Self-Authorship: A Pedagogical Tool for Pre-Service Teachers to Develop (Pre)Professional Identity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the literature review, it is suggested to focus on the research them. to refer less to grand theories in education and in contrast to include reference to additional studies that focus on pre-service teachers in their first year

 

Author Response

best reviewer 

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive feedback! We have attempted to address it to best of our ability and thereby improve our article. 

Thank you for your constructive feedback!

Feedback	Action taken
Include reference to additional studies that focus on pre-service teachers in their first year	References about recent research added: Line 103, 110, 150, 165, 171

 

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a well-written paper on teacher education. I find the literature and theoretical background very interesting. The authors did a fine job of laying out the groundwork for the study. 

However, the methodology has some major issues:

1- Research question(s) should be provided.

2- The rationale for using the LEGO® 6 bricks activities should be clarified. Also, the readers would like to learn howLEGO® 6 bricks activities are related to the pre-professional identity.

3- LEGO® 6 bricks activities should be a focus of results and discussions.

4- Provide more details about the university and participants' beackgrounds. What courses have they received? Their hşgh school background?

5- Why did the authors picked first year pre-service teachers? Please provide the rationale. 

6 - Between lines 290-299, the authors describe the course; yet, we need more details about the course. Why did you pick this course? Your rationale? The content of the course? etc.

7-  The authors say, "  Students’ perceptions were activated by means of LEGO® 6 bricks activities where they could manoeuvre the blocks as they wished before writing reflective narratives. (lines 306-308)" Please explain how the activities activated students' perceptions. 

8- "7.4. Student activities" should be elaborated. 

9 - Data analysis should be described in great detail. There is no indication of systematic data analysis. 

10- Validity and reliability is an issue. There is no discussion of these two essential concepts. 

11 - How many pre-service teachers participated in the study?

12 - What kind of a report did they write? Sample reports?

13- It is not clear how the LEGO activities are related to the entire study?

14- The purpose, research questions, research design, data analysis and discussions should be tied together!!!

Limitations should be addressed. 

Ideas for future research should be provided. 

Author Response

best reviewer 
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive feedback! We have attempted to address it to best of our ability and thereby improve our article. 

Thank you for your constructive feedback!

Feedback	Action taken
Data analysis should be described in great detail. There is no indication of systematic data analysis.	Paragraph added (line 334 – 345)
The rationale for using the LEGO® Six bricks activities should be clarified. Also, the readers would like to learn how LEGO® Six bricks activities are related to the pre-professional identity.	Rationale added (Line 311 – 313) LEGO 6 bricks is a general educational manipulative that is used as a vehicle to explore the development of identity, it was not developed with the sole purpose of being connected to identity
LEGO® 6 bricks activities should be a focus of results and discussions.	The LEGO activity was the catalyst for reflective thinking.   We did not elucidate on more in the discussion as the reflective narrative was the source of data. The activity was merely a vehicle to assist students in a visual manner to conceptualise their thinking.
Between lines 290-299, the authors describe the course; yet, we need more details about the course. Why did you pick this course? Your rationale? The content of the course? etc.	The LEGO 6 bricks was not a course or module in itself. It was part of their teaching practice module and presented as a workshop. We corrected the explanation to workshop.
How many pre-service teachers participated in the study?	Addressed in line 328
What kind of a report did they write? Sample reports?	The students were required to write a narrative reflection on their experience of doing the LEGO activity. There was no format provided, they were asked to share their thinking process and own reflection
Research question should be provided	Added in line 271
Provide more detail about background of the participants	Addressed in research design. Students come from a diverse socio-economic background and that contributes to the rich data they provided.
Why was first year students picked?	The influence of schooling in both the work of Baxtor-Magolda as well as Lortie necessetitates the use of junior students to ensure that the impact of being a pre-service teacher is largely excluded. The research question and activity was also focused on part of an orientation program for first year students.
Validity and reliability	Addressed in line 334
Limitations	Addressed in line 811
Ideas for further research	Addressed in line  750

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 29 – 30 Font size for names appears larger and after Vygotsky there is a superfluous ‘and’

Line 32 “…as s a” - delete s

Line 36 your font size seems to be larger, too. Make paragraph 1 same as rest.

The - on Line 145 needs deleting

153 I would remove adjective ‘harsh’ as it paints a very poor image of teaching, which can be inspirational and fulfilling. This unfortunately may also shows the authors’ preconceptions. I find this throughout the paper with the pejorative sounding term 'naive' which comes, seemingly, from Jackson, but is repeated throughout and can seem a harsh and unfair descriptor of these research participants worldview. There are, in constructivism, multiple perspectives after all and meaning-making is subjective and arrived at from pluralistic experiences and points. We should not assume that these new teachers' viewpoints are 'naive' or 'immature' simply for following your prompts in the research, or that this explains everything there is to know about them.

166 as such I would use ‘a reality of teaching’, rather than ‘the’

I feel this section lacks balance. It also situates all of the issues present in the teaching profession with narrow conceptions: workload, admin, behaviour, rather than applying a lens to wider social contexts that teaching occurs within, i.e. funding, marketisation, performance based on results, poor assessment models, lack of employability or opportunity beyond school, etc.

176 double space left in

And 227

Is Table 1 the authors design or the theorists? I find the use of ‘lack of critical thinking’ to be judgmental. Lack implies lacking in ability, which is unfair and perhaps untrue. When people (students) are given direction, we don’t always receive it unquestioningly and without critique. We just may not voice it. Is the lack’ an absence due to ‘no requirement for critical thinking?’ would this be better and less critical of the students?

274 please note that line spacing changes from this section onwards

329 please provide brief explanation of inductive analysis

329 it would be useful here to provide a reference to thematic analysis and explain how they were coded (through what lens or under what protocol)

The focus of analysis seems skewed towards people, rather than instances or experiences. Can this be justified?

Because, in fact, the sample from 396 – 400 speaks to me of a negative emotional experience from a teacher; rather than just the person themselves who is barely alluded to, the experience has been telling here in terms of ‘what’ (not ‘who’) they want to be as a teacher.

386 double space after ‘of’

Line 426 line spacing changes again

Line 629 check use of authors names in text

Your recommendations seem reasonable, but I am curious what form or content the special lectures or events' in Line 750 might be/take. 

Feedback is given on mistakes to the authors above. Some of those comments may be formatting issues. A closer proof read is however necessary.

Author Response

best reviewer 

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive feedback! We have attempted to address it to best of our ability and thereby improve our article.

Thank you for your constructive feedback!

Feedback	Action taken
Lines 29 – 30 Font size for names appears larger and after Vygotsky there is a superfluous ‘and’	‘and’ deleted’, font size of paragraph 1 adjusted
Line 32 “…as s a” - delete s	‘s’ deleted
Line 36 your font size seems to be larger, too. Make paragraph 1 same as rest.	Font size of paragraph 1 adjusted
The - on Line 145 needs deleting	The dash was deleted
167 as such I would use ‘a reality of teaching’, rather than ‘the’	The changed to a
177 double space left in	Space deleted
227 double space left in	Space deleted
274 please note that line spacing changes from this section onwards	Noted, we will address the matter with the editorial staff.
386 double space after ‘of’	Space deleted
Line 426 line spacing changes again	Noted, we will address the matter with the editorial staff.
329 please provide brief explanation of inductive analysis	Paragraph added (line 333 – 340)
Your recommendations seem reasonable, but I am curious what form or content the special lectures or events' in Line 750 might be/take	Elucidated
Remove adjectives like harsh	Noted and addressed – harsh removed and naïve changed to possibly limited
Question about the authors of the table	The table is a summary of a literature study of all the work by Baxtor-Magolda, it is therefore her finding that critical thinking is lacking in first year pre-service teachers and not that of the authors. That aligns with Lortie’s notion of the apprenticeship of observation. We have however adjusted the ‘lack of critical thinking’ to ‘no critical thinking required’.
Focus of the analysis on people, rather than experiences	This was an important finding. The data was skewed towards people and relationships rather than experiences. We have attempted to explain this in the dissemination

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed the reviewers' concerns. 

Author Response

Thanks for your kind comments.