The Needs of Youth in Transition after the Alternative Education Program in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
GENERAL
This is an important piece of work, which raises interesting and important issues for the field of education, not just for the field of 'transition' education. In general, it is a well-written paper, with well fleshed out detail in the results and discussion section, with the provisos made below:
1. Please clarify the sentence at Lines 142 and 143 as this sentence doesn't make sense at all.
2. There appears to be no methodology section as such. There is this bit at line 144 in section 4. " To collect data for an understanding of their needs, we performed semi-structured interviews with six program leaders (L1 to L6) from 5 programs 145 out of 7 programs currently running in Taiwan.". I recommend that this could be the intro sentence to a methodology para or two which clarifies the strategies. In the conclusion at line 319, authors note that this is an 'exploratory study' and this needs to be stated in the Methodology section. How many program leaders are there in total? How were the 6 selected? What geographic areas were represented in the 6? What questions were asked (it is important for the readers to understand this, and a de-identified copy of the interview schedule can be included as an appendix or a photo of it inserted into the text. The methodology section should appear after section 3 and before the Results. It should articulate the number of interviews, the type of interviews (semi-structured). Readers need to know how the interview data was analysed - thematic analysis? content analysis? etc? Were the interviews face-to-face? Phone? Zoom? Email? At present the reporting lacks rigour. Given this research is important and should inform policy and strategy, it needs to be well justified. It is usual, when citing interview data (L1, L2 etc) to include a sample quote that typifies those responses. This will add length to the article, so the Editors might have a view on this as well, but it is It should be a short but very explicit section, as with any research, the methodology must be sufficiently detailed as to be reproducible.
3. At Line 310, we have: "It must be noted that the above discussion is preliminary and brief and needs a firmer consensus among the program leaders to develop better programs in the future". Once the methodology is expanded as above, the authors need to make the limitations of the study explicit. A subheading 'Limitations of the study' shows the reader you have thought it through, so when they take points from it for program improvement, they understand the qualifications of the research. Authors should also indicate how this study could inform 'further research'.
4. At line 333, please clarify what this sentence means "The service for the leavers is neither correctional nor remedial 333 and is paid enough attention to for its problems".
5. The Conclusion starting at line 315 contains some valuable recommendations/suggestions for action/strategies. However, these are buried in text. It would be helpful to pull the key recommendations out and present them succinctly in point form.
Cheers.
A few errors/mistypes I've noted, otherwise English is good
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
This is an important piece of work, which raises interesting and important issues for the field of education, not just for the field of 'transition' education. In general, it is a well-written paper, with well fleshed out detail in the results and discussion section, with the provisos made below:
Point 1: Please clarify the sentence at Lines 142 and 143 as this sentence doesn't make sense at all.
Response 1: I already deleted this part and move it to “method”, thanks for the reminder.
Point 2: There appears to be no methodology section as such. There is this bit at line 144 in section 4. " To collect data for an understanding of their needs, we performed semi-structured interviews with six program leaders (L1 to L6) from 5 programs 145 out of 7 programs currently running in Taiwan.". I recommend that this could be the intro sentence to a methodology para or two which clarifies the strategies. In the conclusion at line 319, authors note that this is an 'exploratory study' and this needs to be stated in the Methodology section. How many program leaders are there in total? How were the 6 selected? What geographic areas were represented in the 6? What questions were asked (it is important for the readers to understand this, and a de-identified copy of the interview schedule can be included as an appendix or a photo of it inserted into the text. The methodology section should appear after section 3 and before the Results. It should articulate the number of interviews, the type of interviews (semi-structured). Readers need to know how the interview data was analysed - thematic analysis? content analysis? etc? Were the interviews face-to-face? Phone? Zoom? Email? At present the reporting lacks rigour. Given this research is important and should inform policy and strategy, it needs to be well justified. It is usual, when citing interview data (L1, L2 etc) to include a sample quote that typifies those responses. This will add length to the article, so the Editors might have a view on this as well, but it is It should be a short but very explicit section, as with any research, the methodology must be sufficiently detailed as to be reproducible.
Response 2: For the method-related part, another paragraph is added, and the object to be accessed, the method of access, the time and method of access, etc. are added. In addition, the analysis method of the research has also been added into the verbatim draft of the audio file, and then conceptualized and renamed. It has been added to explain the credibility and rigor of the research (reliability and validity, etc.). Finally, the content of the interview outline is presented in the appendix. In order to study and reproduce it later. (in red 156-177)
Point 3: At Line 310, we have: "It must be noted that the above discussion is preliminary and brief and needs a firmer consensus among the program leaders to develop better programs in the future". Once the methodology is expanded as above, the authors need to make the limitations of the study explicit. A subheading 'Limitations of the study' shows the reader you have thought it through, so when they take points from it for program improvement, they understand the qualifications of the research. Authors should also indicate how this study could inform 'further research'.
Response 3: A section on research limitations and recommendations has been added to explain possible future suggestions for this research (the content of the suggestions includes research that can include student perspectives, research that can participate in observation methods in institutions). (in red 342-346, 383-390)
Point 4: At line 333, please clarify what this sentence means "The service for the leavers is neither correctional nor remedial 333 and is paid enough attention to for its problems".
Response 4: Thank you, I moved this part to 357-360 to clarify.
Point 5: The Conclusion starting at line 315 contains some valuable recommendations/suggestions for action/strategies. However, these are buried in text. It would be helpful to pull the key recommendations out and present them succinctly in point form.
Response 5: Thank you for the reminder, the research conclusion is currently reserved. However, after the discussion of the study, additional research proposals will be added. (in red365-367, 374-381)
The last one, some revised sentences in blue words for the paper, thank you.
We really appreciate you checked the article.
Best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
Many thanks for your manuscript. Below are my comments and suggestions:
(1) Abstract: There is too much information regarding the research background. You should narrow it into 2 sentences. Moreover, the abstract lacks information regarding research methods.
(2) Introduction: This section lacks specific objectives and/or research questions.
(3) Literature review: 2. Youth’s Needs in Transition and 3. Transition Services to Build Resilience should be included in the literature review.
(4) Methods: There is no section about research methods in this manuscript.
(5) Discussion: In this mansucript, it does not seem discussion as the current research results were not discussed with those of previous studies.
The manuscript needs to be edited by a native English editor.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Abstract- There is too much information regarding the research background. You should narrow it into 2 sentences. Moreover, the abstract lacks information regarding research methods.
Response 1: Thank you for the reminder, it has been revised to condense the description of the research background, and add 6 research subjects to conduct in-depth interviews to supplement. All the abstract is new. (in red 5-18)
Point 2: Introduction- This section lacks specific objectives and/or research questions.
Response 2: We revised new introduction with some references and added research objectives for readers to understand. (in red 21-44, 60-63)
Point 3: Literature review: 2. Youth’s Needs in Transition and 3. Transition Services to Build Resilience should be included in the literature review.
Response 3: Added the title of the literature discussion and add some paragraphs to explain.
(in red 65, 71-76, 90-93, 106-113, 119-122, 150-153)
Point 4: Methods- There is no section about research methods in this manuscript.
Response 4: Thank you, add a paragraph of research methods to clearly explain the research object, method of interview, interview time and method, etc. In addition, the analysis method of the research is also added, the verbatim draft of the recording file is added, and then it is conceptualized and renamed. It has been added to explain the credibility, authenticity and confirmability of the research. and finally, the content of the interview outline is presented in the appendix.(in red 157-177)
Point 5: Discussion- In this manuscript, it does not seem discussion as the current research results were not discussed with those of previous studies.
Response 5: Added the five references in this article is discussed with previous research, so that readers can understand the connection with previous research.(in red 311-314, 321-330, 342-34). Some sections on conclusion, research limitations and recommendations has been added to explain possible future suggestions for this research. (in red 357-360, 365-367, 374-381, 383-390)
The last one, some revised sentences in blue words for the paper, thank you.
We really appreciate you checked the article.
Best regards,
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper explores the different needs of at-risk youth leaving alternative education in Taiwan and provides insights on how the government and program leaders must cooperate improve their alternative program. As such, this paper will be interesting to scholars and practitioners in alternative education, educational policy, and management and implementation of taught and alternative curriculum.
Although the paper is well-written, comments provided below will help improve the paper further:
1. In the abstract, line 15, add a space between "pre-" and "or"
2. In the keywords, "transition" is not a a good choice as it is unclear. Modify or improve.
3. In the introduction, while enough context and background has been established, authors are urged to add a discussion on global literature. Authors need to situate the problem in global context. This is not just a problem in Taiwan. Many countries have problem with alternative education (i.e. Philippines, India, etc). Authors are strongly encouraged to add literature in this section to emphasize novelty and justify the need to conduct the study. Authors may discuss some program innovations and initiatives in other countries in contrast with in Taiwan.
4. Relate the discussion with the literature. It may seem that the discussion are based solely on the results and not contextualized in the literature. How does your study advance further our understanding in how to improve alternative education? What are the implications?
Author Response
Response to Reviewer3 Comments
The paper explores the different needs of at-risk youth leaving alternative education in Taiwan and provides insights on how the government and program leaders must cooperate improve their alternative program. As such, this paper will be interesting to scholars and practitioners in alternative education, educational policy, and management and implementation of taught and alternative curriculum.
Although the paper is well-written, comments provided below will help improve the paper further:
Point 1: In the abstract, line 15, add a space between "pre-" and "or"
Response 1: Thanks, modified all the abstract already.(in red 5-18)
Point 2: In the keywords, "transition" is not a a good choice as it is unclear. Modify or improve.
Response 2: Thank you, the concept of "transition" has been changed to "youth in transition", so that readers can focus more on this topic. (in red 19)
Point 3: In the introduction, while enough context and background has been established, authors are urged to add a discussion on global literature. Authors need to situate the problem in global context. This is not just a problem in Taiwan. Many countries have problem with alternative education (i.e. Philippines, India, etc). Authors are strongly encouraged to add literature in this section to emphasize novelty and justify the need to conduct the study. Authors may discuss some program innovations and initiatives in other countries in contrast with in Taiwan.
Response 3: This is indeed a global common problem, not just in Taiwan. Thank you for the efforts of the censors. Among them, has it been added three global references for readers to highlight the importance of the issue.(in red 22-44)
Point 4: Relate the discussion with the literature. It may seem that the discussion are based solely on the results and not contextualized in the literature. How does your study advance further our understanding in how to improve alternative education? What are the implications?
Response 4: Thank you, it has been revised some litrerature for readers, too.(in red 65, 71-76, 90-93, 106-113, 119-122, 150-153)
Besides, the method-related part, another paragraph is added, and the object to be accessed.(in red 156-177)
In addition to that, added the five references in this article is discussed with previous research, so that readers can understand the connection with previous research.(in red 311-314, 321-330, 342-34). Some sections on conclusion, research limitations and recommendations has been added to explain possible future suggestions for this research. (in red 357-360, 365-367, 374-381, 383-390)
The last one, some revised sentences in blue words for the paper, thank you.
We really appreciate you checked the article.
Best regards,
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for your effort to revise the manuscript. It has been significantly improved.
Some minor errors in grammar and word choice.
