Attitudes and Interest of Greek Students Towards Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

We suggest you getting familiar to abstract writing:

Abstracts have a lot of information to cover in a short number of words, so it’s important to know what to include. There are three elements that need to be present in your abstract:

• Context

• Hypothesis

• Keywords

https://prowritingaid.com/how-to-write-an-abstract

The abstract must be rewritten.

line 30-31 reconsider punctuation

line 111 The fourth factor, Adoption of Scientific Attitudes (A), explores how open-minded students are (?) and ...

Author Response

Comments 1: The arguments and discussion of findings can be improved.

Response 1: The Discussion has been revised to be more coherent, balanced, and compelling (the changes are highlighted in green).

Comments 2: We suggest you getting familiar to abstract writing: Abstracts have a lot of information to cover in a short number of words, so it’s important to know what to include.

There are three elements that need to be present in your abstract: Context, Hypothesis, Keywordshttps://prowritingaid.com/how-to-write-an-abstract

The abstract must be rewritten.

Response 2: We revised the abstract to include (i) a clear context, emphasizing the need for a validated Greek measure; (ii) explicit research questions – rather than hypotheses, consistent with our instrument-adaptation design – that address the factor structure, reliability, acceptance levels, interrelations among the five retained factors, and demographic differences; and (iii) keywords. The abstract now also briefly reports the sample size (N = 662), the five scales used, the analyses conducted (EFA with parallel analysis and CFA), and the main results, including fit and reliability indices (the changes are highlighted in green).

Comments 3: line 30-31 reconsider punctuation

Response 3: We revised the punctuation in lines 30–31, which are now 27-28, by replacing the dashes with commas to improve readability and conform to standard academic style (the changes are highlighted in green).

Comments 4: Line 111 The fourth factor, Adoption of Scientific Attitudes (A), explores how open-minded students are (?) and ...

Response 4: In lines 114-116, the phrase has now changed to “The fourth factor, Adoption of Scientific Attitudes (A), examines the degree to which students are open-minded and their willingness to revise their views in response to scientific evidence.” (the changes are highlighted in green).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper and my apologies for the delay. Your first aim of this study was to adapt the TOSRA (Test of Science-Related Attitudes) questionnaire and survey over 700  students to evaluate the factor structure and reliability of the Greek TOSRA version - this aim is most thoroughly explored.  You also investigated participating students’ attitudes toward science and explored relations between factors. The most interesting part of the paper for me was how you explored demographic variables and their influence on attitudes towards science, as this is a continuing area of interest in many countries of the world. 

I found your paper to be well structured, thorough, and informative and I did like how you were so careful to define all your terminology and constructs  - this is so refreshing and professional. 

All aspects of data collection and analyses were well documented, in tables, graphs, diagrams and text. You write very well and your thoughts are easy to follow. 

You embed this Greek study coherently with the previous published literature and make rational inter-nation comparisons. You don't over claim and you make a series of sensitive remarks that proved insightful. 

I enjoyed reading your analytical insights and the discussion section. I agree that it would be interesting to investigate student attitudes over time, tracking possible changes from middle school to the end of high school. The results may of course depend on the quality of science education student receive. 

This study is novel in that TOSRA (Test of Science-Related Attitudes) was adapted to and administered to Greek students in one urban and one regional area. 

All this is quite fascinating. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for confirming that no revisions are needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research on students' attitudes towards the nature of science is abundant and still relevant. This research is part of this perspective, and the theoretical framework and quantitative methodology used for the analysis of the multiple-choice questionnaire data are not just well explained but also clear and robust. However, there is an urgent need for clarification regarding research question 2, as well as some corrections to the references.
* Line 32 : Schacter et al., 2012 → Reference : Schacter et al., 2011? (line 895)
* Line 36: Schacter et al., 2012 → Idem line 32
* Line 72 : ["Attitudes and Interests in the Natural Sciences" (1971)] → Reference to be specified …. Klopfer's taxonomy (1971)? 
Related to the seven factors cited in lines 78 to 80, it is crucial to indicate briefly in parentheses for each factor what it consists of after Fraser's Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). These factors play a significant role in the research outcomes.
* About research question #2 (lines 156-157), why choose only five factors of the TOSRA questionnaire? The choice of these five factors was based on their significant impact on the research outcomes. To be clarified?
Given the reasons for the removal of the following two factors "Social Implications of Science (S)" and "Normality of Scientists (N)" (lines 187-195), it is imperative to clarify why these factors, especially the one related to the social implications of science, do not enter into the educational framework and teaching practices as highligthed by the authors. 
* Line : 251 - Yong & Pearce, 2013 → Not indicated in the reference.
* To check – Not indicated in the text:
   - Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007)
   - George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019)
   - Khatoon, Z. (2021)

Author Response

Comments 1: The content could be more succinctly described and better contextualized with respect to the theoretical background and empirical research. The article could be more adequately referenced.

Response 1: The Introduction has been revised to provide a more concise description and clearer contextualization in relation to prior theoretical and empirical work in Greece (all changes are highlighted in gray in the manuscript).

Comments 2: There is an urgent need for clarification regarding research question 2, as well as some corrections to the references.

Response 2: The clarification has been made regarding Research Question 2 by adding the word ‘retained’, which was missing in the initial version. Additionally, the necessary corrections to the references have been implemented (all changes are highlighted in gray in the manuscript).

Comments 3: 

• Line 32 : Schacter et al., 2012 → Reference : Schacter et al., 2011? (line 895)
• * Line 36: Schacter et al., 2012 → Idem line 32
• * Line 72 : ["Attitudes and Interests in the Natural Sciences" (1971)] → Reference to be specified …. Klopfer's taxonomy (1971)?
• Related to the seven factors cited in lines 78 to 80, it is crucial to indicate briefly in parentheses for each factor what it consists of after Fraser's Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA). These factors play a significant role in the research outcomes.

Response 3: Lines 29 & 33 We have corrected the reference. The correct year is 2011, and the in-text citations have been updated accordingly.

Line 59 We have specified the reference accordingly. The sentence now reads:
“…Klopfer’s taxonomy ‘Attitudes and Interests in the Natural Sciences’ (Klopfer, 1971).”

Lines 75 to 83 We have revised the section and added brief explanatory notes in parentheses for each of the seven TOSRA factors to clarify their meaning and role.

(all changes are highlighted in gray in the manuscript)

Comments 4: About research question #2 (lines 156-157), why choose only five factors of the TOSRA questionnaire? The choice of these five factors was based on their significant impact on the research outcomes. To be clarified?
Given the reasons for the removal of the following two factors "Social Implications of Science (S)" and "Normality of Scientists (N)" (lines 187-195), it is imperative to clarify why these factors, especially the one related to the social implications of science, do not enter into the educational framework and teaching practices as highligthed by the authors. 

Response 4: Line 164 We revised research question #2 to specify the five retained factors of the adapted TOSRA-GR, thereby avoiding the implication of the full seven-factor TOSRA and aligning the question with the instrument actually used in this study.

Lines 197-209 We have better clarified in the manuscript that we excluded S and N factors because they evaluate distal socio-cultural constructs not targeted by our inquiry and experiment-focused instructional framework, and to reduce respondent burden from the 70-item instrument. The revised text now justifies the choice and explains why the five retained scales (I, A, E, L, C) directly align with our educational goals (all changes are highlighted in gray in the manuscript).

Comments 5: 

• Line : 251 - Yong & Pearce, 2013 → Not indicated in the reference.
• To check – Not indicated in the text:
     - Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007)
     - George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019)
     - Khatoon, Z. (2021)

Response 5: Line 265 We have added the missing reference to the list to ensure consistency with the in-text citation.

We also verified and made the in-text citations explicit: Dancey & Reidy (2007), George & Mallery (2019), and Khatoon (2021). We also checked consistency between in-text citations and the reference list (all changes are highlighted in gray in the manuscript).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf