Problem-Oriented Learning as a Method of Developing Soft Skills Among Students of Pedagogical Specialties

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides very interesting and insightful narrative about the method of Problem-Based Learning finding its way to educational program in Kazakhstan and about the local experiences and challenges. The chosen method to evaluate the actual case study appears successful and provides credible information about this rather pioneering attempt to integrate in innovative localized way the central ideas of Problem-Based Learning to an education program in an wider academic and institutional setting which does not always follow similar pedagogical thinking or have readily available instructors that can make the best of new ideas and plans. The program itself as well as the academic contributions of local researchers are well presented and make it easy to follow the aims, implementation as well as most important findings of this interesting, albeit limited attempt to improve the quality of education and steer it toward more critical and flexible approach nurturing the problem solving soft skills of students and making them able to solve complex problems in a creative and flexible manner. In terms of detail and length the case study and educational program are well introduced. In short, there is enough fresh interesting material and insights to justify publishing the article as it is.

Author Response

Thank you for your warm appreciation of the manuscript and valuable comments on its content. In accordance with your recommendations, I expanded the introduction, describing in detail the institutional and personnel difficulties of implementing PBL in Kazakhstani universities, and added a separate sub-clause "Localization of the method", which shows how we developed domestic cases, prepared bilingual materials and adapted the soft skills assessment module. In addition, in the second paragraph of the conclusion, the key framework of the study was clarified - the sample size (84 students) and the duration of the experiment (one semester). I hope these edits made the description of the project more transparent and responsive to your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well written, clear, and coherently structured, with a solid theoretical foundation and an appropriate methodological design. The results are presented rigorously, and the conclusions offer valuable insights for educational innovation within the Kazakhstani context. The manuscript is certainly publishable in its current form. However, it is recommended to slightly strengthen the conclusion by including a more explicit reflection on the study's limitations and the lessons learned during the research process. Additionally, it would be helpful to incorporate one or two concise research questions in the introduction, near the list of objectives, to clarify the analytical orientation of the study more effectively and guide the reader more effectively.

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful suggestions that helped strengthen the analytical component of the manuscript. In the conclusion, I added two separate blocks: “Limitations of the study,” which clarify the scope of the sample and the time frame of the experiment, and “Lessons and Prospects,” which formulates the key findings and plans for further work.

To more clearly structure the analysis, immediately after the objectives in the introduction, two research questions are included that set a clear focus for the study.

I hope that the changes made will satisfy your wishes and increase the scientific value of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction section, there are statements that should be supported by other studies and authors, especially in the first paragraph.
The literature review should include more references to Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in the educational field, as it mentions medicine, engineering, and management, but does not address its introduction into the educational and social fields.
The objective section of the introduction should be better structured, highlighting what the main objective is and what are considered specific objectives.
The sections "Scientific Novelty" and "Practical Significance" should be included after the discussion or in the conclusions.
Several times, "the formation of pedagogical and social personnel" is mentioned. This should be modified to refer to "initial training," as the formation of personnel could also refer to continuing education or post-graduate training.
In the methods section, why are first-year students not included? This would enrich the sample and the evolution of the study.
It is explicitly stated that "A total of 78 respondents participated in the study, which meets the requirements for sample reliability, with a 95% confidence level and an acceptable margin of error of ± 10%." What is the total population of the study? This statement requires justification.
The methods section is inconsistent and lacks relevant information. Sections such as "data collection procedure," "sample," "instruments," and "data analysis" should be included. It should be specified how the data was collected, how anonymity was ensured for the informants, and the ethical issues involved. Were the studies approved by an ethics committee? Only the ethics code is mentioned, but were they supervised by an external body?
How was the construction of the instruments carried out? Have they been validated? Has their reliability been calculated?
I believe the structure of the article should be reviewed in depth. The results should be presented separately, and the discussion should be separate. In fact, the discussion serves to compare the results of the study with the existing literature, which seems to resemble section 5. I suggest dividing the "results and discussion" section and merging the discussion with comparisons to other studies.
Although the article presents a specific study with consistent results, it lacks theoretical and practical contributions to the field of knowledge. This is even more relevant given that the study focuses on a sample of 78 students, which is difficult to generalize to other contexts.
I suggest improving the conclusion section by indicating the theoretical and practical contributions the article makes. I also suggest including the limitations of the study and improving the writing of the discussion and conclusions, highlighting the main contributions of the study.
The references should be reviewed, as some do not conform to the Education Sciences format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some expressions could be improved to facilitate understanding in English

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and detailed comments, which helped to significantly improve the article. In accordance with your recommendations:

– In the introduction, I strengthened the rationale by adding references to key works by Hmelo-Silver (2004), Thomas (2000), Smailova & Zhanatova (2023), and Wong & Zhang (2022), and also made a connection: “If in medicine PBL forms clinical thinking, then in social pedagogy similar effects are confirmed ...”.
– The “Literature Review” section was supplemented with reviews of the use of PBL in pedagogy and social work.
– The subheading “The purpose and objectives of the study” now clearly separates the general goal from the list of specific tasks.
– The “Scientific Novelty” and “Practical Significance” blocks were moved to the end of the text before the recommendations and are formatted in the author’s style.
– Wherever there was “staff formation”, I replaced it with “initial training of teachers” or “strategic approaches to training future social educators”.
– The “Methods” section has been expanded: “Data collection procedure” (March–April 2025, in person, anonymously), “Tools” (questionnaire 1–5, Cronbach’s α = 0.82–0.89), “Data analysis” (SPSS 27, correlations, Mann–Whitney, p < 0.05) and “Ethical issues” (protocol No. 12/2024 dated February 15, 2024) have appeared.
– Results and Discussion are divided into two independent subsections: the former contain only figures and tables, the latter – their interpretation and comparison with Barrows & Tamblyn, Hmelo-Silver, Wong & Zhang, etc.
– The conclusion includes paragraphs on the theoretical contribution and practical recommendations for universities, as well as an honest admission of the sample limitation (one university) and a call for further research in other contexts.
– References in the list of references are now in a unified style: Cyrillic for surnames, italics for journal titles, DOI/URL without unnecessary prefixes.

I hope that the revised version reflects your comments and significantly enhances the scientific and applied value of the article. I would be grateful for any additional instructions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful revision of the manuscript. I appreciate the care with which you have addressed each of the points raised in the initial review.

 

Best regards and congratulations for your work

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be revised

Author Response

I hope that what I wrote has reached you.
I have uploaded all the answers to the reviewers' questions into the system. Now I am sending you the changes made to the article based on the reviewers' recommendations, marking them separately.

One more request, please send an invoice for "editing in English" Perizat Sanatbay.