Pre-Service Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Teaching: Confidence, Challenges, and Institutional Influences

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Article title: Pre-Service Physics Teachers’ Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Teaching: Confidence, Challenges, and Institutional Influences

The aim of this study was to explore how pre-service physics teachers perceive interdisciplinary communication, their confidence in implementing it, and the challenges they expect in using it in the classroom. A Likert scale survey was administered to 292 pre-service teachers from two universities in Kazakhstan.

The research methods and the evaluation of the results are explained in detail. The content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic. The results of the research are clearly presented. The article is adequately referenced. The issues are described below.    

Specific comments:

1. The sections must be renumbered. The Methods chapter should have the number 3. Its individual subchapters should also start with number 3. The results section should be numbered with number 4, Discussion with number 5, etc.
2. In the Discussion chapter, it would be appropriate to state again the individual research questions for better clarity and clearly formulate the answer to each of them.
3. The title of x axes in Figs. 1, 2 and 5 should read “Cluster Number”.
4. The caption of Fig. 5 must be rewritten. The caption must be clear and brief. Avoid discussing the content of figures in figure captions.
5. You should use only full digits (1, 2, 3, …) in the scale of x axis in Fig. 8.
6. It would help to explain the symbols (ENU, OKPU) in the caption of Fig. 9.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The aim of this study was to explore how pre-service physics teachers perceive interdisciplinary communication, their confidence in implementing it, and the challenges they expect in using it in the classroom. A Likert scale survey was administered to 292 pre-service teachers from two universities in Kazakhstan.

The research methods and the evaluation of the results are explained in detail. The content is succinctly described and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic. The results of the research are clearly presented. The article is adequately referenced.

Thank you! We will try our best to respond your suggestions.

The issues are described below.    

Specific comments:

1. The sections must be renumbered. The Methods chapter should have the number 3. Its individual subchapters should also start with number 3. The results section should be numbered with number 4, Discussion with number 5, etc.

Done

1. In the Discussion chapter, it would be appropriate to state again the individual research questions for better clarity and clearly formulate the answer to each of them.

We have revised the Discussion chapter to include each of the five individual research questions explicitly.

1. The title of x axes in Figs. 1, 2 and 5 should read “Cluster Number”.

If not strongly suggested we want to keep current x titles.

1. The caption of Fig. 5 must be rewritten. The caption must be clear and brief. Avoid discussing the content of figures in figure captions.

New title is provided.

1. You should use only full digits (1, 2, 3, …) in the scale of x axis in Fig. 8.

Done

1. It would help to explain the symbols (ENU, OKPU) in the caption of Fig. 9.

They are the abbreviations for the two universities stated in Sample and Context

 

Thank you for your guidance in improving our manuscript...

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript "Pre-Service Physics Teachers' Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Teaching: Confidence, Challenges, and Institutional Influences," the authors analyze the perceptions of pre-service physics teachers regarding interdisciplinary teaching, based on a survey conducted among students from two universities in Kazakhstan. The study examines trends in their confidence in implementing interdisciplinary approaches, perceived benefits of such teaching, expectations regarding challenges throughout the academic years, as well as the influence of institutional differences and gender on these perceptions.

The manuscript covers a topic of current relevance to pre-service teacher education, but there remains significant opportunity for improvement, as highlighted in the comments below.

• The Introduction could be strengthened by providing a more detailed explanation of the scientific and practical relevance of the research, as well as the underlying reasons for conducting the study.
• The Literature Review is presented with notable clarity compared to the subsequent sections of the manuscript. However, the authors primarily cite recent references, which could give the impression that the scientific community has not previously addressed or researched this issue. In fact, there is a body of relevant literature from the 20th century (e.g., Bybee & Bonnstetter, 1987; Zeidler, 1988; Hofstein & Yager, 1982; Harms & Yager, 1981; Berkheimer, 1984). Including additional relevant literature from this period may provide a more comprehensive historical context.
• During my review, I noted that an AI-detection tool suggested that approximately 27% of the submitted manuscript may be AI-generated, with the Literature Review section being the primary contributor. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify the extent and manner of any AI assistance used in preparing the manuscript and ensure that all sections are presented in their own scholarly voice.
• In section 2.5, Conclusion and Link to Current Study, a more direct and explicit connection to the research questions would enhance the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.
• In section 2, Methods, the authors are encouraged to clarify the study design and explicitly identify the underlying research paradigm.
• Throughout the Methods section, it would be beneficial to provide explanations and justifications for the choice of specific methods, including relevant methodological citations where appropriate.
• In section 2.1, Sample and Context, rather than listing program codes, it may be helpful to provide links to publicly accessible descriptions of the mentioned study programs.
• The curricula of the courses relevant to this study could be described in greater detail (e.g., number of ECTS credits, hours of instruction, types of classes, and specific learning outcomes that are particularly important for this research).
• It would strengthen the manuscript to include an analysis of the sample size and, based on this analysis, to draw conclusions regarding the generalizability of the research findings.
• As the instrument used in the research is not previously established or standardized, it would be helpful to include it in the Appendix for transparency and replicability.
• It is noted that one Cronbach’s alpha value is very high, which may indicate potential redundancy among the items (i.e., some items may be too similar or unnecessary). Please consider addressing this point in the manuscript.
• In section 2.2, Instrument, it would be helpful to provide a description of each part of the instrument, including the section used for collecting general data (e.g., gender, previous teaching experience, etc.), particularly since these data are referenced in the results and discussion.
• Also, in section 2.2, it may enhance clarity to explicitly highlight and describe the links between individual groups of items and the corresponding research questions.
• The authors mention that expert review was used to validate the items in the instrument. It would be beneficial to clarify what is meant by expert review and to describe the specific methods employed in this process.
• Regarding the cognitive interviews conducted with three students, the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed description of the interview procedures. In addition, it would be helpful to explain how the three students were selected and to specify what minor revisions were made as a result, beyond the brief mention in the text.
• Please clarify how the results of the exploratory factor analysis influenced the development of the instrument, particularly in light of the cross-loadings observed for PB1 and PB2 on factors 1 and 2.
• Please clarify how the principles of anonymity and informed consent were ensured during online data collection.
• It would be helpful to describe the procedures used to ensure that responses were obtained only from the intended student participants, especially for those who received the instrument remotely.
• In section 2.6, Findings, it is recommended to avoid repeating information that has already been presented in the Methods
• In line 405, it is mentioned that Figure 2 shows the overall silhouette score as 0.5824; however, a different value appears on the graph. Please verify and revise as needed for consistency.
• The figure caption for Figure 5 should be made consistent with the captions for other figures in the Findings
• The figures in the Findings section would benefit from more detailed descriptions, such as clarifying what each graphical element represents and what the different colors indicate.
• Given the relatively large number of graphical representations in the manuscript, it would be helpful to ensure that each figure is functionally justified in terms of supporting key results related to the research questions. If a particular figure does not provide new key information or is not directly related to a specific research question, consider moving it from the main body of the manuscript to the Appendix.
• Certain paragraphs (the first, second, and last) from section 3, Discussions, which primarily describe the findings, may be more appropriately placed in the Findings. In the Discussion, it is generally expected that findings are connected to existing research, theoretically interpreted, and accompanied by comments on limitations and possible applications.
• The Discussion section could benefit from being more clearly structured according to the research questions, and the Conclusions should explicitly address and answer these research questions.
• The implications outlined in the Conclusions could be further developed, for example by including practical recommendations such as curricular changes or specific suggestions for future research that directly build on the results of this study.
• In the Reference list, please ensure that the reference (Rahman, 2024) is placed in the correct alphabetical order.

Author Response

In the manuscript "Pre-Service Physics Teachers' Perceptions of Interdisciplinary Teaching: Confidence, Challenges, and Institutional Influences," the authors analyze the perceptions of pre-service physics teachers regarding interdisciplinary teaching, based on a survey conducted among students from two universities in Kazakhstan. The study examines trends in their confidence in implementing interdisciplinary approaches, perceived benefits of such teaching, expectations regarding challenges throughout the academic years, as well as the influence of institutional differences and gender on these perceptions.

The manuscript covers a topic of current relevance to pre-service teacher education, but there remains significant opportunity for improvement, as highlighted in the comments below.

Thank you! We will try our best to respond your suggestions.

• The Introduction could be strengthened by providing a more detailed explanation of the scientific and practical relevance of the research, as well as the underlying reasons for conducting the study.

We revised the Introduction to more clearly articulate both the scientific and practical relevance of the study.

• The Literature Review is presented with notable clarity compared to the subsequent sections of the manuscript. However, the authors primarily cite recent references, which could give the impression that the scientific community has not previously addressed or researched this issue. In fact, there is a body of relevant literature from the 20th century (e.g., Bybee & Bonnstetter, 1987; Zeidler, 1988; Hofstein & Yager, 1982; Harms & Yager, 1981; Berkheimer, 1984). Including additional relevant literature from this period may provide a more comprehensive historical context.

We now referenced the contributions of Bybee & Bonnstetter (1987), Zeidler (1988), Hofstein & Yager (1982), Harms & Yager (1981), and Berkheimer (1984).

• During my review, I noted that an AI-detection tool suggested that approximately 27% of the submitted manuscript may be AI-generated, with the Literature Review section being the primary contributor. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify the extent and manner of any AI assistance used in preparing the manuscript and ensure that all sections are presented in their own scholarly voice.

We used AI for language addition this may have caused 27% of AI-generated content. We mentioned the AI usage the methods section.

• In section 2.5, Conclusion and Link to Current Study, a more direct and explicit connection to the research questions would enhance the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

We have revised the Conclusion and Link to Current Study section to provide a more explicit and direct connection to the research questions. To enhance clarity and coherence, we have also relocated the research questions from the Introduction to this section.

• In section 2, Methods, the authors are encouraged to clarify the study design and explicitly identify the underlying research paradigm.

Done

• Throughout the Methods section, it would be beneficial to provide explanations and justifications for the choice of specific methods, including relevant methodological citations where appropriate.

Relevant citations are added.

• In section 2.1, Sample and Context, rather than listing program codes, it may be helpful to provide links to publicly accessible descriptions of the mentioned study programs.

We have removed the program codes and instead provided links to publicly accessible descriptions of the relevant study programs offered at the two participating universities.

• The curricula of the courses relevant to this study could be described in greater detail (e.g., number of ECTS credits, hours of instruction, types of classes, and specific learning outcomes that are particularly important for this research).

Done

• It would strengthen the manuscript to include an analysis of the sample size and, based on this analysis, to draw conclusions regarding the generalizability of the research findings.

We included a brief analysis of the sample size, including considerations of statistical adequacy and generalizability.

• As the instrument used in the research is not previously established or standardized, it would be helpful to include it in the Appendix for transparency and replicability.

Survey is added as an Appendix.

• It is noted that one Cronbach’s alpha value is very high, which may indicate potential redundancy among the items (i.e., some items may be too similar or unnecessary). Please consider addressing this point in the manuscript.

It is addressed.

• In section 2.2, Instrument, it would be helpful to provide a description of each part of the instrument, including the section used for collecting general data (e.g., gender, previous teaching experience, etc.), particularly since these data are referenced in the results and discussion.

We agree that including this information would be helpful; however, we are concerned that incorporating all these amendments into the main text may inflate the manuscript and affect its readability. To address this, we have attached the full survey as an appendix, which we believe will sufficiently satisfy any inquiries from curious readers.

• Also, in section 2.2, it may enhance clarity to explicitly highlight and describe the links between individual groups of items and the corresponding research questions.

We have now explicitly described how each group of survey items aligns with the specific research questions.

• The authors mention that expert review was used to validate the items in the instrument. It would be beneficial to clarify what is meant by expert review and to describe the specific methods employed in this process.

We now revised the manuscript to clarify what is meant by expert review and to describe the specific procedures used during the instrument validation process.

• Regarding the cognitive interviews conducted with three students, the manuscript would benefit from a more detailed description of the interview procedures. In addition, it would be helpful to explain how the three students were selected and to specify what minor revisions were made as a result, beyond the brief mention in the text.

We expanded the description of the cognitive interviews conducted with students.

• Please clarify how the results of the exploratory factor analysis influenced the development of the instrument, particularly in light of the cross-loadings observed for PB1 and PB2 on factors 1 and 2.

We addressed the cross-loadings of PB1 and PB2 and explained why these items were retained despite their overlap.

• Please clarify how the principles of anonymity and informed consent were ensured during online data collection.

We amended the Ethical Considerations section to include a more detailed explanation of anonymity and informed consent.

• It would be helpful to describe the procedures used to ensure that responses were obtained only from the intended student participants, especially for those who received the instrument remotely.

We have added a description of the procedures used to ensure that survey responses were obtained only from the intended student participants.

• In section 2.6, Findings, it is recommended to avoid repeating information that has already been presented in the Methods

Repeating information is removed from findings section.

• In line 405, it is mentioned that Figure 2 shows the overall silhouette score as 0.5824; however, a different value appears on the graph. Please verify and revise as needed for consistency.

Revised. For k = 5, the overall silhouette score is 0.5925. This value appears clearly at the peak of the plotted silhouette scores on the graph.

• The figure caption for Figure 5 should be made consistent with the captions for other figures in the Findings

Done

• The figures in the Findings section would benefit from more detailed descriptions, such as clarifying what each graphical element represents and what the different colors indicate.

 

We appreciate the suggestion to provide more detailed descriptions. However, we would like to note that there are nine figures in this section, each already accompanied by interpretive text that clarifies what the graphical elements and colors represent. The legends, axis labels, and consistent color schemes across figures are intended to reduce ambiguity without redundancy. We are mindful of maintaining a balance between clarity and conciseness to ensure the manuscript remains accessible and readable. Adding more detailed explanations within the captions or body text would significantly inflate the manuscript, potentially affecting its overall readability.

 

• Given the relatively large number of graphical representations in the manuscript, it would be helpful to ensure that each figure is functionally justified in terms of supporting key results related to the research questions. If a particular figure does not provide new key information or is not directly related to a specific research question, consider moving it from the main body of the manuscript to the Appendix.

We think all figures are necessary. Please see the following table indicating the figures, descriptions and RQ relationship.

Figure	Description (assumed from earlier text)	Likely Justification
Figure 1	Elbow method plot	Justifies number of clusters (RQ-related)
Figure 2	Silhouette score plot	Validates clustering (supports RQ structure)
Figure 3	Stacked area for survey dimensions across clusters	Core result — supports RQs 1–3
Figure 4	PCA-based cluster visualization (2D)	Useful to show cluster separation
Figure 5	Likert item responses by cluster	Insightful for interpreting cluster profiles
Figure 6	Gender comparison plot	Supports discussion for demographic analysis
Figure 7	Perceptions by academic year	Related to RQ1 & RQ2
Figure 8	Cluster distribution across academic years	Related to RQ1–RQ3
Figure 9	Cluster distribution across institutions	Directly related to RQ4

 

• Certain paragraphs (the first, second, and last) from section 3, Discussions, which primarily describe the findings, may be more appropriately placed in the Findings. In the Discussion, it is generally expected that findings are connected to existing research, theoretically interpreted, and accompanied by comments on limitations and possible applications.

Last paragraph is moved to the finding section and, first and second are revised such that they are now connected to existing research.

• The Discussion section could benefit from being more clearly structured according to the research questions, and the Conclusions should explicitly address and answer these research questions.

Discussion us now structured according to the RQs.

• The implications outlined in the Conclusions could be further developed, for example by including practical recommendations such as curricular changes or specific suggestions for future research that directly build on the results of this study.

We expanded the Conclusions section to include more concrete implications for practice and research

• In the Reference list, please ensure that the reference (Rahman, 2024) is placed in the correct alphabetical order.

Corrected

 

Thank you for your guidance in improving our manuscript....

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are five remaining comments that need to be further addressed.

1) During my review, I noted that an AI-detection tool suggested that approximately 27% of the submitted manuscript may be AI-generated, with the Literature Review section being the primary contributor. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify the extent and manner of any AI assistance used in preparing the manuscript and ensure that all sections are presented in their own scholarly voice.

The sentence related to this comment, which the authors added to the manuscript, should be moved from the Methods section to the Acknowledgments section.

2) It would strengthen the manuscript to include an analysis of the sample size and, based on this analysis, to draw conclusions regarding the generalisability of the research findings.

The paragraph responding to this comment is placed at the end of the revised manuscript. To enhance clarity, the first part of this paragraph should be moved to section 2.1 Sample and Context.

Additionally, please delete the redundant text found in lines 361–366, as this repetition already exists in section 2.1.

3) The figures in the Findings section would benefit from more detailed descriptions, such as clarifying what each graphical element represents and what the different colors indicate.

At present, I still find the figure captions insufficient for clearly interpreting the accompanying figures.

4) Given the relatively large number of graphical representations in the manuscript, it would be helpful to ensure that each figure is functionally justified in terms of supporting key results related to the research questions. If a particular figure does not provide new key information or is not directly related to a specific research question, consider moving it from the main body of the manuscript to the Appendix.

Your response to this comment should be integrated into the Findings section.

5) Certain paragraphs (the first, second, and last) from section 3, Discussions, which primarily describe the findings, may be more appropriately placed in the Findings section. In the Discussion, it is generally expected that findings are connected to existing research, theoretically interpreted, and accompanied by comments on limitations and possible applications.

The results are still not sufficiently discussed in relation to the underlying theory guiding the study. A deeper theoretical interpretation is required.

Furthermore, a paragraph relocated to the Findings section remains duplicated in the Discussion section and requires removal.

 

Additionally, I have a comment regarding the newly added text in the revised manuscript. Specifically, in the Findings section, you refer to Hypothesis 2 (H2) without prior introduction. Mentioning Hypothesis 2 implies that Hypothesis 1 (which is now not mentioned anywhere) should have been presented beforehand. Ensure that each hypothesis is clearly stated and contextualized within the theoretical framework earlier in the manuscript. Furthermore, all hypotheses should be explicitly referenced and carried through the relevant sections (including the methods, results, and discussion) to establish a clear logical sequence and strengthen the coherence and rigor of your argumentation.

Author Response

 Response letter 2

1) During my review, I noted that an AI-detection tool suggested that approximately 27% of the submitted manuscript may be AI-generated, with the Literature Review section being the primary contributor. It would be helpful if the authors could clarify the extent and manner of any AI assistance used in preparing the manuscript and ensure that all sections are presented in their own scholarly voice.

The sentence related to this comment, which the authors added to the manuscript, should be moved from the Methods section to the Acknowledgments section.

Moved.

2) It would strengthen the manuscript to include an analysis of the sample size and, based on this analysis, to draw conclusions regarding the generalisability of the research findings.

The paragraph responding to this comment is placed at the end of the revised manuscript. To enhance clarity, the first part of this paragraph should be moved to section 2.1 Sample and Context.

Moved.

 

Additionally, please delete the redundant text found in lines 361–366, as this repetition already exists in section 2.1.

Deleted.

3) The figures in the Findings section would benefit from more detailed descriptions, such as clarifying what each graphical element represents and what the different colors indicate.

At present, I still find the figure captions insufficient for clearly interpreting the accompanying figures.

Except for Figure 8 and Figure 9 (they are clear we think) all other captions are updated.

4) Given the relatively large number of graphical representations in the manuscript, it would be helpful to ensure that each figure is functionally justified in terms of supporting key results related to the research questions. If a particular figure does not provide new key information or is not directly related to a specific research question, consider moving it from the main body of the manuscript to the Appendix.

Your response to this comment should be integrated into the Findings section.

Done. Please see Table 2.

5) Certain paragraphs (the first, second, and last) from section 3, Discussions, which primarily describe the findings, may be more appropriately placed in the Findings section. In the Discussion, it is generally expected that findings are connected to existing research, theoretically interpreted, and accompanied by comments on limitations and possible applications.

The results are still not sufficiently discussed in relation to the underlying theory guiding the study. A deeper theoretical interpretation is required.

“3.1 Theoretical Interpretation of Findings” is added.

Furthermore, a paragraph relocated to the Findings section remains duplicated in the Discussion section and requires removal.

The paragraph (The Exploratory Factor Analysis further.....) was relocated and no longer exists in the Discussion section.

 

Additionally, I have a comment regarding the newly added text in the revised manuscript. Specifically, in the Findings section, you refer to Hypothesis 2 (H2) without prior introduction. Mentioning Hypothesis 2 implies that Hypothesis 1 (which is now not mentioned anywhere) should have been presented beforehand. Ensure that each hypothesis is clearly stated and contextualized within the theoretical framework earlier in the manuscript. Furthermore, all hypotheses should be explicitly referenced and carried through the relevant sections (including the methods, results, and discussion) to establish a clear logical sequence and strengthen the coherence and rigor of your argumentation.

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your suggestion to elaborate on the derivation of hypotheses and to report how the findings support them. We respectfully clarify that our study is structured around clearly defined research questions rather than hypotheses. Given the exploratory nature of the research and the methodological approach we adopted, we believe that the research questions and the evidence-based responses provided sufficiently address the study’s aims and ensure conceptual clarity.

In our first revision, we attempted to employ a hypothesis-based structure; however, we found that it introduced confusion and detracted from the clarity of the manuscript. Therefore, we decided to remove the hypothesis-based elements. Regarding Hypothesis 2 (H2), it was mistakenly left in the text and was overlooked during revisions. We apologize for the oversight and have now removed it.

 

Finally, thank you so much in guiding us to improve our manuscript

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The only minor revision needed is to restore Figure 2, which is missing from the latest version of the manuscript. After this correction, the manuscript will be sufficiently improved and suitable for publication in Education Sciences.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Figure 2 is added. Sorry for this oversight.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx