From the Hidden Protest of Students towards Problem-Based Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REPORT ON THE SECOND VERSION OF PAPER “FROM THE HIDDEN PROTEST OF STUDENTS TOWARDS A PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING”
Editor in Chief handled me the second version of this manuscript for consideration for Education Sciences. I read it with interest and I consider that the manuscript presented after being reviewed is much better performed, and overall the use of English language has improved a lot, as well. Therefore, I recommend it to be accepted.
Summary: The manuscript presents some hidden protests from students who gently express their feelings of personal dissastisfaction with the classical teaching process. The author(s) attempts() to contribute to the issue of teacher education, focusing on a research in educational institutions, which includes students and teachers.
Some comments:
Page 2. Line 61. There is an extra comma in (p.98,).
Page 2. Line 68. …where students can do more than to receive (add “to”)
Page 4. Line 155. …..We could understand that he and the others learners…(change “him” by “he”)
Page 5. Line 197…….is the Greek word energeia (“word” instead of “words”)
Page 5. Line 204. In the discourse of the students…. (not students’)
Page 6. Line 267. ….did this research lead to an changes….(“an changes” is not grammatically correct)
Page 6. Line 272. …..We attended some six meetings (replace “some six”)
Page 6. Line 273. An item discussed in one of these meetingS (add “s”)
Page 7. Line 300. ….He added that that should be done (try to replace the second “that”)
Page 8. Line 371……..(p. 399) ( “p.” is missing)
Page 8. Line 373 “when facing a real_problem..” (real problem)
Author Response
Dear reviewer
We accomplished all the suggestions you mentioned and we highlighted with color the changes.
Thank you for your good attention
2019.08.08
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the paper and al the modifications were made by the author. I think is ok to publish.Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your suggestions.
2019.08.08
The authors
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A very interesting study with a good concept. May be interesting to hear the perspectives of students who performed less well academically so comparisons can be drawn. I wonder how effective adopting a PBL based approach in lower sets with less academically able students would be as the baseline framework of knowledge would be expected to be lower and hence students may be less inclined to participate in discussion.
Give greater detail regarding the school this study was performed in. Private vs public school etc.
It is not clear how themes from interviews were identified. Could explain the methodology behind whether interviews were recorded then transcripts coded etc.
Reflexivity from the author could help evoke a more neutrla approach to the way the report is written. It is unclear what the researchers background is.
Reviewer 2 Report
Editor in Chief handled me this manuscript for consideration for Education Sciences. I read it with interest since problem-based learning is a topic of interest for any readership interesed in teaching. However, as presented, the manuscript under review is not well performed.
Summary: The manuscript presents some hidden protests from students who gently express their feelings of personal dissastisfaction with the classical teaching process. The author(s) attempt(s) to contribute to the issue of teacher education, focusing on a research in educational institutions, which includes students and teachers.
Comments: Although the manuscript describes several attractive episodes with students and shows students’ worries and disconformities, the episodes are mixed together in the different sections of the manuscript, not being clear the existing connection among them. For instance, there is some confusion between the sciences involved in the study, when issues related to Physics’ teachers and to logic formalism are described.
Besides, there is not clear the significance of involving students with academic success and, in consequence of avoiding the treatment with students having more difficulties in the learning process.
From my point of view, the described process lacks of procedures, analytical strategies, and researcher biases. More importantly, the readers would like to know more in detail about how the procedures were designed according to the given assumptions. In essence, the manuscript needs more clarity.
I also believe that overall the use of English language is not appropriate. The authour(s) often use(s) too long sentences, separated by a great amount of commas, and with several different quotation marks making its understanding quite difficult. Other minor typographical remark would be the indiscrimiate use of underlined words.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the notes in the document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
