Gender Differences and Critical Thinking: A Study on the Written Compositions of Primary Education Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There is missing information on participants: - methods of sampling, - description of the research sample (background, for example) - ethical considerations, and why the authors use only random selection. In the random selection, the results will always be different and may be under-analyzed or overgeneralized.

 

The part conclusion needs reconsideration. I would suggest adding future research direction and better highlighting the usefulness of your research from both a theoretical and practical perspective.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language has severe flaws and must be revised in order of grammar issues and for better understanding. I have selected some problems that must be rectified in the attached file before they can be published. Also, I suggest that an English specialist read the document before publication. 

Author Response

Dear evaluator:
Thank you very much for your considerations. They have undoubtedly enabled the text to improve significantly since its previous version. I indicate the changes:

(Modifications in red)
a) Section 2.2. Participants has been modified.
b) Section 2.3. Research design and fieldwork has been modified.
c) Section 5. Conclusions has been modified.

(Modifications in blue)
a) The text has been revised by a native speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are no special comments, except that since the proportion of domestic literature is very high compared to foreign literature, it would be good to list some other relevant sources from abroad that support the statements made in the work.

Author Response

Dear evaluator:
Thank you very much for your considerations. They have undoubtedly enabled the text to improve significantly since its previous version. I indicate the changes:

(Modifications in red)
a) Local references have been replaced by more international ones (40% of the latter).

(Modifications in blue)
a) The text has been revised by a native speaker.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your paper has indisputable merits, but I believe that what and how you presented the report must be improve to be comprehensive and methodologically sound.

Firstly, you must use the names of authors you cite because your writing looks lite this “as [23] and [26] have said” or “as seen in [36]”. This is unacceptable for a publication. We cannot permanently check the reference list to see who is who.

Secondly, I have several comments regarding the research:

1.      The aim to grasp critical thinking related to sex (which is not the same with gender), is great. We need this kind of research. However, you have not presented relevant literature regarding sex differences in general and sex differences age related (9 to 13 in particular). You should add this.

2.      Separate gender from sex. Add relevant bibliography to this.

3.      Is there any relevant research regarding sex differences at this age group (9 to 13) regarding CT?

4.      Line 130. You refer to an “image above.” There is none.

5.      I do not see the link between spelling and CT. Apart from the fact that you observed it. Why is this so? Who else have demonstrated it? Which researchers?

6.      Please explain “humanistic-interpretative paradigm.” Not clear enough in the text to understand the merits for this research.

7.      The critical standards. I admit that they are interesting and have merits, but why did you develop them? How did you come up with them? You say that it is based on synthesis and you give a citation. I do not agree, because I can identify at least one other skill, which is interpretation. Please take into consideration more grounding related to the standards.

8.      You observe that spelling is correlated to CT. But what is this mean for CT? has this fact any implication?

9.       Regarding conclusions. You do not provide explanations regarding the value and aim of differentiating between masculine and feminine, why is it matters? You do not provide grounding and explanation for spelling errors link to CT.

Overall, the methodology is not clear because you do not describe fully the variables and research method. But I believe that you can improve your report and put some light into the sex differences and critical thinking.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English needs improvement. There are too many passive voice sentences, for example. 

Author Response

Dear evaluator:

Thank you very much for your considerations. They have undoubtedly enabled the text to improve significantly since its previous version. I indicate the changes:

(Modifications in red colour)

a) The introduction has been modified to take into account aspects of critical thinking and gender issues.
b) It has not been possible to change the citation issues, as this is what the journal does.
c) The image aspect of line 130 has been clarified.
d) Section 2.2 Participants has been modified.
e) Section 2.3. Research design and fieldwork has been modified.
f) Section 5. Conclusions has been modified
g) Local references have been replaced by more international ones (40% of the latter).

(Modifications in blue)

The text has been revised by a native speaker.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is original in its approach, methodologically correct and relevant with respect to its findings. It is publishable in its current formulation.
However, a greater depth and breadth of the theoretical framework that better relates to the findings presented in the discussion and conclusions, about pre-existing categories of critical thinking, as well as the categories and elements of the narratives that best contribute to critical thinking, is recommended.

Author Response

Dear evaluator:
Thank you very much for your considerations. They have undoubtedly enabled the text to improve significantly since its previous version. I indicate the changes:

(Modifications in red colour)
a) The introduction has been modified considering aspects of critical thinking and gender issues.
b) Section 2.2. Participants has been modified.
c) Section 2.3. Research design and fieldwork has been modified.
d) Section 5. Conclusions has been modified.
e) Local references have been replaced by more international ones (40% of the latter).

(Modifications in blue)
a) The text has been revised by a native speaker.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that my suggestions no. 3, 5, and 8, from the initial review, were not addressed by the authors. No. 7 and 9 only partial. 

Hence the paper needs further improvement. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:
we have tried to answer all outstanding questions by including them in the conclusions section. This section has been expanded and supplemented with new references.
The new text and references are in red to be distinguished from the rest of the text that had already been modified.
Yours sincerely.