The Relationship Between the Motivational Style of Teachers and the Implementation of Cooperative Learning: A Self Determination Theory Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your contribution and submission.

This is a very interesting paper and addresses an important topic. Overall, it is well-written and informative. 

I have few review comments, recommendations, and suggestions for your consideration as follows.

Abstract: 

lines 18-189: "The results show a positive relationship between intrinsic 18 regulation towards school tasks and the application of CL in the classroom" ... was the relationship significant or not? please add p values. 

keywords: it is recommended to arrange keywords in an alphabetical order.

Materials and Methods

Participants:

what were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? please add.

how did you determine sample size? please elaborate.

please add ethical approval information (institution name granted approval, number of approval, and date of approval).

Procedure: 

who did conduct the training and how many? what was their scientific background and level of experience? please add this information. 

you mentioned that the teachers received series of questionnaires in the current study. were these questionnaires pilot-tested to ensure their appropriateness for the purpose of the study? please explain. 

Conclusion

line 349: it is suggested to move limitations and recommendations for future directions mentioned here to the discussion section (last paragraph would be appropriate). 

I would be happy to look at the revised manuscript.

Best wishes, 

 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the contributions made to the manuscript, thanks to which we believe it has improved considerably. We now respond to each comment:

Comment 1: lines 18-189: "The results show a positive relationship between intrinsic 18 regulation towards school tasks and the application of CL in the classroom" ... was the relationship significant or not? please add p values. 

Response1 : We had added p values in the abstract (line 19).

Comment 2: keywords: it is recommended to arrange keywords in an alphabetical order.

Response 2: Thank you for your recommendation. The keywords have been organized in alphabetical order.

Comment 3: Participants: what were the inclusion and exclusion criteria? please add. how did you determine sample size? please elaborate.

Response 3: We added information about the inclusion criteria and the determination of sample size (lines 144-146; 151-154)

Comment 4: please add ethical approval information (institution name granted approval, number of approval, and date of approval).

Response 4: We have incorporated in the manuscript, lines 162-164.

Comment 5: Procedure: who did conduct the training and how many? what was their scientific background and level of experience? please add this information. 

Response 5: We have added this information (lines 170-171).

Comment 6: you mentioned that the teachers received series of questionnaires in the current study. were these questionnaires pilot-tested to ensure their appropriateness for the purpose of the study? please explain. 

Response 6: The questionnaires completed by the participants are those described in the "Measures" section of the manuscript, and both have already been validated: Teachers' Cooperative Learning Questionnaire (TCLQ), by Prieto-Saborit et al., and Tasks Motivation Scale for Teachers, by Fernet et al..

Comment 7: line 349: it is suggested to move limitations and recommendations for future directions mentioned here to the discussion section (last paragraph would be appropriate). 

Response 7: Thanks for the suggestion, we've modified that paragraph at the end of the discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses an interesting topic, and overall, the interpretation is generally clear. However, several errors can be detected, and there is room for improvement in multiple aspects:

 

1. The sample consists of teachers who teach different subjects and at different education levels. This raises concerns that these differences might impact the implementation of CL and, consequently, influence the research results. I would like the authors to justify their approach to this issue.
2. In Table 1, "standard deviation" was mistakenly written as "DS" instead of "SD." Additionally, there is an inconsistency between the text and the table regarding the standard deviation of Cooperative Learning: the text states .06, whereas the table shows .60. Moreover, the terms "demotivation" and "amotivation" are used inconsistently between the text and the table.
3. It is suggested that the authors further discuss the correlation analysis results. Currently, only the significance is addressed, but it would be beneficial to provide an interpretation of the correlation coefficients.
4. In Table 2, the title is not in English. Additionally, some numbers use a decimal comma while others use a decimal point, which should be standardized.
5. There is a concern regarding the generalizability of the results, as the sample size is not large enough and all participants are from the same country. It would be good to discuss this limitation in the paper.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the contributions made to the manuscript, thanks to which we believe it has improved considerably. We now respond to each comment:

Comment 1: The sample consists of teachers who teach different subjects and at different education levels. This raises concerns that these differences might impact the implementation of CL and, consequently, influence the research results. I would like the authors to justify their approach to this issue.

Response 1:  Both Model 1 and Model 2 consider potential differences associated with educational levels, and such differences have indeed been observed. In Model 2, this factor is already accounted for, meaning the results take level disparities into consideration. Regarding subjects, it would be valuable to explore this aspect separately for each one. To do so, expanding the sample for each subject would be more appropriate—a point that now it is discussed in the limitations section (lines 362-364).

Comment 2:In Table 1, "standard deviation" was mistakenly written as "DS" instead of "SD." Additionally, there is an inconsistency between the text and the table regarding the standard deviation of Cooperative Learning: the text states .06, whereas the table shows .60. Moreover, the terms "demotivation" and "amotivation" are used inconsistently between the text and the table.

Response 2: Thank you for noticing that error. We have corrected those errors: properly writing SD, standardizing both numbers to 0.60, and using the term “amotivation” consistently in both cases.

Comment 3: It is suggested that the authors further discuss the correlation analysis results. Currently, only the significance is addressed, but it would be beneficial to provide an interpretation of the correlation coefficients.

Response 3: Thank you for this comment. At times, correlations are overlooked, despite offering valuable insights. As a result, we have highlighted that the types of regulation closest to intrinsic motivation correlate with CL, whereas the more distant ones do not (Line 319-321).

Comment 4: In Table 2, the title is not in English. Additionally, some numbers use a decimal comma while others use a decimal point, which should be standardized.

Response 4: We have corrected the title and used decimal points in all numerical values.

Comment 5: There is a concern regarding the generalizability of the results, as the sample size is not large enough and all participants are from the same country. It would be good to discuss this limitation in the paper.

Response 5: We find this reflection interesting and have included it in the limitations section (lines 364-365).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although this study explores the relationship between teachers' motivational styles and the implementation of Cooperative Learning (CL), utilizing the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as an analytical framework, it contains significant shortcomings that affect its scientific rigor and generalizability.

1. The theoretical framework primarily relies on SDT, but its application remains superficial, failing to deeply explore how different types of motivation specifically influence teachers' adoption of CL.
2. The study employs convenience sampling instead of random sampling, which may result in a sample that is not representative of the broader teacher population, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings.
3. The paper relies only on mean values, standard deviations, and correlation analyses, lacking more in-depth data visualization and exploratory analysis.
4. The discussion section largely reiterates the study's findings without offering a deeper theoretical examination.
5. The educational policy recommendations are overly broad; for instance, the suggestion to "enhance teacher training" lacks concrete implementation strategies and fails to address how it can be effectively integrated into real-world educational settings.
6. The manuscript is excessively lengthy, with numerous sections repeating similar points, which diminishes readability and clarity.

These issues significantly undermine the study's contribution, and substantial revisions would be required to improve its quality.

  Comments on the Quality of English Language

The expression needs further scrutiny.

 

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the contributions you have made to the manuscript, which we believe has improved it considerably. We now respond to each comment:

Comment 1: The theoretical framework primarily relies on SDT, but its application remains superficial, failing to deeply explore how different types of motivation specifically influence teachers' adoption of CL.

Response 1: This study represents a first approximation of the relationship between SDT and CL, but achieving greater depth would require the use of other designs and methodologies. There is no previous research based on SDT in teachers and its application of CL, so we believe that a significant contribution to the field is made, even with an approximation study of the relationship between the theory and implementation of CL. To go deeper, we believe that a quasi-experimental design could be applied to observe changes in the type of motivation, or with a larger number of measured variables, more in-depth analysis techniques, such as Structural Equation Modeling, could be applied. We felt that this study was too extensive to add to the limitations section, but we have added some ideas on how to overcome this limitation (line 370-372).

Comment 2: The study employs convenience sampling instead of random sampling, which may result in a sample that is not representative of the broader teacher population, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Response 2: We understand that random sampling allows for a higher level of generalizability of results; however, convenience sampling appeared to be the most suitable option given that participation required a significant effort from the teaching staff. Nevertheless, convenience sampling still provides relevant results for the research, as it is widely used in fields such as psychology and education. It is important to note, however, that any study using this type of sampling requires careful consideration regarding the generalization of the results, which we have included in the discussion (lines 366-365).

Comment 3: The paper relies only on mean values, standard deviations, and correlation analyses, lacking more in-depth data visualization and exploratory analysis.

Response 3: We appreciate this observation. Although more complex and in-depth analyses could always be provided, we believe the techniques used are appropriate. The means, standard deviations, and correlations are part of an initial descriptive and exploratory analysis. The GEE model delves deeper into the potential relationships between the variables. To expand the results section, we have included the implications of the correlation analyses in the discussion (318-321).

Comment 4: The discussion section largely reiterates the study's findings without offering a deeper theoretical examination.

Response 4: We appreciate your feedback. We have revised the discussion section and added its theoretical implications (lines 348-355).

Comment 5: The educational policy recommendations are overly broad; for instance, the suggestion to "enhance teacher training" lacks concrete implementation strategies and fails to address how it can be effectively integrated into real-world educational settings.

Response 5: We have attempted to provide a clearer explanation of this in the discussion and conclusions section. We believe that a thorough presentation of recommendations and ideas related to implementation should be derived from a specific study focused on testing particular educational measures. Therefore, in our case, we chose not to comment on these aspects in greater depth, as they would depend on the region where the program is implemented and the educational level. Additionally, the scientific literature consistently revisits the topic of teacher training.

Comment 6: The manuscript is excessively lengthy, with numerous sections repeating similar points, which diminishes readability and clarity.

Response 6: We hope that the reformulation of the introduction and discussion sections has improved the overall clarity and structure of the article.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the manuscript based on my comments. I have no further concerns.

Author Response

Thank you for your time.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no additional advice.

  Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your time.