Improving the Confidence of Physics Undergraduates in Communication and Teamwork Skills

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper. Please see the recommended changes. 

Introduction

Lines 23 - 31 - Feels as though this would be best moved to the Methodology section to briefly describe the participants in the study. Furthermore, paragraphs should consist of at least 4 sentences. The paragraphs are too brief from Lines 23-32.

 Lines 32-37 -this section is very brief and needs to elaborate on what soft skills are and why they are important within the said context of this study group.

Lines 38-41 - move the two points into sentences. Dot points are unnecessary.

Lines 42-50 - Try and provide examples of the framework relevant to the key points made.

Lines 56-58 a very old paper is reference. Is there a more recent paper, in the last 10 years?

• The study aims should be embedded at the end of the last paragraph of the introduction section.

Method Section

• There is no information in the Method Section about the specific details of the project. There should be a subheading and underneath details of the project. This then allows the project to be replicated and adds transparency. 

Results

• Section 3.2.3 should be moved into the methd section. Any description of how the analysis will be conducted should be in the methods section. 
• Most of the results section needs to be refined and just provide the specific details of the results. The explanation and elaboration of the results should be in the discussion section. Major changes needed here.

Discussion

• This section is very brief because the results section includes most of the dicussions. Furthermore I would like to see the results compared to previous related studies and exploration of the reasoning of the results.
• Limitations section is required. 

The paper would benefit from more recent research (last 10 years to be referred) to in this paper.

Kindest regards

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research methods (qualitative and quantitative) are clearly explained and appropriate for analyzing students’ confidence and skills. The theoretical framework raised in the introduction is not sufficiently developed to support the research question of this study. Highlighting the literature review's role in supporting the research question would improve the clarity of the study's foundation. Thus, it would have been relevant to present a summary review of the literature on studies focusing on students’ confidence in teamwork and presentation skills.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for making amendments as requested. 

Kindest regards