Experimentation and Research in the Physics Course for the Preparation of Primary School Teachers in Naples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I find the article very enriching and interesting for the scientific community, as well as for teachers of early childhood and primary education. However, some sections have some details to be taken into account.

 

- In lines 64 and 176 there is an area shaded in yellow.

- In line 144 should be put [21-23] instead of [21,22,23]. Review the rest of the similar cases in the text.

 

The rationale and reflection in section 2 "The course" is very good and provides sufficient background.

If possible, add previous studies that support the activities carried out in section 2.1. Examples of didactic activities with children and future teachers.

 

The discussion is good, but it would be necessary to have more previous studies such as those cited in the introduction.

 

References

The references should be improved. Most of them do not meet the MDPI standards. I provide the standards below:

 

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.
3. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2008; pp. 154–196.
4. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C. Title of Unpublished Work. Abbreviated Journal Name stage of publication (under review; accepted; in press).
5. Author 1, A.B. (University, City, State, Country); Author 2, C. (Institute, City, State, Country). Personal communication, 2012.
6. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D.; Author 3, E.F. Title of Presentation. In Title of the Collected Work (if available), Proceedings of the Name of the Conference, Location of Conference, Country, Date of Conference; Editor 1, Editor 2, Eds. (if available); Publisher: City, Country, Year (if available); Abstract Number (optional), Pagination (optional).
7. Author 1, A.B. Title of Thesis. Level of Thesis, Degree-Granting University, Location of University, Date of Completion.
8. Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).

 

 

In general, the results are adequately presented and the final considerations include in a clear and understandable way what was detailed in previous sections. The article is interesting and appropriate.

 

However, it is necessary to pay attention to everything mentioned above in order to give more value to the work done.

 

The English is understandable.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thanks for reading and commenting on our work. Your suggestions were helpful in improving it:

1. We corrected the editing and references according to your recommendations and MDPI standards.
2. In section 2.1. “ Examples of didactic activities with children and future teachers” we have introduced references on previous activities, studies and useful resources for possible analysis and reproducibility in other contexts.
3. We have added more references in the discussion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this report, the authors discussed their approach to address the initial preparation of physics teachers at the kindergarten and elementary school level. The approach focuses on introducing real-world experiences into classroom while helping the students develop critical thinking skills. Several case studies were discussed in the manuscript with student feedbacks to showcase the effectiveness of the teaching approach. Overall the authors provided sufficient amount of data to support the efficacy of their teaching strategy. There are, however, some structural issues that can be addressed to help with the clarity of the work: 1) The use of subtitles throughout the manuscript seems ambiguous and often confusing. For example, the activities regarding "The Motion Detector" and "The spring dynamometer" should be a subset of "Machines and mechanisms." Labelling these sections with the same font and size confuses the readers about the level of strategies adopted in these case studies. 2) In the case studies, it would help to discuss the actual activities in a more methodological fashion so that educators can reproduce the same approach in their own classrooms. 3) It would help the clarity of the work to have a separate section specifically focusing on the training of teachers and the specific types of materials used in these trainings. 4) There are some minor typos/formatting issues throughout the manuscript, such as the use of double space in line 40, highlighted space in line 64/176, red underlines in Figure 2, etc.

Author Response

Thanks for reading and commenting on our work. Your suggestions were helpful in improving it.

Here are the changes made for the reported points.

1. We have put the subtitles in order as suggested
2. In the description of the case studies there is an initial part that describes how we involve students (it was in the wrong place before).
3. We have introduced a specific description of the courses in service for teachers.

4 We corrected the editing according to your recommendations and MDPI standards.

We reread and rewrote the text improving the English language.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript describes an experience of preparation of pre-service elementary education teachers. The work is interesting from both the theoretical point of view and the description of the work done. I suggest publication.

Author Response

Thanks for reading and commenting on our work. We reread and rewrote the text improving the English language.