[editor] IIER New Submission Andina (#97) - Jakarta - sipeg unj

(1)

https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/id/AAQkADU0NWI3Y2M1LTM3YjgtNGI1ZS05Yjc3LTRmZWEyNDllYzQyNgAQAEx7BRrZf7ZMgk17XmK7QA4%3D 1/1

Re: [editor] IIER New Submission Andina (#97)

Roger Atkinson <rjatkinson@bigpond.com>

Fri 3/1/2019 1 33 PM

To: yrahmawati@unj.ac.id <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>; Rahma Esi Andina <rahmaesiandina@gmail.com>

Cc: editor@iier.org.au <editor@iier.org.au>

Hello Yuli and colleagues,

Thank you very much. We acknowledge receipt of your submission to IIER.

Date: 1/3/19

Title: Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachers' understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology

Authors: Rahma Esi Andina, Yuli Rahmawati (corres author), Setia Budi (Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia)

Original filename: IIER New Submission, Andina.docx

File reading check: No problems. However, at 11.8 MB the file size is excessive. I will "downsize" to 1 to 2 MB, by decreasing the resolution of the photos and scans.

We will place your submission into IIER's review process and in due course advise you on the outcome. Review times may vary from 2-4 weeks to 2-3 months, depending upon an initial assessment by IIER Editorial staff.

* Initial assessment: May lead to advice from IIER Editorial staff about reasons for not accepting, and giving suggestions about how to improve for another journal (2-4 weeks) or may be followed by an external review.

* External review: This process (up to 3 months) may lead to acceptance, or to rejection for reasons given by the external reviewers.

We thank you for submitting your work to IIER.

Best wishes, Dr Roger Atkinson Associate Editor, IIER

Duty Editor for acknowledging submissions, January 2019

Please address any queries to editor@iier.org.au, as another member of the IIER Editorial staff may be attending to the review process for your submission.

http://www.iier.org.au/

> On 1 Mar 2019, at 7 21 am, yrahmawati@unj.ac.id wrote:

>

> Dear IIER Editor,

>

> Please find the attached article entitled "Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachersʼ understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The authors are Rahma Esi Andina, Yuli Rahmawati, and Setia Budi

>

> The article portray one case study in chemistry teacher education program, especially in engaging with new issues of nanoscience and nanotechnology. We hope that our paper can be proceed for review and get feedback for improvement

>

> Thank you

>

> Yuli Rahmawati

> <IIER New Submission, Andina.docx>_______________________________________________

> editor@iier.org.au

(2)

https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/id/AAQkADU0NWI3Y2M1LTM3YjgtNGI1ZS05Yjc3LTRmZWEyNDllYzQyNgAQAJFuUl%2F5F6pCsxDo%2BdcNAdk%3D 1/1

IIER: Interim advice (submission Andina #97)

Sat 5/4/2019 8 42 AM

To: yrahmawati@unj.ac.id <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>

Cc: Leah.Moore <leah.moore@canberra.edu.au>

1 attachments (451 KB)

IIER New Submission, Andina-edited.docx;

We can inform you that the initial assessment of your article, "Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachers' understanding of nanoscience and

nanotechnology" submitted on 1/3/19, has been completed by the IIER editorial team and your paper is in the queue for independent external review. As indicated in our submission

acknowledgement email, this external review process may take up to 3 months and may lead to acceptance, or rejection, for reasons given by the external reviewers.

We apologise for being behind our promised schedule for providing advice to authors, owing to recent high numbers of submissions (48 in January, 48 in February, 44 in March and 48 in April), the recent retirement of two Associate Editors, and other Associate Editors being on leave.

An IIER duty editor will contact you as soon as the external reviews have been completed to advise you of the outcome.

I have edited your file 'IIER New Submission, Andina.docx' to reduce file size from 11.8 MB to 462 kB, by decreasing the resolution of the graphics it contains. Copy of edited file attached.

Duty Editor for acknowledging submissions, March 2018

(3)

https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/id/AAQkADU0NWI3Y2M1LTM3YjgtNGI1ZS05Yjc3LTRmZWEyNDllYzQyNgAQAN0mB8f4adNNv1pVSnt5JRM%3D 1/3

Review of your article for IIER - Andina #97

Clare McBeath <c.mcbeath@bigpond.com>

Fri 7/26/2019 10 56 AM

To: Yuli Rahmawati <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>

Cc: Roger Atkinson <rjatkinson@bigpond.com> <rjatkinson@bigpond.com>

Hello Rahma, Yuli and Setia

I am pleased to inform you that we will accept your article submitted on 1/03/19, #97 “Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachers' understanding of nanoscience and

nanotechnology" for publication. We have had your article reviewed by two scholars, both of whom thought it was a good study, while also making a number of suggestions for improving it for publications. I append their comments below. Please read their suggestions carefully and make the revisions you feel appropriate.

When you have completed your revisions, please return the article to <editor@iier.org.au> within six weeks for publication in IIER 29(4).

Best wishes Clare

Review 1

As this article centres upon the specialised science education topic of nanoscience and nanotechnology, it could be referred to a science education journal. However, the article could

provide a good example of transitioning science teacher education from teacher-centred practices, to student-centred and social constructivism practices. It also links development of content knowledge with the development of social skills in a teacher education context. These broader and innovative purposes underlying the speciﬁc topic of nanoscience and nanotechnology indicate that IIER as a generalist journal could consider this article with interest.

The literature review, method, presentation of results, discussion and conclusions sections generally attain an acceptable level, with an adequate standard of academic English. Therefore I recommend acceptance, though subject to major revisions as advised below. The main concerns are with the description of context, description of method, and the conclusion section.

The description of context needs improvements. Give a brief description of the teacher education program in which nanoscience and nanotechnology is presumably one course or unit of study. Is nanoscience and nanotechnology offered every year, or is it alternated with other kinds of specialist topics in chemistry or other sciences? Are these students preparing for chemistry teaching, or

physical sciences teaching, or science teaching more broadly (physical and biological)? What are the other units of study for these pre-service teachers? Do these units contain further experiences with small group and conceptual understanding activities?

Revision of the description of context is important in order to give more attention to the transition from a teacher-centred learning design to a student-centred design, which I anticipate as the most

important feature of the article. The "big picture" topic of student-centred learning is more important than the details of the 8E learning model (Figure 1 and Table 1).

Concerning method, it is usual to provide some demographic detail about the class, such as gender, year of study, age range, previous study in physical sciences, knowledge of English (which is very important for any "E-search" activities). State explicitly that the Table 1 activities and data collection were conducted in Indonesian with only a few exceptions (was Figure 2 given in English or

Indonesian?). Were references for Figure 2 given to students? Add a column to Table 1 to indicate the timeline (e.g. use "Week number"). Indicate the number of hours in class and expected for out-of- class activities on the project. other activities, e.g. lectures? Give a statement about data originally collected in Indonesian language (interviews and reﬂective journals) being translated into English by the authors (or whoever did the translating).

In the Conclusions section, try to place more emphasis upon the most innovative part of the learning design, the social learning phase in Table 1 ("exchange" and "extend" in Figure 1). Show that "a process of collaboration, discussion, and reﬂection" (p.12) as demonstrated in a nanoscience project

(4)

could be applied to many other topics in initial teacher education, and that ultimately these students will be better prepared to develop their future classroom practices incorporating student-centred learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based approaches and other features of social constructivism.

Notes

1. Title. Depending on the nature of the new details to be added as suggested above, an improved title may be appropriate. For example, "Improved learning designs for shaping Indonesia's future science teachers applied in a nanoscience project" (14 words) (or similar). The purpose is to

introduce broader keywords ('science' instead of 'chemistry'; 'learning designs' instead of '8E learning cycle'), omit closely related keywords (if 'nanoscience' is in, then 'nanotechnology' adds little, do not need both; if 'future science teachers' is in, then 'pre-service chemistry teachers' is not needed), omit words such as 'understanding' which are not useful given the presence of various other words, and add a word ('project') which can be helpful for the purpose of linking to problem-based learning or project-based learning, which are often associated with small group or small team activities. Another version: "An improved learning design for shaping Indonesia's future science teachers: Application in a nanoscience project" (15 words).

2. Of about 43 references, about 12 are dated post-2013. Given the relatively recent emergence of nanoscience as a topic in physical science education, a new search of the most recent literature could be helpful. For example, try this or similar Google Scholar searches:

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?

as_q=nanoscience+nanotechnology+school+secondary+chemistry+physics+student+learning&as_ep q=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2014&as_yhi=&hl=en&a s_sdt=0%2C5

(About 5,820 results)

However, in adding new references and other new text as suggested above, keep in mind IIER's general limit of 7500 words. Note that some material (e.g. Figure 1) could be placed in an appendix - IIER does not include appendices in the word count.

3. How is the "8E learning cycle" presented to students, given that the "8E" name is dependent upon English words? Explain.

4. Rahmawati and Ridwan (2016) is cited on page 2, but is missing from References. Rahmawati and Ridwan (2017) is in References, but it appears to be a different topic from the 2016 reference.

Review 2

The author(s) has done excellent work in presenting ﬁndings related to improve pre-service chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding regarding nanoscience and nanotechnology.

Using the 8E learning cycle (Engage, Explore, E-search, Elaborate, Exchange, Extend, Evaluate, and Explain), the participants consist of 33 pre-service teachers have proved to show improvement of knowledge about nanomaterials based on the presented ﬁndings. The data collection method (conceptual test, in-depth interviews, classroom observations, reﬂective journals and worksheet) are adequate to cover the research objective. Nonetheless of this tremendous work, the author(s) has overlook minor issues such as the absence of a few references, outdated references and absent of test data. The issues have been addressed as below and require author(s) attention. Keep up the good work!

Suggestion for improvement:

1.Some sources of citation cannot be found in the reference list:

- Lee and Kwok (2017)

- McCormick (1997)

- Ghattas and Carver (2012)

-Tretter (2006)

2. Some references are more than 10 years old of age. The author might want to update some of

the old references.

3. The author has mentioned the use of conceptual understanding test as one of the data

collection. However, the data from the conceptual test is not obvious and almost not seen in the results and discussion. The findings from the test could be triangulated with others findings.

+

(5)

--- Dr Clare McBeath

Publisher of Issues in Educational Research http://www.iier.org.au/iier.html

http://www.clare-mcbeath.id.au/

5/202 Coode Street, Como WA 6152 (08) 9367 1133 c.mcbeath@bigpond.com

(6)

https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/id/AAQkADU0NWI3Y2M1LTM3YjgtNGI1ZS05Yjc3LTRmZWEyNDllYzQyNgAQAGQ7J8bavNBAhbr5nbxipxQ%3D 1/1

Here is the attachment

Sat 9/7/2019 8 08 AM

To: rahmaesiandina@gmail.com <rahmaesiandina@gmail.com>; Yuli Rahmawati <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>;

setiabudi@unj.ac.id <setiabudi@unj.ac.id>

Here is the attachment which belongs to my last email.

Clare

(7)

https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/id/AAQkADU0NWI3Y2M1LTM3YjgtNGI1ZS05Yjc3LTRmZWEyNDllYzQyNgAQAPgXegZQ%2FFdPoMheNzkQIKw%3D 1/1

Proof copy of your article for IIER - #97 Andina

Tue 9/17/2019 10 06 AM

To: rahmaesiandina@gmail.com <rahmaesiandina@gmail.com>; Yuli Rahmawati <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>;

setiabudi@unj.ac.id <setiabudi@unj.ac.id>

Hello Rahma, Yuli and Setia

I am attaching your article “Improved learning designs for shaping Indonesia's future science teachers applied in a nanoscience project ”, edited and formatted for publication in Issues in Educational Research. I would like you to read it very carefully looking for anything which may need to be corrected or altered. If you find anything which needs to be changed please identify the change in an email, or in Track Changes. I will then transfer it to my master copy.

Please note a copy editing note at the end of the paper. This represents an issue which still needs attention.

We are hoping to publish at the beginning of October. Note that page numbers have not yet been finalised.

Best wishes Clare

(8)

https://outlook.ofﬁce.com/mail/id/AAQkADU0NWI3Y2M1LTM3YjgtNGI1ZS05Yjc3LTRmZWEyNDllYzQyNgAQAEx7BRrZf7ZMgk17XmK7QA4%3D 1/1

Re: [editor] IIER New Submission Andina (#97)

Fri 3/1/2019 1 33 PM

To: yrahmawati@unj.ac.id <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>; Rahma Esi Andina <rahmaesiandina@gmail.com>

Thank you very much. We acknowledge receipt of your submission to IIER.

Date: 1/3/19

Title: Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachers' understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology

Authors: Rahma Esi Andina, Yuli Rahmawati (corres author), Setia Budi (Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia)

Original filename: IIER New Submission, Andina.docx

File reading check: No problems. However, at 11.8 MB the file size is excessive. I will "downsize" to 1 to 2 MB, by decreasing the resolution of the photos and scans.

We will place your submission into IIER's review process and in due course advise you on the outcome. Review times may vary from 2-4 weeks to 2-3 months, depending upon an initial assessment by IIER Editorial staff.

* Initial assessment: May lead to advice from IIER Editorial staff about reasons for not accepting, and giving suggestions about how to improve for another journal (2-4 weeks) or may be followed by an external review.

* External review: This process (up to 3 months) may lead to acceptance, or to rejection for reasons given by the external reviewers.

We thank you for submitting your work to IIER.

Duty Editor for acknowledging submissions, January 2019

> On 1 Mar 2019, at 7 21 am, yrahmawati@unj.ac.id wrote:

>

> Dear IIER Editor,

>

> Please find the attached article entitled "Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachersʼ understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The authors are Rahma Esi Andina, Yuli Rahmawati, and Setia Budi

>

> The article portray one case study in chemistry teacher education program, especially in engaging with new issues of nanoscience and nanotechnology. We hope that our paper can be proceed for review and get feedback for improvement

>

> Thank you

>

> Yuli Rahmawati

> <IIER New Submission, Andina.docx>_______________________________________________

> editor@iier.org.au

(9)

Re: Review of your article for IIER - Andina #97

Yuli Rahmawati <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>

Mon 8/19/2019 7 35 AM

To: Clare McBeath <c.mcbeath@bigpond.com>

Dear Clare,

Thank you so much for your email, we are so happy for the decision. We have working on the paper. Please find the attached revised paper

Thank you Yuli

From: Clare McBeath <c.mcbeath@bigpond.com>

Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 10:56 AM

To: Yuli Rahmawati <yrahmawati@unj.ac.id>

Cc: Roger Atkinson <rjatkinson@bigpond.com> <rjatkinson@bigpond.com>

Subject: Review of your article for IIER - Andina #97 Hello Rahma, Yuli and Setia

I am pleased to inform you that we will accept your article submitted on 1/03/19, #97 “Shaping our future teachers: The 8E learning cycle and pre-service chemistry teachers' understanding of nanoscience and

nanotechnology" for publication. We have had your article reviewed by two scholars, both of whom thought it was a good study, while also making a number of suggestions for improving it for publications. I append their comments below. Please read their suggestions carefully and make the revisions you feel appropriate.

When you have completed your revisions, please return the article to <editor@iier.org.au> within six weeks for publication in IIER 29(4).

Best wishes Clare

Review 1

As this article centres upon the specialised science education topic of nanoscience and nanotechnology, it could be referred to a science education journal. However, the article could

provide a good example of transitioning science teacher education from teacher-centred practices, to student-centred and social constructivism practices. It also links development of content knowledge with the development of social skills in a teacher education context. These broader and innovative purposes underlying the speciﬁc topic of nanoscience and nanotechnology indicate that IIER as a generalist journal could consider this article with interest.

The literature review, method, presentation of results, discussion and conclusions sections generally attain an acceptable level, with an adequate standard of academic English. Therefore I recommend acceptance, though subject to major revisions as advised below. The main concerns are with the description of context, description of method, and the conclusion section.

The description of context needs improvements. Give a brief description of the teacher education program in which nanoscience and nanotechnology is presumably one course or unit of study. Is nanoscience and nanotechnology offered every year, or is it alternated with other kinds of specialist topics in chemistry or other sciences? Are these students preparing for chemistry teaching, or

physical sciences teaching, or science teaching more broadly (physical and biological)? What are the other units of study for these pre-service teachers? Do these units contain further experiences with small group and conceptual understanding activities?

(10)

Revision of the description of context is important in order to give more attention to the transition from a teacher-centred learning design to a student-centred design, which I anticipate as the most

important feature of the article. The "big picture" topic of student-centred learning is more important than the details of the 8E learning model (Figure 1 and Table 1).

Concerning method, it is usual to provide some demographic detail about the class, such as gender, year of study, age range, previous study in physical sciences, knowledge of English (which is very important for any "E-search" activities). State explicitly that the Table 1 activities and data collection were conducted in Indonesian with only a few exceptions (was Figure 2 given in English or

Indonesian?). Were references for Figure 2 given to students? Add a column to Table 1 to indicate the timeline (e.g. use "Week number"). Indicate the number of hours in class and expected for out-of- class activities on the project. other activities, e.g. lectures? Give a statement about data originally collected in Indonesian language (interviews and reﬂective journals) being translated into English by the authors (or whoever did the translating).

In the Conclusions section, try to place more emphasis upon the most innovative part of the learning design, the social learning phase in Table 1 ("exchange" and "extend" in Figure 1). Show that "a process of collaboration, discussion, and reﬂection" (p.12) as demonstrated in a nanoscience project could be applied to many other topics in initial teacher education, and that ultimately these students will be better prepared to develop their future classroom practices incorporating student-centred learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, inquiry-based approaches and other features of social constructivism.

Notes

1. Title. Depending on the nature of the new details to be added as suggested above, an improved title may be appropriate. For example, "Improved learning designs for shaping Indonesia's future science teachers applied in a nanoscience project" (14 words) (or similar). The purpose is to

introduce broader keywords ('science' instead of 'chemistry'; 'learning designs' instead of '8E learning cycle'), omit closely related keywords (if 'nanoscience' is in, then 'nanotechnology' adds little, do not need both; if 'future science teachers' is in, then 'pre-service chemistry teachers' is not needed), omit words such as 'understanding' which are not useful given the presence of various other words, and add a word ('project') which can be helpful for the purpose of linking to problem-based learning or project-based learning, which are often associated with small group or small team activities. Another version: "An improved learning design for shaping Indonesia's future science teachers: Application in a nanoscience project" (15 words).

2. Of about 43 references, about 12 are dated post-2013. Given the relatively recent emergence of nanoscience as a topic in physical science education, a new search of the most recent literature could be helpful. For example, try this or similar Google Scholar searches:

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?

as_q=nanoscience+nanotechnology+school+secondary+chemistry+physics+student+learning&as_ep q=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2014&as_yhi=&hl=en&a s_sdt=0%2C5

(About 5,820 results)

However, in adding new references and other new text as suggested above, keep in mind IIER's general limit of 7500 words. Note that some material (e.g. Figure 1) could be placed in an appendix - IIER does not include appendices in the word count.

3. How is the "8E learning cycle" presented to students, given that the "8E" name is dependent upon English words? Explain.

4. Rahmawati and Ridwan (2016) is cited on page 2, but is missing from References. Rahmawati and Ridwan (2017) is in References, but it appears to be a different topic from the 2016 reference.

Review 2

The author(s) has done excellent work in presenting ﬁndings related to improve pre-service chemistry teachers’ conceptual understanding regarding nanoscience and nanotechnology.

Using the 8E learning cycle (Engage, Explore, E-search, Elaborate, Exchange, Extend, Evaluate, and Explain), the participants consist of 33 pre-service teachers have proved to show improvement of knowledge about nanomaterials based on the presented ﬁndings. The data collection method (conceptual test, in-depth interviews, classroom observations, reﬂective journals and worksheet) are adequate to cover the research objective. Nonetheless of this tremendous work, the author(s) has overlook minor issues such as the absence of a

(11)

few references, outdated references and absent of test data. The issues have been addressed as below and require author(s) attention. Keep up the good work!

Suggestion for improvement:

1.Some sources of citation cannot be found in the reference list:

- Lee and Kwok (2017)

- McCormick (1997)

- Ghattas and Carver (2012)

-Tretter (2006)

2. Some references are more than 10 years old of age. The author might want to update some of

the old references.

3. The author has mentioned the use of conceptual understanding test as one of the data

collection. However, the data from the conceptual test is not obvious and almost not seen in the results and discussion. The findings from the test could be triangulated with others findings.

+