“Romeo and Juliet: A Love out of the Shell”: Using Storytelling to Address Students’ Misconceptions and Promote Modeling Competencies in Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this innovative application of a storytelling model to science instruction. This is a strong paper that may be significantly strengthened with revision in several areas. 

First, the literature review may be strengthened by the addition of more current literature, with a particular focus on empirical evidence to support claims regarding inquiry-based learning and the use of storytelling as a pedagogical tool in the science classroom. There is a large and growing body of evidence to support your claims. 

In addition, the foregrounding of what will be presented (for example, lines 187-194) might be revised to create clearer transitions. Although it is customary in academic writing to tell the reader what you will present, your argument would be much stronger if supported by a more nuanced transition from one section to the next. You may consider revising these transitions to build a stronger argument. 

You might consider restructuring/reordering your methods section. The story elements and design principles may be clearer if they follow section 3.2 (discussion of the Teaching and Learning Cycle. 5E model). 

Please explain why the use of digital tools is significant (lines 297 & 298). 

Please describe your processes for data analysis in sufficient detail to make clearer how your preliminary findings emerged from the data. 

Consider revising and resubmitting your manuscript after data analysis has been completed. This will allow you to make a stronger argument regarding your findings and strengthen your discussion. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript will be improved with careful attention to revision for clarity and editing to correct all minor grammatical errors and typos. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a design for a teaching-learning sequence based on storytelling of a well-known classical story incorporating into its narrative a chosen learning concept, the modern quantum mechanical atomic model, and other story elements to tackle common student misconceptions. They design their pedagogic strategy based on the “context and question” model and on well-established collaborative and enquiry-based approaches in literature. Then, they expose in a clear manner the choices of every part of the narrative in their story, both contextual and conceptual, based on these criteria. The authors describe a five-phase process, combining the introduction of concepts via the narrative with discussions facilitating knowledge sharing and also providing further conceptual challenges to test and deepen the developed models. The authors then report on their assessment of the TLS based on the experience with two classrooms based on the material created by the students, satisfaction questionnaires and teacher interviews. 

 

I believe that the manuscript presents an interesting approach to the teaching of a difficult concept and that the authors justify clearly their choice and methodology and present evidence of the effectiveness of the method. For further clarity, I propose the following minor corrections/comments: 

 

1. Could the authors, explicitly indicate the average age of the 10th grade students? Since educational systems are varied across the world, it might help the reader assess the expected literacy of the students object of the study.

 

2. Given that the study was done with students with access to technological resources in their classrooms and the fact that the activity was lengthy, could the authors discuss potential extension of the storytelling TLS in the context of gamification or similar current interactive tools? As these constitute a natural framework for high engagement —making the duration less taxing for the students— and a good platform for collaborative hands-on learning, I believe that the discussions section could benefit from this addition.

 

 

3. The authors recognize that some of the task was perceived as too difficult by a part of the students and that certain concepts such as that of orbital were not substantially improved by a part of the attendees. Could the authors include briefly some potential solutions in the discussion? 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In addition, there a few minor typos that the authors can revise, e.g. C&D instead of C&Q in line 119 or Frair Lorenzo in page 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is much improved. I suggest one more careful review to revise for precise language and clarity. Specifically, the section entitled "preliminary findings" may be nuanced to be clearer and stronger - more finished in anticipation of the next phase of the work described in your letter. The description of findings from qualitative analysis, indicating that analysis "seems to show"..., still feels like the work is in progress and unfinished at the time of submission. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf