Cultivating Water Literacy in STEM Education: Undergraduates’ Socio-Scientific Reasoning about Socio-Hydrologic Issues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think this is an important and very well presented paper. The introduction makes convincing arguments for Water Literacy. That is a subject that is just emerging (i.e., total of 15 papers in Web of Science). The authors present reasons it is important and subdivide it into manageable and quantifiable portions. The most significant contribution of the paper is the social dimension-too much of the water literacy literature (such as it is) focuses only on biophysical properties of water and the landscapes water drains. They present results of two semesters of student data (about 100 people) which is enough to offer understanding. The results are useful and conclusive.

I only have two suggestions or questions

• Why did you decide not to perform pre- and post-tests? This is done and you cannot get those data now, so perhaps at least offer a reason why you chose not to.
• I think the QuASSR is a major element of the paper, a significant thing that readers will want to understand and perhaps use, but it is explained pretty superficiaIly here. I found it on the web of course, but even there it was shown as a product but not very clearly presented as a useful tool

I suggest someone read the paper carefully before publishing. There are isolated grammatical errors (e.g., extras word in line 155, something missing in line 222).

Author Response

Reviewer 1

I think this is an important and very well presented paper. The introduction makes convincing arguments for Water Literacy. That is a subject that is just emerging (i.e., total of 15 papers in Web of Science). The authors present reasons it is important and subdivide it into manageable and quantifiable portions. The most significant contribution of the paper is the social dimension-too much of the water literacy literature (such as it is) focuses only on biophysical properties of water and the landscapes water drains. They present results of two semesters of student data (about 100 people) which is enough to offer understanding. The results are useful and conclusive.

I only have two suggestions or questions

• Why did you decide not to perform pre- and post-tests? This is done and you cannot get those data now, so perhaps at least offer a reason why you chose not to.

*The purpose of the study was to explore the potential of SSR to elicit the kinds of reasoning (both hydrological and non-hydrological) requisite to functional water literacy, not to evaluate the course and its potential to influence participants’ reasoning. Thus, including a pre-test did not appear to be necessary for exploring the SSR construct and the reasoning it elicited.

*That being said, the following was added to the end of the 2.3 Data Collection section to help allay the reviewer’s concern:

“Given the focus of the study on the potential for the SSR construct to elicit reasoning about hydrological and non-hydrological aspects of SHI through engagement in SSR, the most appropriate instance to elicit participants’ most informed SSR was at the end of the semester.”

• I think the QuASSR is a major element of the paper, a significant thing that readers will want to understand and perhaps use, but it is explained pretty superficially here. I found it on the web of course, but even there it was shown as a product but not very clearly presented as a useful tool

*We included as supplementary material the RRNI QuASSR that was used for data collection in the study, as well as exemplars for each level of SSR achieved at each of the 5 SSR dimensions. Additionally, a rubric was also included as an appendix – all of which are expected to aid readers in their ability to use the QuASSR as a tool. We also added the following paragraph at the start of the 2.3 Data Collection section to better explain the QuASSR for readers.

*SSR was introduced as “a theoretical construct designed to uniquely capture the array of practices fundamental to the negotiation of SSI” [7] (p. 377), and the QuASSR was developed as a means for measuring it. The QuASSR is comprised a scenario that relates information about a particular SSI, followed by polytomous items that elicit each of the five dimensions of SSR. Each of the items is two-tiered, including a forced-response item (e.g., a “yes or no” question) followed by an open-ended response item to elicits the reasoning behind the initial forced-choice response. The QuASSR has been found to provide valid information about students’ SSR that is useful for researchers and practitioners seeking to capture the kinds of reasoning that are requisite to functional scientific literacy [38].

I suggest someone read the paper carefully before publishing. There are isolated grammatical errors (e.g., extras word in line 155, something missing in line 222)

*These and any other grammatical errors present in the initial submission have been addressed.

*Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

 

• El resumen debería hacerse eco de los diferentes apartados que el trabajo aborda, dejando así evidencia del trabajo y del proceso interno del desarrollo de la investigación.

 

• Sería conveniente precisar en qué teoría se basa el trabajo y qué planteamiento defiende en su ámbito de análisis y de actuación que permita aclarar la fundamentación del trabajo.

 

• El exceso del uso de siglas dificulta la comprensión y sería conveniente expresar y delimitar los ámbitos conceptuales a los que se refieren. Lo que añadiría claridad y eficacia en la exposición de contenidos

 

• No queda muy claro las finalidades del estudio con lo que posteriormente se analiza.

 

• No queda suficientemente claro el diseño que se emplea en el trabajo.

 

• La metodología utilizada debe quedar claramente expresada en sus diferentes apartados.

 

• No hay una referencia poblacional de la muestra.

 

• No aparecen las referencias a las cuestiones y manifestaciones requeridas que se le plantean al alumnado de las que salen los datos y opiniones y que posteriormente se utilizan en el análisis.

 

• Conviene aclarar los resultados y fundamentarlos sólidamente con comparaciones de otros estudios hechos y no son tenidos en cuenta como principios de autoridad.

 

• Las conclusiones conviene revisarlas con los criterios expresados para los resultados que permita poner en valor lo obtenido y trabajado.

 

Este es un trabajo que refleja una labor interesante realizada durante la docencia, un retoque sobre los aspectos que se recomiendan, sin duda, pueden mejorar muchísimo el nivel del trabajo que se quiere publicar. Les animo a hacerlas.

 

• 
  The summary should echo the different sections that the work addresses and thus leave evidence of the work and the internal process of research development.
• 
  It would be convenient to specify on which theory the work is based and which approach it defends in its scope of analysis and action that allows clarifying the basis of the work.
• 
  The excessive use of acronyms makes understanding difficult and it would be convenient to express and delimit the conceptual fields to which they refer. This would add clarity and efficiency to the presentation of contents
• 
  It is not very clear what the purposes of the study are, so it is analyzed later.
• 
  The design used in the work is not sufficiently clear.
• 
  The methodology used must be clearly expressed in its different sections.
• 
  There is no population reference for the sample.
• 
  There are no references to the questions and statements required of the students from which the data and opinions come and which are later used in the analysis.
• 
  It is convenient to clarify the results and to base them solidly on comparisons of other studies made and they are not taken into account as principles of authority.
• 
  The conclusions should be reviewed with the criteria expressed for the results that allow us to value what has been obtained and worked on.This is a work that reflects an interesting work done during teaching, a retouching on the aspects that are recommended, undoubtedly, can greatly improve the level of the work to be published. I encourage you to do them.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

• The summary (abstract) should echo the different sections that the work addresses and thus leave evidence of the work and the internal process of research development.

*We expanded the Abstract to better include for sections that were not represented the initial submission, including methodology and a statement of the results found.

• 
  It would be convenient to specify on which theory the work is based and which approach it defends in its scope of analysis and action that allows clarifying the basis of the work.

*The study is grounded in situated learning theory, and a paragraph has been added to specify this in section 1.2 Theoretical Framework for Socio-scientific Reasoning

• 
  The excessive use of acronyms makes understanding difficult and it would be convenient to express and delimit the conceptual fields to which they refer. This would add clarity and efficiency to the presentation of contents.

*We agree that this manuscript includes quite a few acronyms (6). While each is necessary and reflects important constructs within the study, we have tried to reduce the number of uses of acronyms throughout the manuscript to aid the reader. We also removed the introduction of the Quantitative Assessment of Socio-Scientific Reasoning (QuASSR) instrument from the introductory material, so that it is now introduced in the Data Collection section alongside the Raccoon River Nitrates Issue (RRNI) that serves as the focal scenario for QuASSR used in the study. This should better allow for the reader to connect the RRNI as the scenario that informs the QuASSR assessment which is the data collection instrument.

• It is not very clear what the purposes of the study are, so it is analyzed later.

*The purpose of the study as stated in the section 1.4 Purpose of Study has been revised for the purpose of clarification. We have also clarified the analysis in the methods section to so as to better align it with the stated purpose of the study.

• 
  The design used in the work is not sufficiently clear.

*We have better specified the research design by adding a 2.1 Research Design section to ensure that the purpose of the study aligned with the research design.

• 
  The methodology used must be clearly expressed in its different sections.

*We have clarified the methodology with additional text added to the research design 2.1, data collection 2.4, and data analysis 2.5 sections.

• 
  There is no population reference for the sample.

*We provide this information in the 2.3 participants section.

• There are no references to the questions and statements required of the students from which the data and opinions come and which are later used in the analysis.

*‘(Table S1)’ was placed after the last sentence of the 2.4 data collection section to provide access this information, so that it now reads “participants completed the RRNI QuASSR once as part of the course summative assessment, which involved participants’ reading the one-page scenario and responding to the five items (Table S1).”

• It is convenient to clarify the results and to base them solidly on comparisons of other studies made and they are not taken into account as principles of authority.

*Consistent with professional guidelines for stylistic presentation of research (e.g., APA), we have restricted our results section to a presentation of study findings only and do not include references in this section. Findings from the study are discussed at length in the discussion and implications sections, within which we reference the body of research that the present study informs. 

• The conclusions should be reviewed with the criteria expressed for the results that allow us to value what has been obtained and worked on.

*A sentence was added to 6. Conclusions section to make explicit the results of the study to be valued and that inform future work in this area.

• This is a work that reflects an interesting work done during teaching, a retouching on the aspects that are recommended, undoubtedly, can greatly improve the level of the work to be published. I encourage you to do them.

*Your thoughtful feedback was greatly appreciated. Addressing it really strengthened the paper and clarified the findings and their importance. Thank you for such thoughtful consideration.

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary

This paper  deals with the potential  to incorporate    socio-scientific reasoning construct   when dealing with water issues at undergraduate level.

The theoretical framework is consistent

Figures and tables are well presented

The methodology and  design   were appropriated.

The results , discussion and the implications for further work are sound and  well presented .

The references are updated.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

This paper deals with the potential  to incorporate socio-scientific reasoning construct when dealing with water issues at undergraduate level.

 

The theoretical framework is consistent

 

Figures and tables are well presented

 

The methodology and design were appropriated.

 

The results discussion and the implications for further work are sound and well presented .

 

The references are updated.

 

*Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

El trabajo ha mejorado. Se han tenido en cuenta las consideraciones hechas.

Podemos sugerir algunos aspectos que pueden darle más nivel al artículo:

• Se corrigieron las reiteraciones de siglas, pero aún podrían tenerse en cuenta en otros apartados del trabajo, por ejemplo, línea 137 SSR sobre SH. Línea 168; 180...
• En las conclusiones y en la discusión también se han enriquecido con más fuentes adecuadas, no obstante nos atrevemos a sugerir que tengan en cuenta estudios sobre la temática en contenidos de investigación en los años 2003, 2006 y 2015, se encuentran artículo sobre alfabetización científica; y en el 2009, 2013 y 2020 hay artículos sobre el razonamiento sociocultural.
• Con respecto a la bibliografía en la línea 679, una fuente está sin autor.

Tal y como ya comentamos en las orientaciones anteriores es un buen trabajo. Mis felicitaciones.

 

The work has improved. The considerations made have been taken into account.

We can suggest some aspects that can give more level to the article:

• The repetitions of acronyms were corrected, but they could still be taken into account in other sections of the work, for example, line 137 SSR on SH. Line 168; 180...
• In the conclusions and in the discussion they have also been enriched with more appropriate sources, nevertheless we dare to suggest that they take into account studies on the subject in research contents in the years 2003, 2006 and 2015, there are articles on scientific literacy; and in 2009, 2013 and 2020 there are articles on socio-cultural reasoning.
• 
  With respect to the bibliography in line 679, one source is without an author.

As we have already commented in the previous guidelines, it is a good work. My congratulations.