Another Brick in the Wall to Understand the Complex Process of Self-Regulated Learning: General and Domain-Specific Features of SRL
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Here are some suggestions to make the article clearer, more objective, and of excellence:
1. Introduction
The introduction could be enriched with more details about the clarification of specific objectives, the relevance of the sample, the methodology adopted, the practical applicability of the results, and the originality of the study. These adjustments would strengthen the connection between the objectives, the theoretical problem, and the expected impact of the study.
2. Review of Literature
The Literature Review addresses the essential points of the study and provides a solid theoretical foundation, but it is overly long and dense, which may hinder readability. Simplifying the explanations and reducing specific examples could make it more concise. Adjusting the level of detail, reducing redundancies, and reorganising the structure around clear subheadings would make the text more concise and easier to follow. This would help maintain focus on the problem and the study’s objectives without losing the necessary depth.
It is suggested to adjust certain aspects. There is an excess of detail in the models presented, and a more direct comparison between them could replace the detailed explanation of each one. There is an excessive focus on historical studies. Although relevant, this section could be summarised to avoid diverting the reader’s attention from the broader objective of the study. While classical models are extensively cited, there is a lack of emphasis on more recent and relevant studies that align with the objectives of the current work. Certain concepts, such as the role of domain specificity and the interaction between general and specific strategies, are repeated in different sections. These could be consolidated to improve the flow.
It is also suggested to include the specific hypotheses of the study, presented in the usual format (H1, H2, H3, etc.). These could help clarify the research objectives and guide the reader’s understanding. The explicit formulation of hypotheses at the beginning of the work could provide a clearer and more objective framework, making it easier to understand what the study aims to investigate and test. Including these hypotheses would also better align the results with the research questions, offering a more direct view of the relationships the study seeks to explore between general and specific characteristics of self-regulated learning. Later, in the discussion section, the results could be explained by associating them with the formulated hypotheses and supported by the referenced authors.
3. Method
- Dividing the “Method” chapter into subchapters such as “Sample,” “Procedures,” “Instruments,” and “Data Analysis” would provide a more organised and standard structure for scientific papers. This would make the text clearer and easier to understand. Based on the current presentation, the information seems somewhat mixed and scattered, making it difficult to discern where each section begins and ends. Here are some suggestions to improve the text:
- Sample: This section could focus solely on the criteria used to select participants and describe their profiles. It would be important to include details about the five schools selected and the inclusion criteria (such as the use of the SRSS and the highest scores of the students).
- Procedures: This part should explain, for example, how the SRSS was applied to select participants, how the interviews were conducted (including the creation, validation, and pilot testing of the questions), and the timeline for data collection (which took place from 26 May to 12 June 2022). Organising this information in a sequential order would help demonstrate step by step how the study was conducted. This would also prevent details from being scattered throughout the text.
- Instruments: Here, it would be important to describe the SRSS (the scale used) and the interview protocol. Explaining where the questions originated, how they were validated with experts, and how they were refined during pilot testing would highlight the tools used and validate the study’s methodology.
- Data Analysis: While this section is already well explained, it could be made more concise. Emphasising the systematic process of data analysis, including how coding (deductive, inductive, and open) was conducted and how the MAXQDA software was used, would be helpful.
- The tables mentioned in the text should be placed in their respective sections.
4. Results
The results chapter is well-structured and aligned with the study's objectives, but there are some aspects that could be further developed to enrich the analysis and make it more comprehensive. For instance, it would be interesting to explore in greater depth how teachers' pedagogical practices influence self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies. Perhaps students adapt their strategies depending on the teaching style, such as a more interactive or traditional approach.
Additionally, the impact of different types of assessment, such as multiple-choice tests or long-answer exams, on the choice of learning strategies could be examined. Another relevant point would be to investigate whether cultural beliefs or the value attributed to specific subjects influence how students self-regulate, as socially valued areas of study might often receive more effort and dedication.
It would also be interesting to analyse whether students tend to use more superficial approaches in subjects they find less engaging and deeper strategies in those they perceive as more challenging or stimulating. Finally, an analysis of the use of technological tools, such as time management apps, online tutorials, or other study platforms, could provide new insights into the impact of these tools on the self-regulation process, especially in specific subjects.
These additional aspects would help provide a broader and more detailed view of the complexity of SRL and the factors that determine it.
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The text could benefit from a clearer separation between the Discussion and Conclusion chapters, as each has a distinct purpose: the Discussion should deepen the analysis of the results, linking them to existing literature, while the Conclusions should summarise the main findings, highlight the study's contributions, and present practical implications and suggestions for future research. Combining both into a single chapter may hinder readability and the understanding of the structure. It is suggested to separate the two chapters, as this would help organise the information better, giving more prominence to the study's implications and reinforcing the impact of the final conclusions. Given the study's focus and the relevance of the results obtained, this separation would make the analysis clearer and more accessible.
In the Discussion, it would be helpful to show how the results can improve pedagogical practice, assisting teachers in adapting teaching strategies. It would also be relevant to explore how individual, cultural, and socioeconomic factors influence self-regulated learning (SRL) and to reflect on the impact of assessment methods and technologies on this process. Furthermore, delving into how the characteristics of each subject affect the phases of SRL would provide greater clarity. It is common practice to include a brief analysis of the study's limitations, as this reinforces the credibility and contextualisation of the results.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, the discussion of results should be linked to the formulated hypotheses (H1, H2, H3, etc.) and supported by the referenced authors.
6. Suggestions for Future Research and Practice
In this chapter, some topics that were not fully addressed in the discussion could still be explored. These include:
- The interaction between general and domain-specific characteristics, which could shed light on how these different dimensions of SRL combine in varied contexts.
- The influence of additional external factors, such as the impact of assessment methodologies and learning environments on self-regulation strategies.
- Technological adaptation for SRL, exploring the role of digital tools in the self-regulated learning process.
- The role of emotions in SRL, considering how emotional factors may affect self-regulation in the learning process.
- Research with diverse populations, to understand how SRL manifests in different groups of students, such as those of varying ages or sociocultural contexts.
- Longitudinal analysis of SRL development, to observe how self-regulation strategies evolve over time and in response to changes in the learning context.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1, thank you for meticulously reviewing my work. I really appreciate your detailed review. I have referred to all of your suggestions and made changes in my article. You can find the updated version of my article attached. You will also see how I made changes responding to reviewer 2's comments. I have not deleted them for you to see the latest version of the article. Thank you for your help!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsplease find my feedback in the attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
please do a grammar review again, as a few errors were found (some were noted in the feedback early, but others later in the manuscript were not in exchange for a broad recommendation to do a comprehensive review of the entire document)
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2, thank you for meticulously reviewing my work. I really appreciate your detailed review. I have referred to all of your suggestions and made changes in my article. You can find the updated version of my article attached. You will also see how I made changes responding to reviewer 1's comments. I have not deleted them for you to see the latest version of the article. Thank you for your help!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing my previous points of feedback, and I am glad that there were helpful for your development of this manuscript as well as your development as a young scholar. Congratulations on the submission of your own research to a journal! One final note - I am not sure Figure 1 as it is represented in this newest updated file is how you intended it to look (as the formatting is not as nice as in the original article I reviewed). I recommend a revision to improve the readability of Figure 1.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your help and support!
I have re-organized the figure and uploaded a picture of it for the editors.
Thanks again, wishing you all the best!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
