An Analysis of the Development of Preschoolers’ Natural Science Concepts from the Perspective of Framework Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Connecting different theoretical perspectives about children's emergent science is important for extending this area of research. Your theoretical framework is well explained as well as connection to prior research. 

Methods for selecting articles to review needs a little more clarity. In lines 244-246 you state "The result was 53 articles remaining, and out of these, 26 articles were chosen as they did not follow framework theory and they were diverse in natural science content." At first I was confused and thought it should be "did follow framework theory" of Vosniadou. Then later in section 3, lines 279-281, you state "The analysis was based on the empirical data of a variety of studies with different theoretical perspectives. The framework theory afforded a new context for reinterpreting the diverse perspectives." Revise lines 244-246 to include this explanation.

The subtitle in Section 3, Intuitive conceptions and models, should be moved, because you first explain in general what is done, the abbreviations and definitions used. So for example, you could start a new paragraph in line 281, "Results..." and put this subtitle before the paragraph.

Results of the analysis should better present the connection between your categorization and the findings of the empirical studies. In table 2, column 1, you give the science topic and the article numbers, and then in column 2 and 4 state the intuitive and synthetic models. Are the statements included in column 2 and 4 findings in the referenced articles? If so, try to clarify that in the text; if not then you should give the actual findings of the studies based on their theoretical perspective and then show how those relate to the intuitive/synthetic/scientific models. A few examples would be sufficient; a complete descriptions could be added in Table 5 in the Appendix.

Table 4 seems unnecessary since the articles are included in the references. You can simply add article numbers in Section 2 where you say that 26 articles were selected and associated science content in lines 247-252. For example, "...Water cycle (articles [1], [2]),..." You can use the space lost for table 4 to explain better the connection between actual articles' findings and Vosniadou's framework theory.

The Discussion section includes some conclusions and recommendations that I cannot derive from the results you presented. I believe that if you better explain connections between empirical studies' findings and intuitive/synthetic/scientific models as I suggested above, your Discussion section would be meaningful.

 

I believe that the revisions I suggested are minor because you should have made the connections between the empirical studies' findings and Vosniadou's framework theory in order to get your results and to make your conclusions. Hence, the revisions are mostly about adding specific examples to support your claims.

Author Response

Answer to referee nr 1 (Changes have been marked with the colour green)

Connecting different theoretical perspectives about children's emergent science is important for extending this area of research. Your theoretical framework is well explained as well as connection to prior research. 

Methods for selecting articles to review needs a little more clarity. In lines 244-246 you state "The result was 53 articles remaining, and out of these, 26 articles were chosen as they did not follow framework theory and they were diverse in natural science content." At first I was confused and thought it should be "did follow framework theory" of Vosniadou.  Then later in section 3, lines 279-281, you state "The analysis was based on the empirical data of a variety of studies with different theoretical perspectives. The framework theory afforded a new context for reinterpreting the diverse perspectives." Revise lines 244-246 to include this explanation.

The added text now specifies the above

The subtitle in Section 3, Intuitive conceptions and models, should be moved, because you first explain in general what is done, the abbreviations and definitions used. So for example, you could start a new paragraph in line 281, "Results..." and put this subtitle before the paragraph.

The suggested change has been made

Results of the analysis should better present the connection between your categorization and the findings of the empirical studies. In table 2, column 1, you give the science topic and the article numbers, and then in column 2 and 4 state the intuitive and synthetic models. Are the statements included in column 2 and 4 findings in the referenced articles? If so, try to clarify that in the text; if not then you should give the actual findings of the studies based on their theoretical perspective and then show how those relate to the intuitive/synthetic/scientific models. A few examples would be sufficient; a complete descriptions could be added in Table 5 in the Appendix.

The statements are findings from the analyzed articles. Additions have been made on line 286-289

Table 4 seems unnecessary since the articles are included in the references. You can simply add article numbers in Section 2 where you say that 26 articles were selected and associated science content in lines 247-252. For example, "...Water cycle (articles [1], [2]),..." You can use the space lost for table 4 to explain better the connection between actual articles' findings and Vosniadou's framework theory.

Suggested changes have been made on line 248-255

The Discussion section includes some conclusions and recommendations that I cannot derive from the results you presented. I believe that if you better explain connections between empirical studies' findings and intuitive/synthetic/scientific models as I suggested above, your Discussion section would be meaningful.

Additions to clarify the relationship between findings and discussion have been made.

I believe that the revisions I suggested are minor because you should have made the connections between the empirical studies' findings and Vosniadou's framework theory in order to get your results and to make your conclusions. Hence, the revisions are mostly about adding specific examples to support your claims.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is of particular theoretical interest as it is based on the idea of collecting, classifying and processing significant research data produced in different theoretical frameworks, through the "Vosniadou´s framework theory". In general, this effort is successful as it manages to "subordinate" the diversity of approaches and give them a unified perspective.

 

For the “Introduction”

In the subsection "Theoretical background" the article starts from two major theoretical assumptions (Vygotski and Piaget) and then in the short but comprehensive subsection "Previous research on children’s learning progressions" approaches the issue of the progress of young children's thinking in different perspectives.

In the following subsections of the "Introduction" the "Vosniadou´s framework theory" is presented briefly but systematically and carefully.

But, here, whether one agrees or disagrees with this theoretical framework, it must be stressed that all the basic terms-notions used (“concepts”, “models”, “ontology”, and “epistemology”) have a very specific meaning that in other contexts is different. This will allow readers to follow the text without confusion as only those who use this context assign this meaning to these terms.

It would also be advisable to give the definitions of these terms in a table so that the reader can refer to them continuously.

 

For the “Materials and Methods”

 

The methodology section is carefully and systematically presented. However, it would be very helpful to the reader to add short and characteristic examples for the categories "intuitive, synthetic and scientific models". Although such examples are discussed below, it would be very useful to appear for the first time in the methodology.

 

For the “Results”

 

The results are presented systematically in order to accurately answer the research questions. The concepts are used precisely, and the examples given clearly give the nature of the three levels of "models".

Here attention needs to be paid to one point: synthetic models, in lines 185-187, are presented as equivalent misconceptions, alternative conceptions, or precursor models. These concepts do not have the same perspective as the "synthetic models": misconceptions or alternative conceptions point to unstable ideas that differ in scientific knowledge, while precursor models define mental entities that have a constant structure and certain characteristics of school scientific models. Perhaps here it would be a solution to make a more subtle distinction. That is, we could say that between synthetic   models and misconceptions/alternative conceptions or precursor models, certain characteristics show correspondences.

 

For the “Discussion”

The "discussion" in this article must be a very strong section as the issue of repositioning research data in a different theoretical context than the one in which it has been produced is a very interesting but demanding effort.

First of all, it is necessary to place the general characteristics of the synthesis characterized as "Vosniadou ́s framework theory" against the important theoretical approaches known as Vygotskian and Piagetian frameworks and the interpretative paths for the development of the concepts they predict. In this effort, the main differences between theories that interpret in depth the construction of concepts from the natural world and the "Vosniadou ́s framework theory" which has a descriptive character will be highlighted. 

Furthermore, an important element of the very interesting effort made in this article is the utilization of research data as reflected in the articles analyzed, without including the theoretical perspectives within which they were produced. This needs a systematic reference to the "discussion" because it is self-evident that research data are produced in specific theoretical frameworks that dictate hypotheses, research questions and research tools. It is therefore important to explain that the test being carried out here is the ability of Vosniadou ́s framework theory to incorporate other research findings rather than the theoretical schemes in which they have been found.

 

A special technical remark: in "References" in many entries the names of the authors are repeated more than once (for example references 10, 13, 33). Make a careful check of bibliographic references.

 

In general the article is original, very interesting and systematically developed. It deserves to be published with the minor revisions we mentioned.

 

Author Response

Answer to referee nr 2 (Changes have been marked with the colour blue)

 

 

This article is of particular theoretical interest as it is based on the idea of collecting, classifying and processing significant research data produced in different theoretical frameworks, through the "Vosniadou´s framework theory". In general, this effort is successful as it manages to "subordinate" the diversity of approaches and give them a unified perspective.

 

For the “Introduction”

In the subsection "Theoretical background" the article starts from two major theoretical assumptions (Vygotski and Piaget) and then in the short but comprehensive subsection "Previous research on children’s learning progressions" approaches the issue of the progress of young children's thinking in different perspectives.

In the following subsections of the "Introduction" the "Vosniadou´s framework theory" is presented briefly but systematically and carefully.

But, here, whether one agrees or disagrees with this theoretical framework, it must be stressed that all the basic terms-notions used (“concepts”, “models”, “ontology”, and “epistemology”) have a very specific meaning that in other contexts is different. This will allow readers to follow the text without confusion as only those who use this context assign this meaning to these terms.

It would also be advisable to give the definitions of these terms in a table so that the reader can refer to them continuously.

A Table specifying these definitions have been added.

 

For the “Materials and Methods”

 

The methodology section is carefully and systematically presented. However, it would be very helpful to the reader to add short and characteristic examples for the categories "intuitive, synthetic and scientific models". Although such examples are discussed below, it would be very useful to appear for the first time in the methodology.

Examples have been provided on line 265-269

For the “Results”

 

The results are presented systematically in order to accurately answer the research questions. The concepts are used precisely, and the examples given clearly give the nature of the three levels of "models".

Here attention needs to be paid to one point: synthetic models, in lines 185-187, are presented as equivalent misconceptions, alternative conceptions, or precursor models. These concepts do not have the same perspective as the "synthetic models": misconceptions or alternative conceptions point to unstable ideas that differ in scientific knowledge, while precursor models define mental entities that have a constant structure and certain characteristics of school scientific models. Perhaps here it would be a solution to make a more subtle distinction. That is, we could say that between synthetic   models and misconceptions/alternative conceptions or precursor models, certain characteristics show correspondences.

The suggested change has been made on line 187

 

For the “Discussion”

The "discussion" in this article must be a very strong section as the issue of repositioning research data in a different theoretical context than the one in which it has been produced is a very interesting but demanding effort.

First of all, it is necessary to place the general characteristics of the synthesis characterized as "Vosniadou ́s framework theory" against the important theoretical approaches known as Vygotskian and Piagetian frameworks and the interpretative paths for the development of the concepts they predict. In this effort, the main differences between theories that interpret in depth the construction of concepts from the natural world and the "Vosniadou ́s framework theory" which has a descriptive character will be highlighted. 

Changes have been made at the end of the discussion

Furthermore, an important element of the very interesting effort made in this article is the utilization of research data as reflected in the articles analyzed, without including the theoretical perspectives within which they were produced. This needs a systematic reference to the "discussion" because it is self-evident that research data are produced in specific theoretical frameworks that dictate hypotheses, research questions and research tools. It is therefore important to explain that the test being carried out here is the ability of Vosniadou ́s framework theory to incorporate other research findings rather than the theoretical schemes in which they have been found.

Changes have been made at the end of the discussion

A special technical remark: in "References" in many entries the names of the authors are repeated more than once (for example references 10, 13, 33). Make a careful check of bibliographic references.

 Changes have been made.

In general the article is original, very interesting and systematically developed. It deserves to be published with the minor revisions we mentioned.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the feedback document attached for your reference.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English quality of the manuscript ‘An analysis of the development of preschoolers’ natural science concepts from the perspective of framework theory’ is generally good, with clear and coherent sentence structure throughout. However, there are areas where improvements could enhance readability and clarity.

•           Grammatical Precision: Some sentences could be refined for grammatical accuracy. For example, the Abstract (Lines 15-30) contains lengthy sentences that could be broken down for clarity.

•           Clarification of Complex Ideas: Some sections, like the discussion on intuitive and counter-intuitive concepts (Lines 300-316), are complex and could be simplified for better understanding.

 

•           Punctuation and Syntax: Review the manuscript for punctuation consistency and syntactical clarity to enhance the flow of the text.

Author Response

Answer to referee nr 3 Changes have been made with the colour yellow, in the discussion these changes include changes from all three reviewers

 

The paper, ‘An Analysis of the Development of Preschoolers’ Natural Science Concepts from the Perspective of Framework Theory,’ explores how young children learn natural science concepts. It utilises Vosniadou’s framework theory to analyse and summarise various research studies in this field. The paper identifies two main types of concepts in children’s learning: intuitive and counter-intuitive. It discusses how children’s understanding evolves from simple, sensory-based concepts to more complex, scientific ones, involving changes in their epistemological and ontological thinking. The research highlights the importance of diverse science experiences in early education and the role of teachers in guiding children from simplistic, sensorybased reasoning to more abstract, scientific thinking. The paper emphasises the significance of building synthetic models that bridge intuitive and scientific concepts, aiding in the development of children’s scientific understanding. After a detailed review of the manuscript, here are some specific and critical observations: 1. Content Description and Contextualisation:

• The manuscript could benefit from a more nuanced discussion of how its review and conclusions advance the current understanding in the field. While it references Vosniadou’s framework theory, it could do more to explicitly differentiate its findings from existing literature, thereby adding to the existing body of knowledge in a more significant way. •

Enhance the connection between Vosniadou’s framework theory and contemporary empirical research. Include recent studies to demonstrate the current relevance of the framework.

2. Relevance of References: • The paper’s relevant references appear somewhat dated in places (only reviewed literature before September 2021).

More references have been provided.

Including more recent studies would demonstrate a thorough and up-to-date understanding of the topic. 3. Clarity of Research Components: • The research components, especially the theoretical framework, are generally well-explained. However, the connection between the literature review and the theoretical framework could be made more explicit to strengthen the coherence of the manuscript. 4. Coherence and Quality of Argumentation: • The discussion section, while informative, occasionally lapses into generalisations.

Changes have been made.

manuscript would benefit from more specific examples from the literature to substantiate its claims, particularly when discussing the application of framework theory in preschool science education. • Deepen the critical analysis of the framework theory, especially in contrast to existing theories, to add depth and insight to the discussion.

Changes have been made.

5. Presentation of Research: • Given the nature of the paper as a literature review, the absence of new empirical data is understandable. However, a more critical synthesis of the existing literature, highlighting contradictions or gaps in the current research, would enhance the manuscript’s value.

The contradiction between Vosniadou and Nobes have been added at the end of the discussion.

 

6. Referencing Quality: • The paper is adequately referenced but would benefit from a broader range of sources, particularly more recent publications (i.e., after September 2021), to demonstrate a comprehensive engagement with current research.

More references have been provided

• Broaden the range of references to include both foundational and recent studies, ensuring a balance between historical context and current relevance. 7. Support for Conclusions: • The conclusions are based on the literature review but could be strengthened by more directly linking them to specific studies or findings in the field. This would provide a more explicit demonstration of how the paper’s insights are grounded in existing research. • Strengthen the linkage between specific literature findings and the manuscript’s conclusions, making the argument more persuasive and grounded in the reviewed research.

More links have been added

 Overall, the manuscript provides a valuable synthesis of literature but could be enhanced by incorporating more recent research, offering a more critical literature analysis, and drawing more direct connections between its theoretical framework and the studies it reviews. Overall, with minor revisions for clarity and grammatical precision, the manuscript can be improved significantly in terms of its English quality

English have been reviewed by a translator.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate your hard work in revising the manuscript according to my suggestions. Based on the changes, I believe the manuscript is suitable for publication.