Review Reports - Learning to Argue: How Do 4th and 6th Grade Students Use Multimodal Materials to Solve a Socioscientific Issue?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Clarification of the concepts of discourse (group discussions) and argumentation, and their analytical treatment

The authors are requested to clearly define the concepts of discourse (group discussions) and argumentation as referred to in the abstract and keywords. In the abstract, the authors state that one of the aims of the study is to evaluate students’ performance in argumentation, and that discourse (group discussions) was analyzed for this purpose. Section 2.2 (Data Analysis) also mentions the analysis conducted in the study. However, it is difficult to identify corresponding analyses and results related to discourse or argumentation within the manuscript.

Given that analytical approaches to socioscientific argumentation vary widely across studies (e.g., Evagorou et al., 2012; Garcia et al., 2013), it is understandable that different frameworks may be adopted. Nevertheless, the authors are encouraged to clarify whether and how discourse was concretely analyzed in this study, and to ensure that the reported results are explicitly aligned with the stated analytical focus. Please carefully examine whether the discussion and conclusions are clearly grounded in identifiable analytical findings related to discourse and/or argumentation.

Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.

García-Milà, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The Effect of Argumentative Task Goal on the Quality of Argumentative Discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.

Positioning of “solving a socioscientific issue” within existing research domains

The manuscript title includes the phrase “to solve a socioscientific issue.” The authors are encouraged to clarify how this study is positioned within existing research domains related to SSI. Over the past two decades, a substantial body of research has investigated socioscientific reasoning and socioscientific decision-making, including both empirical studies and teaching interventions. In addition, several review articles have been published that synthesize this body of research (e.g., Fang et al., 2019). Some SSI teaching studies have also focused on learning outcomes such as the acquisition of content knowledge (e.g., Zangori et al., 2017).

It would strengthen the manuscript to explicitly state which of these research strands (or themes) the present study aligns with. In addition, the authors should clarify how their analytical approach compares to those used in prior studies addressing similar themes. Such clarification is important for articulating the scholarly contribution of this study within the broader SSI literature.

Fang, S. C., Hsu, Y. S., & Lin, S. S. (2019). Conceptualizing socioscientific decision making from a review of research in science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(3), 427–448.

Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A. T., Friedrichsen, P., & Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model‐based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio‐scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1249-1273.

Theoretical background and roles of the questions used in the activity (Q1–Q7)

As a substantial portion of the results section focuses on the questions in the activity, further explanation is needed regarding the theoretical background of each question and the relationships among them. If Q7 is positioned as the final product (e.g., reasoning or decision-making), what roles do Q1–Q6 play in the learning process? For example, are these questions aligned with the steps of a structured decision-making process (e.g., Dauer et al., 2022; 2025) and designed to support students’ decision-making when solving SSIs? Alternatively, are they intended to sequentially assess or scaffold the content knowledge required for decision-making? A concise explanation of the role of each question within the framework of the study would be valuable.

Furthermore, interpretations of the results—such as differences in the level of performance—should be developed in light of the specific roles and interrelationships of the questions.

Dauer, J. M., Kirby, C. K., & Sorensen, A. E. (2025). Defining students’ socioscientific issues classroom decision-making components and practice proficiencies. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 7(1), Article 12.

Dauer, J. M., Sorensen, A. E., & Jimenez, P. C. (2022). Using structured decision making in the classroom to promote information literacy in the context of decision making. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(6), 75–82.

Value of analyzing sources of information (Q1–Q6)

Regarding Q1–Q6, the authors are encouraged to more clearly articulate the scholarly and practical value of analyzing the sources of information used by students. Although the authors cite relevant prior research as background, the manuscript would benefit from a clearer explanation of why a detailed examination of the materials used by students is particularly meaningful when considering the distinctive features of socioscientific issues. Because findings related to students’ use of provided materials are strongly shaped by how the questions are formulated, it is difficult to generalize these results without such an explanation. In this context, it remains unclear what implications researchers working on socioscientific reasoning or socioscientific decision-making, as well as practitioners engaged in SSI teaching or socioscientific argumentation, can draw from the foundational findings presented in this study. Clarifying the value of this analysis and its implications would enhance the contribution of the study to both research and practice.

Suggestions for tables and figures

Table 2 includes the following explanation: The asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant differences. However, no asterisks are visible in Table 2. Please verify this point.
In Figures 1–12, the row indicating source of information should be displayed using alphabetic symbols or similar markers rather than pictorial icons, in order to improve readability.
Figure 13 would benefit from being presented as a stacked bar chart, which would make differences in the distribution of relative frequencies more visually accessible.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below you will find responses to your suggestions and changes marked in red in the manuscript.

Comments 1: Clarification of the concepts of discourse (group discussions) and argumentation, and their analytical treatment.

The authors are requested to clearly define the concepts of discourse (group discussions) and argumentation as referred to in the abstract and keywords. In the abstract, the authors state that one of the aims of the study is to evaluate students’ performance in argumentation, and that discourse (group discussions) was analyzed for this purpose. Section 2.2 (Data Analysis) also mentions the analysis conducted in the study. However, it is difficult to identify corresponding analyses and results related to discourse or argumentation within the manuscript.

Evagorou, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.

García-Milà, M., Gilabert, S., Erduran, S., & Felton, M. (2013). The Effect of Argumentative Task Goal on the Quality of Argumentative Discourse. Science Education, 97(4), 497-523.

Response 1: Thank you for the references provided. It is true that the concepts of argumentation and discourse have different approaches in the literature. Our study is more aligned with the approach of Evagorou et al. (2012), as we analyze students' written arguments (individual and group) based on a categorization. The discourse analysis of the group work recordings was inductive, interacting with the data. These recordings complement the written group reports, as they provide more information for categorizing the response (for example, in the written response, some did not indicate where they obtained the data, but in their oral discourse they did) and for understanding the social dynamics of the group (for example, in some groups, the opinion of one member of the group was not taken into account). But we do not systematically analyze how many arguments or counterarguments are made per minute or per episode.

It has been modified in the manuscript in lines 185-188.

Comments 2: Positioning of “solving a socioscientific issue” within existing research domains.

The manuscript title includes the phrase “to solve a socioscientific issue.” The authors are encouraged to clarify how this study is positioned within existing research domains related to SSI. Over the past two decades, a substantial body of research has investigated socioscientific reasoning and socioscientific decision-making, including both empirical studies and teaching interventions. In addition, several review articles have been published that synthesize this body of research (e.g., Fang et al., 2019). Some SSI teaching studies have also focused on learning outcomes such as the acquisition of content knowledge (e.g., Zangori et al., 2017).

Zangori, L., Peel, A., Kinslow, A. T., Friedrichsen, P., & Sadler, T. D. (2017). Student development of model‐based reasoning about carbon cycling and climate change in a socio‐scientific issues unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(10), 1249-1273.

Response 2: Among all the research that exists on socioscientific issues, our study is based on classroom intervention with a self-designed SSI and its evaluation to analyze student performance. Specifically, it addresses evidence-based socioscientific reasoning, that is, how students seek and use evidence to reason, justify, and support their arguments (Fang et al., 2019). In addition, the design of the activity allows students to acquire knowledge about the content (presence of pharmaceuticals in wastewater, impact on health, etc.), as is the case with the carbon cycle in Zangori et al. (2017). This has been specified in lines 120-124.

As mentioned in the manuscript (lines 75-86), historically, most research on SSIs has been theoretical (Nielsen et al., 2020) or empirical studies on environmental literacy skills using qualitative methods (Narayanan et al., 2025; Kumar et al., 2024). Therefore, the analytical approach of our study is distinctive in that it uses both qualitative and quantitative methods and does not focus solely on literacy, but also seeks critical and systemic reflection, the development of scientific skills, and argumentative abilities. Furthermore, the participants in these studies are usually secondary school teachers and students (Chen & Xiao, 2021; Kumar et al., 2024), so our study provides a performance analysis with a group (Primary Education) that has been little studied in this field.

Comments 3: Theoretical background and roles of the questions used in the activity (Q1–Q7).

As a substantial portion of the results section focuses on the questions in the activity, further explanation is needed regarding the theoretical background of each question and the relationships among them. If Q7 is positioned as the final product (e.g., reasoning or decision-making), what roles do Q1–Q6 play in the learning process? For example, are these questions aligned with the steps of a structured decision-making process (e.g., Dauer et al., 2022; 2025) and designed to support students’ decision-making when solving SSIs? Alternatively, are they intended to sequentially assess or scaffold the content knowledge required for decision-making? A concise explanation of the role of each question within the framework of the study would be valuable.

Furthermore, interpretations of the results—such as differences in the level of performance—should be developed in light of the specific roles and interrelationships of the questions.

Dauer, J. M., Kirby, C. K., & Sorensen, A. E. (2025). Defining students’ socioscientific issues classroom decision-making components and practice proficiencies. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 7(1), Article 12.

Dauer, J. M., Sorensen, A. E., & Jimenez, P. C. (2022). Using structured decision making in the classroom to promote information literacy in the context of decision making. Journal of College Science Teaching, 51(6), 75–82.

Response 3: The activity is designed to be sequential, meaning that students build up an idea about the environmental problem as they answer each of the questions Q1-Q5, using the data from the different materials to argue their answers (what is polluting the river in Q1, where do the medicines come from in Q2, what diseases do they treat in Q3, how and why are they in the river if they are the least sold in Q4, to what extent are they harmful in Q5). Then, in Q6, students are asked to reflect on decision-making in the face of the controversial question of whether or not it is necessary to take medications. Finally, in Q7, once students have acquired a comprehensive view of the problem, they are asked about possible solutions, encouraging critical reflection and action. Therefore, the analysis of results is consistent with each question, since, although all questions require students to argue their answers using evidence, each question has a specific role (e.g., Q3 analyzes students' performance in relation to how they interpret textual information from a leaflet, how they synthesize information and create their own discourse, etc.).

This has been specified in lines 176-181.

Comments 4: Value of analyzing sources of information (Q1–Q6)

Response 4: This comment is closely related to the previous one. Each question in the activity requires the predominant use of a specific type of material (e.g., graphs in Q1, maps in Q2, etc.). Therefore, the analysis of the results is organized according to each question, with the aim of examining the students' performance in relation to the skills necessary to interpret and handle different types of resources (graphs, maps, texts, videos, among others). In this sense, although the activity focuses on a specific environmental issue, we consider it particularly valuable to analyze how students process information from each source. This analysis not only allows us to evaluate their understanding of the topic addressed, but also to obtain information about their argumentative, scientific, mathematical, and reading skills, which are transferable to other situations or topics of a socio-scientific nature. In fact, it would be desirable for future research to replicate this experience with an SSI on a different topic, while maintaining the diversity of semiotic modalities. In this way, it would be possible to assess how students mobilize their skills in different contexts, enriching the understanding of their cross-cutting abilities.

This has been specified in lines 752-760.

Comments 5: Suggestions for tables and figures.

Table 2 includes the following explanation: The asterisk (*) indicates statistically significant differences. However, no asterisks are visible in Table 2. Please verify this point.

In Figures 1–12, the row indicating source of information should be displayed using alphabetic symbols or similar markers rather than pictorial icons, in order to improve readability.

Figure 13 would benefit from being presented as a stacked bar chart, which would make differences in the distribution of relative frequencies more visually accessible.

Response 5: In the tables, we indicate significant differences with an asterisk. In fact, there are no differences in the data presented in Table 2, so we proceed to remove the asterisk symbol from the table title.

We believe that Figures 1-12, despite requiring careful reading, offer valuable information about each question in the activity, as they allow the reader to obtain more details about each case and relate individual students to the group to which they belong. Therefore, as it is a dense figure in itself, we consider that the images (icons with their corresponding captions) provide the information visually and, at a glance, it is possible to see whether video, text, triptych, or even the absence of evidence used predominates. Therefore, we would like to keep these figures.

As presented in Figure 6, it allows for a comparison of the solutions proposed individually and in groups in each academic year. We would like to keep it, as we believe that, together with the text, it provides a complete overview of Q7.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic in science and environmental education. The study is theoretically grounded, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into the challenges of implementing socioscientific issues and multimodal argumentation in primary education. While the sample size is small, this is not considered a limitation; rather, it provides an opportunity to explore the phenomenon in depth and in close detail from a phenomenological perspective. The findings are robust within the case-study design and contribute meaningfully to the field.

It would be valuable for the authors to consider including a discussion of the work of Jordi Solbes. His contributions are highly relevant in Spain regarding the study of socioscientific issues and critical thinking, and it is surprising that his research is not cited. Integrating his perspectives could strengthen the theoretical framing and situate the study more firmly within the existing national literature on these topics.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to provide constructive feedback on this manuscript. Below you will find responses to your suggestions and changes marked in red in the manuscript.

Comments: This manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic in science and environmental education. The study is theoretically grounded, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into the challenges of implementing socioscientific issues and multimodal argumentation in primary education. While the sample size is small, this is not considered a limitation; rather, it provides an opportunity to explore the phenomenon in depth and in close detail from a phenomenological perspective. The findings are robust within the case-study design and contribute meaningfully to the field.

Response: We fully agree with incorporating Jordi Solbes into the theoretical framework. Specifically, we have added two references:

1) Torres, N., & Solbes, J. (2018). Pensamiento crítico desde cuestiones socio-científicas. En D. M. Conrado & N. Nunes-Neto (Eds.), Questões sociocientíficas: fundamentos, propostas de ensino e perspectivas para ações sociopolíticas (pp. 59–76). EDUFBA. https://doi.org/10.7476/9788523220174.0004

- To contextualize why socio-scientific issues are appropriate for working on argumentative processes in the classroom. In line 62.

2) Monserrat, M. R., Cantó, J. y Solbes, J. (2025) El uso de las cuestiones sociocientíficas para mejorar la imagen de la ciencia y el interés del alumnado de ESO. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias 22(1), 1101. http://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2025.v22.i1.1101

- To justify that the use of socio-scientific issues in the classroom contributes to an improvement in students' opinion and image of science. Specifically, Solbes carried out this research with secondary school students on physics and chemistry. In line 70.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript investigates how 4th- and 6th-grade primary school students use multimodal materials to construct arguments when addressing a socioscientific issue (SSI) related to pharmaceutical pollution in surface water. Using a multiple case study design, the authors analyze students’ written and oral responses to evaluate argumentation performance, material use, levels of comprehension, and proposed solutions. The study is well grounded in Transformative Environmental Education (TEE) and socioscientific argumentation literature, and it contributes empirical evidence from primary education, an underrepresented educational level in SSI research. The main strengths of the paper lie in its rich qualitative analysis, the systematic use of established taxonomies (Barrett; Curcio), and the detailed discussion connecting empirical results to curriculum expectations.

General Comments

Relevance and Scope

The manuscript fits well within the scope of Education Sciences. It addresses socioscientific issues, argumentation, and multimodal literacy in primary education, all of which are timely and relevant topics. The focus on environmental pollution and One Health perspectives further enhances its societal relevance.
Conceptual Framework

The theoretical grounding in Transformative Environmental Education and socioscientific argumentation is appropriate and clearly articulated. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit conceptual model linking TEE, multimodal materials, and argumentation outcomes. Currently, these elements are well discussed but remain somewhat parallel rather than fully integrated.
Research Questions and Design

The research questions are clearly stated and logically derived from the literature review. The multiple case study design is appropriate for the exploratory and comparative aims of the study. Nevertheless, the rationale for combining qualitative discourse analysis with inferential statistics should be clarified, particularly in terms of how these approaches complement each other epistemologically.
Methodological Rigor and Reproducibility

The use of established analytical frameworks (Barrett’s taxonomy for text comprehension and Curcio’s taxonomy for graph comprehension) is a clear strength. However, more detail is needed regarding:
- Inter-rater reliability in qualitative coding.
- Training and calibration of coders.
- How disagreements were resolved.
  
  Without this information, reproducibility and reliability of the qualitative analysis are difficult to assess.
Statistical Analysis

The choice of non-parametric tests is justified given the lack of normality. However, the manuscript reports means and variances for ordinal performance levels. The authors should justify this choice more explicitly or consider reporting medians and interquartile ranges, which are more appropriate for ordinal data.
Results Interpretation

The results are presented in great detail, particularly for RQ2. While this richness is valuable, the section is very long and at times reads more like an analytical report than a synthesized results-and-discussion section. Some condensation and synthesis would improve readability.
Figures and Tables

Figures and tables are generally appropriate and informative. However:
- Some figures (e.g., Figures 1–8) are very dense and difficult to interpret without extensive reference to the text.
- The manuscript would benefit from clearer legends and possibly summarizing figures that synthesize key trends rather than presenting all individual-level data.
Conclusions and Implications

The conclusions are consistent with the presented results and appropriately cautious. The educational implications for primary education and teacher support are well articulated. However, limitations (e.g., single school context, socio-economic homogeneity) should be more explicitly acknowledged and discussed.
Ethics and Data Availability

Ethical procedures (informed consent, anonymity) are described adequately. A clearer data availability statement would strengthen compliance with MDPI’s data transparency guidelines.

Specific Comments

Introduction (Lines ~26–116)
- The introduction is comprehensive but lengthy. Consider streamlining the literature review by reducing repetition regarding the benefits of SSIs and argumentation.
- Clarify the distinction between “view 2” and “view 3” of scientific literacy and explain more explicitly why this study is positioned mainly within view 2.
Method – Context (Lines ~136–149)
- The description of the school context notes a “medium-high socioeconomic level.” Please clarify how this may influence students’ familiarity with multimodal materials and discuss implications for transferability.
Data Analysis (Lines ~150–172)
- Please report whether coding was conducted independently by more than one researcher and include inter-rater agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) if applicable.
- Specify whether discourse analysis followed a predefined framework or was inductive.
Results – RQ1 (Table 1 and Table 2)
- The use of means and variances for performance levels (1–5) should be justified, as these are ordinal categories.
- In Table 2, consider highlighting statistically significant results more clearly, as the table is difficult to read in its current form.
Results – RQ2 (Figures 1–8)
- The interpretation that students “avoid” graphs and maps may be overstated. Consider alternative explanations (e.g., insufficient scaffolding, cognitive overload).
- The comparison with the previous pilot study is valuable; however, differences in context and sample should be made explicit to avoid overgeneralization.
Results – RQ3
- The categorization of proposed solutions is interesting, but a short illustrative excerpt for each solution type would strengthen the qualitative dimension.
Discussion and Curriculum Alignment
- The discussion of Spanish curriculum expectations is thorough. However, it would be useful to reflect on whether the task design itself aligns optimally with curriculum demands, especially regarding graph and map interpretation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below you will find responses to your suggestions and changes marked in red in the manuscript.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Comments 1: Relevance and Scope. The manuscript fits well within the scope of Education Sciences. It addresses socioscientific issues, argumentation, and multimodal literacy in primary education, all of which are timely and relevant topics. The focus on environmental pollution and One Health perspectives further enhances its societal relevance.

Comments 2: Conceptual Framework. The theoretical grounding in Transformative Environmental Education and socioscientific argumentation is appropriate and clearly articulated. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit conceptual model linking TEE, multimodal materials, and argumentation outcomes. Currently, these elements are well discussed but remain somewhat parallel rather than fully integrated.

Response 2: A paragraph has been added linking the argumentation, the use of data in different semiotic modalities, and how this contributes to the development of a TEE. This has been modified in lines 54-60.

Comments 3: Research Questions and Design. The research questions are clearly stated and logically derived from the literature review. The multiple case study design is appropriate for the exploratory and comparative aims of the study. Nevertheless, the rationale for combining qualitative discourse analysis with inferential statistics should be clarified, particularly in terms of how these approaches complement each other epistemologically.

Response 3: The study adopts a conversion design (initial qualitative data transformed into numerical data) using mixed methods (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018; Hernández-Sampieri et al., 2014). The mixed method allows for combining qualitative depth with quantitative rigor, achieving a more complete understanding of the results. Thus, based on the different categorizations (qualitative analysis), quantitative variables (data transformation) were created and statistically processed using descriptive and inferential tools from Microsoft Excel™ and IBM® SPSS® Statistics 19 (2010).

This has been added to the lines 145-152.

Comments 4: Methodological Rigor and Reproducibility. The use of established analytical frameworks (Barrett’s taxonomy for text comprehension and Curcio’s taxonomy for graph comprehension) is a clear strength. However, more detail is needed regarding:

Inter-rater reliability in qualitative coding.
Training and calibration of coders.
How disagreements were resolved.

Without this information, reproducibility and reliability of the qualitative analysis are difficult to assess.

Response 4: During these processes, three authors of this study participated in triangulating the presented data. First, the responses were analyzed independently. Specifically, among the three authors, 30 cases were found to be in disagreement by one author (5.4%). Subsequently, they held a session in which the results were compared, reaching an agreement rate of over 90%. This has been modified in lines 188-191 of the manuscript.

Comments 5: Statistical Analysis. The choice of non-parametric tests is justified given the lack of normality. However, the manuscript reports means and variances for ordinal performance levels. The authors should justify this choice more explicitly or consider reporting medians and interquartile ranges, which are more appropriate for ordinal data.

Response 5: The representation of the sample with a centrality value can be affected by the mean values of that sample. For this reason, if we had a sample with completely isolated extreme values, it would be essential to use medians and quartiles. However, in this case, we see no problem in using a representation based on means and variances, as there are no extreme values in our sample. Furthermore, in other studies, the use of mean values is more common than the use of medians, so having similar statistics (mean) facilitates the comparison of our results with other studies. For all these reasons, we would like to maintain this presentation of the results.

Comments 6: Results Interpretation. The results are presented in great detail, particularly for RQ2. While this richness is valuable, the section is very long and at times reads more like an analytical report than a synthesized results-and-discussion section. Some condensation and synthesis would improve readability.

Response 6: In fact, RQ2 is the most extensive section of the results, as it analyzes the use of materials in each question of the case: graphic (Q1), map (Q2), text in leaflet format (Q3), combined use of materials (Q4), text (Q5), and subsequent decision-making (Q6). By also combining results with discussion, it may seem even more extensive. However, we consider it necessary to carry out a detailed analysis of how students from both educational courses argue using different materials. And given the length of the activity, we believe that combining the results with the discussion is the most appropriate way to reduce the perception of an analytical report. It is very difficult for us to synthesize the results any further, as the skills required for each question are different. If, on the other hand, all questions analyzed the use of texts or graphs, it would be feasible to group these results. However, as you mentioned in other comments, the analysis of the Spanish curriculum in terms of graphs and maps has been reduced in the results section. For greater clarity, excerpts from the types of solutions (Q7) have been included, and a distinction has been made between this study and the previous pilot study.

Comments 7: Figures and Tables. Figures and tables are generally appropriate and informative. However:

Some figures (e.g., Figures 1–8) are very dense and difficult to interpret without extensive reference to the text.
The manuscript would benefit from clearer legends and possibly summarizing figures that synthesize key trends rather than presenting all individual-level data.

Response 7: We consider Figures 1-8 to be complementary to the text, and despite containing individualized information, we believe they offer enriching information for each question in the activity, as they allow the reader to obtain more details about each case study and connect individual students with the group to which they belong.

Comments 8: Conclusions and Implications. The conclusions are consistent with the presented results and appropriately cautious. The educational implications for primary education and teacher support are well articulated. However, limitations (e.g., single school context, socio-economic homogeneity) should be more explicitly acknowledged and discussed.

Response 8: The limitations of this study have been added to the conclusions section, as well as the implications it has for educators and researchers. This has been added to the lines 741-760.

Comments 9: Ethics and Data Availability. Ethical procedures (informed consent, anonymity) are described adequately. A clearer data availability statement would strengthen compliance with MDPI’s data transparency guidelines.

Response 9: The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. The figures show the performance levels of each student as well as the materials they use to answer. The supplementary material includes the research notebook given to students with a reference answer and the categorization used with the description of each level (1-5). The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. This has been modified in lines 788-789.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Comments 1: Introduction (Lines ~26–116).

The introduction is comprehensive but lengthy. Consider streamlining the literature review by reducing repetition regarding the benefits of SSIs and argumentation.
Clarify the distinction between “view 2” and “view 3” of scientific literacy and explain more explicitly why this study is positioned mainly within view 2.

Response 1: First, the ideas from the theoretical framework explaining the benefits of SSIs and argumentation have been summarized, along with specific examples from studies demonstrating these benefits. This has been added to the lines 61-74; 100-106.

Regarding views 2 and 3 of scientific literacy, view 2 is based on applying scientific knowledge to real and controversial contexts, even encouraging citizen participation. View 3, on the other hand, goes a step further, as students acquire such a global perspective on environmental issues that they decide to take action and get involved in social transformation issues. Therefore, the teaching proposal presented in this study is more in line with view 2, as we base ourselves on a real and controversial context (the presence of pharmaceuticals in wastewater) and invite students to participate in reflecting on solutions. And although some students decide to take action and change habits in their daily lives or those of their families, this activity has not led to social transformation, such as sending a letter to the environment department explaining the problem and demanding solutions, or recording a video about the issue and sharing it on social media, etc. This could be a continuation of this activity, in which case both views would be addressed. This has been modified in lines 41-42; 47-49, 113-115 of the manuscript.

Comments 2: Method – Context (Lines ~136–149).

The description of the school context notes a “medium-high socioeconomic level.” Please clarify how this may influence students’ familiarity with multimodal materials and discuss implications for transferability.

Response 2: To clarify this point, further details have been provided on the classification of the school as a medium-high socioeconomic level school, taking into account the average annual household income in its context and the characteristics of the family and school environment. It also explains how these conditions, according to scientific literature, mean that students are accustomed to receiving all kinds of information. This has been added to the lines 158-169.

Comments 3: Data Analysis (Lines ~150–172)

Please report whether coding was conducted independently by more than one researcher and include inter-rater agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) if applicable.
Specify whether discourse analysis followed a predefined framework or was inductive.

Response 3:

The first part about coding has already been answered in general comment 4.

The discourse analysis of the group work recordings was inductive, interacting with the data. These recordings complement the written group reports, as they provide more information for categorizing the response (for example, in the written response, some did not indicate where they obtained the data, but in their oral discourse they did) and for understanding the social dynamics of the group (for example, in some groups, the opinion of one member of the group was not taken into account). This has been added to the line 188.

Comments 4: Results – RQ1 (Table 1 and Table 2)

The use of means and variances for performance levels (1–5) should be justified, as these are ordinal categories.
In Table 2, consider highlighting statistically significant results more clearly, as the table is difficult to read in its current form.

Response 4:

Regarding the use of means and variances, this has been addressed previously in general comment number 5.

In the tables, we indicate significant differences with an asterisk. In fact, there are no differences in the data presented in Table 2, so we proceed to remove the asterisk symbol from the table title.

Comments 5: Results – RQ2 (Figures 1–8)

The interpretation that students “avoid” graphs and maps may be overstated. Consider alternative explanations (e.g., insufficient scaffolding, cognitive overload).
The comparison with the previous pilot study is valuable; however, differences in context and sample should be made explicit to avoid overgeneralization.

Response 5:

The direct idea that “they avoid using graphs and maps” has been removed. This has been modified in the lines 282-284.

The sample size and context of the pilot study have been indicated the first time they are mentioned in the manuscript. This has been added in the lines 109-110.

Comments 6: Results – RQ3

The categorization of proposed solutions is interesting, but a short illustrative excerpt for each solution type would strengthen the qualitative dimension.

Response 6: More extracts of solution types have been added to the lines 675-681.

Comments 7: Discussion and Curriculum Alignment

The discussion of Spanish curriculum expectations is thorough. However, it would be useful to reflect on whether the task design itself aligns optimally with curriculum demands, especially regarding graph and map interpretation.

Response 7: The explanation of the Spanish curriculum analysis has been reduced, and it has been specified that the cognitive demands of the activity in relation to the use of graphs and maps are in line with the Spanish curriculum. This has been modified in the lines 325-332; 394-398.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the careful revisions you have made to clarify your definitions and theoretical stance. These additions enhance readers’ understanding and more clearly articulate the contribution of your study to the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revise and respond the manuscript according to the comments given.