Evidence-Based Design of a Teacher Professional Development Program for Differentiated Instruction: A Whole-Task Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 29 indented too much.
Figure 1 (page 3) cut off at top of page. Single spacing figure label might help.
The paragraph on starting on line 53 gives g values in four different instances. What does the g stand for?
The sentence starting on line 225 gives a d value. What does the d stand for?
The label for Figure 2 should be moved from page 4 to page 6.
References on lines 692, 696, 716, 770 and 773 are aligned to the left margin, while all other references have a hanging format.
The use of the English language is fine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is not structured along the conventional structure of papers in the field. I would recommend a more clearly defined theoretical framework, and a specific section on methodology. The section in which the methodology of the data collection [interviews, transcription, and ethical procedures] is described remains underdeveloped. In particular many questions remain about the data analysis and how this relates to the theoretical framework that was applied.
The RQ and aim are not entirely clear: in the paper is the aim is referred to as describing an evidence-based approach to TPD, however, at the end of the paper also data and reflections are added evaluating a pilot of it. As a result of this this paper seems to be a mixture of a theoretical contribution that draws on theory/literature to design an evidence-based TPD, and meanwhile also an empirical study that pilots a first implementation of this program. I very much agree with the authors about the added value of clearly mentioning the procedure and assumptions taken while describing PD programs regarding DI. Hence, the first part in which an evidence-based program is theoretically designed might well result in a paper on itself. However, the second part in which the evaluation of the pilot is described is not well described nor analyzed in detail. I very much appreciate the idea of teachers having time [five months!] to master these complex skills, and also the subject-specific approach. Yet, I think much more detail is needed to better understand what was learnt during this pilot study.
The conceptual confusion that exists on the use of DI is a point of the authors that I fully agree with. Therefore it is important to be as clear a possible regarding the authors’ own conceptualizations in this paper. Baes on the structure of the PD program is seems as if a focus in laid on a conceptualization of DI as content and readiness-based procedures. In Tomlinsons approach to DI this is much broad and also includes instructional approaches to differentiate other student characteristics such as interest or learning profile. If I understand it well, it was chosen to not integrate such a broad conceptualization. This should be more clearly specified.
The section regarding the state-of-the-art of professional development in DI is not convincing. References to several papers in the field are missing. In particular, Gaitas and Martins’ work on difficulties teachers experience. Smets’ work on the difficulties teachers experience while assessing students’ need, as well as work of Wan and Dack were also useful to be integrated in this section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper will be a significant contribution to the TPD focused on DI. There were a few points that could be clarified that would help the argument of the paper:
1. Line 95 uses the study of Hughes et al. (2004) to state that TPD programs on DI showed opposing results. This is a misrepresentation of that study since DI was only a subscale used to evaluate a program focused on culturally responsive teaching, and the comparison schools "reported greater capacity for improvement in .... Differentiated Instruction..." (p. 4). So, I am not sure how this paper is relevant to the argument trying to be made about "mixed" results. Relatedly, the exclamation point is unnecessary for emphasis.
2. In the following paragraph on why the effects of TPD for DI may be mixed should also discuss the specific contexts/aspects of the cited studies that show contradicting results rather than bringing in new studies that were not previously discussed in that context.
3. In arguing why this TPD design went with a whole-task approach, it would be helpful to have a paragraph about the effects of the previous studies that uses a whole-task approach. It is not clear what the rationale is based on what was written about before. In the same vein, it would help to know more about what the whole-task approach is before getting to figure 3.
4. Hughes et al. (2004) [line 77] is cited again to talk about the subscale effects on quality of instruction, but it is not the focus of the study and there are many other subscales that could be associated that the article focuses on. Additionally, there are suddenly ideas about what DI is in this paragraph that include “ability grouping” as an aspect and “culture.” These are not included in the author(s) definition of DI in lines 19-22. It makes it unclear how the author(s) are defining DI and makes it seems that they are confounding the concept with other instructional practices. If you are going to include CRU as an indicator of DI, it seems very muddy and disconnected with the focus of the study. The paper is relying to heavily on Hughes et al., particularly since its main focus is unrelated.
5. The figure 1 is cut off on the right (top of page).
6. Title of section on line 134 implies that author(s) will discuss DI, but it may be more appropriate to title it about the teacher learning or the approach of CTA. This includes the top box of figure 1 that could say approach to preparing teachers for DI or something clearer about what the diagram is addressing for teacher learning.
7. There is not any discussion of teacher pedagogical knowledge until line 169. This should be part of the overall theoretical framework and highlighted from the other studies to help justify your TPD approach.
8. Line 207, sentence seems incomplete.
9. Costa et al. (2022) study is cited to justify TPD approach, but it seems to justify a high effect on student performance. It would help to focus the effects of 4C/ID on teacher learning since that is the intervention of this paper.
10. It would be helpful to have the explanation of the diagram before showing figure 2 so that we know what the circles and fillings represent. Figure 2 is cut off from paper. I could not fully evaluate for this review.
11. Overall, missing explicit methods. There should be a section about the data collected, how it was analyzed, and why those analyses were suited for answering your research questions.
12 I was surprised to not get more data about the observations since the study seemed to be about teacher learning. The results seem to be all from teacher interviews, which does not seem to answer some of the aspects of teacher learning about DI that I was expecting based on the framework: knowledge of students,
13. It was surprising that video clips were used in the TPD and there was no literature on that method. For example, see Marsh & Mitchell (2014), Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman (2008), Sherin & van Es (2010).
Overall, the paper could use more coherence between the literature, methods, and results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After revisions the theoretical framework on which this paper rests is much more clearly grounded then it was. This paper remains unconventionally structured, yet after the revisions that were applied it is much more clear what the aim and structure of the study are.
I very much appreciate the idea of teachers being granted a serious amount of time to master the complex competence of responsive teaching. Therefore this manuscript is an added value tot he field of DI. The details described on the program might well constitute a theoretically-grounded source of inspiration for future programs.
Serious effort was done to improve the manuscript on the matter of methodology that was used. Nevertheless, also after revisions I remain doubtful: on some points the data collections that remain misty. In particular procedures for coding transcripts remain largely unspecified, which is a not recommended practice for qualitative research. At least references to the theory used to design this qualitative research design should be specified.
I think this manuscript can be published when these minor revisions are considered. Please also note that further aligned between the references made in the text, and those mentioned in the references list must still be effected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author(s) did a great job responding to all my original concerns. The paper is stronger and has a good level of explanation for the parts the study covers.
Author Response
We appreciate your kind words and are happy that, with your and other reviewers’ suggestions, we have been able to further strengthen our paper.
