Predictors of Parental Contentment with the Amount of Encouraging Digital Feedback from Teachers in Finnish Schools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent contribution!
A very well designed article discussing a particularly current issue facing education. 
The article is very well framed in the current literature, presents an adequate methodology and thorough discussion of results, reflecting on possible implications for practice and future research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback, it was very encouraging.

The authors

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very interesting and well written. Very easy to read. There is one point or another to improve (there is always a way to improve): namely the quality of the tables and figures, which deserved better quality. Congratulations to the authors.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the feedback, it was very encouraging. Tables have been edited now.

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

The main issue I have with the paper in the present form is that, despite being written in English, it's clearly written with a Finnish reader in mind: much more context should be provided to make it more understandable to an international audience.

For example: only mid paper it is clear that we are talking about G1–G9 (what happens in upper secondary? encouraging feedback is not required or you chose to consider only G1-G9?); the fact that pupils with special educational needs are schooled with all other pupils should be mentioned (if that is indeed the case, as I understand from l. 373); and, more in particular, it should be better explained what is meant (or supposed to be meant) by positive feedback and not only its purpose: the more I dived into the paper the less I understood its definition.

I would expect also some reference to studies on the impact of Digital Communication (DC) with families in other countries; or a mention that none are known to the authors (I know only of qualitative analysis, but I'm no expert in the field).

Another issue which should be addressed in the paper is the selection of the voluntary, anonymous respondents: if you ask by DC to answer a questionnaire, you are going to underrepresent parents with low familiarity with digital tools or who are not fluent in Finnish (is this actually a problem in the two cities where the study was conducted? or did you send a message in the most common minority languages — be it Swedish or some immigrant language)?

Since there is no mention of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital communication between school and family (and I expect that digital communication has been the only way of communication for a while) I assume the survey was conducted before the outbreak: this should be mentioned in the paper. Also, if the authors have any knowledge (even qualitative knowledge) of how the pandemic affected the issues mentioned in S. 5, it could be worthwile to mention it.

Here it follows a detailed list of comments:

Abstract: it does not appear to me that the abstract shows how the paper relates to the topics of special issues; this is stated in lines 92-94, so the same argument should appear somewhere in the abstract. Incidentally, it could be worthwhile to expand the subject of how the findings should impact on teacher education.

l. 32: specify it the encouraging feedback is expected at each grade level or only at the grade levels which are considered in the paper; you should also explain, for the sake of readers used to a more brunt approach, if negative feedback is discouraged or if it is just supposed to be communicated in some sort of motivating way. Since in l. 83 you mention negative feedback, I assume that you also have that in Finnish school to family communications?

l. 51: I really do not understand what "in that non-specified person-targeted feedback" means

l. 113 concerning children's —> concerning their children's

l. 121-123: The period The selection of ... communication makes little sense to me: I am afraid you need to explain it better for the sake of people not familiar with the Finnish educational debates.

l. 136: this shared responsability seems too optimistic given your data...

l. 145: what do you mean by higher? Would it not be better to refer to ISCED 2011 levels, again for international readers' sake?

l.147: what is post-comprehensive-level?

l. 149: in age group —> in the age group

l. 151: this is true almost everywhere in Europe; actually, according to Eurostat, Finland's share of female teachers, at a tad more than 70%, is exactly equal to the EU average but much lower than other countries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20201005-1

l. 216: the age distribution of parents of G1-G9 children will be much lower that the age distribution of the (adult) general population, so it is perfectly reasonable that the educational attainment of your sample is higher than the average: you should factor out age to get a meaningful result.

l. 231: ?!?

l. 257: some spaces disappeared!

l. 276: ?!?

l. 348-357: is there a significant difference in the studies and selection of primary and lower secondary school teachers? Or they are more or less the same people?

l. 391-393: You most likely missed most of these in the survey...

l. 399: For readers' sake, it could be useful to compare Finnish school teachers workload with that of other EU or OCDE countries. Do primary and lower secondary teachers have different workload?

l. 418: you definitively cannot claim that from the data you presented in l. 216!

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3

(These comments are also attached separately and changes in the main text are marked in red colour)

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have followed your suggestions. Please, see below.

We are willing to further review our manuscript if needed.

 

 

 

The main issue I have with the paper in the present form is that, despite being written in English, it's clearly written with a Finnish reader in mind: much more context should be provided to make it more understandable to an international audience.

We have included more information on the Finnish context now.

For example: only mid paper it is clear that we are talking about G1–G9 (what happens in upper secondary? encouraging feedback is not required or you chose to consider only G1-G9?);

In the introduction, the grade levels are mentioned now. G1-G9 are our target grades. In upper secondary school encouraging feedback is expected as well. However, it is not in our scope in the current paper.

the fact that pupils with special educational needs are schooled with all other pupils should be mentioned (if that is indeed the case, as I understand from l. 373);

Special education pupils are often included in mainstream classes (see p. 8)

and, more in particular, it should be better explained what is meant (or supposed to be meant) by positive feedback and not only its purpose: the more I dived into the paper the less I understood its definition.

Positive feedback is defined on p. 2.

I would expect also some reference to studies on the impact of Digital Communication (DC) with families in other countries; or a mention that none are known to the authors (I know only of qualitative analysis, but I'm no expert in the field).

DC has been studied in several countries. Some examples are mentioned on p. 3.

Another issue which should be addressed in the paper is the selection of the voluntary, anonymous respondents: if you ask by DC to answer a questionnaire, you are going to underrepresent parents with low familiarity with digital tools or who are not fluent in Finnish (is this actually a problem in the two cities where the study was conducted? or did you send a message in the most common minority languages — be it Swedish or some immigrant language)?

The language issue is mentioned in the limitations, p. 9.

Since there is no mention of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on digital communication between school and family (and I expect that digital communication has been the only way of communication for a while) I assume the survey was conducted before the outbreak: this should be mentioned in the paper. Also, if the authors have any knowledge (even qualitative knowledge) of how the pandemic affected the issues mentioned in S. 5, it could be worthwile to mention it.

COVID-19 is discussed on p. 9.

 

Abstract: it does not appear to me that the abstract shows how the paper relates to the topics of special issues; this is stated in lines 92-94, so the same argument should appear somewhere in the abstract. Incidentally, it could be worthwhile to expand the subject of how the findings should impact on teacher education.

The argument is added in the abstract now.

1. 32: specify it the encouraging feedback is expected at each grade level or only at the grade levels which are considered in the paper; you should also explain, for the sake of readers used to a more brunt approach, if negative feedback is discouraged or if it is just supposed to be communicated in some sort of motivating way. Since in l. 83 you mention negative feedback, I assume that you also have that in Finnish school to family communications?

This issue is clarified on p. 2.

1. 51: I really do not understand what "in that non-specified person-targeted feedback" means

This utterance is used in several studies by Sanna Oinas and her colleagues (Oinas et al., 2017; 2018, 2020a; 2020b). We have followed her example. The concept is clarified in the rows following the utterance.

1. 113 concerning children's —> concerning theirchildren's

Ok, thank you.

1. 121-123: The period The selection of ... communicationmakes little sense to me: I am afraid you need to explain it better for the sake of people not familiar with the Finnish educational debates.

The meaning of the quick-markings (previously lesson notes) is explained in some sentences. We hope they give the idea of what they are meant for.

1. 136: this shared responsabilityseems too optimistic given your data…

Corrected.

1. 145: what do you mean by higher? Would it not be better to refer to ISCED 2011 levels, again for international readers' sake?

We have changed the concepts of education levels to correspond to the ISCED system.

l.147: what is post-comprehensive-level?

Upper-secondary  level. We have corrected it.

1. 149: in age group —> in the age group

Ok, thank you.

1. 151: this is true almost everywhere in Europe; actually, according to Eurostat, Finland's share of female teachers, at a tad more than 70%, is exactly equal to the EU average but much lower than other countries. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20201005-1

Yes, thank you.

1. 216: the age distribution of parents of G1-G9 children will be much lower that the age distribution of the (adult) general population, so it is perfectly reasonable that the educational attainment of your sample is higher than the average: you should factor out age to get a meaningful result.

Thank you for the valuable notion. We have deleted this piece of information.

1. 231: ?!?

A table is inserted here.

1. 257: some spaces disappeared!

We hope this is handled now.

1. 276: ?!?

A table is inserted here.

1. 348-357: is there a significant difference in the studies and selection of primary and lower secondary school teachers? Or they are more or less the same people?

The differences between the teachers have not been studied in the present paper.

1. 391-393: You most likely missed most of these in the survey…

Digital platforms should be improved to offer more predefined positive options regarding digital lesson notes. In many Finnish municipalities they already exist but their existence is random. There are no uniform regulations/recommendations for them.

1. 399: For readers' sake, it could be useful to compare Finnish school teachers workload with that of other EU or OCDE countries. Do primary and lower secondary teachers have different workload?

This is discussed on p. 8.

1. 418: you definitively cannot claim that from the data you presented in l. 216!

The piece of information is deleted now. Thank you.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

In general, it is very well designed methodologically, it has a simple which a priori is representative and comprehensive. However, in the sections of discussion and conclusions, research results are mixed previous reports on the teachers' vision that are not directly related to the objective of the present study. Should Specify discussions with other studies that determine the digital relationships between parents and teachers, even if they belong to other contexts.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 4

 

"In general, it is very well designed methodologically, it has a simple

which a priori is representative and comprehensive. However, in the

sections of discussion and conclusions, research results are mixed

previous reports on the teachers' vision that are not directly related

to the objective of the present study. Should Specify discussions with

other studies that determine the digital relationships between parents

and teachers, even if they belong to other contexts".

 

Thank you for  your comment.  We have modified the discussion slightly. In many cases, we refer to our previous two studies which form the first parts of our three-partite study series. For convenience, the aims and results of the first two studies cannot be repeated in the current discussion. We wish the reader will find her way to the first two papers to get a thorough picture of the study entity.

In the current paper, we still wanted to highlight teachers' vision and perspective because of the topic of teacher education in this particular special issue.

This text is also attached separately and changes in the main text are marked in red.