Mixed Methods in Educational Large-Scale Studies: Integrating Qualitative Perspectives into Secondary Data Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Please find attached comments to your manuscript in the attached Word document.

Best wishes

Reviewer 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for revisions. I have documented my answers in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are some concerns identified here for the purpose of improving the manuscript.

 

English text. Please ask a native English speaker to edit the manuscript. There are numerous errors in the text. These errors limit my ability to interpret and provide helpful comments regarding the manuscript. Here are some examples,

·      Page 3, Line 117), the text says “The here outlined perspective on LSA is highly compatible to MMR.” Do you mean “The perspective outlined here on LSA is highly compatible with MMR”?

·      Page 1, Line 34, I think the text should say “...can be achieved through LSA, but this requires significant investment of time...”

 

Use of the term LSA. Consider whether you mean “large scale assessments” or “large scale data collection.” Large scale data collection seems to fit what is described in the manuscript better. Perhaps “existing data sets” is an even better term. Using “Assessments” suggests achievement tests. Is that what is meant here?

 

Consideration for current methodologies. Page 3, Lines 107-1112, While I agree with the author that surveys are developed by researchers (who have their own biases), I would also like to point out that there are (and have been) many mechanisms in place to ensure the valid, reliable, and fair construction of surveys.

 

Consider reducing text. The first seven pages could be summarized and/or reduced to 1-2 pages.

 

Consider providing quantitative results along with the qualitative results. In the manuscript's current state, it is difficult to understand the contribution of the qualitative analysis since the quantitative results were not presented for comparison.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I had difficulty understanding the text as written. Therefore, I worry that my comments are limited and less helpful than they could be.  

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for revisions. I have documented my answers in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf