Examining Pre-Service Chemistry Teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) of Using Data-Logging in the Chemistry Classroom

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is an interesting empirical evaluation of the TPACK model, related to the comprehensive competencies for technology-enabled teaching. However, it has some important conceptual weaknesses:

- The manuscript looks like two completely different studies have been mechanically joined: one, looking at the properties of the TPACK model, and the validity/reliability of the TPACK measurement instrument, and another - looking at the factors, influencing the development of those competencies.

While the empirical part of the study, concentrating on the relationships and dependencies of different TPACK components has been done very well, the other part of the study is quite poor, as it resort to descriptive statistics and simple correlations. It would be much better to just drop this part of the empirical analysis and concentrate on the first part of the study, where EFA, CFA and SEM are applied.

This would be my recommendation to the authors, which would entail the revision of the theoretical and methodological part of the manuscript. The other study should be further developed and offered for publication in a major research journal, when it is adequately developed. At this point of time, this part of the study is, unfortunately, on the level of an undergraduate student's research report.

- Authors often refer to 'data-logging technology', as a form of educational technology, which is, obviously, popular and well established in the chemistry education. However, this technology should be introduced and described for the readers, who do not have a background in chemistry, but are interested in educational research and the empirical analysis of the TPACK model.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. Please see our responses as attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Article: Examining Preservice Chemistry Teachers' Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) of Using Data-logging in the Chemistry Classroom

 

It will continue to review the following sections:

 

1.    In the theoretical framework, incorporate at least two to three studies related to the topic of study. Determining the objective of the research is ambiguous or unclear since it must be consistent with the topic it refers to being evaluated, but it has three versions in the development of the work.

2.    The methodology must indicate the process of selecting the participants in the study, attaching, if possible, the questionnaire and the evaluation tool since this will allow us to have elements to see if both contributed to the research. It is not indicated whether the students signed the Informed Consent.

3.    In section 5.5. Correlation analysis indicates that interviews were conducted with the participants; they expressed that TPACK facilitated a more systematic approach to instructional design. But the instruments did not indicate and do not explain what their procedure for the analysis was.

 

4.    The conclusions must be consistent with what is proposed in section 3. Purpose and research questions since 4 questions are described therein. And the conclusions mention three aspects resulting from the research.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have made revisions. Please see our responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research is of interest, has a good scientific design and a clear data presentation.
Although the study of the level and relationship of the components of TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) of future chemistry teachers is important due to technological development, but surveys and self -testing in this area 1) have already been carried out in much research, which the authors themselves partly shows 2) is much less interesting than real experience. The authors indicate that the respondents were developing chemistry lessons, but this most valuable experience is not represented and not analyzed. Namely, this can and should make the study valuable and unique, and not one of dozens of existing ones. Be sure to show in detail with examples and cases how the technologies are included in the lessons. Make a good quality analysis of this content.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

The essence of our study is essentially an investigation rather than an educational intervention study. Therefore, aspects such as the cases mentioned i may not be effectively showcased in this research. However, it's a valuable suggestion, and we will consider observing teacher behaviour in the classroom in future research, conducting empirical research on data logging TPACK.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors:

I considered that the article is well structured and the conclusions drawn are appropriate to the study carried out, despite the limitations of the study mentioned.

The relationships established between the different factors influencing chemistry teachers point to TPACK as a determinant in their teaching.

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have followed this reviewer's recommendations. I have no additional comments to improve the manuscript.

Authors are advised to have their manuscript proof-read by a native English speaker. There are instances, where the English language used is obviously out of line with the academic writing for major research journals (e.g. "The study aims to address the following research inquiries", p. 7 - please use the traditional English term 'research questions'). 

Author Response

We have invited a native-speaker colleague to double-check the language carefully.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the methodology section, incorporate the design and type of research.

2. The requested suggestions have been incorporated.

Author Response

We have revised the section to 4.2. Instrumentation and Procedures. The methods of data collection have been described here.