Systems Thinking Skills of Preschool Children in Early Childhood Education Contexts from Turkey and Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is very interesting and significant for early childhood education. It is well written and the authors have found good theoretical sources. There are some shortcomings in the article:
It would be better if in the article there were separated chapter (e.g. Theoretical background) for theoretical background or framework, in which the concepts are defined. The central concepts “systems thinking” and “systems thinking skills” could be defined more clearly for readers. I think that in this new chapter the authors could also take the eight aspects (Table 2) and clarify them better for readers. All of these concepts are in the kernel of the study. In this chapter, there could be also literature review and perhaps Figure 2 because I am not sure is it part of “Conclusions”.
Research question(s) is missing or it should be expressed more clearly.
(r 107) Is the study only qualitative? All the tables (Table 1, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) contain quantitative information. What do you think about “mixed methods”?
(r 180-187) The subchapter 2.3 is too short. Have you used “content analysis” (theory guided?). You could explain a little bit more.
The topic “Systems thinking skills of preschool children in Turkey and Germany”. Do you need “in Turkey and Germany”? You have only 52 children and this study is not comparative (?). So it is not valid to generalize the results to concern the whole countries “Turkey and Germany”.
Also in qualitative studies it is possible evaluate the reliability of the study. It is possible to add in the end. Ethic aspects are well taken account.
The results are interesting and especially Discussion and Conclusion chapters. I hope the authors strengthen and organize the theoretical part of the study.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thanks for the constructive and positive feedback that helped us to further strengthen our article. Below we list your recommendations and our responses.
Point 1: It would be better if in the article there were separated chapter (e.g. theoretical background) for theoretical background or framework, in which the concepts are defined. The central concepts “systems thinking” and “systems thinking skills” could be defined more clearly for readers. I think that in this new chapter the authors could also take the eight aspects (Table 2) and clarify them better for readers. All of these concepts are in the kernel of the study. In this chapter, there could be also literature review and perhaps Figure 2 because I am not sure is it part of “Conclusions”.
Response 1: We added a theoretical background section in the introduction part of the manuscript. This section covers the definition of the systems thinking and main concepts in this discipline. We also provided definitional approach to the eight aspects of systems thinking by supporting those explanations with the relevant literature.
Figure 2 is considered to be a comprehensive and visual road map for educational implications. For that reason, we believe that this figure should be placed in the conclusions section where the educational implicated are presented. It is implausible for us to relate this visual with the introduction.
Point 2: Research question(s) is missing or it should be expressed more clearly.
Response 2: We wrote the research question explicitly (see line 79).
Point 3: (r 107) Is the study only qualitative? All the tables (Table 1, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14) contain quantitative information. What do you think about “mixed methods”?
Reponse 3: After having read your comments, we realized that our description may have caused some confusion. We took your recommendation into consideration and made a relevant change in the method section (see line 254).
Point 4: (r 180-187) The subchapter 2.3 is too short. Have you used “content analysis” (theory guided?). You could explain a little bit more.
Reponse 4: Please see line 255 for our revisions.
Point 5: The topic “Systems thinking skills of preschool children in Turkey and Germany”. Do you need “in Turkey and Germany”? So it is not valid to generalize the results to concern the whole countries “Turkey and Germany”.
Response 5: In fact it was not our intention to generalize the results to concern Turkey and Germany as a whole. We made some changes in the text and title of the article to ensure our intention will be clearly understood by the readers. Please see the title, abstract, line 80 and line 176.
Point 6: You have only 52 children and this study is not comparative (?).
Response 6: We are convinced that we had enough data gathered from 52 children to reach data saturation. Our research demonstrated that children at the age of 4-6 have limited systems thinking skills regardless of the fact that whether they are from Turkey or Germany, or they are within a mainstream educational context or an alternative one. For the sake of exhibiting that finding in a more clear manner we created a table where we presented mean scores of the children on a case basis (see line 274). We briefly interpreted this finding in the discussion section (line 461). We deleted “comparative” words and instead we stated that we utilized multiple case study approach (line 175).
Point 7: Also in qualitative studies it is possible evaluate the reliability of the study. It is possible to add in the end.
Response 7: That information is already in the text. Please see line 263.
Once again, we would like to thank you for your helpful review on our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read with attention and interest your paper. It seemed to me that the issues analysed could be stimulating for an international context and so, my overall impression about its contents is essentially quite good.
In spite of this, the paper in my opinion has some serious failings. In particular, the most important and serious shortcomings are related to the methodological section (Methods).
Line 80 - 84 – You mentioned that research is part of an international comparative study and that you have observed significant differences in the implementation of systems thinking approaches and ESD between Turkey and German. If so, you need to discuss in detail this study and in addition, you have to discuss the differences between the two samples.
Line 122 and later – You have mentioned before the international comparative study. So, why have you put together the Turkish and German samples? Probably because you have two too little samples to compare them? In the light of the previous reflections, why have you mentioned and how have you managed the comparative study?
If this is a comparative study you have to show in each table, the frequency of the responses according and the children’s age and country.
Here below I’m going to show you some of the remarks that in my opinion can enable to highlights different shortcomings.
Line 139 – You wrote that “it is better to find a way to increase the limit”. It sound to me very strange…How can we increase the limits of natural resources? Is it possible?
Line 143 – Figure 1 – What does R-Loop mean? And B-Loop? Please explain!
Line 189 – What are the scores of the different sub-samples, the Turkish and the German’s one? (please relate this comment to the methodological weaknesses mentioned above);
Line 218-219 – You wrote “20 children (38.5%) did not give a valid response (see Table 5)” but this information cannot be extrapolated by Table 5.
Lines 258,259 – You wrote “Fourteen built a one-way relationship between one cause and one effect (Level 1)” but in the table this is considered Level 2.
Line 265 –The reference to Int01 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 282 - The reference to Int04 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 300 - The reference to Int48 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 314 - The reference to Int09 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 318 - The reference to Int33 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 369 - The reference to Int27 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 381 – You wrote “As the age of the children increased, the mean scores also increased.”. Probably you forgot the reference to Table 3.
Line 413 and later – Are there relations between the expressive language skills of the children and the education level of their parents? You mentioned this aspect at the beginning of the paper but you have not discussed nor considered it within your discussions.
Line 571 an later – The comparative approach of your research isn’t explored in your paper.
Line 710, 711 – the jumping line need to be removed.
Line 760 – The text “e1001293” need to be removed.
I sincerely hope that these remarks could be useful to the Author/s for a global re-arrangement of the paper.
My Best Regards
Author Response
Thanks for the constructive and positive feedback that helped us to further strengthen our article. Below we list your recommendations and our responses.
Point 1: Line 80 - 84 – You mentioned that research is part of an international comparative study and that you have observed significant differences in the implementation of systems thinking approaches and ESD between Turkey and German. If so, you need to discuss in detail this study and in addition, you have to discuss the differences between the two samples.
Response 1: This manuscript is a part of a 400 pages long PhD dissertation, which measured systems thinking skills of children and examined the interaction of the systems thinking skills of young children with the educational contexts. We chose the measurement and conceptualization of STS of young children as the main focus of this manuscript. For this study, we collected data from various educational contexts in two different countries. In doing so, we aimed to develop a more comprehensive understanding about this phenomenon. You are right in pointing out that we did not actually displayed a comparative approach. For that reason, we decided to eliminate the word “comparative” from the manuscript (see line 148, 152, 654). Instead we stated that we utilized a multiple case study approach (see line 175).
Point 2: Line 122 and later – You have mentioned before the international comparative study. So, why have you put together the Turkish and German samples? Probably because you have two too little samples to compare them? In the light of the previous reflections, why have you mentioned and how have you managed the comparative study? If this is a comparative study you have to show in each table, the frequency of the responses according and the children’s age and country.
Line 189 – What are the scores of the different sub-samples, the Turkish and the German’s one? (please relate this comment to the methodological weaknesses mentioned above);
Response 2: We are convinced that we had enough data gathered from 52 children to reach data saturation. Our research demonstrated that children at the age of 4-6 have limited systems thinking skills regardless of the fact that whether they are from Turkey or Germany, or they are within a mainstream educational context or an alternative one. For the sake of exhibiting that finding in a clearer manner we created a table where we presented mean scores of the children on a case basis (see line 274). We briefly interpreted this finding in the discussion section (line 461). As explained previously, we deleted “comparative” words from the text.
Point 3: Line 139 – You wrote that “it is better to find a way to increase the limit”. It sound to me very strange…How can we increase the limits of natural resources? Is it possible?
Response 3: We agree with your comment and decided to delete this part (see line 210).
Point 4: Line 143 – Figure 1 – What does R-Loop mean? And B-Loop? Please explain!
Response 4: The other reviewer recommended a theoretical section to be added to the manuscript. We did that. The definition of feedback loops can be found in this section, please see line 113.
Point 5: Line 218-219 – You wrote “20 children (38.5%) did not give a valid response (see Table 5)” but this information cannot be extrapolated by Table 5.
Response 5: Please accept our sincere thanks for your diligence. We have made the necessary amendments. See line 300.
Point 6: Lines 258,259 – You wrote “Fourteen built a one-way relationship between one cause and one effect (Level 1)” but in the table this is considered Level 2.
Response 6: Please accept our sincere thanks for your diligence. We have made the necessary amendments. See line 340.
Point 7: Line 265 –The reference to Int01 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 282 - The reference to Int04 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 300 - The reference to Int48 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 314 - The reference to Int09 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 318 - The reference to Int33 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Line 369 - The reference to Int27 is unuseful if the interviews are not available for the readers.
Reponse 7: Those excerpts were taken from the child interviews. In addition to that, we put other exemplary statements taken from interviews and embedded them in the rubric. Please see line 659 for this explanation. Please also see the excerpt examples in every level of each aspect. We are of the opinion that we have provided sufficient and relevant qualitative evidence.
Point 8: Line 381 – You wrote “As the age of the children increased, the mean scores also increased.”. Probably you forgot the reference to Table 3.
Response 8: We don’t think it is necessary to refer one more time to that table in the discussion section.
Point 9: Line 413 and later – Are there relations between the expressive language skills of the children and the education level of their parents? You mentioned this aspect at the beginning of the paper but you have not discussed nor considered it within your discussions.
Response 9: We think this aspect is beyond the scope of this paper. We added an emphasis on this issue as a part of recommendations for future studies. Please see line 553.
Point 10: Line 571 an later – The comparative approach of your research isn’t explored in your paper.
Response 10: Please see the comments that we made previously.
Point 11: Line 710, 711 – the jumping line need to be removed.
Response 11: Please accept our sincere thanks for your diligence. We have made the necessary amendments. See line 827.
Point 12: Line 760 – The text “e1001293” need to be removed.
Response 12: Please accept our sincere thanks for your diligence. We have made the necessary amendments. See line 877.
The manuscript was checked for spelling by a native speaker. No errors were detected.
Once again, we would like to thank you for your helpful review on our manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
You have done good work.
Author Response
Round Two-Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Thank you for your valuable contributions to our work. We expressed our special thanks for your contributions in our acknowledgements section.
Best regards
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read with attention and interest the revised manuscript of your paper.
Here some further suggestions for its improvement.
· Please, consider that in your notes, the references to the lines in the manuscript were almost always wrong.
· Note 1 – I haven’t well understood why you have written “due to this structural difference…..study.”, if in Table 1 you have distinguished the educational level of the parents. It seems to me that you are able to distinguish the educational level of the parents but you are not able to have a homogeneous sample in relation to it. If so, I suggest you to rewrite the above sentence.
· Line 101 – I suggest you to insert here Table 2 (or a reference to it)
· Line 194 – Table 1 – You have written “60-17 months old” instead of “60-71 months old”.
· Line 216 - Fig.1 – You have written in your note that “The definition of feedback loops can be found in this section, please see line 113”. In practice, there isn’t a reference to R-loop and B-loop in that line but you have only explained their meaning. So, I invite you to be rigorous and to write: line 116: “a positive or reinforcing loop (R-loop) emerges……” and line 117: “a negative or balancing loop (B_loop) ….”.
· Line 269 - Table 4 – I suggest the Authors to show the ages in the same way as in Table 3 (48-59 months – 60-71 months and 72+ ) for a better understanding of the table.
· Line 291 You have written three questions and so you need to mention Tables 6, 7 and 8.
· Line 294 – You have written Table 5 instead of Table 6.
· Line 339, 356, 373, 387, 391, 442 - I am convinced that the indication “Int?” is unuseful, because the interviews are not available for the readers. So, in my opinion a general reference to the interviews or a small text between quotation marks could be sufficient.
· Line 453 and later – I suggest to put the reference to Tables 3 and 4.
· Line 545-546 – “The relationship….can also be taken into account…” What is the meaning of this sentence? A minimal explanation of this could be useful.
· Please remove the yellow colour within the References
I sincerely hope that these remarks could be useful to you for a final improvement of the paper.
My Best Regards
Author Response
Round Two-Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Thank you for your valuable contributions to our work. We expressed our special thanks for your contributions in our acknowledgements section.
Point 1: Please, consider that in your notes, the references to the lines in the manuscript were almost always wrong.
Response 1: We presume that you have used different Word versions. In our version all of the line numbers appear to be correct.
Point 2: Note 1 – I haven’t well understood why you have written “due to this structural difference…..study.”, if in Table 1 you have distinguished the educational level of the parents. It seems to me that you are able to distinguish the educational level of the parents but you are not able to have a homogeneous sample in relation to it. If so, I suggest you to rewrite the above sentence.
Response 2: Your understanding is correct. We have made the necessary amendments. Please see Note 1.
Point 3: Line 101 – I suggest you to insert here Table 2 (or a reference to it)
Response 3: We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 102.
Point 4: Line 194 – Table 1 – You have written “60-17 months old” instead of “60-71 months old”.
Response 4: Please accept our sincere thanks for your diligence. We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 197.
Point 5: Line 216 - Fig.1 – You have written in your note that “The definition of feedback loops can be found in this section, please see line 113”. In practice, there isn’t a reference to R-loop and B-loop in that line but you have only explained their meaning. So, I invite you to be rigorous and to write: line 116: “a positive or reinforcing loop (R-loop) emerges……” and line 117: “a negative or balancing loop (B_loop) ….”.
Response 5: We misunderstood your comment that you made in the first round. We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 119 and 120.
Point 6: Line 269 - Table 4 – I suggest the Authors to show the ages in the same way as in Table 3 (48-59 months – 60-71 months and 72+ ) for a better understanding of the table.
Response 6: We have made the necessary amendments. Please see Table 4.
Point 7: Line 291 You have written three questions and so you need to mention Tables 6, 7 and 8.
Response 7: We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 294.
Point 8: Line 294 – You have written Table 5 instead of Table 6.
Response 8: We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 297.
Point 10: Line 339, 356, 373, 387, 391, 442 - I am convinced that the indication “Int?” is unuseful, because the interviews are not available for the readers. So, in my opinion a general reference to the interviews or a small text between quotation marks could be sufficient.
Response 10: We misunderstood your comment that you made in the first round. We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 342, 359, 376, 390, 394 and 445.
Point 11: Line 453 and later – I suggest to put the reference to Tables 3 and 4.
Response 11: In the discussion part, we would rather avoid referring again to the tables of the findings section. That is why we took no action regarding your comment.
Point 12: Line 545-546 – “The relationship….can also be taken into account…” What is the meaning of this sentence? A minimal explanation of this could be useful.
Response 12: We have made the necessary amendments. Please see line 545 and 546.
Point 13: Please remove the yellow colour within the References
Response 13: We have made the necessary amendments.
Once again, we would like to thank you for your helpful review on our manuscript.
