Boys and Girls in the Classroom—About Didactical Perspectives in Similarities and Differences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I did, however, detect one small mistake: in the introduction to Figure 2 both grey and green boxes are attributed to the boys - but evidently the grey boxes regard the girls.

Author Response

Thank you for reading our article again. We understood that you had no direct suggestions for development.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Theoretical framework 

The theoretical framework is comprehensive; it could benefit from more synthesis in certain sections to avoid redundancies. For example, some concepts such as the learning environment are addressed several times from similar perspectives, which could be simplified. Relevant references are included, some statements could benefit from more empirical substantiation, especially with regard to gender perceptions and their impact on teaching. In addition, important concepts such as ‘learning strategies’ and ‘learning environment’ could be defined more precisely at the outset to avoid ambiguities in their subsequent use. 

It is important to note that the theoretical framework is very much focused on Nordic studies, which is understandable given the context of the study, but including research from other international contexts could enrich the discussion and provide a more global perspective. 

Method 

 The method described in the study demonstrates a sound choice in adopting a qualitative approach supported by thematic reflective analysis (RTA). This approach is relevant and consistent with the aim of the study, as it allows for an in-depth exploration of perceptions, motivations and obstacles related to the learning environment, especially from a gender perspective.  Although the use of reflective thematic analysis is mentioned, it is not clearly described how it was carried out. Information on the stages of the analysis (eg, initial coding, generation of themes, revision and refinement of themes) should be included to strengthen methodological transparency. 

In relation to the interviews, aspects such as the average duration of the interviews, the number and profile of participants (e.g. gender, age, education level) should be detailed. It would be relevant to include examples of questions used in the interviews. Despite these details, an explicit justification of the sample size in terms of theoretical saturation is missing. This would help to support the sufficiency of the data collected. 

Transcription and coding is done with Microsoft Word, which may be perceived as a limitation compared to the use of specialised software for qualitative analysis (e.g. NVivo, Atlas.ti). The use of advanced tools could strengthen the organisation and traceability of the data. 

There is no mention of whether any validation process was carried out with participants (e.g. member checking) to confirm that the findings adequately reflect their perceptions. This could improve the reliability of the results. 

Results and conclusions 

The results and conclusions of the paper provide valuable insights into students' perceptions of the classroom, considering gender differences in aspects such as teacher leadership, interpersonal relationships, learning strategies and the social environment. 

The findings and conclusions section is solid and well-founded, but could benefit from adjustments to make connections with the research questions and practical implications more evident. This would strengthen its relevance to an academic and practical audience. 

References 

Although references mostly follow APA format, there are inconsistencies in the use of capitalisation, punctuation and URLs. For example: 

‘Retrieved from’ is used in some references and not in others. 

Citations in institutional reports sometimes do not include all the required data (e.g. translated titles or year of publication). 

Some references lack complete information, such as dates of consultation, DOI or ISBN. For example: 

‘Doerfler S. (2016) The academic achievement gap: educational leadership, gender and academic achievement’. Does not include a DOI or full publication details. 

 Several references to online reports and documents do not specify access dates or full URLs. 

Author Response

Correction matrix

The theoretical framework is comprehensive; it could benefit from more synthesis in certain sections to avoid redundancies. For example, some concepts such as the learning environment are addressed several times from similar perspectives, which could be simplified	The definition of Learning environment is placed in the beginning of the subchapter learning environment. We also deleted the concept in some cases to avoid redundancies	p. 2
Relevant references are included, some statements could benefit from more empirical substantiation, especially with regard to gender perceptions and their impact on teaching.	We do not agree. We think the included articles have a good empirical basis.
In addition, important concepts such as ‘learning strategies’ and ‘learning environment’ could be defined more precisely at the outset to avoid ambiguities in their subsequent use.	The concept are defined	p. 2 learning environment p. 4 learning strategies
It is important to note that the theoretical framework is very much focused on Nordic studies, which is understandable given the context of the study, but including research from other international contexts could enrich the discussion and provide a more global perspective.	In the introduction, we show that the challenge of the gender gap in education is common to OECD countries. Furthermore, under the heading ‘Previous research’, we have given a broad and current picture of the research field, not only with a focus on the Nordic countries. The Nordic perspective was specifically highlighted at the request of a previous reviewer.	p. 1-3
previous Although the use of reflective thematic analysis is mentioned, it is not clearly described how it was carried out. Information on the stages of the analysis (eg, initial coding, generation of themes, revision and refinement of themes) should be included to strengthen methodological transparency.	In the first version of the text this was already added; Following Braun and Clark’s [53]recommendations, initial open and descriptive coding was done to understand the data. Key steps included familiarization, generating initial codes, seeking themes, and evaluating them. Reflexivity was crucial throughout, ensuring transparency and rigor [54]. The analysis began during interviews with follow-up questions, continued with post-interview reflections, and involved multiple interpretations by both researchers. Data were transcribed, re-read, and coded inductively using Microsoft Word. Researchers independently generated codes, then collaboratively developed and reviewed themes. The final step involved producing the text, reviewing research questions, coding excerpts, and connecting data with literature. However, one of the previous reviewers recommended that we reduce the described steps in the process. The reviewer advised us that the methodological section should be brief and concise, rather than resembling a textbook.	p.7
In relation to the interviews, aspects such as the average duration of the interviews, the number and profile of participants (e.g. gender, age, education level) should be detailed.	The information requested can be found in Table 1	p. 6
It would be relevant to include examples of questions used in the interviews.	There is an interview guide added to the draft.	p. 17-18
Despite these details, an explicit justification of the sample size in terms of theoretical saturation is missing. This would help to support the sufficiency of the data collected.	“In our study, we conducted eight focus groups to ensure a comprehensive exploration of the research topic, reaching theoretical saturation as no new themes emerged after this number of discussions. This sample size was deemed sufficient based on established qualitative research guidelines and the richness of data collected, allowing us to thoroughly address our research questions”	p.6
Transcription and coding is done with Microsoft Word, which may be perceived as a limitation compared to the use of specialised software for qualitative analysis (e.g. NVivo, Atlas.ti). The use of advanced tools could strengthen the organisation and traceability of the data.	A useful point that we will take with us to future studies. However, while specialized software can offer additional features, Microsoft Word was chosen for its accessibility, familiarity, and robust text analysis capabilities, which we assessed were sufficient for our coding needs. Our rigorous manual coding process, combined with Word's search and organisation functions, ensured thorough data analysis and maintained clear audit trails, demonstrating that the choice of tool did not compromise the quality or traceability of our qualitative analysis	p.7
There is no mention of whether any validation process was carried out with participants (e.g. member checking) to confirm that the findings adequately reflect their perceptions. This could improve the reliability of the results.	We acknowledge the reviewer's valid point regarding the absence of a formal respondent validation process in our study. Upon reflection, we recognise that implementing such a validation step could have further enhanced the credibility of our findings. While we employed other rigorous methods to ensure the trustworthiness of our analysis, we appreciate that respondent validation could have provided additional confirmation that our interpretations accurately reflect participants' experiences.
The findings and conclusions section is solid and well-founded, but could benefit from adjustments to make connections with the research questions and practical implications more evident. This would strengthen its relevance to an academic and practical audience.	We have developed these elements of the discussion so that the results are summarised at the beginning of the discussion. Furthermore, we have added a paragraph specifically on practical implications at the end	p. 11 and 13
Although references mostly follow APA format, there are inconsistencies in the use of capitalisation, punctuation and URLs. For example: ‘Retrieved from’ is used in some references and not in others.	Adjusted
Citations in institutional reports sometimes do not include all the required data (e.g. translated titles or year of publication).	Adjusted
Some references lack complete information, such as dates of consultation, DOI or ISBN. For example: Doerfler S. (2016) The academic achievement gap: educational leadership, gender and academic achievement’. Does not include a DOI or full publication details	Adjusted
Several references to online reports and documents do not specify access dates or full URLs.	Adjusted
I did, however, detect one small mistake: in the introduction to Figure 2 both grey and green boxes are attributed to the boys - but evidently the grey boxes regard the girls.	No wrong interpretation

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to sincerely thank you for the effort and dedication you have shown in revising and adjusting your work based on the comments provided. I have reviewed the manuscript again and it is evident that you have worked to incorporate the suggestions, especially in the references. 

Overall, I believe that the changes have significantly improved the work and strengthened your contribution to the field. I congratulate you on the final result. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

In the Abstract, I think it is important to include the country where the study was carried out or students' nationality, for example: "This study was conducted through eight group interviews with 2nd and 5th-grade Swedish students…"

Introduction:

The following paragraph is contradictory and unclear: "The Nordic Council of Ministers (Broström & Jansson, 2022) states that the school situation for boys with a foreign background is particularly troubling as they could be considered failures in contemporary school systems. Students with Nordic backgrounds tend to perform well in education. However, native-born males are outranked by females and foreign-born students. The most significant educational challenges are among boys with foreign backgrounds (Broström & Jansson)."

This sentence is incomplete: "The limited knowledge of the intertwined relationship between teaching methods, teaching, learning, and classroom strategies, along with a knowledge gap concerning gender differences in the Swedish educational system (Barnombudsmannen, 2021; Eriksson, 2021)."

Previous research:

It is indicated that “To contextualize the study, we will base our research on previous didactic studies, starting with the learning environment and then focusing on the teacher, teaching methods, interactions, and students’ learning strategies related to gender differences, with a special focus on boys’ prerequisites and actions in the classroom", but that is not exactly the order of paragraphs, which are listed as follows: "Learning environment", "Teacher", "Students", "The relationship between the teacher and the boys” and “Learning strategies".

It is indicated that "A positive emotional climate in the classroom is characterized by teachers who care and concern for students, consider their points of view, encourage cooperation and respect, and are aware of their learning needs. In these aspects, the girls exhibit significantly more negative attitudes (Koul et al., 2023)", but this is poorly explained. What aspects are specifically covered? Koul’s study refers to attitudes towards STEM.

It is indicated that "Conversely, they teach both boys and girls based on their conditions but lean more towards specific teaching strategies for girls". The idea is not explained. What strategies are specifically covered for girls?

It is indicated that "Less than a third of students in grade five could express how they learned and displayed unreflected strategies, (Boström, 2012)." The idea is not explained. What unreflected strategies are specifically covered?

Theoretical framework:

It is indicated that "In this study, we use Uljens’ model to illustrate the students’ meaning-making process and as a framework for understanding the differences between the boys’ and girls’ perceptions of the learning environment and their learning strategies." Little is really explained about the Uljens’ model.

Method:

-The explanation about the Method is incomplete. What type of qualitative research is used? Perhaps it is a phenomenographic research?

-Interview Guide: Reference is made to "semi-structured interviews" and "in-depth interviews". This is contradictory to some educational research experts. It would be appropriate to use only the expression "semi-structured interviews".

-The interviews (Sample and Interview Process): I think it is important to include the country where the study was carried out or students' nationality, for example: The interviews were conducted with seven groups of students "of a Swedish comprehensive school".

-In Table 1, It would be appropriate to indicate with parenthesis the group of interviews. Year (Group)

In Table 1, check if the last group indicated is 2, or should be 5.

In Table 1, retype the word "Totalt" correctly: "Total".

Appendices 1 and 2 are referred to in the paragraph "The Interviews (Sample and Interview Process)", but I did not have access to these documents.

In Analysis–reflective thematic analysis, there are repeated sentences:

-"Interview data were analyzed with reflective thematic analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, 2021), a research method used to analyze data to identify and interpret patterns or themes within that data."

-"Data from the interviews with the students are analyzed with a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA), which makes patterns and connections visible that can be developed into theories or generalizations (Braun & Clarke, 2019)."

The paragraphs about Analysis should be better organized. Perhaps the second paragraph should be the first.

It is necessary review initials of the names used for researchers: IS and LB in "Analysis". A1 and A2 in "Reliability".

Findings:

The marking (G5) is incomplete: "Embarrassing, everyone just stares at you, and you just want to sit like this and go away and eat candy (G5)." Which is the group interviews the girl belong?

It is indicated that "The older girls in year five describe the feelings of shame they comprehend being told off. “It makes my stomach churn a little if you are reprimanded (G1 y2)", but the quotation (G1 y2) does not correspond to the previous explanation.

It is indicated that "The girls we interviewed described more significant differences than the boys did.", but I would not use the word "significant" to avoid confusing the reader with statistically significant differences.

The wording of this phrase is not clear and should be clarified: "They meant that the teacher was looking out for the boys to fail".

It is indicated that "They describe teachers they perceive as unreliable and mean", but it would be necessary to include a quotation from the girls that justifies this result.

It is indicated that "Three sub-themes were identified concerning learning strategies: different strategies and instructions from teachers and peers", but are not clear the three sub-themes. Improve the wording.

It is indicated that "Several girls described a need for peace to handle the workload. Something they did not perceive in their present classroom settings: "When all the children are quiet, you think a lot more (G2 y2)", but this quotation does not correspond to the previous explanation.

It is indicated that “In relation to instructions from the teacher, the analysis shows that the girls appreciate the reviews that the teacher has to a greater extent, while the boys appreciate working on the book most. "Yes. But when they go through the maths, then I think it’s nice that they go through on the board (G1 y5)", this quotation should be clarified.

In the section "The learning environment", there are repeated sentences. Improve the wording and avoid repetition:

-"The girls also describe that the boys were more violent and loud:"

-"Girls also describe boys as more violent and disruptive,"

-"the boys generally consider the social atmosphere acceptable,"

-"The boys generally described the social atmosphere as acceptable."

Discussion:

It is indicated that “The girls described more strategies and could also show a higher degree of meta-learning.”, but the latter is not covered in the section of Findings.

Conclusions:

It is indicated that "A clear difference is that boys receive more reprimands than teachers". It is necessary to correct the wording: "than girls" or "from teachers".

It is indicated that "In the didactic analysis, no precise accentuation of the students regarding teaching methods emerged. For example, there were no indications that the boys would prefer digital learning resources…", but the Findings show that most interviewed boys preferred to work in the book.

It is indicated that "Self-regulatory and deep learning techniques are associated with academic success (OECD, 2013). Self-regulated learning involves monitoring, managing, and regulating one’s actions toward achieving a goal (Efklides & Metallidou, 2020).", but this is not explained in the section of Findings.

It is indicated that "Through a didactic framework, important implications for teaching can be made clear to address the problem of boys’ underachievement. There are thus opportunities to influence what happens in the classroom concretely. In addition, addressing these disparities could be an important step in supporting the academic success of male students. By examining these gender-based perspectives, the findings offer valuable insights into potential factors contributing to the underachievement of boys in the school setting", It would be useful to go into more depth on these ideas because the severity of failed schooling and the performance differences between boys and girls in the educational system, forms the backdrop of the study.

References/Citations:

These citations do not appear in References:

-(Francis et al., 2010)

-(Patrick et al., 2011)

-(Hopmann, 1997)

-Gidlund and Boström’s (2017)

-Cederborg (2010)

-(Terry et al., 2017)

There are errors in citations/references:

In-text citation refer to Hovfenberg, 2018; in References is indicated Hovfenberg, A. (2020).

In-text citation refer to (Braun & Clarke, 2021); in References is indicated 2022.

In-text citation refer to (Frederich, 2023); in References is indicated Frederick.

These two works appear in References but are not cited in the text (these references should be removed):

-Skolinspektionen (2016). Tematisk analys Utmaningar i undervisningen. Många elever behöver mer stimulans och utmaningar [Thematic analysis Challenges in education. Many students need more stimulation and challenges]. Dnr: 40-2016:6874. Retrieved https://www.skolinspektionen.se/globalassets/02-beslut-rapporter-stat/granskningsrapporter/tkg/2016/utmaningar-i-undervisningen/analys-utmaningar-i-undervisningen.pdf 2024-04-25

-Thomspon, C. (2017). Planning for improvements in boys´ academic performance: towards a better understanding of teacher-student relationship. Educational Planning 24(2), 59-96. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1208175.pdf

The citations and references must follow the MDPI Style.

Newly Added--8.30:

In Theoretical framework the authors use the didactic triangle. One corner is the subject. “The subject constitutes the teaching content and is the basis for the student’s learning". In Appendix 1 "Interview guide for students - Boys' school situation in school year 2", there are these questions:

• Are there lessons you/you like more? Why this/these particular ones? Please tell us.
• Are there differences in how boys and girls are interested in school and different subjects? If so, how?

In Appendix 2 "Interview guide for students - Boys' school situation in school year 5", there is this question:

• Are there lessons that boys like better than girls? Are there lessons that girls enjoy more than boys?

However, the Findings fails to address these questions. In Discussion, it is indicated that "Not all aspects of the didactical triangle (Hopmann, 1997) were identified, but teachers, interactions, students’ learning strategies, and the surrounding learning environment appeared clearly." Is there an explanation for this? Were these questions not addressed in interviews? Or perhaps only some questions (not all) were used for this article...

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Boys and girls in the classroom – about didactical perspective in similarities and differences" addresses an interesting and relevant topic, boys' and girls' (differing) perceptions of their learning conditions at school. This empirical study conducted group interviews with male and female students and found some commonalities and differences between their perceptions.

However, due to a number of severe shortcomings, I recommend that the manuscript is rewritten before it can be resubmitted elsewhere.

Abstract:

The abstract refers to "explanations for boys' underperformance" that are not thoroughly discussed in the introduction. I am not sure that, based on the findings I read, I agree with the conclusion "The result shows a need for the teacher to be aware of the processes going on in the classroom and to build both social and learning support structures with a focus on learning strategies."

Introduction, previous research, and theoretical background:

The introduction makes only implicit references to theoretical explanations as to why boys and girls differ in educational outcomes such as reading test scores, and what schools and teachers could or should do about this. The intercectionality between gender, SES and migration background is not considered in the rest of the manuscript.

The theoretical model should be placed before the literature review, because this helps to understand the structure of the literature review. The theoretical model does not capture the role that peers play, something that is picked up in the findings and discussion.

Methods:

The method section, especially Table 1, should state more clearly what was done, when, and why. Were seven or eight interviews conducted? Why were they conducted in gender-segregated groups? How was the school or were the schools chosen? Who conducted the interviews, and was this person female or male? This might play a role for how the interviews unfolded.

Unfortunately, I did not have access to the appendix. Apart from the interview guide, I think it might be worthwhile to publish the anonymized transcripts and codes. Furthermore, I wonder how the transcript was translated to English.

Findings: 

Figure 2 does not contain ovals, and green does not correspond to the girls' but to the boys' perceptions. The readability of the figure should be improved.

The description of the findings contains unclear sentences (e.g., "The younger girls in year two also say they get angry if scolded, which is unfair"; Who thinks what is unfair?). Some findings deserve more explanation (e.g., "They meant that the teacher was looking out for the boys to fail"). Furthermore, the description of the findings contains many repetitions.

Based on the student quotes, I disagree with calling the teaching methods that the students mention "learning strategies". For example “First, watch the film, and then you can talk about it, and then you can write down what it was about (G1 y5).” This does not sound like a mastery strategy that the students choose themselves but rather a teaching method that the teacher uses? Therefore, I also disagree with the interpretation of the finding that girls mentioned more different methods than boys; To me, this does not necessarily mean that they are better at applying mastery strategies.

Discussion: 

In line with the earlier points of criticism, I feel that the discussion does not present balanced explanations for the findings. For example "Teachers give boys more reprimands than girls, both genders thought. This may be because teachers perceive teaching girls is easier". Another explanation is that boys actually show more disruptive behavior (as reported by both boys and girls in this study).

The found gender differences are not discussed self-critically enough, in my opinion. The findings might only hold in this small, unrepresentative sample. Boys and girls might differ in how they report their own behavior, preferences, etc. due to gender stereotypes. The interviewer's own gender stereotypes and expectations might have influenced the interview process subconsciously. If the interviews were all conducted by a woman, for instance, girls might have felt more free to be critical than boys. 

Clarity of argumentation: 

The authors should improve the consistency of the terminology they use (e.g., "thematic content analysis", "reflective thematic analysis" and "reflexive thematic analysis"). Often, terms should be more clearly defined (e.g., what are "scholastic performance", "educational attainment", "learning outcomes"?). The article contains many repetitions (e.g., "In contrast, the boys generally consider the social atmosphere acceptable, viewing conflicts and teasing as just for fun. The boys generally described the social atmosphere as acceptable."). 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend copy editing to remove mistakes (e.g., "boys [...] is particularly affected") and to improve the clarity of some sentences (e.g., "Also, research about boys' perceptions of their own and the situation in the classroom is limited").

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The intent of this paper is good: to understand more of boys' underachievement in school by examining the students' perceptions of classroom relations and their own learning processes, and to move the focus to what teachers could do to improve the learning situation for the boys. However, the papers suffers from much unclarity and an unbalanced structure (8-9 of the 13 pages goes to preparatory and concluding issues that are mostly of general nature and carries little new, whereas only 4-5 pages are dedicated to findings and discussion. The findings are very briefly reported and are not used any specific way to understand how teaching could be improved. The findings reported (boys get more reprimands, but cares less about it; boys get more help from teachers, girls perceive teachers to have higher expectation to girls than to boys; girls are more sensitive and critical to teacher's reactions and behaviour; girls prefer to sit next to their best friends; girls have more varied learning strategies and are more meta-reflexive about them) are well established points in qualitative classroom research. The paper, which clearly stems from  a Nordic country, seems astonishingly unaware of the Nordic gender research within education, for instance, Inga Wernersson and Elisabet Öhrn in Sweden, Elina Lahelma and Tuula Gordon in Finland, Kirsti Klette, Liv Mette Gulbrandsen and Harriet Bjerrum Nielsen in Norway - just to mention a few.

 

In my opinion, the paper needs a complete rewriting which should dedicate much more space to present and analyse the authors' empirical findings, and relate these to what is already known from qualitative classroom research about girls' and boys' learnings strategies and perception of classroom relations, and to expand the reflexions on how different teaching methods and learning environment might improve boys' achievements in school.  

 

More specific comments:

- The introductory section sets the research questions clearly and well

- The section on previous research has an unclear structure, with no clear gestalt and much repetition. The previous research is not analysed and presented in a way that build up and help to understand the authors' own contribution. A sentence appears twice ("Despite lower expectations... p.3 and 4). References to Nordic gender research into classrooms from 1980s and onwards are lacking.

- Theoretical framework: much general and obvious claims about the complexity of things etc. Much repetitions, especially in the introduction to "the German triangle". It is difficult to see what this triangle is used for in the paper - but it might have provided a structure for the presentation of previous research? 

- Method: much too long, too many general and obvious points, details that would have been more suited in a research report  or a monography than in a short research article. The design is unclearly described: is it 7 or 8 groups? Five 2nd grades and only three 5th grades -  of which only one with boys? Why - when the focus is on the boys? What does 1.st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th refer to? More space in the method section should have been used to explain and justify the actual design instead of general claims about interview methods, ethics, reliability etc.  

- Findings: the model on p. 8 is not clear, especially the use of green/grey colours referring to boys' and girls' perceptions, and it does not become clearer when compared with the following paragraphs (for instance, rewards are not mentioned by the boys but in the model they characterise the boys' perception; girls' being critical to seating arrangement is presented as the boys' perception; girls' preferences for sitting next to best friends is not mentioned etc etc). Many of the finding are well established in classroom research on gender. The most interesting finding may be that boys are more positive to their teachers and first and foremost wants them to be kind.

- Discussion: the boys' share of reprimands and the girls' more differentiated learning strategies emerge as the main points. As already mentioned, this is not new observations. It had been interesting if they had been connected to better teaching strategies, but this is not done. 

- The  concluding section fizzles out in general observations and claims about the importance of safe learning conditions for all students and of understanding individual learnings strategies, something that could have been stated independently of the research.