Teachers’ Constructivist and Ethical Beliefs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article is an interesting topic in order to analyze role teachers play in education. Nevertheless, scientific approach in general is missing. Some research information should be described in deep. Some suggestions are made in order to improve these aspects of the article:
Introduction is useful to contextualized the theory of the research. It is recommended to end this heading describing the aim of the article as well as the research objectives or research questions.
The research is well designed and the instruments used are relevant and well described. Validation and confidence of both instruments are also described in order to keep rigor in the research. However, it is suggested to include this information in “Method and Sample” heading. It could be interesting as well, describe in deep the sample to characterize it. It is recommended to attach both questionnaires.
It is needed description of the data process and statistical methods for understanding the results represented in tables. Descriptive statistics need more in depth interpretation of the data.
Discussion is interesting but it suggested to sum up the information presenting more in deep conclusions. Some discussion aspects are described in “Summary” heading, while some relevant conclusions should be described in relation to the introduction information. Also in relation to the research objectives and its implications to teacher’s role in education. It is suggested to name this headline as “Conclusions” instead of “Summary”. It gives the article more scientific approach.
Author Response
I have modified the last paragraph on the Introduction lines 77-81 to clarify the aims and objectives of the study.
I have added material to the Method section to describe more fully the processes used to analyse the data as requested and added the questionnaires at the end of the paper.
I have incorporated the summary of the previous version in the Results and Discussion section and added a Conclusion of the results that refers to the Introduction with its implicit call for a metric to describe teacher variation in program implementation.
Many thanks for your helpful suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article aims at exploring the association between teachers’ views on constructivist practices and their views on idealism and relativism in Ireland. This is a relevant topic for behavioural sciences which it might be suitable and of interest for the journal audience. However, the paper presents major flaws in its current form and it does not reach the standards to be published.
The title is very broad it does not give the main purpose of the study. The introduction and the literature discussed raises serious concerns; it does not take into account any of the criticisms to some of the approaches (i.e. Follow Through program published in Harvard Ed Rev). On the other hand, the paragraph about the digital revolution is not related with the topic the paper is focused on. There are several assertions not supported by the literature (lines 84-101). Overall, the concepts raised in the literature are somehow mixed and do not rely on updated literature in the field.
Method and sampling are very brief and do not provide information enough about the research design nor the analysis of the data. The sample is small for the type of correlational analysis presented, although authors acknowledge this as a limitations in the summary.
Results are correct although quite modest since they explore the relation between the two ethical dimension and the five dimensions constructivism.
Discussion and conclusions seem to be presented under the “Summary” section, which is quite brief to cover both aspects.
In general - I feel this paper deals with a relevant issue. But the author(s) would need to undertake significant re-focusing of the article to meet the publishing standard for Behavioural Sciences. At present too many elements remain unclear and do not guarantee meeting the journal standards.
Author Response
These comments have been helpful.
I have changed the title. It was too vague.
It was not our aim to comment on the entire range of programs within Follow through or the criticisms that can be made of that huge program. We mentioned the Follow Through Program primarily because one of its programs plays a role in the history of radical constructivism which is central to our paper. We have added to the text to clarify this point. (lines 49 and 54 – and 58-61). We have also added here recent material concerning constructivism with an emphasis on the recognition of how programs are implemented and this depends on how teachers think about teaching. And similarly we have emphasised work done in the digital context that relies on constructivism because of studies showing how teachers in different countries take different approaches to aspects of constructivist teaching. So we have explained this (line 63). In addition in line 43-44 we explained that educational programs designed to help children learn using digital material have provided opportunities to look at constructivist practices in different countries.
I added references for the lines 92-101
I added material to the Method section to explain the design and data analysis in more detail. and merged the discussion and summary section.
I added a conclusion that refers back to the issue raised initially concerning how teachers implement programs with varying fidelity that we think is determined in part by teacher belief.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors introduced changes that make the article more scientifically significant. The article has been improved and it could be interesting for the scientific community and specially in relation to teachers training and their believes about education.
Reviewer 2 Report
The author addressed the suggested comments and clarified some of the questions raised in the review. The paper has improved and it can be published in its current form.
