We Never Left Work: Challenges to Sustaining High-Quality Teaching and Learning during COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and it offers a good contribution in the area. Yet the paper needs some form of improvement.

# At the abstract the claim about nine researchers should be avoided. I suggest a rephrase of the sentence to provide more academic flavor.

Introduction:

# Teacher burnout has considered as the prime concern of this research. Hence we also need to understand the implication/ impact of Covid-19 itself on education. Hence also need to give some understanding on SES which is missing. Moreover, the literature is many based on US and developed country context. I suggest that this research looks also comparative significance before narrowly moving to US context. As being Sustainability is an international journal and readers from various part reads this outlet. Hence a link with developing part should add value. The impact of Pandemic on education in developing soil can be accessed from :

Access, attendance and performance in urban K8 education during pre- and post-COVID-19 restrictions in Bangladesh: comparison of students in slums, tin-sheds and flats DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2022.2109183

Three Parameters of Urban K-8 Education During Pre- and Post-Covid-19 Restrictions: Comparison of Students of Slums, Tin-Sheds, and Flats in Bangladesh DOI: 10.1177/00131245221086277

I suggest that some element from developing soil should be incorporated for the wider implication of this research

 Literature review

I enjoyed reading this section. However, numbering of sub-section needs to be adjusted following journal’s guidance.

Research Design

I suggest to describe more on how the interviews were conducted and what are phases and sequences were maintained. The issue of coding for confidentiality and ethical guidance need to be explored. This has not done yet.

I would advise that the bullet point should be removed. Moreover, we need to understand the post-covid implication for this research.

This is good effort. I am sure that the revised version would improve the value.

Good luck              

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, congratulations on the research developed. On the other hand, I consider that the article is perfectly prepared. The entire structure is clear and allows it to be easily understood. In turn, the data is well collected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback.  We are elated that you appreciated the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the study is interesting. The abstract does not describe the aim of the paper, nor does it specify the strengths of the paper. The manuscript is clear and presented in a structured way. The paper shows a scientific approach following the IMRYD format. The structure of the discourse is orderly, but the grammar should be reviewed as it does not present a scientific language, the first person is used (eg.line 31 "In our work, we sought...").

As for the theoretical framework, there is a theoretical justification of the topic of study and its relevance, the authors collected in academic books, journals, and other resources are listed in the bibliography.  

In the description of the study, an exhaustive account is given of the work activities and resources used, i.e. methodologies, techniques and tools. It is interesting to note that it would be necessary to go into more detail on all the key aspects of the research process, from the methodological approach to the data analysis plan and the evaluation of the results. 

In the discussion it would be relevant to add a section related to the strengths and limitations of the study and to add a section on conclusions, which does not appear.

The subject of the study is current. It is argued with current bibliographical references.

In my opinion, this article is suitable for the journal, although some interesting changes are indicated to improve the work:

- Complete the abstract by deepening the objectives of the study, type of design and give a more scientific structure to the abstract.

- Revise the grammar and scientific language.

- Further develop the key aspects of the research process.

- Add a section on conclusions.

- Complete the discussion section with the strengths and limitations of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Professional English editing is required 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper can be accepted based on the revised version.