Influence of Attitudes on the Autonomy of English as a Foreign Language Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Authors are suggested to write the title of the manuscript not as a question. E.g.: Influence of attitudes on the autonomy of foreign language teachers.

The literature review is adequate evidencing previous studies and where the research variables are explained. However, the literature review and the article in general lacks updated literature that considers post-COVID articles or articles from the last 5 years.

It is necessary to specify in the introduction the theoretical gap or scientific novelty that this research intends to complete.

Regarding methodology, the study used three methods of data collection: classroom observation, stimulated recall interview, and survey.

Methodologically, the study design, instruments and analysis plan is appropriate, although it is necessary to specify the analysis plan, i.e., will it be categorized? Were the categories prior or did they emerge from the data? Were semantic networks made to facilitate the understanding of the findings?

Regarding the participants, why were only 14 interviewed? Explain this

Incorporate the sampling technique and explain the criteria for inclusion and exclusion from the research.

The results are presented in an orderly manner and maintain coherence for the type of research (qualitative).

The discussion lacks depth, although there is an interpretation and comparison of the findings with other research, it is necessary to incorporate elements to strengthen the discussion, include a critical analysis and support this with recent studies, in addition, it is necessary to answer the research questions and incorporate information on each relevant aspect presented in the results.

The study lacks limitations and clear guidelines for future research. Therefore, it is necessary to add the limitations of the research in the discussion term

The conclusions seem to me to be very generic, that is, the conclusion should not be a simple synthesis of the study, it is necessary to go deeper and incorporate specific conclusions based on the results obtained.

Author Response

Authors are suggested to write the title of the manuscript not as a question. E.g.: Influence of attitudes on the autonomy of foreign language teachers.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, we have revised the title based on your suggestion. Please refer to the revised manuscript for the revision.

The literature review is adequate evidencing previous studies and where the research variables are explained. However, the literature review and the article in general lacks updated literature that considers post-COVID articles or articles from the last 5 years.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added up the latest literature and please see the red sections in the literature review part.

It is necessary to specify in the introduction the theoretical gap or scientific novelty that this research intends to complete.

 Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have highlighted the research gap in the introduction section. Please refer to the revision in the revised paper.

Regarding methodology, the study used three methods of data collection: classroom observation, stimulated recall interview, and survey.

Methodologically, the study design, instruments and analysis plan is appropriate, although it is necessary to specify the analysis plan, i.e., will it be categorized? Were the categories prior or did they emerge from the data? Were semantic networks made to facilitate the understanding of the findings?

Response: Yes the data were categorized based on the main ideas, and the categories were made prior to the emerged themes. In addition, the semantic networks were made to facilitate the understanding of the findings. We have revised the section of data analysis based on the reviewer’s comments. Please see the changes in the revised paper.

Regarding the participants, why were only 14 interviewed? Explain this

Incorporate the sampling technique and explain the criteria for inclusion and exclusion from the research.

Response: Thank you for the comments. We have added up the selection criteria of the participants. Please see the changes in the section of participants in the revised paper.

The results are presented in an orderly manner and maintain coherence for the type of research (qualitative).

The discussion lacks depth, although there is an interpretation and comparison of the findings with other research, it is necessary to incorporate elements to strengthen the discussion, include a critical analysis and support this with recent studies, in addition, it is necessary to answer the research questions and incorporate information on each relevant aspect presented in the results.

Response: Thank you for the comments. Yes, we have revised the discussion section and answered the research questions accordingly. In addition, we have attempted to made some in-depth discussion based the research findings. Please refer to the general discussion for the improvement.

The study lacks limitations and clear guidelines for future research. Therefore, it is necessary to add the limitations of the research in the discussion term.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have specified the future direction based on the limitation of the present study.

The conclusions seem to me to be very generic, that is, the conclusion should not be a simple synthesis of the study, it is necessary to go deeper and incorporate specific conclusions based on the results obtained.

Response: Thank you for the comments. We have revised the conclusion section and tried to make deeper generalizations based on the research findings. Please the revised conclusion. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review, while solid, could be strengthened by adopting a more comprehensive approach, e.g. through the inclusion of more recent publications on teacher autonomy and professional development. In particular, recent research addressing professional development in the post-COVID and digital era could be of special interest for this paper.

The description of the study is well focused, and the data are thoroughly discussed and clearly explained.

The discussion effectively presents the main findings and connects them to the existing literature in a coherent and meaningful way.

Author Response

The literature review, while solid, could be strengthened by adopting a more comprehensive approach, e.g. through the inclusion of more recent publications on teacher autonomy and professional development. In particular, recent research addressing professional development in the post-COVID and digital era could be of special interest for this paper.

 Response: Thank you for suggestion. We have added up the relevant literature. Please see the changes in the revised literature review.

The description of the study is well focused, and the data are thoroughly discussed and clearly explained.

The discussion effectively presents the main findings and connects them to the existing literature in a coherent and meaningful way.

 Response: Thank you for the comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled "Do Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Professional Development Influence Their Autonomy?" presents the findings of a study that aims to explore the relationship between teacher professional development and teacher autonomy. In the first part of the paper, the theoretical background is outlined and supported by relevant references; however, the inclusion of more comprehensive or recent literature would strengthen the review of the relevant literature. Clearer statements that explicitly define teacher autonomy and elaborate on its implications for professional development would be a valuable addition. 

In the second part of the manuscript, the actual study is presented, including the methodology, participant information, and data analysis procedures. The study employs triangulation to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem.  However, as noted in the reviewer comments within the manuscript, several aspects require further clarification to enhance readability and coherence.

Moreover, readers unfamiliar with the Chinese educational context may struggle to fully grasp the study’s background. For instance, they may naturally question: What opportunities for professional development are available to university English teachers in China? Such contextual details are essential to support readers' understanding and should be more clearly articulated.

In the final section, which presents the general discussion and conclusion, there appears to be a repetition of findings without sufficient analytical depth. A more critical synthesis of the results in relation to the research questions and existing literature would strengthen this section considerably. Additionally, repetitive phrasing occurs throughout the manuscript and should be addressed to improve overall clarity and conciseness. Presenting the findings drawn from the three data sources proves challenging within the space available.

Overall, the study presents several illuminating findings. These, however, would benefit from more robust support through well-substantiated literature and clearer explanations throughout the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thorough revision would improve its overall quality. It seems that some of the content tends to be repetitive and language issues disrupt the clarity and logical flow of ideas.

Author Response

The manuscript titled "Do Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Professional Development Influence Their Autonomy?" presents the findings of a study that aims to explore the relationship between teacher professional development and teacher autonomy. In the first part of the paper, the theoretical background is outlined and supported by relevant references; however, the inclusion of more comprehensive or recent literature would strengthen the review of the relevant literature. Clearer statements that explicitly define teacher autonomy and elaborate on its implications for professional development would be a valuable addition. 

 Response: Thank you for the comments.

In the second part of the manuscript, the actual study is presented, including the methodology, participant information, and data analysis procedures. The study employs triangulation to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem.  However, as noted in the reviewer comments within the manuscript, several aspects require further clarification to enhance readability and coherence.

Response: Thank you for the comment. We have revised the paper based on your comments, which enhances the paper’s readability and coherence.

Moreover, readers unfamiliar with the Chinese educational context may struggle to fully grasp the study’s background. For instance, they may naturally question: What opportunities for professional development are available to university English teachers in China? Such contextual details are essential to support readers' understanding and should be more clearly articulated.

 Response: Thank you for the comments. I think like other western countries, Chinese teachers have the same kind of opportunities for professional development. We have added up this point in the paper.  

In the final section, which presents the general discussion and conclusion, there appears to be a repetition of findings without sufficient analytical depth. A more critical synthesis of the results in relation to the research questions and existing literature would strengthen this section considerably. Additionally, repetitive phrasing occurs throughout the manuscript and should be addressed to improve overall clarity and conciseness. Presenting the findings drawn from the three data sources proves challenging within the space available.

Response: Thank you for the comments. We have deleted the redundancy and have strived to make some in-depth discussion.

Overall, the study presents several illuminating findings. These, however, would benefit from more robust support through well-substantiated literature and clearer explanations throughout the text.

Response: Thank you for the comments. Yes, we have tried to enrich the literature review and make clearer explanations as well. Please see the revised paper. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is certainly an improved version of the manuscript. There are still  few points that are worth considering.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language could be further improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.  Yes, we quite agree with your revision suggestions, and have addressed wach of them in the revised manuscript, which have been highlighted in red. Would you please refer to the revisions in the revised paper? Once again, we appreciate your reviews, which have surely improved the quality of the paper. 

Kind regards,