Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for sharing your work. I'd propose the following updates/amendments

1. Explain more about what ROSCORSE is in the abstract and introductionm to aid the reader in appreciating the focus of your paper;
2. In section 3, clarify what you mean by "p-value was less than a" i.e. what is a.
3. Also in section 3, presumably your calculated p-value was reported (iin the software) as 0.000. this is not equal to zero - highly unlikely you have a true zero. you could say it was reportde by the program (what program did you use), and this returned a value of 0.000 which means the p-value is indeed LESS than 0.05 so can be considerd signifcant, but that is quite different from claiming a zero value.
4. add a limitations section to explore the limitations of your study e.g. no control group, potential that the teachers familarity with RICOSRE affected the apparent impact of it.
5. Please exaplain any ethical approval/process for the research

Author Response

Dear, Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The writing needs to improve in the materials and methods section. In addition, in the introduction, it can also be re-ranked for sentence effectiveness. There are some typos that can be checked again. The results of qualitative research also need to be discussed again in the discussion section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear, Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The literature review of the offered learning models is added. The population and sample of the research are clear. Clear quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Qualitative data analysis is not clear

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear, Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

REDO the introduction part, other parts are better, but reading the Introduction made me hesitate about the scholar level of the study

P.1 wordorder - college students’ problem-solving skills lack

P.1 Introduction, 2nd paragraph  - no mention about the method of measuring problem-solving skills – were they the same in all different universities mentioned here?

p.1: However, according to Hassan et al. 13, there is little evidence showing that cooperative learning and problem-based learning can promote students’ problem-solving skills. ??? – why? Any other research – contrary results? This whole paragraph needs to be more critical, more comparative and evidence-based

p.2: RICOSRE – no explanation – why this acronym, no introduction – where, what... Nothing similar in any other studies/other models? I persoally know of other authors’ model(s) which mean exactly the same but under different names. This should have been evidenced here in this article – the explanation why RIcOSre

p.2: It is reported to significantly improve learners’ problem-solving skills compared to conventional learning models 14. However, there is no compelling evidence that the RICOSRE learning model can consistently increase students' problem-solving skills with higher, medium, or lower academic abilities – logical discrepance between the 1st and 2 nd sentence: was or was there not research about this RECOSRE model? Why was it created and disseminated if there was no evidence of impact? – although it is going to be described below, the first mention seems without enough evidence. So please, at least add that the more detailed description will be written below... Even below 1.2 – it does not give us any background how this model was devleoped, on what sample, how tested etc.. Was it just made-up by two people – by philosphising or by any research?

1. 2: I wonder – should the third step not be „constructing various solutions“? in stead of constructing THE solution – as if the authors knew already at this initial stage what is going to be the solution

stage 4: should there not be the expression „verify the proposed solutions” …? How can they suddenly find the right solution?/o r should there not be: find a possible solution/solutions?

Other parts are better, but in the research part:

But there should be clear hypotheses stated before the part with results. Also - it is very predictable that if the teacher focuses on developing something for a particular time period, that the young students will improve in it. I would consider much more convincing if the comparison of pre-tests and post-test in a) experimental as well as b) controlled group were done - because actually this was a quasi-experiment.

Also what I miss is more reference to other models developing problem-solving skills, also explaining why the authors chose this one RICOSRE - how was it created etc...

Author Response

Dear, Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting your revised paper - this has addressed the main queries and issues that I had, and the additional editing has enhanced your work.

 To avoid confusion for readers, I would still suggest that you revise the reporting in section 3, where you have clarified alpha now, but are still reporting absolute values of 0.000 which is likely a significant figure reporting issue. I suggest rephrasing as 

(a) Topic 1 to 2 was calculated as 0.000 to 3 decimal places, using XXXX 

where XXXX is the software you used (SPSS, Excel or orther)

Do something like this wherever you are reporting 0.000

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Writing is better than before; only improvements and explanations are needed to emphasize qualitative and quantitative data, making it easier for readers to understand the information presented (especially on research methods)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

my comments have been adapted satisfactory into the revised version. Congratulations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf