Enhancing secondary school students’ science process skills through guided inquiry-based laboratory activities in biology

Ashebir Mekonnen Chengere; Beyene Dobo Bono; Samuel Assefa Zinabu; Kedir Woliy Jilo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320692

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 13, 2024
13 Nov 2024 Author Response https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320692.r001
27 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin, Editor PONE-D-24-48585Enhancing Secondary School Students’ Science Process Skills through Guided Inquiry-based Laboratory activities in BiologyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chengere, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== Below, I have outlined the revisions needed: A. Abstract Structure: Rearrange to present background information first, followed by the research objective for better logical flow. Clarity: Explicitly link the research aim to the educational challenges, such as traditional teaching methods and resource constraints. Keywords: Include "secondary school students" to improve discoverability. B. Introduction State-of-the-Art: Expand the discussion of previous studies to articulate the research gap and novelty of the current work more convincingly. Problem Statement: Clearly frame the problem and connect the study's significance to broader implications for Ethiopian education and global education research. Justification: Provide a rationale for conducting the study, particularly given existing findings that inquiry-based learning improves SPS. Explain how the current work builds on or differs from past studies. Sample Size: Acknowledge the small sample size and its implications for statistical power and generalizability. C. Materials and Methods Research Design: Justify the selection of the biology topic. Clarify and provide evidence that the groups had similar characteristics, specifying which characteristics were compared. Explain the use of two statistical analyses (Welch’s t-test and ANCOVA) and why one consistent method was not chosen. Gender Analysis: Clarify the role of gender in the study (e.g., independent variable or secondary analysis). If gender is a primary factor, justify why a two-way ANCOVA was not used. Intervention Details: Explain the rationale for the eight-week intervention duration and discuss its alignment with prior research or practical considerations. Indicate whether teachers’ prior experience with inquiry-based methods was assessed, as this could affect the intervention’s outcomes. D. Results Presentation: Provide clear captions for tables that include descriptions, statistical tests used, and significance levels (e.g., p < 0.05). Sample Size: Acknowledge how the small sample size may limit the diversity of perspectives and findings. E. Discussion Depth and References: Expand the discussion to explore why the intervention was effective, particularly the role of active learning and student engagement in fostering SPS. Provide more references to support interpretations and findings. Mechanisms and Implications: Analyze the underlying mechanisms driving the significant effects on students’ competencies and explore the broader implications for curriculum design. Global Relevance: Broaden the discussion to include examples of similar approaches in resource-limited settings or other international contexts. Practical Recommendations: Suggest strategies for adapting GIBLEI for resource-constrained environments. F. General Comments Formatting: Ensure consistent formatting, including spacing, alignment, and adherence to journal guidelines. Grammar and Style: Address minor grammatical issues to improve clarity and flow throughout the manuscript. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. 4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. 5. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Abstract: The first sentence of the abstract presents the research objective, while the second and third sentences provide the research background. It would be more effective to present the background information first, followed by the objective. Introduction: The state-of-the-art section is weak due to the limited discussion of previous studies. As a result, the articulation of the research gap and the novelty is not strong enough. Methods: The research design is overly simplistic, involving only one independent variable, one dependent variable, and two groups. In the research design section, provide justification or evidence that both groups have similar characteristics and clarify what specific characteristics are deemed similar. In the data analysis section, explain why you used two different analyses (Welch's t-test and ANCOVA) to compare the performance of students in the two groups instead of opting for one consistent method. Regarding gender: How is it positioned in the study? Why did you compare the performance of male and female students? If gender is treated as an independent variable, why did you not employ a two-way ANCOVA? Discussion: The discussion is too brief, comprising only two paragraphs. It is also inadequately supported by references, with only one scientific citation in the first paragraph. The discussion primarily focuses on interpreting the analytical results and comparing findings with previous studies. The manuscript lacks a deeper exploration of why the treatment yielded significant effects on students’ competencies. A more thorough analysis and discussion of the mechanisms and implications of the findings are necessary. Reviewer #2: Thank you for selecting me to review the manuscript titled, "Enhancing Secondary School Students’ Science Process Skills through Guided Inquiry-Based Laboratory Activities in Biology." The article is well-written and presents an important contribution to the field of science education. However, I recommend the following revisions to strengthen the manuscript: Abstract 1. Refine the aim for greater clarity by explicitly linking it to the educational challenges mentioned (e.g., resource constraints, traditional methods). For example: "This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a Guided Inquiry-Based Laboratory Experiments Enriched Instructional (GIBLEI) approach in overcoming traditional teaching limitations and enhancing science process skills (SPS) among Ethiopian secondary school biology students." 2. Add "secondary school students" to the list of keywords to improve discoverability. Introduction 1. Clearly frame the problem statement and expand the significance of the study to connect the findings to broader implications for Ethiopian education and global education research. 2. Acknowledge the small sample size (N = 75, with only 29 in the control group) and discuss its implications for statistical power and generalizability. Materials and Methods 1. Indicate whether the teachers' prior experience with inquiry-based methods was assessed, as this could influence the intervention's effectiveness. 2. Justify why eight weeks was chosen as the intervention duration and discuss whether this aligns with previous research or practical constraints. Results 1. Provide clear and descriptive captions for all tables, ensuring each includes: o A brief explanation of the table's content. o The statistical test performed (e.g., t-test, ANCOVA). o The significance level (e.g., p<0.05p < 0.05). Discussion 1. Delve deeper into why GIBLEI was particularly effective, exploring the role of active learning or student engagement in fostering SPS. 2. Discuss how GIBLEI could be adapted for resource-limited settings, providing practical recommendations for implementation. General Comments 1. Ensure consistency in formatting, including spacing between brackets and words. 2. Address minor grammatical issues throughout the manuscript to improve clarity and flow. Reviewer #3: 1. “When laboratory experiments are used as an instructional strategy and students are actively engaged, most studies have found a significant improvement in students' achievement and SPS (9). Therefore, active learning techniques, such as inquiry-based learning, should replace traditional lecturing and cookbook-style laboratories” If this has already been established, then what is the rational or basis for the current work? 2. Please provide justification for the selected biology topic ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Ahmad Fauzi Reviewer #2: Yes: Zhikal Omar Khudhur Reviewer #3: Yes: Yeboah Kwaku Opoku ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320692.r002
Revision 1
7 Feb 2025 Author Response Date: January 20, 2025 Dear Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin (Academic Editor) PLOS ONE Subject: Report on the incorporation of comments and suggestions Following our submission of the manuscript for publication we have received invaluable comments and suggestions that have improved the quality of the manuscript. We acknowledge the contributions of the editorial team and the reviewers for valuing our work and allowing us to improve the quality standard of the manuscript. We have incorporated all the comments/suggestions provided by the reviewers and the response on how we incorporated the comments is annexed below. Thank you again for your consideration! With Best Regards Content Suggestions/comments Response (ways how they are addressed) Abstract Reviewer 1: i. The first sentence of the abstract presents the research objective, while the second and third sentences provide the research background. It would be more effective to present the background information first, followed by the objective. Reviewer 2: i. Refine the aim for greater clarity by explicitly linking it to the educational challenges mentioned (e.g., resource constraints, traditional methods). For example: "This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a Guided Inquiry-Based Laboratory Experiments Enriched Instructional (GIBLEI) approach in overcoming traditional teaching limitations and enhancing science process skills (SPS) among Ethiopian secondary school biology students." ii. Add "secondary school students" to the list of keywords to improve discoverability. i. We completely accepted the comments, and we revised the abstract based on the given comments. We have highlighted the revised text in bright green color. i. We accepted the comment and tried to clarify the research aim by linking it to the educational challenges. Moreover, we highlighted the revision with dark yellow color. ii. We accepted the suggestion and the phrase "secondary school students" in to key words. The change was highlighted with green color. Introduction Reviewer 1: i. The state-of-the-art section is weak due to the limited discussion of previous studies. As a result, the articulation of the research gap and the novelty is not strong enough. Reviewer 2: i. Clearly frame the problem statement and expand the significance of the study to connect the findings to broader implications for Ethiopian education and global education research. ii. Acknowledge the small sample size (N = 75, with only 29 in the control group) and discuss its implications for statistical power and generalizability. � Provide a rationale for conducting the study, particularly given existing findings that inquiry-based learning improves SPS. Explain how the current work builds on or differs from past studies. Reviewer 3: i. Active learning techniques, such as inquiry-based learning, should replace traditional lecturing and cookbook-style laboratories. If this has already been established, then what is the rational or basis for the current work? By accepting the suggestions: i. We have tried to incorporate enough previous relevant studies in to the introduction part to enhance the articulation of the research gap and strengthen the novelty of the research. For instance, the introduction provides a solid overview of the literature related to Science Process Skills (SPS), inquiry-based learning (IBL), and the challenges faced in Ethiopian secondary schools. Moreover, the discussion expanded to clarify the specific research gap and the novelty of the current work. The purple color indicates some of the modification we have made. i. We have tried to clarify the problem statement and the significance of the study in the introduction section. The blue color indicates some of the modification we have made. ii. We accepted the comment and acknowledged in the small sample size in the limitation sections. The change was highlighted with light green color. � We completely accepted the comment and included the rationale for conducting the study and how the current work builds on or differs from past studies. Some of the changes were highlighted with yellow color. i. We accepted the comment and revised the content by completely removing the vague sentence. Methods Reviewer 1: i. In the research design section, provide justification or evidence that both groups have similar characteristics and clarify what specific characteristics are deemed similar. ii. In the data analysis section, explain why the two different analyses (Welch's t-test and ANCOVA) to compare the performance of students in the two groups instead of opting for one consistent method. iii. Regarding gender: How is it positioned in the study? Why did you compare the performance of male and female students? If gender is treated as an independent variable, why did you not employ a two-way ANCOVA? Reviewer 2: i. Indicate whether the teachers' prior experience with inquiry-based methods was assessed, as this could influence the intervention's effectiveness. ii. Justify why eight weeks was chosen as the intervention duration and discuss whether this aligns with previous research or practical constraints. By accepting the suggestions/Comments: i. We included the features of the schools and the profiles of teachers in the sampling section and highlighted with yellow color (These schools were chosen based on their similarity in facilities, including laboratory chemicals and equipment, library resources, ICT infrastructure, and the qualifications and experience of teachers). ii. We accepted the comment and we gave reason for simultaneous use of Welch's t-test and ANCOVA in the data analysis section. We also highlighted the changes with turquoises color. iii. In this study, the role of gender was a secondary analysis to determine whether the intervention effects varied between male and female students, providing additional insights into the study’s findings. It is highlighted with pink color in the data analysis section. i. The teachers’ prior experience with inquiry-based methods was not formally assessed. However, the researchers addressed this potential variability through initial training and ongoing support throughout the study. The continuous guidance provided to both groups aimed to ensure that all teachers were adequately prepared to deliver the instructional approaches, thereby enhancing the consistency and reliability of the intervention outcomes. This was included in the treatment procedure section and highlighted with pink color. ii. We accepted the comment and we have included the justification in the treatment procedure section. The changes were highlighted with dark yellow color. Results Reviewer 2: i. Provide clear and descriptive captions for all tables, ensuring each includes: • A brief explanation of the table's content. • The statistical test performed (e.g., t-test, ANCOVA). • The significance level (e.g., p<0.05p < 0.05). i. We accepted the comments and we provided clear and descriptive captions for all the tables according to the comments. Discussion Reviewer 1: a. The discussion is too brief, comprising only two paragraphs. It is also inadequately supported by references, with only one scientific citation in the first paragraph. b. The discussion primarily focuses on interpreting the analytical results and comparing findings with previous studies. c. The manuscript lacks a deeper exploration of why the treatment yielded significant effects on students’ competencies. d. A more thorough analysis and discussion of the mechanisms of the findings are necessary. e. The implications of the findings are also important. Reviewer 2: f. Delve deeper into why GIBLEI was particularly effective, exploring the role of active learning or student engagement in fostering SPS. g. Discuss how GIBLEI could be adapted for resource-limited settings h. Provide practical recommendations for implementation. i. We accepted the comments. Moreover, we revised and supported the discussion with more relevant references. ii. We completely accepted the comment. Thus; a. The treatment yielded significant effects on students’ competencies due to the nature the GIBLEI. This was highlighted with bright green color in the discussion section. b. We also added the underlying mechanism behind the effectiveness of GIBLEI in discussion sections. It was also highlighted with blue color in the discussion sections. c. Moreover, the implications of the findings were also included in the conclusion and recommendation sections. The implications were highlighted with teal color. i. We completely accepted the comment and incorporated the reason why GIBLEI approach was effective in developing students SPS. This was highlighted with bright green color. ii. The mechanisms by which the GIBLEI could be adapted for resource-limited settings was discussed in the last paragraph of the discussion section and highlighted with pink color. iii. The practical recommendations for implementation of the GIBLEI was provided in the last paragraph of the conclusion and recommendation section and highlighted with yellow color. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320692.r003
23 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin, Editor <p>Enhancing Secondary School Students’ Science Process Skills through Guided Inquiry-based Laboratory activities in Biology PONE-D-24-48585R1 Dear Mr/Ms. Chengere, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320692.r004
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin, Editor PONE-D-24-48585R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Chengere, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Mc Rollyn Daquiado Vallespin Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320692.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .