Fostering Perceptions of Gender through Cooperative Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article focuses on an important discussion for building more equitable societies starting from education and the increased awareness of pre-service teachers during training to diversity issues, in particular gender, cooperation and mutual respect.
The arguments are globally presented and the methodological strategies clarified and justified.
There are, however, some aspects that would merit further elaboration:
-A greater detail on the characteristics of the sample (e.g. are the ages and family status homogeneous? What academic year do the participants attend and how might this influence their conceptions and work processes?) and the background of the participants (it would have been important, for example, to have a better understanding of the level of previous participation in heterogeneous groups or of the basic conceptions of gender roles and how they might condition academic, social and political participation).
-The results and perceptions of non-binary people are not very clear (only in the conclusion some aspects are referenced), nor are the motivations for the constitution of the groups: the periods of operation (throughout the school year? at a particular moment?), what type of global task was underlying the constitution of the groups (a subject? an extracurricular work? a debate?), among other important aspects for understanding the context.
-It would be also important to know how the groups functioned, e.g. how roles were distributed in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups ?
-The conclusions are presented in a superficial way:
a) Beyond the observation of the data obtained, what do they reflect that needs to be further discussed (the results seem to be merely confirmatory of already known perspectives on the differences in roles and worldviews between men and women) ? In fact, the data obtained confirm "traditional" conceptions about the way men and women interact and the differences in their attitudes (women, more empathetic and more hardworking, with greater difficulty in assuming opinions in groups with many men; the latter, more pragmatic and oriented towards leadership positions...).
b) What implications can these results have for the construction of educational models that can truly promote, during training, a greater cooperative dimension, mutual understanding and inter-learning not conditioned by biased gender perspectives?
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: The article focuses on an important discussion for building more equitable societies starting from education and the increased awareness of pre-service teachers during training to diversity issues, in particular gender, cooperation and mutual respect.
The arguments are globally presented and the methodological strategies clarified and justified.
Answer: We thank the reviewer for the comment.
There are, however, some aspects that would merit further elaboration:
Comment 2: -A greater detail on the characteristics of the sample (e.g. are the ages and family status homogeneous? What academic year do the participants attend and how might this influence their conceptions and work processes?) and the background of the participants (it would have been important, for example, to have a better understanding of the level of previous participation in heterogeneous groups or of the basic conceptions of gender roles and how they might condition academic, social and political participation).
Answer: In the sample section, the courses, the ages of the participants and their family status have been added. The new information is as follows:
“The participants' ages varied from 18 to 25 and they were from middle-class families”
“The vast majority of participants had previously worked in both types of cooperative groups in various assignments for their bachelor or master, and as a result, they were familiar with the cooperative groups' structures and functions”
Comment 3: -The results and perceptions of non-binary people are not very clear (only in the conclusion some aspects are referenced), nor are the motivations for the constitution of the groups: the periods of operation (throughout the school year? at a particular moment?), what type of global task was underlying the constitution of the groups (a subject? an extracurricular work? a debate?), among other important aspects for understanding the context.
Answer: We have decided to maintain the information on non-binary pre-service teachers. Note that there are scarce studies en education where the non-binary students have been considered as a separate group. The reviewer is right in considering that the number is very low, but at the same time it should be considered that non-binary individuals might be very few in number in society. Therefore, any new information on non-binary students should be considered, to compare with female and male students. Note that the consideration of non-binary students in scientific studies is at the very early stage therefore this study can add some value in considering the non-binary students as an active gender.
In the article, the following texts have been added in response to comment 3:
“The cooperative project took place in the second semester 2022-23 academic year.”
” […] especially the organization of cooperative groups, the possible roles within the groups, the basic conceptions of gender roles and their influence on group participation were explored. Additionally, a description of the cooperative challenges that needed to be addressed was provided. Specifically, in the field of educational research, students were required to conduct a small research project in cooperative groups to enhance educational practice. In this research, students had to not only set objectives but also develop an instrument that each member of the group subsequently applied in their practicum center.”
Comment 4: -It would be also important to know how the groups functioned, e.g. how roles were distributed in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups ?
Answer: Additionally, the subject and the work that had to be completed in cooperative groups have been stated. The operation of the cooperative group, the course in which the study was conducted, and the sessions were already explained in the content and methods section. Additionally, it has been discussed how the groups were created and how the roles were assigned.
The new information is as follows:
The groups were formed voluntarily, both homogeneously and heterogeneously, and within each group, participants distributed roles. It's worth noting that virtually all students had participated in both types of cooperative groups.”
-The conclusions are presented in a superficial way:
- a) Beyond the observation of the data obtained, what do they reflect that needs to be further discussed (the results seem to be merely confirmatory of already known perspectives on the differences in roles and worldviews between men and women) ? In fact, the data obtained confirm "traditional" conceptions about the way men and women interact and the differences in their attitudes (women, more empathetic and more hardworking, with greater difficulty in assuming opinions in groups with many men; the latter, more pragmatic and oriented towards leadership positions...).
- b) What implications can these results have for the construction of educational models that can truly promote, during training, a greater cooperative dimension, mutual understanding and inter-learning not conditioned by biased gender perspectives?
Answer: - We improved the discussion and the arguments by adding, for instance, the penultimate paragraph.
The new information is as follows:
As a concluding observation, it is noted that it will be crucial to develop educational models that promote a greater degree of cooperative learning, mute comprehension, and cross-gender interaction throughout the training of pre-service teachers. Because each student has a role and a protagonism within the group, it is possible to place the student at the center of the many learning processes in cooperative learning groups. As a result, this methodology is optimal to address gender differences. In order to overcome gender differences, it is crucial to recognize inequality in the classroom, specifically in group projects. As a result of this experience, it has become clear that through cooperative groups, it is possible to better understand the abilities of the various genders and to foster mutual aid through a teaching strategy that ensures the student's awareness of and control over their own non-conforming relationships.
This study's limitation is the small size of the studied sample, which makes it difficult to generalize the findings from the conclusions. As a result, one of the goals of this study is to expand the exhibit to other universities. As a result, training for future teachers on the benefits of working in heterogeneous, cooperative groups is a necessary first step. In the future, it might be suggested to teachers to do research projects with the goal of improving some aspect of their teaching practices, similar to the current work. They could then gather and analyze the data they had collected during their fieldwork, and then they could apply the CAC with its additional questions to the cooperative group study participants so they could reflect on their actions there and, at the same time, be able to compare the results with those of the current study.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “Fostering pre-service teachers’ perceptions of gender through cooperative learning” addresses an interesting topic for which I congratulate the authors.
However, the proposed article has some weaknesses that should be addressed, for example:
- The Abstract should provide more clear information regarding the paper’s context and methodology. As it is now it is prominently focused on results, lacking context.
- The theoretical section is mainly focused on cooperative learning, with subsections referring to several aspects of its goals and structure. However, the article could benefit from having a subsection regarding cooperative learning’s importance, role, and contribution to initial teacher education in particular. Especially since the paper is focused on pre-service teachers.
- Regarding the methods section, more information is necessary, namely:
o The original scale should be made available. In its present form, we only have access to the eleven extra questions that were added;
o Authors state that “A quantitative method was used, but it was combined with a qualitative method, where the students were asked to explain their answers to five of the ten questions added to the beginning of the instrument”. It would benefit the article if information regarding these added questions and the justification on why 5 of them need extra explanation were provided. Also, it appears to be eleven (and not ten) questions that were added.
o More detailed information is needed regarding the study itself: for example, were all the students participating in the study group in both homogenous and heterogeneous groups?
- The conclusions appear to be in accordance with the results obtained from the data analysis. However, the study suggests that pre-service teachers valued working in homogeneous groups more, and gender seems to have some influence on their perceptions and experiences within cooperative learning settings. But then most participants believed that gender did not significantly affect the relationships established within the cooperative groups. This could be better clarified.
- As it is in the present form – with no particular emphasis given to the area of knowledge of teacher education - the title is misleading. I would suggest removing ‘pre-service teachers’ since the focus is not on the subject area but on the experience with homogenous and heterogeneous cooperative groups. In fact, the objective of the paper does not specify the subject area: “The main objective of our research is to analyze the differences and similarities in homogeneous and heterogeneous cooperative groups in relation to gender, based on the evaluations of students who participated in them”.
In conclusion, I recommend the publication of this article after major revision.
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: The article “Fostering pre-service teachers’ perceptions of gender through cooperative learning” addresses an interesting topic for which I congratulate the authors.
Answer: Thank you very much for your comment
However, the proposed article has some weaknesses that should be addressed, for example:
Comment 2: The Abstract should provide more clear information regarding the paper’s context and methodology. As it is now it is prominently focused on results, lacking context.
Answer: The context, the sample, and the tool were added to the summary; hence, the summary now follows the IMRyD standard.
Comment 3: The theoretical section is mainly focused on cooperative learning, with subsections referring to several aspects of its goals and structure. However, the article could benefit from having a subsection regarding cooperative learning’s importance, role, and contribution to initial teacher education in particular. Especially since the paper is focused on pre-service teachers.
Answer: The article's title has been changed, as you yourself suggest in comment 8, and therefore, it would not be necessary to discuss “cooperative learning’s importance, role, and contribution to initial teacher education in particular “in the theoretical section
- Regarding the methods section, more information is necessary, namely:
Comment 4: The original scale should be made available. In its present form, we only have access to the eleven extra questions that were added.
Answer: The publication of the reference [46] contains the original scale.
Comment 5: Authors state that “A quantitative method was used, but it was combined with a qualitative method, where the students were asked to explain their answers to five of the ten questions added to the beginning of the instrument”. It would benefit the article if information regarding these added questions and the justification on why 5 of them need extra explanation were provided. Also, it appears to be eleven (and not ten) questions that were added.
Answers: More information about the additional 11 questions on the survey has been provided by adding the following paragraph: "The first four questions were intended to get to know the student (gender, course, and whether they had worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups), and the next seven questions (numbers 5–11) were intended to get their thoughts on how cooperative groups related to genitaliageder. It is important to note that 4 of them required a qualitative analysis because the student had to justify their choice after answering positively or negatively to the question (questions 5, 7, 9, and 11). Finally, the question 10 was completely opened.
Comment 6: More detailed information is needed regarding the study itself: for example, were all the students participating in the study group in both homogenous and heterogeneous groups?
Answer: - The information in the section titled "Material and Method" has been expanded per your and other reviewers' requests. For instance, it has been stated that the groups (both homogeneous and heterogeneous) formed on their own, that participants assigned roles within each group, and that practically all of the students had engaged in both types of cooperative group activities.
Comment 7: The conclusions appear to be in accordance with the results obtained from the data analysis. However, the study suggests that pre-service teachers valued working in homogeneous groups more, and gender seems to have some influence on their perceptions and experiences within cooperative learning settings. But then most participants believed that gender did not significantly affect the relationships established within the cooperative groups. This could be better clarified.
Answer: The majority of the evidence suggests that gender has little impact on established group relationships, it is also clear from the results that homogeneous groups are valued higher than heterogeneous groups. The following text has been added to the article to explain that: "it is important to keep in mind that the differences between the sum of the values of the two modalities is less than 2.5 percent. This difference results from the small percentage of students who prefer working in homogeneous groups when they believe there are differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups."
Comment 8: As it is in the present form – with no particular emphasis given to the area of knowledge of teacher education - the title is misleading. I would suggest removing ‘pre-service teachers’ since the focus is not on the subject area but on the experience with homogenous and heterogeneous cooperative groups. In fact, the objective of the paper does not specify the subject area: “The main objective of our research is to analyze the differences and similarities in homogeneous and heterogeneous cooperative groups in relation to gender, based on the evaluations of students who participated in them”.
Answer: Thank you very much for the comment. Your suggestion has been considered and now the title is as follows:
Fostering perceptions of gender through cooperative learning
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors' choice of topic presents the issue from a new perspective.
Chapter 1.2 is a bit "scholastic", especially chapters 69-73. and 89-93. row, in addition to 69-73 the reference is missing from the line, if this is the interpretation of the authors, this should be indicated in the text.
The "scholastic character" can also be observed in the statistical sections and sometimes overexplains the basic content (line 222, lines 229-230). There were only 8 non-binary individuals in the study sample of 625 people, the authors treat the data related to them as results and compare them with the data of the male and female subsample of hundreds of people, as well as formulate categorical statements and conclusions in this regard. The processing and comparison of the data of the group of 8 cannot be justified statistically due to the low number of elements, therefore it is not suitable for drawing conclusions (unfortunately, this happens in many places) For the results read in line 187, the number of the relevant table must be indicated. In the case of Figure 1-3, the figures are sufficient, the graphs do not add more to the results. The authors first present the qualitative data description promised in line 293 in a quantified manner. It would have been more appropriate to ask the subjects not closed/decidable questions, but open questions. From line 322, the quotes used appeared in connection with the individual questions.
Overall, the study can be considered a "proper industrial work", but at the same time, it would be more appropriate to use more professional and conscious language and analytical criteria. pre-service teachers
Sometimes unprofessional
Author Response
Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: The authors' choice of topic presents the issue from a new perspective.
Answer: Thank you very much for the comment.
Comment 2: Chapter 1.2 is a bit "scholastic", especially chapters 69-73.and 89-93.row, in addition to 69-73the reference is missing from the line, if this is the interpretation of the authors, this should be indicated in the text.
Answer: We introduced the reference in rows 69–73.
Comment 3: The "scholastic character" can also be observed in the statistical sections and sometimes overexplains the basic content (line 222, lines 229-230). There were only 8 non-binary individuals in the study sample of 625 people, the authors treat the data related to them as results and compare them with the data of the male and female subsample of hundreds of people, as well as formulate categorical statements and conclusions in this regard. The processing and comparison of the data of the group of 8 cannot be justified statistically due to the low number of elements, therefore it is not suitable for drawing conclusions (unfortunately, this happens in many places) For the results read in line 187, the number of the relevant table must be indicated. In the case of Figure 1-3, the figures are sufficient, the graphs do not add more to the results. The authors first present the qualitative data description promised in line 293 in a quantified manner. It would have been more appropriate to ask the subjects not closed/decidable questions, but open questions. From line 322, the quotes used appeared in connection with the individual questions.
Answer:
Although there were 174 men and 174 women in our sample, only 8 students identified as non-binary, but because the results of five open-ended questions were thoroughly examined, we decided not to eliminate the 8 non-binary subjects.
Regarding Figures 1-3, as you point out, the numbers would be sufficient, but if we keep the graph, it will be simpler for the reader to understand the little differences.
The content in lines 222 and 229-30 in the statistical section may be basic, but it has been included for two reasons: first, to explain why the distribution is not normal, and second, to draw attention to the high level of internal consistency. And a reference has been made.
The results of line 187 are consistent with the confirmatory factorial analysis carried out by the CAC author, hence we have introduced the reference [46] where the analysis is found.
Because the CAC's questions have been answered, 11 new questions have been added. The explanation has been expanded upon in the instrument section, where it is stated that the four initial questions were meant to get to know the student (gender, course, and whether or not they had worked in homogeneous or heterogeneous groups), and the following seven questions (numbers 5 to 11) were meant to get their thoughts on how cooperative groups related to genitalia. It is important to note that 4 of them required a qualitative analysis because the student had to justify their choice after answering positively or negatively to the question (questions 5, 7, 9, and 11). Finally, the question 10 was completely opened.
Comment 4: Overall, the study can be considered a "proper industrial work", but at the same time, it would be more appropriate to use more professional and conscious language and analytical criteria. pre-service teachers.
Answer: The manuscript has been considered with major revisions and accordingly information that is more scientific has been added, including more discussion.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments 1. Abstract. It is recommended: Respect IMRyD structure in the abstract. The inclusion of data from the global sample and the specification of the methodology and research instrument/s used are missing.
Comments 2. Page 4, line 160: "semester of the 2022-23" Complete "semester 2022-2023"
Comments 3. Page 4, line 168-175: 2.1 Articipants: If possible, it would be interesting to provide the data of an bracket of the approximate ages.
Comments 4. Page 7, line 300: Review Table 3: Introductory items added to the CAC instrument. Review and adapt text and percentages (%) to the format of the table.
Comments 5. Page 10, line 453: Review 4. Discussion. It is recommended: Add study limitations. The sample studied is small and does not allow generalizing the statements made in the conclusions. In the same way, possible future lines of research should be added.
Comments 6. The authors do not present the main conclusions of the research.
Comments 7. The research ethical issues are not presented by the authors: Author Contributions; Data Availability Statement.
Comments 8. Page 11, line 528-529: Review: Certain information does not appear: the number, pages, etc.
Comments 9. Page 12, line 531: It is recommended to change the URL, short link DOI (6. Line 531) Eliminate: [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
It is recommended to change the URL DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093122
Comments 10. Page 12, line 537: It is recommended to change the URL, short link DOI (9. Line 537) Eliminate: [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]. It is recommended to change the URL: DOI
Comments 11. Page 13, line 632-635 It is recommended to change the URL, short link: https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/view/11777
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 4:
Comments 1. Abstract. It is recommended: Respect IMRyD structure in the abstract. The inclusion of data from the global sample and the specification of the methodology and research instrument/s used are missing.
Answer: In the abstract, the context, the sample, and the tool were added; as a result, the IMRyD structure continues.
Comments 2. Page 4, line 160: "semester of the 2022-23" Complete "semester 2022-2023".
Answer: The proposed change has been introduced.
Comments 3. Page 4, line 168-175: 2.1 Participants: If possible, it would be interesting to provide the data of an bracket of the approximate ages.
Answer: - Courses, participant ages, and familial status have been added. The text is as follows:
“The participants' ages varied from 18 to 25 and they were from middle-class families”
Comments 4. Page 7, line 300: Review Table 3: Introductory items added to the CAC instrument. Review and adapt text and percentages (%) to the format of the table.
Answer: Table 3 has been adapted as suggested. Thank you for the comment.
Comments 5. Page 10, line 453: Review 4. Discussion. It is recommended: Add study limitations. The sample studied is small and does not allow generalizing the statements made in the conclusions. In the same way, possible future lines of research should be added.
Answer: Two new paragraphs have been added. They are as follows:
As a concluding observation, it is noted that it will be crucial to develop educational models that promote a greater degree of cooperative learning, mute comprehension, and cross-gender interaction throughout the training of pre-service teachers. Because each student has a role and a protagonism within the group, it is possible to place the student at the center of the many learning processes in cooperative learning groups. As a result, this methodology is optimal to address gender differences. In order to overcome gender differences, it is crucial to recognize inequality in the classroom, specifically in group projects. As a result of this experience, it has become clear that through cooperative groups, it is possible to better understand the abilities of the various genders and to foster mutual aid through a teaching strategy that ensures the student's awareness of and control over their own non-conforming relationships.
This study's limitation is the small size of the studied sample, which makes it difficult to generalize the findings from the conclusions. As a result, one of the goals of this study is to expand the exhibit to other universities. As a result, training for future teachers on the benefits of working in heterogeneous, cooperative groups is a necessary first step. In the future, it might be suggested to teachers to do research projects with the goal of improving some aspect of their teaching practices, similar to the current work. They could then gather and analyze the data they had collected during their fieldwork, and then they could apply the CAC with its additional questions to the cooperative group study participants so they could reflect on their actions there and, at the same time, be able to compare the results with those of the current study.
Comments 6. The authors do not present the main conclusions of the research.
Answer: as per comment 5, more conclusions have been added.
Comments 7. The research ethical issues are not presented by the authors: Author Contributions; Data Availability Statement.
Answer: the latest version of the article already includes this information.
Comments 8. Page 11, line 528-529: Review: Certain information does not appear: the number, pages, etc.
Comments 9. Page 12, line 531: It is recommended to change the URL, short link DOI (6. Line 531) Eliminate: [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
It is recommended to change the URL DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093122
Comments 10. Page 12, line 537: It is recommended to change the URL, short link DOI (9. Line 537) Eliminate: [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]. It is recommended to change the URL: DOI
Comments 11. Page 13, line 632-635 It is recommended to change the URL, short link: https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/jesr/article/view/11777
peer-review-31694709.v2.pdf
Answer to comments 8-11: Thank you very much for the valuable comments. All of them have been considered in the revised manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After the changes in the paper, I agree with its publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors modified the study in accordance with the reviewers' comments, based on which I consider it suitable for publication in its current form.
