Teacher Self-Regulation and Its Relationship with Student Self-Regulation in Secondary Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting. It is novel in its research.

- It is recommended to put research questions RQ1, RQ2... and in the results section put 3.1.Evaluation of differences in students according to sex and grade for each SRL phase (RQ1)

- Page 7 (point 2.3) there are several quotations in the middle of the sentence, when they should preferably go at the end of each one.

- In any case, it must be unified, since section 3.1. is in italics and 3.2. without her

- There is a useless space after table 4. Check

- There is no legend in the tables except for number 10. It is recommended for the reader's better understanding

- CHECK REFERENCES, such as:

- In the ref. 4 shows shading (from copy and paste)

- According to APA 7, the doi are wrong, since the http//doi.org/ is missing (with the exception of one reference). In any case, having followed other citation regulations, the criteria must be unified, since in some references "Doi" appears, in others "doi", etc.

- There are some current appointments (year 2022, 2020, 19...) but many are old (2014, 15, 13, 2008...)

- Ref. 22 name of the journal without abbreviation

- Ref. 52 missing information

- Review details (point after the year is missing in ref. 14)

Encourage you to continue with further research on the subject.

 

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's comments. This allowed us to improve the quality of the manuscript. All comments were incorporated. The changes and improvements made are detailed below. 

Reviewer's comment 1: It is recommended to put research questions RQ1, RQ2... and in the results section put 3.1.Evaluation of differences in students according to sex and grade for each SRL phase (RQ1)

Authors' response: The reviewer's observation was considered (See line 159 to 168). Specific research questions were incorporated. In addition, coding was used in the research questions (RQ1, RQ2 and RQ3) following the reviewer's recommendation It was as follows:

RQ1. Are there differences in the stages of self-regulation of learning in students according to gender and grade level?

RQ2. Is there an association between teacher motivation and sociodemographic variables on teacher self-regulation phases?

RQ3. Is there a relationship between students' self-regulation phases of learning and teachers' self-regulation phases?

 

Reviewer's comment 2: -Page 7 (point 2.3) there are several quotations in the middle of the sentence, when they should preferably go at the end of each one.

Authors' response:  The reviewer's comment was considered. The numbers were changed to letters, because they are not references, they are a list of arguments. (See line 305 to 315).

 

Reviewer's comment 3: In any case, it must be unified, since section 3.1. is in italics and 3.2. without her

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered. The form was unified by editing all the subsections in italics.

 

Reviewer's comment 4: There is a useless space after table 4. Check

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered. The space after table 4 was eliminated.

 

Reviewer's comment 5: There is no legend in the tables except for number 10. It is recommended for the reader's better understanding

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered. Notes have been incorporated below all the tables to improve the understanding of their interpretation.

 

Reviewer's comment 6: CHECK REFERENCES, such as: In the ref. 4 shows shading (from copy and paste)

Authors' response: All citations and references were revised. Different details for improvement were incorporated.

 

Reviewer's comment 7: According to APA 7, the doi are wrong, since the http//doi.org/ is missing (with the exception of one reference). In any case, having followed other citation regulations, the criteria must be unified, since in some references "Doi" appears, in others "doi", etc.

Authors' response:  Actually, the reference style of the journal is not APA. The reviewer's suggestion to standardize the doi has been incorporated. 

 

Reviewer's comment 8: - There are some current appointments (year 2022, 2020, 19...) but many are old (2014, 15, 13, 2008...)

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered. Old references were eliminated and new updated references were incorporated.

• Old reference: Kitsantas, A.; Winsler, A.; Huie, F. Self-Regulation and Ability Predictors of Academic Success During College: A Predictive Validity Study. J Adv Acad, 2008, 20, 42–68. doi: 10.4219/jaa-2008-867; New reference: Anthonysamy, L.; Koo, A. and Hew, S. Self-regulated learning strategies in higher education: Fostering digital literacy for sustainable lifelong learning. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr), 2020, 5, 2393-2414. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10201-8
• Old reference: Behrozi, N.; Yeilagh, M.; Mansourian, A. The relationship between self-regulated learning strategies, motivational learning strategies, procrastination and academic performance among the first grade of high school male students in Boushehr. J. Life Sci. and Biomedicine. 2013, 3, 277–284; New reference: Wang, H.; Yang, J.; and Li, P. How and when goal-oriented self-regulation improves college students’ well-being: a weekly diary study. Curr Psychol, 2022, 41, 7532-7543. doi: 10.1007/s12144-020-01288-w
• Old reference: Zimmerman, B. J.; Kitsantas, A. Comparing Students’ Self-Discipline and Self-Regulation Measures and Their Prediction of Academic Achievement. Contemp Educ Psychol 2014, 39, 145–155. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.03.004; New reference: Bai, B.; Wang, J.; and Nie, Y. Self-efficacy, task values and growth mindset: what has the most predictive power for primary school students’ self-regulated learning in English writing and writing competence in an Asian Confucian cultural context? Cambridge J. Educ, 2021, 51, 65-84. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2020.1778639.

 

Reviewer's comment 9: Ref. 22 name of the journal without abbreviation

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered. The name of the abbreviated journal was added. It is now as follows:

• Boshoff-Knoetze, A.; Duminy, L.; Du Toit, Y. Examining the effect of self-regulation failure on academic achievement in emergency remote teaching and learning versus face-to-face. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2022, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi: 10.1108/JARHE-08-2021-0305

 

Reviewer's comment 10: Ref. 52 missing information

Authors' response: The reference was improved

 

Reviewer's comment 11: Review details (point after the year is missing in ref. 14)

Authors' response: A comma was added after the year in reference 14, according to the journal's standards.

 

The improved manuscript is attached. Highlighted in green color you can see all the improvements incorporated from the suggestions of reviewer 1. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the consideration of a possible reviewer of this manuscript, titled “Teacher self-regulation and its relationship with student self-regulation in secondary education”. The aim of this study is to characterize and analyze the relationship between teachers' and students' self-regulation. The research topic proposed by the authors is current and relevant. The paper is well-structured.

Please find my detailed comments below.

Regarding the abstract, I suggest that the authors emphasize their own contributions and the research implications. I recommend using the gender term.

The research methodology used by the authors is well grounded; the research design and methods are clearly stated. The authors should indicate the representativeness of the sample. How is the scientific relevance of the results ensured?

The authors clearly show the results. The findings cover several good points. The results are supported by associating with previous studies in the literature. I would suggest a proofreading (for example the plural man/woman).   

Thank you for this interesting paper.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's comments. This allowed us to improve the quality of the manuscript. All comments were incorporated. The changes and improvements made are detailed below. 

Reviewer's comment 1: Regarding the abstract, I suggest that the authors emphasize their own contributions and the research implications. I recommend using the gender term.

Authors' response:  The reviewer's comment was considered. The abstract was improved, and sex was replaced by gender. This was standardized throughout the manuscript. Although the number of words in the abstract is reduced, the authors' own contributions were emphasized.

 

Reviewer's comment 2: The research methodology used by the authors is well grounded; the research design and methods are clearly stated. The authors should indicate the representativeness of the sample. How is the scientific relevance of the results ensured?

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered. Four improvements were incorporated at this point: (1) in the method, specifically in the subheading sample, the characteristics of the participants and the type of sampling were specified (see Line 174 to 176); (2) in the part of the data collection procedure, it was specified that in order to avoid biases in the sampling procedure, the application of a data collection protocol was considered (see Line 319 to 320); (3) in the data analysis procedure, it was specified that non-representative groups were excluded from the analysis, as recommended in the literature (see Line 349 to 351); (4) Finally, the limitations of the study also included aspects referring to the sample and the limitations for the generalization of the results considering the "Constraints on Generality" (COG)" according to the recommendations of the specialized literature (see Line 706 to 710).  

References used:

• Simons, D.; Shoda, Y.; Lindsay, D. Constraints on Generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspect Psychol Sci, 2017, 12, 1123–1128. doi: 10.1177/174569161770863
• Zhao, K. Sample representation in the social sciences. Synthese, 2021, 198(10), 9097-9115. doi: 10.1007/s11229-020-02621-3

 

Reviewer's comment 3: The authors clearly show the results. The findings cover several good points. The results are supported by associating with previous studies in the literature. I would suggest proofreading (for example the plural man/woman).  

Authors' response: The reviewer's comment was considered.  A revision of the entire manuscript was carried out (proofreading). In this process, details were identified and plurals of gender were incorporated.

 

Note. The improved manuscript is attached. Highlighted in light blue color you can see all the improvements incorporated from the suggestions of reviewer 2. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article, written in a clear and precise manner, develops an interesting research topic in an original way

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewer's comments. This allowed us to improve the quality of the manuscript. 

A revision of the entire manuscript was carried out. English grammar and spelling were improved. The improved manuscript is attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors were able to address quite significantly my concerns.