Dr. Basko and Crystal,

Thank you for the opportunity to partake in reviewing your manuscript as well as learning from the plethora of information.

1) The article is properly organized and well written. The topic is appropriate for JIR. The title reflects the purpose of the study. However, the title exceeds the 15-word maximum required by JIR and APA.

2) The introduction contains the main text and previous research findings. As stated in the introduction, "Research has shown that faculty members can increase student persistence by using strategies such as being accessible to their students, incorporating a variety of activities into their classrooms, and providing personalized feedback on assignments" (Gazza & Hunker, 2014).

3) The article focuses on the importance of student persistence. However, for clarity and as a keyword, student persistence should be supported with a definition.

4) The article emphasizes the importance and benefits of faculty "utilizing Web 2.0 tools" as "an effective way to increase student persistence" as well as increasing "instructor efficiency."

5) Credible references were written within the past five years.

6) Further research recommendation suggested "that the use of additional Web 2.0 tools be explored in regard to student retention rates."

The overall quality of the article is relevant to higher education. The insight provided encouragement and is beneficial for the development of faculty members. Purpose of the study is maintained throughout the manuscript. To contribute support to the article, include a theoretical framework to support the concept of student persistence, research methodology, and evaluation of findings.

Thank you for sharing your research.

Dr. Kathy Gardner, Ed.D

This is a certainly a timely topic and much needed information for online educators. As Dr. Dr. Gardner pointed out, your title it a bit long (perhaps delete the keeping the sanity piece as it does not seem to connect anywhere else in your article). I would recommend being more concise with the title. I would also agree with Dr. Gardner about providing a cited definition of persistence as there is much research on the topic and varying definitions. Additionally, you should provide more direct correlations between the literature and your experiences. For example, when you discuss Web 2.0 and discussion boards you then state those experiences align with the literature. How does it align? You should make that direct connection for the reader. This occurs in the other paragraphs in this section as well. Finally, I would expand upon your ideas for future research. Why is this research necessary? Why should the research be done to further the use of these strategies? Are these strategies successful? Be sure you are providing enough information so that the reader can draw the same conclusions you have reached. 

I really appreciated this article and the findings shared.  I am wondering if perhaps a future direction for research would be to include how these practices might be employed in a ground vs online class, particularly since the actions to enhance the bond between instructor and students described could have a practical application for ground classes.  

Also, I think an important inclusion might be to mention the importance of this research is timely and important.  More and more students are enjoying the opportunity to get their education online.  Your future directions might also suggest a study to differentiate the difference between undergrad and grad students, particularly since grad students move through their program in cohorts (may have an impact on participation and bonding to instructor).

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper!!

Blessings to you both!