Teacher Education beyond the Pandemic in Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the summary, the authors talk about various crises. You cannot speak in general terms and in ambiguous language.
The article does not present the structure of a research article. It does not name methodology, it shows instruments...
The summary should cover the IMRD structure; Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion.
It should include:
- approach and motivation of the study or research
- methodological strategies
- interpretation of the results, relevant conclusions, and impact of the study
• Must contain keywords or terms to relate it to the research area
• It is recommended:
Correct use of tenses:
a) motivation, interpretation of results, and conclusions present simple
b) methodology, past perfect results simple and compound
The objective is not adequately defined in the abstract and does not communicate the main results
In the introduction, he talks about the impact on social relations and mental health. He focuses the problem on these aspects
In paragraph 2 he talks about different features of the new generations. He does not provide arguments, or studies that promote this idea of the new features
It talks about changes in the new generation of teachers. It does not argue or endorse these changes.
Generation Z and pandemic disease are issues on which no evidence is provided. It is not a question of defining new or future generations of young people. I understand that the objective of the study is to see the effect of the pandemic on these generations and the post-formative processes that affect them. This relationship has not been established at the theoretical level and supposes a great weakness of the study. There is no evidence of the relationship or effects of the pandemic period. There are many post-pandemic studies of the effects on the areas defined by the authors in the introduction and do not argue at the theoretical level. I refer to mental health and the field of interpersonal relations in relation to the effects of the pandemic on these variables. In addition, they develop aspects that are not addressed within the framework of the study’s objectives.
The document shows a structure more typical of a theoretical reflection than of a research article. Lack of integration and relationship between the elements analyzed. There is no axis of analysis that supports the authors' arguments. I recommend that the authors focus their analysis and adopt a methodology appropriate to the objective of the study.
I suggest that you carry out a systematic review of the studies carried out on the topic that you propose, giving a methodological and argumental solidity that gives meaning to the work.
An extensive review of English by a native speaker is required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1,
We would like to thank you for your time doing this review and appreciate the advice you have given. We have carefully addressed the comments you raised and have provided appropriate justifications, which can be found below in this document. First, we provide the aims and scope of the journal to justify why we presented this manuscript for this special issue. Then we justify some of the changes in the new version.
We believe that the manuscript has undergone substantial improvements in terms of quality and aligns with the standards set by the Education Sciences journal.
If any further changes are deemed necessary, we will be happy to adopt them.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Teacher Education beyond the pandemic in Spain
This manuscript is clearly written. The manuscript focuses on changes to teacher education and how they fit with the characteristics, traits, and abilities of generation z students who are entering teacher education programs. There are two primary sections to this manuscript. The second section focuses on the characteristics of generation z individuals, the societal factors that have influenced their behavior, and comparing this behavior with past generations. The third section discusses how current teacher education programs have changed over time and currently meet the needs of the generation z population.
This manuscript could be strengthened in several ways. First, by re-structuring the text. It would be helpful to keep section 1 and 2 the same and then have section 3 become section 4, section 4 becomes section 5. Then develop a new section 3 that focuses on changes in teacher education programs. This would present the reader with a nice narrative that features generation z, then teacher education program changes, and then discussing how both these phenomena are related and impacting each other.
Second, by adding implications of the analysis in the conclusion section. The conclusion section reads as an after-thought. By including implications for policy, practice, and research the reader will be better informed regarding what action can be taken from this study.
Third, by including text that outlines the purpose and importance of the study in the introduction section. This section is really vague and general. The reader is unsure why this study is important to explore or what the purpose of the study is. Spend some text identifying and explaining both the purpose and importance of the study.
Fourth, the purpose of identifying/using terms such as “post-covid” as a key term is unclear. The important terms as the paper current reads are “generation z characteristics” and “teacher education program features”. The covid-years seems to be a sub-category of something that has influenced “generation z characteristics” along with other factors identified by the author(s) including “communication styles”, “social networks”, etc. I would suggest including covid as a factor that influences “generation z characteristics” rather than a key term.
The quality of English only requires minor editing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2,
We express our sincere gratitude for affording us the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. We greatly value the meticulous review you conducted and the helpful advice you provided. We have addressed all the comments you raised and have provided appropriate justifications, which can be found below in this document.
We believe that the manuscript has been significantly improved in terms of quality and now aligns better with the standards set by the Education Sciences journal.
If any further adjustments are necessary, we are ready to include them.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents Catalan and Spanish context in understanding the traits that students bring to the university. The aim is to understand students’ singularity, their generational characteristics and how the various crises (like Covid, digital development, etc.) have affected them. The article has two parts: i) analyses of the current generation of students are presented and how they are influenced by today’s reality; ii) the main educational approaches and methodologies are analysed and their implementation in Spanish context. The list of references is trendy and relevant, however quite some text in the article must be supported with additional references.
I am afraid that the article lacks the elements of a scientific text. The latter must be improved. My suggestion is, that in the first part of the article, theoretical background is presented without specific focus on Spanish/Catalan context. In the next part, the focus is on Spanish/Catalan, later (eg. in conclusion) some generalisation (transfer) can be included to other higher education contexts. Now, everything is mixed and unsystematically presented. Authors need to justify the theoretical background of the article, thoroughly explain why they undertake this study in Spain/Catalan (appropriate references used), and how findings refer to other higher education contexts.
The article could be published if corrections are included. Please, see my comments below:
Abstract: It must be clearly highlighted, what is the main objective of this article. In the final part of the abstract, the key finding/s must be highlighted.
Within the chapter/title “Today’s post-covid students and their generational characteristics”, it must be pointed out, according to which taxonomy/methodology/key indicators the authors developed the following points: Generation Zs, Communication styles, etc.
96-107: Some theoretical background according to other authors or previous surveys should be pointed out, so that authors justify their statements in the light of previous findings (eg. Other generations also use social networks but less frequently – in which survey the latter was found out?). Or they can refer to some own findings if any quantitative/qualitative research/systematic observation was performed.
113: not Beck & Cowan, but Beck and Cowan
119: »In Spain, 50% of each generational cohort enrolls in higher education«: where is this data from – the reference must be added.
132: »The economic crisis of 2008 was stronger in Spain«: in comparison to what it was STRONGER? I miss some additional references here – can authors support this paragraph with some theoretical background or some previous surveys in this field? If not, they must convince readers with some additional arguments.
158-160: »Many students probably developed syndrome that could be named “passive screen dependence”«: can this be justified with some additional resources/theoretical background?
186-188: »Many Spanish university students participated in a renovated constructivist education, at least in early childhood and primary education, sometimes also in secondary,«: when was renovated constructivist education introduced?
193-195: »Students thus have distinctive educational vocations and more competence-based/orientated work than previous generations.« Please, add some additional arguments here, so that this point is clearly justified.
211: I would recommend rethinking about the title of this chapter. Is it a (final or general) discussion or rather an additional chapter that deals with post-pandemic trends and changes in teacher education in Spain/Catalan?
212-213: in our context – I suppose, Spanish context is meant here. Please, avoid the expression “our” in entire article, since it is not clear what the authors mean by this term (Teacher education, their institution/s, Spain/Catalan/ Europe?); 214: »others are specific proposals from our context« - is it meant Spanish context or authors' context or any other context?; 245: »All these particular conditions of education in our context …«; 369: »our students«, etc. This is planned to be a scientific article, all the words used must have a clear message, which does not go for “our”.
238: LOMLOE – the abbreviation must be first written with the whole word and abbreviation added in brackets. Later on, only abbreviation can be used.
247, 251, etc: What is meant with “debate” – political debates, policy debates, general public debates or some strategic documents that are already in debate …? Some references must be added about these debates?
250 & 252; Is “Effectively« the right expression here?
253: After which debate, when?
260: What is typical for Spanish »traditional model«? This must be explained. Quite some non-Spanish readers are not familiar with Spanish traditional or non-traditional model.
259-274: To which law, act, or rules, etc these facts refer to – the letter must be added, eg. for each level of education that has its own law or as it makes sense according to Spain legislation in teacher education.
262: »are trained globally«: is globally the right expression here? What is meant with it?
266: »Many people share« this is not academic way of writing (how many, what percentage, who – general audience or professionals in the field?) – I would kindly suggest more scientific way of writing, please form this sentence differently. The text from 266 to 270 should be more clearly/ comprehensibly written.
271-274: »Some education faculties« - can you support this with more concrete data, how many, which, where you found this data/information?
276-278: “This has led to the implementation of specific programs to support the students and to guide them in matters related to health and more specifically to mental health.«: can you support this sentence with some concrete examples or/and resources?
278-280: “Besides that, from the past few years, the student population previously diagnosed with some type of disorder, such as ADHD, dyslexia, and laterality problems, among others, has increased considerably.” Can you support this with resource?
280-283: Some examples and resources?
301: “as it is the case of the Margalida Comas Program in Catalonia”: reference must be added.
302: “As the new educational legislation …« Which legislation – reference?
309: »In some cases …« Which cases, reference?
431: “Dewey stated that we don’t learn from experience but from reflection on the experience.« It would be worthwhile to add, that John Dewey is well-known Am. philosopher and educator. Maybe not all readers are familiar with this.
500: Conclusion – it must be added, how findings of this article are useful or transferable also in/to other higher education context, what is a lack and an added value of this article, etc.
The article must be proofread from the side of an English native speaker. More scientific way of writing is necessary.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3,
We would like to express our gratitude for providing us with the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the thorough review you conducted and the valuable advice you provided. We have addressed all the comments you raised and have given appropriate justifications, as detailed below in this document.
We believe that the manuscript has undergone significant improvements in terms of quality and now better meet the standards set by the Education Sciences journal.
If any further adjustments are deemed necessary, we remain available to incorporate them.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made considerable improvements. The manuscript reviews the literature on the topic without adopting any method to validate the sources and studies they choose to analyze. The manuscript does not have the structure of a research manuscript, does not describe the method of analysis, and does not discuss the results.
I believe that the manuscript does not have scientific entity to be considered for publication in this journal. I encourage the authors to give structure and to adapt the manuscript to the structure of a systematic review.
The conclusions are not generalizable and the abstract is incomplete in the methodological aspects.
Coredial greetings
Menor review
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1,
We express our sincere gratitude for affording us the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. We greatly value the review you conducted. We have addressed the comments you raised in this new revision and have provided appropriate justifications, which can be found below in this document.
We think that the paper aligns with the standards set by the Education Sciences journal.
If any further adjustments are necessary, we are ready to consider them.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is clearly written. The manuscript focuses on changes to teacher education and how they fit with the characteristics, traits, and abilities of generation z students who are entering teacher education programs. There are two primary sections to this manuscript. The second section focuses on the characteristics of generation z individuals, the societal factors that have influenced their behavior, and comparing this behavior with past generations. The third section discusses how current teacher education programs have changed over time and currently meet the needs of the generation z population.
The authors did a good job addressing the major concerns of this reviewer.
There seems to be a few moderate issues with the quality of English Language that has popped up as a result of the revisions. This is not too drastic; however, the manuscript could use one more read through to check for grammar and sentence structure.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2,
We would like to express our gratitude for providing us with the opportunity to enhance this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the thorough review you conducted and the valuable advice you provided.
Thanks to your feedback we believe that the manuscript has undergone significant improvements in terms of quality and now better meet the standards set by the Education Sciences journal.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for the corrected version. I would still like to suggest some improvements:
- While the first five are extracted from the literature on generations … - please add references to some literature on generations here.
- The economic crisis of 2008 was strong in Spain and had two kinds of consequences … What is meant with STRONG, how strong? Better delete this word and write the sentence with clearer scientific language, eg. The Spanish economic crisis in 2008 had two kinds of consequences: …
- Many students were probably affected by a syndrome that could be named “passive screen dependence”. Can this be justified with some additional resources/previous surveys (eg. how many)?
- “Ley Orgánica de Modificación de la Ley Orgánica de Educación” (LOMLOE). Please, add/explain the original expression with English translation.
- “Many academics suggest…” This is not appropriately replaced: How many, what percentage, who? Eg., add some references of these academics/scholars in brackets.
- As the new educational Spanish law insists … Which new educational Spanish law - add the reference to this law.
- In some universities – which universities – add the reference to these universities.
The article must be proofread by an English native speaker.
Best wishes for the correction of the article!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3,
We would like to thank you for your time doing this review and appreciate the advice you have given. We have addressed the new comments you raised and have provided appropriate justifications, which can be found below in this document.
If any further changes are deemed necessary, we will be happy to adopt them.
Yours faithfully,
The Authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
