Scientific Thinking Promotes the Development of Critical Thinking in Primary Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the resubmitted manuscript.

The authors have addressed all my previous comments and concerns.

Well-done.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment: Thank you for the opportunity to review the resubmitted manuscript.

The authors have addressed all my previous comments and concerns.

Well-done.

Response: Thanks, we appreciate the efforts of the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review section of the study is adequate; however, there are certain methodological shortcomings that need to be addressed.

In the text, it is not clearly understood that “Retos de pensamiento EdP_5P” and “Thinking Challenges Test” refer to the same test. This relationship should be stated more explicitly or indicated in parentheses. Although the two terms have been matched, there is no sentence at the beginning of the text that clearly defines this translation relationship. Presenting the Spanish name of the test together with its English equivalent in the first instance and then using the same name consistently thereafter would help prevent potential confusion for the reader.

The research method used in the study is not clearly stated. Although it is explained that the study is quantitative and that the sample was randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, the specific name of the research design is not explicitly mentioned. When describing the sample, it is stated that there were 30 students in each group, with 16 girls and 14 boys in each. However, due to ethical considerations, it is noted that the test was also administered to students with learning difficulties, cognitive impairments, or reading delays, but their data were excluded from the analyses. Following this explanation, the exact number of students whose data were not used should also be clearly indicated.

Although the author provides certain explanations about the test used in the study, the total number of items, the number of items in each sub-dimension, and whether the test is Likert-type or dichotomous are not clearly stated. If the test contains items with varying numbers of response options, including open-ended questions, it is unclear how the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. More precise information about the instrument should be provided, and ideally, example items for each sub-dimension should be included in the article. This is particularly important because, as stated, only a single quantitative instrument was used in the study. Under these circumstances, the validity and reliability of this instrument are crucial for interpreting the study’s results.

It should be clarified whether the free-response items in the test were analyzed by a single researcher or by multiple researchers. If multiple researchers conducted the analysis, the inter-rater agreement value should be reported. In addition, a detailed table of the rubric used for scoring should be included in the study.

On page 3, line 113, it is stated that there is supplementary material; however, since I did not have access to it, I could not review it. In any case, it is not clearly understood what specific instructions were given to the control and experimental groups, nor is it clear whether a specific method was applied in the experimental group.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment: The literature review section of the study is adequate; however, there are certain methodological shortcomings that need to be addressed.

In the text, it is not clearly understood that “Retos de pensamiento EdP_5P” and “Thinking Challenges Test” refer to the same test. This relationship should be stated more explicitly or indicated in parentheses. Although the two terms have been matched, there is no sentence at the beginning of the text that clearly defines this translation relationship. Presenting the Spanish name of the test together with its English equivalent in the first instance and then using the same name consistently thereafter would help prevent potential confusion for the reader.

Response: Thanks, we have reviewed your suggestion and have clarified this point in the manuscript (L 139-140, 164, 261).

 

Comment: The research method used in the study is not clearly stated. Although it is explained that the study is quantitative and that the sample was randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, the specific name of the research design is not explicitly mentioned. When describing the sample, it is stated that there were 30 students in each group, with 16 girls and 14 boys in each. However, due to ethical considerations, it is noted that the test was also administered to students with learning difficulties, cognitive impairments, or reading delays, but their data were excluded from the analyses. Following this explanation, the exact number of students whose data were not used should also be clearly indicated.

Response: We have confirmed the total number of participants in the manuscript (L 95). While we initially proposed excluding students with learning difficulties, cognitive impairments, or reading delays, we found that no participants had these issues. Therefore, we decided to remove this exclusion criterion from the text to prevent any confusion.

 

Comment: Although the author provides certain explanations about the test used in the study, the total number of items, the number of items in each sub-dimension, and whether the test is Likert-type or dichotomous are not clearly stated. If the test contains items with varying numbers of response options, including open-ended questions, it is unclear how the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. More precise information about the instrument should be provided, and ideally, example items for each sub-dimension should be included in the article. This is particularly important because, as stated, only a single quantitative instrument was used in the study. Under these circumstances, the validity and reliability of this instrument are crucial for interpreting the study’s results.

Response: We have now included the total number of items as well as the number of items corresponding to each sub-dimension (L 144-149, 175-176).

For critical thinking, the test utilized was Thinking Challenges Test (Retos de pensamiento EdP_5P) published in Vásquez-Alonso, Á., & Manassero-Mas, M. A. (2020). Evaluación de destrezas de pensamiento crítico: validación de instrumentos libres de cultura. TED: Tecné, Episteme y Didaxis, 47, 15-32. https://doi.org/10.17227/ted.num47-9801.

For scientific thinking, we conducted a thorough validation process to ensure the reliability and validity of the instrument designed to assess scientific thinking in children. This process included both content validation and pilot testing, supported by statistical analysis. For content validity, a panel of experts reviewed the items. They assessed how well these items corresponded to the core components of scientific thinking, such as observation, hypothesis generation, experimentation, and reasoning. Based on their feedback, we made revisions to enhance clarity, developmental appropriateness, and relevance. Following expert review, the instrument was pilot-tested with a representative sample of children within the target age group. This phase aimed to evaluate the comprehensibility of the items for the children, attention during the application, and the time required to complete the tasks or respond to the items. During this phase, qualitative observations and informal interviews with children and teachers helped identify any items that were confusing, too difficult, or lacked relevance. After refining the instrument, it was administered to a larger sample. Statistical techniques (Cronbach’s alpha) were used to assess internal consistency (reliability). Finally, based on the statistical findings and ongoing feedback from educators, the instrument underwent several rounds of revision. Items that showed low discriminatory power or did not load well on relevant factors were modified or removed.

 

Comment: It should be clarified whether the free-response items in the test were analyzed by a single researcher or by multiple researchers. If multiple researchers conducted the analysis, the inter-rater agreement value should be reported. In addition, a detailed table of the rubric used for scoring should be included in the study.

Response: The items of both tests were analyzed by a single researcher who was unaware of the study's hypothesis. We specified this in the manuscript (L 201-202).

 

Comment: On page 3, line 113, it is stated that there is supplementary material; however, since I did not have access to it, I could not review it. In any case, it is not clearly understood what specific instructions were given to the control and experimental groups, nor is it clear whether a specific method was applied in the experimental group.

Response: In control and the experimental group, the study included a pre-test, an intervention, and a post-test. The pre-test consisted of an assessment of critical and scientific thinking which was considered a baseline measure of the student's performance. The program designed for the experimental group incorporated workshop activities along with a structured framework of the scientific method using a template (supplementary material). In the revised manuscript, we have clarified (L 105-107; 113-119).

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article represents a valuable effort to address a highly relevant topic in the field of science education. The researchers' work demonstrates a genuine interest in analyzing the role of teaching in the development of critical thinking skills, which is a necessary and timely line of inquiry. Moreover, the authors’ commitment to providing a contribution that, with appropriate adjustments, could significantly enrich the field is commendable.

Strengths

• The abstract is clear, complete, and provides the necessary information to understand the study.
• The references are properly compiled and follow academic citation standards.
• The topic addressed is pertinent and of interest to the academic community in science education.

Weaknesses

1. Title: The article presents its title as a question, which is not the most appropriate format for a scientific paper. A more affirmative or descriptive formulation would provide greater precision and formality.
2. Keywords: The list is excessive and redundant, repeating terms already included in the title. This limits the article’s visibility in academic databases and reduces its potential for future citations.
3. Introduction: While important statements are made about scientific thinking, they lack bibliographic support. For instance, the claim that “science education is crucial for developing critical thinking skills because it encourages students to analyze, evaluate evidence, and formulate hypotheses” should be grounded in relevant scholarly references.
4. Hypothesis and objectives: Although a general hypothesis is outlined in the abstract, the main text does not clearly state the hypothesis, research objectives, or guiding research question. This omission weakens the study’s design and reduces its methodological rigor.
5. Inclusive language: The manuscript does not adopt inclusive language, which is an important methodological and ethical aspect in contemporary academic writing.
6. Results and discussion:
• The results are limited and not conclusive.
• The discussion introduces factors that are only loosely related to the intervention, which weakens the interpretation of findings.
7. Limitations: The limitations section is underdeveloped and does not thoroughly address the methodological or contextual constraints that may have influenced the results.

Recommendations

• Reframe the title in an affirmative and precise manner.
• Reduce and carefully select keywords, avoiding redundancy with the title.
• Support general claims about science education and critical thinking with appropriate scholarly references.
• Explicitly state the hypothesis, objectives, and research question.
• Revise the text to adopt inclusive language throughout the manuscript.
• Reorganize the discussion so that it directly addresses the study’s findings and avoids unrelated external factors.
• Expand the limitations section, providing a more thorough analysis of methodological and contextual weaknesses.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment: The article represents a valuable effort to address a highly relevant topic in the field of science education. The researchers' work demonstrates a genuine interest in analyzing the role of teaching in the development of critical thinking skills, which is a necessary and timely line of inquiry. Moreover, the authors’ commitment to providing a contribution that, with appropriate adjustments, could significantly enrich the field is commendable.

Strengths

The abstract is clear, complete, and provides the necessary information to understand the study.

The references are properly compiled and follow academic citation standards.

The topic addressed is pertinent and of interest to the academic community in science education.

Weaknesses

Title: The article presents its title as a question, which is not the most appropriate format for a scientific paper. A more affirmative or descriptive formulation would provide greater precision and formality.

Keywords: The list is excessive and redundant, repeating terms already included in the title. This limits the article’s visibility in academic databases and reduces its potential for future citations.

Introduction: While important statements are made about scientific thinking, they lack bibliographic support. For instance, the claim that “science education is crucial for developing critical thinking skills because it encourages students to analyze, evaluate evidence, and formulate hypotheses” should be grounded in relevant scholarly references.

Hypothesis and objectives: Although a general hypothesis is outlined in the abstract, the main text does not clearly state the hypothesis, research objectives, or guiding research question. This omission weakens the study’s design and reduces its methodological rigor.

Inclusive language: The manuscript does not adopt inclusive language, which is an important methodological and ethical aspect in contemporary academic writing.

Results and discussion: The results are limited and not conclusive.

The discussion introduces factors that are only loosely related to the intervention, which weakens the interpretation of findings.

Limitations: The limitations section is underdeveloped and does not thoroughly address the methodological or contextual constraints that may have influenced the results.

 

Recommendation: Reframe the title in an affirmative and precise manner.

Response: Done (L 2-3).

 

Recommendation: Reduce and carefully select keywords, avoiding redundancy with the title.

Response: Done (L 20).

 

Recommendation: Support general claims about science education and critical thinking with appropriate scholarly references.

Response: We have revised the manuscript to provide support for all general claims related to science education and critical thinking with appropriate and current scholarly references (L 46-55).

 

Recommendation: Explicitly state the hypothesis, objectives, and research question.

Response: We have updated the introduction section to clearly and explicitly outline the study’s hypothesis, research objectives, and research questions. Please see 87-92 L.

 

Recommendation: Revise the text to adopt inclusive language throughout the manuscript.

Response: In order to improve the gender inclusivity of the manuscript, we have clarified in the methods section that to the best knowledge of their teachers, all of the children in the study were cisgender (L 97, 356). This makes it clear that the terms “boys” and “girls” when used in the manuscript refer to cisgender boys and cisgender girls. We also clarify this point in the discussion when addressing gender differences. After reviewing the manuscript, this was the only potential language inclusivity issue that we identified. If there are others, we would appreciate the reviewer pointing them out specifically.

 

Recommendation: Reorganize the discussion so that it directly addresses the study’s findings and avoids unrelated external factors.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion; we have started the discussion with our main findings as suggested by the reviewer (L 290-295).

 

Recommendation: Expand the limitations section, providing a more thorough analysis of methodological and contextual weaknesses.

Response: We have revised this section to offer a more thorough discussion of the methodological and contextual limitations of our study. Specifically, we now acknowledge that our sample size was relatively small and confined to a specific region, which may impact the generalizability of our findings. Future research should aim to overcome these limitations related to sample size. This addition has been included in the manuscript (L 418-424).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello

In my previous review, I noted that the research method used in the study was not clearly stated. The authors have not provided any explanation regarding this issue in the methodology section. Instead, they have only added the statement “The experimental methodology involved pre- and posttest applications” to the abstract. However, the methodology section of the article still lacks a detailed explanation of this approach. The study appears to be a true experimental design, as the sample was randomly assigned to groups. Therefore, it is important that the methodology section includes a clear and detailed description of this research design.

Author Response

Comment:

In my previous review, I noted that the research method used in the study was not clearly stated. The authors have not provided any explanation regarding this issue in the methodology section. Instead, they have only added the statement “The experimental methodology involved pre- and posttest applications” to the abstract. However, the methodology section of the article still lacks a detailed explanation of this approach. The study appears to be a true experimental design, as the sample was randomly assigned to groups. Therefore, it is important that the methodology section includes a clear and detailed description of this research design.

 

Response:

We appreciate your feedback. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included a more detailed description of the research design in the methodology section (L 98-100). Specifically, we clarified that we employed a longitudinal quasi-experimental design that included a pre-test and post-test, along with a comparison (control) group. The groups were pre-formed, and we randomly assigned which group would use the template featuring characters that guided each step: observation, question, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusions. The assignment was determined using a coin toss to ensure randomness. We have also clarified this information in the abstract (L 8-9).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. 

The manuscript is well-written and addresses important topics, especially at the primary school level. It has merits. However, I have some comments that I think should be addressed.

1) The introduction addresses the associations between scientific thinking and critical thinking. It effectively highlights the role of science education in fostering critical thinking skills in elementary education. The mention of various perspectives on scientific knowledge (history, technology, and science itself) provides a broader context for understanding the importance of the scientific method and scientific thinking. However, the authors should provide more explanation about the importance of critical thinking and scientific thinking and how can these elements affect cognitive and learning abilities. 

The concept of critical thinking and its importance is repeated several times throughout the introduction. Detailed discussion of problem-solving, decision-making, and logical reasoning should be integrated more efficiently to avoid redundancy. 

Although the research's overarching objective is evident, the precise context or setting of the study—such as "in central Mexico"—is not sufficiently described.  The reader would gain a better understanding of the study's significance if additional background information regarding the central Mexican educational system or the reasons behind its selection would be provided. Although the introduction stresses the value of encouraging pupils to think critically and scientifically, it only briefly discusses the responsibility of the teacher.  A more thorough grasp of the process would be offered by elaborating on the ways in which educators might develop these abilities (beyond only "understanding how to execute it effectively").

2) Methods

Although the intervention is explained, it would be beneficial to provide more specific examples of how the students applied the scientific method in practice. The explanation of the intervention's structure is a little general, and it would be better to elaborate on how the scientific method template specifically promotes critical thinking.

The use of linear models and post-hoc testing is mentioned in the statistical analysis section, however neither the rationale for the selection of linear models nor the implications of the model assumptions are explained.  Clarity and the reasoning behind the analysis would be enhanced by a succinct explanation of the statistical tests used.

3) Discussion: I recommend starting the section with the aims of the study.

4) I think that the limitations section highlights the limitations indeed which can affect the abilty to generalize the results. the question is how to deal with these limitations? 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The article has taken into account most of the changes we proposed in the previous evaluation. The instruments used are clarified and the constructivist character of the control group has been eliminated. In the discussion, the results obtained are compared with those of other authors. The character traits in critical thinking, which presented two problems, are eliminated: lack of definition and not being evaluated. In conclusion, the article can be accepted as it is

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the relationship between scientific thinking and the development of critical thinking in fifth-grade students in Mexico, using a longitudinal design with control and experimental groups. The originality of the study lies in its use of a pedagogical model structured around the scientific method, adapted for children through the inclusion of playful characters, and in its focus on specific cognitive skills within an educational context. I have several comments about the manuscript, detailed below.

Introduction

- The specific objectives of the study need to be more clearly defined. Consider presenting them as bullet points at the end of the introduction, explicitly linking each objective to the stated hypothesis.

Materials and Methods

- It is advisable to include a subsection on 'Measures' to better organize the information regarding each instrument used.

- Is the instrument “Retos de pensamiento' validated for students in Mexico? Lack of validation for the target population can compromise the accuracy of findings, limit the generalizability of the results, and potentially lead to incorrect conclusions or recommendations. It is is essential to confirm the robustness and applicability of this instrument in Mexican educational settings.

- The validation process for the 'Scientific Thinking' instrument is insufficiently described, which raises concerns about its reliability and validity. For instance, how the five skills were grouped? 

Results

- The analyses examining whether there are statistically significant differences between boys and girls, as well as between the control and experimental groups, for each dimension of both questionnaires are included in the supplementary material. However, the information provided (i.e., only a table) is insufficient for readers to fully understand the key points.

- The authors treated the instruments as unidimensional measures (i.e., they considered only the total score across groups). Why was this approach chosen when the supplementary material indicates mixed results across different skills?

- Consider adding a correlation analysis among the dimensions of each instrument.

- In addition to p-values, include effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d for post-hoc comparisons and partial eta squared for ANOVA analyses). In the methodology section, please classify effect sizes as small, medium, or large for each test conducted to clarify the magnitude of observed differences.

Discussion

- Begin the discussion by revisiting the study’s hypothesis and objectives, linking them directly to the key findings from the results.

- The limitations of the study are currently unclear and seem mixed with future research perspectives.