Linking Traditional Teaching to Innovative Approaches: Student Conceptions in Kinematics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting and quite original work. However, the manuscript needs some changes to be publishable.

Firstly, the theoretical foundation is very basic, it must be completed with works that support the authors' statements and that are also more recent. I propose several recent quotes that can help you “pull the thread.”

Navajas, A. Life Cycle Assessment in Higher Education: Design and Implementation of a Teaching Sequence Activity. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su16041614

Pozuelo-Muñoz, J.; Calvo-Zueco, E.; Sánchez-Sánchez, E.; Cascarosa-Salillas, E. Science Skills Development through Problem-Based Learning in Secondary Education. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci13111096

Hodson, D. Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Diferent goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education 2014, 36, 2534–2553. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. Scientifc arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 2010, 22(8), 797–817. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284

Secondly, their analysis is poor. It is based on a statistical analysis of the numerical results obtained in the participants' responses. To have a better idea of ​​the achievements obtained, they should qualitatively analyze some of the responses and analyze, for example, some of the alternative ideas presented by the participants. I recommend expanding the results analysis section with examples of incorrect and correct answers.

Author Response

<COMMENTS>: The authors present an interesting and quite original work. However, the manuscript needs some changes to be publishable. Firstly, the theoretical foundation is very basic, it must be completed with works that support the authors' statements and that are also more recent. I propose several recent quotes that can help you “pull the thread.”

Navajas, A. Life Cycle Assessment in Higher Education: Design and Implementation of a Teaching Sequence Activity. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su16041614

Pozuelo-Muñoz, J.; Calvo-Zueco, E.; Sánchez-Sánchez, E.; Cascarosa-Salillas, E. Science Skills Development through Problem-Based Learning in Secondary Education. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111096

Hodson, D. Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Diferent goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education 2014, 36, 2534–2553. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. Scientifc arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 2010, 22(8), 797–817. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284

Secondly, their analysis is poor. It is based on a statistical analysis of the numerical results obtained in the participants' responses. To have a better idea of ​​the achievements obtained, they should qualitatively analyze some of the responses and analyze, for example, some of the alternative ideas presented by the participants. I recommend expanding the results analysis section with examples of incorrect and correct answers.

<RESPONSE>: Thank you very much for the review report,

I agree with the suggestions on theoretical background. I utilized the references within the paper to support the background, literature review, and discussion parts.

For the second part, this is a cross-sectional study. The qualitative part is the topic of another paper. This paper is prepared to answer the suggested research questions. The authors believe the results of this study will support the second qualitative work. Student responses will be presented in another study. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Summary of Paper

The paper is a study examining student responses to two questions designed to test the application of physics knowledge and to develop scientific reasoning. Student responses are classified according to the depth of knowledge demonstrated, the skill type utilized and the degree to which responses indicate a logical progression. Demographic data is collected for participants and statistical analyses are performed to identify patterns in the responses.

General Comments

The paper represents a useful attempt to perform a quantitative analysis of student responses to research-based curriculum materials. The study is placed in the context of relevant research and the collection of original data and employment of statistical methods to analyze these is appreciated. Significant issues are present throughout with the language used which frequently impairs meaning. Modification of the content to provide greater clarity regarding the methods employed and conclusions drawn is recommended.

Specific Comments

· Line 4  Reference to the "learning approaches of students" may be misleading: it would be more accurate to state that the study aims to understand the problem-solving approaches of students.

·  Line 9  Reference to "students' demographic knowledge" is confusing: the analysis considers the demographics of participants but does not consider the students' own knowledge of demographics.

·  Lines 9-10 More clarity regarding the methods employed is recommended. In particular, that student responses were classified according to the depth of knowledge demonstrated, the skill type utilized and the degree to which responses indicate a logical progression and that these, together with demographic data, were analyzed to determine any patterns.

· Lines 4-12 A statement of the main findings from the analyses is recommended.

·  Lines 116 and 124 It is unclear what is meant by applying knowledge in depth / in detail. It would be better to either refer simply to applying knowledge or to explain further what is meant by these terms.

·  Lines 126-132 Further references to the literature to validate the claims being made are recommended.

·  Figure 1 The image in this figure is skewed.

·  Lines 230-239 Further explanation of the categories used is recommended. I believe "skill level" is elsewhere referred to as "skill type", the latter perhaps being a better term as it does not imply a hierarchy. It may also be clearer to say that student responses were 'categorized' (as opposed to graded) and to convey that skill type refers to the methods utilized by students in solving problems as determined from analysis of their responses. More explanation of what is meant by these skill types and a little more detail regarding the meaning of "logical progression level" would be useful. Further explanation as to how these categorizations were achieved, possibly with examples, may also increase clarity.

·   Tables 2 and 3 The tables could be presented more neatly. It may also be better to include this raw data in an appendix.

·  Lines 260-329 The analysis here may be too descriptive. It is recommended to restrict the analysis to summary results or the outcomes of statistical tests as opposed to describing the data shown in the tables.

· Table 5 The table is somewhat unclear due to the inclusion of student departments in the same rows as the outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test. I recommend removing the 'Department' and 'N' columns from the table, including this information instead in the caption if required.

·   Lines 461-463 Reference to a positive correlation between skill and grade implies different skill types can be ranked however elsewhere skill is treated as a nominal variable. Could this be clarified or corrected. Similarly, the reference to a negative correlation between skill and gender is unclear - in which direction and for what skill?

·   Lines 538-542 There may be too much detail here regarding the problem to be solved for question 2 which would be better included elsewhere. It may be better to simplify refer to the differences in the type of skills that need to be exercised for question 1 versus question 2.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Significant improvements are required to the language used in the paper which frequently impairs meaning.

Author Response

• Thank you very much for your feedback. 

• <COMMENT>: Line 4 reference to the "learning approaches of students" may be misleading: it would be more accurate to state that the study aims to understand the problem-solving approaches of students.

The author revised the abstract to emphasize “the problem-solving approaches of students.”

• <COMMENT>: Line 9 reference to "students' demographic knowledge" is confusing: the analysis considers the demographics of participants but does not consider the students' own knowledge of demographics.

Necessary revisions are done to restate the sentence. It is stated as “demographics of participants”

• <COMMENT>: Lines 9-10 More clarity regarding the methods employed is recommended. In particular, that student responses were classified according to the depth of knowledge demonstrated, the skill type utilized and the degree to which responses indicate a logical progression and that these, together with demographic data, were analyzed to determine any patterns.

Necessary revisions are made to restate the sentence in the abstract. this sentence is added:

Student responses are categorized based on the depth of knowledge demonstrated, the skill type utilized, and the degree to which responses indicate a logical progression. These, together with demographic data, are analyzed to determine any patterns. 

• <COMMENT>: Lines 4-12 A statement of the main findings from the analyses is recommended.

The findings part is added to the abstract. This part is added:

Findings reveal that students use intuitive and mathematical skills to solve a graphical question. However, students employ qualitative and mathematical skill types when they are required to design an experiment. Notably, gender disparity appears to influence the approach to graphical questions, but the design-based question shows no significant relationship between males and females. Gender was likely to contribute to knowledge and logical progression levels, but grades might not show a positive relationship with knowledge level. 

• <COMMENT>: Lines 116 and 124 It is unclear what is meant by applying knowledge in depth / in detail. It would be better to either refer simply to applying knowledge or to explain further what is meant by these terms.

The author understands the problem, so the sentence is revised to simply state “applying knowledge.”

• <COMMENT>: Lines 126-132 Further references to the literature to validate the claims being made are recommended.

More references are included to support the theoretical background.

Navajas, A. Life Cycle Assessment in Higher Education: Design and Implementation of a Teaching Sequence Activity. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1614. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su16041614

Pozuelo-Muñoz, J.; Calvo-Zueco, E.; Sánchez-Sánchez, E.; Cascarosa-Salillas, E. Science Skills Development through Problem-Based Learning in Secondary Education. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13111096

Hodson, D. Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Diferent goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education 2014, 36, 2534–2553. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. Scientifc arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education 2010, 22(8), 797–817. doi: 10.1080/095006900412284

• <COMMENT>: Figure 1 The image in this figure is skewed.

The image was revised.

• <COMMENT>: Lines 230-239 Further explanation of the categories used is recommended. I believe "skill level" is elsewhere referred to as "skill type", the latter perhaps being a better term as it does not imply a hierarchy. It may also be clearer to say that student responses were 'categorized' (as opposed to graded) and to convey that skill type refers to the methods utilized by students in solving problems as determined from analysis of their responses. More explanation of what is meant by these skill types and a little more detail regarding the meaning of "logical progression level" would be useful. Further explanation as to how these categorizations were achieved, possibly with examples, may also increase clarity.

The author understands the confusion. So the author revised the sentence to make clarifications between knowledge level, skill type and logical progression level.

• <COMMENT>: Tables 2 and 3 The tables could be presented more neatly. It may also be better to include this raw data in an appendix.

The tables are revised. An appendix is attached.

• <COMMENT>: Lines 260-329 The analysis here may be too descriptive. It is recommended to restrict the analysis to summary results or the outcomes of statistical tests as opposed to describing the data shown in the tables.

Explanation of tables is necessary to clarify our interpretations.

• <COMMENT>: Table 5 The table is somewhat unclear due to the inclusion of student departments in the same rows as the outcome of the Kruskal-Wallis test. I recommend removing the 'Department' and 'N' columns from the table, including this information instead in the caption if required.

Necessary revisions are done on the table.

• <COMMENT>: Lines 461-463Reference to a positive correlation between skill and grade implies different skill types can be ranked however elsewhere skill is treated as a nominal variable. Could this be clarified or corrected? Similarly, the reference to a negative correlation between skill and gender is unclear - in which direction and for what skill?

Skill type is treated as a nominal variable. They are not ranked, but during analysis, intuitive is coded as 1, qualitative is coded as 2, visual is coded as 3, mathematical is coded as 4, and blended is coded as 5. Female: 0, male: 1. So a negative significant relationship indicated a female tendency to use intuitive or qualitative skills.

• <COMMENT>: Lines 538-542 There may be too much detail here regarding the problem to be solved for question 2 which would be better included elsewhere. It may be better to simplify and refer to the differences in the type of skills that need to be exercised for question 1 versus question 2.

This revision is done on the discussion part. The places for question 2 are emphasized. 

* Necessary English revisions are done on the paper. Thank you for your feedback. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made extensive changes to the language used which has greatly improved the grammar and improved readability. Modifications have been made addressing all comments which have greatly increased the clarity. As this was my main concern with the paper (the relevance and quality of references and methods utilised having been to a good standard in the original submission), I am now satisfied. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Significant improvements in the quality of language that have greatly improved clarity. There are still a few small errors although these do not detract from the quality of the paper or readability.