Understanding Science Teachers’ Integration of Active Methodologies in Club Settings: An Exploratory Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting, generally well-written and can be of interest for the community. I do have three major points of concern:

1) Some parts lack references to the literature. For instance, the first two paragraphs do not contain any referebces at all and therefore sound more like a journalistic piece rather than a scientific article. Sentences like "Adapting educational systems to these realities and improving their quality and effectiveness constitute two fundamental objectives of modern communities" (l. 40ff) need references! Please check that all your major claims are supported by literature.

2) The same holds true for the conclusions. They are quite short and lack references to previous literature. The first half is just a summary of the findings and not an in-depth conclusion. The findings are being discussed in part 5, but the conclusions should really point out the meta-levels and the connection to previous research.

3) The data analysis is theory-based (QCA, thematic analyis), which is good. But this is not mirrored in the presentaion of the findings! They are a bit confusing as they contain long direct quotes. I miss a systematic approach to the data (coding process, category system etc.).

Author Response

Revierwer 1

1) Some parts lack references to the literature. For instance, the first two paragraphs do not contain any references at all and therefore sound more like a journalistic piece rather than a scientific article. Sentences like "Adapting educational systems to these realities and improving their quality and effectiveness constitute two fundamental objectives of modern communities" (l. 40ff) need references! Please check that all your major claims are supported by literature.

We have removed the paragraphs indicated by the reviewer and rephrased the beginning of the introduction, incorporating additional references to support our statements.

2) The same holds true for the conclusions. They are quite short and lack references to previous literature. The first half is just a summary of the findings and not an in-depth conclusion. The findings are being discussed in part 5, but the conclusions should really point out the meta-levels and the connection to previous research.

From our standpoint, the conclusions section serves the purpose of providing an overview of the article's content. This section highlights the key points of the work, offering a clear picture of the potential contributions of the study to the literature. We envision it as a space where the authors' contribution to the field is emphasised, summarising what the research can bring. Consequently, we believe it should not include references to the literature, as the comparison with what has been previously described fits more appropriately within the discussion section. However, this study represents an initial approach to the problem under investigation, and perhaps in subsequent works, a more in-depth exploration can be conducted to establish more comprehensive conclusions.

3) The data analysis is theory-based (QCA, thematic analysis), which is good. But this is not mirrored in the presentation of the findings! They are a bit confusing as they contain long direct quotes. I miss a systematic approach to the data (coding process, category system etc.).

Indeed, as indicated, the study is part of a broader project in which QCA serves as the primary data analysis strategy. The process, as outlined by the reviewer, involves coding the data to establish categories that are representative of teachers' perspectives. However, since the results presented directly stem from the analysis of other issues, the codes and categories framed in the project are not of interest to the current article's objective. Therefore, on this occasion, we have chosen to present the results in a more narrative form, starting from broader ideas and gradually progressing to more specific aspects.

We believe that this approach makes it easier to follow teachers' thought processes and appreciate how issues related to active methodologies are interwoven in a network of words and terms that are part of the everyday language of the education world but often do not mean the same for teachers in the schools as for researchers collaborating with them. In any case, we have included the following paragraph in the article to justify the choice when presenting the results.

“instead of sorting the teachers' perspectives into fixed categories, we've opted for a storytelling approach. We aim to seamlessly blend various excerpts that genuinely represent the diverse viewpoints of educators. This method lets us thoroughly explore the many aspects of teachers' perspectives, offering a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the challenges and successes in implementing active methodologies within science club coordination, thus providing a deeper and more authentic portrayal of the complex landscape surrounding teachers' experiences.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Section 3 (lines 406-407) does not explain the aim of the research as clearly as the Introduction (lines 74-75). I suggest that this be standardised to make it is more coherent and clear.

Line 98 refers to "informal or non-formal learning". Learning cannot be categorised as formal or informal, it can take place in formal, non-formal or informal educational contexts. It is therefore suggested that this part be revised.

Line 884 mentions "the role of informal contexts in improving science education". Are these informal contexts or non-formal contexts? As there is no theoretical consensus on the classification of formal, non-formal or informal educational contexts, it would be important to clarify the theoretical framework adopted and the consistency of its use throughout the text.

In lines 161 and 162, the references need to be revised, as they include the authors' names and the year of publication appear.

In the bibliographical references, some years of publication are not in bold.

Author Response

Regarding the comments from the second reviewer, we have improved the wording in lines 406-407 to clarify the study's objective, and we have reviewed the bibliographic references in lines 161 and 162 to align them with the journal's style. This has resulted in the need to renumber many of the references throughout the document. Similarly, we have corrected the error in line 98, where the word "opportunities" was missing. In this regard, we agree with the reviewer that it is not accurate to categorise learning as formal, non-formal, or informal since there are no differences between them. Instead, this distinction refers more to the context in which the learning takes place.

Finally, we have implemented a series of nuanced adjustments, aiming to enhance the overall readability and coherence of the text.