Let’s Ask the Other Side: Teaching Gymnasium Plant Biology from a Teacher’s Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe subject of teaching plant biology is interesting and has merit with current problems such as those related to biodiversity and the environment. However, a consistent theoretical framework is lacking. References are cited without explaining too much or extracting theoretical elements of development of a framework that will specify the scientific problem (Research Questions) of the article, for example, by specifying in each reference the what and why of the question it is supposed to describe or to bring. We suppose that authors started from the results to go back to the theoretical. It is important to establish as complete theoretical framework as possible for students (learning plant biology) and teachers (teaching plant biology). This is reflected in the keywords which are not very relevant. We miss for example information about gymnasium curriculum of plant biology. We have some relevant indication in conclusion about this aspect, but it came late in the writing of the article. the local context of high school education or gymnasium in Slovakia is important to know for the reader, e.g. give a short description of the school system that governs gymnasium (recent curriculum reform in science and place of plants, Inquiry-based science…). Other example, developing Botanical illiteracy (as that exist in other countries, and as it’s experimented in slovakia via the formal curriculum and the expected one by researchers (or authors)
Empirical part –
-The sample is very well described and analyzed (3.1)
-3.2 : What does it mean high school students or university students studying teaching ? (line 110),
-the authors must explain this assertion : “”in the Slovak Republic there is a lack of independent verification of the results of the education of therefore it is impossible to expect quality students if we do not know the quality of the teaches”.
And why the self critical assessment of teachers’ own shortcomings appear in causality with this assertion ?
Explain why mainly sources provided by state are much less used ? and then what is the legitimacy of “ mat. by T = materials created by teachers “ ? this question is related to this : how expert, politicians and teachers must collaborate to develop adequate content and material about biological plant education.
It’s curious to read line 141 “There fore, in the subsequent work, we will focus on identifying the knowledge gaps of gymnasium students from plant biology.” This kind of data does not exist yet?
-3.3 : The results focus more on material, teaching with material and visual aids. but we miss link with inquiry, the spirit of the use of this material. The material as it is pointed out is a help, but learning plant biology is a matter of concepts and scientific approach, which is lacking here once more to have an idea about the Slovak Education curriculum and also about the work of the teachers... we need some more explanation like those in lines 284 et 285 : Physiology (mechanisms) Links with morphology (structures), links between mechanisms (concept of integration and feedback loops), links with these mechanisms and environment, biodiversity issues.
In line 227: « « opportunities for direct contact with live material in the classroom » but also natural approach with contact with nature, plants in their living environment. Are there strong pedagogical (environmental) currents in Slovenia on this kind of approach? We hear a lot about Slovenia and its nature…
Line 285 : “plant physiology” in not only a biology field but it also involves bio/chemistry and more complex shift in education is clearly needed (285) : how these topic are there described in the curriculum ? these conceptual links are there present in the curriculum?
And does it mean the arguments of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic that “memorization is no crucial”? What skills does the ministry propose instead?
Lines 322-324 : “Specific courses or teachers, led by university experts and recognized experts working in the field of plant anatomy/physiology, would be more appropriate than the actual plans of the Slovak Ministry of Education”, my question is : Who decide, who write the content of schools in Slovak Republic?
Once more, we agree with : that subject matter experts should not be left out of the debate on the direction of education with the argument that education is a matter for didactics experts. Without scientific knowledge, it is not possible to “simplify” difficult subjects, and certainly not for gymnasia students preparing for university studies. In some countries, Didactics experts come from scientific university. What is the situation in the Slovak Republic? Why is there no data on the learning of high school/gymnasium students compared to the learning of elementary students?
The conclusion is very relevant. Some pieces of the conclusion must be put at the beginning of the text, as institutional context of learning and teaching biological plant literacy at gymnasium
Author Response
The subject of teaching plant biology is interesting and has merit with current problems such as those related to biodiversity and the environment. However, a consistent theoretical framework is lacking. References are cited without explaining too much or extracting theoretical elements of development of a framework that will specify the scientific problem (Research Questions) of the article, for example, by specifying in each reference the what and why of the question it is supposed to describe or to bring. We suppose that authors started from the results to go back to the theoretical. It is important to establish as complete theoretical framework as possible for students (learning plant biology) and teachers (teaching plant biology). This is reflected in the keywords which are not very relevant. We miss for example information about gymnasium curriculum of plant biology. We have some relevant indication in conclusion about this aspect, but it came late in the writing of the article. the local context of high school education or gymnasium in Slovakia is important to know for the reader, e.g. give a short description of the school system that governs gymnasium (recent curriculum reform in science and place of plants, Inquiry-based science…). Other example, developing Botanical illiteracy (as that exist in other countries, and as it’s experimented in slovakia via the formal curriculum and the expected one by researchers (or authors)
RESPONSE: keywords were updated. Info about plant biology curriculum was added.
Empirical part –
-The sample is very well described and analyzed (3.1)
-3.2 : What does it mean high school students or university students studying teaching? (line 110),
RESPONSE: High school means secondary education (age 14/15 – 18/19 in Slovakia) and in the international classification of education, it is ISCED3. Therefore "university students studying teaching" means students who study at the university (ISCED 6 and ISCED 7) and will later be teachers at high school or primary school. Information was added (line 109-116)
-the authors must explain this assertion : “”in the Slovak Republic there is a lack of independent verification of the results of the education of therefore it is impossible to expect quality students if we do not know the quality of the teaches”.
RESPONSE: In Slovakia, university students can complete a biology teaching study program at the Faculty of Natural Sciences or the Faculty of Education. However, the professional knowledge of the graduates of these two schools is not monitored in any way either nationally or within the framework of pedagogical research. On the other hand, various national “monitoring” tests are performed from mathematics and national language with students of 5th or 9th grade (= 10 or 14/15 years old).
And why the self critical assessment of teachers’ own shortcomings appear in causality with this assertion ?
RESPONSE: There is no causality. Since there is no national survey of teachers' professional knowledge, we rely on their self-assessment in the less popular botany. For university teachers, this data is a valuable source of information, because it is actually feedback from their former students. (and show which areas need more attention during education at university).
Explain why mainly sources provided by state are much less used ? and then what is the legitimacy of “ mat. by T = materials created by teachers “ ? this question is related to this : how expert, politicians and teachers must collaborate to develop adequate content and material about biological plant education.
RESPONSE: Based on our information, the state does not adequately communicate with teachers, and the various state-run regional teacher support centers are only first step. Teachers are not obliged to use official state textbooks, and if they see inaccuracies in them, they can subjectively ignore them. The preparation of textbooks is not consulted with teachers, and that can also be a reason.
It’s curious to read line 141 “There fore, in the subsequent work, we will focus on identifying the knowledge gaps of gymnasium students from plant biology.” This kind of data does not exist yet?
RESPONSE: There are works from several countries that identify deficiencies in students' knowledge of botany but they are focused on specific topic in botany (e.g. plant reproduction or photosynthesis and respiration). According to our information, no research has been carried out that would detect deficiencies in through various topics of botany, and no such research has ever been carried out in Slovakia. It again confirm that plant biology is not “popular” and our paper may, at least slightly, to improve this problem.
-3.3 : The results focus more on material, teaching with material and visual aids. but we miss link with inquiry, the spirit of the use of this material. The material as it is pointed out is a help, but learning plant biology is a matter of concepts and scientific approach, which is lacking here once more to have an idea about the Slovak Education curriculum and also about the work of the teachers... we need some more explanation like those in lines 284 et 285 : Physiology (mechanisms) Links with morphology (structures), links between mechanisms (concept of integration and feedback loops), links with these mechanisms and environment, biodiversity issues.
RESPONSE: Of course, scientific approach is important in the teaching of biology, but we can probably agree that without sufficient equipment, scientific education is impossible or difficult to implement. Therefore, we rather focused on the material equipment that teachers have at their disposal and on problematic areas, since these are the first steps that will allow to improve teaching and the introduction of scientific concepts into teaching.
In line 227: « « opportunities for direct contact with live material in the classroom » but also natural approach with contact with nature, plants in their living environment. Are there strong pedagogical (environmental) currents in Slovenia on this kind of approach? We hear a lot about Slovenia and its nature…
RESPONSE: let us point out that Slovakia is not Slovenia. In any case, Slovakia also has various biotopes, including endemic plants (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_arbuscula) or specific sites with carnivorous plants (https://botany.cz/cs/raksa/). Many educational trails are being built in Slovakia, focused more on animals, but we have no information about other pedagogical activities in the context of botanical education. An exception is perhaps the "Forest Pedagogy Project", which focuses on teaching about the forest ecosystem directly in the field.
Line 285 : “plant physiology” in not only a biology field but it also involves bio/chemistry and more complex shift in education is clearly needed (285) : how these topic are there described in the curriculum ? these conceptual links are there present in the curriculum?
RESPONSE: Unfortunately, such connections between biology and chemistry are absent in the Slovak curriculum for plant physiology. We emphasized this in Abstract as a vision for future (lines 20-24).
And does it mean the arguments of the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic that “memorization is no crucial”? What skills does the ministry propose instead?
RESPONSE: According to the Ministry of Education, the teacher should allow students to manipulate with (biological) objects, observe phenomena, measure, conduct experiments, discuss with each other, solve open tasks, practical and theoretical problems. Although we agree with this vision, without "memorization" it is not possible to discuss the discovered process, if the structures, objects and processes have names and if the "discoverer" does not know the basic terms in the given field.
Lines 322-324 : “Specific courses or teachers, led by university experts and recognized experts working in the field of plant anatomy/physiology, would be more appropriate than the actual plans of the Slovak Ministry of Education”, my question is : Who decide, who write the content of schools in Slovak Republic?
RESPONSE: In Slovakia, teachers decide about the content of education in schools based on the “education standards/aims”, while experts from individual biological fields are often excluded from the process of textbook preparation. We do not claim that didactics should not be part of the creation of educational content, but experts in individual fields monitor current trends in science, which should perfectly be reflected in teaching.
Once more, we agree with : that subject matter experts should not be left out of the debate on the direction of education with the argument that education is a matter for didactics experts. Without scientific knowledge, it is not possible to “simplify” difficult subjects, and certainly not for gymnasia students preparing for university studies. In some countries, Didactics experts come from scientific university. What is the situation in the Slovak Republic? Why is there no data on the learning of high school/gymnasium students compared to the learning of elementary students?
RESPONSE: thank you very much for sharing our view. In Slovakia, didactics writing textbooks or manuals for practical activities are mainly absolvents of pedagogical faculties, meaning that they studied general education of biology but did not perform scientific research in plant anatomy, physiology and so on. This may also be the reason why “chlorophyll d” is still mention as a pigment of red algae or that strawberry is a shrub and many other mistakes in textbooks.
The conclusion is very relevant. Some pieces of the conclusion must be put at the beginning of the text, as institutional context of learning and teaching biological plant literacy at gymnasium.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted manuscript explores a relevant perspective in the context of education, i.e., the teacher's side. However, I believe that the manuscript, as it is organized, especially in the arrangement of tables and figures, becomes quite confusing to follow. I also find some methodological and analytical flaws that affect the research and will necessarily need to be addressed for publication. Below, I describe some points that I hope can help improve the manuscript.
Introduction: In my opinion, the introduction should be more comprehensive to provide a better background on the current state of the art. Perhaps, consider addressing some international context so that the reader gains an integrated perspective of the topic and where education in Slovakia fits in. Materials and Methods: The description of the analysis instrument lacks many details to allow for a better interpretation of the results. If possible, the authors should consider sharing the response rate (in approximately 233 schools with 3 or 4 eligible teachers, we are likely talking about a potential population of 700 to 900 teachers), as well as the average response time. This will provide an understanding of the sample's validity and give an indication of the effort associated with participation. The authors also do not explain whether they only received responses from 100 schools out of the universe of 233 or if it was a convenience sample. It is also necessary to explain the rationale behind the choice of questions (if there is a validated scale available), the scales used, and the validity and reliability found in the sample. The authors should also consider including the complete questionnaire in the supplements to make it easier to follow the research's line of reasoning, rather than interpreting it solely through the graphs and figures. It is also not clear what was the online strategy for teacher participation? Results and Discussion: Lines 87-90: It is not clear if this information pertains to the sample or the population of teachers. Lines 106-108: The tone of the sentence as currently written is not ideal for a research paper. I recommend that the authors rephrase the sentence to make it more fact-based. Lines 111-113: This sentence is out of context. Line 164: Where does the 29% percentage come from, and how is it a high value? Line 188: A reference is missing to support the statement. Lines 240-241: Is this finding really that relevant? Have other studies asked the same questions? Line 291: The reference to the author should be removed. Lines 294-302: This paragraph lacks references to support the argumentation. Lines 303-304: It lacks a reference. Lines 349-352: Where is the comparison to support this statement?Figure 4: The correlation analysis is not between graphs and figures but between questions.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish should be proofread by a native English speaker
Author Response
The submitted manuscript explores a relevant perspective in the context of education, i.e., the teacher's side. However, I believe that the manuscript, as it is organized, especially in the arrangement of tables and figures, becomes quite confusing to follow. I also find some methodological and analytical flaws that affect the research and will necessarily need to be addressed for publication. Below, I describe some points that I hope can help improve the manuscript.
RESPONSE: thank you for your comments and we are sorry that the text and arrangement of the results do not seem logical to you. We spent dozens of hours processing them and searching for literature for the discussion, so the arrangement is not random.
Introduction: In my opinion, the introduction should be more comprehensive to provide a better background on the current state of the art. Perhaps, consider addressing some international context so that the reader gains an integrated perspective of the topic and where education in Slovakia fits in.
RESPONSE: During literature mining, we selected the most relevant literature in the context of our work from scientific databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar. Of course, if you have publications that can improve the theoretical background, we will be glad if you recommend them to us.
Materials and Methods: The description of the analysis instrument lacks many details to allow for a better interpretation of the results. If possible, the authors should consider sharing the response rate (in approximately 233 schools with 3 or 4 eligible teachers, we are likely talking about a potential population of 700 to 900 teachers), as well as the average response time. This will provide an understanding of the sample's validity and give an indication of the effort associated with participation. The authors also do not explain whether they only received responses from 100 schools out of the universe of 233 or if it was a convenience sample.
RESPONSE: if we assume about 700 biology teachers at gymnasia in Slovakia, the number of respondents of questionnaire is about 18%. We cannot influence the willingness to participate, however, as the distribution of respondents in the individual self-governing regions was more or less homogeneous, the results can be considered representative within the Slovak Republic. For comparison, only about 10% of students participated in an online survey among university students organized by the Ministry of Education.
It is also necessary to explain the rationale behind the choice of questions (if there is a validated scale available), the scales used, and the validity and reliability found in the sample. The authors should also consider including the complete questionnaire in the supplements to make it easier to follow the research's line of reasoning, rather than interpreting it solely through the graphs and figures. It is also not clear what was the online strategy for teacher participation? Results and Discussion: Lines 87-90: It is not clear if this information pertains to the sample or the population of teachers.
RESPONSE: the online survey was organized only once and therefore some parameters cannot be calculated (probably it would be difficult to "force" teachers to fill out the same questionnaire again after a time interval). Unfortunately, MS Forms does not allow to download the whole questionnaire in pdf or docx form and therefore we can only provide screenshots of the questionnaire in Slovak language. We believe that the questions are clear from results in the main text and mainly in supplementary materials. Lines 87-90 refers to the sample which is in agreement with public data about gymnasia in Slovakia. The strategy for teacher participation is described in detail in lines 69-72: " The questionnaire was sent via e-mail to directors of all gymnasia registered by Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic together with the description of the aim."
Lines 106-108: The tone of the sentence as currently written is not ideal for a research paper. I recommend that the authors rephrase the sentence to make it more fact-based.
RESPONSE: modified (lines 113-116).
Lines 111-113: This sentence is out of context.
RESPONSE: Modified (lines 116-121).
Line 164: Where does the 29% percentage come from, and how is it a high value?
RESPONSE: if one teacher out of 4 does not have sufficient equipment for teaching, it can be considered a "significant part". The information comes from a question in which we found out whether teachers consider the equipment to be sufficient. The answers were yes or no so the results is only mentioned in the text (line 173).
Line 188: A reference is missing to support the statement.
RESPONSE: There is a reference (line 194).
Lines 240-241: Is this finding really that relevant? Have other studies asked the same questions?
RESPONSE: according to our knowledge, this research on the subjective feeling of teachers' knowledge deficit is original.
Line 291: The reference to the author should be removed.
Removed
Lines 294-302: This paragraph lacks references to support the argumentation.
Removed
Lines 303-304: It lacks a reference.
Reference to figure added (line 311).
Lines 349-352: Where is the comparison to support this statement?
RESPONSE: only hypothesis, not comparison. The older population typically has a negative attitude towards modern technologies.
Figure 4: The correlation analysis is not between graphs and figures but between questions.
RESPONSE: we agree but source data are presented graphically so it only refers to given graphs.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken into account the comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for the constructive questions and we are glad that our answers and corrections were acceptable.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Thank you for your effort in addressing my suggestions and comments. Even though most of my concerns were duly answered, I still have two minor issues to report.
- there is still no report on the reliability and validity of the questionnaire used. The authors may think the questions are clear but does the data say the same? Also, don't know exactly why the authors refer to not being possible to force teachers to answer... where does this comes from?!?
- I'm sorry but the questionnaire being in Slovak language is not a good answer to my request. One can (and should, for the sake of the international audience) translate the questions to English, so the principle of replicability can be applied to any research.
Overall, I think the manuscript improved considerably.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Dear reviewer, Thank you again for meaningful comments and we hope that our improvements and replies will be acceptable for you.
- there is still no report on the reliability and validity of the questionnaire used. The authors may think the questions are clear but does the data say the same? Also, don't know exactly why the authors refer to not being possible to force teachers to answer... where does this comes from?!?
RESPONSE: As part of the reliability, it is possible to determine Cronbach's alpha for two scaling questions that measure respondents' opinions about online education (only questions 43 and 44 in our test). Cronbach's alpha for these questions was up to 0.67, which is an acceptable value considering the low number of items in these questions. Construct validity across the entire survey is sufficient given that it was prepared in consultation with random teachers. The aim of the questionnaire was to find out the degree of availability + use of aids by teachers and deficiencies in the knowledge of teachers and students. The filling of the questionnaire by the respondent is always influenced by his/her willingness to participate. We achieved an 18% response rate, which can be considered relatively successful considering that it was a narrow group of respondents (gymnasium biology teachers). Since the questions were unambiguous, then repeating the administration with the same subjects after a time interval (test-retest reliability) may affect the respondents' willingness to fill out the questionnaire again and appear ineffective. However, it is possible to repeat the questionnaire after several years in order to identify a shift in the use of aids, e.g. in connection with the increase in digitization.
- I'm sorry but the questionnaire being in Slovak language is not a good answer to my request. One can (and should, for the sake of the international audience) translate the questions to English, so the principle of replicability can be applied to any research.
RESPONSE: we assumed that the questions clearly stated in the description of the results (graphs and tables) are sufficiently self-reading that it is not necessary to laboriously translate the questionnaire from MS Forms, as it is not possible to save it in electronic form. Based on your request, however, we did it and we believe that this form is satisfactory for you (the questionnaire is presented from page 13 in the supplementary materials file).
