Enhancing Student Engagement and Outcomes: The Effects of Cooperative Learning in an Ethiopian University’s Classrooms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposal  Enhancing Engagement and Learning Outcomes: The Effect of Cooperative Learning in Ethiopian Higher Education presents a survey-based study to reinforce the advantages of cooperative learning vs. lecture-based approaches in HE. 

The tile encompasses the country, whereas the study is from one HEI in Ethiopia. 

Keywords may be improved: I suggest adding cooperative learning, for example, or pedagogy.

The structure presented (number and titles) is coherent with what is expected, but the content is not. For example, point 2, Literature Review, does not contextualize the study theoretically or empirically. It discusses the use of questionnaires to measure student engagement, which lacks foundational support. 

The Materials and Methods section intends to describe the study's methodological approach. However, further description is necessary to fully understand the sampling strategy and the study itself: Was it a survey? The section addresses what may be perceived as qualitative methods. The information provided does not describe the study and its implementation; it describes a pedagogical approach. 

Section 3 presents the results.

Section 4 intends to discuss the results obtained. However, it appears to be more of a literature review (section 1). This section should discuss the results of section 3.

In sum, the proposal lacks foundational support and a clear methodological description.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in green in the re-submitted files.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 1

Comments	Actions taken	The location of the changes
The tile encompasses the country, whereas the study is from one HEI in Ethiopia.	Agree. We have changed the coverage of the title to indicate the single institution nature of the study.	Title page.
Keywords may be improved: I suggest adding cooperative learning, for example, or pedagogy.	Suggestion fully accepted. ‘Cooperative learning’	p. 1, lines 23 & 24.
The structure presented (number and titles) is coherent with what is expected, but the content is not. For example, point 2, Literature Review, does not contextualize the study theoretically or empirically. It discusses the use of questionnaires to measure student engagement, which lacks foundational support.	We greatly appreciate Reviewer 1 for providing such critical and very relevant comments. Honestly, we missed contextualizing cooperative learning (CL) with the two important variables, including student engagement and learning outcomes. This was mainly due to a misunderstanding of contextualizing and a further shift in focus towards the argument behind using which student engagement tool. The revised version explores social interdependence and social constructivist theories as foundational theories and includes empirical research findings. It also provides supporting evidence for the use of questionnaires to measure engagement and learning outcomes.	pp. 3-5, lines 126-217.
The Materials and Methods section intends to describe the study's methodological approach. However, further description is necessary to fully understand the sampling strategy and the study itself: Was it a survey? The section addresses what may be perceived as qualitative methods. The information provided does not describe the study and its implementation; it describes a pedagogical approach.	Reviewer 1 comments accepted. More substantive contents added to clarify the study's methodological approach. Additionally, the study design is expanded and articulated well. Also, the sampling procedure clarified to fully understand the sampling strategy and the study itself. The quantitative nature of the study and the methodological procedure emphasized in the revised version.	pp. 5-7, lines 219-349.
Section 3 presents the results.	The demographic profile of the study participants moved to the results section.	p. 8, lines 361-370.
Section 4 intends to discuss the results obtained. However, it appears to be more of a literature review (section 1). This section should discuss the results of section 3.	We fully agreed with reviewer 1's comments on the nature of the discussion. In the revised section, we focused on comparing the effects of cooperative learning (CL) and conventional lecture-based instruction (LI) in university classrooms and providing relevant interpretations. We analyzed the findings in the context of existing empirical evidence in the international literature. We extensively revised the discussion section to address whether the study's hypotheses were supported and to explore the implications of the results for teaching practices. The discussion also acknowledges the study’s limitations, including sample size, the subjectivity of assessments, or the specific context in which the study was conducted.	pp. 11-13, lines 435-511.
In sum, the proposal lacks foundational support and a clear methodological description.	Agree with the reviewer 1’s comment. In the revised manuscript, foundational support and a clear methodological description were added.	pp. 3-7, lines 126-349.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I thought the manuscript was well written and organized and extended the literature on teaching in higher education from an important perspective using non-western or European samples. My comments for revision are minor, see below:

·         Line 56 – spell out the term “cooperative learning” in the first use. The authors note the term in the abstract but should also do so in the body of the manuscript.

·         Lines 146-148 – awkward wording. I suggest deleting the sentence and beginning the section with the next sentence that begins with “Flow”.

·         Line 153 – a period is needed after the word “literature” and before the word “Here”.

·         Lines 179-180 – are awkwardly worded – I would delete the sentence that begins with “If”, as the authors note the selection of Kuh’s framework in the section summary.

·         Lines 187-189 – same as above – I suggest deleting the sentence that begins with, “Kuh’s instrument…”

·         Line 204 – was the same Management OR Civil Engineering? Or was it Management and Civil Engineering?

·         Line 214-215 – I appreciate the authors' transparency in highlighting that the study at hand is a portion of a larger, mixed-methods study. The sentence that this is “a completely different study” is, therefore, not true. I suggest deleting the sentence. You have let us know the larger, mixed-methods context, and the current study is the quantitative component.

·         Line 225 – add “an” before Ethiopian.

·         Line 228 – Is Jimma University a pseudonym? If so, please indicate that it is.

·         Line 232 – the semi-colon should be deleted right before the word “matching”.

 

·         Lines 484-492 – I recommend deleting as it is not necessary to provide that detail. I recommend simply referencing the other study by citing it.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in yellow in the re-submitted files.
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors	Actions taken	Location of the changes in the revised submission
·         Line 56 – spell out the term “cooperative learning” in the first use. The authors note the term in the abstract but should also do so in the body of the manuscript.	Agree. The full version ‘cooperative learning’ inserted as recommended.	p. 2, lines 56-57.
·         Lines 146-148 – awkward wording. I suggest deleting the sentence and beginning the section with the next sentence that begins with “Flow”.	Agree. The sentence in lines 146-148 deleted as recommended.	Does not exist.
·         Line 153 – a period is needed after the word “literature” and before the word “Here”.	Agree. A period is added after the word ‘literature’ and before the word ‘here.’	p. 4, line 185.
·         Lines 179-180 – are awkwardly worded – I would delete the sentence that begins with “If”, as the authors note the selection of Kuh’s framework in the section summary.	Agree. The sentence in lines 179-180 deleted as recommended.	Does not exist.
·         Lines 187-189 – same as above – I suggest deleting the sentence that begins with, “Kuh’s instrument…”	Agree. ·The sentence in lines 187-189 deleting as recommended.	Does not exist.
·         Line 204 – was the same Management OR Civil Engineering? Or was it Management and Civil Engineering?	The stated ‘Management’ was the same Management not Civil Engineering.’ The entire sampling procedure clarified in the revised version.	pp. 5-6, lines 237-263.
·         Line 214-215 – I appreciate the authors' transparency in highlighting that the study at hand is a portion of a larger, mixed-methods study. The sentence that this is “a completely different study” is, therefore, not true. I suggest deleting the sentence. You have let us know the larger, mixed-methods context, and the current study is the quantitative component.	Agree. The sentence that this is “a completely different study” deleted as recommended.	Does not exist.
·         Line 225 – add “an” before Ethiopian.	Agree. ‘an’ added before Ethiopian as recommended.	p. 7, line 320.
·         Line 228 – Is Jimma University a pseudonym? If so, please indicate that it is.	No. Jimma University was a real name, so it is retained as it is.	p. 5, line 221.
·         Line 232 – the semi-colon should be deleted right before the word “matching”.	Agree. The semi-colon in line 232 deleted right before the word “matching” as recommended.	Does not exist.
·         Lines 484-492 – I recommend deleting as it is not necessary to provide that detail. I recommend simply referencing the other study by citing it.	Agree. The substantive contents in lines 484-492 – deleted as recommended.	Does not exist.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented is interesting for the scientific community. The authors analyze a current thematic focus.

 

The manuscript is well structured and developed. All information presented has been well defined.

 

In my opinion, the article has great potential and can be published in the current version, since the different sections are correctly organized and developed in depth.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is recommended to read it to optimize the writing and language.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title Evaluation:

The title "The Effects of Cooperative Learning Pedagogy on Undergraduate Students' Engagement and Learning Outcome in Ethiopian Higher Education Classrooms" is quite informative and well-structured. However, there are some suggestions for improvement:

Clarity: The title is clear and concise, effectively conveying the topic and scope of the study. This is a strength.

Specificity: It mentions the key elements of the study - cooperative learning, undergraduate students, engagement, and learning outcomes. This helps potential readers quickly understand what the study is about.

Geographic Context: It specifies the context, which is Ethiopian higher education classrooms. This is useful for understanding the study's setting.

Suggestion for Improvement: While the title is informative, it could be more engaging with a slight rephrasing. For example, "Enhancing Engagement and Learning Outcomes: The Impact of Cooperative Learning in Ethiopian Higher Education."

Abstract Evaluation:

The abstract provides a concise summary of the study, its methods, findings, and implications. However, there are areas for improvement:

Clarity: The abstract is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information from the research background to results and implications. This is a strength.

Specificity: It clearly mentions the study's design (post-test-only control group design), the courses studied, and the results obtained. These specifics are important for readers.

Context: The abstract briefly explains the study's basis in social interdependence theory, which is a good practice.

Introduction Evaluation:

The introduction of this scientific article provides a comprehensive overview of the background, context, and research questions, but there are some aspects that could be improved:

Clarity and Structure: The introduction is well-structured with clear subsections, which makes it easy to follow. The background information about learning outcomes, student engagement, and the need for pedagogical reform in higher education is presented clearly.

Relevance: The introduction establishes the relevance of the study by highlighting the significance of learning outcomes, student engagement, and the role of cooperative learning (CL) in improving teaching and learning.

Citation of Previous Research: The authors effectively reference prior studies and theories, such as the social interdependence theory, to underpin the importance of their study. This adds credibility to their work.

Critical Gap Identification: The introduction identifies gaps in the existing literature related to student engagement, pedagogical practices, and learning outcomes, particularly in the context of Ethiopian higher education. This demonstrates the need for the current study.

Objective Statement: The introduction clearly states the objective of the study, which is to investigate the impact of a CL pedagogic model on student engagement and learning outcomes.

Research Questions: The research questions are presented logically and guide the reader toward the study's objectives. However, there could be more detail about why these specific questions were chosen and how they align with the objectives.

Method Evaluation:

The methods section of this scientific article provides a detailed account of how the study was conducted. Overall, it is adequately structured and provides a clear understanding of the study design, variables, participants, interventions, tools, procedures, and data analysis methods. However, there are some areas where the text can be improved:

Clarity and Conciseness: While the section is comprehensive, it could benefit from increased conciseness. Some parts appear repetitive or overly detailed. For example, a brief summary of the five variants of CL interventions and the purpose of each could make this section more concise.

Explanation of Statistical Methods: The description of the data analysis could be more detailed. Mention of the specific statistical tests and the reasoning behind choosing them would improve clarity. For example, specify what tests were used to assess the effects of CL interventions on student engagement and learning outcomes.

Sampling Methods: The section mentions random assignment of students to intervention and control groups, which is good for reducing bias. However, it would be beneficial to include details on how randomization was carried out and whether any stratification or matching was used.

Description of Tools: The description of the tools for data collection is clear, but it would be helpful to provide a brief rationale for why these specific questions and scales were chosen to measure student engagement and learning outcomes.

Ethical Considerations: The methods section lacks mention of ethical considerations, such as obtaining informed consent and ethics committee approval. Including this information is crucial in research involving human participants.

Data Analysis Software: Specify the software used for data analysis, which can enhance the transparency of the research process.

 

Academic Language: Maintain a consistent academic writing style and consider breaking down lengthy sentences into smaller, more digestible segments for enhanced readability.

Results Evaluation:

The Results section of the scientific article presents the findings of the study, which is the most critical part of any research article. In general, this section provides a comprehensive overview of the results. Here are some key points:

Clarity and Organization: The section is clear and well-organized, providing an overview of the results before delving into specific details.

Preliminary Analyses: The explanation of independence of observations and the sample size is clear and relevant. However, the part about including every student in the courses could be more concise.

Validity and Reliability: The mention of experts reviewing the questionnaire for validity and conducting reliability tests is appropriate.

Statistical Tests: The presentation of results from independent sample t-tests is clear and concise. It provides the necessary information to assess the statistical significance of the findings.

Effect Sizes: The inclusion of Cohen's d effect sizes is valuable as it provides information about the practical significance of the findings.

Visual Representation: The addition of boxplots and visual representations is beneficial for readers to quickly grasp the magnitude of mean differences between groups.

Data Interpretation: The text interprets the results appropriately, indicating which group had higher levels in various measures.

Discussion Evaluation:

The Discussion section of the scientific article provides an opportunity for the authors to interpret the results, discuss their implications, and highlight the broader context. Here is a critical evaluation of this section:

Clarity and Organization: The section is reasonably clear and well-organized. However, some parts could be more concise for better readability.

Contextualization: The authors appropriately emphasize the scarcity of empirical data on collaborative learning (CL) in higher education (HE) in sub-Saharan Africa. They provide a clear rationale for their study by addressing the gap in the literature.

Supporting Literature: The authors effectively reference earlier studies to substantiate the relevance of CL pedagogies in universities and how it impacts students' learning experiences and outcomes.

T-Values and Effect Sizes: The section correctly interprets t-values and effect sizes, showing that the use of CL resulted in statistically significant improvements for the Management student group. However, for the Engineering student group, while t-values are mentioned, it is not clear whether the differences were statistically significant or not. This should be clarified.

 

Interpretation: The text does a good job explaining why these findings are important and how they support the use of CL pedagogies in higher education. It emphasizes the positive impact on student engagement and learning outcomes.

Teaching Priorities: The section discusses the commitment of instructors to implementing CL teaching. However, it lacks specific details or examples to illustrate how instructors effectively adhered to CL principles. Providing concrete examples or case studies could enhance this section.

Quality of University Instruction: The text appropriately highlights the importance of university instruction and suggests that CL pedagogies can improve it. However, it doesn't delve into the challenges or potential drawbacks of CL, which could provide a more balanced perspective.

Recommendations and Future Research: The authors suggest the need for further research into the effectiveness of CL in other fields and recommend incorporating CL into university courses. These recommendations are appropriate, but they could be more specific, such as outlining the types of studies needed or how universities can implement CL more effectively.

Limitations: The section correctly acknowledges the limitations of the study, particularly the non-equivalent control group design. However, the explanation could be clearer regarding why the two groups may not have been comparable without the instructional approach. Providing suggestions for how these limitations could be addressed in future research would be valuable.

Conclusion Evaluation:

The Conclusion section is a vital part of a scientific article, and it serves to summarize the study's main findings, discuss their implications, and suggest avenues for future research. Here's a critical evaluation of this section:

Clarity and Summarization: The section is clear and provides a succinct summary of the study's findings. It successfully reiterates the primary findings without unnecessary repetition.

Differentiated Findings: The section properly distinguishes between the results for the Management course and the Engineering course, indicating that the study hypothesis is valid for Management, but there's insufficient data to confirm this for Engineering. This distinction is important for transparency and precision.

Theoretical Implications: The text effectively highlights the theoretical significance of the study by emphasizing its contribution to social interdependence theory and collaborative learning. It underscores how the study merges two lines of research, student engagement, and outcomes, into a cohesive whole.

Practical Implications: The section correctly points out the practical implications of the findings, suggesting that collaborative learning should be recommended over traditional methods in higher education classrooms. The encouragement for the use of CL pedagogies in various disciplines is relevant.

Model and Principles: Mentioning the model and principles generated by the study that teachers can use to design and evaluate their teaching is a valuable addition. It provides a practical dimension to the findings.

Implications for Institutional Policy: The authors address the need for a stronger knowledge base for teaching and learning in higher education in Ethiopia and suggest that institutional policy should focus on improving teaching practices, student learning, and development outcomes. This is a crucial point.

Policymaker Emphasis: The section highlights the common emphasis on student achievement in policymaking and the need to consider educational processes and social components. It is beneficial in the context of holistic education.

Recommendations for Further Research: The Conclusion section does not explicitly suggest avenues for future research. It would be advantageous to provide some recommendations for future studies, such as examining the long-term effects of CL pedagogies or investigating the potential challenges in implementing CL in diverse cultural settings.

 

In summary, the Conclusion section effectively summarizes the study's findings and discusses their implications. To enhance this section, consider offering specific recommendations for future research and being more explicit about the need for further investigation in specific areas.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented for consideration is scientifically and politically relevant, not only because of the topic of cooperative learning and the relationship with teaching more adapted to student profiles and a more interactive and proactive learning dynamic, but also because it increases knowledge about teaching in Ethiopia (scarcely known) and contributes to the definition of higher education policies and evidence-based pedagogical practices. 

The article adequately describes the study carried out, however, it would perhaps benefit from some clarifications and reflections, namely: the relationship between the quantitative part of the study (on which the article is based) and the qualitative (phenomenological) part in the discussion of results (already published); the justification of the a priori items constructed by one of the authors of the study and which served as a basis for questioning and defining criteria (line 138); a better clarification of the distinction between what the authors call "traditional" or "standard" teaching-learning methodologies and cooperative learning methodologies, overcoming a perhaps excessively polarized approach.

Also in the conclusions, numerous variables (context, curriculum, teaching style, classroom relationships, etc.) were not taken into account. Only the pedagogical approach is the cross-cutting element. This places numerous limitations on the conclusions, as the authors themselves acknowledge. Perhaps in this point some hypotheses could be identified for analysis in future studies.