Measuring Reflective Inquiry in Professional Learning Networks: A Conceptual Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and useful for the research in the mentioned field.

However, it seems relevant for the authors to consider the following points:

1. The explicit mention  of AI is required in the wording of research questions (lines 55-57), as the conclusion states that "The interrater reliability with ChatGPT was below the acceptable  threshold, suggesting that the complexity of the framework exceeds the current capabilities of ChatGPT" (line 552).

2. The explanation for C1-C3 (sort of Communicative activities?) D1-D3 (type of data?), R1=R3 (type of reflection?) should be given to avoid a possible misunderstanding  (section 2 Theoretical Framework).

3. In the section Methodology (line 274) there is a need for clear explanation how the author(s)  calculated the frequency and percentage of each individual code (if there were 2,195 contributions, as the paper mentions): was it hand-made or computer-based? which tool was used?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. It is not stylistically correct to start the absolute beginning of the Introduction section with “If” unit (If education is to stimulate and support positive societal change – line 15)

2. The grammar correction is needed (The research questions it seeks to address ARE – line 53).

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read and comment on this article. I hope you will find my comments useful and that they will help you to revise the manuscript. 

The article focuses on a relevant topic by analyzing reflection in professional learning communities. One of the strengths of the study is the extensive data material on which the analyses are based. The design of the coding scheme for analyzing collective reflection situations can be valuable for follow-up studies. However, the central finding of the study, that high-level reflective inquiry is rather rare, is in line with the current state of research. 

The presentation of the study is coherent overall, but could be made more precise in parts. For example, it remains unclear exactly how the sample is made up. Who takes part in the PLN? On which topics do the PLN come together? What common work experience do the PLN participants share? Are there 3 or 4 PLN (contradictory information in the text)? The composition and work experience of the PLNs could influence which data sources are used, which experiences are contributed and which reflection processes are possible. This could be taken into account accordingly when discussing the findings.

With regard to the analysis categories for depth of reflection, I wonder whether the category R1 (description) is already seen as part of reflection. It is often discussed in the literature whether the mere description is already a reflection step or can only be considered a preliminary stage or prerequisite for reflection. What are the authors' views on this and how do they classify their category of analysis?

In the presentation of results, the descriptive statistics for categories C1 and C2 do not match; different percentages are given here. Please check and correct.

The discussion of the findings in the state of research is convincingly presented. The implication from the study that reflection processes must be stimulated and consciously promoted is generally known in the scientific community. Unfortunately, the authors do not allow themselves any practical implications. For example, what do the findings mean for the further development of Professional Learning Communities? What could appropriate interventions to promote reflection in their specific learning context look like? Supplements could be made to this in order to strengthen not only the relevance of the article from a methodological point of view (development of analysis scheme) but also its practical relevance. 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx