Validation of an Instrument on Perceptions of Heritage Education through Structural Equation Modeling
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting article that focuses on the validation, by means of structural equation modelling, of an instrument to identify the heritage teaching models used by primary school teachers. It is a work with a solid methodological structure, which guarantees the reliability of the results obtained in the statistical work and allows its use in other studies with similar objectives. It is a very solid work with no major cracks and we believe that it can be published as it is currently written.
Author Response
In response to Reviewer 1 no changes have been made because he does not indicate any of them. Reviewer 1 reports favorably. The authors appreciate your positive comments on this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well strutured, it is written in good english. Tha data supports the conclusions. The methodology is adequate and up to date.
The research is to validate a methodology (pools) to evaluate the perception by teachers of heritage teaching methodologies in primary school.
The topic is as relevant as it can be a validation method for a methodology that has been around for decades and that has no other competing methodology to address the issue. It does not fill any gap in the field.
The case study has not been comprehensively studied before.
I have no concerns.
Author Response
In response to Reviewer 2 no changes have been made to the manuscript. We appreciate the positive comments made.
Reviewer 3 Report
The title “Validation of an instrument on perceptions of heritage education through structural equation modelling” properly reflects the subject of the manuscript. This manuscript is well written and treats the teacher's perception of the teaching and learning process. The abstract provides an accessible summary of the article; however, the key contribution of this study to the field should be described as well. The keywords accurately reflect the content. The Introduction explains clearly the social context of heritage education, summarises the research done and indicates the main question addressed by the research. I am surprised for such style of reference: “[4] and [5] consider this way of transmitting heritage”, “Indeed, [9] and [10] agree” etc. In order to avoid the de-humanization I would like to suggest inserting names of researchers not only the numbers from the list of bibliography. The text is clear and well structured. The methods are used appropriate. The concluding part of the manuscript is well communicated. The eventual recommendation of mine is to accept the paper after minor revision.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for comments on the manuscript. At the suggestion of Reviewer 3, the abstract has been modified, not to exceed 200 words, to emphasise the key contribution of this study. Finally, we agree with Reviewer 3´s suggestion to the journal editors that authors should be cited in the text in APA format, rather than numbered.
Reviewer 4 Report
We would like to congratulate authorship of this manuscript. Very interesting and coherent in the approach with minor changes required and a great contribution to future studies on Historical and Heritage Education, inside or outside the classroom. On our personal experience as expertise on this area, it would be necessary to add historical education to this study, as many of the authors dicussed in literary review demonstrates and also to clarify some key concepts such as first and second order ideas in History and Heritage. Blended lines could be found on Peter Lee and Roser Calaf studies, for instance, regarding their interest on primary education. Apart from this, empirical study - ancored in a quantitative methodology - is a great asset to the development of our common research. Most of the studies I know use a qualitative approach, as this a refreshing exercise. However it would be interesting to see, in conclusions, a reflection about this choice and their possible merits in this italian case, rather than other cross references with other studies.
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the suggestions for improvement made by Reviewer 4. In response to their comments, the following changes have been made to the manuscript:
1.-The concept "historical education" has been included in the Introduction.
2.-More authors have been cited who explain the difference between first-order and second-order concepts. Specifically, among the authors recommended by Reviewer 4, two references to Roser Calaf and three works related to history education (Peter Lee) have been added.
3.-In the conclusions, a paragraph has been added to indicate that there is no validated and published instrument in the Italian case similar to the one carried out in this research, and this merit and the implications of the quantitative methodology followed have been highlighted, at the suggestion of Reviewer 4.
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is quite professionally written, but I have some concerns regarding the validation methodology.
The authors should check 1) the normality of each question to check if data is normally distributed for each question. 2) Acknowledge the Cronbach' s alpha indicator to verify internal consistency 3) Acknowledge the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) 4) indicate the KMO indicator at both EFA and CFA analyses and also 5) please make clear the C/MIN indicator at the SEM model. From the data given by the authors the x2 (329.465/degrees of freedom 27= 12.2 is beyond the acceptable threshold. At this level the other fit indicators (IFI/ REMSEA etc) seem quite unfit.
Please provide more information on the above
Author Response
The authors are grateful for the suggestions for improvements made by Reviewer 5. The changes made to the manuscript are:
1.-In the "Method" section, the following paragraph has been added in response to Reviser 5: "In addition, in order to check the normality of statements 9 to 13 of the questionnaire, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was carried out and the value of the Sig. asin. (bilateral) was less than .05. Therefore, it is concluded that the null hypothesis indicating the non-normality of the distribution of the data is accepted. Consequently, the hypothesis testing analyses to be carried out will be performed by means of non-parametric tests".
2.-The Cronbach's Alpha test indicator requested by Reviewer 5 is .942.
3.-The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) has been included for each of the factors.
4.-The Composite Reliability (CR) has been included for each of the factors.
5.-In the KMO test the value is .901. This data has been included.
6.-In response to the last comment made by Reviewer 5, attempts have been made to lower the x2 a and raise the other fit indicators, based on changes in the correlation and relationship between items, but this would be at the cost of losing the theoretical basis of the model.
