Exploring the Development of Student Teachers’ Knowledge Construction in Peer Assessment: A Quantitative Ethnography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive comments on this study, which has given us great encouragement. We will continue our research in this field and live up to your trust.

Finally, we would like to thank you again for your time and effort in reviewing this manuscript and wish you a happy life.

Reviewer 2 Report

.Very nice job. A very important topic. Fist time PA is used on page two it should be spelled out -- peer assessment.  Very nice introduction and literature review. When authors are cited within check where reference number is located.  Identify specific PA activities used in the study right in the text.  What was the composition (male and female) of each group? What was the specific course students were enrolled in and what were the specific activities they participated in? How many comments were provided for each group? In your discussion on page 14 you mention male groups and female groups -- were they not all split between male and female?  Groups need to be identified clearly.  I think there are more limitations then those noted.  Also, were students first year students (freshman) or what year were they?  This could have an impact and other types of students should be studied. Some small edits are needed throughout. I compliment the authors for conducting this study.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript, further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. Words in red are the changes I have made in the manuscript. Now I response your comments with a point by point. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Exploring the development of student teachers’ knowledge construction in peer assessment: A Quantitative Ethnography

 

 

This research has two essential values. The first investigates evaluation and the second investigates the peer assessment methodology. Frequently, when Initial Teacher Education or Secondary Teacher Master students are faced with the task of assessing their Primary or Secondary students, they usually feel very confused. This research aims to influence how to evaluate and how to do it in pairs. So, it looks promising.

However, the attempt to use a quantitative ethnography does not seem recommendable in this case given the small number of participants. In Shaffer's theories, a key component of quantitative ethnography is epistemic network analysis (ENA), a cognitive representation based on a cognitive framework to use in digital learning environments. The idea of using the Epistemic Network Analysis is based in analyzing the Structure of Connections in Cognitive, Social, and Interaction Data.

The authors have undoubtedly made a great effort in this analysis but for those interested in interpretive methodologies we found several gaps. For example, that after exhaustive statistics, the conclusions are somewhat diffuse, and above all that the examples of the comments that have been affiliated or associated to the different codes are not exemplified. An ethnographic study is based on the interpretation of the meanings and the categorization and codification of the same, but it is necessary to show examples that demonstrate that the interpretation and codification has been correct. Despite this essential gap, the research is interesting, and the methodological work is correct.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your opinions, these comments are very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised our manuscript, further clarify the logic of writing for improving the quality of the manuscript. Words in red are the changes I have made in the manuscript. Now I response your comments with a point by point. We sincerely hope that you find our responses and modifications satisfactory and that the manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments to the authors have been addressed.