Gender-Differentiated Perceptions of Teaching among Preservice Teachers of Secondary Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Language editing will improve clarity of the manuscript

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We have improved every section to provide more sufficient background and relevant references, better methodological consistency, and to respond to all doubts and suggestions made by the reviewers. Thank you so much for those suggestions.

In total, the changes and improvements implemented have meant more than 2400 extra words, a new STEM analysis, an in-depth revision of the wording, and 19 new theoretical references, despite the deletion of two figures and the merging of Table 1 and 2 into the new Table 1.

In attachments we summarize point-by-point our response to your feedback, these improves can be seen concretely in red in the new improved manuscript attached. Those changes have substantially improved our work and we thank you for that.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your efforts. Please see the comments below for your consideration to enhance the report:

Abstract

·       Ad hoc questionnaire? Why is that type of questionnaire, and is it because the authors are not likely to undertake a similar study in the future?

·       Overall, our study suggests … or the study suggests… instead of one may conclude…

·       What implications or recommendations could be made due to the findings?

·       Keywords should include preservice teachers and teacher education (instead of teacher training)

 

Introduction

·       Line 21: … via strong … should be changed to … with…

·       Line 25: … classical philosophers, such as? Any examples?

·       Line 32: current scientific … instead of scientific current…

·       Lines 57-60: Any references to support the claims?

·       Line 62: STEM fields or teachers in K-12 or educators in higher education? It’s essential to make the clarification.

·       Lines 95-98: It is not clear what the study cited contributes to the discussion.

·       In the concluding part of the introduction, the gap and purpose of this study could have been more explicitly addressed.

 

Methods and materials

·       All the critical decisions made and mentioned across the section should be explicitly justified using other scholarly works/references. For example, why and what reasons informed the sample decision?

 

Results

Findings should be more explicitly organized showing how the research questions are addressed.

 

Discussion

·       Across the section, implications of the findings discussed could be highlighted before laying emphasis on them in the conclusion section.

 

Conclusion

·       What are the study’s implications for critical stakeholders in preservice teacher education and teaching profession? It is also essential to highlight the study’s limitations before discussing the areas of consideration in future studies.

The paper should be thoroughly read and edited for clarity of messages across the piece.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We have improved every section to provide more sufficient background and relevant references, better methodological consistency, and to respond to all doubts and suggestions made by the reviewers. Thank you so much for those suggestions.

In total, the changes and improvements implemented have meant more than 2400 extra words, a new STEM analysis, an in-depth revision of the wording, and 19 new theoretical references, despite the deletion of two figures and the merging of Table 1 and 2 into the new Table 1.

In attachments we summarize point-by-point our response to your feedback, these improves can be seen concretely in red in the new improved manuscript attached. Those changes have substantially improved our work and we thank you for that.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf