How Professional Learning Networks Can Support Teachers’ Data Literacy: In Conversation with Experts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you very much for the opportunity to review the manuscript How Professional Learning Networks Can Support Teachers’ Data Literacy: in Conversation With Experts for consideration for Education Sciences. It was a very interesting read. Although empirical data from the field (i.e., the ones that are working in PLNs) is missing, the interviews with experts provide interesting insights. Overall, the manuscript can make a valuable contribution to our current knowledge base on PLNs related to DBDM. However, there are some areas that require improvement. I will discuss these below.
Description and contextualization of the content with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research
Overall, this aspect is covered by the authors, but it must be improved.
- The authors state “Research shows that teachers often rely on intuition to make decisions, while in some cases it is more desirable to make decisions based on data.” This seems a little bold and is supported by only one reference from a specific context. A lot of studies show how teachers also use research, data, or a combination of research, data and/or intuition. The statement could be nuanced, therefore.
- After clearly describing the difference between PLCs and PLNs, the authors mention “To avoid confusion, PLN in this paper is used to refer to PLCs that include one or more school-external structural members.” This is not clear to me. The latter part of the sentence indicates that it is a PLN (and no PLC), as PLCs is about in-school collaboration, according to their paper. They also write “[it] could still be members of the same school or organization with whom no previous collaboration had existed” which does seem like a PLC. The authors mention ‘school-external collaboration’ multiple times throughout the paper, which according to the provided definition is a PLN. To me, the authors seem to use the term PLNs for both PLCs and PLNs, which makes it very confusing.
Research design, questions, hypotheses and methods
This aspect is clearly covered by the authors. Improvements could be made.
- Out of the 24 international experts, 14 agreed to participate in this study. How did this influence the results? Do the experts that did not agree to participate have certain demographics that could have obtain different results?
- In what manner were the experts involved in the PLC/PLNs? Did they just research them or also facilitate them? How could their role(s) have influenced your results?
- Does Appendix A present the initial codebook, as is suggested in 3.4? Or does it present the final codebook? For the reader, it would be most interesting to have access to the latter. If this is the case, please adjust the (place of the) wording in 3.4, or present the final codebook in Appendix.
- Although the authors report on the reliability of the methods, it would be insightful if they could also elaborate on other aspects that influence the quality of the analyses (e.g., transferability, dependability)
- It would be helpful if the authors present example segments that are coded a certain way.
Presentation of the results
The authors have clearly stated the results. The results could be traced back to the data, as the number of the expert is mentioned, and the statements are clarified with quotations. Not all codes that are presented in the codebook are used in the Results (e.g., tools). It leaves the reader confused, especially as tools for example are important aspects of knowledge brokerage.
Degree to which the arguments and discussion of findings are coherent, balanced and compelling and support of the conclusions
The arguments and discussion(s) the authors present are thorough. Some improvements could be made:
- In all sections but 4.1.2, the authors nicely connect the expert opinions to literature on the matter. There is ample literature available on the role of school leadership for DBDM, for PLC, for PLNs, and the role of school leadership for PLNs focused on DBDM. It will make the arguments stronger if the authors make the connections with literature also in section 4.1.2, especially since the experts have differing opinions.
- Table 2 is somewhat confusing. It would be insightful if each ‘decision’ has its own ‘row’ with the intended purpose. For example, a row with active participation of school leadership, followed by its purpose, as well as passive(?) participation of school leadership, followed by its purpose.
- The authors do not explicitly answer the research questions in the Conclusion.
- The authors present seven implications for practice related to PLNs and DBDM. These are helpful, although not surprising. A lot of literature is available that could support these implications. It will improve the quality of the paper when the implications are connected to previous literature.
- The implications are quite generic. They could have been written for any PLN – focussed on DBDM or something else. What makes these implications unique for PLNs related to DBDM? Or, when planning on organizing a PLN for DBDM, what should a reader specifically focus on? Maybe the authors could use examples related to DBDM to let the content speak more to the reader.
References
The authors have clearly referenced the article.
Comments on the Quality of English Language- In several sentences, one or more word(s) seem to be missing. For example, line [73] the word ‘and’ before 2), line [203] words after ‘a thematic analysis was’, It would be my advice to thoroughly read the manuscript again and complete these sentences.
- Both sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 have ‘The role of school leadership’ as heading. This heading does not match the content of both sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study explores how professional learning networks give access to data literacy that is not available in schools. Through interviews with 14 experts professional learning networks are shown to contribute to data-based decision-making. The topic is interesting; however, I have some comments on the writing style that need to be considered when revising the paper:
- Section 2.3 (Research focus) should be moved to the end of the Introduction section as it has the research motivation and research questions and it is not part of the literature review.
- In several places, sentences need to be rewritten because they don't read well. Lines 202-203 provide an example...
- Sections 3.1 and 3.2 can be merged as they both talk about the interviews and choosing the experts for the interviews.
- You need to reorganize your results section and rewrite some of the quotes, or at least provide a context for your quotes to help your readers understand their relevance (like what you did in lines 308-318 as you explicitly clarified the context of the quote). You have very long quotes and a large number of quotes that you need to reduce and increase the depth of analysis instead of adding quotes.
- You can summarize your results in a table in the results section instead of doing so in the conclusion section.
- You have two sub-sections with the title “The role of school leadership” (4.1.2 & 4.1.3)
- The conclusions section is not supposed to have a table that summarizes the results. You already have a results section and your results should be there.
- To improve the credibility and validity of your study, data triangulation is necessary; it is uncommon to rely just on one source of information. Using a combination of methods or several sources can be beneficial. To find out how much your experts agree with the outcomes, I advise creating a survey using the data. Alternatively, you can explicitly mention that the 14 experts who are directly involved are with research on interventions with both a DBDM and a PLN component. Also, you may expand the discussion to prove the diversity of opinions and to tell that these experts come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives that may comprehensively cover the topic.
- There are several writing issues, and a lot of your sentences begin with "And," which is not appropriate. Your document needs to be proofread.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Did this study get the IRB approval?
2. You may want to define the term "expert" in your intro or literature section as you research questions relate to this term directly. Why are the participants called "expert"? what was the criteria and qualification? it seems that you used the citation numbers as one of the criteria. is there literature to support this selection? why not the number of publication and/or citations? are there any other published articles of the similar topic could be listed in the lit review to support your sampling method?
3. According tot he results section, there are several subsets under each main research question. however, they were not all included in the literature review section and explain the importance of including them in the current study. You may want to review them in order in the literature review. You may also want to add those key terms of each subset in the research questions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors very much for commenting on my comments and revising the manuscript accordingly. In my opinion, it is much approved. I especially like how both Table 2 and the practical implications are enriched. Moreover, the distinction between PLCs and PLNs is now more clearly formulated by the authors, so there is no room for discussion left regarding this topic. The work can definitely make a contribution to the current knowledge base regarding DBDM and PLNs, and my recommendation is to accept the paper for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate your response to my comments. After taking into consideration minor English language editing, the work appears ready for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor English language editing is required.
