Transdisciplinarity and Reflective and Creative Thinking through Art in Teacher Training

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article refers to the ODS in the introduction and conclusions, but they are not addressed in the methodology, the questionnaire and, therefore, neither in the results nor the discussion.

The results are superficial, merely descriptive and are far from a deeper analysis that could be carried out considering the high percentages of Cronback's alpha. I suggest correlating the different variables to find out what possible relationship exists between them.

The tables included in the document do not contribute anything more than what is indicated in the text itself. They are a reiteration of the information written.

The Padlet application is mentioned in point g) of the conclusions, which is not named at any time in the description of the experience.

There is talk of teacher training, but the repercussions that this activity can have on the students' professional future as preschool teachers are largely overlooked. This takes advantage of the fact that a very reflective experience is carried out.

The references used are relevant, but few are up-to-date. Expanding references with more up-to-date articles and research is recommended.

Author Response

Ver archivo adjunto

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article presents an interesting idea about the way reflective process can be combined with transdisciplinary teaching practices.

However, there are limitations, which I summarise as follows:

The theoretical framework included in the introduction consists mainly of references to research in another language rather than in English, so it makes it difficult for both readers and reviewers to determine the accuracy of what is reported. Even if there is not enough relevant international literature on the importance of sound, there is a lot of relevant research on teacher education and reflection, particularly to enhance students’ reflection. (for example, Alger, C. (2006) ‘What went well, what didn’t go so well’: growth of reflection in pre‐service teachers, Reflective Practice, 7:3, 287-301;   Pedro, J. (2005) Reflection in teacher education: exploring pre‐service teachers’ meanings of reflective practice, Reflective Practice, 6:1, 49-66; Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 39–49.)

The last paragraph of the introduction (“In this project, we understand visual narrative methods as experiential…” sets out the context in which a transdisciplinary approach and the connection with reflection is possible. It is not clear how this connection arises. Is it only because of the use of technological means? How does the meaning of the stories form a part of or a reason for reflection? Also missing are the research questions that would shed light on the issue under consideration and facilitate the connection to the theoretical framework.

The same happens in the sentence “the formulated hypothesis focuses on the fact that the development of artistic activities promotes reflective thinking in future early childhood education teachers”: the connection between art activities and reflective thinking is not clear. How creative is the visualization of a sound wave by a specific device and especially how the resulting image is connected to the underlying message and Sustainable Development Goals. Perhaps this explains the fact that apart from curiosity and excitement, the activity also caused confusion (table 1) as well as the contradiction between the necessity of thinking in 3.8, 3.10 and 3.11 (table 3).

Also, the rationale on the basis of which the questionnaire was structured is not mentioned. The axes of the questionnaire are general and give the impression that they simply “mirror” the activity implemented (for example 7.1).

Conclusions need support and enhancement with theoretical references, which is related to the previous comments I made about the theoretical framework and research questions.

Author Response

Thank you. Attached is the report of the revisions carried out.      

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, a sound paper which is topical and has currency - although it draws from a fairly limited and selective range of the available literature it is well-supported by empirical data derived from a large group of relevant participants using a validated questionnaire on 'narrative approaches for promoting reflective thinking in higher education'

This said, there are a number of unexplained anomalies - for example, Table 1 only presents results for 5 items whereas the original source identifies 7 - for example, emotions of unease x4 and emotions of activation x3; and, with Table 3 there are 12 items showing whereas in the original source this sub-scale concerning Levels of reflective thinking has only been divided into 10 - for example, critical x3, habitual x4 and comprehension x3. I think to simply state at the end of tables that this is your own elaboration requires some clarification and explanation 

In very large measure, the results presented in the tables are discussed descriptively and simply repeat what can be observed from the tables ... more analysis, critique and synthesis would enhance the quality and lines of argument and also, if discussed more specifically in relation to the key tenets of the original source could enhance the overall significance and rigour of this piece of writing. Other ways in which this may be strengthened would be to examine closely the results derived from the women and men, and various age ranges of participants involved in this study - alongside the possibility of also adding Cronbach α within the tables for comparative purposes 

A brief discussion concerning any limitations of this study would also be appropriate e.g., single quantitative method of gathering data using a self-reported measure on (what some might consider to be) a rather insecure and precarious platform warrant some exploration 

 

 

Minor lapses in sentence structure so would benefit from further editorial work

Author Response

Thank you. Attached is the report of the revisions carried out.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author/s took into account the suggestions of the reviewers and made a number of alterations and improvements to their text.