Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to review your paper entitled "Didactic analysis of natural science textbooks in Ecuador: a critical constructivist review."

I read the paper with great interest, until I started reading the methodology section and there I lost all sense of direction and understanding of what exactly the authors are trying to do in this paper.

I have written until the methods section some comments, i summarise them below, then i move to recommend some major revisions concerning the methods section. 

what is critical about your evaluation? how do the authors understand 'critical?'

p. 1 please reconsider some formulations in the second paragraph. 

A constructivist review of what?

p. 2 second paragraph has a lot of repititions please address.

the order of presenting literature can be enhanced and strategically focuses, right now it reads to me like it is almost random?

I think the RQ could be further clarified

Materials and methods

This section in my opinion requires the most work. The reader (myself in this case) found it hard to understand which design the authors are using? is it document analysis but also a Review? I did not understand this combination? 

also it is a research question not 'inquiry'!

The authors have an extensive methods section to the point that readers get lost, not only in terms of numbers  of stages and process ex: p. 4, but also the deisgns. 

Which books were excluded and how (p. 3)?

we have 12 books that need analysis from a constructivist perspective, why go through checklists and whatnot if you already know that the analysis is based on identifying elements from constructivist theory? 

which brings us to the next question, why isn't there a theory section describing Constructivism? 

I stopped my review in this section, and i am sorry to say that I got confused at what's happening in the paper. 

for the sake of reference as an example, please check https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02601370.2024.2389107 

This paper may show an example of how to structure a paper that uses theory to analyse a MOOC. 

that said, i am also impressed by the amount of work that went into this project and warmly invite you to clarify your paper so readers would benefit the most from the insight you uncover in your analysis. 

The less complex the design presentation is, the more readers would want to read.

Good luck with your revisions! 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are numerous repetitions throughout the text. Text formatting could also be improved. While the text is readable, the overuse of "utilisation" and some unusual formulations could also be addressed. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Please see the attached file for a detailed response to each of the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper: Didactic analysis of natural science textbooks in Ecuador: a critical constructivist review.

This paper is about very interesting research that seems to be thoroughly constructed and based on quality work.

The abstract is mostly well written but it would be better if you clearly state the AIM of the research, not just stating what the study sought to analyse.

The theoretical part is well organised giving view of international research though leaving out a lot of European research about science education textbook research.

On page 3 (line 2): What are the key competencies from the prioritised curriculum???? Explain each concept and give the international reader examples. These two concepts are you foundation of which you judge the books to be (insufficient) since these two concepts are the policy of your country. Also, you need to address the assumptions this research seems to be based on (see later).

The section on methods is well organised and clearly explains what and how data was selected and analysed.

Findings are well presented and figures are helpful. However, for Figure 1: The use of black background is bad for the reader. Please present the Sankey diagram with white background and the diagram in grey colours.

Figure 2: The light green colour is VERY HARD to watch and read. Use darker green (not this “neon-colour”)

Discussions: The section called discussion is NOT discussion. Nothing is discussed, put into context of previous research or stated what of the findings came as a surprise (or not).

This section is a SUMMARY of findings, and helpful as such. But the discussions are missing. Also, in the discussions or the section of conclusion the authors must address what are the implications of these findings. What do these findings mean in hands of teachers, policy makers, curriculum developers and researcher in your country and internationally? Help the reader to understand what all your work means for the rest of the world. Are your findings in line whit what previous research has found, or is there anything new here? Address these questions. But be clear of the limitations, and the assumptions this research is based on.

Limitations:

The fundamental assumptions this research is based on is the greatest limitations of it – unless you address these with reference to research at home and internationally. It concerns the role of textbooks in teachers’ hands – how they use textbooks as tools.

Address your assumptions that seem to underline your statements about teaching practice – and the only data you have are the books!

• You need to address the ROLE of textbooks in classes. Are the books the main steering-tool teachers use, like in other countries? Or do teachers only use books as support tools (not controlling/influencing their classroom activities so much)?
• In you work you ASSUME that the teachers follow each book quite strictly – otherwise how can you state that (p. 10 bulleted list) the present study identifies deficiencies in teaching methods? You cannot know anything about teaching methods in classes by reading the books, unless you assume or you know by research that books are the “steering tool” in teachers’ hand of what happens in the classroom.
• Again: Address what is the role of the teacher? (page 11, figure 3, first bullet point). Is the role of teachers to strictly follow each textbook, or are the books just one tool of many teachers can use? How can you state that the teaching practice fails … (unless the teachers are obliged to follow the selected textbook strictly).

The text is well written in good language and the list of references seem ok. However, the left margin of reference list should have left indent (for the reader so see clearly when new reference starts).

 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Please see the attached file for a detailed response to each of the reviewer’s comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf