Review Reports
by
- Catarina Vieira da Silva*,
- Armanda Gonçalves and
- Paulo C. Dias
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Loredana Marcela Tranca Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTrends in Higher Education journal accepts contributions in the field of university pedagogy, and the reviewed manuscript proves that it can be included in this theme.
In my considered opinion the article ”Pedagogical innovation with sense? A seminal experiment of service-learning in gerontological social work” examines a current and relevant issue, and we welcome we the description of the impact of service-learning on social work students’skills. The reviewed manuscript explore students’ perspectives on the service learning experience, correlate skills with personal variables and analyze the impact of the service-learning experience on social work students’ skills.
We welcome this original article, well structured, coherent, with a logical flow easy to navigate and that uses appropriated and recent references for the subject (72 sources). The paper has the minimum word count required in the Trends in Higher Education journal format. After checking through Ithenticate, no significant similarities with other sources were identified.
In relation to the introductory section, theoretical approach and the conclusions I have no comments, but I propose some recommendations in relation to the method & results section:
- in the 2.3. Procedures section (p.6), please describe the coding process (eg how many coders? code negotiation process?) Describe how the process of obtaining informed consent from participants was conducted and, if applicable, was the research project approved by a research ethics committee?
- In section 3.4. - Reflection about experience and skills developed with SL (p.7-8) - the six categories of code are described. I suggest inserting within each category some examples from the students' final reports (what answers did the students formulate in relation to each code category? Please illustrate what the participants' views are in detail so that the reader can assess the accuracy of the analysis.)
Given these observations the manuscript requires minor revisions and we recommend publishing this article because it has potential to be read.
We want to congratulate you on a job well done!
Author Response
Concerning our manuscript, we have incorporated major revisions fully considering the reviewers comments. We take the opportunity to thank you for the chance to improve our paper, thus increasing the possibility of publication in your journal. Below are the reviewers' suggestions and our responses are presented in the manuscript are in green.
RECOMMENDATION: - in the 2.3. Procedures section (p.6), please describe the coding process (eg how many coders? code negotiation process?)
Done
RECOMMENDATION: Describe how the process of obtaining informed consent from participants was conducted and, if applicable, was the research project approved by a research ethics committee?
Done
RECOMMENDATION: - In section 3.4. - Reflection about experience and skills developed with SL (p.7-8) - the six categories of code are described. I suggest inserting within each category some examples from the students' final reports (what answers did the students formulate in relation to each code category? Please illustrate what the participants' views are in detail so that the reader can assess the accuracy of the analysis.)
Done
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the topic the authors have chosen and hope that my suggestions will contribute to the quality of their work.
Introduction: Enhancing clarity about the specifics of social work education in the introduction would be beneficial. The connection between the initial pages and social work education, particularly gerontological social work, is unclear. Identifying the knowledge gap and explaining the motivation behind this paper is essential.
Part 1.1. Service Learning: Definition and Impact: Focus more on contextualizing service learning within gerontological social work (90-180). The current text is too general and could be integrated into the study's context for better relevance (182-259).
Part 2. Materials and Methods: This section needs significant refinement:
1/ Justify the small sample size (263-267) and clarify the relevance of including parents' education.
2/ Elaborate on how the combination of quantitative findings with qualitative insights enriched your data understanding (270-301), especially the application of grounded theory (301), simply mentioning open coding is insufficient.
3/ Clarify questionnaire design to ensure it captures the study's constructs adequately.
4/ Explain measures to control for confounding variables and minimize biases.
5/ Address how generalizability is considered given the small sample size.
6/ Detail efforts to ensure consistent questionnaire administration and understanding among diverse experiences (different activities, practice lengths).
7/ Discuss interpreting results with the sample size limitation in mind.
8/ The study's analysis lacks comprehensiveness in demonstrating service-learning's impact in gerontological social work education.
9/ Address the lack of a control group and the study's reliance on self-reported data.
Conclusions: This section requires substantial enhancement. The conclusions should directly stem from the findings, avoiding generic statements.
Addressing these points in future research could deepen understanding of service-learning's effectiveness and application in higher education, especially in social work.
Correct chapter numbering and eliminate spelling errors or repetitive words.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageQuality of English is fine.
Author Response
Concerning our manuscript, we have incorporated major revisions fully considering the reviewers comments. We take the opportunity to thank you for the chance to improve our paper, thus increasing the possibility of publication in your journal. Below are the reviewers' suggestions and our responses are presented in the manuscript are in green.
RECOMMENDATION: Introduction: Enhancing clarity about the specifics of social work education in the introduction would be beneficial. The connection between the initial pages and social work education, particularly gerontological social work, is unclear. Identifying the knowledge gap and explaining the motivation behind this paper is essential.
Introduction was revised.
RECOMMENDATION: Part 1.1. Service Learning: Definition and Impact: Focus more on contextualizing service learning within gerontological social work (90-180). The current text is too general and could be integrated into the study's context for better relevance (182-259).
Done.
RECOMMENDATION:
Part 2. Materials and Methods: This section needs significant refinement:
1/ Justify the small sample size (263-267) and clarify the relevance of including parents' education.
In the submitted version of the study the mixed-methods study was not completely clear. This was changed in the submitted version, allowing us to consider this question in other way. The intent is not that much to generalize but to understand, in depth, the nature and relationships between the qualitative and quantitative data gathered, with implications for theory and practice. This was changed in the method section and discussion. This way, the sample size can be considered sufficient.
The relevance of parents is related to their impact on students development. We know that this variable is related to academic success/continuing studies. A reference was introduced in the discussion.
RECOMMENDATION: 2/ Elaborate on how the combination of quantitative findings with qualitative insights enriched your data understanding (270-301), especially the application of grounded theory (301), simply mentioning open coding is insufficient.
This was revised.
RECOMMENDATION: 3/ Clarify questionnaire design to ensure it captures the study's constructs adequately.
This was revised in the paper.
RECOMMENDATION: 4/ Explain measures to control for confounding variables and minimize biases.
With the change in the method, this recommendation was previously addressed. Moreover, some suggestions of further studies were presented to consider a more quasi-experimental study.
RECOMMENDATION: 5/ Address how generalizability is considered given the small sample size.
With the change in the method, this recommendation was previously addressed.
RECOMMENDATION: 6/ Detail efforts to ensure consistent questionnaire administration and understanding among diverse experiences (different activities, practice lengths).
This was revised in the procedures.
RECOMMENDATION: 7/ Discuss interpreting results with the sample size limitation in mind.
This was revised in the paper(in the discussion).
RECOMMENDATION: 8/ The study's analysis lacks comprehensiveness in demonstrating service-learning's impact in gerontological social work education.
This was revised in the paper (in the discussion).
RECOMMENDATION: 9/ Address the lack of a control group and the study's reliance on self-reported data.
This was revised in the paper.
RECOMMENDATION: Conclusions: This section requires substantial enhancement. The conclusions should directly stem from the findings, avoiding generic statements.
This was revised in the paper.
RECOMMENDATION: Addressing these points in future research could deepen understanding of service-learning's effectiveness and application in higher education, especially in social work.
This was revised in the paper.
RECOMMENDATION: Correct chapter numbering and eliminate spelling errors or repetitive words.
This was revised in the paper.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate all the work the authors have done and I accept their explanations. The revisions have improved the text.