Emergency Remote Teaching and Social–Emotional Learning: Examining Gender Differences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction
This is well written and focuses on salient issues. However, I wonder if it could be a tad more succinct. Is all the information in it really crucial from the point of view of this study?
Methodology
Please elaborate more on why you chose a mixed-methods approach. Simply stating that it provides rich data does not suffice.
What was the questionnaire based on?
How was the questionnaire validated?
How was the qualitative data analysed?
Please specify why you used both ANOVA and t-test. Why wasn’t ANOVA enough? Did you check the assumptions for using ANOVA (normal distribution etc)?
Regarding the statistical significance, what is the effect size?
The qualitative data is not presented clearly. There are long direct quotes in the text, which is distracting. Please revise this section to make it more reader-friendly.
The dataset of this paper is quite small and descriptive. These limitations should be discussed more in the paper.
Discussion
One shouldn’t use new references in the discussion. However, you introduce references (e.g., Enzgell et al., 2020; Blundell et al., 2020) that were not discussed or mentioned in the introduction. This should be avoided. Please make sure that all the references of the discussion are also mentioned in the introduction/theory.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 1
First, I wish to thank you for your beneficial comments, which allowed me to strengthen and improve the article. As you will see, many changes have been incorporated in and throughout the manuscript. Further comments or suggestions will be appreciated.
Below you may find a detailed response to each of your comments:
Please elaborate more on why you chose a mixed-methods approach. Simply stating that it provides rich data does not suffice.
I have added a more detailed explanation on page 9.
What was the questionnaire based on?
Please see addition in section 3.2 (p. 9).
How was the questionnaire validated?
As indicated, an expert validation. I added a short clarification.
How was the qualitative data analysed?
Please see changes in section 3.3 (p. 10).
Please specify why you used both ANOVA and t-test. Why wasn’t ANOVA enough? Did you check the assumptions for using ANOVA (normal distribution etc)?
This is a mistake that is now corrected – only t-test in this case.
Regarding the statistical significance, what is the effect size?
Here are the details (see p. 11): Gender differences (research questions 2) were examined next. Significant differences emerged between male and female teachers with regard to statement 2 (experience with the students): Male teachers (M=3.43, SD-1.12) rated this statement higher than female teachers (M=2.92, SD=1.01). The differences were statistically significant (t=2.05, p=0.04).
The qualitative data is not presented clearly. There are long direct quotes in the text, which is distracting. Please revise this section to make it more reader-friendly.
This section has been reorganized and some long quotes were shortened. I hope it is now more reader friendly.
The dataset of this paper is quite small and descriptive. These limitations should be discussed more in the paper.
Please see p. 19, for a detailed discussion on research limitations, dataset size included.
Discussion
One shouldn’t use new references in the discussion. However, you introduce references (e.g., Enzgell et al., 2020; Blundell et al., 2020) that were not discussed or mentioned in the introduction. This should be avoided. Please make sure that all the references of the discussion are also mentioned in the introduction/theory.
The additional references relate to students experience. This is a relevant issue; however, it is not within the scope of this article (and therefore does not appear in the literature review). The new references are merely used in the discussion to support the claims that relate to the students experience, the widening of gaps and from there teachers' roles and responsibilities. In fact, I have been requested by another reviewer to elaborate on the comparison between the two groups (teachers and students) and as a result needed to add a few more new references.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper attempted to explore some of the changes in teachers' perceptions following a change in the teaching environment (the implementation of distance learning) and the associations with socio-emotional learning through a mixed-method study, making recommendations accordingly.
The title of this paper seems like an accumulation of keywords and does not accurately convey the theme, object and purpose of the study. The background section of the introduction to the paper is not sufficiently detailed to clearly demonstrate the developmental path from background to research theme and research motivation, and also does not explain why gender differences in perceptions of education are being studied.
The paper used a mixed-method research approach, but strictly speaking the authors might not have captured the nature of mixed research. Both the overall design, and the design of the quantitative and qualitative research, are relatively simple and raw. It was not possible to grasp the nature of mixed research from a methodological perspective. For instance, the quantitative study only used basic descriptive statistics and lacked significance tests; the qualitative study did not present the coding process that it should have, and the basic operational processes such as constant comparison, conceptual sampling principles, and conceptual saturation.
The research methodology determines the credibility and feasibility of a study, and such a simple research design cannot lead to a scientific conclusion with theoretical implication and practical sense, and lacks replicability. I do not recommend acceptance of the paper for publication.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 2
First, I wish to thank you for your beneficial comments, which allowed me to strengthen and improve the article. As you will see, many changes have been incorporated in and throughout the manuscript. Further comments or suggestions will be appreciated.
Below you may find a detailed response to each of your comments:
The paper attempted to explore some of the changes in teachers' perceptions following a change in the teaching environment (the implementation of distance learning) and the associations with socio-emotional learning through a mixed-method study, making recommendations accordingly.
The title of this paper seems like an accumulation of keywords and does not accurately convey the theme, object and purpose of the study.
I have revised the title, to emphasize the major focus of the article – gender differences.
The background section of the introduction to the paper is not sufficiently detailed to clearly demonstrate the developmental path from background to research theme and research motivation, and also does not explain why gender differences in perceptions of education are being studied.
I have elaborated a bit more on the justification to focus on gender differences and added more references to support the rationale.
The paper used a mixed-method research approach, but strictly speaking the authors might not have captured the nature of mixed research. Both the overall design, and the design of the quantitative and qualitative research, are relatively simple and raw. It was not possible to grasp the nature of mixed research from a methodological perspective. For instance, the quantitative study only used basic descriptive statistics and lacked significance tests;
There are some significance tests. For example, see p. 11: Gender differences (research questions 2) were examined next. Significant differences emerged between male and female teachers with regard to statement 2 (experience with the students): Male teachers (M=3.43, SD-1.12) rated this statement higher than female teachers (M=2.92, SD=1.01). The differences were statistically significant (t=2.05, p=0.04).
the qualitative study did not present the coding process that it should have, and the basic operational processes such as constant comparison, conceptual sampling principles, and conceptual saturation.
I agree and therefore changed the definition of "a mixed method research" to "self-report questionnaire comprising closed and open questions". I have also elaborated on the process, rationale and value of this kind of examination (p. 9).
The research methodology determines the credibility and feasibility of a study, and such a simple research design cannot lead to a scientific conclusion with theoretical implication and practical sense, and lacks replicability. I do not recommend acceptance of the paper for publication.
Yes, there are significant limitations to this study (see p. 19), however there is value too in this mainly exploratory study (see p. 9).
Reviewer 3 Report
Emergency Remote Teaching, Social-Emotional Learning and Gender
The work is well contextualized, the theme is of interest and has been emerging since the beginning of the century associated with the problems of e-learning in educational and training contexts. It also presents a good bibliographical basis, with citations to recent research.
However, in my opinion, the paper has some limitations to be published in a scientifically recognized journal:
- The "research questions" section should be integrated in the "method" section.
- The authors talk about using a mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative), but they use only one questionnaire in their research. I think that what the authors do fits a questionnaire research, because this is the only element of information collection. It is the questionnaire that has one part for collecting quantitative information and another part for collecting qualitative information. They should think about that.
- In the method section, they do not specify the categories resulting from the qualitative component of the questionnaire. The categories are only specified in the results (Diagram1). The description of the categories and how they were created are a component of the methodology. It is the results obtained for these categories that are already part of the findings.
The authors talk about a significant difference between males and females in the discussion of the results (line 390). However, this information is not substantiated with any kind of analysis. Then, this statement does not seem compatible with what is said in line 448, where the authors state that the small sample size does not allow definitive conclusions. Also in the analysis of table 1, the authors state that the significant differences are in relation to question 2. These aspects should be clear to the readers of the paper.
These aspects should be improved.
Author Response
Response to reviewer 3
First, I wish to thank you for your beneficial comments, which allowed me to strengthen and improve the article. As you will see, many changes have been incorporated in and throughout the manuscript. Further comments or suggestions will be appreciated.
Below you may find a detailed response to each of your comments:
The work is well contextualized, the theme is of interest and has been emerging since the beginning of the century associated with the problems of e-learning in educational and training contexts. It also presents a good bibliographical basis, with citations to recent research.
However, in my opinion, the paper has some limitations to be published in a scientifically recognized journal:
- The "research questions" section should be integrated in the "method" section.
- The authors talk about using a mixed methodology (qualitative and quantitative), but they use only one questionnaire in their research. I think that what the authors do fits a questionnaire research, because this is the only element of information collection. It is the questionnaire that has one part for collecting quantitative information and another part for collecting qualitative information. They should think about that.
I agree and therefore changed the definition of "a mixed method research" to "self-report questionnaire comprising closed and open questions". I have also elaborated on the rationale and value of this kind of examination (p. 9).
- In the method section, they do not specify the categories resulting from the qualitative component of the questionnaire. The categories are only specified in the results (Diagram1). The description of the categories and how they were created are a component of the methodology. It is the results obtained for these categories that are already part of the findings.
Corrected. The categories are now specified in the method section and the content analysis process is explained and clarified. Please see changes in section 3.3 (p. 10).
The authors talk about a significant difference between males and females in the discussion of the results (line 390). However, this information is not substantiated with any kind of analysis.
Please see p. 11: Gender differences (research questions 2) were examined next. Significant differences emerged between male and female teachers with regard to statement 2 (experience with the students): Male teachers (M=3.43, SD-1.12) rated this statement higher than female teachers (M=2.92, SD=1.01). The differences were statistically significant (t=2.05, p=0.04).
Then, this statement does not seem compatible with what is said in line 448, where the authors state that the small sample size does not allow definitive conclusions.
This statement refers to the qualitative analysis, I have now emphasized it in the text.
Also in the analysis of table 1, the authors state that the significant differences are in relation to question 2. These aspects should be clear to the readers of the paper.
This analysis (p.11) refers to research question 2 (see p. 8) that deals with gender differences.
Reviewer 4 Report
The article has not raised specific research questions
It is necessary to explain briefly the research process carried out by collecting and analyzing the data
Better to add references reputable journals (articles that have active DOIs) so that they can be stronger and more in-depth In the discussion, it is better to add references from reputable journals (articles that have active DOIs) so that they can be stronger and more in-depth
In the background, there is no mention of teacher training, but in the conclusion, it is conveyed teacher training.
It is better if the conclusion contains the conclusions of the research results according to the research question.
Regarding teacher training, it can be included as a recommendation
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to reviewer 4
First, I wish to thank you for your beneficial comments, which allowed me to strengthen and improve the article. As you will see, many changes have been incorporated in and throughout the manuscript. Further comments or suggestions will be appreciated.
Below you may find a detailed response to each of your comments:
The article has not raised specific research questions
Please see p. 8:
Research questions
The purpose of the present study is to find out: (1) How Israeli educators perceive and evaluate the implications of the switch to emergency remote learning, (2) what are the differences between female and male teachers, with emphasis on the social-emotional aspects of the switch to emergency remote learning, including self-perception and perception of the students.
It is necessary to explain briefly the research process carried out by collecting and analyzing the data
The method section has been revised thoroughly. I have elaborated on the research process, rationale and value (p. 9).
Better to add references reputable journals (articles that have active DOIs) so that they can be stronger and more in-depth In the discussion, it is better to add references from reputable journals (articles that have active DOIs) so that they can be stronger and more in-depth
More references (and stronger ones) have been added to support the rationale of the study and in the discussion.
It is better if the conclusion contains the conclusions of the research results according to the research question.
The conclusion here mainly refers possible implications of the research. In a way, it articulates its "bottom line". Therefore, and although I understand the comment and its potential value, I have decided not to make changes in this case.
In the background, there is no mention of teacher training, but in the conclusion, it is conveyed teacher training. Regarding teacher training, it can be included as a recommendation
Following your suggestion; teacher training is now discussed in section 5.1 – recommendation for teacher training.
Reviewer 5 Report
Please see attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to reviewer 5
First, I wish to thank you for your beneficial comments, which allowed me to strengthen and improve the article. As you will see, many changes have been incorporated in and throughout the manuscript. Further comments or suggestions will be appreciated.
Below you may find a detailed response to each of your comments:
- The manuscript have been rearranged according to your suggestions.
- The redundant ethical sentence have been deleted.
- As suggested, a comparison with students' views has been added (including reference to the studies suggested – thanks for this).
- References are in APA style at the moment, but should the article be accepted for publication they will certainly be corrected to comply with MDPI requirements.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes were made. However, I recommend a spell check.
Author Response
Thanks for your attention. I read through the transcript once again and made further corrections (spelling and wording).
Reviewer 2 Report
In the data analysis section of 3.3, since the authors talk about and cite the way in which the categories are formed in Straus & Corbin's Grounded Theory, the authors are asked to provide details of the three-level coding table for forming the five categories.
Author Response
Thanks for this comment. Indeed, a clarification was needed. as originally mentioned, in this study the analysis used only the open coding phase, allowing for preliminary categorization of the contents. However, I have clarified that it is only in future studies that this process could facilitate the formation of grounded theory. It would have to be a larger sacale study, preferably using interviews and not only questionnaire. As mentioned, this study is exploratory in nature, hopefully opening up possibilities for future research to substantiate the findings and to deepen the understanding of the different views and dynamics.
Reviewer 3 Report
The document has improved in terms of clarity and organization. It can be published.
Author Response
Thank you.
Reviewer 5 Report
The authors have mostly complied with the reviewer's comments. The revised version of the manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Thank you.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for this comment. Indeed, a clarification was needed. as originally mentioned, in this study the analysis used only the open coding phase, allowing for preliminary categorization of the contents. However, I have clarified that it is only in future studies that this process could facilitate the formation of grounded theory. It would have to be a larger sacale study, preferably using interviews and not only questionnaire. As mentioned, this study is exploratory in nature, hopefully opening up possibilities for future research to substantiate the findings and to deepen the understanding of the different views and dynamics.
I don't find your explanation convincing. Whether you use Grounded Theory or not, open coding does not form categories as it is only a conceptualization process. I suggest you rework your qualitative research methodology section to use more appropriate expressions and references
Author Response
Thanks again. I have elaborated on the open coding process, its stages and uses. I hope this is what you mean ( I wasn't sure).
As a qualitative researcher, I believe I have used an appropriate term. Open coding is a process of forming initial categories based on content analysis (labeling, gathering etc.). But again, perhaps I misunderstood your comment.
