Supporting Children’s Working Memory Through Instructional Support in Primary School: A Microtrial Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study targeted elementary school students with WM-related problematic behaviors. A teacher training program was first provided, followed by an instructional intervention experiment, in order to examine the effects of teachers’ instructional support on the working memory of elementary school students.

Working memory plays a critical role in students’ everyday adaptation and future development. In particular, by training teachers and conducting research directly in real classroom settings, this study explores the effectiveness of “instructional support” within the domains of TSI. The practical significance of this research is therefore especially noteworthy.

However, this study has the following aspects that require further response and reconsideration:

1. Since this study set out to investigate the effects of the intervention, why was the research design limited to only pre- and post-tests, without including any follow-up assessments? The questionnaire administration and the assessments for children in this study were neither too difficult to conduct nor too time-consuming. If follow-up tests had been conducted, many of the recurring questions raised but left unresolved in the Discussion section could have been clarified to a certain extent. So, if follow-up data are already available, please provide supplementary analyses.

 

2. The literature review in the section on Interventions and Training Programs could be further strengthened. From computer-based training studies to those conducted in actual classroom settings, more detailed explanations are needed regarding participants’ age, the specific content of instructional interventions, as well as their short-term and long-term effects.
3. The following details need to be clarified:

(1) How many teachers were assigned to each classroom? Were there co-teachers or subject teachers involved? A major weakness of this study is that the teachers who implemented the intervention were also responsible for evaluating students’ problematic behaviors. Why were the participating teachers, rather than co-teachers or other subject teachers, assigned to assess changes in children’s behaviors?

(2) Since the participants ranged from 2nd to 6th grade, please explain whether classroom operations and teacher assignments differed across grade levels. Differences, if any, between the experimental and control classrooms should also be addressed.

(3) Did the teachers primarily responsible for the intervention teach all subjects, or only certain subjects? Were the instructional support strategies applied across all subjects, or limited only to the subjects taught by the participating teachers? Were the procedures consistent across classrooms?

(4) The study instructed teachers to “apply these strategies to the best of their ability.” Was this meant to be implemented universally for the entire class, or with additional support for the targeted students? Given that the targeted children exhibited severe WM-related problematic behaviors, how did teachers balance the needs of the whole class with those of the targeted students?

(5) The components of instructional support—providing feedback, prompting, establishing rules, modeling, and fostering critical thinking—are already considered fundamental professional teaching skills. This study found that teachers in the experimental group applied these skills better after training. Does the comparison with the control group suggest that WM-related problematic behaviors among elementary students are associated with insufficient overall instructional effectiveness of teachers? If so, the Discussion section should include a reconsideration of teacher education programs to enhance the practical value of this study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is pertinent and well grounded; nevertheless, several refinements would heighten its impact: include the key effect-size figures in the abstract; streamline the introduction by foregrounding the causal gap that motivates the micro-trial and avoiding theoretical repetition; state the statistical power achieved and add a CONSORT flow diagram tailored to the design (justifying any potential intra-class dependence); move the data-imputation details to an appendix, report 95 % confidence intervals alongside ηp² and d, and temper claims of scalability (integrating the latest evidence, for example Smith 2023 and Yao 2024); review the reference list (eliminating duplicates and completing DOIs) and incorporate the most recent relevant meta-analyses; finally, refine the prose to enhance clarity and narrative coherence.

-------------------------

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made every effort to respond to the previously raised issues and has revised the manuscript accordingly. The article is now more complete after revision and is suitable for publication.