Thank you for such an interesting and insightful study, and for responding so thoroughly to the peer-review system. I notice that you have addressed all of the issues that were raised by the referees, and provided that these are incorporated into the new manuscript then I am very happy to publish this article. Please take special consideration of the following points:

1) The lack of evaluation must be addressed. Either by shifting the focus of the manuscript, or by including some qualitative evaluation, as has been indicated.

2) A more detailed comment on the audience and the suitability for different audiences must be included.

3) A thorough proof reading of the document, ideally be a native English speaker must be completed.

I look forward to receiving the updated manuscript, and thank you again for your study.

Thank you for addressing all of the comments made by the referees, and for fully engaging with the peer review process. However, you still need to do a much more thorough proof read of the document. I found the following errors on the first 8 pages alone:

Page 2, line 13: should be ‘State-of-the-art pedagogical practices’

Page 3: The first two bullet points need a semicolon after them.

Page 5, line 7: should be “they will or will not use this additional information’

Page 5, line 10: should be ‘other implementations’

Page 5, line 10: remove space between ‘teacher’ and ‘!’

Page 5, line 10: “With regards to the book the target audience of the collection to which it belongs is 8-12 years. It was therefore achieved in a collaborative way with a classroom of children aged 8-9 to make sure that it is understandable for the whole age range targeted.” does not make grammatical sense. Please reword.

Page 6, line 5: Should be “This activity consists of designing and testing disdrometers made from paper plates with few mm of flour or oil to observe rain drops individually.”

Page 6, line 7: Should be “rain rate R, that variable hydro-meteorologists are interested in.”

Page 6, line 10: Should this be “blotting paper”?

Page 6, line 23: Should be a semi-colon, not a colon.

Page 7, line 1: Should be “promoted by the “La main à la Patte” foundation

Page 7, line 6: Should be “The children were all able to create their own device without wasting or spilling oil or flour, and only three of them needed significant help in the process.”

Page 6, line 7: Should be “The use of a deep container”

Page 7, line 10: I do not understand “The first comparison was done with its neighbour since he/she had done the other type of device.” Who is the neighbour here, the child or the dish?

Page 7, line 11: “Here the teacher was helpful in starting the discussion which the scientist was not used at the beginning” is not grammatically correct.

Page 7, line 25: Should be “and only the relative sizes are accurate.”

Page 8, line 1: “Being very visual, the first three items were easily grasped by children, whereas the third one was a bit trickier and required more detailed explanations and illustrations for few of them.” Does not make sense. How can the first three concepts be easy to grasp, and then the third one also be difficult. Did you mean the fourth?


I stopped at this point, as it is not the role of the editor to proof read your document for you. Please can you go through the entire document very very carefully and make sure that it is grammatically correct, without any typographic errors. Once you have done that I will be happy to publish this very interesting study.