Cohort-Based Education and Other Factors Related to Student Peer Relationships: A Mixed Methods Social Network Analysis
, Liza Barros-Lane 2, Zachary Tarbet 1, Kayo Fujimoto 3 and Sarah C. Narendorf 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall a very interesting and rich study about the formation of social networks. Would benefit from more context on the cohort teaching approach. How many institutions in the US offer this? Is it limited to social work or is it wider?
Do we need an early definition of graduate students? This could mean in the UK, taught master or doctoral students and their experiences differ greatly. The citations should fit the definition. I accept that it is clear that the participants were social work masters students
Do we need a citation for 1.2?
Earlier definition of degree effects required
What are happy hour events and program potlucks?
Para 4.4 Recommendation about promoting a diverse student body comment “This helped them to develop critical thinking about certain topics ” Where is the evidence for this?
Jurisdiction/ institutional setting is a limitation
Author Response
Thank you very much for your careful attention to our manuscript. We have made revisions as indicated for each of your suggestions. Below, we outline our response under each of your comments/suggestions:
- Would benefit from more context on the cohort teaching approach. How many institutions in the US offer this? Is it limited to social work or is it wider?
RESPONSE: We added a paragraph providing context for the use of cohort-based education in the US. We were unable to find a count of the number of institutions offering cohort-based graduate programs, but added some examples across a variety of disciplines.
2. Do we need an early definition of graduate students? This could mean in the UK, taught master or doctoral students and their experiences differ greatly. The citations should fit the definition. I accept that it is clear that the participants were social work masters students.
RESPONSE: We added a definition at the beginning of the manuscript to clarify that graduate students include master and PhD students. In the literature review, we specify which type of student (Master's or doctoral) is included in the samples.
3. Do we need a citation for 1.2?
RESPONSE: We added citations in Section 1.2 reflecting the literature presented in later subsections.
4. Earlier definition of degree effects required
RESPONSE: We added this on page 6 in the Network Structure section.
5. What are happy hour events and program potlucks?
RESPONSE: We revised this language to be more descriptive and accessible for an international audience.
6. Para 4.4 Recommendation about promoting a diverse student body comment “This helped them to develop critical thinking about certain topics ” Where is the evidence for this?
RESPONSE: Thank you for this helpful comment. We realize we did not accurately reflect the finding and have revised this sentence to speak directly to the findings regarding the value students placed on the diverse perspectives of their peers.
7. Jurisdiction/ institutional setting is a limitation
RESPONSE: We added this limitation to Section 4.5
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Below I provide you with some feedback which I hope is helpful:
Strengths
The abstract was clear, concise and well written.
The reasoning for the selection of Tinto’s model was clear.
Methodology was clearly expressed. The paper explains clearly the context of the work.
Nicely highlighted gaps in the field. The content interesting and thoughtful, enhanced with the use of tables and figures.
The findings will likely to be of interest to an experienced international readership. The paper is coherently written and clearly presented.
Editing Tips
- Under 1.1. grammatical error- “Our focus on student friendships in grounded by Tinto’s…”. The ‘in’ should be ‘is’
- The first paragraph under theme three has different type/sized font “Despite appreciating and learning from the differences among their peers, students recognized that they tended to form relationships with others who were similar to them.”
- Capitalisation of subheadings needs to be consistent. E.g., “3.2.1 Curved Exponential Family Model of Friendship Ties midway through Second Year of Program”; “4.1 Individual-level Factors Associated with MSW student Friendships “; “4.3 The Association between Cohort Membership and MSW Student Friendships”.
Author Response
We very appreciate your review of our manuscript and the proof reading/editing suggestions you provided. We have made corrections to each as follows:
- Under 1.1. grammatical error- “Our focus on student friendships in grounded by Tinto’s…”. The ‘in’ should be ‘is’
RESPONSE: We corrected this.
2. The first paragraph under theme three has different type/sized font “Despite appreciating and learning from the differences among their peers, students recognized that they tended to form relationships with others who were similar to them.”
RESPONSE: We edited the fonts in this paragraph.
3. Capitalisation of subheadings needs to be consistent. E.g., “3.2.1 Curved Exponential Family Model of Friendship Ties midway through Second Year of Program”; “4.1 Individual-level Factors Associated with MSW student Friendships “; “4.3 The Association between Cohort Membership and MSW Student Friendships”.
Thank you for your careful attention to the capitalisations. We have added captilisation to the appropriate headings for consistency.
