Pre-Service Early Childhood Teachers’ Perceptions of Critical Thinking and Sustainability: A Comparative Study Between Spain and Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the abstract needs improvement. Currently, there is no clear connection between the stated interest in Early Childhood Education and the findings presented. It is important to explicitly explain how the results are directly related to that field of study.

Introduction – Line 40:
The need to develop critical thinking skills is mentioned; however, the reasoning behind this need is not adequately supported. The connection between this statement and the preceding paragraph is weak, which affects the overall coherence of the text.

Line 47:
The disconnect with the previous paragraph is even more noticeable here. I suggest reorganizing the introduction to enhance its coherence and thematic flow. One possible structure would be to begin with the context of industrialized society and its impact on socio-environmental justice, then present the objectives that arise in response to these challenges. After that, the additional challenge of information overload can be introduced, followed by a link to the importance of critical thinking. This sequence would provide greater logical flow and clarity to the argument.

Citations – Lines 66 and 108:
The citation in line 66 is incorrectly formatted. When giving voice to an author, their surname must be included. This error also appears in line 108. I recommend a thorough review of the document to ensure all citations are correctly presented.

The definition of critical thinking in the introduction is not necessary as currently presented. It would be more useful to integrate a more organic and context-specific definition within the central argument.

The introduction does not clearly explain why the focus later shifts to Early Childhood Education. This topic is only mentioned briefly, which contrasts with the emphasis placed on the university’s role in developing competencies and critical thinking. Furthermore, the specific responsibility of educators is not sufficiently addressed.

According to the stated objectives, the intended audience is future teachers. However, they are largely absent from the introduction’s argument. I recommend rewriting this section with more explicit reference to this group, aligning the content with the purpose of the paper.

After reading the introduction and objectives, it becomes clear that the focus is not actually on early childhood education, but rather on teacher training. Therefore, both the summary and the introduction should be revised to reflect this more accurately.

I believe there is a discrepancy between the stated objectives of the study and the methodology used. The objectives include: "analyze and compare the perceptions of future early childhood education teachers, identify the challenges they face in their university training, and their suggestions." However, the methodology section states that the study explores "how participating students perceive the relationship between the development of critical thinking and competences for sustainability based on their experiences in a specific context, namely academic."

In my view, although these areas can be related, they are not equivalent. In fact, at least four distinct objectives can be identified:

1. To analyze and compare the perceptions of future early childhood education teachers.

2. To identify the challenges they face during their university training.

3. To gather their suggestions regarding that training.

4. To explore how they perceive the relationship between critical thinking and sustainability competencies within the academic context.

The issue is that these objectives are not clearly integrated into a coherent line of inquiry, which creates confusion about the actual focus of the study. While the first three objectives suggest a broader understanding of teacher education, the fourth introduces a more specific and thematic focus (critical thinking and sustainability) that is not sufficiently justified in the objectives or the summary of the study.

The data collection section notes: line 249 "The information was collected using the focus group technique, considering its potential to delve into the meanings, perceptions, ideas, and experiences of the participants during their university years2. The aim was to understand the phenomenon from the perspective of those involved." While this method is suitable for a qualitative approach, it is unclear how it directly addresses all the stated objectives—particularly those related to sustainability and critical thinking.

I suggest revising and reformulating the study’s objectives to ensure clear alignment with the methodology and the actual focus of the research. If the study is centered on the development of critical thinking and sustainability competencies, this should be the core of both the objectives and the theoretical and methodological framework. On the other hand, if the focus is on the broader training of future early childhood educators—including their perceptions, challenges, and suggestions—then the discussion on sustainability and critical thinking should be framed as part of that broader process, rather than as a parallel objective.

The research design lacks clarity in distinguishing between theoretical framing (research questions) and practical tools (focus group questions), see line 271 where you are using the term "research question".

About the analysis, I don't see how codification was used, and help to organized the results. 

Author Response

Comment	Improvements and changes
I believe the abstract needs improvement. Currently, there is no clear connection between the stated interest in Early Childhood Education and the findings presented. It is important to explicitly explain how the results are directly related to that field of study	The abstract has been restructured to emphasize the relevance of the findings to a broader scope, such as teacher training in general, mentioning the participants more specifically as students of Early Childhood Education but contextualizing their perceptions within the broader framework of teacher training.
Introduction – Line 40: The need to develop critical thinking skills is mentioned; however, the reasoning behind this need is not adequately supported. The connection between this statement and the preceding paragraph is weak, which affects the overall coherence of the text. Line 47: The disconnect with the previous paragraph is even more noticeable here. I suggest reorganizing the introduction to enhance its coherence and thematic flow. One possible structure would be to begin with the context of industrialized society and its impact on socio-environmental justice, then present the objectives that arise in response to these challenges. After that, the additional challenge of information overload can be introduced, followed by a link to the importance of critical thinking. This sequence would provide greater logical flow and clarity to the argument.	The paragraph on "industrial society" (lines 47-52) and "information society" (lines 53-60) have been changed to precede the detailed discussion on the need to develop critical thinking (lines 39-46) and its definition (lines 61-87). This results in a more logical sequence: historical context of society (industrialized to information society) and then the challenges it presents and the need for critical thinking.
The definition of critical thinking in the introduction is not necessary as currently presented. It would be more useful to integrate a more organic and context-specific definition within the central argument.	Rather than a stand-alone section or list of critical thinking skills, integrate the explanation of these skills (observation, identification, relevance, decision-making) within the broader discussion of why they are crucial for addressing socio-environmental challenges and for the training of future early childhood teachers. Directly connect how these skills help future teachers "analyze problems, evaluate available information, and make decisions based on rational premises," especially in the context of sustainability.
The introduction does not clearly explain why the focus later shifts to Early Childhood Education. This topic is only mentioned briefly, which contrasts with the emphasis placed on the university’s role in developing competencies and critical thinking. Furthermore, the specific responsibility of educators is not sufficiently addressed. According to the stated objectives, the intended audience is future teachers. However, they are largely absent from the introduction’s argument. I recommend rewriting this section with more explicit reference to this group, aligning the content with the purpose of the paper.	The role of future teachers has been better integrated. For example, in defining critical thinking, it specifies that these skills are "crucial for future Early Childhood Education teachers as they prepare to address socio-environmental challenges and foster sustainable development." Furthermore, each of the four essential critical thinking skills (Observation, Identification, Relevance, Decision-making) is explained in the context of how "future educators" or "teachers" would apply them. It concludes that "by cultivating these critical thinking skills, future teachers will be better equipped to analyze complex socio-environmental problems..." This significantly enhances the focus on the target audience and their role, which was absent or lacking in the previous version.
Citations – Lines 66 and 108: The citation in line 66 is incorrectly formatted. When giving voice to an author, their surname must be included. This error also appears in line 108. I recommend a thorough review of the document to ensure all citations are correctly presented.	A thorough review of the entire document has been performed. For citations where the reference number appears instead of the author's name within the sentence
After reading the introduction and objectives, it becomes clear that the focus is not actually on early childhood education, but rather on teacher training. Therefore, both the summary and the introduction should be revised to reflect this more accurately.	The interconnectedness of all objectives with the central focus of critical thinking and sustainability in teacher education has been reaffirmed. The objectives (Section 2) have been reformulated to explicitly emphasize how insights, challenges, and suggestions are intrinsically linked to the development of critical thinking and sustainability competencies.
I suggest revising and reformulating the study’s objectives to ensure clear alignment with the methodology and the actual focus of the research. If the study is centered on the development of critical thinking and sustainability competencies, this should be the core of both the objectives and the theoretical and methodological framework. On the other hand, if the focus is on the broader training of future early childhood educators—including their perceptions, challenges, and suggestions—then the discussion on sustainability and critical thinking should be framed as part of that broader process, rather than as a parallel objective.	More detailed information on how the six interview script questions (presented in Table 1) were specifically designed to explore participants' perceptions of critical thinking, sustainability, and their relationship, as well as challenges and suggestions for their development, has been included in Section 3.2, "Data Collection." It has been explicitly explained which focus group question (Q1 to Q6) aligns with each of the reformulated study objectives.
About the analysis, I don't see how codification was used, and help to organized the results.	A detailed description of the emerging thematic coding process is provided in Section 3.3 "Data Analysis" (lines 266-275). I explain the specific steps taken to clarify this aspect.
The research design lacks clarity in distinguishing between theoretical framing (research questions) and practical tools (focus group questions), see line 271 where you are using the term "research question".	In the section “objectives” the text was added: “Based on the objectives of the study, the following set of research questions was formulated to establish the theoretical framework of the project: ·                     How do future early childhood education teachers understand the concept of critical thinking? ·                     In what ways do future teachers encounter the topic of sustainable development during their academic coursework? ·                     Which forms of academic activities at the university support the development of critical reflection on the future consequences of human actions? ·                     What difficulties do students face in developing critical thinking in the context of sustainability-oriented actions in higher education? ·                     What actions could universities take to better support the development of critical thinking among future teachers? ·                     How do future teachers plan to integrate critical thinking into their future teaching practice?”

 

 

 

 

 

 

               

               

                              

                              

                              

 

REVIEW 2

Comment	Improvement	Responsible
Clarify Methodological Details Specify the sampling strategy to highlight the targeted and purposive nature of participant selection, emphasizing the scope and limitations. Briefly mention the size and composition of focus groups to provide context about data richness and diversity. Needs more clarity.	Line 261 – added information about purposive  selection. Line 262: The text was added in the  article: “Information about the study was provided to students by the teachers orally during classes. Interested students could express their willingness to participate by contacting the researcher directly.” Also in the section: Limitation and Future Research  was provided context about data richness and diversity.
Review references to ensure consistent citation style and update any incomplete references or placeholders.	The references has ben  rearranged.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Clarify Methodological Details

Specify the sampling strategy to highlight the targeted and purposive nature of participant selection, emphasizing the scope and limitations.

Briefly mention the size and composition of focus groups to provide context about data richness and diversity. Needs more clarity. 

Refine Language and Terminology

Ensure consistent use of key concepts like "critical thinking," "sustainability," and "educational practices," clarifying any potential ambiguities or cultural nuances in interpretation. 

Address Sample Generalizability Cautions

Add a sentence emphasizing that findings are context-specific and may not fully represent broader populations, promoting cautious interpretation.

Strengthen Ethical and Validity Statements

Although briefly addressed, confirm that ethical procedures, such as informed consent and confidentiality, are clearly articulated, and consider mentioning measures taken to ensure reliability, such as inter-coder agreement in data analysis. 

Minor Formatting and Reference Checks

Review references to ensure consistent citation style and update any incomplete references or placeholders.

There is strange formatting on Lines 69 and 106. Please review and correct. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Specify the sampling strategy to highlight the targeted and purposive nature of participant selection, emphasizing the scope and limitations.
Answer: Line 261 – added information about purposive selection.
Line 262: The text was added in the article: “Information about the study was provided to students by the teachers orally during classes. Interested students could express their willingness to participate by contacting the researcher directly.”
Also in the section: Limitation and Future Research was provided context about data richness and diversity.

Comment 2: Briefly mention the size and composition of focus groups to provide context about data richness and diversity. Needs more clarity.

Answer: We consider that the requested information is contained in the paragraph between the lines 228-236

Comment 3: Ensure consistent use of key concepts like "critical thinking," "sustainability," and "educational practices," clarifying any potential ambiguities or cultural nuances in interpretation.

Answer: We need to know exactly where the possible inconsistency identified is to correct it.

Comment 4: Add a sentence emphasizing that findings are context-specific and may not fully represent broader populations, promoting cautious interpretation.

Answer: We consider that the comment is already resolved on the lines 806-811

Comment 5: Although briefly addressed, confirm that ethical procedures, such as informed consent and confidentiality, are clearly articulated, and consider mentioning measures taken to ensure reliability, such as inter-coder agreement in data analysis.

Answer: Lines 277-278. In addition, the codes were reviewed by all three investigators. This ensured agreement on the definition of the codes.

Comment 6: Review references to ensure consistent citation style and update any incomplete references or placeholders. There is strange formatting on Lines 69 and 106. Please review and correct.

Answer: The citations and the list of bibliographic references have been revised and adapted according to standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title is adequate and the abstract offers a correct summary the content of the article.

The introduction provides a good overview about the state of the art.

The objectives are clear in the light of the aspects presented in the previous section.

The methods section states the context and participants from both Spanish and Polish preschool teacher program students (note that in line 212 should be added "and they" after 27 years). The data collection details how the instrument was tested by experts and how the structured focus groups were conducted. The data analysis of the focus groups' transcriptions used QDA Miner software by following an emergent thematic coding process. 

The results display the codes appearing in each of the six questions that were asked to the focus groups. 

In the discussion section the similarities and differences between Spanish and Polish students' responses are described and concludes with a weakness in initial teacher training regarding the development of critical thinking and its connection to sustainability.

Finally, the limitations of the study are stated and future lines of research are suggested.

Author Response

Comment 1: The methods section states the context and participants from both Spanish and Polish preschool teacher program students (note that in line 212 should be added "and they" after 27 years).

Answer: A total of 55 students participated (38 women and 17 men) aged between 19 and 27 years and they were taking the subject of Didactics of the Natural Environment…

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf