Gender as a Predictor of Difference in Problem Solving Ability of the Students


Lilu Ram Jakhar

Associate Professor, Government College of Education, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

16.03.2019

Accepted Date

30.03.2019

Published Date

02.04.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

This analytical study on ‘gender as a predictor of difference in problem solving ability of the students’ has been conducted to ascertain whether there exists difference in the problem solving ability of the students studying at the secondary stage on the basis of the gender. Both primary and secondary sources of data were used for the study. The primary data has been collected from 400 respondents (students from secondary stage of government schools of Chandigarh and divided equally among boys and girls) through the survey method. The study has been concluded with there is no significant difference in the problem solving ability of the students on the basis of gender at secondary level.

Major Comments

  1. The primary confusion in the paper is the entire content has been analyzing the ‘general problem solving ability’ but in conclusion it is concluded about ‘mathematical problem solving ability’. It is strongly advised to the author to remove this confusion and give clear picture whether the study is for ‘problem solving abilities of secondary stage school boys and girls’ or ‘mathematical problem solving abilities of secondary stage school boys and girls’.
  2. There is no detail on the period of the study. It is important to add for knowing to which period the study and the result of the study will be adopted.
  3. There is no any individual analysis has been done for analyzing the ‘problem solving ability of secondary school girls’ and ‘problem solving ability of secondary school boys’ as mentioned in the I and II objectives of the study. It is important to add some analysis detail or the major findings on the above mentioned objectives.
  4. The study area is secondary stage of government schools of Chandigarh where there was no any information for selecting the sampling population among the total population. It important to mention the sampling technique used for the study from total population.
  5. Variable factors included to get the net result for ‘Problem Solving Ability’ from the respondents can be highlighted. Table 1 simply saying the variables of problem solving ability with gender of the respondents, but it is important to give factors included in the variables of problem solving ability since many survey questions may included.
  6. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate.

Minor Comments

  1. For table and figure source of data collection (primary data/computed data/secondary source) can be added.
  2. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.
  3. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research (scope for future research).

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has much strength where there was minor weakness also. Mismatch of entire study and conclusion, incompletion of objectives I and II, very important needed information of the study like period of the study, limitations, research gap and scope for future research are missing. The author should include all the needed information for the study to strengthen the value of the paper.

Constructiveness of Comments

The review committee has given the constructive comments to the author /researcher.

Level of Detail of the Review

The review is fairly detailed, but the reviewer missed data inconsistence in the required field. There are minor corrections to be taken place before the final review.

Substantiation of Comments

The reviewer made comments on the paper with references.

Was the Review Biased?

The study was reviewed under ‘nil’ biased basis.

Recommendation from the Reviewer

I recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned minor revisions.