A Reflective Account of Facilitating Teachers’ Professional Learning in Two Different Lesson Study Settings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lesson Study facilitation is an underdeveloped aspect of the field of Lesson Study and this paper is a helpful contribution to the research by giving the in-depth reflective of two specific examples. 

Overall the paper is of a high quality, and reads very well. However, I think section 2 The role of facilitators in Lesson Study would benefit from some further attention. I think it would be useful to specifically define the authors' understanding of what a facilitator is for the context of this paper. The current definition at the end of paragraph 1 in this section is a quite generic and I think a clearer definition would support a clearer understanding of the later sections in the paper. 

Within the discussion in this section I think it would also be useful to draw more clearly whether the previous literature that is linked to facilitators talks about the same definition as you have or whether they would be framed more as knowledgeable others, facilitators, lesson study leaders etc. This again would be helpful in the later sections when you link your findings to these points. For example, in 5.5 linking to the research on knowledgeable others might be useful to the points you are making. 

I feel that if section two is reworked this will lead to stronger connections later in the paper that I hope you will be able to see and this will help make the overall paper stronger. 

This is an interesting paper and I hope my comments are helpful. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

References: References need to be updated, 22 out of 33 are outdated. In addition, it is necessary to change to the journal format.

Introduction: In the first paragraph Morse (2000) is quoted to talk about teacher collaboration. I am sure that there must be recent studies that define and deepen this topic. Also, with other authors incorporated in the introduction

Material and method: It is necessary to include the research design; further sociodemographic background of the study participants could be added (age, gender, age range, etc.); also detail the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the participants; Was there a process of validation and confirmation of the findings with the study participants?

Results: It would be enriching for the text if some table or figure of the categories and codes were incorporated, with their respective rooting of quotations to facilitate the reading and understanding of the findings presented.

Discussion: The study should indicate which were the limitations of the study. 

Conclusions: To deepen in the conclusions so that this is not a mere summary of the research; Also, add which are the projections of the study.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I appreciate the responses to the suggestions requested in the previous revision.

In the first place, it is evident that there is concern about the increase in updated literature, as requested in the previous review. This strengthens the idea that the object of study is contingent on the current reality.

In the material and method section, the authors provided more background on the research design and the demographic background of the participants.

In the results, the requested table or figure was added, which provides greater clarity for readers.

The requested limitations were incorporated

There is evidence of a concern to deepen and improve the manuscript, so I recommend the article for further publication.