Czech Preschool Children’s Conceptions about Nature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is sufficiently clear and straightforward. The theoretical introduction is accurate and the research framework is well explained. It is qualitative research that sticks to the simple description of the data collected. The fact that the data is qualitative does not exclude the possibility of conducting appropriate statistical analyses, which are totally absent from this work. All arguments are based on the analysis of percentage data. The contribution to the general debate is quite small. The methodological apparatus is poor and the description of the group of subjects interviewed is not very analytical (apart from the gender differences, it would have been interesting to know whether subgroups could be identified on the basis of the characteristics of the starting families, such as education and census, in order to verify the existence or not of differences in the distribution of the answers).
Two editing remarks:
in line 93 a bibliographic indication is reported while in the whole text instead of bibliographic indications there are numerical references in square brackets;
at line 388 the text appears flagged while the preceding and following lines appear justified.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you very much for your constructive and supporting review. I appreciate your detailed inspection.

I improve the text according to your advice (in appendix).

Katerina Jancarikova

Point 1:

The article is sufficiently clear and straightforward. The theoretical introduction is accurate and the research framework is well explained.

Response 1: Thank you!

Point 2:

It is qualitative research that sticks to the simple description of the data collected. The fact that the data is qualitative does not exclude the possibility of conducting appropriate statistical analyses, which are totally absent from this work. All arguments are based on the analysis of percentage data. The contribution to the general debate is quite small. The methodological apparatus is poor and the description of the group of subjects interviewed is not very analytical (apart from the gender differences, it would have been interesting to know whether subgroups could be identified on the basis of the characteristics of the starting families, such as education and census, in order to verify the existence or not of differences in the distribution of the answers).

Response 2:

Thank you for your valuable recommendations.

I know that it is possible to combine qualitative and quantitative research methods. In this case, it seemed appropriate to stay only with the qualitative method. Srauss, Bucher, Enhrlih, Schatzman and Sabsin, 1964 wrote it is possible / routine.

I have adapted the text according to your advice and possibilities and I added information about the research steps to the text (appendix).

I will use your recommendation in the future as well.

Point 3

Two editing remarks:
in line 93 a bibliographic indication is reported while in the whole text instead of bibliographic indications there are numerical references in square brackets;

Response 3:

I  deleat it.

Point 4

at line 388 the text appears flagged while the preceding and following lines appear justified.

Response 4:

I fixed it.

I changed jobs during the completion of the paper. I'm at J. E. Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Faculty of Science now. That's why I changed my affiliation, mail and dedication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Author Response

Point 1:

needs to update the references used. They are too old. 

Response 1:

Areljung, S. (2020) Capturing the world with verbs: preschool science education beyond nouns and objects Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 21(1): 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949118805438

Jamie Mcphie & David A. G. Clarke (2020) Nature matters: diffracting a keystone concept of environmental education research – just for kicks, Environmental Education Research, 26:9-10, 1509-1526, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2018.1531387.

Lena Hansson, Lotta Leden & Susanne Thulin (2021) Nature of science in early years science teaching, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2021.1968463.

Remenyi, D. (2014). Grounded theory (2nd ed.). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited.

Point 2:

Tools to collect the information are indicated, but they are not shown, nor are the items or categories. I consider that the organization of the implementation of the proposal is not clear

Response 2:

I have adapted the text according to your advice and possibilities and I added information about the research steps to the text (appendix).

I changed jobs during the completion of the paper. I'm at J. E. Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Faculty of Science now. That's why I changed my affiliation, mail and dedication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf