How Does Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Relate to the Fulfilment of Basic Psychological Needs During Teaching Practicum?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study investigates the environmental conditions in teaching practicums that support the development of pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and structured, with a clearly stated objective. The justification for exploring the environmental factors of teaching practicums, particularly the fulfillment of basic psychological needs in relation to student teachers' self-efficacy, is well articulated. We enjoyed reading the theoretical framework, which provides a structured discussion that effectively integrates concepts of self-efficacy and basic psychological needs within the context of teaching practicums.

However, we have some concerns and suggestions for improvement, detailed below:

1. Timeliness of the Study: A primary concern is that the study was conducted in 2016, which is now eight years ago. The guidelines for reviewers suggest checking for references published within the past five years. In this manuscript, the majority of references are dated before 2018, which may limit the authors’ engagement with recent studies investigating the relationship between self-efficacy and the fulfillment of basic psychological needs during teaching practicums. This limitation is also reflected in the discussion section, where the study's findings are not compared to more current research.
2. Specific Comments:
• Line 293 (and line 344): The notation *** p < 0.01 should likely be corrected to *** p < 0.001.
• In the results section, when discussing numerical data, it would enhance clarity for the authors to refer to specific tables or figures. For example, on line 312, the value of -.51 does not appear to be located in Table 3.
• Clarification is needed for the "N" in Table 3. The numbers presented for the first model (103), model 2 (90), and model 3 (90) should be defined. Are these numbers indicating the participants in the cohorts?
• Should the conclusion be presented as a separate section rather than being included under the discussion?
• In sections 5.2 and 5.3, the referencing style appears inconsistent, with some references using numbers and others using the (author, year) format.

In summary, the recommendation for rejection is mainly due to the time when the study was undertaken. In addition, it does not incorporate recent literature that may enrich the discussion and relevance of the findings.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1: Timeliness of the Study: A primary concern is that the study was conducted in 2016, which is now eight years ago. The guidelines for reviewers suggest checking for references published within the past five years. In this manuscript, the majority of references are dated before 2018, which may limit the authors’ engagement with recent studies investigating the relationship between self-efficacy and the fulfillment of basic psychological needs during teaching practicums. This limitation is also reflected in the discussion section, where the study's findings are not compared to more current research.

Response 1: Thank you for this valuable feedback! You are absolutely right. The first version of this article was written in 2021, and additional current articles were included at the beginning of 2024. However, I understand this does not fully meet the criteria of Education Sciences. To address this shortcoming, I conducted an additional literature search and identified five recent articles that examine the under-researched area of basic psychological needs within the context of teacher education. Furthermore, I added another article that explores both the direct relationship and the mediating role of self-efficacy in linking internal beliefs with teaching motivation. The revisions can be found at the following points in the updated manuscript. Nonetheless, I would like to emphasize that the relationship between the fulfillment of psychological basic needs and self-efficacy in teacher education remains insufficiently explored. Therefore, this manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature, especially through its focus on the fulfillment of basic needs during teaching practicums—a critical aspect for developing self-efficacy.

• page 2, paragraph 2, lines 61-65
• page 3, paragraph 3, line 122
• pages 3-4, starting paragraph 3, lines 131-156
• page 3, paragraph 2, line 161
• page 11, paragraph 2, lines 420-430
• page 13, paragraph 5, lines 517-522
• page 13, paragraph 6, lines 528-531
• page 13, paragraph 7, lines 534-537
• pages 13-14, starting paragraph 8, lines 538-551

Comment 2:

• Line 293 (and line 344): The notation *** p < 0.01 should likely be corrected to *** p < 0.001.
• In the results section, when discussing numerical data, it would enhance clarity for the authors to refer to specific tables or figures. For example, on line 312, the value of -.51 does not appear to be located in Table 3.
• Clarification is needed for the "N" in Table 3. The numbers presented for the first model (103), model 2 (90), and model 3 (90) should be defined. Are these numbers indicating the participants in the cohorts?
• Should the conclusion be presented as a separate section rather than being included under the discussion?
• In sections 5.2 and 5.3, the referencing style appears inconsistent, with some references using numbers and others using the (author, year) format.

Response 2: Thank you for your attentive reading and specific suggestions.

• The notations have been corrected: page 8, Table 2, line 325, and page 10, Figure 1, line 381.
• I have added an additional table that displays the results of the pre-analyses: page 9, lines 350-353.
• The "N" is now clarified in both this table and Table 4, indicating that it refers to the number of participants: page 9, Table 3, and page 4, Table 4.
• The conclusion has been presented as a separate section and has been supplemented with insights from the newly added literature.
• The referencing style has been made consistent: page 12, paragraph 3, lines 482 and 493, page 13, paragraph 4, line 510.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review makes a valuable contribution to the research on pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy that have not been explored so far.

 

However, there are some concerns, detailed below, that need to be addressed before it is ready for publication.

 

 

1.         Introduction

 

The introduction places the research within the context of previous studies and identifies the research gap that the present study aims to fill. However, the authors may want to reconsider the relevance of the last paragraph, as it pertains more to the theoretical framework than to the paper as a whole.

 

3. Materials and Methods

1.         3.1. Participants and procedure

The authors state that: “Due to the small sample size, the two longitudinal cohorts were combined into one group after checking for comparability regarding demographic and target variables.” However, they fail to mention which specific demographic and target variables were used to ensure comparability of the two groups.

 

 

3.3. Measures

 

The authors state: “To assess the fulfilment of basic psychological needs, we developed a scale based on 256 self-determination theory, specifically tailored to the teaching practicum context”. However, details about the validation procedure for this scale are needed. This is also true for the self-efficacy beliefs scale.

 

 

It is contradictory that the authors combine the two cohorts into one group but then present data separately for each cohort in Table 1.

 

The authors may consider including the scales used in an Appendix, as this would enable readers to assess the face validity of the measurement tools.

 

The authors may consider excluding the correlation analyses between the subscales of basic psychological needs and the total scale.

 

I understand that the word 'time' is missing after 'over' in this sentence: “The findings also indicate a relatively high stability of self-efficacy beliefs over, as evidenced by the autocorrelation showing the strongest relationship for self-efficacy at the second time of measurement.”

 

The authors may consider separating the sections into Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions, in that order.

 

 Ethical concern: Was the research approved by the university ethical committee? How did the students give their consent to participate in the study?

 

 

Minor issues

 

In terms of in-text citations, some cases use 'Author and colleagues' for three authors, while in other cases all three authors are mentioned individually.

 

In academic writing, it is generally advisable not to start a sentence with a figure. (line 10).

 

In lines 11 and 12, two words are separated midway by -.

 

A space is left between the figure and the percentage symbol (%) in some cases.

 

Misspelling: collegues (line122)

 

In line 464, the citation style does not match the style used by the journal in the reference for Korthagen and Evelein (2016).

Author Response

Comment 1: Introduction

The introduction places the research within the context of previous studies and identifies the research gap that the present study aims to fill. However, the authors may want to reconsider the relevance of the last paragraph, as it pertains more to the theoretical framework than to the paper as a whole.

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. To ensure clarity, I have added the phrase “following theoretical framework” to the first sentence to emphasize that this serves as a preview of the theoretical section. I believe that providing a brief overview of this structure helps guide the reader through the subsequent part of the text. For this reason, I have opted to retain this part: Page 1, paragraph 4, line 38

Comment 2: 3. Materials and Methods 1. 3.1. Participants and procedure: The authors state that: “Due to the small sample size, the two longitudinal cohorts were combined into one group after checking for comparability regarding demographic and target variables.” However, they fail to mention which specific demographic and target variables were used to ensure comparability of the two groups.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. I have now referred to Table 1 for the target variables and provided the results of the demographic variables separately for each cohort: Page 6, paragraph 1, lines 256-260

Comments 3 and 5:

The authors state: “To assess the fulfilment of basic psychological needs, we developed a scale based on self-determination theory, specifically tailored to the teaching practicum context.” However, details about the validation procedure for this scale are needed. This is also true for the self-efficacy beliefs scale. The authors may consider including the scales used in an Appendix, as this would enable readers to assess the face validity of the measurement tools.

Response 3/5: The items were closely modeled on those by Deci and Ryan. The introductory statement "during my practicum..." established the setting. The items for measuring teaching-related self-efficacy expectations were based on validated scales developed as part of a dissertation (Schulte, 2008) and the teacher self-efficacy scale (Schmitz & Schwarzer, 2000). Only one item was added, addressing an important aspect of teaching, namely independent learning. For better transparency regarding face validity, Appendix A with the complete translated items has been added to the manuscript.

Comment 4:
It is contradictory that the authors combine the two cohorts into one group but then present data separately for each cohort in Table 1.

Response 4: The information for the individual cohorts is provided to verify the similarity of means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies. However, the descriptive statistics for the combined cohort are also included.

Comment 6:
The authors may consider excluding the correlation analyses between the subscales of basic psychological needs and the total scale.

Response 6: Since we use both the total scale and the Relatedness subscale in our analyses, it is reasonable to include the other two subscales as well. Additionally, it is an important finding that the subscales are less correlated with each other than with the overall construct.

Comment 7:
I understand that the word 'time' is missing after 'over' in this sentence: “The findings also indicate a relatively high stability of self-efficacy beliefs over, as evidenced by the autocorrelation showing the strongest relationship for self-efficacy at the second time of measurement.”

Response 7:
Thank you! I have corrected it: page 8, paragraph 2, line 333.

Comment 8:
The authors may consider separating the sections into Discussion, Implications, and Conclusions, in that order.

Response 8:
I have separated the discussion from the implications and the conclusion. However, the conclusion and implications are closely linked, so we did not consider it meaningful to separate these two sections.

Comment 9:
Ethical concern: Was the research approved by the university ethical committee? How did the students give their consent to participate in the study?

Response 9:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. An ethical review board is not required for this type of anonymized survey in our country.

Comment 10:
In terms of in-text citations, some cases use 'Author and colleagues' for three authors, while in other cases all three authors are mentioned individually.

Response 10:
Thank you for the suggestion. I have corrected this in two places: page 2, paragraph 3, line 74, and page 5, paragraph 3, lines 233-234. To ensure consistency throughout the manuscript, I have used "and colleagues" whenever more than two authors are cited.

Comment 11:
In academic writing, it is generally advisable not to start a sentence with a figure. (line 10).

Response 11:
I agree and have adjusted the sentence, adding “a total of.”

Comment 12:
In lines 11 and 12, two words are separated midway by -.

Response 12:
Thank you, I have corrected it.

Comment 13:
A space is left between the figure and the percentage symbol (%) in some cases.

Response 13:
Thank you, I have corrected this everywhere. In German, a space is inserted there. This habit likely led to some instances with spaces.

Comment 14:
Misspelling: collegues (line122)

Response 14:
I have corrected it: page 3, paragraph 3, line 126.

Comment 15:
In line 464, the citation style does not match the style used by the journal in the reference for Korthagen and Evelein (2016).

Response 15:
Thank you for pointing this out. I have now corrected the reference to match the journal's style.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is interesting and the text is well articulated and coherent. The methodology is well explained. However, the data was collected several years ago, so it raises doubts regarding its currency. The conclusions are consistent with the results and include practical implications.

Author Response

Comment 1: The study is interesting and the text is well articulated and coherent. The methodology is well explained. However, the data was collected several years ago, so it raises doubts regarding its currency. The conclusions are consistent with the results and include practical implications.

 

Response 1:Thank you for your positive feedback on the study! You are correct that the data collection occurred several years ago, which raises questions about its currency. I appreciate your concern and have taken steps to address it by conducting an additional literature search. I identified five recent articles that examine the under-researched area of basic psychological needs within the context of teacher education.

These additions enhance the manuscript and ensure it reflects contemporary research in the field. The updated references can be found in the following sections of the revised manuscript:

• Page 2, paragraph 2, lines 61-65
• Page 3, paragraph 3, line 122
• Pages 3-4, starting paragraph 3, lines 131-156
• Page 3, paragraph 2, line 161
• Page 11, paragraph 2, lines 420-430
• Page 13, paragraph 5, lines 517-522
• Page 13, paragraph 6, lines 528-531
• Page 13, paragraph 7, lines 534-537
• Pages 13-14, starting paragraph 8, lines 538-551

Despite these updates, it is important to emphasize that the fulfillment of psychological needs and their relationship to self-efficacy in teacher education remain underexplored areas. Therefore, this manuscript makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature, particularly by focusing on the fulfillment of basic needs during teaching practicums—a critical aspect of developing self-efficacy.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concerns in my review have been addressed by the author.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments