Relationships Between Preservice Teachers’ Interest, Perceived Knowledge, and Argumentation in Socioscientific Issues: Implications for Teaching About the Complexity of Sustainability Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document presents the results of two surveys conducted among professors in Ecuador regarding perceived knowledge (entirely subjective), interest, and argumentation on socio-scientific issues related to sustainability.
The document captures the reader's attention, and I consider it sufficiently substantiated. However, I suggest a series of adjustments to the text:
- Including two bibliographic references grouped, in some cases three or even four, in the same paragraph, sentence, or noun, does not demonstrate each reference's specific contribution to the topic presented and documented. It seems more like a requirement is being met than a genuine desire to demonstrate the contribution of the bibliographic citation. In other words, including a bibliographic reference only to a noun does not offer a real contribution to the creation or understanding of the context or the state of the art of the topic being addressed.

- I understand that the document's topic is "Socioscientific Issues (SSI)," however, I suggest reducing the number of times this acronym is used in the text. For example, finding it five times in the first five lines under "Research Objectives" is exhausting for the reader. 

- For the reader's convenience, the title of each study should be included in the numbering of the document.

While reading, it was unclear to me what intervention was carried out between the pre-test and the post-test.

The results are interesting, but not conclusive, and although the authors are aware of this, they make it clear in the study's limitations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- The authors should review the wording of this section and a large portion of the document in particular, including some spelling errors ("Table 4" instead of "Table 4"). They should also review the proper use of punctuation and spelling, for example, the use of periods at the end.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for their thorough 
reading of the manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. We truly 
appreciate the time and effort dedicated to the review process, as the feedback provided 
has been extremely helpful in improving the overall quality of the manuscript. Each 
comment has been addressed individually and is presented below, along with our 
corresponding responses and the actions taken. 
REVIEWER 1 
Comment 1 - “Including two bibliographic references grouped, in some cases three or 
even four, in the same paragraph, sentence, or noun, does not demonstrate each 
reference's specific contribution to the topic presented and documented. It seems more 
like a requirement is being met than a genuine desire to demonstrate the contribution 
of the bibliographic citation. In other words, including a bibliographic reference only 
to a noun does not offer a real contribution to the creation or understanding of the 
context or the state of the art of the topic being addressed.” 
Action - The introduction was rewritten to make clear the specific contribution of the 
references.  
Comment 2 - I suggest reducing the number of times this acronym is used in the text. 
Action- Additionally, along with the rewritten introduction, we have tried to reduce the 
number of times the acronym SSI (socio-scientific issues) is used. 
Comment 3 - For the reader's convenience, the title of each study should be included 
in the numbering of the document. 
Action - We have included the identification of each study in the main section titles to 
facilitate the reader's understanding of the text. 
Comment 4 – “While reading, it was unclear to me what intervention was carried out 
between the pre-test and the post-test.” 
Action - We understand the confusion, and we have clarified the terminology used 
throughout the manuscript. The design of the study is not based on a pre-test/post-test 
with an intervention in between, but rather on a test-retest procedure with no 
intervention occurring between the two measurement points. We have revised the text 
accordingly to ensure this distinction is clear to the reader. 
Comment 5 – “The authors should review the wording of this section and a large 
portion of the document in particular, including some spelling errors ("Table 4" instead 
of "Table 4"). They should also review the proper use of punctuation and spelling, for 
example, the use of periods at the end.” 
Action - We have reviewed the wording in the entire manuscript, paying special 
attention to spelling, punctuation, and formatting, to improve the overall clarity and 
readability of the document. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachement. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for their thorough 
reading of the manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. We truly 
appreciate the time and effort dedicated to the review process, as the feedback provided 
has been extremely helpful in improving the overall quality of the manuscript. Each 
comment has been addressed individually and is presented below, along with our 
corresponding responses and the actions taken. 
REVIEWER 2 
Comment 1 – “In the Introduction it should be given arguments for the importance of 
considering the variables gender and academic level in the empirical studies.” 
Action – Regarding the need to justify the inclusion of gender and academic level as 
variables, we have added a brief explanation of their relevance to the study at the end 
of Section 2. 
Comment 2 – “To explain the use of an ex post facto design with a pre-test and post
test.” 
Action - We have clarified in the manuscript that the study employs an ex post facto 
design with a test-retest procedure, not a pre-test/post-test design with an intervention. 
An ex post facto design was chosen because the variables under study could not be 
manipulated directly, and the research aimed to observe naturally occurring differences 
over time 
Comment 3 – “Explain why the variables gender and academic level were not 
considered in study 2.” 
Action - Gender and academic level were not included in study 2, as they did not 
produce any relevant differences in Study 1 regarding the topics selected for further 
analysis. This has now been clarified in the materials and methods section of study 2. 
Comment 4 – “Table 3 may be enriched by the inclusion of examples of students’ 
replies in each dimension.” 
Action - We have added a new table (Table 4) that includes representative examples of 
students’ informal arguments, along with the dimensions identified in each topic. This 
addition complements Table 3 and provides more concrete insight into how the 
dimensions are manifested in students’ actual responses. 
Comment 5 - Reformulate section “9. Limitations” as a) “the study context is restricted 
to Ecuador, which makes it difficult to generalize the findings to other 437 countries 
with different socio-economic, cultural, and educational characteristics” was an authors 
‘option and in any way it is said that the results could be generalized, b) similar 
comment concerning “although most of the topics addressed in the study focus on 
global issues, some are of 439 local interest. While this reinforces the relevance of the 
study within the Ecuadorian con text, it poses a challenge for its application in regions 
with different priorities”, and c) “that the assessment of 442 knowledge was based on 
participants' self-perception rather than an objective measurement of their "actual" 
knowledge. This implies that the results may be influenced by the 444 participants' 
subjectivity.” one asks if there are “objective measurement” in education and if 
“participants' subjectivity” is a limitation or if it is a characteristic of the nature of 
educational research.” 
Action - In response to the insightful comment, we have revised this section to better 
reflect the contextual and methodological considerations of the study, rather than 
presenting them as strict limitations. Specifically, we clarified that the study was 
conducted within the Ecuadorian context without claiming generalizability 
Comment 6 – “To improve, considerably the coherence of the References writing, as 
they do not always fall the same rules” 
Action - We have carefully reviewed all references and revised them to ensure 
consistency and adherence to the formatting guidelines of the journal. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I find the topic to be interesting and one that has the potential to impact teacher preparation for pre-service teachers around socioscientific issues. You clearly state your aims for the study on page 3 in relation to the two studies you have included. I liked that you included the sample questions in Appendix A to clearly understand how information was presented to participants. I am curious why you chose a 10 point Likert scale over a 5 point Likert scale for your questionnaire? I liked how the second study built off of what you learned in the first study. More detailed information needs to be presented in the results section of study 2, such as examples of quotes from the arguments provided by participants in alignment with the themes used for the thematic analysis. This information is essential to understand the results, as well as the conclusion and implications section. Please see comments below for more specific recommendations.

Recommendations:

1. Context and Participants (2.2, page 3)

                  Please add some additional information about the setting (universities and participant demographics). For example, what are the demographics of students that attend the universities (i.e. race/ethnicity, first generation college students, socioeconomic standing, etc.)? This will be beneficial for international readers and provide important contextual information about your participants in the study. In addition, this may have some contextual implications for findings, such as students from rural or urban settings may have more interest in specific topics. Also, were all student participants training to be secondary educators or educators for other grades, such as elementary and early childhood? I would clarify the grade levels and/or ages that these future teachers will work with.

2. Context and Participants (5.2, page. 7)
   1. I have similar feedback as with study 1. What are the demographics of the universities and students that attend the universities that are included in your study (i.e. information beyond just gender)? Are any of the participants the same ones from study 1?
3. Instruments (5.3, page 7-8)
   1. Would recommend including a model questionnaire, like you did with Appendix A, to clearly represent what participants were asked to do for this study.
4. Argument Analysis (6.2, page 9)
   1. This section would benefit from more specific information regarding the arguments analyzed and how they aligned with the codes used. Examples of the quotes and how they were coded should be included to better understand this process and the results. Usually with a thematic analysis has more information about the arguments to explain the frequencies that are noted.
   2. Please describe what the numbers that align with the row for expected are in reference to for your study.
5. Relationships Between Dimensions and Topic (6.3, page 10)
   1. It is unclear to me what data you ran here. More information is needed.
6. Recommendations for future research
   1. Based on the limitation that you noted, context is restricted to Ecuador, it would be beneficial to recommend some areas for future research to address some of the limitations.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for their thorough 
reading of the manuscript and their insightful comments and suggestions. We truly 
appreciate the time and effort dedicated to the review process, as the feedback provided 
has been extremely helpful in improving the overall quality of the manuscript. Each 
comment has been addressed individually and is presented below, along with our 
corresponding responses and the actions taken. 
REVIEWER 3 
Comment 1 – I am curious why you chose a 10 point Likert scale over a 5 point Likert 
scale for your questionnaire? 
Action – We opted for a 10-point scale because it corresponds to the grading scale 
commonly used in the educational context of the participants. This approach ensured 
familiarity and ease of interpretation for respondents. We have now made this rationale 
explicit in the manuscript. 
Comment 2 – “More detailed information needs to be presented in the results section 
of study 2, such as examples of quotes from the arguments provided by participants in 
alignment with the themes used for the thematic analysis.” 
Action - We have expanded the Results section of Study 2 by including more detailed 
information in the form of participant quotes that illustrate the themes identified in the 
thematic analysis. These examples have been incorporated into a new table (Table 4). 
Comment 3 – “Please add some additional information about the setting (universities 
and participant demographics).” 
Action - In Study 1, we have expanded the “Context and Participants” section to 
include more detailed information about the participants’ characteristics. Additionally, 
we incorporated a brief explanation of the relevance of students pursuing their studies 
at universities located in three different regions of Ecuador. 
Comment 4 – “I would recommend including a model questionnaire, like you did with 
Appendix A.” 
Action - Like we did with Appendix A, we have provided a representative example 
from the questionnaire used in Study 2, which is now included in Appendix B. 
Comment 5 - “This section would benefit from more specific information regarding 
the arguments analyzed and how they aligned with the codes used.” 
Comment 6 – “Please describe what the numbers that align with the row for expected 
are in reference to for your study.” 
Comment 7 – “Relationships Between Dimensions and Topic (6.3, page 10). 1. It is 
unclear to me what data you ran here. More information is needed.” 
Action - We have restructured the Results section and clarified the content of the 
analysis presented in Section 7 (previously Section 6). A more detailed explanation has 
been added to describe the data shown in the frequency table, including what the 
observed and expected frequencies represent in the context of the analysis. We also 
elaborated on the procedure used to examine the relationships between argumentative 
dimensions and topics. In addition, representative examples of students’ arguments 
have been included in Table 4 to better illustrate how the qualitative data informed the 
reported frequencies. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript. Thank you for explaining how you addressed reviewer comments. The revisions made to the introduction and research objectives are appreciated. You have provided a more succinct description of previous empirical research on your topic, as well as better alignment with your present research objectives. You provided more descriptive information about the participants and setting to better understand the context of the study. Table 4 provides more detailed examples of quotes form arguments provided by participants in alignment with themes used in the thematic analysis to better illustrate what you described for the results. The additional information about the participants and setting in Study 1 provided more context about the participants. The representative Sample included in Appendix B was a nice addition to the manuscript to better understand the questionnaire that was provided to participants. A more detailed Results section was provided that explained the observed and expected frequencies in the context of analysis. Thank you for your efforts to address my comments for revision to further enhance quality of structure and clarity, as well as overall merit of the manuscript.

 

Recommendations:

1. Page 4, line 126
   1. Please reviewer work choice/grammar, specifically “teachers domain”
   2. It is unclear to me what you are trying to convey in this sentence.
2. Review placement of Heading for Appendix B on page 19.
3. Page 15, lines 494 & 495
   1. “n” should be in italics
   2. I woudl review APA to determine if the "n" also needs to be in italics in your abstract section too.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the recognition of the improvements made to the manuscript and for the encouraging feedback. Your additional comments have been highly valuable and have been taken into account as outlined below to further strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

REVIEWER 3

Comment 1 – Page 4, line 126 Please reviewer work choice/grammar, specifically “teachers domain” It is unclear to me what you are trying to convey in this sentence. Action – The sentence has been revised to improve both clarity and precision in language. Specifically, the phrase "teachers domain" has been replaced with "teachers have expertise" to better convey the intended meaning and to correct the grammatical construction.

Comment 2 – Review placement of Heading for Appendix B on page 19. Action - The heading for Appendix B has been repositioned to ensure appropriate placement. It now appears clearly at the top of the appendix section.

Comment 3 – Page 15, lines 494 & 495 “n” should be in italics I would review APA to determine if the "n" also needs to be in italics in your abstract section too Action - All uses of n have been italicized throughout the manuscript, including in the abstract section, in accordance with APA style guidelines. Additionally, the entire document was reviewed again, and other statistical symbols requiring italics were identified and appropriately formatted.