Incremental Growth through Professional Learning Communities of Math Teachers Engaged in Action Research Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The research covers an important topic

More improvement is needed in the following areas The importance of the research, research problem and questions The context of the research The results of the research need to be elaborated and supported with examples of the qualitative data The analysis framework, the thematic analysis process needs more explanations The implications of the study.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. I have revised each section of the manuscript based on the specific guidance from the special issue editors. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate this article and find it highly applicable to my own work with doctoral candidates, most of whom work in the K-12 space. I am curious if any of the teachers were from the same school and collaborated in real time in their work situation. Please add that to the description of the participants. 

Otherwise, I find the article to be well-written, informative, and engaging. I hope you continue this line of inquiry along the lines you suggested in the conclusion. 

Author Response

Thank you very much! I added this information.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The title is hard to follow. Please re-werite the title to highlight the purpose and content of the study better. 
• Poorly written literature review. There should be a review of the relevant research studies. What has been found relevant to the current study?
• The lit review was written as a brief overview of Professional Learning Communities and action research. 
• There is no rationale for the study. Why should any research read this research?
• The introduction is an extended overview of the study which should be written in the Methods. 
• What is the purpose of the study?
• Research questions?
• The study was conducted within a grad course for in-service teachers. It is a convenient sample. 
• I do not feel that the study would have a significant contributiıon to the field. 
• The author analyzed the participants’ final reports of their action research projects. Yet, we do not know much about the content and purpose the final project. Are the reports enough to come up with valid conclusions? I do not think so.
• How did you triangulate the findings with teachers’ posts and messages?
• The limitations should be written at the end of the paper, not within the methods. 
• No rater-reliability data was reported. 
• The author describes the data analysis process step-by-step ; but, the specifics of the process is missing. How long are the final papers? What are the patterns and themes you identified during the analysis? How did you analyze students work, observations and assessment? How did you code the papers and identify recurring 190 themes related to problems, interventions, and perceptions? 
• So, I honestly do not see enough evidence of systematics data analysis?
• Thus, the methodology is not strong enough for a research paper!
• Based on the above observations, I do not think that the paper is at the standards of a quality resarch work.
• My recommendation is Rejection. 
•  

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback. I have revised each section of the manuscript based on the specific guidance from the special issue editors.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

p.1-2 Ln 1-75: These lines are mainly belonged to the Methods Section.  They should be moved to the related section. In my first review I raised this issue: “The introduction is an extended overview of the study which should be written in the Methods.” However, my concerns were not addressed. In educational research reports, we describe the study setting and the procedures in the Methods. To be more specific, pleare check the following statements from the manuscript: 

“Through collaborative inquiry and discussion of educational texts, the teachers selected classroom challenges they aimed to address through action research projects.” Ln 24-25

“For the first eight weeks of the course teachers read and discussed four books.” Ln 28

“each teacher chose one book to read (with two books being chosen by two teachers.” Ln 34-35

“I used Project Zero’s (2022) Connect, Extend, Challenge routine to promote teachers’ reflections and discussions about the readings.” Ln 38-39

“I posed the following prompts in a weekly online discussion board to initiate the discussions” Ln 42-43

“Every week, and after each teacher participated, I created a post aimed at synthesizing the discussion. I also interacted with each teacher using private comments in the grading page of the learning management system.” Ln 48-50 

The above statements are written in the Introduction, yet they must be given in the Methods. Almost the entire Introduction is belonged to the Methods. 

 

Where is the rationale? (Please see my 1st review:”There is no rationale for the study. Why should any research read this research?” NOT ADDRESSED)

 

The research questions? Please see my 1st review:”Research questions?” NOT ADDRESSED)

 

Ln 183-185: “Each discussion functioned like a PLC, as teachers discussed their progress, challenges, and provided each other with constructive feedback aimed at helping each other refine their action research projects.” ==> You need to support your argument with credible evidence. 

 

Ln 209: “3.4. Limitations” ==> You need to move this section to the end of the paper.  (Please see my 1st review: “The limitations should be written at the end of the paper, not within the methods.” NOT ADDRESSED)

 

Please reefr back to my earlier review: “No rater-reliability data was reported. The author describes the data analysis process step-by-step ; but, the specifics of the process is missing. How long are the final papers? What are the patterns and themes you identified during the analysis? How did you analyze students work, observations and assessment? How did you code the papers and identify recurring 190 themes related to problems, interventions, and perceptions? 

• So, I honestly do not see enough evidence of systematics data analysis?” 
•  
• ==> As a result, regarding the methodology, I do not see any significant revision.
• So, my decision is Reject. 
•  

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. I have focused on the Editors' feedback.