Assessment by Competences in Social Sciences: Secondary Students Perception Based on the EPECOCISO Scale
and Jesús Molina-Saorín 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
We note the effort to present as accurately as possible the data obtained.
The text must be written in English ( eg. F2: Percepción sobre las competencias en función de lo aprendido).
Participants are between 15 and 18 years old. Can you explain how the same questionnaire can measure different skill levels?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
On the one hand, the translation of the small parts that were still in another language has been carried out.
With regard to the question asked, on the level of competence to carry out the questionnaire. Even if students are different in age, these are students who are in the same academic year. In this way, the level of competition they have acquired, is the same even if the age is different.
A greeting
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you very much for submitting the article entitled "Assessment by competences in social sciences secondary students perception based on the EPECOCISO scale”.
In this work a questionnaire for the evaluation of the competences in the students of the secondary education in Spain is analyzed. Without a doubt, the evaluation of competencies in general and in the social sciences is a very interesting and worthwhile subject.
However, the relationship of the researched topic with the journal and with the special issue is very limited, for this reason I propose that the article be published in an education journal, for example, Education Sciences.
I have read the article with interest and below I offer some lines of improvement for future versions of the work.
The structure of the article is somewhat confusing. The article does not include the items considered. In the methodology section, results appear (table 1).
In my opinion, the text of the questionnaire should be published. On the other hand, the authors should discuss the results obtained in the work. Do the 1422 students dominate the competencies analyzed? I think the results could be published in this article.
Minor comments:
The wording of the article should be revised, some acronyms and words are in Spanish, for example LOE (line 25). Media (line 126)
Consistency between the text and figure 1 should be guaranteed.
Eliminate blank space in lines 25,
Change "(PISA, PIRLS, ICCS...)" by "(PISA, PIRLS, ICCS, etc.)"
Change the text of Graph 1 to Figure 1.
Remove the outer box from Figure 1.
I hope that my comments and suggestions should be useful for future versions of the article.
Author Response
Esteemed reviewer
First of all, thank you for your appreciations.
With regard to the first question. The table in the methodology section refers to the validity of the questionnaire, so it is located in that section.
About the other issues, the article made a very thorough review of the instrument. In addition, it is an article that will form a doctoral thesis by compendium, so the research has been presented in this way. Other research data should be presented in other articles.
Finally, the minor recommended changes have been made in their entirety.
A greeting
Reviewer 3 Report
The idea of this paper "Assessment by competences in social sciences: secondary students perception based on the EPECOCISO scale" is very interesting. However, it would be even better if the following issues:
1. References some instances the relation from the text to the indicated reference is not clear.
2. More details on methods are required and need a reference to the statistical processing of data.
3. Must also refer to soft skills. OECD. “The Future of Education and Skills. Education 2030”, 2018 URL:
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E203020Position20Paper20(05.04.2018).pdf
4. Extending the conclusions and practical suggestions for the implementation
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I am enclosing the corrections you have requested.
I am grateful for your attention and for your assessment of the work done
Greetings
José María Álvarez Martínez-Iglesias
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
It is a remarkably interesting effort to develop and validate a research instrument, constructed to detect secondary students' views about their competences in Social Sciences, Geography and History.
The study is informative but in order to be interested for the international readers a number of serious improvements are necessary:
1) I cannot detect a robust theory supporting the structure and the construction of the instrument. Author(s) are writing about an extensive literature review (I suppose this is the meaning of "an exhaustive documentary analysis" or do they mean Spanish educational policy papers and curriculum related materials?) and consultation process by experts, by they do not give some results of their literature review or experts views to support the axes they used for the instrument construction. My suggestion is to add 1-2 paragraphs to clarify these issues and give their theoretical perspective.
2) All the paper is devoted to an instrument that is not present (I did not manage to detect any supplementary material). To evoke the interest of the international reader about the instrument, one must have the items in front of his/her eyes to make an opinion. To decide if the instrument is transferable to other countries' educational settings or is suitable mainly or only for the Spanish educational setting.
3) Some more results about the measurements per se (what are students perceptions/views) for us to have a better view about the instrument. The subscales are not enough to give us the whole image.
4) The study relies heavily on Spanish literature. I believe that communication with the international research is more than necessary for a paper published to an international journal.
Some other issues:
5) I do not believe that details like "the Organic Law on Education (LOE) and in the Organic Law on the Improvement and Quality of Education (OLIQUE)" make sense for the international audience. A description (what kind of documents they are, laws about what? why they are important for the Spanish educational system) will be more useful.
6) In table 1, the sentence "F2: Percepción sobre las competencias en función de lo aprendido" needs translation in English.
7) I believe that reliability and validity are properties of the measurements and the instruments and not of the sample, as is written in lines 143-149 "reliable (because of the stability and consistency of what has been measured), and valid (because it measures what it is intended to measure)".
8) In table 3, I believe that only one section, the above or down of the diagonal is needed. Otherwise there is a not necessary duplication.
9) The meaning of the sentence "This section may be divided by ubheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn" (lines 301-303) is not very clear to me.
10) "... the student's real life, The greater their perception..." (Line 337) letter "T: is not needed in capitals.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I am enclosing the corrections you have requested.
Thank you very much for your correction and assessment of the work done
Greetings
José María Álvarez Martínez-Iglesias
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
My main doubt about the article is in the relationship of the article with the journal and with the special issue to which it is submitted. What is the contribution of the work to sustainability?
Section 2 (methodology) shows the mean and standard deviation of the results in the sample. Nevertheless, you indicate that they will be published in future work. In my opinion this is quite confusing.
the text of the questionnaire should be incorporated.
Paragraph 6 does not apply in this article. The authors' contribution and declaration of interest should be incorporated.
In my opinion this article could be published in another journal of the MDPI group such as Education Sciences or Social Sciences.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I would like to thank you for your review and reading of the paper presented. Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is good written and is interesting.
Congratulations to the authors
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your congratulations and for the review of the article.
Greetings
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors
after reading the revised manuscript, I feel that there are not the changes I suggested in the text. Τhe only detectable changes are in the tables, these with red color.
I insist that the questionnaire must be translated in English and published as an appendix to the paper, otherwise the whole publication is meaningless.
I insist also to two others of my recommendations, specifically:
1) Some more results about the measurements per se (what are students perceptions/views) for us to have a better view about the instrument. The subscales are not enough to give us the whole image.
2) The study relies heavily on Spanish literature. I believe that communication with the international research is more than necessary for a paper published to an international journal.
I believe that each publication has to be complete by itself, and my suggestions are in this direction.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
I would like to thank you for your review and reading of the paper presented. Thank you very much. Please see the attachment.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you very much for accepting some of my comments. In my opinion the relationship of sustainability with the article is very limited.
The work is a validation of a questionnaire; however, the results (table 1) are shown in the methodology section. In my opinion this should be corrected.
In table 1, commas should be replaced by periods.
The names of the sections in the questionnaire should not be numbered.
I hope that my comments will be useful in the process of editing the article.
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your dedication, professionalism and attention to your recommendations.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors
your responses to my suggestions, spesifically to 2 of the three, is adequate.
I keep my opinion that you paper will be benefited if you present more data.
But it is upon the editor(s) now
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your dedication, professionalism and attention to your recommendations.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
