Integrating Reading, Writing, and Digital Tools in Science: A Participatory-Design Study of the InSPECT Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for providing me with such a opportunity to review this important work. The manuscript addresses an important and timely research problem. But it does need revisions to demonstrate its potential.

1. Clarification of Key Terms and Constructs

• Because this manuscript is part of a larger project, the authors should clearly define key terms as they are used specifically in this paper. For instance, how is disciplinary literacy defined within the current study, particularly when the research focus appears to be on reading and writing? Additionally, how is disciplinary literacy explicitly connected to multimodal document (MD) in science teaching and learning?

2. Theoretical vs. Instructional Frameworks

• The manuscript references several frameworks—such as quad text sets, the Before–During–After (BDA) framework, and InSPECT—but does not differentiate between theoretical and instructional frameworks.

First, which of these represent instructional frameworks?

Second, what theoretical foundations guided the design of InSPECT framework? For example, MD Integrated Reading and Writing is listed under theoretical foundations, but the underlying theory is not clearly articulated.

• If the central focus of the manuscript is the collaborative design process in which teachers and researchers worked together to adapt the InSPECT framework, the authors need to clarify which theory or design principles guided this collaboration. This theoretical grounding is essential to justify the intervention in  the PD regarding methodological and instructional decisions made.

3. Literature Review Needs Expansion

• The current literature review does not sufficiently address prior research on science teachers’ perceptions of professional development focused on integrating disciplinary literacy/ Reading, Writing, and Digital Tools in science classrooms. Given the research questions, the manuscript would benefit from a more robust synthesis of relevant empirical studies. In addition, is AI a digital tool for science classrooms or teachers lesson planning?

4. Methodology: Clarifying Mixed-Methods Design

• Although the authors state that a mixed-methods approach was used, the manuscript does not clearly explain:
• How quantitative and qualitative data were integrated to triangulate findings.
• Which type of mixed-methods design was employed (e.g., sequential, concurrent, or embedded).
• The section on data analysis is too general. More detail is needed regarding:
• Specific analytic procedures,
• How qualitative coding was conducted,
• Potential inclusion of coding samples to demonstrate analytic rigor.

5. Findings: Context and Source of Data

• Findings are structured according to the research questions, which is appropriate. However, the manuscript does not clarify the context or source of the quoted data (e.g., interviews, written reflections, observation notes). This ambiguity makes it difficult to evaluate the evidentiary basis for the claims.
• Please double check the updated citation for the NGSS.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Dear Authors,

Please find attached my report from the review of your manuscript.
Best of luck with your continued work.

Kind regards,

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf