Interdisciplinary Class Observation in Higher Education: Lessons Learned from the Professional Development Experience of Four Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the article to be clear and concise. The information shared was relevant and clearly stated..

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an interesting topic which fits within the scope of the Education Sciences journal. It presents a study based on peer observation of classes within the scope of teacher professional development in higher education. It includes the perspectives of four teachers from different fields of knowledge (Veterinary, Social Work, Pharmacy, and Education).

However, some suggestions could improve the overall quality of the paper.

First, the aim of the study should be made clear in the abstract. The research questions or objective(s) of the study should be clearly identified.

The literature review of the paper could be improved as there are only 19 references included in the reference section. The paper lacks scientific literature on the topic of pedagogy in higher education and teacher professional development. Findings from international literature and empirical studies should be explored in the literature review. This section is poor and needs greater development and improvement.

In the materials and methods section, the authors should identify the research questions of the study. These should be answered, further, in the discussion and conclusions section. The research design should be grounded on literature in the field of qualitative research methods. No reference is made to authors in the research methods field. Please consider grounding and supporting the research design in the qualitative paradigm.

The theoretical and conceptual background that supported the development of the observation grid are not explored in the paper, neither for table 1 neither table 2. This is a serious weakness of the paper. The change from a quantitative perspective to a qualitative perspective needs to be justified and grounded on scientific evidence.  

The term “constructive criticism” needs to be clarified and theoretically supported. It is an ambiguous term.

In the results, the pedagogic strategies and practices that were used by the teachers, having a positive impact on student engagement and participation in the classes observed, should be explored more deeply in order to explain the results of their effectiveness, based on the peer observations. This issue needs to be deepened and broadened in the paper.

In general, the paper brings upon a very important and necessary topic about staff development in higher education. However, as it is, it lacks a scientific approach in the presentation and analysis of the results achieved from the empirical study. Deep changes are needed for the paper to be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract

• The abstract needs to be improved because it does not capture the most relevant information of the article.

Introduction

• Part of the description of the sample in an introduction (lines 74-76). It should be in the method section.
• Although the introduction specifies that interdisciplinarity exists, it is done in a general way. It is necessary to go deeper into what each discipline can contribute to the others in a more concrete way, as they are completely different teachings.       
• The introduction needs to be expanded with studies to compare and discuss the results of the research.

Materials and methods

• The methodology followed in the research is not clearly explained.
• It is not specified where this research was carried out (university, country).
• It is necessary to go deeper into the data of the sample: age, sex, teaching experience, etc. This is a study with a very small sample, therefore, detailed information should be given about it. It would be interesting to specify why these four teachers were selected for the study.
• There is a lack of information on the subjects observed: location in the syllabus, number of students, ECTS credits,...
• The procedure is not explained.
• It is not specified when the observations are carried out and by whom. It is necessary to specify the number of observations that were carried out and who carried them out, if these observations were in practical or theoretical hours, how many students were present in the classes, etc.
• It is interesting that the observation is carried out by only one person, but that it is carried out by several people at the same time, because each one can interpret or look at different elements of the strategies used in the class.
• Figure 1 does not provide relevant information (line 112).
• There is no explanation of how the instrument is created: what are its dimensions, what is the basis for its construction, do they use an instrument that has been elaborated by previous research, etc.
• The final template used for the observations should be added as an appendix.

Results

• It is not specified how the results are analysed.
• Table 2 (line 139) is not well explained. The results need to be better explained, they cannot be put only in a table.
• The first observation grid should not be in the text but referenced in an annex (currently it is in the results section, line 131). It is not a result. Moreover, it is not correctly referenced in the text and does not provide relevant information for the article.

Discussion

• In the discussion, the results have to be interpreted, as well as contrasted with the results of the research previously carried out and analysed in the theoretical introduction.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a strong effort to reply to the reviewers comments and suggestions. Several changes have been included in the last version of the paper.

However, I believe that the paper could improve its overall quality if there were more references and discussion considering findings from recent studies and literature, published in the last 3-5 years, in quality journals indexed in the Education field. This is a weakness of the paper, that can be improved by authors.

I believe the authors can make these revision, good luck.

Author Response

We thank very much the Reviewers comments. We have further improved the discussion section with the findings from recent studies and literature, published in the last 3-5 years (as highlighted in yellow). Accordingly, several new references were also added.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article has been improved. All sections have been improved and the authors have followed the indications that were given in the previous revision. 
Some points need to be revised:
- In lines 278-291 it talks about research paradigms. It does not make sense to include in this section is theoretical information about how research can be carried out.
- In line 174 the word: pupil is used. This meaning is not appropriate for university students. It should be changed to student. 
- In line 179 the figure 2 is mentioned, but this figure is not in the text. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer comments. We have addressed all the three points highlight by the reviewer.