Reconceptualizing Quality Teaching: Insights Based on a Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses a relevant and pertinent topic in the field of educational sciences, namely Quality Teaching. It is an interesting piece of work, as it helps to advance and expand the theoretical and empirical corpus on this topic.

The concept of Quality Teaching is complex and multifaceted, since multiple aspects and variables influence the quality of teaching. Likewise, the term “quality” can be controversial, as it has multiple dimensions and different approaches depending on the educational paradigm in which we position ourselves.

Despite these issues, throughout the manuscript the key aspects to be studied within the framework of Quality Teaching are well justified. In this sense, the author establishes a conceptual framework that integrates three relevant domains—pedagogy, SEL/SET and technology—as well as three foci centred on the teacher, the student and the educational system. To do so, a systematic review is conducted using the PRISMA method, which is commonly employed for systematic analysis.

From a methodological point of view, the procedure followed is appropriate. In addition, the work is well documented, offers a broad synthesis, and proposes clear implications for both initial and continuing teacher education.

However, I would recommend improving some aspects:

First, for greater clarity, it could be useful to specify the exact search strings used, as well as the operators applied in each database.

Second, it might be helpful to clarify whether a single article could contribute several topics within the same domain/focus, and what implications this has for the interpretation of the percentages.

Similarly, it might be advisable to point out the main “gaps” identified in the review (for example, the limited literature on the actual integration of technology and SEL/SET) and how these should be addressed.

Furthermore, although the theoretical review is very broad and detailed, in some sections the information could perhaps be synthesised to make the manuscript more readable. This is, however, merely a suggestion and, as it stands, the text is perfectly valid.

Another aspect I would like to comment on concerns the limitations of the study. I am pleased that the author clearly and transparently mentions some aspects that are important to consider, such as the need to take into account different educational stages or different cultural contexts. Indeed, there are educational stages in which some of the elements considered as SEL/SET are particularly important. For example, in early childhood education, teacher sensitivity and the emotional well-being of young children are fundamental on a day-to-day basis and constitute a clear dimension of teaching quality.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Organization and Clarity

The manuscript is lengthy, and several sections (Introduction, Literature Review, and Results) contain substantial repetition. A more concise synthesis would improve readability. The transitions between domains (pedagogy, technology, SEL/SET) could be smoother. At times, the narrative reads like a series of mini-literature reviews rather than a cohesive framework. Consider reorganizing results to emphasize the conceptual contribution more clearly, rather than presenting extensive descriptive statistics followed by lengthy explanations.

Methodology 

The coding process could be made more transparent: Inter-rater reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) should be reported, rather than simply stating that “full agreement was reached.” It is unclear how themes were defined, merged, or decided upon. The claim of “740 themes” appears high; readers would benefit from understanding how granularity was determined.

Conceptual Framework

The manuscript asserts the “novelty” of integrating pedagogy, SEL/SET, and technology, but these relationships are widely acknowledged in the literature. Strengthen the argument for what is truly unique in this review. The proposed conceptualization would benefit from a visual model and clearer articulation of how the three domains intersect and reinforce one another. At times, conclusions seem more prescriptive than supported by the results. For example, claims about “expertise,” “teacher improvisation,” and “AI readiness” extend beyond descriptive review findings.

Practical Implications

The practical implications section is promising, but could be better aligned with the actual findings rather than making broad statements about professional development. Suggest specifying actionable steps or recommendations for teacher education, policymakers, or school systems.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains grammatical issues, overly long sentences, and inconsistent terminology. Consider tightening paragraphs to avoid redundancy—especially where pedagogical practices, SEL skills, and technology integration are described multiple times across sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions