Modeling with Embodiment for Inquiry-Based Science Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have designed an interesting educational intervention based on modelling with embodiment which they present in this study. Although the topic of this research,  modelling with embodiment in science education, I have several problems with how the authors present their research mainly related to the quality of the argumentation and academic soundness. At several places the trackability of the research is insufficient and overall the paper misses structure and a precise account of how the research was conducted. See below for additional (though not complete) comments:  

Abstract:

Clearly described, but the description of the research methodology and the outcomes of the study could be more specific.

Theoretical framework:

The authors touch very briefly on the literature on inquiry-based science teaching and present modeling as an inquiry process the role of modeling. The theoretical basis they provide her is very small. For example, the authors state that ‘like any inquiry process, modeling has the advantage of naturally incorporating a learning situation in which students express prior ideas…’ and ‘The process will therefore allow to work on these ideas as they will be part of the models they will propose.’ This needs more underpinning and reference to recent work on IBSE where successful Inquiry-Based Teaching is strongly dependent on scaffolding.

Most recent literature is missing in the theoretical framework, which also accounts for the theoretical underpinning of embodied cognition. Although I agree with the positive notes that the authors describe regarding embodied cognition, the literature presents a richer description, including empirical literature, see for example a special issue on embodied cognition and education: Agostini, E., Francesconi, D. Introduction to the special issue “embodied cognition and education”. Phenom Cogn Sci 20, 417–422 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09714-x

The main problem I have with the theoretical framework, which is also the introduction of the paper, is that it misses a problem statement, research aim and research question(s) that guides the research.  

Methodology

This part does not start with the research methodology, as the reader may expect, but first presents the educational intervention based on the AtoE approach to teach model-based inquiry with embodiment. It remains unclear how the proposed framework has been developed, and how it connects to the theoretical framework. The AtoE framework (I would suggest a more meaningful name) seems to represent a quite general and traditional modelling approach and misses a more precise description of how theoretical notions about inquiry-based education and embodiment have been integrated in the approach and what this means for implementation in classroom practice. Although the authors present in Table 1 and 2 two inquiry-based didactical sequences, details about the educational context, the role of the teacher, given instruction and a clear description of student activities is missing.

The authors present both qualitative and quantitative instruments for evaluation of the didactic sequence, which is valuable. Nevertheless, the process of data collection and analysis is difficult to grasp and therefore lacks trackability.

The authors state for example that modeling experiences were recorded and analyses according to two (or three?) parameters: When the authors state that they analyzed whether the modeling refinement process enabled students to propose the best model, in line with the learning objectives: What (process and/or product) data was collected? Did the authors use a coding procedure? What criteria were used to analyze the modeling process and the criteria for determining the ‘best model’?

The authors did analyze the number of iterations quantitatively, while this does not seem very informative as the authors also seem to state. Grasping the process of (refinement) of the models and the discussions of the students seems more interesting as it discloses the (embodied) learning processes of the student while developing the models.

The quantitative evaluation is difficult to grasp misses underpinning. The questionnaire seems to primarily focus on conceptual understanding of the macroscopic and microscopic phenomena studied, while embodied cognition has broader effects. In addition it is not clear how the answers have been analyzed. The authors state that questions were scored on a scale of 0, 0,5 or 1 ‘according to correction criteria that assess the accuracy of the answer’. This needs more specific elaboration. In addition it remains unclear what the ‘expert-judgement’ did entail.

The problems I have with understanding the focus of the data collection and analysis, despite the lack of trackability, are also related to the missing research question(s) in this paper.

Results:

The authors present a rich qualitative of the results obtained from classroom recording and observations. The authors state that the results are ‘ the proposed activities along with comments on how the resolution was carried out by the groups’ and ‘ that the activities correspond to the concepts we intended to address’.

This seems problematic: In the described results it remains unclear on what data the description is based, and how the authors came to this description: there is no trackable account of the data obtained and interpretation by the authors. A clear description of classroom practice is missing  (where were there multiple classes recorded? Did students work in one or more groups? What was the role of the teacher? In the description it remains unclear how many students were engaged in the modelling process and whether the process describes a single group, class or whether data was collected in multiple classes?

For example: ‘At 90, they have doubts’: Who is ‘they’?

In addition, it remains unclear whether the formulations that are used in the results section 3.1 are those of the authors or those of the students. No quotes or other data are presented to the reader

The summaries of the qualitative results (table 3 and 4) ‘synthesize the level of effectiveness qualitatively of the modelling…’ What is meant by effectiveness here?

Table 3 and 4 also need more explanation and interpretation.

As mentioned earlier the ratings of the questionnaires were not explained so the quantitative results, presented in Figure 4 remain rather meaningless to the reader..  

In the final part of the results, the authors do present data as quotes from students, but again the context in which these quotes where collected (ecological validity) is missing and the formulation of the data needs to be more precise: e.g. ‘ there are quite a few cases with a correct (…) explanation., ‘ ‘most of the students (…) did not answer, and others gave a bad explanation…’, ‘some of the answers the experimental group give the correct answer…’, all examples of results that should be formulated with more precision and more context.       

The discussion and conclusion miss an in-depth articulation of the findings, in relation to earlier and recent studies on embodied cognition in the context of STEM education. Also, a reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research is missing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is readable but should be improved. There are still some awkwardly formulated sentences throughout the text.  

Author Response

Referee 1

Thank you very much for your constructive and insightful comments. Your suggestions have been very helpful in improving the clarity and coherence of our manuscript.

1. Abstract: Clearly described, but the description of the research methodology and the outcomes of the study could be more specific.

We have revised the abstract and changed it from "in the model and build together the final representation" to provide more details about the methodology and results:

“For that, we present a specific methodology (the IBME approach) for inquiry-based modeling with embodiment. We specify the steps of the modeling approach, which were subsequently tested through instructional sequences based on this method with second-year students of the degree in Primary Education at a public university. We analyzed the instructional sequences both quantitatively and descriptively. The quantitative analysis compares the results of an experimental group (N=86) with a control group (N=68) that does not work with inquiry-based modeling. Both groups address the same concepts, and at the end, they complete a questionnaire. The descriptive analysis discusses the details of the modeling process and the discussions that take place throughout the teaching sequences; on the other hand, it also summarizes the progress in the modeling process based on three qualitative parameters. The results obtained after implementing these sequences show significant differences compared to the control group. The descriptive analysis illustrates how students are able to reach the final model by inquiry, that is, through the discussion fostered by the modeling process itself, involving models of different levels of complexity.”

2. Theoretical framework: The authors touch very briefly on the literature on inquiry-based science teaching and present modeling as an inquiry process the role of modeling. The theoretical basis they provide her is very small. For example, the authors state that ‘like any inquiry process, modeling has the advantage of naturally incorporating a learning situation in which students express prior ideas…’ and ‘The process will therefore allow to work on these ideas as they will be part of the models they will propose.’ This needs more underpinning and reference to recent work on IBSE where successful Inquiry-Based Teaching is strongly dependent on scaffolding. Most recent literature is missing in the theoretical framework, which also accounts for the theoretical underpinning of embodied cognition. Although I agree with the positive notes that the authors describe regarding embodied cognition, the literature presents a richer description, including empirical literature, see for example a special issue on embodied cognition and education: Agostini, E., Francesconi, D. Introduction to the special issue “embodied cognition and education”. Phenom Cogn Sci 20, 417–422 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09714-x

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion regarding the reference, which we have added within the presentation of the theoretical framework. We have also added updated references on inquiry and expanded the theoretical discussion, also in the Discussion section.

3. The main problem I have with the theoretical framework, which is also the introduction of the paper, is that it misses a problem statement, research aim and research question(s) that guides the research.  

A brief paragraph has been added at the end of the theoretical framework to clarify the main focus of the article, specifically the research question

“The main question we aim to answer is: Can inquiry-based modeling with embodiment improve students’ comprehension about natural phenomena, compared to expository teaching techniques? Given that embodiment activates sensorimotor-based cognitive processes and enhances the construction of robust mental models, we hypothesize that students engaged in embodiment-based modeling sequences will achieve significantly higher conceptual understanding than those exposed to traditional lecture-based methods.”

4. Methodology: This part does not start with the research methodology, as the reader may expect, but first presents the educational intervention based on the AtoE approach to teach model-based inquiry with embodiment. It remains unclear how the proposed framework has been developed, and how it connects to the theoretical framework. The AtoE framework (I would suggest a more meaningful name) seems to represent a quite general and traditional modelling approach and misses a more precise description of how theoretical notions about inquiry-based education and embodiment have been integrated in the approach and what this means for implementation in classroom practice. Although the authors present in Table 1 and 2 two inquiry-based didactical sequences, details about the educational context, the role of the teacher, given instruction and a clear description of student activities is missing.

On one hand, we have modified the way we refer to the approach, addressing the reviewer's suggestion that it could be more meaningful. Additionally, we have used this change in terminology as an opportunity to better explain what the approach entails and how it differs from other forms of modeling. Therefore, we have changed the title of section 2.1 and added a paragraph at the beginning of it:

“2.1. Inquiry-based modeling with embodiment (IBME): An approach to teach science phenomena

The framework we use is based on the modeling process presented by Solbes and Tuzón (2024). We refer to this as inquiry-based modeling to distinguish it from general modeling strategies, which may or may not be used within an inquiry framework. That is, modeling with students in the classroom can involve working with a pre-existing model, analyzing its properties, or, for example, by teacher-directed modeling. In contrast, we present an approach in which modeling clearly occurs within an inquiry-based context where the model is deliberately built by the students themselves. Furthermore, they employ a specific tool: embodiment.”

On the other hand, at the end of section "2.2.2. The teaching sequences based on IBME methodology," we have added two paragraphs to describe the procedure followed by the experimental group, as well as the comparison with the control group, after the tables outlining the teaching sequences:

“During the two sessions in which the sequences described in Table 1 and Table 2 were implemented, students worked in teams of 3 to 5 members. The teacher introduced the designed activities and allowed time for discussion, intervening primarily through questions that guided the discussion and helping to summarize and conceptualize the conclusions reached by the students throughout the process. The dynamic was always the same: initial inputs, a modeling proposal from one team, collective analysis and refinement of the model, iteration with other teams, and a concluding discussion.

In contrast to the experimental group, which followed the sequences outlined in the tables according to the approach analyzed in this article, the control group addressed the same concepts but with a different approach. The control group classes followed a lecture-based methodology with a common thread: the teacher always presented the finalized model; that is, students did not participate in the process of constructing the model. For example, diagrams and images previously selected by the teacher were used to show the relative positions of the Sun, Earth, and Moon, from which the phases of the Moon were explained. To address the topic of eclipses, an image was shown depicting the inclined lunar orbit relative to the ecliptic, with the orbital nodes indicated. An animation (model) was used to demonstrate why eclipses do not occur every month. During the explanation, photographs of eclipses and diagrams were shown to explain the difference between umbra and penumbra. The phenomenon of daytime visibility was addressed using a simulation (model), an image of the Earth-Sun-Moon system, and a table showing observation times for each phase. The same simulation was used to verify the Moon’s phase from two locations in different hemispheres, and so on. In other words, as mentioned at the beginning, students worked directly with the final model or with pre-processed information.”

5. The authors present both qualitative and quantitative instruments for evaluation of the didactic sequence, which is valuable. Nevertheless, the process of data collection and analysis is difficult to grasp and therefore lacks trackability. The authors state for example that modeling experiences were recorded and analyses according to two (or three?) parameters: When the authors state that they analyzed whether the modeling refinement process enabled students to propose the best model, in line with the learning objectives: What (process and/or product) data was collected? Did the authors use a coding procedure? What criteria were used to analyze the modeling process and the criteria for determining the ‘best model’?

To understand and analyze how an induced modeling process unfolds, it is necessary to include a descriptive section in the article. This section offers detailed commentary on specific modeling examples to help clarify the development and dynamics of the approach we propose. To distinguish this part of the analysis from a more formal, coded qualitative approach, we have renamed it and generally refer to it as the descriptive analysis. In addition to these descriptions, we believe it is essential to summarize the progress of the modeling process using three parameters, which are not intended to do more than highlight the key milestones. These parameters are: whether or not the final model is reached, the level of complexity of the model, and the ideas and sub-models that emerge during the process. For this reason, at the end of the descriptive section, there are summary tables reflecting these parameters. Along with changing the terminology used to refer to the more qualitative part of the article (now called descriptive), we have clarified this point in the Methodology section (at the beginning of section 2.2.3) by adding the following paragraph:

“To analyze the results, a quantitative and a descriptive evaluation of concepts and models was conducted. The descriptive evaluation was carried in two ways: first, by describing the details of the discussions that occur during the modeling process. This allows for an analysis of the argumentative thread and an understanding of how the model is constructed by the students. Second, the process is summarized at the end using three qualitative variables described below. The quantitative evaluation was done through a questionnaire and two opinion-based questions were proposed for the experimental group.

1) Descriptive evaluation.

The session descriptions are presented in the Results section. The variables used to summarize the progress of the induced modeling process are as follows. This could be reviewed through the recordings of the sessions.”

6. The authors did analyze the number of iterations quantitatively, while this does not seem very informative as the authors also seem to state. Grasping the process of (refinement) of the models and the discussions of the students seems more interesting as it discloses the (embodied) learning processes of the student while developing the models.

As explained in the text, the number of iterations can serve as a useful indicator of the complexity of the model being constructed—especially when these iterations are not circular but show clear progression. We believe that this parameter, combined with "final model achievement," can help capture the different ways in which modeling occurs. In any case, we have renamed the variable to make its purpose clearer. It is now called “complexity of the model”.

7. The quantitative evaluation is difficult to grasp misses underpinning. The questionnaire seems to primarily focus on conceptual understanding of the macroscopic and microscopic phenomena studied, while embodied cognition has broader effects. In addition it is not clear how the answers have been analyzed. The authors state that questions were scored on a scale of 0, 0,5 or 1 ‘according to correction criteria that assess the accuracy of the answer’. This needs more specific elaboration. In addition it remains unclear what the ‘expert-judgement’ did entail.

An annex B has been added with the assessment criteria for each item according to the three-point scale described (1, 0.5, and 0).

8. Results: The authors present a rich qualitative of the results obtained from classroom recording and observations. The authors state that the results are ‘ the proposed activities along with comments on how the resolution was carried out by the groups’ and ‘ that the activities correspond to the concepts we intended to address’. This seems problematic: In the described results it remains unclear on what data the description is based, and how the authors came to this description: there is no trackable account of the data obtained and interpretation by the authors. A clear description of classroom practice is missing  (where were there multiple classes recorded? Did students work in one or more groups? What was the role of the teacher? In the description it remains unclear how many students were engaged in the modelling process and whether the process describes a single group, class or whether data was collected in multiple classes?

We have added a description of the procedure followed in the experimental group, which we believe helps clarify the point raised by the reviewer:

“During the two sessions in which the sequences described in Table 1 and Table 2 were implemented, students worked in teams of 3 to 5 members. The teacher introduced the designed activities and allowed time for discussion, intervening primarily through questions that guided the discussion and helping to summarize and conceptualize the conclusions reached by the students throughout the process. The dynamic was always the same: initial inputs, a modeling proposal from one team, collective analysis and refinement of the model, iteration with other teams, and a concluding discussion.”

9. For example: ‘At 90, they have doubts’: Who is ‘they’?

We have clarified in the text that "they" refers to the students.

10. In addition, it remains unclear whether the formulations that are used in the results section 3.1 are those of the authors or those of the students. No quotes or other data are presented to the reader.

The summaries and descriptions provided in section 3.1 are made by the researchers (the authors of the article). We could analyze the modeling progress in situ and later review the session recordings.

11. The summaries of the qualitative results (table 3 and 4) ‘synthesize the level of effectiveness qualitatively of the modelling…’ What is meant by effectiveness here?

A description of what is meant by effectiveness has been added, based on the parameters reflected in the table

12. Table 3 and 4 also need more explanation and interpretation. As mentioned earlier the ratings of the questionnaires were not explained so the quantitative results, presented in Figure 4 remain rather meaningless to the reader.

A previous comment has been incorporated, and we have explained the qualification criteria.

13. In the final part of the results, the authors do present data as quotes from students, but again the context in which these quotes where collected (ecological validity) is missing and the formulation of the data needs to be more precise: e.g. ‘ there are quite a few cases with a correct (…) explanation., ‘ ‘most of the students (…) did not answer, and others gave a bad explanation…’, ‘some of the answers the experimental group give the correct answer…’, all examples of results that should be formulated with more precision and more context.

We have added an explanation.

“As an example, the wording of the responses to the questions posed can be compared between the control group and the experimental group. This allows us to assess the greater elaboration in reasoning, which, as previously explained, has been evaluated using a numerical score”. 

14. The discussion and conclusion miss an in-depth articulation of the findings, in relation to earlier and recent studies on embodied cognition in the context of STEM education. Also, a reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of the research is missing.

Regarding this, we have added a paragraph both in the discussion and in the conclusions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay emphasizes the advantages of embodiment techniques for modeling physical and chemical systems in education. Since the ability to define, build, and evaluate models is a key competence in sciences, the topic is highly relevant. The paper presents an experiment in which the proposed method was tested and summarizes quantitative and qualitative results in a convincing manner. The conclusion is substantiated and adequately situated in the field.

I have just a few formal remarks/suggestions:

While there is “Modelling” in the title, it is inconsistent with the use of “modeling” throughout the text.

Under the keywords, “modeling Teacher training” must be a typo.

In line 156-157, “como método de indagación” has not been translated into English.

In the 2^nd row of Table 1, “mechanis09m” is also a typo.

Regarding Figure 4, the two colors and the p values are not sufficiently explained.

The sentence in lines 504-505 is grammatically inconsistent.

Author Response

Referee 2

We greatly appreciate your thoughtful feedback and valuable recommendations. They have contributed significantly to enhancing the quality and depth of our work.

Reviewer 2 refers to errors and misspellings in the text. All of these have been corrected in the current version, and we thank the reviewer for their careful attention to the revision:

While there is “Modelling” in the title, it is inconsistent with the use of “modeling” throughout the text.

Under the keywords, “modeling Teacher training” must be a typo.

In line 156-157, “como método de indagación” has not been translated into English.

In the 2^nd row of Table 1, “mechanis09m” is also a typo.

Regarding Figure 4, the two colors and the p values are not sufficiently explained.

The sentence in lines 504-505 is grammatically inconsistent.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a specific methodology (the AtoE model) for inquiry-based modeling with embodiment. Using a control-experimental design, this study explores qualitatively and quantitatively the outcomes of modeling physical and astronomical phenomena via incorporated learning activities. The study is well structured and presents an interesting contribution to science education by blending embodied cognition with inquiry-based learning. Moreover, its contribution lies on the effort bridging the gap between theory and practice when teaching abstract scientific concepts.

However, some improvements in methods, results and conclusion can further strengthen the manuscript.

The manuscript sets a clear aim, namely, to test a new framework (AtoE). However, there is no hypothesis explicitly stated. It would be more beneficial to provide a specific, testable research questions or hypotheses to guide the reader.

In the methodology section you say “The control group covered the same concepts as those proposed in the modeling experiences for the experimental group, but with a participatory lecture methodology”; maybe more details regarding this kind of methodology are needed for clarity.

As far as the instruments of this study are concerned, the integration of movement in students’ drawings is a very interesting assessment strategy, but the coding scheme for this qualitative measure is not sufficiently detailed.

Regarding data analysis: The use of Mann-Whitney U and Cohen’s d, in the context of quantitative analysis, is well selected. A table of descriptive statistics for each item would provide clearer context.

Regarding qualitative analysis a more formal /detailed framework is needed to enrich the discussion of model iterations and misconceptions that are already rich.

In the discussion section, a further analysis is needed regarding why some items had only small effects. It is suggested that you should propose some pedagogical refinements.

In its current form, the manuscript makes a promising and valuable contribution. Addressing the above mentioned issues, would further strengthen the manuscript’s rigor and impact.

Author Response

Referee 3

We thank Reviewer 3 for their feedback. Below, we list their comments and provide our responses.

1. The manuscript sets a clear aim, namely, to test a new framework (AtoE). However, there is no hypothesis explicitly stated. It would be more beneficial to provide specific, testable research questions or hypotheses to guide the reader.

A brief paragraph has been added at the end of the theoretical framework to clarify the main focus of the article, specifically the research question:

“The main question we aim to answer is: Can inquiry-based modeling with embodiment improve students’ comprehension of natural phenomena, compared to expository teaching techniques? Given that embodiment activates sensorimotor-based cognitive processes and enhances the construction of robust mental models, we hypothesize that students engaged in embodiment-based modeling sequences will achieve significantly higher conceptual understanding than those exposed to traditional lecture-based methods.”

2. In the methodology section you say “The control group covered the same concepts as those proposed in the modeling experiences for the experimental group, but with a participatory lecture methodology”; maybe more details regarding this kind of methodology are needed for clarity.

We have added a paragraph at the end of section 2.2.2, where we describe the inquiry-based modeling sequences, to clarify that the dynamics of the control group were different and to specify how they were carried out:

“In contrast to the experimental group, which followed the sequences outlined in the tables according to the approach analyzed in this article, the control group addressed the same concepts but with a different approach. The control group classes followed a lecture-based methodology with a common thread: the teacher always presented the finalized model; that is, students did not participate in the process of constructing the model. For example, diagrams and images previously selected by the teacher were used to show the relative positions of the Sun, Earth, and Moon, from which the phases of the Moon were explained. To address the topic of eclipses, an image was shown depicting the inclined lunar orbit relative to the ecliptic, with the orbital nodes indicated. An animation (model) was used to demonstrate why eclipses do not occur every month. During the explanation, photographs of eclipses and diagrams were shown to explain the difference between umbra and penumbra. The phenomenon of daytime visibility was addressed using a simulation (model), an image of the Earth-Sun-Moon system, and a table showing observation times for each phase. The same simulation was used to verify the Moon’s phase from two locations in different hemispheres, and so on. In other words, as mentioned at the beginning, students worked directly with the final model or with pre-processed information.”

3. As far as the instruments of this study are concerned, the integration of movement in students’ drawings is a very interesting assessment strategy, but the coding scheme for this qualitative measure is not sufficiently detailed.

The description of the results has been revised to reflect that this is not a primary outcome of the study, as the research was not originally designed to address this specific aspect. Nonetheless, as highlighted by the reviewers, we considered it worthwhile to explore this point, particularly after reviewing the relevant literature, which is now cited accordingly.

4. Regarding data analysis: The use of Mann-Whitney U and Cohen’s d, in the context of quantitative analysis, is well selected. A table of descriptive statistics for each item would provide clearer context.

We have added in section 3.2, after Figure 4, more información about descriptive statistics as the referee suggests:

“In the comparison between the control and experimental groups, the following results were obtained. For item 1. a (Moon phases), the control group had a mean score of 0.118 (±0.275), while the experimental group reached 0.256 (±0.374), with a significant difference (p = 0.010). In item 1.b (Lunar eclipse), the control group's mean was 0.140 (±0.257), compared to 0.238 (±0.284) in the experimental group (p = 0.017). For item 1.c (New moon), the control group obtained a mean of 0.074 (±0.249), while the experimental group achieved 0.256 (±0.374), with a significant difference (p = 0.010).

In item 2 (Retrograde motion), the control group scored a mean of 0.044 (±0.167), and the experimental group 0.203 (±0.291), with a highly significant difference (p < 0.001). Regarding item 3 (Parallax), the control group mean was 0.037 (±0.248), and the experimental group reached 0.302 (±0.257) (p < 0.001).

For item 4 (Liquid state), the control group's mean was 0.058 (±0.162), and the experimental group's was 0.169 (±0.283) (p = 0.008). In item 5 (Solid state), the control group scored 0.118 (±0.230) and the experimental group 0.250 (±0.304) (p = 0.004). In item 6 (Gas state), the control group achieved a mean of 0.110 (±0.226), while the experimental group reached 0.291 (±0.311), with a significant difference (p < 0.001).

Finally, in item 7 (Phase transitions using the model), the control group's mean was 0.154 (±0.248) and the experimental group's 0.448 (±0.317) (p < 0.001). In item 8 (Limitations of the model), the control group scored 0.029 (±0.118), and the experimental group 0.314 (±0.368), also with a highly significant difference (p < 0.001).”

5. Regarding qualitative analysis a more formal /detailed framework is needed to enrich the discussion of model iterations and misconceptions that are already rich.

To understand and analyze how an induced modeling process unfolds, it is necessary to include a descriptive section in the article. This section offers detailed commentary on specific modeling examples to help clarify the development and dynamics of the approach we propose. To distinguish this part of the analysis from a more formal, coded qualitative approach, we have renamed it and generally refer to it as the descriptive analysis. In addition to these descriptions, we believe it is essential to summarize the progress of the modeling process using three parameters, which are not intended to do more than highlight the key milestones. These parameters are: whether or not the final model is reached, the level of complexity of the model, and the ideas and sub-models that emerge during the process. For this reason, at the end of the descriptive section, there are summary tables reflecting these parameters. Along with changing the terminology used to refer to the more qualitative part of the article (now called descriptive), we have clarified this point in the Methodology section (at the beginning of section 2.2.3) by adding the following paragraph:

“To analyze the results, a quantitative and a descriptive evaluation of concepts and models was conducted. The descriptive evaluation was carried in two ways: first, by describing the details of the discussions that occur during the modeling process. This allows for an analysis of the argumentative thread and an understanding of how the model is constructed by the students. Second, the process is summarized at the end using three qualitative variables described below. The quantitative evaluation was done through a questionnaire and two opinion-based questions were proposed for the experimental group.

1) Descriptive evaluation.

The session descriptions are presented in the Results section. The variables used to summarize the progress of the induced modeling process are as follows. This could be reviewed through the recordings of the sessions.”

6. In the discussion section, a further analysis is needed regarding why some items had only small effects. It is suggested that you should propose some pedagogical refinements.

A possible explanation for the item with the small effect size has been added to the discussion:

“The main difference between most studies framed within this "direct embodiment" approach and our proposal lies in the incorporation of inquiry as a key element in the process. That is, the model is built and discussed by the students themselves within a specific dynamic, rather than starting from a given model”.

“In our case, question 1b was the only one that showed a small effect size with our proposal. This may be due to the fact that understanding this phenomenon requires taking into account the inclination of the Moon’s orbit relative to the ecliptic plane, which involves three-dimensional reasoning. This spatial complexity can pose a challenge for students who are more used to two-dimensional representations of the Earth-Sun-Moon system (Plummer, 2014).”

“Upon reviewing these results, it becomes evident that representing simpler astronomical phenomena leads to better outcomes than attempting to model more complex and iterative ones, such as the phases of the Moon. In an inquiry-based activity, the model can be enhanced by incorporating additional elements”.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript's theoretical framework and literature background are structured in a highly robust and comprehensive manner. However, the research methodology should be reconsidered. The study involves qualitative data collection, yet these data are transformed into quantitative form through rubrics, and the findings are presented based on both qualitative and quantitative data. This approach suggests that the study would be more appropriately positioned within a mixed-methods research design. The measurement tools and rubrics are presented in a detailed and clear manner, and the implementation process of the study is described systematically. The findings are analyzed and reported in alignment with the research questions, and the discussion section is meaningfully developed through comparisons with relevant literature. Overall, the study appears to be carefully conducted and offers a valuable contribution to the field.

Author Response

Referee 4

We thank you for your thoughtful comments. We have carefully considered your suggestions and have incorporated the proposed improvements into the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did a great job adding and correcting the manuscript based on the comments made in the initial version.