An Interdisciplinary Learning Community of Education and Psychology Majors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I enjoyed reading the manuscript, “An interdisciplinary learning community of education and psychology majors”. This manuscript provides insight into how relational learning communities might be used to foster interdisciplinary collaboration, in particular in the context of undergraduate students in psychology and education working together to achieve a common goal of improving teaching strategies for students struggling in mathematics. This manuscript is well-written, and this is an important but under-examined topic. The authors do an excellent job describing the potential benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration between education majors and psychology majors, and provide an informative description of learning communities. The authors provide a thorough description of the results that provides rich descriptions of the experiences of the people involved in this learning community. Despite these strengths, I do not feel that the manuscript is suitable for publication in Education Sciences in its current form. In particular, more information is needed regarding the participants included in the study, as well as the analysis methods. Therefore, I recommend that this manuscript be revised and resubmitted.

 

Revisions that I feel would strengthen the manuscript:

1.     It is unclear whether there was one or two facilitators of the learning community. The abstract and research questions just mention one, but it sounds like there were two facilitators (first and second author), based on the information included in the procedures, results, and discussion sections. For example, on pg. 3 the authors state that, “The sessions were co-led by the first and second authors in this study”. I recommend that the authors clarify whether there was one or two facilitators. If there was only one facilitator (the first author), the authors should provide more detailed information about how the roles of the first two authors differed in relationship to the learning community, to make it clearer why the first author was considered a facilitator but the second author was not.

 

2.     It would be helpful for the authors to provide more information about the participants. For the undergraduate students, it seems that it would be relevant and helpful to know what year in school each of the students were, and potentially some other demographic information (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, gender, etc.) since these aspects of identity could influence how individuals engage with one another in the context of a learning community. It would also be helpful to know whether/which of the undergraduate students had prior exposure/experience to learning communities, and also any other relationships they had with the facilitators (i.e., were some of the undergraduates students in either of the facilitators’ courses while others were not? Something like that would influence the dynamics of the group).

 

3.     Additionally, it is essential that the authors provide more information about the facilitator(s) as participants. It is mentioned that the first author is a graduate student. It would be relevant to know the level of the facilitator’s graduate program (i.e., masters vs. PhD), the discipline of the program (psychology, school psychology, special education, etc.) and any specialty areas, the year of the program the graduate student was in at the time of the study, and basic demographic information (see comment above).  Additionally, it would be relevant to this study to know whether the first author had prior experience leading learning communities, and also whether they had any other experiences outside of graduate school that might have shaped their approach to this project (i.e., did they have experience working in schools or with students struggling with mathematics? Had they worked with undergraduate students in other contexts? Did they have experience working with education majors and psychology majors in other contexts?). A positionality statement would also be relevant and helpful to include.

 

4.     Data collection procedures: More information is needed regarding the Google Form survey completed by the undergraduate students regarding their experiences and feedback on the learning community. How many questions did this survey include? What kinds of questions (rating scale vs open-ended vs a mixture)? When was the survey completed (during last meeting vs. within a certain time period following the last meeting?).

 

5.     Data collection procedures: The authors mention “self-report” of the second author a few times throughout the manuscript. More information should be included about the data collection methods used for this self-report data. Information about how these data were analyzed is also needed.

 

6.     Data analysis procedures: The authors don’t really describe the analysis procedures used for each of the different sources of data. The authors mention that data collection procedures included field notes/memos, and the Google form survey. How were these data analyzed? For example, did the first (and/or second) author review the field notes and memos to identify themes? If so, how specifically? How did the authors analyze the data from the Google Form survey?

 

7.     It is great that the authors conducted member checks. For these member checks, why were only two of the six undergraduates included? Additionally, were both of the undergraduates who were involved in member checking from the same major, or was one a psychology major and the other was an education major? Were additional reliability and/or validity checks conducted, aside from member checks and an external auditor reviewing findings?

 

8.     It would be helpful for the authors to present the results of the Google Form survey separately from the rest of the results, prior to discussing them in a unified manner. Perhaps these results could be presented in a table and briefly discussed?

 

9.     In the results section, the authors state on pg. 6 (lines 263-265), “Also, after the university lifted its remove/hybrid policy, members of the RLC attended in person each week (with the exception of one week when a member was out of town), unless they were absent due to personal or professional obligations.” Wouldn’t the information included in parenthesis be captured by the second part of the sentence? Additionally, this information makes me wonder how many sessions had all 6 undergraduates present. With such a small group, even having one or two students missing per meeting could influence the findings of this study. I recommend that the authors provide specific information about the number/percentage of sessions with 100% attendance; for any sessions without 100% attendance, the authors should provide how many students were in attendance. Additionally, it would be helpful to know the attendance data for each of the undergraduate students; I would anticipate there likely being different experiences/feedback reported from an undergraduate who attended 80% of the sessions compared to an undergraduate who attended 50% of the sessions.

 

10.  In the limitations section, I recommend that the authors specifically state that the findings of this study are not generalizable. The first sentence is written in a way that could lead to misinterpretations. The authors should also note additional limitations, depending on what specific analysis procedures were used and also the attendance data of the undergraduates. Additionally, I think it would be appropriate for the authors to note that the power dynamics of the facilitators and undergraduate students could have influenced the findings; the undergraduate students might not have felt comfortable being completely honest during the sessions if either facilitator was an employer and/or teacher of a course they were in (or could take in the future). Given that the group size was small, this power dynamic could have even influenced the undergraduate students’ Google Form responses even if they were anonymous.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The manuscript entitled “An Interdisciplinary Learning Community of Education and  Psychology Majors” provides a concise summary of a qualitative case study conducted with an interdisciplinary team comprising special education and psychology undergraduates. The team participated in a relational learning community, facilitated by a graduate student, with the aim of exploring the experiences and effectiveness of the community in integrating psychological principles into teaching strategies for math-anxious students. The aims of the study and the results are not consistent that is, the aims are comprehensive but the findings are not providing a deeper understanding and insights. The work does not have a systematic structure, the reader is at risk of getting lost in the text or losing interest. Literature review should include more up-to-date resources on the relational learning community. Utilizing phenomenological or Grounded Theory methods allows researchers to delve into the intricate experiences and viewpoints of individuals involved, leading to a more comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the data. These methodologies enable the exploration of diverse perspectives, capturing the depth and richness of participants' experiences. By employing phenomenological or Grounded Theory approaches, researchers can achieve a more robust understanding of the phenomenon under investigation, enhancing the overall quality of the study's analysis and interpretation. The manuscript could be improved by providing more explicit details about the research methods, the mechanics of the learning community,  more specific details about the data collection procedures, survey design, and external validation process. Here are my detailed comments about each section of the manuscript.

1. Abstract

The abstract emphasizes the importance of building rapport and trust within the learning community. It also acknowledges that obtaining more frequent and individualized feedback could have facilitated early adjustments by the facilitator. However, the incorporation of activities promoting trust and collaboration supported the group's progress towards their shared goal.

-The abstract lacks specific details regarding the research methodology, participants, data collection, and analysis procedures.

-It also fails to present any findings or conclusions, leaving the reader uninformed about the outcomes and implications of the study.

-It briefly mentions math anxiety without exploring its significance within the research context.

It would be helpful to provide more specific information regarding the research design, such as the number of participants, study duration, and the methods employed for data collection and analysis. Furthermore, including key findings and insights derived from the study would offer a clearer understanding of the research's implications.

2. Introduction

Introduction part provides some relevant background information and references to support its claims. Yet there are a few areas that could be improved.

Introduction does not clearly state the specific focus or purpose of the text.

It mentions the potential benefits of collaboration between education majors and psychology majors, it does not elaborate on how this collaboration would specifically contribute to improving math instruction for students with learning disabilities and math anxiety.

It would be helpful to provide more specific examples or potential projects that could arise from this collaboration.

It suggests that a learning community format could be beneficial for facilitating collaboration between education and psychology majors, it does not explain why or how this format is effective. Further elaboration on the benefits and specific characteristics of a learning community in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration would enhance the introduction.

Manuscript could provide more information on the benefits and outcomes of participating in relational learning communities, particularly in the context of teacher education and collaborative projects between education and psychology majors.

The first research question explores the experiences of education and psychology majors in a learning community focused on teaching math to struggling learners. However, it would be helpful to clarify what aspects of their experiences will be investigated, such as their perceptions of the learning community, their learning outcomes, or their engagement in collaborative problem-solving. The second research question pertains to the experiences of the facilitator, but it does not specify what aspects of the facilitator's experiences will be examined. Providing more detail on the specific dimensions of the facilitator's experiences that will be explored would enhance the clarity and focus of the research questions.

Overall, the introduction provides some relevant information on the intersection of psychology and mathematics education, but it could be strengthened by clarifying the specific focus, providing more specific examples of collaboration, and explaining the effectiveness of a learning community.

3. Material and Methods

It would be valuable to provide more information about how the learning community aimed to address the challenges of teaching mathematics to struggling learners and how the facilitator and participants worked together to achieve these goals.

-The rationale for choosing a 15-week semester and meeting every Friday is not explicitly stated. It would be helpful to provide a justification for this particular duration and frequency of meetings, as it can impact the depth and quality of engagement within the learning community.

-The description of the physical structure of the meetings is relatively brief.

While the use of ice-breaker/check-in exercises and shared meals is mentioned as strategies for building rapport and community, it would be helpful to provide examples or specific details of the activities employed.

-Providing more specific information about the procedures and activities implemented within the learning community would strengthen the description of the study and help readers gain a clearer picture of how the research was conducted.

-The description of the participants in the study provides some relevant information about their recruitment and backgrounds.

-The process of hiring the psychology majors and education majors is briefly mentioned but lacks specific details.

-The description of the psychology undergraduates is limited to mentioning their unique concentrations and academic backgrounds.

-The mention of payment for the undergraduate students' time in the learning community and tutoring sessions is briefly mentioned.

-Lack of detail on data collection procedures: notes/memos were taken, including direct quotes and responses to specific questions.

-Limited survey design: Google Form survey was administered to RLC members near the end of the semester.

Limited external validation:  Without a clear explanation of the external validation process, it is difficult to assess the reliability and credibility of the data analysis.

Lack of transparency in reporting results: It would be beneficial to include a summary of the main results or key insights obtained from the data collection and analysis efforts.

Overall, the manuscript could be improved by providing more explicit details about the research methods, the mechanics of the learning community,  more specific details about the data collection procedures, survey design, and external validation process.

4. Results

The results of the manuscript revealed that  RLC's logistics, building confidence, facilitating shared meals, and establishing shared norms contributed to a positive and productive learning environment. Although participants mentioned positive feedback highlighted the value of check-ins, shared meals, and the collaborative nature of the RLC further analysis is necessary to fully confirm its status as a relational learning community. The conclusions drawn from the study lack depth and require further elaboration. To obtain more comprehensive and detailed results, it would be more suitable to utilize phenomenological or Grounded Theory approaches instead of relying solely on a case study. These methodologies can provide a deeper understanding and insights into the subject matter, allowing for a more nuanced exploration of the phenomenon under investigation. By employing phenomenological or Grounded Theory methods, researchers can capture the rich experiences and perspectives of individuals involved, enabling a more robust analysis and interpretation of the data.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

The discussion provides some valuable insights into the progress and dynamics of the relational learning community described in the text. However, there are a few areas that could benefit from further analysis or improvement:

-The discussion heavily relies on self-report and subjective feedback which is not deep.  

-The study acknowledges that it was small-scale and exploratory, with a purposefully sampled group of high-achieving undergraduates.

-The discussion mainly focuses on the positive aspects of the RLC, such as building rapport, trust, and community, while enhancing productivity. It would be valuable to incorporate a more critical analysis of potential challenges or limitations faced during the RLC, such as conflicts between individual goals and project goals, and the role of power dynamics within the group. Exploring these aspects in more depth would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the RLC's dynamics.

-Implications are relatively general and lack specific guidance for future RLC implementations. Providing more concrete recommendations based on the lessons learned from this study would be helpful for researchers and practitioners seeking to establish effective RLCs in various settings.

 

Overall, while the discussion highlights several positive aspects of the RLC and offers some valuable insights, addressing the limitations mentioned above would enhance the study's rigor and applicability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the resubmission of this manuscript. The authors did an excellent job attending feedback and suggestions for improvement. In particular, the information the authors added regarding the participants and facilitator are very helpful. The authors also did a nice job clarifying other details, including the roles of the facilitator and co-facilitator, and information about participant attendance at sessions. Additionally, the details the authors added regarding the survey questions and the data analysis procedures help provide the reader with a more complete understanding of the study. The authors also did a good job incorporating my suggestions regarding limitations. This revised version was a pleasure to read, and I believe this version of the manuscript is appropriate for publication in Education Sciences.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations for hard work. The manuscript has improved a lot thanks to the revisions.