Coaching-Based Pedagogy and Its Impact on Students’ Self-Regulation among Marginalized and Segregated Communities: Palestinian Arab Middle School Students as a Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I found the topic engaging and important and the writing clear and precise. The literature review established the need your work was seeking to address and the cited research was pertinent and important. I have a few minor suggestions that might improve the manuscript:
1) I appreciate the detail describing the make-up of the two groups involved in the study, but performing statistical tests to show their equivalence and reporting those results would be recommended.
2) Was anything done for the control group of students after the fact to remediate their lost opportunity?
3) What is the scale for the two instruments used in your study? Numerical values as reported in the text and in figures are important, but without knowing the scale values, it is difficult to conceptualize what the changes represent. Also, please report the reliability statistics for your instrument as used with your sample.
4) Figure one displays group means, but is not labeled as such.
5) Table 7 includes both a written p value and asterisks denoting significance of F. Only one of these is needed.
6) The description of your statistical procedures was adequate, but no justifying citations were included in this section of the paper.
6) The discussion makes the claim that disciplinary incidents were significantly reduced by the intervention. This is outside the results as reported earlier in the study, so please adjust the discussion to either remove that claim or include evidence to that end earlier in the paper. Similarly, the claim that learning was more effective for the experimental group, while it may be true, is not supported by the specific findings as presented earlier. Self-regulation was the only outcome measured and compared between groups as the study is currently written. Assertions to the wider effects are not currently supported and shouldn't be made without evidence being presented.
7) I would rewrite the abstract to more precisely represent the analyses that were performed.
Author Response
|
Reader 1 |
||
|
Revision plan |
Readers' comments |
No. |
|
Done: equivalence was added after the demographic tables. Pages 6-8 |
appreciate the detail describing the make-up of the two groups involved in the study, but performing statistical tests to show their equivalence and reporting those results would be recommended. |
1 |
|
Done: Yes and an explanation was provided in the conclusion. Page 16 |
Was anything done for the control group of students after the fact to remediate their lost opportunity? |
2 |
|
Done: As explained in the revision, the final score for self-regulation was computed as the average of item responses. Certain items (1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16) were reverse-coded to ensure accuracy in the scoring process. Selkovski (2013) reported satisfactory reliability for the long-term section (α = 0.80), while the short-term items exhibited slightly lower reliability (α = 0.60). In the present study, the overall reliability coefficient for the self-regulation questionnaire was determined to be α = 0.60. Pages 9-10 |
What is the scale for the two instruments used in your study? Numerical values as reported in the text and in figures are important, but without knowing the scale values, it is difficult to conceptualize what the changes represent. Also, please report the reliability statistics for your instrument as used with your sample. |
3 |
|
Done: group means label was added. Page 14 |
Figure one displays group means, but is not labeled as such |
4 |
|
P value was deleted. Page 15 |
Table 7 includes both a written p value and asterisks denoting significance of F. Only one of these is needed. |
5 |
|
Done: justifying citations were included. |
The description of your statistical procedures was adequate, but no justifying citations were included in this section of the paper. |
6 |
|
The reference to discipline was removed and the emphasis was placed on self-regulation only. Page 16 |
The discussion makes the claim that disciplinary incidents were significantly reduced by the intervention. This is outside the results as reported earlier in the study, so please adjust the discussion to either remove that claim or include evidence to that end earlier in the paper. Similarly, the claim that learning was more effective for the experimental group, while it may be true, is not supported by the specific findings as presented earlier. Self-regulation was the only outcome measured and compared between groups as the study is currently written. Assertions to the wider effects are not currently supported and shouldn't be made without evidence being presented. |
7 |
|
Done. Page 1 |
I would rewrite the abstract to more precisely represent the analyses that were performed |
8 |
Reviewer 2 Report
There is little research reporting on the relationship between SRL and teachers' use of coaching tools. This study has filled the gap.
The current study lacks some details about the content of the program that was used to cultivate students' SRL.
Fluent
Author Response
|
Reader 2 |
||
|
No. |
Readers' comments |
Revision plan |
|
1 |
The current study lacks some details about the content of the program that was used to cultivate students' SRL. |
Done: A full description of the program was added. Page 9 |
|
2 |
English language editing |
Done through professional language editing service |
