Teachers’ Perceptions of Online Teaching Do Not Differ across Disciplines: A Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

This paper focus on the teachers’ perceptions of online teaching and aims to answer the following questions: 1. How do instructors view online live teaching?; 2. Do instructors in different disciplines have the same perceptions of online teaching?. A survey involving 198 instructors in different majors was performed and its results were analysed.

 

Some observations concerning the paper are listed below. Although the topic is very interesting I have to reject the paper because not only no validation of the developed questionnaire is presented, but also the statistical analysis presented in Subsection 4.3 does not make sense for the type of data generated by the presented questionnaire; to use ANOVA quantitative data is mandatory.

Additional observations:

1)    the aim of the paper should be explicitly included in the abstract;

2)    it would be preferable if the graphs in Section 4 presented the data in percentage and not in absolute values;

3)     Lines 47 and 48 - Replace "As another essential participant in teaching, how do instructors view online teaching? " by "Being teachers another essential participant in the process, how do instructors view online teaching? ";

4)    Line 161 to 163 - Replace "Understanding instructors’ perspectives in different majors on online teaching are critical to ensuring the quality of teaching. " by "Understanding instructors’ perspectives in different majors on online teaching are critical to ensure the quality of teaching.";

5)    Line 194 – observation: Question number 7 is not very well posed;

6)    Lines 211 to 214 – the names of the titles used in the text are not the ones used in Figure 1, synchronize the names.

 

 

Author Response

Some observations concerning the paper are listed below. Although the topic is very interesting I have to reject the paper because not only no validation of the developed questionnaire is presented, but also the statistical analysis presented in Subsection 4.3 does not make sense for the type of data generated by the presented questionnaire; to use ANOVA quantitative data is mandatory.

Response： Thank you very much for your advice! We have reconstructed the full text. It explains the questionnaire's content validity and why the common reliability and validity coefficients can not be given in the results. For the questionnaire data, we mistakenly used the analysis of variance, and now we use Kruskal-Wallistest in the non-parametric test.

Additional observations:

 

1)    the aim of the paper should be explicitly included in the abstract;

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! We describe the purpose of the study in the abstract.

2)    it would be preferable if the graphs in Section 4 presented the data in percentage and not in absolute values;

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! Instead of using charts, we use tables where percentages are presented.

3)     Lines 47 and 48 - Replace "As another essential participant in teaching, how do instructors view online teaching? " by "Being teachers another essential participant in the process, how do instructors view online teaching? ";

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! We used the expression you provided.

4)    Line 161 to 163 - Replace "Understanding instructors’ perspectives in different majors on online teaching are critical to ensuring the quality of teaching. " by "Understanding instructors’ perspectives in different majors on online teaching are critical to ensure the quality of teaching.";

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! We used the expression you provided.

5)    Line 194 – observation: Question number 7 is not very well posed;

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! We made changes.

6)    Lines 211 to 214 – the names of the titles used in the text are not the ones used in Figure 1, synchronize the names.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion! We made changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction and initial argument is of high quality, and the writing is clear and well expressed.

It is a pity that nothing is said about whether the questionnaire used for data collection has been previously validated and tested with a control group to check if it is reliable.

A better description of the methodology used is needed.

The results are initially a bit weak with just frequencies and percentages. They improve at the end with the verification of whether there are significant differences with ANOVA and Student's t test.

All bibliographic references must be reviewed since they are not in the format required by the journal and must be changed.

It can be seen that the limitations of the study mention both the small size of the sample and the insufficiency of the questionnaire used.

Author Response

It is a pity that nothing is said about whether the questionnaire used for data collection has been previously validated and tested with a control group to check if it is reliable.

Response: Thank you for your guidance! We explain why we use this questionnaire and demonstrate the content validity of the questionnaire.

A better description of the methodology used is needed.

Response: Thank you for your guidance! According to your suggestion, we have described the research method in detail.

The results are initially a bit weak with just frequencies and percentages. They improve at the end with the verification of whether there are significant differences with ANOVA and Student's t test.

Response: Thank you very much! We reprocessed the data, adopted non-parametric tests, and supplemented qualitative data analysis.

All bibliographic references must be reviewed since they are not in the format required by the journal and must be changed.

Response: Thank you very much! We have revised the presentation of references in accordance with the requirements of the journal.

It can be seen that the limitations of the study mention both the small size of the sample and the insufficiency of the questionnaire used.

Response: Thank you very much! We re-encoded the original data in the revised draft, and the qualitative data is already very rich. In addition, we demonstrate the content validity of the questionnaire.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a review of this article. The paper has several shortcomings that must be addressed before being considered for publication. First, the data are insufficient for such a type of journal with such impact. For improving data, it is necessary to complete with other data. You could collect qualitative data to complete the information regarding this subject and enhance the quality of the article. I can't see the plus value of this study compared to the others.

Also, some specific points need to be addressed.

1. For more clarity, the abstract needs to be reformulated. Some sentences induce confusion. 

• The teachers "are not very dissatisfied" and then it is written that researchers find "online teaching is not very convenient". 
• Instructors have "different opinions", but teachers "have no significant difference in understanding the same problem".

2.      The result presented regarding the sample need to be synthesized in a table. It is not necessary to describe every piece of data. 

3. The data from figures 3-7. 

It is necessary to present them more synthetically in a table and discuss the essential data. It is too much to explain all percentages.

4. 4.3. section. 

The test needs to be adequate. For these kinds of data, you can use the Kruskal Wallis test (for ordinal) or Chi-square + adjusted standardized residuals.

Anyway, you have very few respondents for each professional background. I propose recoding the variable to have fewer categories and bigger sub-samples. (e.g. technical vs non-technical domains). The results of such analyses may be different.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a review of this article. The paper has several shortcomings that must be addressed before being considered for publication. First, the data are insufficient for such a type of journal with such impact. For improving data, it is necessary to complete with other data. You could collect qualitative data to complete the information regarding this subject and enhance the quality of the article. I can't see the plus value of this study compared to the others.

Response: Thank you for your important advice! In the revised draft, we supplement the analysis of qualitative data. In addition, we encode the original data, and the quantitative data analysis is divided into three parts, and some new conclusions are obtained.

Also, some specific points need to be addressed.

 

For more clarity, the abstract needs to be reformulated. Some sentences induce confusion.

The teachers "are not very dissatisfied" and then it is written that researchers find "online teaching is not very convenient".

Instructors have "different opinions", but teachers "have no significant difference in understanding the same problem".

Response: Thank you very much! We corrected all unclear statements in the revised draft.

The result presented regarding the sample need to be synthesized in a table. It is not necessary to describe every piece of data.

Response: Thank you for this good advice! In the revised draft, we integrate the data into a table to clarify the data's presentation.

The data from figures 3-7.

It is necessary to present them more synthetically in a table and discuss the essential data. It is too much to explain all percentages.

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised version, we no longer use the figure but present the data in a table.

4.3. section.

The test needs to be adequate. For these kinds of data, you can use the Kruskal Wallis test (for ordinal) or Chi-square + adjusted standardized residuals.

Response: Thank you very much! We use Kruskal Wallis test in the revised draft.

Anyway, you have very few respondents for each professional background. I propose recoding the variable to have fewer categories and bigger sub-samples. (e.g. technical vs non-technical domains). The results of such analyses may be different.

Response: Thank you very much! We re-coded it and classified it using natural and social sciences. We find that there are significant differences in the motivation for online teaching between natural science teachers and social science teachers.

Reviewer 4 Report

The revised manuscript addresses an issue of great importance today given the expansion of e-learning. The rise it experienced because of COVID-19 has led to it occupying an important place in research agendas. Specifically, this study focuses on analyzing teachers’ perceptions of online teaching. In addition, one of its strengths is that it compares different areas of knowledge. Nevertheless, the manuscript presents some aspects that need to be revised:

-It is suggested that the authors add information on the method used to the abstract (only the number of participants is indicated).

-The Materials and Methods Section also needs to be completed, as basic information is missing. In this regard, the authors are invited to describe the procedure followed. How was the questionnaire sent out? How long was it available? How were the instructors contacted? Etc. Some aspects need to be clarified. It would also be useful to allude to the ethical aspects of the study (voluntariness, anonymity, etc.).

-On the other hand, was the data collection instrument of own elaboration or adapted? In the first case, what was the elaboration process? Was it validated before administration? If so, what process was followed? If it was not of own elaboration, from what source was it extracted? Was it adapted in any way? If so, which one(s)?

-The description of the method of analysis must also specify the type of analysis performed.

-The sample is too scarce and too small. It would be interesting to expand it so that it could be representative.

-How many centers did the participants belong to?

-Why were the results of item 10 not presented? Even if 92 participants did not respond to that question, I believe that including the voices of the instructors would greatly enrich the study. Therefore, the authors are invited to incorporate the qualitative results as well.

-Statistical significance should be in italics (see line 277 and following).

-It is recommended that the Discussion and Conclusion section begin with the objective of the study. It would also be advisable to structure this section according to the research questions raised.

-On the other hand, the authors are encouraged to discuss the findings of the study in greater depth. At some points it is only a summary of the results presented previously. It would be interesting to relate them more closely to the state of the art. For example, it is indicated: “Thus, a few instructors believe that online teaching is inferior. This conclusion is inconsistent with the results of many studies [46-47]. This study shows a lot of room for improvement in the quality of online teaching”, but no possible reasons for this disparity are proposed. Hence, a greater degree of confrontation between the results of the study and previous literature is suggested. 

-The limitations of the study and future lines of research would need to be significantly expanded.

-The practical implications derived from the study are also missing. What are the conclusions? They are not sufficiently clear. What does this research contribute? I encourage the authors to reflect on these types of questions.

-Authors are encouraged to adapt the citation and reference style to the journal’s standards.

Author Response

-It is suggested that the authors add information on the method used to the abstract (only the number of participants is indicated).

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised draft, we optimized the abstract. It describes why to study this problem, the research method, the sample, and so on.

-The Materials and Methods Section also needs to be completed, as basic information is missing. In this regard, the authors are invited to describe the procedure followed. How was the questionnaire sent out? How long was it available? How were the instructors contacted? Etc. Some aspects need to be clarified. It would also be useful to allude to the ethical aspects of the study (voluntariness, anonymity, etc.).

Response: Thank you for your advice! We supplemented the materials and methods and explained the research procedure. For example, how do we hand out the questionnaire, and whether the participants voluntarily participate in filling out the questionnaire? We also provide proof of the consent of the academic Ethics Committee to carry out the research.

-On the other hand, was the data collection instrument of own elaboration or adapted? In the first case, what was the elaboration process? Was it validated before administration? If so, what process was followed? If it was not of own elaboration, from what source was it extracted? Was it adapted in any way? If so, which one(s)?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion on the validity of the questionnaire. In the revised draft, we explain that the questionnaire is developed based on the existing references and research purposes and has been demonstrated by experts to have content validity. The literature supports each item of the questionnaire.

-The description of the method of analysis must also specify the type of analysis performed.

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised draft, we describe in detail what research methods are used and how to deal with the data.

-The sample is too scarce and too small. It would be interesting to expand it so that it could be representative.

Response: Thank you very much! In the original manuscript, we did not analyze the free response data of 106 teachers (teachers who filled in item 10). These data are abundant enough that we use NVivo to analyze qualitatively in the revised draft and get exciting results.

-How many centers did the participants belong to?

Response: Thank you very much! The specific information of our participants has been supplemented.

-Why were the results of item 10 not presented? Even if 92 participants did not respond to that question, I believe that including the voices of the instructors would greatly enrich the study. Therefore, the authors are invited to incorporate the qualitative results as well.

Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion! We made a qualitative analysis of the data of the 10th project and got more great and detailed results.

-Statistical significance should be in italics (see line 277 and following).

Response: Thank you very much! We made changes.

-It is recommended that the Discussion and Conclusion section begin with the objective of the study. It would also be advisable to structure this section according to the research questions raised.

Response: Thank you very much! Your suggestion makes the discussion in the revised draft more logical.

-On the other hand, the authors are encouraged to discuss the findings of the study in greater depth. At some points it is only a summary of the results presented previously. It would be interesting to relate them more closely to the state of the art. For example, it is indicated: “Thus, a few instructors believe that online teaching is inferior. This conclusion is inconsistent with the results of many studies [46-47]. This study shows a lot of room for improvement in the quality of online teaching”, but no possible reasons for this disparity are proposed. Hence, a greater degree of confrontation between the results of the study and previous literature is suggested.

Response: Thank you very much! Due to the addition of qualitative data analysis, we rewrote the discussion section as you suggested.

-The limitations of the study and future lines of research would need to be significantly expanded.

Response: Thank you very much! We expand the research limitations and research prospects.

-The practical implications derived from the study are also missing. What are the conclusions? They are not sufficiently clear. What does this research contribute? I encourage the authors to reflect on these types of questions.

Response: Thank you. We added the conclusion at the end of the discussion.

-Authors are encouraged to adapt the citation and reference style to the journal’s standards.

Response: Thank you very much! We use the reference format recommended by the journal in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

This paper discusses a current and interesting topic, as it deals with teachers' views on online teaching from a statistical approach. 

However, key elements of this topic are not mentioned, such as the skills integrated in the TPACK model or the relationship between new educational demands, such as online teaching, and the parameters of educational neoliberalism. 

The first two sections (Introduction and Literature review) should have a better organisation of ideas. It is difficult to follow the text because there is no clear processing and connection between what some authors say and what others say. The feeling is that there is an accumulation of conclusions of other authors, without clarifying why some of them are grouped in some paragraphs and others in others. 

In section 3.1 it would be interesting to include the name of the Chinese city. It should also be specified at which level of education the participants teach. In previous sections, schools are mentioned, but the categories of teachers listed below correspond to university teachers. 

In section 3.2, the validation system of the questionnaire is not clarified: why these questions and response options and not others? How was the relevance of the questions in the questionnaire determined? Is the questionnaire used inspired by other questionnaires?

There is hardly any comment on the qualitative results of the open-ended question. What are the most recurrent topics? On which issues do the majority of instructors agree and on which do they differ?

It would be opportune to include in the last section the possibility of continuing the study from a qualitative approach, focusing on the testimonies of the protagonists, both teachers and students, on the real impact of online teaching. 

Author Response

However, key elements of this topic are not mentioned, such as the skills integrated in the TPACK model or the relationship between new educational demands, such as online teaching, and the parameters of educational neoliberalism.

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised draft, we reveal the background of this study and explain the relationship between online teaching and TPACK.

The first two sections (Introduction and Literature review) should have a better organisation of ideas. It is difficult to follow the text because there is no clear processing and connection between what some authors say and what others say. The feeling is that there is an accumulation of conclusions of other authors, without clarifying why some of them are grouped in some paragraphs and others in others.

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised draft, we reorganized the preface and the literature.

In section 3.1 it would be interesting to include the name of the Chinese city. It should also be specified at which level of education the participants teach. In previous sections, schools are mentioned, but the categories of teachers listed below correspond to university teachers.

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised draft, we highlight that the participants are high school teachers in Guangxi, China.

In section 3.2, the validation system of the questionnaire is not clarified: why these questions and response options and not others? How was the relevance of the questions in the questionnaire determined? Is the questionnaire used inspired by other questionnaires?

Response: Thank you for this very critical suggestion! In the revised version, we discuss the content validity of the questionnaire and explain that the questionnaire is designed according to the study's purpose and the relevant literature's conclusions.

There is hardly any comment on the qualitative results of the open-ended question. What are the most recurrent topics? On which issues do the majority of instructors agree and on which do they differ?

Response: Thank you very much! In the revised draft, we supplement the analysis of qualitative data. In 4.3, we present the results of the qualitative analysis of the open-ended question.

It would be opportune to include in the last section the possibility of continuing the study from a qualitative approach, focusing on the testimonies of the protagonists, both teachers and students, on the real impact of online teaching.

Response: Thank you for your valuable advice! Please take a look at 4.3. We have supplemented it according to your instructions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate all the effort to improve this article; now it looks better. Still, several shortcomings must be addressed before being considered for publication:

1. Rows 11-12, the phrase  

The researchers surveyed 198 instructors in different disciplines about their perceptions of online teaching 

need to be deleted because the same pieces of information are presented in rows 14-15

2. Row 15 The paragraph needs to be reformulated.

The research method was a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

 You write in the text that the method is the mixed method. Actually, you used convergent mixed-method design, the questionnaire variant (see Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.)

3.     In section 3 Materials and Methods need to be presented the aim of the research.

4. Rows 218-226

The paragraph needs to be reformulated to present the methodology clearly.

I recommend starting with "A mixed research approach was used in this study" and specifying the type. See you  the comment 2. Reference 42 is not adequate. It would be helpful if you referred to a book/article regarding the mixed method. (e.g. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA)

E.g. The convergent design involves simultaneous quantitative and qualitative data collection, and both strands had equal emphasis. The questionnaire variant is used when the researcher includes both open- and closed-ended questions on a questionnaire.

According to mixed methods literature, there are several ways to integrate the results (see Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA). It is necessary to specify which type you use to present the data. In this study, you first showed the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative findings and integrated the data in the 5. Discussion and Conclusion.

 5. The instrument from rows 256-282 need to be placed in Supplementary Materials. 

6. Table 4. Reference Points of Teachers’ Views on Online Teaching in different disciplines.

It does not look good and needs to be rearranged. The values do not correspond to the labels of the columns.

7. Tables 6,7, 8, and 10 need to be presented in APA Style (a table with the values of the test, degree freedom and significance level - Χ2, df, p). When you refer to significant differences in the text, you need to do also in APA style (H(df)= , p=).

 8. For the test Kruskal Wallis the variables need to be at least ordinal. I6 and I7 can be considered ordinal. I9 can be considered ordinal at the limit, but I5 and I8 are nominal. I recommend using Chi-square (+adj standardized) for this variable type and presenting the result in APA style. 

 9. Row 212 ( the study population was representative), Row 297 (The professional background of teachers is representative) and Row 565 (participants….. are well represented).  I think it is too much to say that the data are representative because your respondents were selected in a non-probabilistic way, and you don’t present the characteristics of the real population. I recommend avoiding these kinds of statements. 

 10. 5.Conclusions and discussions section

Row 495 „and many teachers hope to improve the quality of education through network teaching”. I am not sure from which data result in this conclusion.

  I wish you success with the article!

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Thank you very much for your revision suggestions. We have made revisions. The revision integrates the opinions of 5 reviewers, and our revisions are presented below.

Best wishes,

The authors

 

1. Rows 11-12, the phrase  

The researchers surveyed 198 instructors in different disciplines about their perceptions of online teaching need to be deleted because the same pieces of information are presented in rows 14-15

Thanks for your suggestion. We edited and deleted it.

2. Row 15 The paragraph needs to be reformulated.

The research method was a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis.

 You write in the text that the method is the mixed method. Actually, you used convergent mixed-method design, the questionnaire variant (see Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2017.)

Thank you very much for your suggestion. By studying the books you introduced, we have clarified our research methods and improved the abstract and research methods.

3. In section 3 Materials and Methods need to be presented the aim of the research.

Thanks for your suggestion. We have added the research purpose at the beginning of Section III.

4. Rows 218-226

The paragraph needs to be reformulated to present the methodology clearly.

I recommend starting with "A mixed research approach was used in this study" and specifying the type. See you  the comment 2. Reference 42 is not adequate. It would be helpful if you referred to a book/article regarding the mixed method. (e.g. Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA)

E.g. The convergent design involves simultaneous quantitative and qualitative data collection, and both strands had equal emphasis. The questionnaire variant is used when the researcher includes both open- and closed-ended questions on a questionnaire.

According to mixed methods literature, there are several ways to integrate the results (see Creswell, J.W.; Clark, V.L.P. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA). It is necessary to specify which type you use to present the data. In this study, you first showed the quantitative results, followed by the qualitative findings and integrated the data in the 5. Discussion and Conclusion.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. By studying the books you introduced, we have clarified our research methods and improved the research methods section in the article. The type of data presented is indicated.

5. The instrument from rows 256-282 need to be placed in Supplementary Materials. 

Thanks for your suggestion. We have put the content of the questionnaire in the appendix.

6. Table 4.Reference Points of Teachers’ Views on Online Teaching in different disciplines.

It does not look good and needs to be rearranged. The values do not correspond to the labels of the columns.

Thanks for your suggestion. We reformatted it.

7. Tables 6,7, 8, and 10 need to be presented in APA Style (a table with the values of the test, degree freedom and significance level - Χ2, df, p). When you refer to significant differences in the text, you need to do also in APA style (H(df)= , p=).

Thanks to your suggestion, we have presented the data in APA format.

8. For the test Kruskal Wallis the variables need to be at least ordinal. I6 and I7 can be considered ordinal. I9 can be considered ordinal at the limit, but I5 and I8 are nominal. I recommend using Chi-square (+adj standardized) for this variable type and presenting the result in APA style. 

Thanks for the suggestion. We used chi-square analysis for I5 and I8 and presented the data in APA format.

9. Row 212 ( the study population was representative), Row 297 (The professional background of teachers is representative) and Row 565 (participants….. are well represented).  I think it is too much to say that the data are representative because your respondents were selected in a non-probabilistic way, and you don’t present the characteristics of the real population. I recommend avoiding these kinds of statements. 

Thanks for your suggestion. We have removed this description.

10. 5.Conclusions and discussions section

Row 495 „and many teachers hope to improve the quality of education through network teaching”. I am not sure from which data result in this conclusion.

Thank you for your suggestion. This conclusion is indeed not rigorous. We have deleted this conclusion.

  I wish you success with the article!

Thank you, and we wish you all the best!

Reviewer 4 Report

Although the authors have made some of the suggested changes, there are aspects that have not been taken into account. In this sense, there is still a need to be clarified:

-The technique used for the qualitative analysis of the data is not specified in the abstract.

-What was the validation process for the instrument? It is understood that it is own elaboration, but if the questionnaire is not previously validated, the results are not reliable or valid.

-The process of preparing the questionnaire is also not explained, only the relevance of each of the questions that comprise it is justified.

-How long was the questionnaire available?

-The description of the method of analysis must also specify the type of analysis performed.

-The sample is too scarce and too small. It would be interesting to expand it so that it could be representative.

-How many centers did the participants belong to?

-It is not clear what analysis procedure was followed in the case of the qualitative data: were nouns, adjectives, verbs, articles, etc. quantified? The interesting thing about this methodology is to interpret the vision of the participants and, in fact, that is what is missing: the voices of the teachers. Hence, it is suggested that the authors use techniques typical of this methodological paradigm such as, for example, thematic analysis, content analysis, etc., and accompany this analysis with the participants’ speeches.

-In the presentation of the results, the information contained in the tables and in the text is duplicated. Authors are advised to avoid this overlapping of data.

-Some of the tables (e.g., 4 and 6) are not well understood.

-It is recommended that the Discussion and Conclusion section begin with the objective of the study. It would also be advisable to structure this section according to the research questions raised.

-On the other hand, the authors are encouraged to discuss the findings of the study in greater depth. In this section there have been improvements, but not enough. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors relate the results more intensively to the previous theoretical framework.

 

-The limitations of the study do not refer to the sample size. Instead, it states: “Future research should adopt better sampling methods and design questionnaires with better reliability and validity” (lines 578-579). Such questionnaires already exist, why were they not used?

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your revision suggestions. We have made revisions. The revision integrates the opinions of 5 reviewers, and our revisions are presented below.

Best wishes

The authors

 

Although the authors have made some of the suggested changes, there are aspects that have not been taken into account. In this sense, there is still a need to be clarified:

-The technique used for the qualitative analysis of the data is not specified in the abstract.

 Thanks for your suggestion! We describe the qualitative analysis technique in the Abstract.

-What was the validation process for the instrument? It is understood that it is own elaboration, but if the questionnaire is not previously validated, the results are not reliable or valid.

 Thank you! We made changes. While we could not report on the quantitative reliability and validity of the questionnaire, we provided expert evidence of the research instrument. We supplemented it with evidence of the content validity of the research instrument.

-The process of preparing the questionnaire is also not explained, only the relevance of each of the questions that comprise it is justified.

 Thanks for your suggestion. We have described the process of preparing the questionnaire.

-How long was the questionnaire available?

 Thanks for your suggestion. We have described when and how timely the questionnaire should be completed.

-The description of the method of analysis must also specify the type of analysis performed.  

 Thanks for the suggestion. We specified the type of analysis.

-The sample is too scarce and too small. It would be interesting to expand it so that it could be representative.

 Yes! We very much agree with you! We have illustrated the samples to make the results more interpretable.

-How many centers did the participants belong to?

 Thanks for your suggestion. We have supplemented the description of participants in the text.

-It is not clear what analysis procedure was followed in the case of the qualitative data: were nouns, adjectives, verbs, articles, etc. quantified? The interesting thing about this methodology is to interpret the vision of the participants and, in fact, that is what is missing: the voices of the teachers. Hence, it is suggested that the authors use techniques typical of this methodological paradigm such as, for example, thematic analysis, content analysis, etc., and accompany this analysis with the participants’ speeches.

 Thanks for your suggestion. We have clarified and described the rationale for the qualitative analysis in the revised manuscript.

-In the presentation of the results, the information contained in the tables and in the text is duplicated. Authors are advised to avoid this overlapping of data.

 Thank you for your suggestion. The text is a detailed explanation and further analysis of the table, not an exact repetition, but your suggestion is excellent. We have deleted the repeated description.

-Some of the tables (e.g., 4 and 6) are not well understood.

 Thank you for your essential advice. We have reformatted the table.

-It is recommended that the Discussion and Conclusion section begin with the objective of the study. It would also be advisable to structure this section according to the research questions raised.

 Thanks to your suggestions, we have added research objectives to the Discussion section and organized this section according to the questions posed.

-On the other hand, the authors are encouraged to discuss the findings of the study in greater depth. In this section there have been improvements, but not enough. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors relate the results more intensively to the previous theoretical framework.

 Thanks for your suggestion. We have added some rationale to refine the findings in the revised manuscript.

-The limitations of the study do not refer to the sample size. Instead, it states: “Future research should adopt better sampling methods and design questionnaires with better reliability and validity” (lines 578-579). Such questionnaires already exist, why were they not used?

Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have made a more rigorous description. Thank you!

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have undertaken some of the proposed suggestions, but not those of greatest importance and necessity.

-Much more information is needed regarding the design and validation of the instrument. What was the process followed? It is still not sufficiently clear. This is essential to ensure the reliability and validity of the results.

-The need to expand the sample to ensure that the findings are representative is re-emphasized.

-Moreover, the process of analysis of the qualitative data is also unclear. NVivo is a support software to analyze the voices of the participants, but it requires an interpretative process carried out by the researcher, of which not enough information is provided. What techniques were used? What phases were followed? Etc.

-On the other hand, one of the most distinctive characteristics of qualitative methodology is the interpretation of the voices of the participants. As discussed in the previous reviews, this is precisely what is missing. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors analyze and interpret the participants’ discourses, as this will greatly enrich the study.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable advice! Your guidance is significant in improving the quality of this paper! We have made the following changes.

1. The process of making the questionnaire is introduced in part 3.2. The development of the questionnaire has gone through three steps. The authors explained the purpose of each item in the questionnaire. In the expert argumentation session, experts demonstrated the reliability and content validity of the whole questionnaire, which is considered to be able to collect data reliably and effectively.
2. Increasing the sample size is an excellent suggestion, and the authors will carry out more extensive research in the future. However, it should be noted that the teacher samples of various disciplines in this study have met the basic requirements of statistical testing.
3. In part 3.1, the authors explain how to use Nvivo in this study. The purpose and process of using the software are described
4. The authors present the prominent voices of the participants in part 4.3.