K-12 Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences in Starting to Teach Computer Science
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study evaluates teachers’ perceptions regarding the impact of a Professional Development before and after teaching computer science. Although it handles with relevant issues, this manuscript also presents some aspects that must be improved:
1. Please see and correct line 18 of the abstract.
2. Is it possible to examine the differences between teachers’ perceived needs before and after classroom teaching experiences with this quantitative study? Concerning the purpose and sample of the study why did the authors opted for a quantitative study?
3. WDE is mentioned twice in this manuscript. Authors should explain what does WDE mean.
4. In the review of the literature, authors mentioned that PD was based on seven CS practices. Which practices? There is a need to clarify these practices and how the PD was based on those practices.
5. Authors also mentioned some principles, but it is not clear how the PD is related with them. A better description of the PD and how it relates with those practices and principles is needed.
6. Concerning the survey, is it mentioned several times that it had suffered some minor changes. Authors should justify and explain the reasons behind those changes.
7. The methodology adopted is what concerns me the most. With such a small sample, these quantitative study and results do not provide relevant results. It was also mentioned that “talk aloud” confirmed the results. But how it was performed? How does it confirm the results?
8. Conclusion must be improved. Research question and main results should be mentioned.
9. Authors should better explain appendixes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your guidance with this paper. Your comments are helpful and incorporating your suggestions will make this a better study. I am grateful for your time and expertise. Your comments are particularly succinct, which makes them very easy to integrate into my paper. I am appreciative of your help.
- Please see and correct line 18 of the abstract.
My response: I will correct this in the resubmission.
- Is it possible to examine the differences between teachers’ perceived needs before and after classroom teaching experiences with this quantitative study? Concerning the purpose and sample of the study why did the authors opted for a quantitative study?
My response: Although the sample size is small, it represents the first cohort only, and of the first cohort it represents the teachers who completed the program and THEN taught computer science. So although the sample size is small, it represents 100% of the population studied. While I hesitated to call it a population in the paper, it IS the full distribution as it is known.
I used a quantitative study because I intend to use an improved version of this survey instrument for future cohorts, beginning in December of 2022. Response rates will be higher for a shorter survey, and the quantitative data from future cohorts will be less time consuming to prepare, and will therefore be more efficient in my work environment. So overall, I felt that a quantitative instrument would have a higher response rate and would facilitate continued data collection.
- WDE is mentioned twice in this manuscript. Authors should explain what does WDE mean.
My response: I will clarify this ambiguity in the resubmission.
- In the review of the literature, authors mentioned that PD was based on seven CS practices. Which practices? There is a need to clarify these practices and how the PD was based on those practices.
My response: I will clarify this ambiguity in the resubmission.
- Authors also mentioned some principles, but it is not clear how the PD is related with them. A better description of the PD and how it relates with those practices and principles is needed.
My response: I will clarify this ambiguity in the resubmission.
- Concerning the survey, is it mentioned several times that it had suffered some minor changes. Authors should justify and explain the reasons behind those changes.
My response: I will clarify this ambiguity in the resubmission.
- The methodology adopted is what concerns me the most. With such a small sample, these quantitative study and results do not provide relevant results. It was also mentioned that “talk aloud” confirmed the results. But how it was performed? How does it confirm the results?
My response: I will elucidate the “talk aloud” in the resubmission. I have addressed the small sample size in Point 2 above, and I will clarify in the resubmission.
- Conclusion must be improved. Research question and main results should be mentioned.
My response: I will include RQs and main results in the conclusion of the resubmission.
- Authors should better explain appendixes.
My response: I will clarify this ambiguity in the resubmission, OR I will eliminate the survey instrument from the document. This was suggested by another reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have a few minor suggestions:
r27 e.f. you use PD and CS. The meaning can be found in the abstract. I always read an article first without the abstract and use the abstract later to see if I had understood all. So, I suggest you repeat once the abbs here.
335: A reference is not deleted and in fact double.
402 Maybe its better to introduce BC and CI in the method section. Now it comes from the sky.
704 A dot is missing after D.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your guidance with this paper. Your comments are helpful and incorporating your suggestions will make this a better study. I am grateful for your time and expertise.
Reviewer 2:
I have a few minor suggestions:
r27 e.f. you use PD and CS. The meaning can be found in the abstract. I always read an article first without the abstract and use the abstract later to see if I had understood all. So, I suggest you repeat once the abbs here.
My response: thank you for noting this ambiguity. I will clarify these abbreviations in the paper.
335: A reference is not deleted and in fact double.
My response: I will fix this and make sure the reference is correct in the paper.
402 Maybe its better to introduce BC and CI in the method section. Now it comes from the sky.
My response: thank you for noting this ambiguity. I will clarify these abbreviations in the paper.
704 A dot is missing after D.
My response: Thank you! I will fix this oversight on my part.
Reviewer 3 Report
Very interesting and pertinent paper. Congratulations to the authors.
Although the sample is small and circumscribed, the Study is very relevante and it should be replicated in a bigger scale in different contexts, with adequate adaptations. The articulation between training and the future teachers needs should be a priority in pre-service training.
Some paper improvements:
1) I do not think that is necessary to attach the Instruments to the paper.
2) In the text you mention that the questionnaire has 28 questions, but in Table 2 and in the attached questionnaire the sum of the questions of all the constructs gives 29. Something is not right.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your guidance with this paper. Your comments are helpful and incorporating your suggestions will make this a better study.
Although the sample is small and circumscribed, the study is very relevant and it should be replicated in a bigger scale in different contexts, with adequate adaptations. The articulation between training and the future teachers needs should be a priority in pre-service training.
My response: thank you for your positive comment. I agree on all counts. I will continue to collect data, from the current and future cohorts of teachers participating in our K-12 Computer Science endorsement program.
I do not think that is necessary to attach the Instruments to the paper.
I would be happy to leave it out; may I leave it in at this time, and defer to the comments in the second round?
In the text you mention that the questionnaire has 28 questions, but in Table 2 and in the attached questionnaire the sum of the questions of all the constructs gives 29. Something is not right
Yes, I have done this inadvertently. Thank you for finding this error! I have corrected it in my resubmission.
