Exploring Pre-Service STEM Teachers’ Capacity to Teach Using a Gender-Responsive Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title of the text " Exploring Pre-Service STEM Teachers’ Capacity to Teach Using 2 a Gender Responsive Approach: Case Study in Spain and 3 Greece" clarifies the objectives of the investigation; the abstract is properly written and provides an overview of the work. The Introduction is clearly written. The theoretical foundation in Review of literature focuses on the research already carried out, the research methodology is clearly described and theoretically grounded and the results are discussed in the light of this same investigation. The conclusions respond to the initial objectives of the investigation.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your feedback. We greatly appreciate your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, author present Greek and Spanish pre-service STEM 13
teachers’ ability to teach gender-sensitively upon graduation using the TEGEP (Teacher Self-Efficacy for Gender Equality Practice) scale. My comment
a. what is motivation author choose case study in Spain and Greece ?
b. sample is low, i suggest author take 200 samples respectively
c. abstract should be revised, author claim "Results showed that Greek and Spanish participants finished their studies without the necessary confidence in gender knowledge/awareness, skills, and attitudes for a gender equality
practice". How author measure it ? I suggest author add methodology clearly in abstract. Also, if author get some results in "number", please add in abstract and give conclusion.
d. All variable should be define, it will easy for reader
e. Please checked line 330-332, how author get this value ?
f. I suggest author add demographic profile of respondent using Table
g. I suggest author add methodology in block diagram
h. Comparative study with previous study should be highlight
i. Check typo and grammatical error
moderate editing of English
Author Response
a) what is motivation author choose case study in Spain and Greece ?
The investigation was carried out in Greece and Spain due to authors’ easy access to sample selection given their affiliation and/or relationship with the participating institutions. Both the first and the second author (Spanish and Greek, respectively) were using same instrumentation as part of the data collection for their doctoral thesis. This explanation has been included in the manuscript after the research questions.
b) sample is low, i suggest author take 200 samples respectively
At this point in the process, it is not within our reach to increase the size of the sample. However, we have added a comment in the limitations section that reflects the recognition of this weakness and its implication.
c) abstract should be revised, author claim "Results showed that Greek and Spanish participants finished their studies without the necessary confidence in gender knowledge/awareness, skills, and attitudes for a gender equality practice". How author measure it ? I suggest author add methodology clearly in abstract. Also, if author get some results in "number", please add in abstract and give conclusion.
The abstract has been revised and modified based on your suggestions.
d) All variable should be define, it will easy for reader
We have included a definition of the main variables in Section 2.2 of the manuscript. This section has been renamed to Variables and Instrument.
e) Please checked line 330-332, how author get this value?
We have not been able to find the values in the lines you indicate. Could you tell us explicitly what they are?
f) I suggest author add demographic profile of respondent using Table.
Table 1 with participants’ demographic profile has been included in section 2.1. Participants
g) I suggest author add methodology in block diagram.
As suggested, a diagram with the methodology has been included in Section 2. Materials and Methods at the end of the first paragraph.
h) Comparative study with previous study should be highlight.
The studies that have made use of the TEGEP are really few for now, since it is an instrument in the process of validation. However, this fact has not gone unnoticed and the results obtained in this study have been compared with the findings of previous studies carried out both in the Greek and Spanish context. These comparisons have been emphasized in the second and fourth paragraphs of the discussion section.
i) Check typo and grammatical error
The entire manuscript has been reviewed again to correct any errors detected.
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract is clear and informative. The conceptual framework is very complete and up to date. It can be valued as a relevant conceptual framework for readers interested in the subject. The methodology is explained in detail. To some extent, the results have been justified based on the contexts, which is essential in these investigations located in differentiated environments. The Discussion clarifies and resolves the few points that we may have uncertain. The Limitations are widely reviewed. And finally, the conclusions summarize the salient aspects of the results.
In short, we can affirm that it is an article that can serve as an example for those who are new to research as a model of a standard of rigor. We thank the authors for having facilitated the work of the reviewer with his careful presentation.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for your assessment.
Reviewer 4 Report
Title: Exploring Pre-Service STEM Teachers’ Capacity to Teach Using a Gender Responsive Approach: Case Study in Spain and Greece
The present study aims to (1) validate the TEGEP by testing measurement invariance and (2) reveal differences between prospective teachers in Spain and Greece in how they perceive gender-sensitive teaching.
In general, the methods are described in sufficient detail to understand the approach used, and appropriate statistical tests are applied. The results supporting the conclusions are presented directly and/or are otherwise publicly available according to the standards of the field.
Nevertheless, there are some minor issues that should be considered to further improve the manuscript.
Title: the second part of the title, ... "Case Study in Spain and Greece," is rather redundant. The first part of the current title fulfils well the requirements of a cross-sectional study conducted in this study.
Instrument: since the instrument is of great importance in this study, a link to the original instrument should be provided (e.g., a link to the online version used to conduct the survey) or it should be added as an appendix to this study.
To further support this question, complete the references to 86, 89, and 91 to learn more about this questionnaire.
In the Discussion section, the results should be also compared with publicly available results for countries where women are reported to have higher educational attainment than men. There are some of these (also in the EU context), and it might be interesting to see if TEGEP also fits them in terms of invariance.
The English language used in the manuscript is fluent and easy to read. The grammar, sentence structure, semantics, and appropriateness of context are acceptable.
Author Response
1) Title: the second part of the title, ... "Case Study in Spain and Greece," is rather redundant. The first part of the current title fulfils well the requirements of a cross-sectional study conducted in this study.
Following your suggestions the second part of the title has been eliminated from the manuscript.
2) Instrument: since the instrument is of great importance in this study, a link to the original instrument should be provided (e.g., a link to the online version used to conduct the survey) or it should be added as an appendix to this study.
To further support this question, complete the references to 86, 89, and 91 to learn more about this questionnaire.
A link to the online version has been added in the manuscript.
Likewise, the blank references corresponding to the authors have been included in the manuscript.
3) In the Discussion section, the results should be also compared with publicly available results for countries where women are reported to have higher educational attainment than men. There are some of these (also in the EU context), and it might be interesting to see if TEGEP also fits them in terms of invariance.
We have added a paragraph at the end of the Discussion section commenting on and endorsing this suggestion.
Also we have taken the idea of verifying the factor invariance of the TEGEP across sex and level of attainment (high vs. low) in STEM for future research.
4) The manuscript has been completely revised to improve English syntax and other possible misspellings.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is suitable for acceptance.
This paper is suitable for acceptance.
