Developing a Coding Scheme for Exploring Preservice Science Teachers’ Metacognition in a Method Course
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with the concept of metacognition which is a major concept today in the field of science education. There is no doubt that the concept has a close connection with sustainability. The article examines in depth how to scientifically measure the level of meta-cognitive awareness and could be used by future researchers in many other studies.
In order for the article to be published, a number of elements need to be improved
- In reviewing the literature, the important connection between sustainability and metacognition should be thickened. This is to explain the connection between the topic of the paper and the rationale of the journal. For example, I recommend, for example, to mention these studies and other studies that need to be found and cited.
Adler, I., Zion, M., & Mevarech, Z. R. (2016). The effect of explicit environmentally oriented metacognitive guidance and peer collaboration on students’ expressions of environmental literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 620-663.nd
Cohen, H. & Zion, M. (2020). Water is the taste of life – the contribution of metacognitive guidance to drinking-related nutritional literacy. Science Education International, 31(1), 84-91.
Zion, M, & Cohen, H. (2021). Drinking-related metacognitive guidance contributes to the expression of principles and importance of healthy drinking. Sustainability, 13(4), 1-19.
- The summary and article should address the level of metacognitive awareness of the teachers found in the study. Currently the emphasis is mainly, on research tools.
- I agree that there are many definitions for the components of metacognitive awareness. At the same time, I think it's important to mention the components: debugging and information management as they appear in the definition of:
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology 19(4), 460.
I suggest at least addressing in the discussion that it is worth considering in the future adding these two elements to quantification.
- On page 2 of the literary review there are rehearsals. The logical sequence between the paragraphs should be improved. For example, see what is written in the paragraph in lines 53 to 61 and repetitions in lines 71 to 80.
- No 11 is omitted.
Author Response
We are very appreciated your review and valuable, insightful feedbacks according to our manuscript entitled “Developing a Coding Scheme for Exploring Pre-service Science Teachers’ Metacognition in A Method Course.” We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address all comments and concerns raised by the reviewers. We hope that this current version of manuscript after careful revisions will meet the journal’s standards. We also welcome further comments if any.
Below we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red for Reviewer 1, in red and underlined for Reviewer 2, and in red and bold for Reviewer 3. All comment from reviewers is maintained separately on individual revision tables.
The language usage, layout, and plagiarism in this manuscript were already edited and certificated by the professional native speakers from the MDPI author services: manuscript english editing ID: english-43236.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Describing a method for coding qualitative data regarding PST metacognition can provide a significant contribution to science teacher education scholarship. However, a more intentional connection should be made related to the scope of this journal. Additionally, the introduction would be served by significant attention to the framework later described related to metacognition. A clear rationale for the study and it’s connection does not seem to be made.
I also encourage the authors to pay careful attention to describing the modes of qualitative analysis. The process becomes unclear throughout the analysis section, taking away from the credibility of the study.
I encourage the authors to attend to the theoretical framework of metacognition adapted for the study and clearly forefront the ideas to justify the value of the contribution to the scholarly world, in particular in relation to sustainability. Presently, that case has not been made.
Author Response
We are very appreciated your review and valuable, insightful feedbacks according to our manuscript entitled “Developing a Coding Scheme for Exploring Pre-service Science Teachers’ Metacognition in A Method Course.” We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address all comments and concerns raised by the reviewers. We hope that this current version of manuscript after careful revisions will meet the journal’s standards. We also welcome further comments if any.
Below we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red for Reviewer 1, in red and underlined for Reviewer 2, and in red and bold for Reviewer 3. All comment from reviewers is maintained separately on individual revision tables.
The language usage, layout, and plagiarism in this manuscript were already edited and certificated by the professional native speakers from the MDPI author services: manuscript english editing ID: english-43236.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Below you can find suggestions aimed at improving the readability of the article:
-Revise the wording and avoid redundant sentences (e.g. Abstract: This study aimed to develop the Coding Scheme of PSTs’ Metacognition (CSPM) that will be useful for investigating PST metacognition).
-Clarify whether participants were chosen randomly or not.
-Provide more details on how the data triangulation was carried out in the Methods section.
Author Response
We are very appreciated your review and valuable, insightful feedbacks according to our manuscript entitled “Developing a Coding Scheme for Exploring Pre-service Science Teachers’ Metacognition in A Method Course.” We have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address all comments and concerns raised by the reviewers. We hope that this current version of manuscript after careful revisions will meet the journal’s standards. We also welcome further comments if any.
Below we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications in the manuscript have been highlighted in red for Reviewer 1, in red and underlined for Reviewer 2, and in red and bold for Reviewer 3. All comment from reviewers is maintained separately on individual revision tables.
The language usage, layout, and plagiarism in this manuscript were already edited and certificated by the professional native speakers from the MDPI author services: manuscript english editing ID: english-43236.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
