Active Methodologies, Educational Values, and Assessment Strategies in Master’s Theses: A Mixed-Methods Study by Gender and Educational Level in Geography and History Teacher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank and congratulate the author for the work. It is of great interest for the academy, it deals with a relevant topic and it can be used to advance in the process of elaboration of TFM.

In methodological terms, it is sufficiently solid in terms of the analyses carried out and the approach used. The mixed method is perceived as the most appropriate for this study model. In terms of improvement, the sample could be considered somewhat small, as the number of papers is not high and corresponds to only one university. The quality of the study could be improved by incorporating papers from other universities using similar FMT models.

As far as the results are concerned, they are complete, dense and clear. Although they show a lot of variety, I think it would be useful to synthesise some parts, condensing and categorising certain answers that are related to each other.

Regarding the discussion and conclusions, I find a great coherence with respect to the objectives, results and bibliography. However, the section on limitations is lacking in my opinion, as it would be useful to express what could have changed if the sample had been larger or if other areas of knowledge outside geography and history had been included.

Author Response

Reviewer’s Comment 1: “In methodological terms, it is sufficiently solid in terms of the analyses carried out and the approach used. The mixed method is perceived as the most appropriate for this study model. In terms of improvement, the sample could be considered somewhat small, as the number of papers is not high and corresponds to only one university. The quality of the study could be improved by incorporating papers from other universities using similar TFM models.”

Author’s Response:  Thank you very much for this valuable observation. We agree that the sample size and the scope of institutions included are important factors in assessing the generalizability of the findings. To address this point, we have introduced two specific improvements in the revised manuscript:

• Materials and Methods section (p. 4): We clarified that although all TFMs originate from a single institution, Universidad Isabel I operates nationally and serves a highly diverse student population across Spain. This diversity provides a heterogeneous and representative sample in terms of socio-educational and geographic backgrounds.

• Discussion section (p. 21): We included a new paragraph that explicitly acknowledges the limitation of the sample and suggests the inclusion of TFMs from other institutions and subject areas as a future line of research. This addition helps contextualize the scope of the study and strengthens its potential for expansion.

Reviewer’s Comment 2: “As far as the results are concerned, they are complete, dense and clear. Although they show a lot of variety, I think it would be useful to synthesise some parts, condensing and categorising certain answers that are related to each other.”

Author’s Response:  Thank you very much for your positive feedback on the clarity and depth of the results section, as well as for your helpful suggestion. We fully agree that grouping related responses and reducing narrative dispersion improves the overall readability and coherence of the findings.

Therefore, we have implemented a substantial reorganization of the Results section (pp. 21-24), where: Qualitative responses have been grouped into more coherent subcategories; Redundant examples have been removed, and repetitive phrasing has been condensed; Closing summary sentences have been added at the end of each subsection to highlight the main patterns observed.

Reviewer’s Comment 3: “However, the section on limitations is lacking in my opinion, as it would be useful to express what could have changed if the sample had been larger or if other areas of knowledge outside geography and history had been included.”

Author’s Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. In response, we have expanded the final paragraph of the Discussion section (p. 24) to reflect on the implications of including other areas of knowledge beyond Geography and History. Specifically, we note that while the observed trends—such as the use of formative assessment, critical thinking, and values-based education—are closely tied to the pedagogical identity of Social Sciences, these approaches could also be relevant in fields like Spanish Language and Literature, where historical discourse, textual interpretation, and ethical reflection are likewise central. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is explicitly stated by the researchers and is "whether there exist any differences in the selection of teaching methodologies, assessment instruments, and educational values in Master's Theses (TFMs) written within the Geography and History specialization of a Teacher Training Master's program in Spain". No significant differences have been detected. Pedagogical methodologies do not differ by gender according to the results and authors should explain and interpret their result based on different literature focusing on gender as a social construction. This could be the real contribution of this article beyond the “ no differences” result. Thus the conclusions do not add anything to the existing knowledge and the authors are asked to reconsider the focus and the interpretation of their research. Otherwise the article remains a study without added value to the scientific knowledge.  Thus, I suggest to authors to revise the focus of their discussion and literature to support the argument why no differences exist – and why this,  from the gender perspective,  was the expected one.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Satisfactory- no comments

Author Response

Comments  1: 
“Pedagogical methodologies do not differ by gender according to the results and authors should explain and interpret their result based on different literature focusing on gender as a social construction. This could be the real contribution of this article beyond the ‘no differences’ result.”
“Thus, I suggest to authors to revise the focus of their discussion and literature to support the argument why no differences exist – and why this, from the gender perspective, was the expected one.”

Response to Reviewer Comments: We thank the reviewer for this valuable and constructive comment. Following the recommendation, we have revised the discussion section to incorporate a theoretical interpretation of the absence of significant gender-based differences. Specifically, we have added a new paragraph that contextualizes our findings within current literature on gender as a social and relational construction (Francis & Paechter, 2015; Paechter, 2021).

This new section argues that the observed convergence in the selection of pedagogical methodologies, values, and assessment tools in TFMs may reflect the development of a shared pedagogical culture among pre-service teachers, rather than the absence of gender dynamics. We also draw on the contributions of Warin and Gannerud (2014), who describe how values traditionally associated with femininity—such as care and empathy—are increasingly adopted across gender lines in teacher education. Additionally, the work of Greco (2013) supports our interpretation by highlighting how gender is socially constructed from early experiences and educational interactions.

This expanded interpretation, now included in the discussion (p. 20), responds directly to the reviewer's suggestion and positions the “no difference” finding not as a limitation, but as a reflection of evolving norms in teacher identity and professional development.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting the paper about active methodologies, educational values and assessment strategies for review. This is a large area to cover in one paper, and consideration should be given to refocusing the paper on one of these areas e.g. pedagogical approaches, or assessment strategies. The underpinning rationale for understanding the varied pedagogical approaches, educational values and assessment strategies in terms of gender needs to be clearly explained and justified. Currently, the overall purpose of this research is unclear about (a) why it is important to know about various approaches in relation to gender and/or educational level, and (b) the contribution this knowledge makes to the discipline of Geography and/or the discipline of History, and/or to Educational research. 

The university at which the study was conducted appears to be identified, along with the specific degree program under review. Ethically, this university should be de-identified. If the university name used in the paper is a pseudonym, together with the program under investigation, this needs to be made clear and obvious to the reader. 

The Materials and methodology section needs clearer explanation in response to timeframes, participants and data generation methods. Also, clarification and justification needs to be given to the rationale for there being four phases.  Phase 1 appears to be about data collection. If data analysis is happening in Phase 2, 3 and 4, there needs to be clarification about why three phases of data analysis are necessary.

In Phase 1, there needs to be clarity about the data collection methods and the timeframe. In Phases 2 - 4, clarification about timeframes would be helpful together with a rationale for there being three phases focused on data analysis – typically longitudinal studies would have a data generation component in each phase, alongside data analysis. 

The Results section is lengthy in comparison to the Discussion section. The Discussion should focus on key findings, and the key findings need to be clearly emphasised in the Results, so the two sections of the paper are better aligned – currently multiple results shared yet only a few of these results are discussed. Further, the Discussion section needs greater robustness in response to the importance of such findings and implications for future practice. A refocusing of results and discussion is recommended in alignment with the recommendation about choosing one area to report on e.g. pedagogical approaches, or assessment strategies.

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper attempts to cover too many elements at once: active methodologies, educational values, and assessment instruments. Consider narrowing the focus to just one area (e.g., pedagogical approaches or assessment strategies).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that addressing active methodologies, educational values, and assessment instruments simultaneously can present a challenge in terms of analytical depth. However, we consider these three elements to be intrinsically linked in the context of teacher education and pedagogical design. Therefore, their joint analysis provides a more holistic understanding of the teaching proposals developed by prospective teachers in their Master’s Theses (TFM).

This study represents a first exploratory approach, based on a quantitatively significant sample within a specific specialization of the Master’s in Teacher Training. Our aim has been to offer an overview of the current state of these interrelated dimensions, identifying general trends that may serve as a foundation for future, more focused and in-depth studies.

We accept the reviewer’s suggestion as a valuable guideline for subsequent research, which may concentrate more deeply on each individual dimension with larger and more comparative samples.

Comment 2: The manuscript lacks a strong theoretical justification for analyzing teaching methodologies, values, and assessment strategies in relation to gender or educational level. It remains unclear what specific contribution this analysis makes to the field of Geography or History education, or to educational research more broadly.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this pertinent observation. In response, we have substantially expanded the theoretical framework to clarify the relevance of gender as an analytical category in the context of teacher education, particularly within the disciplines of Geography and History. We now argue that gender, understood as a dynamic and intersectional social construct (Paechter, 2021; Lorber, 1994), significantly shapes pedagogical choices, professional expectations, and the perceived legitimacy of educational practices (Brower, Schwartz, & Jones, 2019; Savigny, 2014). This perspective is especially relevant in History and Geography education, where curricular content and teaching strategies contribute to the construction of historical memory, critical citizenship, and social values (Greco, 2013; Carvalho, 2014). Moreover, we emphasize that the absence of statistically significant gender-based differences does not imply pedagogical neutrality. As shown by Vanner, Holloway, and Almanssori (2022) and Mason (2020), gendered dynamics often operate beneath the surface, influencing the valuation of teaching methods without necessarily producing explicit divergence. By adopting an integrated and reflective approach, our study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how sociocultural identities intersect with pedagogical design, thus enriching educational research from both disciplinary and methodological perspectives. These clarifications have been incorporated in the introduction and discussion sections (pages 2-3; –21), where we detail how our findings illuminate broader debates in gender and education research, and specifically in the training of future History and Geography teachers.

Comment 3: The university at which the study was conducted appears to be identified, along with the specific degree program under review. Ethically, this university should be de-identified. If the university name used in the paper is a pseudonym, together with the program under investigation, this needs to be made clear and obvious to the reader.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We would like to clarify that this study is part of an officially approved internal research project at Universidad Isabel I. It was conducted in accordance with the institution’s ethical guidelines and received formal approval from the university's Ethics Committee under the reference code code UI1-P1103.  To ensure clarity for readers, we have explicitly stated in the manuscript that the study received ethical approval, including the code number and the scope of the project.
This information has been added in the Materials and Methods section on page 4.

Comment 4:
The Materials and Methods section needs clearer explanation regarding timeframes, participants, and data collection methods. Additionally, clarification and justification should be provided for the rationale behind dividing the analysis into four phases. While Phase 1 appears to involve data collection, if Phases 2, 3, and 4 involve data analysis, it must be explained why three separate phases of analysis are necessary. Typically, longitudinal studies involve data generation in each phase, which does not seem to be the case here.

Response 4:
Thank you for this valuable observation. We have revised the methodology section to provide greater clarity regarding the analytical structure and the temporal framework. Specifically, the following paragraph has been added to justify the division into four phases: "To ensure methodological transparency, the design was structured into four interrelated but distinct phases. This structure does not respond to a longitudinal logic in the strict sense (as no new data were generated across successive time periods), but rather to the need to separate data collection from sequential layers of analysis—descriptive, interpretative, and inferential—each requiring a different level of granularity and validation. The temporal frame for the research process spanned the academic year in which the TFMs were submitted, with data collection and analytical work distributed over successive academic terms."

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focused on the analysis of 54 Master's Theses (TFM) from the specialization in Geography and History within the Master's Degree in Teacher Training in Spain. The study aims to identify patterns in the selection of teaching methodologies, educational values, and assessment tools, taking into account variables such as the author's gender and the educational level targeted by the proposals. Using a mixed-methods approach, the findings highlight significant differences related to educational level, but not gender, in the use of methodologies and assessment strategies.

One of the main strengths lies in the thematic and methodological breadth of the analysis, as well as in the adoption of a mixed-methods strategy that combines quantitative and qualitative techniques. This methodological choice enables a richer and more multidimensional approach to the research subject. The use of webQDA software and the coding procedures are appropriate, although a more detailed explanation of the code validation process and reliability criteria would be desirable.

Respect to the theoretical framework, its offering an up-to-date review of studies on active methodologies, educational assessment, and values in teacher training. However, it lacks a deeper discussion of the contextual and socio-cultural factors that influence pedagogical decisions, as well as a more thorough engagement with the competency-based approach in higher education. Addressing this would have enriched the analysis. In this regard, the following source is recommended: Mukan, N., Chubinska, N., & Zhongjun, G. (2023). Competency-based approach in higher education: The main concepts. Academic Visions (17). https://www.academy-vision.org/index.php/av/article/view/475

Although the study successfully identifies relevant differences based on the educational level targeted by the proposals, it does not provide a sufficiently in-depth interpretation of the findings. As a result, the practical utility of the study remains unclear. The analysis tends to remain at a descriptive level and does not clearly articulate the pedagogical implications, which limits its practical applicability. Moreover, the study lacks a critical analysis of its own methodological limitations and does not clearly outline directions for future research. This weakens its potential as a starting point for further empirical or theoretical work in the field of initial teacher training. Likewise, while the conclusions are clear and consistent with the findings, answering the hypotheses of the work, they could be strengthened by offering specific recommendations for improving teacher education and addressing the practical transferability of the results.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Respect to the theoretical framework, it is offering an up-to-date review of studies on active methodologies, educational assessment, and values in teacher training. However, it lacks a deeper discussion of the contextual and socio-cultural factors that influence pedagogical decisions, as well as a more thorough engagement with the competency-based approach in higher education. Addressing this would have enriched the analysis. In this regard, the following source is recommended: Mukan, N., Chubinska, N., & Zhongjun, G. (2023). Competency-based approach in higher education: The main concepts. Academic Visions (17).

Response 1: We appreciate this insightful suggestion. In response, we have incorporated a discussion of the competency-based approach in higher education, drawing explicitly on the work by Mukan, Chubinska, and Zhongjun (2023). This addition enhances the contextual and conceptual grounding of our analysis and aligns our research with current debates on effective teacher training. Specifically, on pages 2–3 (lines 92–95).

Comment 2: “Although the study successfully identifies relevant differences based on the educational level targeted by the proposals, it does not provide a sufficiently in-depth interpretation of the findings. As a result, the practical utility of the study remains unclear. The analysis tends to remain at a descriptive level and does not clearly articulate the pedagogical implications, which limits its practical applicability.”

Response 2 : We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. In response, we have expanded the concluding section (pp. 25–26, lines 1080–1090) to move beyond a descriptive analysis and offer a more applied interpretation of the results. Specifically, we now highlight how the study’s findings can inform multiple future research lines. These include evaluating the coherence between teaching methods and curricular content, examining how educational values are interpreted and contextualized by pre-service teachers, and analyzing the suitability and effectiveness of selected assessment tools. We argue that these lines of inquiry can deepen our understanding of pedagogical coherence and inform curriculum improvement in teacher education programs. This integrative approach helps clarify the practical significance of our research and its potential to contribute to the refinement of secondary teacher training curricula.

Comment 3: The use of webQDA software and the coding procedures are appropriate, although a more detailed explanation of the code validation process and reliability criteria would be desirable

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. To address this concern, we have expanded the description of the qualitative analysis process to include a more detailed account of the coding strategy, validation procedures, and reliability criteria. Specifically, we clarified that coding followed a mixed deductive-inductive approach, grounded in existing literature and refined through iterative reading. The process involved segmenting narratives into meaning units and organizing them hierarchically into tree codes using webQDA. This enabled triangulation across analytical categories and the generation of qualitative frequency matrices (%FA) to support analytical consistency. Furthermore, we referenced previous validated studies (Soler et al., 2025; Soler & Rosser, 2024) that employed similar protocols, thereby reinforcing the methodological robustness of our approach. These clarifications have been incorporated on page 6, lines 228–246.