The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Too much self reference (there are at least 16 self-references over 30 in total).

When you cite more than one reference together, I think it is better if you cite them in numerical ascending order and I usually put theme in the same square brackets, for example [10][2][11] should be [2,10,11] (more than once in the paper).

Subsection 2.2, the various “points” are “items”, you can use the same word for clearness or a table. Moreover, there is a slight imbalance (teaching implementation has 28 items while ICT in collegial discussion only 2 items), can you explain why this difference? A table will be suitable even for the reliability coefficients (some of them miss the points to separate the digits?).

Table 3, “f” stands for “frequency”, I think absolute frequency, why is the third F capitalized?

Table 4, never is aligned on the left

It would be more useful to see also the questions (in English) posed to teachers, otherwise it is not so clear what Plan, Implementation and Evaluation in Tables 3,4,5 mean. Even more when speaking about students at the end of paragraph 3.1, is data always coming from the teachers? It is not clear

Goodness of Fit Analysis? What is the model? It should be explained that it is a multiple regression analysis, and its features. Which one are the exogenous and endogenous variables? I imagine that X variables in Figure 1 are exogenous and Y variables are endogenous, or not? Anyway, it should be made more clear how they were calculated, from which item/items. And you should also explain the meanings of arrows and coefficients

Table 7, column headers, the word “effect” should stay in a new line. Moreover, you should explain how you calculated the effect

In general, you should explain more how you calculated the coefficients in tables, the connections with the items of the questionnaire and the implication, beyond just restating them in the text.

Line 354 and 364: “Based on Table 8”

Line 377, “The findings of this study are also supported (BY? IN?) school management practices.” In many cases even before some propositions were missing.

Line 379, “to develop teaching competence (, WHICH?) is very effective”. In many cases even before THAT or WHICH were missing.

In the discussion section I think that you are calling new literature too much, why weren’t they cited before if relevant to the scope of the paper?

Line 439, “Subsequent research findings showed that utilizing ICT in collegial discussions has a higher effect (ON WHAT?) than the frequency of carrying out collegial discussions.”

Discussions and conclusions should be based more on the data, “from … we can infer that …”, otherwise it is a bit disconnected.

 

Author Response

“The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Tech-nology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes”.

 

Reviewer 1

Point by Point Response to Reviewer 1’s Comments

 

Comments

1. Too much self reference (there are at least 16 self-references over 30 in total).

 

2. When you cite more than one reference together, I think it is better if you cite them in numerical ascending order and I usually put theme in the same square brackets, for example [10][2][11] should be [2,10,11] (more than once in the paper).

 

3. Subsection 2.2, the various “points” are “items”, you can use the same word for clearness or a table. Moreover, there is a slight imbalance (teaching implementation has 28 items while ICT in collegial discussion only 2 items), can you explain why this difference? A table will be suitable even for the reliability coefficients (some of them miss the points to separate the digits?).

 

4. Table 3, “f” stands for “frequency”, I think absolute frequency, why is the third F capitalized?

 

5. Table 4, never is aligned on the left.
   
   
6. It would be more useful to see also the questions (in English) posed to teachers, otherwise it is not so clear what Plan, Implementation and Evaluation in Tables 3,4,5 mean. Even more when speaking about students at the end of paragraph 3.1, is data always coming from the teachers? It is not clear.

 

7. Goodness of Fit Analysis? What is the model? It should be explained that it is a multiple regression analysis, and its features. Which one are the exogenous and endogenous variables? I imagine that X variables in Figure 1 are exogenous and Y variables are endogenous, or not? Anyway, it should be made more clear how they were calculated, from which item/items. And you should also explain the meanings of arrows and coefficients.

 

8. Table 7, column headers, the word “effect” should stay in a new line. Moreover, you should explain how you calculated the effect.

 

 

9. In general, you should explain more how you calculated the coefficients in tables, the connections with the items of the questionnaire and the implication, beyond just restating them in the text.

 

10. Line 354 and 364: “Based on Table 8”

 

11. Line 377, “The findings of this study are also supported (BY? IN?) school management practices.” In many cases even before some propositions were missing.

 

12. Line 379, “to develop teaching competence (, WHICH?) is very effective”. In many cases even before THAT or WHICH were missing.

 

13. In the discussion section I think that you are calling new literature too much, why weren’t they cited before if relevant to the scope of the paper?

 

14. Line 439, “Subsequent research findings showed that utilizing ICT in collegial discussions has a higher effect (ON WHAT?) than the frequency of carrying out collegial discussions.”

 

15. Discussions and conclusions should be based more on the data, “from … we can infer that …”, otherwise it is a bit disconnected.

 

(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.

 

Responses

 

1. The references are increased to 49 references instead of self references, namely on pages 1-16.

 

2. The manuscript is corrected in writing the citations order, according to the sequence of numbers, namely on pages 1 – 16.

 

3. The term of points is replaced with items, and the difference in the number of items for each variable is explained, namely on pages 3-4.

 

4. Table 3 is revised, namely F is replaced with f, on page 5.

 

5. Table 4 is corrected, namely on page 7.

 

6. Planning, implementation, and evaluation are explained on page 6. The data is taken from the teacher's report and corroborated by documentation.

 

7. An explanation is added that X is the dimensions of the observed exogenous variable, while Y is the dimensions of the observed endogenous variable. The arrow indicate direct effect, namely on page 10.

 

8. The explanation of table 7 is added, the source of the value of direct effect, indirect effect, and total effect, namely on page 10.

 

9. The explanation of variable dimension scores, values of direct effect and indirect effect values are added, namely on page 10.

 

10. “Based on Table 8” are revised, namely on page 11.

 

11. “The findings of this study are also supported (BY? IN?) school management practices.” is revised, namely on page 12.

 

12. “to develop teaching competence (, WHICH?) is very effective” is revised, namely on page 12.

 

13. Relevant references are added and cited in the introduction and discussion, namely on pages 1-16.

 

14. “Subsequent research findings showed that utilizing ICT in collegial discussions has a higher effect (ON WHAT?) than the frequency of carrying out collegial discussions. The description is revised and added the explanation on page 12.

 

15. Discussions and conclusions is revised and based more on the data, namely on pages 12-16.

(x) English language is edited through MDPI editing service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

While the article seems to being an area of interest for Indonesia, the focus and emphasis in the terminology really makes the article of little interest to the international reader,

 Added to this is the fact that the poor use of English makes the article  almost incomprehensible.  Not only is the sentence construction problematic, but the mixture of tenses of the verb within the paragraph leads to the article being extremely difficult to read. Furthermore, the frequency of statements that are not backed up by references is high..

The article also seems to overlap with a similar article published last year.

Basically this seems to be an article that is based on modelling that is no meaningful described      

Author Response

“The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Tech-niques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes”.

 

Reviewer 2

Point by Point Response to Reviewer 2’s Comments

 

Comments

1. x) Extensive editing of English language and style required.
2. The frequency of statements that are not backed up by references is high..

 

 

Responses

(x) English language is edited through MDPI editing service.

2. The references are increased from 30 to 49 references to backed up frequency of statements, namely on pages 1-16.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

About improvement of English style, some examples:

Line 39: Sentence "It needs..." would be better "It's needed" and later.

Lines 111-112: Sentende "Even the use..." should be improved or connected with the next to get a better sense.

The comments for the interpretation of the tables are too reiterative using the verb "to underline" when other couuld be used.

Author Response

“The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes”.

 

Reviewer 3

Point by Point Response to Reviewer 3’s Comments

 

Comments

1. x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
2. Line 39: Sentence "It needs..." would be better "It's needed" and later.
3. Lines 111-112: Sentende "Even the use..." should be improved or connected with the next to get a better sense.
4. The comments for the interpretation of the tables are too reiterative using the verb "to underline" when other couuld be used.

 

 

Responses

(x) English language is edited through MDPI editing service.

2. Sentence "It needs..." is revised and changed with "It's needed".
3. Sentende "Even the use..." is revised.
4. The comments for the interpretation of the tables are too reiterative using the verb "to underline" are revised by using several verbs.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am afraid the article is still very poorly written, making it very difficult to appreciate the rationale for the article. The article still reads as if it is an analysis of data that is in want of a purpose!! If this article has gone through an English check, I fail to understand why there are multiple changes of tense of the verb within a paragraph and coherence between sentences is very often absent. The article needs to be rewritten under meaningful sub-headings.

It is not enough to give attention to the methodology and results without clarifying the purpose of the research. The introduction is expected to relate to the purpose, or rationale for the research being undertaken and is expected to focus on one or more concerns, problems or issues.  And it is probably more appropriate to separate this from the literature coverage that forms the background, ensuring the uniqueness of the research. 

I also fail to appreciate why one hypothesis is put forward with multiple parts. If the article is investigating whether ICT impacts on supervision through collegial discussion techniques (as per the title), then one hypothesis does not seem appropriate  In fact, I suggest research questions are more likely to give better direction to the research and enable to conclusion to be more meaningful.

I also fail to appreciate why data relates to collegial type supervision in general, when your title specifically relates to the involvement of ICT and presumable the ways in which this is entertained. Also there are still many paragraphs in the introduction without references and I fail to appreciate why the expression 'it is necessary' is used! Why is is necessary? I assume it because the authors decide this.

Another concern is related to line 64.  Why is this statement required? It seems superflous and hence unnecessary. In fact, I do not understand the point of the whole paragraph. Teaching and learning are separate entities and the terms are usually related to different persons. In this context 'learning to teach' seems far more appropriate!  I can go on. For example I do not understand why the instrument is based on 5 research variables (which ythe authors also call constructs)? And why is the heading about instruments (in the plural)! 

So the impression given is that the research methodology and the quality of the data collection and analysis is the major substance of the paper and its value as meaningful research is not of concern. How else can you explain the fact that the use of ICT has a nurturing effect (whatever this is as stated in the conclusion)!  I feel the article is data looking for a purpose.

 

Author Response

“The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes”.

 

Reviewer 2 (Round 2)

Point by Point Response to Reviewer 2’s Comments (Round 2)

 

Comments

1. (x) Extensive editing of English language and style required.

 

I am afraid the article is still very poorly written, making it very difficult to appreciate the rationale for the article.

 

2. The introduction is expected to relate to the purpose, or rationale for the research being undertaken and is expected to focus on one or more concerns, problems or issues.

 

3. I also fail to appreciate why one hypothesis is put forward with multiple parts.

 

4. I also fail to appreciate why data relates to collegial type supervision in general, when your title specifically relates to the involvement of ICT. there are still many paragraphs in the introduction without references, and I fail to appreciate why the expression 'it is necessary' is used!

 

5. Teaching and learning are separate entities and the terms are usually related to different persons. In this context 'learning to teach' seems far more appropriate!

 

6. The research methodology and the quality of the data collection and analysis is the major substance of the paper and its value as meaningful research is not of concern.

 

 

Responses

1. English language is edited through MDPI editing service.
2. The introduction was concluded with the research problems and the research objectives, namely on page 2.
3. The formulation of the research hypothesis was revised, namely on page 2.
4. The introduction, methods, results, and discussion was revised and described more clearly and were supported by references, namely on pages 1 – 15.
5. In the literature review, it is described more clearly that teaching and learning is a system, which has a certain definition, and can be explained comprehensively or partially, namely on page 2.
6. The research methodology and the quality of the data collection and analysis was revised, namely on pages 5-6.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This article suffers from

(a) poor English (see attached file) where yellow indicates superfluous text, purpose indicates that the text lacks clarity of meaning, blue indicates wrong tense of the verb, green indicates incorrect text and red indicates that the punctuation is incorrect.   I note the comment that the article has been check for English by MDPI, but I suggest the check has not been appropriate and many errors remain. There are also a number of redundant statements or sequenicnig of statementa that are not meaningful.

(b) a poor focus in the absract, introuctionand methodology. The abstract has much superfluous text and does not give a good overview of the article in terms of the focus, the rationale and the methodology of the research. The key words do not fully relate with the title.   

 I do not understand why it is conisdered appropriate that the introduction begins with mention of covid-19. The purpose or the issues that relate to this are not specified; there is no initial link to concerns or isiues associated with collegial supervision nor how ICT has advantages abd concerns. And thus I do not appreciate why the paper states - 'it is necessary'?   

The article gives both research questions and hypotheses. Why? The researchquestions are not discussed, not answered in the conclusion. The hypotheses are poorly stated in the introduction. but are followed up in the discusion and conclusion.

   In the methodology, there is no mention of data collection procedures and the methodology seems to give results in places. While the research instrument findings and analysis are sound, some data are given in the results without any introduction, such as via tables. The conclusion seems to relate to 5 aspects - instructional superivision involving collegial discussion;  ICT in collegial discussions; ICT related to student motivation; ICT related to having a nurturing effect, and ICT impact on teaching quality and student learning.  These 5 points do not fully align with the stated hypotheses (nor the research questions, although the research questions seem to be more cloely related).  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

“The Effectiveness of Utilizing Information and Communication Technology in Instructional Supervision with Collegial Discussion Techniques for the Teacher’s Instructional Process and the Student’s Learning Outcomes”.

 

Reviewer 2 (Round 3)

Point by Point Response to Reviewer 2’s Comments (Round 3)

 

Comments

 

1. (a) poor English (see attached file) where yellow indicates superfluous text, purpose indicates that the text lacks clarity of meaning, blue indicates wrong tense of the verb, green indicates incorrect text and red indicates that the punctuation is incorrect. I note the comment that the article has been check for English by MDPI, but I suggest the check has not been appropriate and many errors remain. There are also a number of redundant statements or sequenicnig of statementa that are not meaningful.

 

 

2. (b) a poor focus in the absract, introuctionand methodology. The abstract has much superfluous text and does not give a good overview of the article in terms of the focus, the rationale and the methodology of the research. The key words do not fully relate with the title.

 

3. I do not understand why it is conisdered appropriate that the introduction begins with mention of covid-19. The purpose or the issues that relate to this are not specified; there is no initial link to concerns or isiues associated with collegial supervision nor how ICT has advantages abd concerns. And thus I do not appreciate why the paper states - 'it is necessary'?

 

4. The article gives both research questions and hypotheses. Why? The researchquestions are not discussed, not answered in the conclusion. The hypotheses are poorly stated in the introduction. but are followed up in the discusion and conclusion.

 

5. In the methodology, there is no mention of data collection procedures and the methodology seems to give results in places. While the research instrument findings and analysis are sound, some data are given in the results without any introduction, such as via tables. The conclusion seems to relate to 5 aspects - instructional superivision involving collegial discussion; ICT in collegial discussions; ICT related to student motivation; ICT related to having a nurturing effect, and ICT impact on teaching quality and student learning.  These 5 points do not fully align with the stated hypotheses (nor the research questions, although the research questions seem to be more cloely related). 

Responses

1. The manuscript was edited according to reviewer 2’s comments.
2. The abstract and keywords were revised based on reviewer 2’s comments, namely on page 1.
3. The manuscript was revised based on reviewer 2’s comments and also considered the research field conditions, namely in the introduction, pages 1-4.
4. The formulation of the research problems and hypotheses was revised, namely on page 2.

    The conclusion was also revised following reviewer 2’s comments, namely on page 14.

5. The research method was revised based on reviewer 2’s comments, namely on page 6.