The Keys to Developing Communicative Competence as a School Project: A Qualitative View from Teachers’ Beliefs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper describes the results of a Linguistic Project in Spain. Particularly, responses by participants are shown as main results of this study. However, the purpose of the paper is not well addressed, and it needs a profound review to improve different sections of the manuscript. In general, information is presented incoherently and disorganized (i.e., some sections are briefly described and located within the wrong section). Some grammatical mistakes have been found (e.g., lines 19, 97, 150, 172), and the use of certain expressions.

Introduction – Paragraphs are not well connected. When reading the manuscript some expressions make the paper hard to read (e.g., lines 82 and 114). Ideas presented in the introduction make the text confusing, for example: describing how WAC movement and LCC are connected to the main objective.

The description of SLP is unclear. Explanations of the general project and the project implemented are mixed sometimes making the text unclear. A description of the implementation of the project should be included in ‘Methods and materials’.

Caption of Table 2 is not properly described (I cannot find information of * and ***).

Teachers’ beliefs are one of the main topics of the manuscript as the objective is to study the beliefs of teachers towards the SLP. However, little attention has been paid to its importance in the manuscript. There is no literature review for this topic highlighting its importance.

Overall, no relationship is found between the mentioned topics (LCC and teachers’ beliefs), making the purpose of the manuscript unclear.

Method and materials – Table 2 must be included in this section as it is a description of the participants. Data analysis is not described in this section (see lines 213 – 215).

Results – In this section, only figures are presented with any relevant information that describes the results. Then, this section is not complete.

Discussion – Within this section, responses presented participants evaluating the project, but what their beliefs are seems to be missing.

Finally, this manuscript needs to be revised profoundly in terms of language, clarifying the objective, coherence, literature review, organization, and completing sections.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the text should be carefully revised. Here are some examples of lines 19, 97, 150, 172. These are just a few examples. The complete text needs to be revised for language.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your careful review or our paper and for the valuable recommendations. We desire to improve our work and your suggestions have been very useful. We have considered all of them as we detail below:

Firstly, we have revised the text in order to correct the grammar and the spelling. A native speaker specialised in academic writing has helped us in this task. The errors detected in lines 19, 97, 150 and 172 have been corrected and the lines 82 and 114 have been rewritten.

The concept of SLP has been explained in detail and table 2 has been included in the methodology section. This section has also been expanded in order to clarify our research. Although the results section only includes the figures related to the data obtained, they have been explained and interpreted in the discussion section. As a result, the two sections must be read as a whole.

Finally, we would like to note that when we refer to teachers’ beliefs and perceptions, we only consider those related to the development of the programme, which we have classified in 5 categories (C1, C2, C3, C4 and C5). We have specified it in the paper.

In case you would like to see the changes, please refer to the latest version of the paper below.

 

Sincerely.

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

 

It is my pleasure to review and help you to improve your article. I congratulate you on your work and encourage you to receive our recommendations with joy and good work.

 

They are made with respect and aim to improve the communicative capacity of your paper and research.

 

Below I define step by step the sections that require some modification. Starting with the summary, I agree that it follows the agreed outline, but it is too unspecific in terms of the results obtained and fails to trigger the reader's interest.

 

Summaries should be taken as very important, as they will often be the only part of our article that others will read, and on which they will decide whether or not to learn more about our work. Please add one more line about the conclusions of your research in this summary.

Regarding the layout. The size of the letters and the typography of the tables and graphs introduced should be monitored so that they do not clash with the rest of the document. 

 

Note how the page layout, size and even the typography clash between Figure 3 and Figure 4.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for your careful review or our paper and for the valuable recommendations. We have taken all of them into account. We have rewritten the abstract to provide greater clarity and to present the main findings of our research. As suggested, we also believe that these changes will make it more appealing to the readers. Finally, we have revised the typography of the tables and figures.

To see the changes, please refer to the latest version of the paper.

 

Sincerely.

Rocío Jodar Jurado and Santiago Fabregat Barrios.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lines 129-133 offer a very good summary of the study – which could be replicated in the abstract to describe very clearly the purpose of the study.

This study seems to analyse the answers provided by the coordinators of the SLP in each centre along five years and aims to offer some solutions and recommendations. The methodology is not always presented clearly, and a few changes might improve the presentation of the study.

In the section “discussion” it is not clear how many answers are positive and how many are negative. However, in table 6 it seems that negative answers are prevalent. This could be highlighted. The section “discussion” could benefit from presenting the results in a better context, instead of presenting isolated examples. It is clear that due to length restrictions it is impossible to include all answers, but maybe an indication of how many similar answers are provided each year, could help. A suggestion could be to slightly modify tables 7-11. They can include subcategories (as currently), and add a column for the number of answers per year for that subcategory (16/17: x number of answers; 17/18: x number of answers, etc.), then one or more examples of answers (as currently). If figures are included, it will be easier for the reader to understand the context, and for the authors to present a clearer picture and draw conclusions. These results could then linked to table 12 – identifying problems in the tables in the discussion, and offering solutions/recommendations in table 12.

At the moment, tables 7-11 include a few isolated answers and there seems to be no clear rationale as to why some examples are selected from random years, or how answers evolve throughout the years in the same institution. The authors might consider answering these questions: can it be seen that some problems identified by a coordinator in earlier years were offered a solution, and consequently the answers in later years seem to be more positive? Or were the answers not analysed until now, therefore this study is the first to offer some recommendations to improve the SLP programme?

The graphs illustrated in figures 1-5 are very interesting, but it is not clear how these graphs are linked to this study and if any conclusions of the study are based on the graphs, or only on the answers of the questionnaires are used to draw conclusions.

This study offers some conclusions which could be beneficial to the centres involved in the project, as well as other institutions who might be interested in implementing a similar project, and the recommendations suggested could improve the presentation and impact of the study.

See below a more detailed overview of the changes suggested per section:

Title
Maybe replace the word “teacher” with coordinator – as the study is based on the answers provided by the coordinators of the programme. The study seems to offer a list of recommendations based on the challenges experienced by the coordinators of the programmes in the schools involved. A change in the title to describe the study more accurately is recommended.

Abstract:

Lines 129-133 offer a very good summary of the study – which could be replicated in the abstract to describe very clearly the purpose of the study.

School Language Project – does it refer to improving linguistic skills in Spanish, or in a foreign language (English?), or both? It might be important to specify so that readers unaware of the Project described can have a better understanding of the context.

Introduction:

Line 54 – “these movements gave rise in the English scope” – does it refer to the teaching of English as a foreign language, or does it refer to programmes implemented in England?

Line 106 – stages?

Line 129 – teachers involved in the implementation, or coordinators of the programme? (According to other parts, not all teachers involved in the programme fill in the questionnaire on which the study is based – to make it clearer, maybe the word “coordinator” should be used, as it is used in other parts)

Lines 165-166. Should it say Table 4 instead of Table 3?

The line “38.24% of the coordinators who filled out the form responded to this field without constraints” –Did the other coordinators have constraints (e.g. the field had a limit of words?) The text will benefit from further explanation.

Line 172 – Informe Anual (drop one n)

Terminology: SLP is referred to as “school language project” and “School Linguistic Project” – ensure consistency of terminology.

Procedures and data analysis:

The authors might consider answering the following questions to make the context clearer: Are the data collected and examined every year? Or have the data only been analysed at the end of a five years, for the purpose of this study? Is this study only referring to the latest questionnaire?

Line 195 – PLC program refers to SLP programme?

1.      Virtual form – every year?

2.      Elaboration of IASP / by whom? (line 197)

3.      Line 200 refers to 46 responses – looking at Table 4, this suggests the study is based on the 21-22 questionnaire only (as in this year 46 answers were received). However, in other points it seems the study is based on the responses submitted during the five-year period.

It would also be interesting to discuss why the authors think the number of responses is considerably lower in 20-21 and 21-22.

Quantitative lexical analysis – line 204 – this analysis is very interesting, but it is not clear how is it used in the study.

Points 6.7. (lines 206-207) are not very clearly explained – although later on it is a bit more clear what the authors refer to.

 Table 5.

External factors at the centre – should it say external factors TO the centre? Or simply “external factors”?

 Table 6: it seems worth highlighting that the number of words linked to the “negative” aspects (C1 – internal factors against and C3 external factors against) are by far higher than the number of words regarding the factors in favour of the project. It could be interesting to draw conclusions based on this.

 Graphs with words:

Since the answers are in Spanish, it would be more useful to include the original Spanish word and a translation into English in brackets (like it has been done with the answer at the end of the questionnaire). For example, Figure 1 has the word “work” twice – which could be due to the fact that two different words in Spanish have been translated as work.

Discussion:

Table 7 seems to have some answers from 17/18, 16/17, 20/21 and 21/22 – so it seems that not only 21/22 has been taken into account in the study, which seems to contradict the fact that 46 answers were studied (line 200)

 Table 8 has different font sizes – check the format.

Table 10 – C4/S1 suggests that training is positive, however, other responses seem to criticise the lack of training (C3/S2). It seems that the positive answers are from 20/21 and 21/22  and the negative answers are from 16/17 and 18/19 – does this mean that some action was taken regarding the provision of training, and therefore it improved in later years? Or are these responses from different centres, and therefore they are more anecdotal, and it might be difficult to draw conclusions?

 CS4/S3 / R2-16/17 – it is included as a positive answer, but it is not positive, so it should not be included in this category.

 

CONCLUSIONS

Lines 309-311 – “The current investigation compiles the viewpoints of the teachers who manage language initiatives in schools in the Autonomous Community of Andalusia for a duration of five full academic years, excluding those related to COVID-19 and its effects due to their temporary nature.” This seems to indicate that more than 46 answers were analysed. Regarding “viewpoints of the teachers who manage” – maybe use “coordinate” or “coordinators” to be more consistent with the terminology.

Lines 318-321 “indicate that the SLP is seen as a prosperous initiative” – however, it seems that there are more negative answers than positive answers – maybe rephrase the sentence to reflect this.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you for taking the time to review our paper. Your suggestions were valuable. We have considered all of them. So, we have rewritten the abstract including the main objective of the paper and detailed the introduction and the methodology. In addition, we have better contextualised the results in the discussion section by including the number of similar answers in the tables. We have also explained the link between the figures 1-5 and the conclusions and revised the text according to your instructions, so that the Spanish terms have been maintained in the graphs (including their translation in brackets) and the orthotypography of the work has been unified. Other minor errors pointed out in your review have been corrected.

Finally, we would like to clarify that we have not only analysed the answers from the last school year but also from a period of 5 academic years. We have outlined this in the methodology and included it in the tables of the discussion section. Furthermore, these responses, which can’t be classified as positive or negative due to their subjectivity, have not been previously studied. For this reason, our work could be considered as a pilot study which we aim to extend in the future. In this manner, the recommendations you have provided help us both to improve the current paper and to address future investigations.

 

Sincerely,

Authors

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper describes the results of a Linguistic Project in Spain. Particularly, responses by participants are shown as the main results of this study. Despite of the paper has been improved, there are suggestions to keep improving different sections of the manuscript.

Please, revise the numbers of the tables (table 2, the caption is missing, line 109). Then, table 2 (line 146) should be Table 3, and so on.

Revise abbreviations throughout the manuscript and include the description ( example: OCDE in line 40).

Results should include at least a brief explanation. Figures isolated within the results section make no sense when reading. I suggest combining results with discussion to make the manuscript clearer.

The recommendation for this manuscript is to accept the paper with minor revisions.

Sincerely,

The reviewer

Author Response

Letter to reviewer 1

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your kind words and your new recommendations. We have taken all of them into account. We detail the changes made below:

• First, we have removed the poorly introduced table on line 146.
• We have also revised all the abbreviations of the document, as you recommended. In addition, we have changed the abbreviation IASP to AMR too. This change was suggested by the third reviewer.
• Although we have not combined the results with the discussion section, we have added some new references to the results in the discussion section. As you can see, we have detailed the most common words in each figure in order to explain the results. We have attended your advice and the suggestion of the third reviewer with this change.

Finally, we have highlighted the changes in green to facilitate the revision. The changes related to the first revision are marked in yellow.

We would like to thank you once again for reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all of your suggestions, as they not only correct and refine the current manuscript but also provide valuable advice for future works. 

Yours sincerely.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the efforts of the authors in improving the article. The methodology is explained more clearly, and the presentation of the article has benefitted from the changes.
Some further changes are suggested to be implemented in the final version. Many of the suggestions are linked to offering more details about some of the concepts described, so that readers can have a better understanding of the context, or with terminology.

 

See below a more detailed overview of the changes suggested per section:

Abstract:

Line 21 - CCL (replace with LCC – explain abbreviation, since it is the first time it is introduced and readers might not be aware of it).

Introduction:

Line 44 – shared by various educational system (add s to make “system” plural – “systems”)

Line 88 – bachelor´s degree schools. Does it refer to “bachillerato”? Maybe use the word baccalaureate because Bachelor´s Degree, at least in the UK, refers to “grado/licenciatura” (university degree).

Lines 103 and 104 – “which will be ten years old the next 2023-2034 academic year” – maybe replace with which celebrates its 10^th anniversary in the 2023-24 academic year. (by the time the article will be released it is not the next, but the current year).

Line 109 – Table 2 is presented and included, but there is no title to table 2.

Line 112 – CCL should be LCC, to ensure consistency of terminology.

Line 114 – listen to teachers´ (instead of teacher´s) – since later the pronoun “they” is used and it seems that the authors are referring to teachers in their plural form.

Line 133 – CCL should be LCC.

Materials and Methods:

Table 2 is presented again, this time with a title. Please ensure that table 2 is deleted from section “Introduction” or from here, so that it is only presented once. Regarding the title, the comma between educational and levels should be deleted “class-groups by educational level and academic year participation”. (Maybe level in singular).

Line 182 – IASP: most abbreviations used come from the English translation (e.g. LCC, SLP) – it can be difficult for readers to remember what IASP stands for. If the text follows the method used to create abbreviations from the English equivalents, it should be AMR – which might be easier for the reader to remember what it stands for. However, if authors decide to keep IASP, it might be useful to add what it stands for in lines 207-209 (or revise the information added between brackets in those lines, see comment specific to lines 207-209).

Line 184 – To make the text easier to understand, authors can provide more context about the “Educational Plans and Programs Service”. To what body does this service belong? This is particularly relevant for readers who are not familiar with Andalusian or Spanish educative organisations.

2.2  Procedures and data analysis:

The authors replied in their answer to my first report that the data have only been analysed for the purpose of this study. It might be relevant to include this information here, or at some point in the study.

Line 192 – focused on the monitoring (of) the SLP programme – maybe the preposition “of” should be included, or the article "the" should be removed.

Lines 207-209. As it is currently written, the reader might understand that IASP stands for the information between brackets. Whilst IASP is mentioned in line 183, it will help readers, particularly if they are not familiarised with this abbreviation, to repeat what IASP stands for, or to use the English abbreviation, as suggested earlier. Likewise, if the information between parenthesis refers to the agents who compile the “informe anual de seguimiento”, different punctuation and/or syntax should be used to make it clear. Furthermore, more context can be provided regarding the “Pedagogical Coordination of the SLP Program” (is this one team internal to each school, or one team that coordinates all SLP programs in Andalusia?)

Line 248-250.  “Although the answers… pertains” – verb should be plural.
Line 250 - Should it be figures 2 and 4 instead of figures 2 and 3?

Regarding the paragraph (248-253) If I understand correctly, coordinators are asked to reflect about external and internal factors that favour the implementation of the SLP, as well as external and internal factors against the implementation of the SLP. Therefore, it is expected that positive answers are written for questions 2 and 4, and more negative answers are written for questions 1 and 3. The line “despite the section´s wording, it may be inferred that many coordinators value the project positively” seems to use some of the data, but not all, to obtain a conclusion.  Suggestion: remove this comment, or make a more objective comment “coordinators report both aspects in favour of the project, and challenges around the implementation of the project”.
Scientifically, it seems worth highlighting that there are far more words liked to categories 1 and 3 (internal-external aspects against the implementation) than to categories 2 and 4 (internal-external factors that favour the SLP).

Discussion:

Suggestion: whilst authors have included references to the figures here, it would be advisable to add the specific words more common to each of the figures. For example, in section 4.1.”Figure 1 shows that the three more common words are “tiempo” (time), “coordinación” (coordination) and “dificultad” (difficulty), which suggests that the lack of time in the teacher´s timetable to facilitate…” The same can be done for each of the five sections: 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4., 4.5.

LINE 272 – PLC (should it be SLP)?

4.3. –When the authors talk about actions carried out by the Education Administration, do they refer to the word “formación” – if so, make it more explicit. It is recommended to provide more context regarding what is the role of the Education Administration, and their impact on section “external factors against the SLP” .

Table 10 – C4/S1 suggests that training is positive, however, other responses seem to criticise the lack of training (C3/S2). It seems that the positive answers are from 20/21 and 21/22  and the negative answers are from 16/17 and 18/19 – Does this mean that some action was taken regarding the provision of training, and therefore it improved in later years? Or are these responses from different centres, and therefore they are more anecdotal, and it might be difficult to draw conclusions? It could be interested to include a line or two in the conclusion to address this.

CS4/S3 / R2-16/17 – it is included as an aspect in favour, but it seems it is not in favour, so it should not be included in this category. 

CONCLUSIONS

Line 304 – Spain instead of Spail?

Line 335 – maybe “some of the coordinator´s answers in the study…”

I recommend the article to be accepted after the revision of these items.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for acknowledging our efforts and for your new recommendations. We have taken them on board. We provide further details below:

• As you suggested, we have revised all the abbreviations and we have also explained some of them to make the understanding easier to the readers.
• We have corrected all the minor errors found, such as “systems” in line 44 or “baccalaureate” in line 88.
• We have replaced IASP with AMR as recommended.
• We have also indicated that the AMR has not been analysed before in other studies.
• In addition, we have included the most common words in the discussion section in order to better explain the figures of the results.
• We have removed the answer CS4/S3 / R2-16/17. As you pointed out, this was an error (we included the answer in the wrong section in the final document of the paper).
• We have mention that the AMR has never been analysed before.

For further revisions of the changes, we have outlined them in green. The changes related to the first revision are marked in yellow.

We would like to thank you once again for reviewing our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all of your suggestions, as they not only correct and refine the current manuscript but also provide valuable advice for future works. 

Yours sincerely.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf