How Do Physics Teacher Candidates Substantiate Their Knowledge? An Analytical Framework for Examining the Epistemic Dimensions of Content Knowledge in Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper and the level of analysis that I saw make me believe that is going to be of very informative for those who are interetsed in the epistemic dimensions of physics content knolwdge. I belive the paper can be published, but i have a few suggsetions/recommendations that could be considered by the authors.
First, they have to go into some more depth where the discuss the frameworks for analysing content knolwdge. This would give the readers, who may nor be very familiar with this kind of work, some more background information and thus make a btter connection with the analysis and the results..
Second, more information and explantion with regard figures 5 through 8.
Third, the discussion on both the variation and the combination of conceptual, relationa; and strategic knolwdge needs to expanded on a bit, as this discussion can be of greta interest to physics educators.
And fourth, i believe the limitations of the study need to make explicit.
I believe these clarifications can imporve your paper which i find well written anyway.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1
Comment 1: Moderate English changes required
Response 1: We have carried out the English revision according to referees suggestion
Comment 2: This paper and the level of analysis that I saw make me believe that is going to be of very informative for those who are interetsed in the epistemic dimensions of physics content knolwdge. I belive the paper can be published, but i have a few suggsetions/recommendations that could be considered by the authors. First, they have to go into some more depth where the discuss the frameworks for analysing content knolwdge. This would give the readers, who may nor be very familiar with this kind of work, some more background information and thus make a btter connection with the analysis and the results.
Response 2: We have added more discussion on analysing content knowledge and one reference (De Jong and Ferguson-Hessler)
Comment 3: Second, more information and explantion with regard figures 5 through 8.
Response 3: We have now removed Figures 5 and 6 according to other referees suggestion. We do hope that this section is now more understantable.
Comment 4: Third, the discussion on both the variation and the combination of conceptual, relationa; and strategic knolwdge needs to expanded on a bit, as this discussion can be of greta interest to physics educators.
Response 4: We have added more discussion on conceptual, relational and strategic knowledge both in the theoretical background and in the discussion sections.
Comment 5: And fourth, i believe the limitations of the study need to make explicit. I believe these clarifications can imporve your paper which i find well written anyway.
Response 5: Thank you for this valuable comment. We have corrected this shortcoming and added notions of the limitations of the study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written and flows evenly. The scientific principles are sound and reflect common understanding in the field today. The list of references is extensive and supports the paper.
The only issue I have is the small number of participants (16). The small number of N makes reflections difficult. I understand the number of physics teacher candidates is small.
Overall very well written
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comment 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response 1: We have carried out the English minor spell check according to referee’s suggestion
Comment 2: The paper is well written and flows evenly. The scientific principles are sound and reflect common understanding in the field today. The list of references is extensive and supports the paper.
The only issue I have is the small number of participants (16). The small number of N makes reflections difficult. I understand the number of physics teacher candidates is small.
Overall very well written
Response 2: Thank you for your supportive views. The small number of participants is definitely a shortcoming which is hard to fix. Therefore the results of this study rather illustrate the nature of the phenomenon than makes accurate predictions of the target population. We have added some discussion of the limitations of this study in the discussion section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of “How do physics teacher candidates substantiate their knowledge? An analytical framework for examining the epistemic dimension of content knowledge in higher education”
13 May 2019
This article describes a framework for studying the types of content knowledge teacher candidates demonstrate: conceptual, relational, and strategic knowledge. The paper summarizes the framework and provides examples of its use. Overall the paper is easy to read and I was able to follow the descriptions. I have a few recommendations to improve the paper.
Lines 80-82: this may be country specific, and may be more true in past decades. In the US, the work of physics education researchers suggests that helping students develop laws themselves can be very effective for learning.
Lines 146-151: I really struggled with these differences the first time I read them. It would be nice to have a very simple example when you first introduce them. Something easy like “position is proportional to time squared, so in twice the time you go four times farther; this is only true for linear motion with constant acceleration” or something like that.
Line 197: Please explain why the subjects were all physics minors instead of physics majors.
Figures 1 & 2 are probably not needed; the description of scoring the data can be shortened since it is right after the explanation of codes.
I would like to clarify that normalization was based on the added C scores for C1 and C2 (I count 34 C1 and 24 C2 among the 17 units of analysis). So the C1 normalizes to 1.0 (34/34) and C2 is normalized on that same 34? I’m assuming you had three normalization numbers, not six or one. If this is the case, no changes needed.
Very minor notes:
Perhaps use “credits” instead of “ECTS”.
Several places refer to another “chapter”. Lines 159, 251, 363
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 3
Comment 1: Moderate English changes required
Response 1: We have carried out the English revision according to referee’s suggestion
Comment 2: This article describes a framework for studying the types of content knowledge teacher candidates demonstrate: conceptual, relational, and strategic knowledge. The paper summarizes the framework and provides examples of its use. Overall the paper is easy to read and I was able to follow the descriptions. I have a few recommendations to improve the paper.
Lines 80-82: this may be country specific, and may be more true in past decades. In the US, the work of physics education researchers suggests that helping students develop laws themselves can be very effective for learning.
Response 2: We agree with this comment and this view is in line with our ideas of the demand on strategic knowledge.
Comment 3: Lines 146-151: I really struggled with these differences the first time I read them. It would be nice to have a very simple example when you first introduce them. Something easy like “position is proportional to time squared, so in twice the time you go four times farther; this is only true for linear motion with constant acceleration” or something like that.
Response 3: Thank you for this valuable note! We have now added examples to all three dimensions to help the reader.
Comment 4: Line 197: Please explain why the subjects were all physics minors instead of physics majors.
Response 4: In Finland all in-service teachers have two subject to teach. However, for some reason, we do have quite few physics major pre-service teachers. Therefore, our possibilities to gather research material on pre-service physics teachers, is limited. We have now edited the text so that we discuss about “pre-service teachers study to be qualified teaching physics in secondary and upper secondary schools”. In this way we do not stress that the participants are physics minors.
Comment 5: Figures 1 & 2 are probably not needed; the description of scoring the data can be shortened since it is right after the explanation of codes.
Response 5: We have removed the description of scoring and Figures 1 and 2. We think that all necessary information concerning scoring and criteria are now presented in more compact way.
Comment 6: I would like to clarify that normalization was based on the added C scores for C1 and C2 (I count 34 C1 and 24 C2 among the 17 units of analysis). So the C1 normalizes to 1.0 (34/34) and C2 is normalized on that same 34? I’m assuming you had three normalization numbers, not six or one. If this is the case, no changes needed.
Response 6: Very good clarification point! For each student, there are one normalization constant for C scores, one for R scores and one for S scores. C normalization score is used for both C1 and C2, and for R and S in similar way. We have now clarified this in section 7.2.
Comment 7: Very minor notes:
Perhaps use “credits” instead of “ECTS”.
Several places refer to another “chapter”. Lines 159, 251, 363
Response 7: We have made these corrections.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
This is an excellent submission. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, and presents sound conclusions. I have questions, comments, and suggestions rather than criticisms.
Introduction
Line 36: The references provided are specific to mathematics, but your teachers of interest are physics teachers. Suggest add references related to the physical sciences (or just science) and/or indicate how the results found in the realm of mathematics are relevant here.
Line 42: Perhaps add a reference related to the last sentence.
Line 49-50: Text edit--"...dimensions: conceptual knowledge, ..."
Line 50: Text edit--"...knowledge. The framework can be used..."
Line 52-53: Awkward phrasing--"...identify the critical aspects and the details in terms of content knowledge where teacher educators need to intervene or teacher candidates themselves can improve."
Theoretical framework
2.1
Line 63-64: Another place where physics/physical science references might be more appropriate than mathematics references.
Line 65-66: Unclear phrasing--"...defines the space within classroom activities that they organize for pupils..."
Line 69, Line 70: Another place where physics/physical science references might be more appropriate than mathematics references.
2.2
Line 96: Awkward phrasing. Suggest change to "Quantitative experiments, data models and theoretical models are especially important..."
Line 106: Suggest change text to "...three categories: 1) knowledge..."
2.3
Line 128: Grammar edit--"...knowledge to knowing when and how..."
Line 159: Text edit--Replace "chapter 5" with "section 5" in the ()
Aim
Line 173: Phrasing casual compared with the rest of the document--"...question tries to find out..."
Methods
4.3
For this section, the tenses of the verbs chance from past to present and back again. Suggest editing to make past tense throughout all of the methods
Line 225: Text edit--"...two tasks: teacher candidates' written..."
Data analysis framework
For this section, suggest editing to make the verbs past tense throughout
Lines 246-247: Text edit--put the C, R, and S in ()
Line 247: Text edit--"...two subcategories: 1) identification and definition..."
Line 249-251: Text edit--"...detailed scoring system used in the analysis. If none of the criteria was met,...in more detail in section 5..."
Line 257-258: Awkward phrasing--"...Such a dimension entails declarative knowledge, knowing that, about concepts, terms, statements..." Not sure what this means.
Line 260: Awkward phrasing--"...unless they are clearly verbally pointed out, or if they have..." What do you mean by "clearly verbally pointed out in this context?
Data analysis and scoring
Line 294-296: How were disagreements between the raters resolved to arrive at the final scores?
Results
7.1
Consider deleting the sections describing the raw scores. The reader is invited to compare the raw scores among the candidates, but they are not really comparable in this form, especially not the means and SDs. All of the rich description and analysis can be applied to the normalized scores and the reader will be provided with a real basis for comparison.
7.2
Line 362: Text edit--"...a lot" is quite casual
Line 363: Text edit--"...amount..." In this case, "number" is the appropriate word; Text edit--"...(see Appendix A and the previous method section)..."
Line 365: Text edits--"...written report appears in Appendix A and has 17...
Line 366: Text edit--"...The number of conceptual..."
Line 375: Will the article be published in color? If not consider an alternative means of distinguishing between the two lines. When I printed the paper in black and white, the lines looked the same. This is the case for all of the graphs
Line 385-388: Consider deleting the graphs in figures 5 and 6 and going straight to the information in Figure 7. The normalized scores give a much stronger presentation than the raw scores, even the graphs that compare achieved scores compared with max possible scores. These also are more likely to give information to mentors of teacher candidates that they can act on while working with the candidates. Report the averages with SEs.
Line 393-395: Report the averages with SEs
7.3
Line 400: What does this mean?
Line 403: replace ) with ]
Line 404: Is this Group 1? The label become very confusing, especially after line 408. At first the groups are described as low, medium, high, and then they are given numbers. I had trouble discerning which was which as I read.
Line 404: Text edit--Delete (.55); you don't need it, given the parenthetical in the next line and I was not sure if .55 was 1/2SD or the SD
Discussion
This section is very well done and addressed all of the questions and concerns I raised myself as I was reading.
8.1
Line 469-471: Consider adding more information about the assignment given to the candidates in the method section to provide more context that you can take advantage of here in the discussion section.
8.2
Line 492: Consider adding a caveat here about the candidates expressing little strategic knowledge without prompting. It is essential that teachers be taught to think strategically as part of their training. In my experience, few individuals are naturally wired to think this way, but it is a skill that can be taught. This also ties nicely into points you raised in the theoretical framework section.
As I said in the beginning, this is an excellent article.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 4
Comment 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
Response 1: We have carried out the English minor spell check according to referee’s suggestion
This is an excellent submission. It is thoroughly researched, well-written, and presents sound conclusions. I have questions, comments, and suggestions rather than criticisms.
Introduction
Comment 2: Line 36: The references provided are specific to mathematics, but your teachers of interest are physics teachers. Suggest add references related to the physical sciences (or just science) and/or indicate how the results found in the realm of mathematics are relevant here.
Response 2: This a valuable comment. We have added physics reference and also added the notion that “results regarding teaching and learning mathematics and physics are comparable in many cases.”
Comment 3: Line 42: Perhaps add a reference related to the last sentence.
Response 3: We have added here two references.
Comment 4:
Line 49-50: Text edit--"...dimensions: conceptual knowledge, ..."
Line 50: Text edit--"...knowledge. The framework can be used..."
Line 52-53: Awkward phrasing--"...identify the critical aspects and the details in terms of content knowledge where teacher educators need to intervene or teacher candidates themselves can improve."
Response 4: We have done the text editing and corrected the phrasing.
Theoretical framework
2.1
Comment 5:
Line 63-64: Another place where physics/physical science references might be more appropriate than mathematics references.
Line 65-66: Unclear phrasing--"...defines the space within classroom activities that they organize for pupils..."
Line 69, Line 70: Another place where physics/physical science references might be more appropriate than mathematics references.
Response 5: We have added physics reference and edited phrasing.
2.2
Comment 6:
Line 96: Awkward phrasing. Suggest change to "Quantitative experiments, data models and theoretical models are especially important..."
Line 106: Suggest change text to "...three categories: 1) knowledge..."
2.3
Line 128: Grammar edit--"...knowledge to knowing when and how..."
Line 159: Text edit--Replace "chapter 5" with "section 5" in the ()
Aim
Line 173: Phrasing casual compared with the rest of the document--"...question tries to find out..."
Response 6: We have done the text editing and corrected the phrasing.
Methods
4.3
Comment 7: For this section, the tenses of the verbs chance from past to present and back again. Suggest editing to make past tense throughout all of the methods
Response 7: This was again valuable notion. We have changed the text in past tense.
Comment 8: Line 225: Text edit--"...two tasks: teacher candidates' written..."
Response: We have made the proposed text editing.
Data analysis framework
Comment 9: For this section, suggest editing to make the verbs past tense throughout
Response 9: We have changed the text in past tense.
Comment 10:
Lines 246-247: Text edit--put the C, R, and S in ()
Line 247: Text edit--"...two subcategories: 1) identification and definition..."
Line 249-251: Text edit--"...detailed scoring system used in the analysis. If none of the criteria was met,...in more detail in section 5..."
Response 10: We have made the proposed text editing.
Comment 11: Line 257-258: Awkward phrasing--"...Such a dimension entails declarative knowledge, knowing that, about concepts, terms, statements..." Not sure what this means.
Response 11: We have now clarified this expression as it follows “Such a dimension entailed declarative knowledge about physics concepts and terms, such as “a photon” or “x-ray radiation”. We think that now it makes more sense.
Comment 12:
Line 260: Awkward phrasing--"...unless they are clearly verbally pointed out, or if they have..." What do you mean by "clearly verbally pointed out in this context?
Response 12: We agree that the phrasing was somewhat misleading. We have now corrected it as “unless they were clearly verbally explained”
Data analysis and scoring
Comment 13: Line 294-296: How were disagreements between the raters resolved to arrive at the final scores
Response 13: We have added the following in the data analysis and scoring section “The disagreement between researchers were discussed through until an agreement was found.”
Results
7.1
Comment 14: Consider deleting the sections describing the raw scores. The reader is invited to compare the raw scores among the candidates, but they are not really comparable in this form, especially not the means and SDs. All of the rich description and analysis can be applied to the normalized scores and the reader will be provided with a real basis for comparison.
Response 14: We left the tables for raw scores but deleted Figures 3 and 4 (histograms) as well as figures 5 and 6 (spider webs for raw scores). We do hope that the result section flows more evenly with these changes.
7.2
Comment 15:
Line 362: Text edit--"...a lot" is quite casual
Line 363: Text edit--"...amount..." In this case, "number" is the appropriate word; Text edit--"...(see Appendix A and the previous method section)..."
Line 365: Text edits--"...written report appears in Appendix A and has 17...
Line 366: Text edit--"...The number of conceptual..."
Response 15: We have made the proposed text editing.
Comment 16: Line 375: Will the article be published in color? If not consider an alternative means of distinguishing between the two lines. When I printed the paper in black and white, the lines looked the same. This is the case for all of the graphs
Response 16: The article will be published in colors. However, we have removed all Figures with two different colors.
Comment 17:
Line 385-388: Consider deleting the graphs in figures 5 and 6 and going straight to the information in Figure 7. The normalized scores give a much stronger presentation than the raw scores, even the graphs that compare achieved scores compared with max possible scores. These also are more likely to give information to mentors of teacher candidates that they can act on while working with the candidates. Report the averages with SEs.
Line 393-395: Report the averages with Ses
Response 17: We have deleted figures 5 and 6. We have not calculated standard errors for averages because we do not think it is necessary here.
7.3
Comment 18: Line 400: What does this mean?
Response 18: We changed the expression “There was variation between the dimensions of content knowledge among the participants”.
Comment 19: Line 403: replace ) with ]
Response 19: Replaced.
Comment 20: Line 404: Is this Group 1? The label become very confusing, especially after line 408. At first the groups are described as low, medium, high, and then they are given numbers. I had trouble discerning which was which as I read.
Response 20: We have modified the description of the groups so that it is easier to follow. “Group 1 (n=5) consisted of teacher candidates scoring half of the standard deviation above or below the average (7.4 +/- .55).” We also used the same order and names for the groups in the more detailed description of groups.
Comment 21: Line 404: Text edit--Delete (.55); you don't need it, given the parenthetical in the next line and I was not sure if .55 was 1/2SD or the SD
Response 21: We have removed parenthesis. 0.55 is ½SD. We hope this is more clear now.
Discussion
This section is very well done and addressed all of the questions and concerns I raised myself as I was reading.
8.1
Comment 22: Line 469-471: Consider adding more information about the assignment given to the candidates in the method section to provide more context that you can take advantage of here in the discussion section.
Response 22: We have added some more description of the task in section 4.3.
8.2
Comment 23: Line 492: Consider adding a caveat here about the candidates expressing little strategic knowledge without prompting. It is essential that teachers be taught to think strategically as part of their training. In my experience, few individuals are naturally wired to think this way, but it is a skill that can be taught. This also ties nicely into points you raised in the theoretical framework section.
As I said in the beginning, this is an excellent article.
Response 23: We have added discussion about the limitations of the study in section 8.
