Co-Teaching Implementation: How Do School Leaders Support Teachers?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article attempts to investigate an exciting question of co-teaching at school. The topic is important, the article is written well, the methods and materials used are accurate, and the results provide extensive new knowledge. A few minor changes may further improve the paper. 

1. The first section is written very long. Writing a literature review and theoretical background in separate sections is better. It will make the article easily readable for readers. 

2. Methods and materials applied to this study are written well. However, further details about participants' information (a table is preferred with background information) are required. One sentence for data collection seems a little vague. It could be mixed with other sections, such as Data collection and sample.

3. Implications and suggestions are not reported. Since the topic is interesting and important to different stakeholders in educational settings, practical and theoretical implications, and suggestions would provide better guidelines and directions for school leaders, administrators, teachers, and policymakers to implement co-teaching at schools. 

Author Response

Please see attachment for response to reviewers' comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper education-2659893 entitled "Co-teaching Implementation: How Do School Leaders Support Teachers?" explores how school leaders support co-teaching by highlighting the importance of their role, the need for transformational leadership and how the balance between optimism and realism is crucial to the success of co-teaching. A document with great value for the teaching community seeking new methodologies with great results.

Despite this, the article presents certain weaknesses that need to be addressed.

 

The introduction makes clear the intentions of the article and the relevance of co-education and its great potential value in the classroom.

There is an error in the numbering of the article with two sections with the same numbering which generates confusion.

1.1 The Complexity of Co-teaching Research

1.1 Literature Review

 

Regarding the methodology of the study itself, a more detailed description of the context of school leaders is recommended. It would be beneficial for the study to incorporate data on whether they already applied co-teaching in their classrooms prior to the study, as well as to know whether the teachers who implemented it were new to them or had already worked with it before. One of the limitations of the study that are raised in the paper is precisely that, having surveyed the teachers, and that is why the context of the classroom and its implementation of coeducation is missing. On the other hand, the number of questions asked and their validation are not mentioned.

 

The results are presented in a clear and orderly manner, as are the conclusions.

I would highlight the section on Limitations & Future Directions which makes some recommendations for future research that perhaps should have been applied to their own study. The use of a survey can be poorly validated if the questions are not entirely correct.

 

One recommendation I would make is to provide a more detailed discussion of how this research differs from other similar studies and its contribution to the field of teaching.

 

Likewise, I recommend that you make a proper comparison of your results with previous studies in the field. Studies that have been conducted in other countries and regions in order to be able to compare certain results.

 

A revision is needed to address these shortcomings and improve the overall quality of the article.

Author Response

Please see attachment for response to reviewers' comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments:

(1) I have had the pleasure of reviewing your manuscript titled “Co-teaching Implementation: How Do School Leaders Support Teachers?,” which explores the important role school leaders play in supporting and fostering teacher-led interventions, with a specific focus on co-teaching in Norwegian elementary schools. I commend you for addressing the gap in understanding how school leaders can effectively support co-teaching initiatives—a topic of significant relevance in educational leadership and change. Your research adds valuable insights to the field, particularly with the innovative use of mixed methods to analyze the beliefs and support practices of school leaders. The sample size of 150 schools provides a robust data set that enriches the findings and discussions of your study. Moreover, your descriptive analysis linking school leaders’ epistemological perspectives to their support practices is both compelling and thought-provoking. I also appreciate the practical orientation of your work. The recommendations you provide, grounded in the principles of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and tailored according to different implementation phases, are likely to be of great value to practitioners in the field.  

(2) My only point of critical general feedback, which is quite minor and related to my comment on the methods section below, is that the term "mixed methods" appears in the abstract but not within the body of the manuscript itself. It would enhance the coherence and clarity of this work if the terminology used in the abstract was consistently reflected in the manuscript, particularly in the methodology section.

Methods: You have indicated that your research employs an "exploratory sequential design," which is traditionally understood to involve an initial phase of qualitative data collection and analysis, followed by the development of a quantitative instrument that is then administered in the second phase. This design is characteristically exploratory in nature, where qualitative findings guide and shape the subsequent quantitative phase of research.

However, as described in your manuscript, the methodology seems to employ a simultaneous collection of quantitative and qualitative data through closed- and open-ended survey questions, respectively. This approach aligns more closely with a concurrent mixed methods design rather than the sequential exploratory design that the manuscript claims to use.

In an exploratory sequential design, the qualitative data should ideally inform the quantitative phase, such as in the development of survey instruments or to identify variables for quantitative testing. If the qualitative and quantitative data were indeed collected concurrently and not in a two-phase sequential manner, this would represent a departure from the methodology as named.

Furthermore, for the clarity and accuracy of the research design's reporting, it would be beneficial to discuss how the qualitative data specifically contributed to the understanding of the quantitative results or how it was used to develop the survey instrument, if it indeed did play a role in shaping the quantitative component.

To maintain methodological integrity and ensure that the study’s design is appropriately represented, you may consider revising the language used to describe the method. If a true exploratory sequential design was intended, then the description of the method should reflect the two distinct phases and explain how the initial qualitative findings informed the quantitative phase. If, however, the data collection was simultaneous, it may be more accurate to reclassify the design as convergent parallel or explanatory sequential, depending on how the data were analyzed and integrated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is written in clear, concise, and articulate English, which will likely be accessible to an international audience. There are only a few instances where a brief copyedit would refine the language further, ensuring consistency and the removal of any minor grammatical or syntactical errors that are often overlooked by authors deeply familiar with their own work. These are largely inconsequential and do not detract from the overall quality of the manuscript or the clarity of the research being presented.

Author Response

Please see attachment for response to reviewers' comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses an important gap in the literature such that while school leaders' support is a key contributor to teachers maximizing the impact of teaching interventions, precisely how leaders support teachers is underexplored. Given the impact of beliefs on behaviors, the study explores how school leaders perceive the likelihood of co-teaching being successful in terms of students literacy learning outcomes, and what kinds and levels of support leaders provide to teachers. The study is framed by a strong literature review. It also very productively employs self-determination theory (SDT) as a theoretical framework and a mixed methods approach. It yields interesting and complex results, presented clearly and discussed with nuance. Towards the end of the paper, the table articulating ways in which leaders can effectively support teachers categorized under autonomy, competence and relatedness is valuable, as is the accompanying narrative. Limitations and areas for future research are clear.

Below are a few areas for improvement: 

Literature Review: In lines 86 to 90, I think that the sentence "Consequently....knowledge" (in terms of the point being made about energy expenditure) should be cited and the following sentence, "Thus...put forth" (in terms of the point being made about the need for motivation) should be cited as well. 

In lines 137 to 141: I think it would be valuable to cite the last two sentences in this section, in terms of the key points being made in each. For example, the first of the two last sentences talks about disruption of the status quo that provides motivation for change and also makes the point that "teachers must actively embrace their roles as change agents to bring about pedagogical transformation." The final sentence should also be cited.

In line 262, what does a "more empowered approach" mean? Maybe an example would be helpful here. Similarly, in line 268, what is a "more meaningful level of collaboration"?

Materials and Methods: The paper could benefit from a bit of explanation on why the specific research context was chosen. Additionally, in line 292, a brief explanation of "explanatory sequential design" would be useful.

Results: In the section referencing table 1 and addressing the optimism finding (line 384), can you indicate which response categories from table 1 reflect such optimism? Additionally, I think that on line 474 there may be an inadvertent omission. It reads: "When school leaders were explicitly asked whether they monitored the nature and success of the co-teaching arrangement, most leaders (53%) reported that they did this “to some extent,” whereas no leaders reported “to a very great extent.” It seems that you might have wanted to include mention of the 23.6 percent who endorsed "to a great extent" along with mentioning the percentage who endorsed "to some extent."

Discussion: (lines 606 to 613): My suggestion here is that you connect your discussion of competence back to self determination theory.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment for response to reviewers' comments

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf