Investigating Language and Culture Awareness of Pre-Service Science Teachers in Ireland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has limitations in answering the research questions appropriately. The detailed suggestions were made on the document. The paper should include a concise abstract, brief introduction with theoretical framework and literature review sections. The design of the study was not explicated. The data collection and analysis parts are not clear for quantitative and qualitative sections. Number of participants could be increased to make generalizations. The results should be considered and presented in a holistic perspective. The discussion talks about student learning. How did the study collect data about student learning? The authors should work on the paper to simplify its message to the reader.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors could present the argument in a better format to help the reader. 

Moderate English editing is required. 

Author Response

Thank you for the reviews. They were truly helpful. Attached, you will find our detailed response to the reviews, where we have addressed each point raised with care and attention. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors on this important paper. The consideration to the changing landscape of schooling in Ireland is commended, coupled with the need to equip PSTs entering the profession. Coming from a context that I have worked within in Melbourne Australia (a highly diverse community/country) we have a curriculum that pertains to these very points and yet we still often struggle with the same issues and also attracting PSTs from minority groups to join the profession.

 

The concept of Translanguaging, as a pedagogical and CIC to use in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms is insightful.

 

As the work is responding to the data collected in a survey, it would be good to see the next steps in further work and application based research where the above pedagogies mentioned are explicitly taught as part of core curriculum in teacher education subjects and then applied in placement. This process would also enhance the long term change required in schools. 

 

Looking forward to seeing your work progress 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript.

We are most grateful for your feedback, particularly in relation to Translanguaging and CIC. We do indeed see that future research will focus on how course for preservice science teachers can be adapted to include Language and culture responsive pedagogical practices, including translanguaging and classroom discourse practices and looking at the impact of this on classroom practices.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Detailed literature review and good contextualization for the study. However, major revisions are necessary for the reporting of findings especially for 3.2.

The reader would like to know how and why these items were in the questionnaire when the focus was on language and culture awareness and there is no literature review on the items in relation to   3.2. Preservice teachers’ awareness of linguistic and cultural diversity in the classroom 364 and in teacher education programme: Linguistic diversity, Cultural diversity, Inclusive pedagogies e.g. Universal Design Special needs, AEN disability, Educate together schools, SEN, Technology for universal design UDL for planning for learning.

It is not clear how you derived this conclusion – looking at the Tables - The data derived from our study reveals that the pre-service science teachers 412 identify the cognitive challenge of scientific vocabulary as a significant obstacle to 413 the acquisition of scientific knowledge—the formidable nature of scientific vocab-414 ulary.

For the paragraph following, the link to the preceding findings could be made clearer – linking quantitative and qualitative -The qualitative analysis of the open-ended survey question 10 unveiled a 416 range of difficulties, shedding light on the multifaceted impact of scientific vocab-417 ulary on the learning experiences of students: the interpretation of science con-418 cepts, limited engagement in classroom discussions and activities, difficulties in 419 comprehending science content, and a struggle with understanding scientific ter-420 minology. 

Why is Question 9 reported after Question 10?

Is it Figure 4 or 6? - To address the requirements of linguistically diverse classrooms, Figure 6 431 outlines the teaching strategies employed by participants when instructing stu-432 dents whose primary language is not English and/or Irish.

 For 3.2 you need to make clear to the reader whether each question is quantitative or open ended as the reader has to figure out the nature of the question.

Could you have presented  the findings question by question?

Consistency is needed for the presentation for the Findings section  – Tables first and then comments or comments then tables?

 

Editing

Add (2015) after Little - Little emphasizes the need for inclusive teaching practices that accommodate 121

%44 of the pre-service science teachers agrees that assumptions, perspectives, 576

they’re discoveries.”. This high-579

and practically makes them a target for other students." A different viewpoint 593

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No major issues.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Attached is our response to the reviews.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for the revisions. This study requires more work in terms of methodology, data collection and analysis and reporting its results.

1.      What is the research methodology? You need to specify using the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Which one is dominant, quantitative or qualitative?

2.      A mixed method or quantitative approach requires more than descriptive statistics.

3.      Is sampling convenient or purposeful?

4.      You said that this is a small-scale study. Why didn’t you design a qualitative study?

5.      Is survey a valid instrument?

6.      How did you analyze qualitative data? Current frequency format is not enough to include qualitative data.

7.      Most participants have native language in English. Is this appropriate for the purpose of the study?

8.      Some of the results section such as themes of science education program are part of the context and participants.

9.      You should have provided evidence from the open-ended survey responses. Only providing frequency scores is not enough.

10.   Some of the categories under “benefits of CLD students” could be combines to explain in a concise way.

11.   Representation of results require more work and evidence from the qualitative data.

12.   Your references should have been appropriately listed at the end.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The use of English is not problematic. 

Author Response

Response form authors:

• A mixed methods approach was adopted employing a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the data collection and analysis. Since this is a small-scale study, the research instrument was designed to collect both quantitative and qualitative responses. The approach used is primarily quantitative but qualitative responses were used to support interpretation and add nuance to the quantitative data.

• Although this is a small-scale study, we argue that a survey is a valid instrument for a number of reasons. It allowed us to reach pre-service science teachers in a number of universities in Ireland. The survey was designed to capture pre-service science teachers’ awareness of the multiple dimensions of diversity in Irish science classrooms, with a particular focus on linguistic and cultural diversity (CLD). Furthermore, the study sought to investigate pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards accommodating linguistic and cultural diversity and capture their awareness of pedagogical approaches that can be used to adjust teaching to support CLD students in the science classroom. The instrument was designed with a combination of closed and open questions designed specifically to ask teachers questions to capture data linked to the over-arching research questions . Although the study is small-scale, it has provided a snap-shot of the extent to which preservice science teachers undertaking science teacher education programmes in Ireland are aware of the growing diversity in Irish science classrooms their knowledge regarding language and culture responsive pedagogical approaches. The survey instrument used in our study is based on a survey instrument developed as part of the Erasmus+ ESTA -Educating science teachers for all project which was adapted from an earlier study by Khrais (2013) that surveyed teachers’ attitudes to teaching in culture and language diverse classrooms.

  (lines 241-249)

• The sampling is purposive as we targeted students taking pre-service science education programmes in Ireland. Lines 255-256

• The study is set in the context of increasing linguistic and cultural diversity in science classrooms in Ireland and as such, the L1 of the pre-service teachers is not relevant. However, the fact that most of the pre-service teachers are L1 speakers of English, reflects the lack of diversity in the teaching profession in Ireland
• tables 3 and 4 are now moved to the 3.1. Demographics of Participants
• Qualitative responses are shown in the table

• The references now have the style appropriate to the journal.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The concerns about 3.2 have been addressed. However, the authors need to look into the following: Need to relook Table 6 – something went wrong in copying and pasting 425 – noted - high percentages of respondents who note difficulties Rephrase - Further 426 highlight preservice teachers’ awareness of the cognitive demands of science as a 427 discipline. Saw - On the other 456 hand, a smaller fraction (16.7%) sees potential benefits of having CLD students in 457 the classroom, should not - engaged and learning, though some mentioned it shouldn't be the sole focus, 494 while Detailed literature review and good contextualization for the study. However, major revisions are necessary for the reporting of findings especially for 3.2. Which research question is addressed? - Regarding concerns about the potential impact of using students' home 527 language in the science classroom, opinions were divided, reflecting differing 528 perspectives on the role of language in academic progress and inclusivity. Which research question is addressed? - Regarding the importance of knowing CLD students' language and cultural 535 background, 41.7% recognised its significance in fostering inclusive learning 536 environments and enhancing achievement. 44% - %44 of the pre-service science teachers agrees that assumptions, perspectives, 605 and problems within scientific fields are often culturally based and influenced: were - The findings show that preservice science 738 teachers are largely aware of the increasing diversity in Irish science classrooms, 739 including cultural and linguistic diversity. was - Cultural and linguistic diversity is 740 perceived by the preservice science teachers as both challenging and enriching in 741 the classroom.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a

Author Response

Thank you. A concluding paragraph has been added to the discussion section, addressing the two research questions. (735-748)

Note: Grammar corrections done.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors should discuss how the validity of the survey was established. This should be clarified to talk about validity of the instrument.

The reviewer asks about the sampling: Could you please clarify how you define the sampling criteria for purposive sampling? If most of them, 22 pre-service teachers had English as Native language, you should emphasize that 12 teachers frequently speak Irish fluently. I think this is the specific case for the study. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing to make it clear. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments.

Line 250-257: the validity of the survey is explained

 

Line 264-277: purposive sampling is detailed.