School–University Partnerships for Place-Based Educational Administration Innovation: Fostering Innovative Co-Creator Learners
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction of the article clearly presents the problem – the need to strengthen place-based education (PBE) and school–university partnerships within a decentralized education system. The authors consistently justify the relevance of the study by highlighting a research gap – the lack of administrative mechanisms that enable the sustainable implementation of innovation.
The literature review is structured thematically, which helps the reader understand the theoretical framework. However, it can be observed that the theoretical section is more descriptive than analytical. Although numerous sources are cited, their interaction and critical dialogue could be further developed – for example, by more clearly demonstrating how the proposed model conceptually differs from existing partnership or PBE administration models. There is also a lack of a clearer theoretical “bridge” between the DOE (“Innovative Co-creator”) framework and the empirical indicators used in the study.
The article provides a detailed description of the stages of innovation development and validation, the mentoring mechanism, the methods of data collection and analysis (thematic analysis, descriptive statistics), and instrument validation (IOC). This allows the reader to understand the research process and its internal logic.
However, I would suggest several methodological revisions and additions. The article declares methodological triangulation by combining qualitative and quantitative data. The author(s) indicate that qualitative data (focus groups, PLC reflections, observations, document analysis) were analyzed using thematic analysis, while quantitative data (questionnaires, evaluation rubrics) were processed using descriptive statistics. Nevertheless, the article does not sufficiently demonstrate how coherence between the different methods was ensured. Although the methods were applied in parallel, several important questions remain unanswered: Was the study designed as a clearly defined mixed-methods design (e.g., explanatory sequential or convergent design)? How were qualitative and quantitative data integrated at the analysis stage? Did the quantitative results corroborate the qualitative findings, or were any discrepancies identified?
In this case, triangulation is described more as a means of strengthening reliability than as a systematic analytical integration strategy. For greater methodological clarity, it would be advisable to explicitly identify the type of mixed-methods design used and to demonstrate the logic of data integration (e.g., through joint displays, integrated results discussion, or meta-inferences).
Regarding the presentation of quantitative data in the results section: although the methodology section indicates that quantitative analysis was conducted, quantitative data are presented very fragmentarily in the results section. For example, expert evaluation of the innovations is presented with a mean and standard deviation; however, in the Phase 3 evaluation, which involved teachers, students, and parents, only “high satisfaction” or “strong impact” is reported, without detailed statistical indicators. It remains unclear what scales were used (e.g., 5- or 7-point Likert), which specific indicators were measured, what the means and dispersion were for each group, and whether comparisons were conducted between schools or participant groups.
Thus, the impression arises that quantitative data were collected, but their analysis and presentation in the results section are minimal. This weakens the empirical weight of the argumentation and makes it more difficult to assess the robustness of the conclusions.
I recommend providing more detailed tables with key statistical indicators, clearly linking quantitative measures to the dimensions of the “Innovative Co-creator,” and demonstrating how quantitative results complement or corroborate qualitative insights.
I also suggest that the article explicitly formulate the research question(s) or hypotheses. These are implied in the text but are not clearly presented in a separate section. This weakens methodological transparency.
In the discussion section, a particularly strong contribution is the reinterpretation of the university’s role from “inspector” to “Thinking Partner.” This conceptual insight has the potential to represent a meaningful contribution to the field of partnership research.
However, the discussion is somewhat one-sidedly positive. There is a lack of critical reflection on possible challenges (e.g., power relations between the university and the school), the limited sample (only four schools), and the absence of long-term impact evaluation. As a result, the argumentation appears convincing but insufficiently balanced.
Although the conclusions logically follow from the presented results, the claim of a “scalable and transferable blueprint” appears somewhat overstated, given the limited sample and contextual specificity (one region, one country). Greater caution in formulating generalizations would be advisable.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for our detailed point-by-point response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for submitting this manuscript to Education Sciences. I appreciate the significant effort that has clearly gone into this research, and I want to begin by acknowledging its genuine contributions. This study takes on an important and timely topic: how school-university partnerships can be structured to support place-based educational administration innovation within Thailand's Education Sandbox. The four-pillar collaborative administrative framework you have synthesized is conceptually compelling, and the grounded, context-sensitive approach across four diverse school jurisdictions is a meaningful strength.
The paper makes a genuine contribution to the literature on school-university partnerships and place-based education in the Southeast Asian context, and I hope the recommendations below will help you strengthen it further.
There is a significant body of literature on coaching. As currently written, the coaching section is the thinnest section of the literature review, and this is a missed opportunity given that coaching is one of the central mechanisms of the framework you develop. The section cites several useful contemporary sources but does not engage deeply with what coaching actually is, how it functions theoretically, or what distinguishes effective coaching relationships in educational settings.
At minimum, the manuscript would benefit from engaging with some foundational and definitional work on coaching. For instance, the International Coaching Federation's widely cited definition of coaching as 'partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential' (ICF, 2024) would help anchor your use of the term. Bennett and Bush (2013) offer a rigorous treatment of coaching as a mechanism for organizational change that would complement your administrative innovation framing.
More specifically, given that your coaching involves school leaders and teachers, the manuscript would be significantly enriched by engaging with literature on coaching in school and leadership contexts. Van Nieuwerburgh and Barr (2017) have written compellingly about how coaching in educational settings creates conditions for positive experiences for both learners and educators. Klar and Huggins (2020) offer a book-length treatment of leadership coaching as a vehicle for building rural school leaders’ capacity, directly relevant to your partnership model. Huggins, Klar, and Andreoli (2021) examine how leadership coaches themselves learn and develop within coaching roles, which speaks directly to your
"Thinking Partner" conceptualization of the university role.
The recent work by Klar, Paufler, and Carter (2024) on creating safe spaces within professional communities for school leadership development is also highly germane to your findings around relational trust, safe experimentation, and inter-school PLC structures. Additionally, Carter et al. (2023) bring an important cultural and relational lens to leadership coaching that would be valuable given your multi-cultural Thai context.
On the question of cultural dimensions of coaching and mentoring, which is particularly relevant for a study situated in a culturally distinct regional context, the recently published integrative review by Lundgren, Carter, and Klein (2025) in Human Resource Development Review synthesizes 59 studies on cultural competence in coaching through a critical lens. Their Cultural Competence in Coaching (CCiC) Roundhouse model challenges assumptions of neutrality in coaching and positions cultural competence as central to effective coaching relationships. Given that your study is explicitly situated in the Songkhla region with its unique cultural diversity, this addition would help you theorize why culturally responsive coaching was essential to your framework's success.
The following references are recommended for your consideration in expanding this section:
Bennett, J. L., & Bush, M. W. (2013). Coaching for change. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203140970
Carter, A. D., Sisco, S., & Fowler, R. (2023). Since we are, therefore, I am: Ubuntu and the experiences of Black women leadership coaches. Consulting Psychology Journal, 75(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000227
Huggins, K. S., Klar, H. W., & Andreoli, P. M. (2021). I thought I was prepared to do this: An exploration of the learning and development of leadership coaches. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 10(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-01-2021-0014
International Coaching Federation. (2024). All things coaching. https://coachingfederation.org/about
Klar, H. W., & Huggins, K. S. (2020). Developing rural school leaders: Building capacity through transformative leadership coaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429464553
Klar, H. W., Paufler, N. A., & Carter, A. D. (2024). Learning with and from each other: Creating safe spaces in a professional community for school leadership development. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 9(4), 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-02-2024-0017
Lundgren, H., Carter, A. D., & Klein, E. (2025). Cultural competence in leadership coaching education: What can we learn from the mentoring literature? Human Resource Development Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251400974
Paufler, N. A., Klar, H. W., & Carter, A. D. (2025). Building a positive school culture using continuous improvement: Leadership development in a research-practice partnership. Journal of Educational Administration. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2025-0074
van Nieuwerburgh, C., & Barr, M. (2017). Coaching in education. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching (pp. 507-520). SAGE.
Beyond the coaching literature specifically, the literature review as a whole would benefit from deeper engagement with foundational works. The review reads as current but occasionally thin on the theoretical grounding that would help readers understand the intellectual lineage of your constructs. A few specific observations:
First, Place-Based Education (PBE) is introduced primarily through contemporary sources, but Sobel (2004) and Smith and Sobel (2014) are only briefly cited without engagement. Given how central PBE is to your entire framework, the review would benefit from a more substantive discussion of what these foundational scholars argue PBE actually is and why it matters, not just as a citation anchor but as a theoretical foundation that you then build upon.
Second, the Educational Administration Innovation section is quite brief and relies almost entirely on Thai-language or Thai-context literature. While this is appropriate given your setting, it would benefit from broader international grounding to help position the contribution for an international readership. Reviewers outside Thailand may not be familiar with Niyamabha and Wichitpacharaporn (2018), and framing your innovation typology in relation to international frameworks would strengthen this section.
Third, the section on Thailand's Education Sandbox is well-developed and clearly specialized, which is a genuine strength. However, you might consider a brief comparative sentence or two gesturing toward analogous decentralized policy frameworks in other national contexts (e.g., charter school autonomy in the U.S., Multi-Academy Trusts in the U.K.) to help situate Thailand's Sandbox for international readers and signal the broader implications of your findings.
The methodology section raises a few questions that, if addressed, would meaningfully strengthen the study's rigor and transparency for readers.
First, while the three-phase R&D framework is clearly described at a structural level, the qualitative data analysis process is underspecified. The manuscript notes that 'thematic content analysis' was used on focus group and PLC seminar data, but does not describe what this process actually looked like: Were themes generated inductively, deductively, or through some combination? Who conducted the analysis? Was inter-rater reliability or any form of coding consensus established? These details matter for evaluating the credibility of the findings, and their inclusion would strengthen the methodological section considerably.
Second, the results section describes outcomes in ways that are sometimes descriptive rather than analytic. For example, the Phase 2 outcomes are presented largely as case summaries organized by school. What would strengthen this section is clearer language indicating how you moved from observation to finding, connecting raw evidence to the theoretical constructs you develop. Specifically, what evidence supports the claim that students developed 'Innovative Co-creator' characteristics? Were any of the quantitative assessment data (referenced as Mean and S.D.) presented or discussed? The paper would benefit from making the evidentiary link more explicit throughout Section 4.
Fourth, positionality is worth briefly addressing. The university team served simultaneously as researchers and as 'Thinking Partners', actively coaching the schools. This dual role is not inherently problematic, but it is worth acknowledging as a potential limitation, particularly in terms of how it might have shaped data collection, interpretation, and the validation of the framework you developed.
The discussion section is thoughtful and well-organized, and the four subsections map effectively onto the framework pillars. However, the discussion currently reads as largely confirmatory, citing literature to validate your findings rather than positioning your findings as extending, challenging, or meaningfully contributing to existing theory. I would encourage the authors to consider the following questions as revision prompts:
What does this study add to the school-university partnership literature that wasn't already known? The discussion notes alignment with Eady and Green (2024) and Halász and Thant Sin (2023), but what is genuinely new here? The 'Thinking Partner' conceptualization is your most distinctive contribution and deserves more direct theorization. How does this construct differ from existing models of coaching or mentoring in partnerships?
The four-pillar framework you synthesize is the paper's most novel contribution, but the discussion does not fully theorize it as such. A paragraph that explicitly states what the framework adds to, revises, or reframes in the existing literature would be valuable.
The study is explicitly situated in a Thai-specific regulatory context (the Education Sandbox), yet the conclusion claims the framework is “scalable and transferable.” The discussion would be strengthened by addressing what conditions would need to be present for this framework to transfer to other contexts, and what might be untransferable due to Thailand's unique policy environment.
The absence of student voice is notable given the paper’s student-centered framing. While 289 students participated in the innovations, it is unclear whether any student perspectives are represented in the data. Acknowledging this as a limitation and suggesting future directions for participatory research would be appropriate.
The following minor issues are also worth attention:
- Table 2 is quite dense and would benefit from cleaner formatting and column spacing to improve readability.
- Several section headings and bullet structures in the Results section are formatted inconsistently (double bullets appear in places), which appears to be a formatting artifact worth correcting in revision.
- The phrase “comprehensive innovations tailored to student needs” appears without clear empirical backing early in the literature review. Ensure all descriptive claims are supported by citations or evidence from the study.
- The Supplementary Materials document provides rich implementation detail for the T-FIVE model. Consider whether any of the key findings presented there, particularly the competency development data in Section 6, should be more directly integrated into the main manuscript's results section to strengthen the empirical grounding of the paper.
The manuscript is generally readable, and the authors' ideas come through clearly. That said, there are several recurring and specific issues with English usage that should be addressed before publication. These comments are offered constructively, with full recognition that this manuscript is written by authors whose first language is not English. The journal may also recommend professional English-language editing as part of the revision process.
The most noticeable recurring issue is the overuse of "fostering" and its related forms. The words "fosters," "fostering," and "fostered" appear more than 15 times across the manuscript. The authors should vary their vocabulary throughout, drawing on alternatives such as "supports," "cultivates," "encourages," "promotes," "develops," "strengthens," or "nurtures" as the specific context warrants. A related example of this problem appears in Section 2.3, where "fosters" is used in two consecutive sentences: "It fosters community engagement and enables students..." followed immediately by "PBE's comprehensive methodology fosters multifaceted learning." At a minimum, one of these instances should be revised.
A second recurring issue is the phrase "learner quality," which is not standard English-language terminology in educational research. This phrase appears in the abstract, introduction, and conclusion, and its intended meaning seems closer to "the quality of student learning outcomes" or "student learning and development." Please replace it with more precise language throughout.
Third, the manuscript uses "like" to introduce examples in several places where formal academic writing calls for "such as." The distinction matters in scholarly prose: "such as" introduces examples, while "like" signals comparison. The abstract, for instance, reads "generating high-value outcomes like Songkhla Mini Mango Coffee," which should read "such as Songkhla Mini Mango Coffee." Please review all instances of this construction.
Fourth, the manuscript applies unnecessary capitalization to ordinary nouns and phrases mid-sentence, treating them as if they were formally named theoretical constructs. Examples include "Social Capital," "Human Capital," "Innovation Coaches," "Empowering Resource Allocation," and "Transformative Evaluation." Unless these terms have been formally introduced and defined as named constructs in the paper, they should appear in lower case; this is particularly noticeable in Section 5.4, where "Empowering Resource Allocation" and "Transformative Evaluation" are capitalized without having been established as named concepts anywhere in the manuscript.
Finally, the manuscript inconsistently punctuates "school-university," alternating between a hyphen and an en-dash with no clear pattern. Please standardize this throughout in accordance with the journal's style guide.
The paper also has several structural and sentence-level issues. The opening paragraph of the introduction contains an awkward parallel construction that makes the sentence difficult to parse: "education systems must equip learners to adapt and empower them as innovators within their communities." The two verbs "equip" and "empower" take different grammatical objects, creating ambiguity about what the sentence is actually claiming. A clearer version might read: "education systems must both equip learners to adapt to change and empower them to become innovators within their communities." Later in the same section, the phrase "systematic school-university engagement can effectively foster learners to become" is non-standard, as "foster" is typically followed by a noun rather than an infinitive. Consider revising to "can effectively support learners in becoming" or "can cultivate learners as."
Section 2.1 contains a grammatically incomplete list: "Universities contribute academic expertise, research capacity, and innovation and play a pivotal role..." The word "innovation" is stranded at the end of the list without a parallel noun to complete it. The sentence should be restructured for clarity, for example: "Universities contribute academic expertise and research capacity, and play a pivotal role in designing, piloting, and evaluating new teaching practices." In the same section, the sentence "Effective partnerships are built on mutual reciprocity, robust communication, and collaborative learning, essential for cultivating resilient relationships" contains a dangling modifier. The phrase "essential for cultivating resilient relationships" needs a clearer grammatical anchor. Consider revising to attach it explicitly: "Effective partnerships are built on mutual reciprocity, robust communication, and collaborative learning, all of which are essential for cultivating resilient relationships and adapting to emerging challenges."
In the Methodology section (3.1), the study appears to introduce itself twice in nearly identical language in consecutive paragraphs: "This study utilized a systematic R&D approach..." followed immediately by "This study employed a R&D methodology..." One of these opening sentences should be removed or substantially revised to avoid redundancy. Note also that the article before "R&D" should be "an" rather than "a," since the letter "R" begins with a vowel sound when read aloud.
The subsection heading "4.3.2. Reflective Success Lesson Extraction" reads awkwardly in English. The word "extraction" is an unusual and slightly clinical choice in this context. More natural alternatives might include "Lessons Learned from Reflective Practice," "Synthesis of Lessons Learned," or simply "Reflective Lessons Learned."
In the conclusion, the word "systemic" is used where "systematic" is intended: "the synthesized collaborative administrative framework represents a systemic shift." These words are distinct in English. "Systemic" refers to something that affects an entire system at a foundational level (as in "systemic inequality"), while "systematic" means organized and methodical. Depending on the intended emphasis, "systematic," "significant," or "meaningful" would likely serve better here. Additionally, the conclusion is written as a single, unbroken paragraph spanning nearly 20 lines, making it difficult for readers to follow the argument. Dividing it into at least two or three paragraphs would improve readability considerably.
Several specific typographical and formatting errors also warrant attention. In Table 1, "Focus Group Disscussion" contains a doubled "s" and should be corrected to "Focus Group Discussion," and "Phase3:" is missing a space and should read "Phase 3:". In the reference list, the Hamilton and Margot (2024) entry contains the string "a =university-school partnership," where the equals sign appears to be a stray character introduced during copy-and-paste formatting; it should read "a university-school partnership." In Sections 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, several bullet points are preceded by double bullet characters rather than single ones, which appears to be a formatting artifact that should be corrected before submission.
Addressing these language and presentation issues will improve the manuscript's readability and professional polish considerably and will help ensure that the authors' substantive contributions reach an international audience as clearly as possible.
Author Response
Please see the attached file for our detailed point-by-point response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the thoughtful revisions you made in response to the reviews. I appreciate the clear effort that went into strengthening the manuscript, particularly the expanded engagement with coaching literature, the added methodological detail, and the stronger discussion of limitations.
I have three remaining recommendations that would further strengthen the paper before publication. First, I encourage you to state the manuscript’s unique theoretical contribution more directly. For example, the discussion could more clearly explain how the university’s role as a “Thinking Partner” differs from more traditional coaching, mentoring, or technical assistance models. Second, I recommend tightening several claims so they align more explicitly with the evidence presented. For example, when the manuscript states that the innovations were “tailored to student needs” or that students developed “Innovative Co-creator” characteristics, it would help to point readers to the specific qualitative or quantitative evidence supporting those claims. Third, I suggest one final language and formatting pass for clarity. For example, the word “fostering” still appears in the revised manuscript, including in the title, despite the response letter indicating that this language had been revised.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe quality of English is generally strong and has improved from the prior version. A final proofreading pass would still be beneficial to smooth a few awkward phrasings, ensure consistency in terminology, and improve clarity in several dense sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
