Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this topical and important study.  I really enjoyed reading it and found it well-written and very informative. 

Page 6, Line 237, please review if you mean self-centred.  The word written there is self-catered and that doesn't fit with the message. 

Your work would have benefitted from a strong, clear research question.  The study design would benefit from further description of the methodological basis for the study and the reference for that selection.  I would encourage you to address both of those items to make this article ready for publication. 

I wish you all the very best with this article and your goal of improving students' teamwork skills. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have worked many years as a teacher who has assigned group projects to students, and thus I find this article to be intriguing and timely, as students often may express disinterest in this type of learning. 

General comments:

1. Methodology could be more explicit, in terms of how many interviews were done, and by whom, how many interviewers? Add this information to line 115. Was it one-to-one interviews? Did you do an initial interview and then subsequent interviews? That is unclear. When you say "emerging information from previous interviews" (Line 121) it leads me to think there was a series of interviews? 

Also, when you say the data was analyzed with deductive and inductive methodology, this sounds different than using a qualitative approach. Can you more specifically detail what kind of analysis is usually done in qualitative research? As well as being more specific about how you analyzed the data? 

2. Lines 126 and 127 - Unclear methodology - did teachers comment on the students' interviews? Or did they comment on students' group experiences in classes they had taught? These are two different things. Why would they be interviewed following the student interviews? 

3.  One of my biggest concerns with the article is that there are generalized statements made, without data to support the statement, and then the quotes are given - can you reverse that, to strengthen the study? Otherwise it appears that you are stating this as a fact, before giving the data which supports it. For example, Line 230 -  "students joined nursing not out of their interests" is stated before you give the quote that reflects this. Where did the statement come from? 

 More specific suggestions: 

There is a reference to "socio-cultural" followed by "geographical and distance" which I see as two different things. Your reflection on cultural findings, at the end of the article, is good; but where you write about socio-cultural aspects earlier in the article, there is not data to support it. 

Line 197: Unclear: Are you saying that “teachers in this study” believed that ….? Or that teachers in general think that students can learn to collaborate by working as a team? It would strengthen the remark to say that teachers in this study stated "____"

Line 237 – what is “self-catered” ? Several students stated this? Please define what this term means. 

245 – this is important information. But it would be important to state where the information comes from. For example – the statement “while teachers usually provided instructions and assessment requirements for group assignments” – is that known information or was that information reported by students?

266 – Instead of “it turned out”, consider a different statement. Students reported there was no equal sharing of teamwork?  Is that true? If so, state it that way rather than “It turned out" which is too casual.

Finally - why is the checklist included in the appendix? It does not add to the article.  

Basically, the quality of English language is acceptable, but several revisions would make it better. For example:

1. Abstract: Past and present tenses are mixed inappropriately. The first paragraph would read better if expressed in this manner: This study, …..teamwork model, explores team dynamics among nursing students in performing group assignments, utilizing a qualitative research design.

Line 88: “is a four-year program”

Line 158: Credibility builds confidence… (leave off the “is to”)

Line 197: The word “etc.”  has no place in a manuscript. It says nothing. What did the teachers say the benefits are? What were the struggles experienced by the students? They should be listed. 

 

 

In one part of the paper you refer to "one-off." Did you mean "on-off?"

"More senior" - please specify the year of the program.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions have greatly contributed to the quality of the manuscript. I still am a little concerned that this is not true qualitative research, but rather is a qualitative approach. You might choose to state that.

I think the subject matter contributes to what is known about team-based learning. 

I disagree with the statement about "off-on, not ongoing" (Line 43) - In the article that you quote, the authors mention that TBL is indeed on-going, so I think your statement might be misleading.  If you choose to continue to state it in this manner, at the very least, please correct it to be "off-on," not "off-one."

Author Response

please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf