Analysis of Teacher-Student Interaction in the Joint Solving of Non-Routine Problems in Primary Education Classrooms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

In general, it is not a well-organized and well-written manuscript, not reaching the high standards of the Sustainability journal. The study lacks of scientific rigor. Please find below some minor/major comments/suggestions:
- In the abstract, please review the following: “there is scarce reasoning and little participation of students on students’ part.”
- references should not be used in the abstract: “Study (see [1]);
- The keyword “Creativity” should be used in the abstract; Unfortunately, this term was not explored in the results and/or discussion sections.
- The Theoretical framework section needs to be covered by relevant literature review.
- The following sentence (page 4) needs review: “Regarding teacher and students’ participation in the solving process, [49], analyzed the recordings of a teacher and her students while solving routine problems in the classroom during two consecutive years, taking into account teacher and student participation and how the information flow was directed.”
- Figure 1 should be included as annex.
- Change from “content; [4]).” To “content [4]).”
- A clear justification is needed for the following: “Metacognitive Processes (Generalization and Regulation, 21.66% of the total of cycles), and Other Processes (Control and Reading, 12.78% of the cycles total) were not considered in this study.”
- The hypothesis of study 1 should be presented at very beginning, instead on “measures” section.
- Sample size is too small, as mentioned in the “General discussion” section.
- From the methodological point of view, the purpose of presenting two studies is unclear and confusing.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
See the attachment, please

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting, it is based on an extensive qualitative study that includes all the necessary sections, however there are some aspects that have to be addressed:

- It is necessary to add more current references
- In the studies, the sample of students who participate in the experience must be made clear
- The conclusions must be expanded

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
See the attachment, please

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for allowing me to review this paper.

The subject matter is within the monographic and this journal, however, allow me to make some considerations:

 

1. The abstract should not include bibliographical references, but should be more specific and focus on explaining the method, the general results and the most relevant conclusions. In the body of the article you can find the references you consider appropriate.
2. Reading the introduction suggests that I am going to find the two studies below, but what I find is the theoretical framework. I believe that the authors could revise this and unite the introduction with the theoretical framework and, at the end of the theoretical framework, propose the two studies in accordance with the two research objectives that are set out. I believe that it would better synthesize the current state of the construct that would allow proposing the appropriate research questions that would be answered by the two studies.
3. The theoretical framework should follow a common thread and not be compartmentalised into tasks and student-teacher relationships. At the end of the day, what is presented is one investigation and not two. It would not be understood that two studies are presented in one article and that they are not related.
4. In lines 124-126, the authors of the paper give their opinion on the objectives of education without referring to which objective they are referring to. They should comment on this fact or make an allusive reference to the approaches to education that support this objective that the authors comment on.
5. After a careful reading of the introduction and the theoretical framework, I think that the authors could make it more specific and leave aside aspects that distract the reader, such as talking on several occasions about the objective of the study or studies, and then returning to it before starting with the two studies. I think that we should not waste time and synthesize the theoretical framework in two pages on how the state of the question is in the two aspects that they want to study and then pose the two research objectives that will be specified as a question of research that will be answered through two studies.
6. In the case of a study with people, the researchers must present an ethical opinion in order to carry out the research.
7. The statistics used to measure reliability are consistent with the model applied.
8. I am surprised that the hypotheses appear just before the results of the study and not when the study's model is considered. I believe that they should be placed at the beginning of the study and then all the statistics and tests carried out to be able to prove or not the hypothesis should make sense.
9. In the last paragraph of the discussion of Study 1, the need for Study 2 is justified. Let me explain. It seems that Study 1 was carried out first and, as it was not possible to justify certain results, a second study was proposed, incorporating other variables. The result is that the introduction and the theoretical framework are not correctly spun and appear as two different things. On the other hand, the hypotheses of the respective studies, instead of being at the beginning of the work, are found almost at the end of each one. The approach of the work presented by the researchers clearly makes it difficult to read.
10. In Study 2 there is no discussion as there was in Study 1. It is not understood that after carrying out a study there is no discussion as there has been for the other one. On the other hand, there is a general discussion where the hypotheses that were not raised at the beginning of the studies or the article in the theoretical framework are raised again.
11. The last sentence of the conclusions "Moreover, teachers and teachers-to-be should be trained for such purpose [69, 70] this could help to form citizens with a critical and collaborative spirit who can contribute to sustainable development. I think it does not add anything to the conclusions and is based on an assumption of the authors.
12. The authors are thanked for making the spreadsheet available to the reviewers.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
See the attachment, please

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you very much for your answers.

Now I see a work with more consistency and clarity in the writing.

Hypotheses should be reformulated according to established standards and not just as statements.

However, in line 339 and 340 the text is incomplete. Check it.

In the conclusions the font is changed.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

We want to thank the reviewer for their interesting and helpful comments and suggestions, which we have tried to consider as much as possible.

 

Sincerely, Beatriz Sánchez-Barbero

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf