Developing Micro-Teaching with a Focus on Core Practices: The Use of Approximations of Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This paper has high empirical strength and the researcher's expertise in the field. However, academic writing is not followed correctly and is not comprehensive.

I hope this message reaches you well. I had the opportunity to review your paper on “Developing microteaching with a focus on core practices: The use of practice estimates.” I commend you for choosing such an excellent and significant topic in microteaching. Your research undeniably contributes to existing knowledge and practice in this field.

However, as a reviewer, it is essential to remember that even if the essence and potential of your research are clear, there is still room for improvement in adhering to existing academic conventions and structures.

In particular, this paper could benefit from stricter adherence to accepted standards of scientific writing. This starts from the abstract containing problem content, objectives, methods, results, conclusions, and recommendations. Further, it includes clarity in the methodology section, accuracy in presenting results, and a more cohesive alignment between research objectives and the findings drawn.

With a more thorough approach to adhering to these scientific conventions, the impact and credibility of your work can be significantly enhanced. It is important to ensure that the structure and presentation of your research is as strong as the research itself.

This paper must have an abstract structure, keywords, introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, conclusions, implications, and references.

I hope this feedback is helpful to you. Please consider this an opportunity to enhance an already promising work, which has the potential to make a major contribution to the field of microteaching.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has merit and offers valuable insights into the topic. With some refinements in structure, content, and engagement with literature, it has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field.

The content is fairly well-described, offering readers a clear view of the topic in question. The article does touch upon previous theoretical background, but the connections with present theoretical concepts and empirical research could be stronger. Expanding this section to provide a more comprehensive review of the literature would be beneficial.

Most of the references cited are relevant to the research. However, a couple of them seem to be slightly tangential to the core topic. It might be helpful to clarify their relevance or consider replacing them with more directly related sources.

 

The research design and methods are explained, but there's room for more detail, especially regarding the selection criteria for participants and data analysis techniques. The research questions and hypotheses are stated, but they could benefit from clearer phrasing.

The arguments presented are coherent, but the discussion sometimes feels unbalanced. The article might benefit from a more in-depth exploration of counter-arguments or potential criticisms.

The results are presented, but some sections could benefit from visual aids, such as tables or graphs, to enhance clarity. The statistical analysis is mentioned but could be elaborated upon for the benefit of readers less familiar with the methods used.

The conclusions provide a good summary of the findings, but they occasionally overreach beyond what the data directly supports. It would be beneficial to ensure that every claim in the conclusion is solidly backed by the presented results or secondary literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1.24 You use a construction with "With..." or "Within..." quite often. You might want to look into alternatives. 

p.1.26-38 I would rephrase the questions as statements. 

p.1.34 You write micro-teaching differently here (keep it consistent). 

p.1.39 "...the bedrock of the idea" = Quite informal compared to the other text. Can you come up with a more formal alternative? 

p.2 I would place the pagenumbers after the quote instead of after the reference. This would improve the reading flow (back-to-back brackets disrupt the reading flow). 

p.2.87 The abbreviation has been introduced already (= no need to repeat that). 

p.2.91/92 I do not know if the text between quotation marks are a quote or not. In addition, you use a lot of quotes throughout your work. I would suggest to examine if you can reduce the number of quotes.

p.2.97 Check for double space.

p.3.102 "...outcomes of interest and context and rather privileger" = I do not understand this sentence. I am trying to make sense of it, but I just cannot. 

p.3 Please evaluate the use of the Oxford comma and apply this (i.e., your decision) consistently throughout your work. 

p.4.152 What is the meaning of this slash. Is it and/or, or? Also check the remainder of your manuscript for this. 

p.4.186 The n needs to be placed in italics. If this is the complete sample, it has to be a capital letter N. Also apply this in the remainder of your work. 

p.4.189-191 This sentence seems odd. In particular, what is "some 20 percent"? This is vague. 

p.5.209 Avoid the back-to-back brackets (see previous comment). Thus, (y)(x) = (y; x). 

p.6.Figure 1 The visual is a bit blurry (and rather small for the text it contains). 

p.7.257/274 The use of a hyphen and slash is inconsistent. Please adjust. 

p.7.284 Double space?

p.8.313 A hyphen is not an em dash. Also see p.9.359. 

p.8.339 Why is the "S" in "Selecting" with a capital letter?

p.9.451 What does the slash mean here? Do you "and/or"?

References There are inconsistencies in the reference list (concerning the hyphen and en dash use [between the page numbers]; compare 38 with 41). Also the reporting on the doi numbers is inconsistent (compare 39 with 41). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed and revised article meets the requirements and worked on the feedback given.