Comparing Traditional Teaching and the Personal and Social Responsibility Model: Development of Values in Secondary Education Students
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research presents interesting aspects in dealing with the Personal and Social Responsibility Model and its application in teaching at the secondary education stage.
We point out the following aspects of this article that need to be revised:
Regarding the Procedure, The authors should explain how the instruments and the qualitative questionnaire were applied. When, where, and how long was it carried out? The authors should also add the ethical criteria of the research. In this section, revise the wording of the paragraph (152 - 154) that begins "Once this step" because it is not well understood.
Add the two completed questionnaires in the document or an annexe in the Instruments section. Also, add the validation of the three instruments in their corresponding section. In the case of the PSRQ and ECVA-12, add the initial validation.
In the Methodology section, the authors should explain in detail the procedure for analysing the qualitative teacher questionnaire with Atlas Ti: how the analysis was carried out, which themes or categories were taken into account and the codification system.
In the Results section, the authors are urged to organise and explain this section in more detail, considering themes, categories and codes as suggested in the Methodology section.
In the Discussion, reference is made to "significant improvements" in line 372. This statement is not rigorous because although the experience has increased (not significantly) the development of social responsibility values, it has not contributed to promoting the expected values of personal responsibility. Because of its importance, the authors must discuss why the latter happened. On the other hand, reference is made in line 414 to "students with greater behavioural difficulties". Where does this issue appear in the Results?
In the Conclusion, line 421 talks about implementing this methodology in teaching in general. What is the basis for this Conclusion? Studies and interventions would have to be done in other subjects, which would have to be done as a prospective and not as a conclusion.
Author Response
First of all, I would like to thank you for helping me improve this manuscript with your suggestions. Efforts have been made to attend to all of them, describing the details below their comments and in the manuscript.
We point out the following aspects of this article that need to be revised:
Regarding the Procedure, The authors should explain how the instruments and the qualitative questionnaire were applied. When, where, and how long was it carried out? The authors should also add the ethical criteria of the research. In this section, revise the wording of the paragraph (152 - 154) that begins "Once this step" because it is not well understood.
The explainaiton about the instruments applications has been include (lines 259-267 and 273-277)
Add the two completed questionnaires in the document or an annexe in the Instruments section. Also, add the validation of the three instruments in their corresponding section. In the case of the PSRQ and ECVA-12, add the initial validation.
The questionnaire has been included in line 261 due to it was complete in class by google forms. Reviewing other papers in MDPI journals, it usual to include the link because is highly visual but if the reviwer consider include in anexe section I could do it.
The initial validation of the instruments by their authors have been included (lines 245-247, 256-258 and 269-272).
In the Methodology section, the authors should explain in detail the procedure for analysing the qualitative teacher questionnaire with Atlas Ti: how the analysis was carried out, which themes or categories were taken into account and the codification system.
In the present study, the use of Atlas-ti was only used to have a software with an adequate visualization of the interviews carried out. This is since in many cases, the teachers limited themselves to "reiterating" what other classmates said (they participed in a discussion group and all have to do their own answer. But many answer were of the type “I am agree” or “yes mee too”
This aspect has been included in the limitations section (lines 438-439), so that in future studies, individual interviews should be carried out and not in discussion groups to avoid everyone's "social response".
The author have removed atlas-ti software from section to avoid confusion with the analysis
In the Results section, the authors are urged to organise and explain this section in more detail, considering themes, categories and codes as suggested in the Methodology section.
Due to the questions asked, which did not result in "various answers", the codes would probably match the same question (for instance, “Are the tasks better adapted to the interests of the students”. Codes probably were “are better adapted or not are adapted”).
In the Discussion, reference is made to "significant improvements" in line 372. This statement is not rigorous because although the experience has increased (not significantly) the development of social responsibility values, it has not contributed to promoting the expected values of personal responsibility. Because of its importance, the authors must discuss why the latter happened. On the other hand, reference is made in line 414 to "students with greater behavioral difficulties". Where does this issue appear in the Results?
The statement has been modified. Although, in the results (table 2) significant improvements were found in both social responsibility and personal responsibility (in this case, probably to the small standard deviation), it has also been included that although the data were significant, the change was not too high (lines 398-401)
Line 445 is about “future studies” but, the reviewer is right and it has been delete since in this study we have not “check the students with better or worse behavior.
In the Conclusion, line 421 talks about implementing this methodology in teaching in general. What is the basis for this Conclusion? Studies and interventions would have to be done in other subjects, which would have to be done as a prospective and not as a conclusion.
Conclusion section has been modified. But in this study, in the experimental group several teachers participed as a center project coordinating to apply the model (lines 133-138 and 144). This study is novel mainly due to this aspects because not only the PE teacher participed (that usually it represents only two of the 25 weekly hours of class receiving the methodology (in this study was between 19 and 22 hours).
Once again, thank the reviewer for all his appreciations.
Best regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
This research paper presents a topic of great interest for contemporary society, namely the promotion of the TPSR model. Responsibility, both personal and social, are defining elements of human behavior, and these can be acquired through the Physical Education classes, which presents the ideal context for the formation and development of these educational values, simultaneously with the reduction of violence and undesirable behaviors of the students.
The present study aims to investigate the educational values promoted by the TPSR model within other classes from the mandatory curricula for primary and secondary education. It is a well-documented research and references are up-to-date. However, I believe the article is suitable for publication after making the following changes, which I consider necessary, such as:
1. Lines 11-12 – please mention the quizzes that have been applied;
2. Line 24 – keywords – I believe these keywords are not suggestive for the research paper that you are presenting. The traditional (formal) teaching does not appear, the subjects of the research (secondary education students), the model presented and applied is TPSR, the comparison with other disciplines and then the values promoted by it (social and personal responsibility). I recommend you to rewrite this section.
3. Lines 58-61 – I recommend moving them to the end of the idea presented in lines 49-50;
4. Lines 126-31 – The hypotheses formulated in this way do not reflect the content of the title that this research has. The term Physical Education, which appears in the paper title, does not appear in any of them. I recommend you to review them.
5. At 2.1 - Study design and participants, I consider (believe) that this subchapter has a lot of missing information such as:
- The 14 teachers should be split by the classes they teach. Eg. Physical education (n=2), Music (n=1), Mathematics (n=4), etc.
- Also, I think it is very important to describe the load of hours/classes from the education framework (ex: music – 2h/week; mathematics - 4 hours/week, etc.) because the volume and intensity of the stimulus can be considered higher if, for example, PE is 2x/week and mathematics 4x/week, music only 1x/week. In my opinion, the results of the study can be misinterpreted in this case.
- Are all 14 teachers from the same educational unit? Below, in line 143, it is understood that several schools were involved.
- The 4 teachers who have had experience in teaching the TPRS model, what classes do they teach?
- Regarding the groups of subjects, I feel that an average age should be presented, both for the experimental group and for the control group.
- Also, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the subjects should be mentioned (e.g. the constant attendance at classes of the students included in the experimental and the control group) and of the teaching staff (e.g. participation in the training course in proportion of 80%, if he has seniority in education or is a trainee teacher, etc...information that, from my point of view, can influence the accuracy of the results of the research that you have carried out).
- At the same time, I think it is essential to have the same teaching staff who teach through the traditional method in the control classes and through TPSR in the experimental group, so that the source of stimulus is the same.
6. 2.2.1. Personal and Social Responsibility Model – I recommend that this part, presenting the methodology, should be made more succinct, because the proportion between the research data, discussions and methodology is very unbalanced.
7. At 3.1. Descriptive analysis, I think in line 277, you are referring to table 2, because table 1 presents the teacher interview questions. Please correct this aspect.
8. Also in table 2, I notice that the data is processed into a centralized manner. According to the title, I think it should have at least been divided into physical education and the other classes to which the TPSR model was applied. Although, in order to obtain more conclusive results (to see more clearly the impact that the model has on the behavior of students), I believe that the data should have been processed independently for each class included in the experiment (e.g. mathematics, music, PE, etc)
9. At 3.2.Responsibility results, the data do not present the demographic characteristics of the students, number of students/groups and also, as I stated previously, according to the title, it would be indicated to distinguish, at least between EFS and the other cumulative classes (although, I repeat, I consider that it is not conclusive enough in that way). If centralized processing is desired, the title must be changed!
10. At 3.3. Interview results, I believe that teachers' answers should be expressed in percentage values (eg: question 1 – 13 out of 14 teachers... 92.85%). Also, where you use the terms teacher A, teacher B, etc, I think you should mention the classes he/she teaches. At the end of the chapter, I recommend making a graph that determines the visualization of all these data. (for example, having as the horizontal axis item no. - and on the vertical, the percentage value %). Only from the descriptive part of the interview applied to teaching staff, it is quite difficult for the reader to form an overall opinion.
11. Lines 369 – 370 – I recommend that you to reformulate the purpose of this paper in accordance with its title and what you mentioned in the introduction chapter regarding physical education.
12. Line 372 – „.... significant improvements...”, please support this statement with the statistical data obtained.
13. Lines 379-380 – „.... in our study both responsibility 379 types improved” – please present the statistical data obtained.
14. Line 382 – what values did the previous methodology have? Please specify them!
15. You do not provide objective arguments for the presented conclusions, because the data was processed and presented in a centralized manner. Perhaps even the fact that this model is a basic one in physical education, led to the achievement of statistically significant results in this research paper!!!
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewer. I attach you the document with your suggestions (in black color) and the answer (red color)
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This study presents exciting aspects to advance the Personal and Social Responsibility Model study. The authors have made the proposed changes.
It is necessary to indicate how this has been done in the qualitative methodology. It is possible to follow a particular approach to qualitative analysis, which does not include coding, without implying data analysis with a particular programme. In any case, it is necessary to clarify this issue to be precise and better clarify how the methodology has been done.
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewer,
A paragraph with the explanation about the qualitative process has been included (lines 275-282; 292-298)
Bedt wishes
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank you for taking into account my suggestions and I congratulate you for all the effort put into this scientific approach.
Kind regards!
Author Response
Thank you to the reviewer
