Towards a Cooperative Learning Environment in Universities through In-Service Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I would like to congratulate them on their work. In general you have presented an interesting study but I consider certain issues to be improved.

Introducction

Line 33. “to the growing investment on training made by universities.” Please, reference this statement

Line 60-66. The cooperative learning is the focus of the study, I consider that it is necessary to be treated with more amplitude in the introduction.

Line 75. In hypothesis 1 you talk about collaboration. However, cooperation and collaboration are not the same thing. I consider it fundamental that you qualify this difference and that you use the terms rigorously

The effects of cooperative learning differ according to the cooperative technique used. It might be interesting to talk slightly about the results expected through your cooperative technique. Furthemore, men and women do not collaborate equally, as is the case with university students. I see that you have few references to the magazine, please check out the Sustainability special on cooperative learning

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/cooperative_learning_sus

Matherial and Method

2.1 Context. Please, Indicate the university or universities where the research was conducted

2.2 Participant. Why do you talk about the average age in g1 but not in g2?

2.3 Procedure. I consider it very important to highlight the cooperative technique that has been used

2.5 Statistical analysis. Is it possible that you have not indicated the statistical software and its version?

Result

LINE 235. Check the alignment of the footer in table 3

LINE 246-248. “The MANOVA considers simultaneously two independent, non-metric variables, which grants a global perspective that cannot be achieved individually through the isolated application of variables on a continuous output” Please, reference this statement

Discussion

In general, the discussion of its results and comparison with other research seems to me to be improvable. Please try to compare your results with more research. If possible, highlighting the cooperative techniques used.

Gender and CL have been studied in university students offering significant differences when they cooperate. I think it is important to highlight this factor because their study sample is equitable. It is a strength of their research.

Again, I see few articles in Sustainability journal, there are several special issues that can serve as a reference. 

I would like to see more concrete practical applications of your work. Whenever possible

Future lines of study should be developed more widely

LINE 331-335. I may be wrong, but I have the feeling that cooperation and collaboration are not the same thing. This paragraph seems confusing to me because of that small detail

LINE 406. The conclusion seems to me quite poor. Not having a proper conclusion impoverishes the good work done

REFERENCES

Please update your references, you do not have any from 2020, nor 2019, only two from 2018. Is this possible?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

• In the abstract, the study is explained to be performed for both students and teachers. The term professors should be changed to university teachers. And then it is argued that ‘faculty showed’. To me there should be differences for both target groups. Since the title refers to In-Service Training, please summarize the effects of the application of CL for the In-service students.
• In the abstract it would be necessary to specify the areas in which CL was applied. Do not use the term ‘different’.
• In the Introduction section, the effects of implementing CL to both pre-service students or in-service students in the domain of tertiary education should be enlarged. For example, you might use three references:

Cañabate, D.; Serra, T.; Bubnys, R.; Colomer, J. Pre-Service Teachers’ Reflections on Cooperative Learning: Instructional Approaches and Identity Construction. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5970.

Baena-Morales, S.; Jerez-Mayorga, D.; Fernández-González, F.T.; López-Morales, J. The Use of a Cooperative-Learning Activity with University Students: A Gender Experience. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9292.

Bassachs, M.; Cañabate, D.; Serra, T.; Colomer, J. Interdisciplinary Cooperative Educational Approaches to Foster Knowledge and Competences for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8624.

• For Hypothesis 2, the term ‘teacher area’ should be changed to ‘bachelor degree’ or ‘master degree’. Could you identify the specific ones?. In the abstract should be defining the target group which is a 1^st year university. Is that right?
• In the methodology, you state that 7 variables are used. In Education is preferable to use the term ‘dimension’. For the rest, the methodology section is correct.
• In Table 4, the heading should provide more information on all the columns and rows.
• Line 237: Please, rephrase Results exhibit significant differences for the set of teachers, since to me the target group ‘teachers’ is confused. Please, clarify in the whole manuscript, the target groups.
• Line 275. Again, I am lost with the term ‘different areas’. They should be specified.
• Figures 2, 3 and 4, present values in the axes, with comas. You should use points and not commas. Is it possible to present a single graph with all these results, together? For examples, 1 figure with three cases a), b) and c)?
• The manuscript will gain by providing more information on the dimension, especially for reflection and tutoring. Can you add this information to the methodology section.
• For comparing different areas, you may have a look to this recently published manuscript:

Cañabate, D.; Garcia-Romeu, M.L.; Menció, A.; Nogué, L.; Planas, M.; Solé-Pla, J. Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of Cooperative Learning Dimensions Based on Higher Education Students’ Perceptions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8156.

• The discussion is sound, although you may add more discussion on the CL dimensions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have completed all my comments with precise answers.

Please, rephrase the text in line 396, since the term 'ch' is not clear. Probably, should be deleted.