Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Goals: Toward Pro-SEL Pedagogy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and timely manuscript but there is room for improvements as shown below:

In the abstract section, it would be useful to state the country of the research study and what sampling method was used to recruit participants. It is unclear what SEL stands for. It is always good to write the full name first. 

It is understood English is not the authors’ native language and yet “teaching methods” rather than “working methods” be used (p.62, line 60). It is too far-fetched to state that “without a learning-support environment” (p2, line 62).  Many schools cared very much about their students and provided in-house training to their own teachers so that they could teach online effectively. Hence, when teachers teach online, they mostly provide a supportive learning environment rather than just deliver lessons using direct instructions. In fact, the authors also stated what I meant in Section 3.

It is understood that 5 sub-categories were found upon data analysis and yet it would be useful to provide some quantitative data for each category so that the readers would have an overall picture of the findings. Similarly for the application part even though it is a qualitative analysis paper.

Author Response

1. Are all the cited references were amended and now are relevant to the research.
2. The results were reworked and made clearer and more explicit.
3. The article is now adequately referenced.
4. The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature.

5. In the abstract section, the country of the research study is now stated and the sampling method to recruit participants is indicated. The acronym SEL is explained.

6. Language errors and typos were corrected.
7. Quantitative data was added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1.  English language and style are fine/minor was spell checked.
2. All the cited references are now relevant to the research.
3. The research design, questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly stated.
4. The article is adequately referenced.
5. The conclusions are now thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature.

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-written research paper. Nonetheless, there are some issues need to be considered before publication.

- The authors need to include a section to discuss the practical implications based on their findings.

- The authors need to report the research limitations and future work. 

- There are  many related and recent research  that need to be reported to enrich the introduction and finding sections. This includes but not limited to: 

 1. Teachers’ Perceptions of Technology Integration in Teaching-Learning Practices: A Systematic Review. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2022.920317

2. Pedagogical practices and challenges in cultivating moral values: A qualitative study of primary school teachers in Pakistan. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1992471

Author Response

1.  All the cited references are now relevant to the research.
2. The article is adequately referenced.
3. The conclusions are now thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature.

4. Practical implications based on the findings were added.

5.  

   We reported the research limitations and future work.

6. We agree that the indicated research is valuable and we will definitely use it in future research. However, right now we think that relevant references are adequate. 

Reviewer 4 Report

In this article, the citation or reference writing in the body of the article does not appear, so I cannot express my opinion regarding this citation.

The discussion needs to be added and deepened according to the method presented

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. All the cited references were amended and now are relevant to the research.
2. The arguments and discussion of findings are now coherent, balanced and compelling.
3. The conclusions are thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature.
4. A discussion was added and deepened according to the method presented