Do Good Intentions Lead to Expected Outcomes? Professional Learning Amongst Early Career Academics in a Problem-Based Program

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The abstract of the paper does not provide clear insight of what readers can expect. That is, the research questions are mentioned, however, elaboration on theoretical relevance, nor methodological rigour is explained. That would be helpful to me as a reader.

- Overall, I feel that the topic of the article is interesting, and relates to current narratives and discussions. Good!

- The authors start in their first sentence with referring to “new competences”, it would be helpful to elaborate on what these are. The first paragraph remains abstract and does not really help me to develop a frame or context for the study. General terms and concepts are mentioned, but need specification in order to become clear to the reader. This continues as you move through the introduction. My feedback would be to review the concepts, see which ones are essential, but explain and elaborate more on these.

- it was stated that the study took place in a university where PBL is ran for more than 50 years. That seems a bit challenging, since in the following sentence it was founded in Canada 50 years ago.

- it was stated: At XX University, all courses are based on the principles of prob-69 lem-based learning (Barge, 2013).--> I wonder what form is organized. That is, which principles are applied and how. Given the research question, that is so strongly connected to PBL I feel that is essential and needs elaboration. Next, what consequences does this local application of PBL have for teacher competencies. Does this apply to this local context, or PBL in general?

- Overall I feel that the introduction needs adjustments in structure. The authors could improve the structure and elaboration towards the gap in research. And how this study will contribute to that.

- The research questions are strongly open and transformational. To me, that  intuitively led me to the assumption qualitative research approach would follow. The method section starts with a literature review. Would this be better integrated in the introduction? The concepts discussed and explained refer to research and definitely add to the argumentation.

- The method section lacks a procedure paragraph. That is, a paragraph in which the research (type, outline, procedure etc) is explained is missing.

- Names of participants are mentioned. That is a breach of privacy of participants. Has ethical approval been granted?

- Research findings are discussed in clear matter. However, methodological rigour (see comment above) is questioned.

- Discussion and conclusion is clearly structured. However, the article needs work on previous parts of the document. See above.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is sound.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Your work has helped us to make substantial improvements to our manuscript in order for us to clearly state our intentions and findings. Below, please find a list of the changes we have implemented based on your valuable insights.  

 

The abstract of the paper does not provide clear insight of what readers can expect. That is, the research questions are mentioned, however, elaboration on theoretical relevance, nor methodological rigour is explained. That would be helpful to me as a reader	Thank you for pointing to these important ways to improve the first impression of the paper. We have added lines in the introduction describing both the methodology of the research and our suggestion to what the insights from the study may be used for (Page 1)
The authors start in their first sentence with referring to “new competences”, it would be helpful to elaborate on what these are. The first paragraph remains abstract and does not really help me to develop a frame or context for the study. General terms and concepts are mentioned, but need specification in order to become clear to the reader. This continues as you move through the introduction. My feedback would be to review the concepts, see which ones are essential, but explain and elaborate more on these	We have added information to the first sentence. Furthermore, we have implemtened substatial changes to the introduction as suggested below. See below for a through description of our work with the introduction
it was stated that the study took place in a university where PBL is ran for more than 50 years. That seems a bit challenging, since in the following sentence it was founded in Canada 50 years ago	We actually wrote "almost fifty years ago" since the univeisty opened in 1974 (a litlle more than 5 years after the first program at McMasters Medical school opened). We have now changed this sentence to avoid any misunderstandings (page 3, line 3).
it was stated: At XX University, all courses are based on the principles of prob-69 lem-based learning (Barge, 2013).--> I wonder what form is organized. That is, which principles are applied and how. Given the research question, that is so strongly connected to PBL I feel that is essential and needs elaboration. Next, what consequences does this local application of PBL have for teacher competencies. Does this apply to this local context, or PBL in general?	We agree that the principles are important to mention and we have thus done so (page 3)
Overall I feel that the introduction needs adjustments in structure. The authors could improve the structure and elaboration towards the gap in research. And how this study will contribute to that.	Thank you for this very insightfull and helpfull observation. After reading your comment we have restructured the Introduction substantially. We have added parts of the of "the old" litterature review to the introduction to support our claim of a research gap . We now open with a brief description of why PL is nessesary at universities, the move on to the specific context for the study in which we also describes the principles of PLB that the all courses at univeristy (also the specidic PL course of the study) are built upon. Finally, we seek to account for the research gap that necessitates the study. The introduction ends with the research questions.  In accordance with your suggestion above we have limited the number of concepts introduced and elaborated upon thos still left in the text. Finally the "Therotehical section" is no longer a review of litterature but introduces to the understandng of PL as a complex, dynamic, situated activity comprehending external sources, internal emotional and cognitive states, and contextual relationality and we use this notion to argue for the importance of looking at beliefs when planning and conducting PL activities.
The research questions are strongly open and transformational. To me, that  intuitively led me to the assumption qualitative research approach would follow. The method section starts with a literature review. Would this be better integrated in the introduction? The concepts discussed and explained refer to research and definitely add to the argumentation	See above. We agree and have changed the article accordingly with your suggestions
The method section lacks a procedure paragraph. That is, a paragraph in which the research (type, outline, procedure etc) is explained is missing.	Thank you for your help on improving our methodological section. We have elaborated on the methodological section by adding a paragraph on research design and procedure and one about the composition of the research team. Furthermore, we have expanded the desrcitption of the analysis to clairfy the process of working with the dataset (page 8-10).
Names of participants are mentioned. That is a breach of privacy of participants. Has ethical approval been granted?	We stated in a foot note that names had been changed so that the real names would only be known by the authors. This choice was made to personalize the statements without indulging to a dichotomous perception og male/female. However, from your comments we realize that this could be misunderstood as a breach of privacy and we have changed the fictious names to "partipant" (page 12 and forward).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

 

First of all I would like to congratulate you for your work, I found it very interesting, since it directly affects me as a new teacher. The manuscript is very well organized and argued.

The title and the summary seem to me to be adequate, I would only include in the summary the analysis of the 145 reports of the novice teachers.  The keywords are also correct.

The theoretical foundation is ample and helps to clarify some aspects of the subject, and it is also varied in terms of dates.

The objectives and starting questions correspond to the subsequent information, although with regard to the information on the training courses taken as novice teachers I would include how much time should be devoted to them.

The sample seems adequate to me, although it is true that it includes several areas of knowledge, although if this sample were expanded with other universities and faculty it would be even more enriching. I recommend that the authors include the percentages of men and women who participate, not just the numbers. It would also have been interesting to know the age. 

The treatment of data and the inclusion of the permission of the ethics committee are noteworthy, as well as the change in the names of the participants mentioned in the article. 

The description of the data analysis and results is correct and interesting; Table 1 stands out and helps the reader to better visualize some aspects of the study.

The conclusions and discussion seem to me to be perfectly argued, the classification of the participants into four models is positively appreciated. However, I would recommend broadening the boundaries of the research and the future lines that can be produced after this work. For example, the inclusion of more samples, universities, comparisons between training programs, differences between genders...The references are rich and varied, although if possible I would contemplate the inclusion of the DOI in those that are possible. Even the inclusion of some more current studies can give even more value to the research.

 

Lots of encouragement with the research and congratulations. 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Your work has helped us to make substantial improvements to our manuscript in order for us to clearly state our intentions and findings. Below, please find a list of the changes we have implemented based on your valuable insights.  

 

First of all I would like to congratulate you for your work, I found it very interesting, since it directly affects me as a new teacher. The manuscript is very well organized and argued.	This is absolutely wonderfull to hear that you as a new teacher yourself can recognize the findings we seek to resent!
The title and the summary seem to me to be adequate, I would only include in the summary the analysis of the 145 reports of the novice teachers.  The keywords are also correct.	Thank you for pointing to this important way to improve the first impression of the paper. We have added lines in the summery describing both the methodology of the research and our suggestion to what the insights from the study may  be used for (Page 1)
The theoretical foundation is ample and helps to clarify some aspects of the subject, and it is also varied in terms of dates.
The objectives and starting questions correspond to the subsequent information, although with regard to the information on the training courses taken as novice teachers I would include how much time should be devoted to them.	Thank you. We have addede a sentence explainign that the study load of the course amounts to ten ECTS-points (approximately 280 working hours) (page 7).
The sample seems adequate to me, although it is true that it includes several areas of knowledge, although if this sample were expanded with other universities and faculty it would be even more enriching. I recommend that the authors include the percentages of men and women who participate, not just the numbers. It would also have been interesting to know the age.	We have included the percentages. Unfortunately the age can not be derived from the project report (page 9).
The treatment of data and the inclusion of the permission of the ethics committee are noteworthy, as well as the change in the names of the participants mentioned in the article.	Thank you. Another reviewer did not however see our note about names being changed to fictional named. The choice of using fictional names was made to personalize the statements without indulging to a dichotomous perception og male/female. However, from the comments we recieved we realize that this could be misunderstood as a breach of privacy and we have changed the fictious names to "partipant".
The description of the data analysis and results is correct and interesting; Table 1 stands out and helps the reader to better visualize some aspects of the study.
The conclusions and discussion seem to me to be perfectly argued, the classification of the participants into four models is positively appreciated. However, I would recommend broadening the boundaries of the research and the future lines that can be produced after this work. For example, the inclusion of more samples, universities, comparisons between training programs, differences between genders...The references are rich and varied, although if possible I would contemplate the inclusion of the DOI in those that are possible. Even the inclusion of some more current studies can give even more value to the research.	Thank you for this valuable comment. We have added a paragrap regardign limitation of the research in which we elaborate on the limitations of the results and the possibilities for future research within this area. Furthermore, we have added DOI where possible, Finally, We have deleted some of the rather old references and added nine new references that are all less than eight years old and most are from this decade (one under publication).
Lots of encouragement with the research and congratulations.	Thank you so much :)

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear authors, congratulations on the work presented. However, I would like to make some considerations to improve the understanding of your work. Regarding the methodological section, you should explain in detail the process of data analysis, as well as the choice and selection of the sample.

It is also important that you include clear research objectives and that they are conducive to good research. 

The conclusion should be more extensive

A review of the references used is necessary, including at least 5 references that are current, as most of the references used are very old.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

OK

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Your work has helped us to make substantial improvements to our manuscript in order for us to clearly state our intentions and findings. Below, please find a list of the changes we have implemented based on your valuable insights.  

 

Regarding the methodological section, you should explain in detail the process of data analysis, as well as the choice and selection of the sample.	We have added a section on methodological procedure. Furthermore we have elaborated our description of how we as a research team have worked to analyze data (Page 8-10).
It is also important that you include clear research objectives and that they are conducive to good research.	We have elaborated on the methodological section. Adding a section on research design and one about the composition of the research team. Furthermore, we have expanded the desrcitption of the analysis to clairfy the process of working with the dataset. Also we added several passages addressing how the study contributes to the collective knowledge of pedagogical development trajectories for early career academics and how this knowledge can be of value when designing PD programs (page 23-24)
The conclusion should be more extensive	Thank you for this  valuable comment. We have extended the discussion also adding a paragrap on future research. Furthermore we have extended the conclusion so that it hopefully does a better job of summing up the article  (page 21-25)
A review of the references used is necessary, including at least 5 references that are current, as most of the references used are very old.	We understand your point. We have deleted some of the rather old references and added nine new references that are all less than eight years old and most are from this decade (one under publication).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for presenting a clear, relevant and well-researched study in a relatively under-researched area of academia. The paper is well structured and coherent. The findings make an important contribution to the field and have potential to be useful to learning designers, those leading Development and Performance Review discussions, and academics across career-stages within and beyond Education (for example, those within Education who are typically accomplished teaching practitioners looking for new ideas and enrichment, or those who may research beyond Education but are less confident in their teaching abilities and looking for inspiration). 

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for you kind comments. We appreciate very much that you have taken the time to read and access our work