Factors Contributing to School Effectiveness: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this systematic literature review on school effectiveness and factors which contribute to such. It is needed, timely, and succinctly organized for use by those engaged in teaching and learning. 

Recommendations: 

Abstract: Relevant summary of research questions and aim.  Studying school effectiveness is a needed line of research given a huge shift since the pandemic. After reading the first sentence however, there seems to be an aim on school systems and on student outcomes. The first part of sentence one discusses systematic review of literature on "school effectiveness" which emphasizes a review of systems or structures of schools. The latter part of the sentence emphasizes "educational outcomes" often used to refer to students and not schools, systems, or structures. It would make sense to be clear on the primary in the first sentence despite findings may point to outcomes being a contributing factor. Otherwise, you are conjecturing beyond the work.

Consider adding sample size of works reviewed and at least one primary search term used to filter. This can be elaborated more in a enhanced methods summary more than only stating where the studies were retrieved. For instance, include that you used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.  Consider stating a word or two on what a systematic review is. For instance: This type of review looks at only publications meeting a specific criteria, timeframe, and topic...

If a theory was used to address the work, this should be noted.  Note: Some clarification on word choice may be needed. For instance, line 14 the word "multifaced" was used, did you mean multifaceted?

Introduction:

1) The title of the work says, "factors contributing to school effectiveness". In first sentence of the intro you mention, "school practice". This is a new and different concept dealing with interaction and transactions between and among systems, structures and learners resulting in various outcomes.  These conclusions may be effective at the end in findings and summary. Instead, try not to derail the reader by introducing interchangeable terms too early and regularly. (line 34 especially)

2. Consider adding a definition of school effectiveness with clear criterion definition. See Bosker, R.J. and Scheerens, J (1989) Criterion-Definition, Effect size and stability, three fundamental questions in school effectiveness research. This will avoid conjecturing too early before the analysis. (line 36-40)

3. Move 41-81 to Discussion section at Line 468. Move up line 82-117 to line 41. Create a separate section for limitations of systematic review. 

4. In the statement "This paper aims to provide a systematic review of the literature on school effectiveness, with a focus on identifying the main factors that contribute to successful educational outcomes".(line 95-96) consider removing the latter part on "that contribute to successful educational outcomes"

5. Same is true with line 104-105. "This study aims to provide an overview of theoretical foundations of school effectiveness and to define different categories and factors within school effectiveness research." Consider removing and use in the findings of outcomes from your systemic literature review.  Stick to and remain through to your targeted research question " What are the main factors of school effectiveness?" everything else resulting in findings from your review. This ensures you are true to the methods as described in line 215-219. "The literature review was done by the PRISMA protocol [12]. “To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected), and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses)” [12] (p. 1)."

6. Lines 118-213 are describing the history and evolution of the field. These are often not considered theory. Theories would be ethics of care, systems theory, structuralism, functionalism, capital theory, role theory, Bandura social learning theory, social cognitive theory, etc. Consider choosing one that fits and elaborate. Also consider changing the title of this section to History and Evolution of School Effectiveness.

Overall, the other aspects of the manuscript were well informed and supported. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your work on this important topic. As I read through your findings they certainly resonated with some of the research work I have done in schools over recent years. My comments are relatively minor, and shouldn't take too much to address.

There are a few grammar/expression issues that would benefit from an English first language editor. For example, p. 5 "The literature review was done by the PRISMA protocol", On page 6, last para you list a whole lot of factors, but didnt finish the sentence. On page 7 you refer to "not significant factors"  which should probably be "factors not significant". On p.9 you say 'Through systematic literature review' which might be 'Throughout the systematic...". Please carefully re-read with those expression details in mind.

You mention 2 databases. And later on you say there were 4 (p. 11). Why only 2? This seems a little limiting when there are so many good educational databases to choose from. Please justifty your choice.

For Fig 1 (Prisma) the numbers in the screening section don't add up. Please check.

In 4.1, you refer to stakeholders as "policymakers, principals, deputy principals, teachers, and parents". I am surprised that there is no mention of governance bodies or boards. Did you not find any mention of these in your search?

in 4.5 you have specifically noted Flipped Classrooms. I think this is more about pedagogy than a specific strategy. Perhaps the heading should be 'Pedagogies that stimilate engagement'.

4.6 Efficiency. I would question whether efficiency and effectiveness should be compared in the same article. If efficiency is desirable it could lead to deliberately exclusive policies and practices. I suggest you delete this section as it raises more questions than it answers.

P. 11, line 505 "...academic difficulties..." While this might be true, wouldnt it also be true that students from 'disadvantaged backgrounds' can still benefit from school even though their academic performance might be lower. The measure of the schools effectiveness in that case is not the academic achievements, but the growth of the student, potentially across a number of indicators. Please adjust the language.

p. 12 "Finally, adequate resources, including funding,". You didnt cover this except in reference to technology. If it is a strong theme as you suggest it is here and in the abstract, then it deserves a section in the paper, in addition to technology. Please consider.

Otherwise, I found this a good summary of the literature, well covered and reasonably well presented.

 

Just needs some minor English editing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on school effectiveness, aiming to identify the key factors that contribute to successful educational outcomes. The topic is highly relevant in the field of Education. It is a complex area that requires regular updates through literature reviews, making this study particularly valuable. The authors have focused on 2016 and 2022, which is appropriate. While it is unfortunate that the search was not extended to other search engines, it is important to highlight that the methodology employed in the study is appropriate. Furthermore, the authors have demonstrated a responsible approach by explaining the limitations of their chosen methodology. The literature review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol, which facilitated the identification of a corpus consisting of 84 relevant works.

This review of literature is well-structured and is relevant to the field of study. The authors were careful to clearly define their limitations. Just one repair: there is a lack of connection between what is presented in line 274 and line 275.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf