Next Article in Journal
Adaptive Knowledge Control in Digital Learning as a Factor in Improving the Quality of Education
Next Article in Special Issue
Management Skills and Styles of School Principals during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Introduction to the Special Issue “Mathematics Education: At Home and in the Classroom”
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Refined Consensus Model of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): Detecting Filters between the Realms of PCK
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci12100637
Review Report
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Building Primary Preservice Teachers’ Identity as Engineering Educators

Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(10), 637; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100637
by Nicholas Lux 1,*, Rebekah Hammack 1, Blake Wiehe 1 and Paul Gannon 2
Reviewer 1:
Susan Ramlo
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12(10), 637; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100637
Submission received: 13 July 2022 / Revised: 12 September 2022 / Accepted: 13 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Studies in Teacher Identity and Professional Development)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is well written and the detail of the study well presented.  I was left with only a few questions including understanding a little more about Jennifer's (the former engineering major) college experience in her engineering field - was this field pertinent to the project students performed and/or did Jennifer take any "real" engineering course work her first year (rather than support courses / prerequisites for her engineering course work)?  As always with STEM education studies, I wish the authors differentiated the types of engineering fields that exist rather than lumping things together.  That said, the current treatment of STEM in this manuscript is fairly standard.

There was an abrupt change in reference style from APA to numbers about 1/3 of the way through the manuscript and this needs to be addressed.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This qualitative study provides insight into the affordances and constraints provided to preservice teachers who not only had to teach engineering content but also had to teach in difficult circumstances during the pandemic. The paper provides a solid background of literature and theory to situate the study. Overall I think the paper is well written and researched. I just had a few comments.

As I was reading, I wondered how the video observations were used in the results. The results seemed focused on the perspective of the preservice teacher (that appeared to use quotes from either interview or reflective journals). Were the video observations used, and if so, how were they used in the results? Were they coded the same as the interviews and journals?

I think it would be helpful in terms of interpreting results to know more about how often the reflective journaling took place for each participant; or whether one participant journaled more often than another.

There were a few minor grammatical errors: lines 377, 476, 534, 543, 673, 724.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop