Chokie Journal of Education and Behavioral Studies Evaluation Guideline
SECTION I: General information (for office use only)
Reviewer’s Name: Dr. Mohammed Demssie
E-Mail: mupsyc@gmail.com
Manuscript number:CJEBS-06
Title: Practice and Challenges of
Continuous Assessment in the Rural
Government Pre-schools in North
Shawa Zone.
Dear reviewer, please provide Author’s response (summary):
SECTION II: Comments per Section detail comments here, Please give your response on the
of Manuscript points raised by the reviewer
The title is vague as it is not clear
whether the study was conducted in
General comment: Amhara region or Oromia Region
or both
Abstract: The abstuct contains all the
objective, methods, major expected components but the
findings, and conclusion& number of words included beyond
implications the limit(343 words included)
This section includes literatures but
almost all are direct copies
especially internet sources, in
addition
Introduction:
The introduction includes the 62, Not Cited or Quoted
following (all merged without the
titles below). 19, Missing Quotations
Background: Literature, rationale
Clear presentation of the 5, Missing Citation
problem/gaps identified
Objective/s and/or research The rational tacks about assessment
question/s not continuous assessment
There also gaps in showing the
problem and the background lacks
local evidences
Methodology:
Design This is clear
Although the researchers tried to
show how the woredas were
selected it is not clear that how the
schools were selected from the
Sampling & sampling techniques
woredas and tows how many
schools were included, how many
students, teachers, or other were
participated and selected
Instruments The instrument used is not clearly
indicted, how it is developed, how
1
many items included and the
psychometric properties of the
instrument is not included
This is not clearly explained how
they calculate is not clear, what
Data analysis methods
softwere or program they used is
not clear
All objectives are included but the
Results: way the tables and the explantons
Inclusion of major findings in under the table not clearly indicted.
line with the research objectives The result section resembles short
considered notes(listing concepts) rather than
explaining the research outputs.
Discussion: I didn’t see any discussion further
How well is the paper integrated than presenting the results with
with current research? dotes
The firs line of the coclusion says “
The researchers concluded in this
study that instructional media was
somehow implemented” this is not
Conclusion
simple typing error. In addion the
coclusion is not well organized
based on the objectives and full of
descriptions
The paper needs major revision,
similar index is high(32%) and
Overall evaluation on the paper:
there are citation and quotation
problems
References:
Others:
SECTION III - Please rate the following: (1 = Excellent) (2 = Very Good) (3 =Good) (4= Fair) (5 = poor)
Originality: 4
Contribution to the field: 3
Technical quality: 4
Clarity of presentation : 4
Depth of research: 5
SECTION IV - Research contribution rating: (Kindly mark with an ‘x’)
Major contribution
Reasonable contribution
Marginal contribution x
No contribution
SECTION V – Recommendation for publication: (Kindly mark with an ‘X’)
Requires minor revision:
Requires major revision: x
In case you accept it with revision bit
major or minor correction to be made,
you are requested to see the revised
version again to check for the
2
incorporation of your comments.
SECTION VI: Rejection
Rejection(Please give reasons)
SECTION VII: Additional Comments
Please add any additional comments
(Including plagiarism and others, if any):
