Model for the Analysis of Social Regulation and Collaboration during the Development of Group Tasks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hi, Dear Authors:

After reading your model for social regulation and collaboration in a Master's degree, I have some observations or suggestions:

1. In table 1, describe how these phases were involved in the educational process of the students. What was the educational methodology?, What were the activities in the course or courses?

2. You use non-observant participation. ¿What was the Intercoder Agreement (ICA) to codify every interaction in dimension and stages?

3. Why were the groups created the way Table 2 indicates?

4. Could you provide examples of the interactions, e.g., What would be a "metacognitive" interaction?

5. Could the results be aligned with experience, e.g., working experience, etc., in the groups?

6. What would be the implications of your work?

Please, address these comments in the manuscript.

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Dear evaluators, in the attached format you will find the change control on the observations and suggested changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a comprehensive model for analyzing and characterizing social regulation and collaboration during the development of group tasks. The proposed model integrates task regulation, communication regulation, and collaborative work, articulated through a well-defined four-phase structure. The study contributes a novel framework that could significantly impact educational settings and collaborative work environments. The articulation of components and phases provides a systematic approach to understanding and enhancing group dynamics and task outcomes. The model's validation through empirical data further strengthens its applicability and relevance.

 While the manuscript outlines a robust model, it could benefit from a clearer differentiation from existing models like Bruce Tuckman’s Team Development Model or Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y. These models also address phases of group development and motivational assumptions in collaborative environments. The authors should provide a more detailed comparison with established theories to highlight the distinctiveness and contributions of their model. It would be beneficial to expand the literature review to include a broader range of theories and models that deal with social regulation and collaboration. This expansion should not only reinforce the theoretical underpinnings but also situate the model within the broader discourse of collaborative learning and work.

 The authors have commendably outlined the use of multiple analytical tools including MAXQDA for qualitative analysis, and IBM-SPSS version 25, R-Studio 4.3.3, and Infostat software for quantitative data analysis. While the selection of these tools is apt for the study's complex data sets, the manuscript could be significantly strengthened by a more detailed description of the methodologies employed during the data collection and analysis phases. This enhancement is crucial not only for bolstering the manuscript's robustness but also for ensuring the reproducibility of the study—a cornerstone of scientific inquiry.

The manuscript would benefit from a detailed account of how MAXQDA was utilized to code, categorize, and interpret the qualitative data. A comprehensive explanation should include the specific coding scheme used, the process of thematic analysis, and the method by which themes were systematically derived and validated from the data. Providing these details will help in understanding the depth and the rigor of the qualitative analysis, thereby enhancing the credibility of the study.

The authors are encouraged to provide clarity on the specific statistical tests and models applied within IBM-SPSS, R-Studio, and Infostat and the rationale behind their selection. The description should cover detailed usage of IBM-SPSS for performing specific statistical tests, the application of custom scripts or functions in R-Studio, including examples of code snippets if possible, and the role of Infostat in the analysis process, especially how it complements the functionalities of the other software tools. This detailed exposition will not only justify the choice of multiple software tools but will also illuminate the analytical processes that underpin the study's findings.

The application of the Bias-Corrected Bootstrap Confidence Interval method in covariance analysis is particularly noteworthy. A detailed description of how this method was implemented to enhance the robustness of the analysis will be beneficial. This should include the steps taken to implement the method in the chosen software environment, the reasons for choosing this method over other potential methods, and how this approach contributes to the accuracy and reliability of the results.

Incorporating these detailed methodological descriptions will greatly facilitate the scientific community's ability to verify, replicate, and extend the findings. I recommend these revisions for a more comprehensive and robust presentation of the research study.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear evaluators, in the attached format you will find the change control on the observations and suggested changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a model for analyzing social regulation during the development of collaborative tasks. The concept is relevant to the field, but the manuscript lacks clarity in explaining how the model is applied and validated. First it is important to provide a more detailed explanation of the model's framework, including different variables in social regulation. Also, the manuscript should provide a detailed explanation of the foundational theories or prior models upon which the authors' contributions are based, so that advances in the field, the novelty and the contribution of the authors is clear. Unfortunately, the manuscript lacks scientific rigor due to an unclear design and insufficient methodological details. The authors should clarify the study design and provide a more comprehensive explanation of the methods used. The discussion of the significance and implications of the results could be improved. it is important to address how this model advances our understanding of collaborative processes, as highlighted in lines 335-340. It is also necessary to present the limitations of the study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor improvements to the English language are recommended for enhanced clarity and smoother reading.

Author Response

Dear evaluators, in the attached format you will find the change control on the observations and suggested changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hi, Dear Authors,

After reading your corrections, my comments have been addressed in the manuscript.

Minor comments:

Adjust and describe better Fig.1.

Best regards.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

NA

Author Response

Manizales 02 September 2024.

 

Cordial greetings dear editors and reviewers.

 

Subject: Handwritten Change Control Chart: A Model for the Analysis of Social Regulation and Collaboration during Group Task Development.

We are deeply grateful for their judicious review and valuable suggestions, which have been enlightening in the substantial improvement of the manuscript.

In accordance with the considerations suggested by the reviewers, the changes and their location in the manuscript are specified.

Assessor: The authors need to review the theoretical framework section to ensure that it is fully developed and clearly articulated.

Authors: The paper broadly captures the main contributions that have been made in the field of social regulation of learning. The wording has been further revised, supplemented and improved in order to achieve greater clarity.

Assessor: The paragraph ‘Background on other models’ appears to be somewhat fragmented, as if it has been drawn from several sources without a clear and coherent narrative. This approach may make it difficult for readers to follow the logical progression of ideas and understand how each model relates to the overall theme of your research.

Authors: Revised and improved the writing and style to amend editorial or grammatical problems.

Reviewer:The paragraph on lines 108 to 112 lists the models from which specific aspects (cognition, task regulation and communication) were derived. The paragraph does not sufficiently highlight and challenge the previous research and theoretical framework underpinning these selections. It does not provide a critical analysis of why these particular aspects were considered relevant or appropriate to be drawn from each model. The lack of justification leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the theoretical basis underlying these choices.

Authors: While section 1.1 only mentions in a general way the references on which the proposed model was based, sections 1.2 to 1.5 specify the conceptual and structural aspects which provide more detailed information.

Evaluator: Another important aspect that needs attention is the use of academic language, style, precision and clarity throughout the manuscript. Phrases such as ‘in general terms’, ‘the tradition covered by the research’ and ‘the truth is that’ are not appropriate for academic writing and should be revised or replaced with more appropriate expressions. Beyond these specific phrases, the overall argumentation, clarity, objectivity and academic tone of the manuscript require refinement.

Authors: The paper underwent further stylistic revision and editorial errors were corrected.

Reviewer: The wording of some sentences affects the readability and flow of the manuscript, for example, the one in lines 73-77, which lacks a clear predicate. This problem, combined with complex sentence structures, can make it difficult for readers to follow the argument easily.

Authors: This section was rewritten and revised in its entirety.

Editors: Ensure that all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

Authors: All citations and metadata were checked. We removed those that were not highly relevant or did not contribute to the manuscript.

Editors: Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so that editors and reviewers can see the changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has undergone significant improvements in both structure and content, as evidenced by the thoughtful expansion of the literature review section. The inclusion of recent studies not only enriches the theoretical underpinnings of the proposed model but also strengthens its applicability and relevance to ongoing research in the field.

Moreover, the revisions have markedly enhanced the organization, depth of analysis, and clarity of expression throughout the document, transforming it into a scholarly piece that provides insightful contributions to our understanding of collaborative learning and social regulation.

I am particularly grateful for the authors' diligence in incorporating the feedback from previous reviews. Their commitment to academic rigor and the comprehensive nature of their revisions have culminated in a manuscript that stands as a significant contribution to the academic community.

Author Response

Manizales 02 September 2024.

 

Cordial greetings dear editors and reviewers.

 

Subject: Handwritten Change Control Chart: A Model for the Analysis of Social Regulation and Collaboration during Group Task Development.

We are deeply grateful for their judicious review and valuable suggestions, which have been enlightening in the substantial improvement of the manuscript.

In accordance with the considerations suggested by the reviewers, the changes and their location in the manuscript are specified.

Assessor: The authors need to review the theoretical framework section to ensure that it is fully developed and clearly articulated.

Authors: The paper broadly captures the main contributions that have been made in the field of social regulation of learning. The wording has been further revised, supplemented and improved in order to achieve greater clarity.

Assessor: The paragraph ‘Background on other models’ appears to be somewhat fragmented, as if it has been drawn from several sources without a clear and coherent narrative. This approach may make it difficult for readers to follow the logical progression of ideas and understand how each model relates to the overall theme of your research.

Authors: Revised and improved the writing and style to amend editorial or grammatical problems.

Reviewer:The paragraph on lines 108 to 112 lists the models from which specific aspects (cognition, task regulation and communication) were derived. The paragraph does not sufficiently highlight and challenge the previous research and theoretical framework underpinning these selections. It does not provide a critical analysis of why these particular aspects were considered relevant or appropriate to be drawn from each model. The lack of justification leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the theoretical basis underlying these choices.

Authors: While section 1.1 only mentions in a general way the references on which the proposed model was based, sections 1.2 to 1.5 specify the conceptual and structural aspects which provide more detailed information.

Evaluator: Another important aspect that needs attention is the use of academic language, style, precision and clarity throughout the manuscript. Phrases such as ‘in general terms’, ‘the tradition covered by the research’ and ‘the truth is that’ are not appropriate for academic writing and should be revised or replaced with more appropriate expressions. Beyond these specific phrases, the overall argumentation, clarity, objectivity and academic tone of the manuscript require refinement.

Authors: The paper underwent further stylistic revision and editorial errors were corrected.

Reviewer: The wording of some sentences affects the readability and flow of the manuscript, for example, the one in lines 73-77, which lacks a clear predicate. This problem, combined with complex sentence structures, can make it difficult for readers to follow the argument easily.

Authors: This section was rewritten and revised in its entirety.

Editors: Ensure that all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

Authors: All citations and metadata were checked. We removed those that were not highly relevant or did not contribute to the manuscript.

Editors: Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so that editors and reviewers can see the changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made significant improvements to the manuscript in accordance with the recommendations provided. However, there are still several areas that require further attention. The primary area of concern that remains is related to the theoretical framework. It is necessary  that the authors revisit the theoretical framework section to ensure that it is fully developed and clearly articulated.

The "Background on other models" paragraph appears to be somewhat fragmented, as if it were pieced together from various sources without a clear, cohesive narrative. This approach can make it difficult for readers to follow the logical progression of ideas and understand how each model relates to the overarching theme of your research.

The paragraph in lines 108-112 lists the models from which specific aspects—cognition, task regulation, and communication – were derived. The paragraph does not sufficiently highlight or question the previous research and theoretical framework that supports these selections. It falls short in providing a critical analysis of why these particular aspects were considered relevant or appropriate to be drawn from each model. The lack of justification leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the theoretical foundation underlying these choices.

Another important aspect that needs attention is the use of academic language, style, precision, and clarity throughout the manuscript. Phrases such as "in general terms," "the tradition that covers research," and "The truth is that" are not appropriate for academic writing and should be revised or replaced with more suitable expressions. Beyond these specific phrases, the overall argumentation, clarity, objectivity, and scholarly tone of the manuscript require refinement.

The phrasing of some sentences impacts the readability and flow of the manuscript, for example the one found in lines 73-77 that lacks a clear predicate. This issue, combined with complex sentence structures, can make it challenging for readers to follow the argumentation easily.

Additionally, the use of English could be improved to enhance clarity and precision, ensuring that the manuscript is accessible for an academic audience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English could be improved to enhance clarity and precision, ensuring that the manuscript is accessible for an academic audience.

Author Response

Manizales 02 September 2024.

 

Cordial greetings dear editors and reviewers.

 

Subject: Handwritten Change Control Chart: A Model for the Analysis of Social Regulation and Collaboration during Group Task Development.

We are deeply grateful for their judicious review and valuable suggestions, which have been enlightening in the substantial improvement of the manuscript.

In accordance with the considerations suggested by the reviewers, the changes and their location in the manuscript are specified.

Assessor: The authors need to review the theoretical framework section to ensure that it is fully developed and clearly articulated.

Authors: The paper broadly captures the main contributions that have been made in the field of social regulation of learning. The wording has been further revised, supplemented and improved in order to achieve greater clarity.

Assessor: The paragraph ‘Background on other models’ appears to be somewhat fragmented, as if it has been drawn from several sources without a clear and coherent narrative. This approach may make it difficult for readers to follow the logical progression of ideas and understand how each model relates to the overall theme of your research.

Authors: Revised and improved the writing and style to amend editorial or grammatical problems.

Reviewer:The paragraph on lines 108 to 112 lists the models from which specific aspects (cognition, task regulation and communication) were derived. The paragraph does not sufficiently highlight and challenge the previous research and theoretical framework underpinning these selections. It does not provide a critical analysis of why these particular aspects were considered relevant or appropriate to be drawn from each model. The lack of justification leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the theoretical basis underlying these choices.

Authors: While section 1.1 only mentions in a general way the references on which the proposed model was based, sections 1.2 to 1.5 specify the conceptual and structural aspects which provide more detailed information.

Evaluator: Another important aspect that needs attention is the use of academic language, style, precision and clarity throughout the manuscript. Phrases such as ‘in general terms’, ‘the tradition covered by the research’ and ‘the truth is that’ are not appropriate for academic writing and should be revised or replaced with more appropriate expressions. Beyond these specific phrases, the overall argumentation, clarity, objectivity and academic tone of the manuscript require refinement.

Authors: The paper underwent further stylistic revision and editorial errors were corrected.

Reviewer: The wording of some sentences affects the readability and flow of the manuscript, for example, the one in lines 73-77, which lacks a clear predicate. This problem, combined with complex sentence structures, can make it difficult for readers to follow the argument easily.

Authors: This section was rewritten and revised in its entirety.

Editors: Ensure that all references are relevant to the content of the manuscript.

Authors: All citations and metadata were checked. We removed those that were not highly relevant or did not contribute to the manuscript.

Editors: Highlight any revisions to the manuscript, so that editors and reviewers can see the changes made.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf