Autoethnography as a Tool for the Achievement of Deep Learning of University Students in Service-Learning Experiences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract reflects the content of the text of the article. I suggest that the number of respondents is given. The introduction clearly justifies the need for this research, which aims to explore the usefulness of autoethnographic diary studies in determining the level of acquisition of deep learning skills of social work students in professional practice settings. The specific objectives are clearly defined and correctly formulated. The issue is relevant to didactics and the quality of academic education. The research model can be applied to the analysis of the experiences of students in other fields of study. The theoretical part characterises the concept of deep learning based on recognised pedagogical approaches, Service Learning Methodology (SLM) and Autoethnography methodology. The description justifies the selection of the research workshop and comprehensively characterises the methodological approach adopted. The results of the research are presented in a structured manner and allow for the justification of autoethnography for analysing the experiences of students on placement. The conclusion identifies the main benefits of the approach and the potential for wider research. The text needs minor editorial revision: 1. a sentence introducing the list is missing before line 238. The source of the list should also be provided. 2. spelling correction 256 - Methosdology, 397-399- unclear sentence construction; 426-427 incomplete sentence. 3. text 441-445 can be combined with 444- 475. The literature used is representative.
The text needs minor editorial revision: 1. a sentence introducing the list is missing before line 238. The source of the list should also be provided. 2. spelling correction 256 - Methosdology, 397-399- unclear sentence construction; 426-427 incomplete sentence. 3. text 441-445 can be combined with 444- 475.
Author Response
- a sentence introducing the list is missing before line 238. The source of the list should also be provided.
Montagud (2016: 132) points out the benefits of narrative reflective thinking:
2. spelling correction 256 - Methosdology,
Methodology
397-399- unclear sentence construction;
The limitations of the autoethnographic field diary for the development of deep learning competence lie in the subjective nature of this toolkit, as the learner interprets and records their experiences. This inevitably introduces personal biases and prejudices into the reflection, which may affect the validity and reliability of the findings
426-427 incomplete sentence
It is necessary to continuously evaluate the students' learning and adapt the teaching to the needs they present.
3. text 441-445 can be combined with 444- 475. (Combination suggested is made)
Pedagogically, the tool of the autoethnographic field journal has generated interest and curiosity in learning, as it has meant a personal and reflective exploration of their own experiences. By reflecting and critically analyzing their personal experiences, students have discovered new ideas, perspectives, and emerging patterns and themes in their environment and in society in general, which has been very stimulating.
The fact that it has allowed for creative expression to narrate their experiences and emotions in a personal and meaningful way, through texts, drawing, photography, video, among others, has been a creative way for them to acquire knowledge.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper aims to highlight adoption of auto ethnography as a tool for learning of students.
Ensure consistency and clarity throughout the paper, the structure is difficult to follow.
Streamline the introduction: The introduction section directly talks about course and then specific objective, how this topic is interesting, need to make a case for it.
Improve the clarity and organization of the methodology section to make aware the readers about the detailed methodological aspects.
Discussion section should re orient the findings in scientific discourse but here there is no call back to literature.
Better to add conclusion to the paper.
Results section should have some sub sections to understand the findings,
In the current stage the paper maybe rejected.
Author Response
1.- Ensure consistency and clarity throughout the paper, the structure is difficult to follow.
An effort has been made in general to structure the whole article in a more appropriate way, in all sections.
2.- Streamline the introduction: The introduction section directly talks about course and then specific objective, how this topic is interesting, need to make a case for it.
In the introduction, the originality of the proposal presented has been justified, as well as its potential interest as a toolkit for competence assessment in the university environment.
Improve the clarity and organization of the methodology section to make aware the readers about the detailed methodological aspects.
DONE
Discussion section should re orient the findings in scientific discourse but here there is no call back to literature.
This section has been improved by adding discussion with some of the authors referenced in the theoretical section.
- Better to add conclusion to the paper.
ADDED
- Results section should have some sub sections to understand the findings,
The section has been reorganised so that the analysis and discussion section is differentiated from the Conclusions section as suggested in the revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic if the paper is interesting and has the potential to contribute to existing knowledge on qualitative tools and their use to improve deep learning, reflection, self-awareness, and critical thinking in HE.
Some comments to the content can be found below:
The abstract is comprehensive of the paper content, and it is well written, although it could be improved by incorporating the research methodology.
Introduction:
There are some inconsistencies in the names of the subjects here and in the abstract (Qualitative Tools for Research in Social Work OR Qualitative Research Tools in Social Work?). And in the degrees (apparently, one in the abstract and two in the introduction). Also Service-learning is named in different ways (Learning and Service / Service-Learning). The objectives seem to be clear.
Theoretical framework:
Line 123 and 124: check the sentence “Service learning: methodologi-123 cal proposal for working competences.”. It seems to be there by mistake.
In line 116, the heading: 2.1. Service Learning Methodology (SLM): The case of qualitative research in Social Work, Why do you add “the case of quali research in social work? I could not find any reference in the text to the case. Are there any other experiences of qualitative research in HE regarding Service-Learning?
In line 128 authors may investigate other options for the idea to come up. It is not always the entity who proposes a specific practice. Sometimes the diagnosis is made together with the students.
In line 218 it seems that Dubé (2017) has used the tool for service-learning purposes. Is it so? Are there any other experiences of using the tool for learning purposes in higher education? It seems that the theoretical framework is lacking more foundation on other uses of the tool and other authors. In case its use is a complete novelty, this should also be explained.
Methodology:
Inconsistency with the degrees explained in introduction. 3rd degree vs fourth. How were the questions in section 3.2 and 3.3 built? How can deep learning be related to these questions? I would suggest to reinforce the methodological section.
Results and discussion:
There is no connection between the results and the existing literature. The study would need a deeper dialogue in the end with other experiences. How does the discussion section relate to previous results?
Also, the specific objectives of the study are not clearly connected to the methodology, the results and the discussion section. A clear “answer” to all objectives should be included.
The authors should remark what is the novelty of the study in comparison to previous studies in HE?
The paper could be improved regarding English spelling, typos and expressions. For example, line 50: The especifics objectives were; line 146: 2.2.- Autoethnography as aN educational toolkit. Line 151: From there, the person addresses their HIS/HER own 151 experiences and relates them to the social phenomenon they are HE/SHE IS studying. Line 256: 3.- Methosdology of pilot experience, Etc.
Author Response
Introduction:
There are some inconsistencies in the names of the subjects here and in the abstract (Qualitative Tools for Research in Social Work OR Qualitative Research Tools in Social Work?).
Changed to " Qualitative reseach tools in Social Work"
And in the degrees (apparently, one in the abstract and two in the introduction).
Changed to "degree in Social Work and the double degree in Social Education and Social Work in the Social Work"
Also Service-learning is named in different ways (Learning and Service / Service-Learning).
Changed to " Service-Learning methodology
Theoretical framework:
Line 123 and 124: check the sentence “Service learning: methodologi-123 cal proposal for working competences.”. It seems to be there by mistake.
The sentence has been deleted
In line 116, the heading: 2.1. Service Learning Methodology (SLM): The case of qualitative research in Social Work, Why do you add “the case of quali research in social work? I could not find any reference in the text to the case. Are there any other experiences of qualitative research in HE regarding Service-Learning?
2.1. Service- Learning Methodology (SLM): Qualitative research tools in Social Work and Social Education.
In line 128 authors may investigate other options for the idea to come up. It is not always the entity who proposes a specific practice. Sometimes the diagnosis is made together with the students.
Indeed, it is poorly phrased, it has been changed :
The SML is a shared experience between different actors (University, students and third sector entities) where a service to be provided is detected. This need can be detected by any of the three participating actors, and it will be the person responsible for the subject, the teacher, who facilitates and enables the demand to be adapted to the academic purpose so that the need is satisfied (Uruñuela, 2018)
In line 218 it seems that Dubé (2017) has used the tool for service-learning purposes. Is it so? Are there any other experiences of using the tool for learning purposes in higher education? It seems that the theoretical framework is lacking more foundation on other uses of the tool and other authors. In case its use is a complete novelty, this should also be explained.
It has been incluyed at 240:
From the literature review we found Dubé (2017) who also used the toolkit for service-learning purposes, but apart from this author, there is no evidence of other experiences of using the toolkit for learning purposes in higher education, so, apart from this author, it can be said that its use is new in this area.
Methodology:
Inconsistency with the degrees explained in introduction. 3rd degree vs fourth.
Modified : third-year university students of the degree in Social Work and fourth year of the double degree in Social Education and Social Work in the Social Work
How were the questions in section 3.2 and 3.3 built? How can deep learning be related to these questions?
More information added: Self-reflexive guiding Ad-hoc questionnaire, based on questions used to encourage introspection and growth in educational and developmental settings (Deeley 2016) :
I would suggest to reinforce the methodological section.
The methodological section has been improved:
When it comes to evaluating the experience, two levels of analysis can be observed, since on the one hand we want to evaluate the acquisition of deep learning, based on the autoethnographic diary, while they are performing the service, and on the other hand, a second questionnaire needs to be developed for the students to evaluate the validity of the autoethnographic diary toolkit.
In terms of the methodology of this design, one could consider a mixed approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. On the one hand, the questionnaire guiding deep learning during the service activity focuses on open-ended, qualitative questions to capture students' experiences and perceptions.
Results and discussion:
There is no connection between the results and the existing literature. The study would need a deeper dialogue in the end with other experiences. How does the discussion section relate to previous results?
Indeed, both sections have been improved and the analysis of results has been merged with the discussion section, specifying throughout the article that it is an exploratory work. Therefore, the discussion with authors is more related to the benefits of the Service-Learning methodology and the use of the field journal tool, rather than other studies of this kind, which have not been found
Also, the specific objectives of the study are not clearly connected to the methodology, the results and the discussion section. A clear “answer” to all objectives should be included.
DONE
The merging of the results analysis and discussion sections has been done in order to organize the information according to the structure of the specific objectives, as suggested. Indeed, I believe that the proposed restructuring has been successful.
The merging of the results analysis and discussion sections has been done in order to organize the information according to the structure of the specific objectives, as suggested. Indeed, I believe that the proposed restructuring has been successful.
Furthermore, a final section of Conclusions has been included.:
Conclusion
The acquisition of the "Deep Learning" competence is gaining importance in higher education, but its practical application and the methods for its acquisition are still under development. This study specifically focuses on exploring how the autoethnographic tool can facilitate the development of indicators related to student learning outcomes in the university context, which can be a valuable contribution to the field of higher education.
The application of this tool in the context of Service-Learning is an innovative and underexplored approach in the academic literature, as observed through the conducted literature review. Most previous studies have focused on more traditional evaluation methods, such as surveys or structured interviews. Thus, this study presents an original perspective by proposing the use of autoethnography, beyond its common association with the field of anthropology, as a means to acquire this competence.
The exploratory approach of the study opens up new lines of research in the academic field and can provide a starting point for future investigations, inspiring other researchers to delve deeper into this topic.
The paper could be improved regarding English spelling, typos and expressions. For example, line 50: The especifics objectives were; line 146: 2.2.- Autoethnography as aN educational toolkit. Line 151: From there, the person addresses their HIS/HER own 151 experiences and relates them to the social phenomenon they are HE/SHE IS studying. Line 256: 3.- Methosdology of pilot experience, Etc.
DONE
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
overall, paper is improved and can be accepted.
overall, paper is improved and can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
English should still be checked. Errors already pointed in the first review are still present, like Line 66, Specific objectives (s is not correct in specifics). Line 55: aN exploratory (n is missing), etc. Line 244: It should be noted (D is missing).
