Who Are the Protagonists of History? Exploratory Study on Historical Relevance after Completing Compulsory Secondary Education in Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Who is the Protagonist of History? Exploratory Study on Historical Relevance after Completing Compulsory Secondary Education in Spain
The theme of the article is adjusted and fits into the editorial line of the Journal: Social Sciences
Introduction
The Introduction refers to the relevance of this study, which aims to analyse the significance attributed by secondary students to historical figures they consider relevant in the history of humanity. As the authors of the text mention, this type of studies is not original, as other studies have already worked on this dimension on the significance attributed to historical figures, but it will allow the analysis of the collective historical narrative and identity of these students. It also incorporates in the Introduction the explanation of the concept of significance, according to some authors of international reference studies on the investigation of this second-order concept.
It presents an up-to-date literature review, relevant to the topic and focuses on reference authors related to what historical thinking is, second-order concepts, historical literacy or historical literacy and the concept of historical relevance or significance.
More relevance should be given to the concept of historical significance, as it is the central concept of this study. Discuss the divergence on the understanding of this concept by several authors, which is not always consensual relevance/historical significance. On the other hand, it gives more relevance to historical thinking and historical narrative, as a structuring and development element of historical thinking.
What they refer to in line 82 should be articulated with the previous explanation about historical significance that begins in line 40 “As Seixas and Peck (2004) mention, historical significance and relevance involve an exercise of reflection on what must be remembered and why, and consider a series of factors such as how many people were affected, how long it lasted, and whether the reflection helps us understand the present (Lévesque 2008; Seixas and Morton 2012)”.
In the paragraph of line 103 in relation to bibliometric analyses, only Spanish empirical studies are mentioned, it remains to explain why this option of only considering these studies. Gomez-Carrasco et al (2019) include international relationships and networks in their bibliometric study.
Materials and Methods
As for the methodology, the research objectives are clear as well as the research questions. It is noteworthy that this study was strongly influenced by other studies that focused on this same theme (Hunt; 2000; Levesque, 2008; Partington, 1980).
The methodological procedures are clearly explained, as well as the instrument used - questionnaire.
This is a study using a mixed method (qualitative and quantitative). It highlights the relevance of this mixed method referenced by several authors. I highlight a recent study that makes relevant contributions to the use of the mixed method in Social Science studies (Solé & Gago, 2021).
Solé, G. & Gago, M. (2021). The History Teacher Education Process in Portugal: a mixed method study about Professionalim development. Humanities Social Communications, 8, 51. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00726-9
In line 139 - As for the sample, it refers to “The information was collected using an ad hoc designed questionnaire for anonymous completion by the students during an estimated time of 20 minutes”. It does not indicate the sample (how many students, age, course and subjects of History to attend). The results show differences that may result from the sample being diversified and from the specific courses in History, History of Culture…
In the abstract it mentions how the sample was constituted, line 9: “By means of a mixed study, this research involved asking 165 students aged 16 to 17”.
In line 147 the authors refers to “The qualitative analysis was performed using a categorization system based on the proposals made about historical significance by Partington (1980), Lévesque (2008), and Hunt (2000)” and then refers in line 156 to “This coding of the discursive analysis into categories referring to historical thinking follows strategies derived from grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss 2008)”, when effectively using categories based on the proposals of Partington (1980), Lévesque (2008) and Hunt (2000) on historical significance: Importance; Depth; Durability; Cant; Relevance. This is a contradiction, because in the methodology of grounded theory the categories emerge from the analysis of the data and are not assigned by departure or based on….
Discussion
In the discussion, the authors articulate the results of this study with other similar Spanish studies (Ibagón Martín y Miralles (2021); Ibagón Martín et al. (2021); Rivero y Pelegrín, 2019). It would be interesting not to develop the results of the Spanish studies so much and to incorporate other international contributions. It does not articulate with Canadian, North American studies, which it previously cites or from other countries such as Portugal related, for example, to the significance of the relevant historical themes to be worked on, for example, with refugees (Apostolidou, E. & Solé, G. (2019) or significance to symbols of national identity (Solé & Gago, 2021).
Apostolidou, E. & Solé, G. (2019). Different Ways to Relate with the ‘Other’: Prospective Teachers Ideas about Teaching History to Refugee Youth, a Comparative Study. In Juan Ramón Moreno-Vera & José Monteagudo-Fernandez (Eds). Temas controvertidos en el aula. Enseñar historia en la era de la pós-verdade (pp. 129-144). Murcia: Editum.
Solé, G. & Gago, M. (2021). The History Teacher Education Process in Portugal: a mixed method study about Professionalim development. Humanities Social Communications, 8, 51. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00726-9
They relate the results obtained with the current formulation of the curriculum of Geography and History at ESO; the interpretation of these curricula by the manuals; the strong focus on the political-factual to the detriment of the social.
Conclusion
The Conclusion should be expanded further. The discussion on the results of the second question “Which approach, referred to a degree of historical significance used to justify your answer?” could have been expanded further, as the significance attributed to each personality is variable, as demonstrated earlier.
In formal terms, the article is well written and with linguistic rigor, complying with academic standards and rigor in English. References are well cited and in accordance with APA 7th Edition.
Its publication is recommended with minor suggested revisions.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
After a thorough revision based on the reviewers' suggestions and comments, the manuscript has been re-submitted for review in the hope of addressing all the shortcomings indicated by the experts. All the modifications have been considered as a unit, seeking to strike a balance seeking a balance between the evaluations.
Although we will provide a detailed response to all the considerations made by the reviewers below, in summary, we have modified the section on materials and methods by adding content such as the characteristics of the sample or the previous pilot study. In the results section we have added testimonies from the participants in order to carry out a more exhaustive qualitative analysis in line with the quantitative analysis carried out. In the discussion section, we have introduced additional literature in order to extend the comparison with studies from other countries, such as Canada and Portugal. In addition, we have added a section before the conclusions, referring to the limits and prospective.
Concerning the assessments made by reviewer 1
Firstly, with regard to the introduction, the ideas on historical thinking in lines 82 and 40 have been grouped between lines 40 and 45 as seen in the document. References suggested by the reviewer have also been added between lines 11 and 114. Despite the fact that we understand the suggestion to add content on the different conceptual interpretations of the concept of historical thinking, we consider that the information provided is enough to understand the exploratory study that we propose and, furthermore, we avoid being in contradiction with reviewer 2 who suggests that it is a complete and well summarised section.
In the Materials and methods section we have included the suggested reference, we have also added a more detailed explanation of the sample and we have removed the contradiction noted.
In the Discussion, as can be seen between lines 377 and 383, we have added the comparative suggested by the reviewer by introducing the suggested bibliography and another used in the introduction.
In the conclusions section, we have added a reflective paragraph in order to go into more detail according to the reviewer's suggestion.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, the study is interesting for the subject you raise. However, on reading it, it is clear that you have not taken into account the journal's submission instructions, as you do not give the authorship of the references according to the template.
The objective of the study is not clear because it is stated at the end of the introduction in two different ways. I think they should reconcile these two visions. On the other hand, the research questions should be after the research objective and not in the materials and method.
In the method they don't say what kind of sampling was used and what kind of school it is. Neither the number of boys or girls who answered the questionnaire or the average age of the study subjects.
Nothing is said about the instrument that was validated with a pilot test. Neither the reliability, nor the number of questions it had, nor the results of the pilot test. All this invalidates the study itself.
In the results section, the tables are simple descriptive without going into statistics such as standard deviation.
In table 3 there is no reference to the acronym V. What does it mean?
For the qualitative analysis it is not stated how it was done except that the Partington, Lévesque and Hunt approach was used, which is not explained either.
The discussion section is long and somewhat rambles on about the answers students give and why they give them. In the discussion are some of the answers that one might ask oneself when reading this study. What kind of students are the respondents? What do they study at the school? I think the discussion should be less extensive and focus on the issues raised in the research questions.
The conclusions, on the other hand, repeat the research questions and make conjectures or hypotheses, and then come to some conclusions that are not clear how they appear out of nowhere, such as that the students "Students do not understand the importance of the events or phenomena they set in motion beyond their historical moment".
Reading the article leaves me with a confused feeling. The introduction is well laid out in the absence of clarifying the aim of the research and situating the research questions in this section. The other sections are not clearly defined. The work presented needs a thorough revision in order to be published.
The authors do not propose any limitations to the study carried out or a prospective of the results.
Kind regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
After a thorough revision based on the reviewers' suggestions and comments, the manuscript has been re-submitted for review in the hope of addressing all the shortcomings indicated by the experts. All the modifications have been considered as a unit, seeking to strike a balance seeking a balance between the evaluations.
Although we will provide a detailed response to all the considerations made by the reviewers below, in summary, we have modified the section on materials and methods by adding content such as the characteristics of the sample or the previous pilot study. In the results section we have added testimonies from the participants in order to carry out a more exhaustive qualitative analysis in line with the quantitative analysis carried out. In the discussion section, we have introduced additional literature in order to extend the comparison with studies from other countries, such as Canada and Portugal. In addition, we have added a section before the conclusions, referring to the limits and prospective.
Concerning the assessments made by reviewer 2
We are very grateful for all the suggestions and insights you have provided us with. In order to have your acceptance of this research for publication we have made the following significant changes.
First of all, we want to emphasise that we have scrupulously followed the citation rules by imitating the article published in the issue to which we have submitted this article. Likewise, we remain at the disposal of the journal to correct any errors in this aspect.
The research question has been relocated outside the materials and methods section just after the research objective. The materials and methods section has been arranged in sub-sections by introducing a description of the sample and an extended explanation of the pilot study as well as the modifications made after the expert analysis. About the categories the qualitative analysis was performed using a categorization system based on the proposals made about historical significance by Partington (1980), Lévesque (2008), and Hunt (2000), that is, talking about an approach centered on importance when the argu-ment focuses on the figures’ value in their era; using an approach based on profundity to refer to the impact (superficial or deep) the figures had in their era; an approach centered on durability to talk about whether the figures and their actions have permanence over time; an approach mainly focusing on highlighting the number of people impacted by the figures in question; and, lastly, an approach based on the chosen figures’ relevance, in other words on the value he/she currently has or is given. This categorization is the most common in research and teaching proposals in the Anglo-Saxon sphere, as can be seen in the work proposals on historical relevance proposed by the Canadian research group Historical Thinking Project. Also, we have included some answers as examples of each category in the results section.
In the results section, the qualitative analysis section has been substantially improved by introducing specific testimonies from the students and new reflections that allow for further reflection on the results obtained, the explanation of what each category means can be found in the materials and methods section. In addition, the meaning of V has been specified in table 5 (valid percentage). On the other hand, the rest of the statistics provided by the spss programme have not been included because they were not considered significant in terms of a possible analysis and because their inclusion made it considerably more difficult to understand the results obtained.
In the discussion section, the information has been rearranged, new comparisons have been added, and a section on limitations and prospective has been included.
Finally, in the conclusions, we have added a new paragraph to complete the final reflection of the research.
With all these changes and the added bibliography we consider that the article has improved substantially and we ask you to consider accepting the article for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well organised, structured and referenced. In terms of content, I would suggest a change in the title: Who are the protagonists of history?
In relation to the methodology, it is stated that a mixed qualitative and quantitative method has been used. However, in the presentation of results there is a profuse presentation of quantitative data, but there is no evidence of how students have elaborated a historical discourse to justify the relevance of the chosen historical figure. It would be interesting to know the narratives constructed by the students, especially because the theoretical framework rests precisely on this aspect.
On the other hand, there is a certain contradiction with the statement in lines 38-39 that the school environment is not the only one that influences pupils' construction of the historical narrative, when the analysis and conclusions rest basically on curricular arguments.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
After a thorough revision based on the reviewers' suggestions and comments, the manuscript has been re-submitted for review in the hope of addressing all the shortcomings indicated by the experts. All the modifications have been considered as a unit, seeking to strike a balance seeking a balance between the evaluations.
Although we will provide a detailed response to all the considerations made by the reviewers below, in summary, we have modified the section on materials and methods by adding content such as the characteristics of the sample or the previous pilot study. In the results section we have added testimonies from the participants in order to carry out a more exhaustive qualitative analysis in line with the quantitative analysis carried out. In the discussion section, we have introduced additional literature in order to extend the comparison with studies from other countries, such as Canada and Portugal. In addition, we have added a section before the conclusions, referring to the limits and prospective.
Concerning the assessments made by reviewer 3
We have changed the title as suggested and added specific responses from the students in order to develop a more complete qualitative analysis in line with the quantitative study made.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you very much for your reply. I have found that the work has improved considerably. However, I see that the journal's rules on citation, both in the text and in the bibliography, are still not adopted.
I appreciate that you have increased the explanation of the questionnaire even if you have not put a replica of it.
Best regards.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for considering our article for publication. Your comments have been a great contribution to improve this exploratory study. However, we are concerned about your comments on our citations tyle. We believe we have followed the journal's guidelines and have imitated the citation form of the article already published in this monograph.
Please let us know, if posible, where is the mistake. We could correct it or pay the service “Layout” from MPDI Language editing service.
Once again, thank you very much
Best regards,
