Enhancing Molecular Biology Content Knowledge and Teaching Self-Efficacy in Pre-Service Teachers Through Virtual and Hands-On Labs and Reflective Teaching

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is excellently written.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript. We are delighted that you found it strong in all aspects and appreciate your positive evaluation.

Best regards,

the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract 

The abstract summarizes the manuscript but requires revision. It should clearly articulate the problem statement, focus of the study, research methodology, key findings, and implications.

 

Introduction 

The opening paragraph provides context for the study, but it lacks clarity. While the introduction effectively motivates the study, the review could be revised to improve the coherence of the argument surrounding the need for the educational double-deck framework. The research questions are aligned with the research topic.

The research methods are clearly explained, but the selection process for the participants is not adequately described.

Results 

The results presented on page 41 would be more effective if a table were used to present them. An appendix could also assist the reader in understanding the findings. The results do provide meaningful answers to the research questions, and the conclusions are based on the study's findings.

Most of the references cited are from peer-reviewed articles.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 I was not able to detect any language issues. The authors can revise the manuscript so that it is coherent. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for reading our study and providing detailed feedback. We have revised the abstract and especially elaborated on why the educational double-decker is suitable for our course and study design. We have also added information about the selection of study participants. Thank you again for your valuable input.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the manuscript is interesting and the design is well developed. 

However, I would expect a more detailed review of the literature.

For example, regarding teachers' self-efficacy, I think it is missing that students who watch others teach tend to have higher self-efficacy (e.g. Labone, E. (2004). Teacher efficacy: maturing the construct through research in alternative paradigms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 341–359).

Given this I think you should state whether the students who participated in this study had the chance to watch others teach as that might affect the results. 

Furthermore, I highlighted some typos in the manuscript, please, make the corrections. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much. We have now given more emphasis to vicarious experiences. We also appreciate your very positive feedback and thank you for the helpful literature recommendation.

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf