Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article attempts to study and highlights the relationship between digital platforms, parental involvement, teacher-child interactions, on line communication, and family-school partnership.

Well, this study is based on the analysis of questionnaires applied to the different actors of such complex relations. All this study appears to me no correctly performed. The experience parents and teachers may practically observe from the impact of digital platforms on young people is mainly negative or at least generate relationship problems. In this article, the results fully confirm the objectives announced at the beginning of the article that is "All is fine with the usage of digital platforms to enhance kids-parents-teachers relationships". The reality is strongly different and I cannot believe the presented results.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your research presents a significant and relatively novel exploration of the impact of digital platforms on family-school partnerships. To deepen the originality of your study, it would be beneficial to more explicitly differentiate your findings from existing models or theories in digital communication and educational psychology. This could include a more nuanced discussion of how your results align with or diverge from established theories.

While your contribution to scholarship is commendable, I suggest that your future research includes longitudinal impacts or variations across different cultural or socio-economic contexts could provide a broader understanding of the subject matter. Additionally, consider in your current study an exploration of the implications of your findings to policy-making or educational practice.

Additionally, the structure and clarity of your paper are excellent. However, strengthening the logical coherence of your argument is recommended. This can be achieved by more directly connecting your results to your hypotheses and by offering a deeper analysis of potential study limitations and their implications.

Overall, your paper is of high merit. To further enhance its impact, consider conducting additional studies to reinforce and expand upon your conclusions. These could include qualitative studies or comparative analyses that offer more varied insights into the role of digital platforms in different educational settings. Such efforts would not only solidify your findings but also contribute more robustly to the field.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article examines the mechanisms through which digital platforms influence home-school partnerships between parents and children in Taiwan. Studying the role of parental involvement, teacher-child interaction and online communication is significant for the sustainable development of society.

The methodology corresponds to the stated goal. The research is holistic and complete. The results of the study have scientific and practical value.

 

However, the authors need to refine the article in the following areas:

1. Page 7, Figure 1. In front of the figure is a hypothesis. The hypothesis must be moved higher or lower. The letters indicating the points of the theoretical model must be revealed. Perhaps the figure should be moved to the next section (Methods), which will be justified, since it is in the next section that the disclosure of the model is presented.

2. In the Conclusion it is necessary to indicate which of the hypotheses were confirmed and how.

3. In the Conclusion, starting with the words “In conclusion” is unjustified, since it is a tautology.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a timely and significant study that investigate how digital platforms affect family-school partnership among parents of young children. I find this manuscript is well structured and presented. The method is valid and appropriate. The conclusion is sounded. Overall, I think it is a good piece of work. However, I encourage the authors to sharpen the arguments a little bit. Here are my comments for their reference:

1) As the measure used is to assess parents' attitude/perception/satisfaction of digital platforms, it is better for the authors to rephrase the idea of the influence of digital platforms. This is because the current presentation like "digital platforms have a positive impact on parental involvement" implies that the presentence of digital platforms/number of digital platforms matter. But, what the authors are studying is not whether digital platforms or how many the platforms exists. They actually are concerned about the experiences of parents in using or engaging in the platforms. Thus, it is better for them to rephrase it in order to better express the correct meaning.

2) I know this is a study conducted in Taiwan. Therefore, I would like to know more about Taiwan context. How the context matters in the study?

3) From line 28 to line 11, the authors give a detailed background of the research. It is good. However, it is expected that the author can precisely highlight the research and how the study is going to fill the gap in order to show its significance. Therefore, I recommend the authors rework the introduction a little bit.

4) I think the authors can explicitly highlight the significance or contributions of the study to the literature in Conclusion.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a work adjusted to the current situation and interesting for the importance of digital communication within the educational contexts to establish this collaborative work network between family and school, congratulations to the authors for the work. To highlight small aspects of improvement:

1. The hypotheses I would group them all at the end of the theoretical framework as a point where the main objective and the eight hypotheses are indicated. In such a way that the theoretical framework would contain the bases on which the study is based.

2. At the beginning of the method it would be appropriate to indicate that it is a quantitative methodology, there is no reference to the methodology and it starts directly with the sample.

3. In the sample it would be advisable to present some of the distribution data in a table, visually it is more clarifying than just written, because a distribution is made according to several variables.

4. I consider it appropriate to indicate the number of items that make up each of the five dimensions in which the instrument is found, some of the items are indicated and explained, but the total number of items in each of them is not clear.

5. The data collection procedure is missing, i.e., once the sample is accessed, how the questionnaire is applied.

6. The discussion would be advisable to include some quotations from all those collected where a real discussion is established between the results of this study and other previous studies.

7. The references should be in alphabetical order.

Everything indicated are small details of improvements within the article, it is an interesting contribution as I have indicated at the beginning of the review.

 

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

I would like to congratulate the authors. Encouraging family participation through digital platforms is a very interesting topic.

They have proposed a study of correlations with different hypotheses and a causal model where the incidences of the different factors are seen. The theoretical framework has been well worked out with related work for each hypothesis, which has then also served to carry out the discussion.

The method is well detailed, as well as the results presented correctly and in a way that is understandable to the reader.

I suggest its acceptance motivated by the quality and good work of the researchers.

Best regards

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf