both

its impact and perceived value

Almost all information here except for the FGD number is shared across the FGDs. To make this table more informative, it could use more demographic information about the participants themselves such as Age, sex, and maybe academic performance (since it is used for maximum variation). Additionally, if the data is available, prior education (governmental or private schooling), or previous experience with SET (multiple experiences vs one, for instance) would be some demographic information shaping the participants'' views and the readers' interpretation of it

good

Were these from the same sample?

Good

Exclusion criteria are typically those that disqualify participants who could be included

Good

In need of references

Would be useful to include more information

Kindly reference

examples would be great

Could use some referencing

Recommend to separate the objectives into bullet points

As much as it could be true, recommend adding a reference to support this argument

Referencing some examples of studies in this section might strengthen it

Any references you could add to support this?

Well-written and informative

Inductive or deductive?

Though these could be useful, these were not included in the earlier parts of the paper such as the methodology or results

It was also mentioned earlier in the thesis that the researcher only relied on focus groups due to resources

Could either include more information about these sources of data in earlier sections or omit parts related to journals/forums

alphabetical order + possible duplicates

duplicate

Duplicate

Thank you

Can combine with the previous section

Practical and diverse implications- well done

repetition

Good suggestions

Sentence seems unrelated to the section. The theme discusses positive feelings. Might be related to the previous section?

Suggest another linking word

Edit for clarification

Paragraph seems to have been included by mistake. Needs to be omitted or re-written for clarity and readability

edit for precise and concise language

typo

Recommend to review formatting

Same as above

The pyramid makes it seem like there is some form of hierarchy to the promoting factors. Suggest changing the style

Would appreciate a table with other demographics: e.g., Age, sex, current year in the program, years of experience in research... These can be matched and aligned with the participant numbers used in reporting quotes in the results section

Nicely done

Inductive analysis revealed several themes and subthemes. However, there are a few themes -namely process, enhancing factors, and hindering factors, which were derived directly from the focus group guide. Asking questions regarding these 3 topic will almost certainly give you answers that belong under those themes. There are subthemes under them which were generated inductively. With that in mind, the inclusion of those 3 makes the analysis appear as hybrid. If that's the approach taken, then I recommend to rephrase the analysis section to portray this hybrid inductive-deductive approach.

abbreviation

Has some repetition from reflexivity. Might be useful to reorganize these sections to be consecutive and include separate info in each

Appreciate the section on reflexivity.

Pilot testing is important and more information about it are needed. How was it done? who carried out the interviews? who were the participants and how many were there? How similar were they to the study's population?

Same as above

If the component of acceptability isn't included, this question should be mapped somewhere else

Exclusion criteria are typically criteria that disqualify a participant after being included This may be omitted as it is inherent

The content of this section can be combined with the one before it. Both sections state the use of purposive sampling

is this considered a qualitative synthesis metanalysis?

Table provides a description/summary of the included studies. Critical appraisal implies some form of evaluation or assessment in terms of the studies' validity or relevance to your topic. Recommend to either edit the subsection title or include study appraisal in the table

Second

This is a good approach, but kindly elaborate- what is the process of this systematic way? is it following a framework? using a website? doing initial searches?

Recommend to move the rest of this section elsewhere

over a period of two months

or

over the period of Mar-May

Paragraph break

would benefit from paragraph breaks and re-organizing ideas for flow.

Questions I'm curious about and would like to see answered: Why research skills specifically? and why research skills /using/ IPAL particularly? if the core of IPAL is being informal, how would deciding on a process help?

Recommend combining with the first paragraph due to the shared core concepts

are these based on literature and supported or are they predicted based on IPAL in general?

Bullet points typically do not have a period at the end

Intriguing. Elaborate, why informal as opposed to formal? (This is expanded on in later parts of the rational but including it at the start separate from this expansion leads to it coming across as incomplete)

Could use clarification. What is meant by the process? is it how the students do it? or is it more related to how much the benefit from it?

could use a bit more elaboration on the significance of utilizing this for research specifically. Why does the author think research skills can be benefitted by IPAL?

Well-written sentences, paragraphs could benefit from re-organizing ideas for flow. For instance, combine all ideas in relation to PAL together, then IPAL, then research skills, together

; However,

could start with this for the IPAL paragraph

New paragraph break might enhance readability

clarify reference

Recommend editing for conciseness and flow of ideas. Some statements about implications feel repetitive and could use

Starting with the definition could enhance readability

Could use more practical implications

Recommend justifying the use of cross-over design over other designs

Nice figure and awareness of other podcast-related variables to control for.

Right now, this figure depicts the variables as if they are unrelated. How would this look like if it showed the relationship between the independent and dependent variables?

Well written; Could use editing the paragraphs to enhance and clarify flow

Would be helpful to discuss the what the data is on podcasts alone and/or concept maps VS infographics

Additionally, Rational could use more info about why the intervention could affect critical thinking specifically (could use some of the literature mentioned in the discussion)

Intriguing topic! there might be a better way to express the podcast part of the title- had to read the abstract to realize podcasts are on both sides

Sounds like (concept maps) VS (infographics and podcasts)

Would be informative to include cross-over in the title too

Thank you for your efforts!

You already provide discussion supporting your findings. Considering some of the points below might strengthen your discussion/limitations section (some of them mentioned in more details in later comments):

-Why analysis did not yield between-subjects differences

-Any other confounding factors you might've missed or can't control (e.g., factors related to the individuals or content or media)

-Expanding on how the controlled conditions might've affected how useful podcasts or both formats are (e.g., being in a class in front of others, knowing there's a test after, just getting this for 10 minutes, not being able to repeat or pause as you might usually do with podcasts)

-The inherent and design-related differences between the two formats (e.g., color coding and interactive element in skeleton concept maps), and how these might've affected the findings

-By extension, how those formats might have had subtle differences depending on the topic.

-lastly, since you state that the findings in round 2 might be because of carry-over effect, might be useful to dedicate a paragraph discussing why this would / or wouldn't be the case (as detailed below)

Interesting thought. Similar to the comment above: These students might've been exposed to concept maps and/or infographics before your study (and even if they didn't), would be helpful to elaborate on the specifics of this carry-over effect and how your wash-out period relates to that.

Additionally, there could be other reasons for the infographics' group getting a higher score in round 2: Maybe infographics are more suitable for the second topic, the students might've had a better day, or they might've accustomed to listening to podcasts or the exam technique. Considering this point, acknowledgement and further discussion on those scenarios would add to this thesis

It can be argued that these students were exposed to either or both of concept maps / infographics before. How would that affect your interpretation?

The use of thereafter suggests a carry-over effect, which undermines your wash-out period. /if that's the case, should mention this in the discussion

within subjects

would omit as it doesn't match the wording of the original hypothesis and put it in a separate sentence

same as above

would help to elaborate that this is within subjects to ease readability

The way this paragraph is written, the finding about both formats having statistical significance might fit more here compared to concept maps vs infographics

this is not necessarily demonstrated but suggested by the scores

Could use to support the rartional

Would help to elaborate further

Kindly include abbreviations under the tables

kindly elaborate

Which tables

I understand these are features of the two visual aid formats, but I wonder how the color coding or, most importantly, the interactive element of the skeleton concept maps might've affected the findings. Might be useful to discuss this (if not mentioned in the limitations)

Interested in justification for the duration before the delayed post test. Why 3 days and not a week or more?

repeated figure

Might be useful to include a few lines justifying the wash-out period for this study specifically. What unique factors about podcasts or the included visual aids that might necessitate wash-out?

figure 13

Would appreciate more information about the tool and process of feedback

Would help to mention it earlier as well

Were

figure 8?

Well done. I love the color coding and skeleton element

Kindly reference

Nicely done and written!

My question would be: Any reliability testing done? Especially since the study has multiple iterations- how might the presence of test-retest reliability affect your interpretation of the findings?

Very important!

Good call

and

Might be helpful to include the graph at the beginning of the section as an overview and a chance to set reader expectations

Where did the sample come from? is it from the rest of the batch (those who were not included?) or a different university?

Curious how these are usually taught in the curriculum

+If known, what sort of need assessment was originally done to include those topics in the curriculum?

This is mentioned in later sections, but might be helpful to state clearly if it was designed by the researcher from scratch or adapted/modified from any other source

Adding a bit more about why the author thinks the intervention would affect CT specifically would greatly strengthen the rational

++

I'm curious, any data on the effect of audio-only podcasts (without visual aids) on critical skills?

The introduction mentions that the podcasts' potential in developing critical thinking is unexplored more than once- and a comparison between supplementing podcasts with either assumes effectiveness. Would love to see data tackling that point or at least a discussion of it

If the accessible population is 110 and the minimum target sample is 94, why did the author choose random sampling over purposive whole-population sampling?

Very informative graph.

-Recommend editing the position of "immediate" and "Delayed" tests as it currently appears to associate with Groups A and B

-The graph implies there's more cross over after Round two. Recommend editing it to clarify.

-Might also be used to add your washout period to the graph

-Kindly also connect Pre-test, control variable, and post-test by arrows; and unify the way "Audio podcast - clinical case discussion" is written in rounds 1 and 2

Exclusion criteria are typically factors that may disqualify participants who are otherwise included in the study. With that in mind, what criteria might exclude any of your 4th year students from this study?

Recommend to mention randomization method here or move the sentence to 3.7

Might strengthen the rational section if added there

Should mention in the ScR methodology

,

Would put the definition of Visual aid as 1.8.2 to enhance flow

An

Might be useful in the rational

Kindly add abbreviations under the figure

Yes!

potentially

An

This is also a clearer way of expressing the objective

Additionally

This sentence could use linking it to the one before to show that it supports it

Any reference we can provide to support this?

The total score is mentioned in the methodology but would help to include it here as reference and context

++ I wonder what the score is for the immediate test

using

abbreviation

This is a clearer depiction of the study aim and comparison groups compared to the title and abstract objective