the highly
collaborative designing process and integration of all stakeholders in the research process is novel and worthy of more attention in
the research community.

Research significance: is the contribution major or minor?

1 = no big deal; 10 = a real breakthrough *

Research significance (comments for the authors):

Due to its specific context, the D. Maria II school, the paper has limited direct applicability in other environments. Nevertheless, the
research offers a path to carry out similar case studies in other environments, which could be of value in those educational contexts

Technical quality: are the methodologies/experiments/results sound?

1 = really weak; 10 = rock solid *

Technical quality (comments for the authors):

The methodology is sound, yet it relies heavily on DBR which has its limitations which were not addressed in the paper

Research context/knowledge of the field: is the paper situated in an appropriate research context? good
references?

1 = no mention of other research; 10 = nicely contextualized in current research *

Research context/knowledge of the field (comments for the authors):

The research context is well integrated

Organization and readability: are the arguments made coherently? is the paper organized logically? is the
paper written at an appropriate level for the journal audience?
Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Tasks 1  English  View Site  andreiparaschiv
1 = completely scruffy; 10 = really neat *

Organization and readability (comments for the authors):

The paper is well structured and readable.

Grammar and style: are syntax, vocabulary and spelling correct?

1 = what a mess; 10 = almost flawless *

Grammar and style (comments for the authors):

The authors have a strong command of grammar and style.

OVERALL - general rating: I would rank this paper as

1= I would strongly argue against this paper in a review meeting

3= I vote against this paper, but I could live with another decision

5= I am not really impressed, could go either way

7= I vote in favor, but I could also accept another decision

9= I would strongly argue for this paper to be accepted *

OVERALL - general rating (additional comments for the authors)

Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Tasks 1  English  View Site  andreiparaschiv

Their research is well-executed and presents a thorough case study on the infocommunicational experience narratives of students on thei
demonstrated a strong command of the literature and a deep understanding of the research problem, resulting in a valuable contribution
and written in a clear and concise manner, making it easy to follow and understand. The methodology employed in the study is sound, an
allows for easy interpretation and application. Overall, the authors have demonstrated a high level of expertise and dedication to their wo
recognition. In this section, we provide additional comments and feedback for the authors, highlighting some areas that would require so

The general Rating of 7 is due to the following issue that has to be addressed first, and is unrelated to the value of the research. If it wasn'
have been 9. In the process of reviewing this paper, we noticed that almost all of the following paper is included in the text of this paper:
Narratives Mediated by the Phygital School Library for Learning Ecosystems", https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-5240
We strongly advise the authors to check the license signed with Springer for the aforementioned book chapter and to make sure that inclu
copyright agreed with the publisher.
Additionally, we strongly suggest to re-write the abstract for this submission to differentiate it from the mentioned paper.

- Please add an URL to Reference 2 and 8

- Page 5, please reformulate this phrase that feels incomplete "Considering that the increased use of digital devices in educational environ
of the teacher and the manual, through access to online teaching resources, on the screens of the students’ devices, assuming new educat
- Page 5, please reformulate this phrase, to make it more comprehensible. also referencing 16 quoting 17 seems superfluous. "According
smartphone became as the center of information ecosystem, and more and more providing an interface to nearly all personal information
- Page 5, please provide a reference or URL for "Transliteracy H2020 Research and Innovation Actions".
- Page 5, please add the URL for In the MILAGE app Aprender+ as a footnote, not as inline text
- Page 6, please reformulate "The Case Study [22], [23] research reported in this paper was coordinated by the principal researcher, a libra
observer of the relevant situations in and outside the library" (_who_ was also...)
- Page 6, in addition to reference 24, it would help to cite Brown (1992) and Collins (1992) in regards to DBR
- Figure 2.1, please correct the misspelling "Furture System"
- Please provide table 2.1 in the paper or as an annex
- Please provide some details on how you evaluated the open questions in the pre-iteration questionnaire
- In regards to Figure 2.2 - can you provide some details on how the evaluation between the two iterations (with the six students) was per
and procedures
- on page 17, please provide a justification for "According to this empirical study, if all the relevant information were integrated and interf
and customizable for each end user (stakeholder), it would encourage more timely and effective usage assimilation."
- Regarding peer-to-peer evaluation, please address the possibility of abuse and ways to prevent it
- The smaller text labels in figure 3.2 are illegible due to compression/blur
- Page 20, "As depicted in figure 3.1 the model " should be figure 3.2

- The paper states that there are 236 participants, yet it is unclear if the evaluation cohort that answers the questionnaires in the pre-iterat
from the post-iteration 2 evaluation. Additionally, there is no information about the post-iteration 2 evaluation process.

- The paper would be improved by discussing the limitations of their approach in a separate section/subsection where the authors might
the context of their research. Also, even if the authors mention multiple times that the findings of their research are limited to the context
contributions of the paper would be highly enhanced by identifying those findings that would generalize in other contexts

Confidence in your evaluation judgement

1 = I know as much as everybody

5 = I am quite familiar with this particular area

10 = I am an expert in this particular area *

Comments for the editors: 

Interaction Design & Architecture(s) Tasks 1  English  View Site  andreiparaschiv

The general Rating of 7 is due to the following issue that has to be addressed first, and is unrelated to the value of the research. If it wasn'
been 9. In the process of reviewing this paper, we noticed that almost all of the following paper is included in the text of this paper: "Stud
Mediated by the Phygital School Library for Learning Ecosystems", https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-19-5240-1_2
We strongly advise the authors to check the license signed with Springer for the aforementioned book chapter and to make sure that inclu
copyright agreed with the publisher.
Additionally, we strongly suggest to re-write the abstract for this submission to differentiate it from the mentioned paper.

Also, we provide an annotated version of the paper with the overlapping text highlighted in red.

Upload
Upload files you would like the editor and/or author to consult, including revised versions of the original review file(s).

Reviewer Files  Search Upload File

 2276-1 , IxD_A_55_SI_N593 (1)_.pdf April 1,

2023

Review Discussions Add discussion

Name From Last Reply Replies Closed

No Items

Recommendation
Select a recommendation and submit the review to complete the process. You must enter a review or upload a file before selecting a
recommendation.

Revisions Required

Submit Review Save for Later Go Back

* Denotes required field