Methodological Rigor in Laboratory Education Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a study on methodological rigor in laboratory education research.  The paper establishes an important framework for researchers to follow. The paper is well-written and deserves to be published. However, it could be strengthened by including more detailed examples  addressing each component of the three proposed cornerstones of methodological rigor. Moreover, the review section could also be expanded.

Author Response

Many thanks for your feedback. I have addressed your comments, indicated with green in the manuscript, although you may find some addition in blue also relevant.

I have expanded the introduction section (p.1 and 2), to add some more details from the review data that I have revisited. 

To strengthen my points regarding the three cornerstones of methodological rigor (and to hopefully guide novice researchers in this field), I have also added more details on p.3 and 4)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The subject of the article is very interesting and also very original from a research point of view. It essentially proposes some principles on the basis of which we can analyse and take into account methodological rigor. It is rightly mentioned how the interest of the scientific community in research on student learning in the laboratory has increased in the last decade, not only in the field of chemistry education but in higher education pedagogy in general. This article deserves to be published so as to broaden dialogue in this field.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind feedback. I do hope this article can be used to also guide novice researchers in this field, as there is still so much to know about this challenging educational context. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a review of studies that analyze methodological rigor in education research laboratories. The theme is appropriate and the study is also necessary. However, I propose some modifications that would give value to the work and at the same time help the reader. The authors should clarify in much more detail how they search for papers. Database, search words, exclusion criteria applied,....

One of the most developed skills in laboratory work is procedural skills. Why not add it as one of the learning outcomes of laboratory?

Finally, the conclusions of the study are brief and are not supported by published studies. Authors should establish relationships between their conclusions and published literature that supports these conclusions.

Author Response

Many thanks for your feedback. I have addressed your comments, indicated with blue in the manuscript. I have elaborated on more information about search databases and criteria (p. 1, Introduction). The cited review article contains all the details. The systematic review has been published and is cited here to provide an outset. Indeed, I have revisited the data from the systematic review to specify some methodological insights that were not included in the published version. I have also added more details about this on p. 2. 

Thank you for your input regarding procedural skills. This is definitely a part of the synthesis, under the cluster of experimental competencies. I have revised the text accordingly (p. 7). I have also added more details to the methods section of the illustrative case (p. 6). 

I have also elaborated on the conclusion section to actually draw on the paper (p. 10 and 11). The second paragraph of this section is essentially implications.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have added the recommendations.