A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses and Its Effects on Student Motivation and Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses on Student Learning Effect and Motivation" attempts to analyze the effect of the combination of STEAM education and education for sustainable development (ESD) on student self-efficacy, motivation, satisfaction and learning after the design and implementation of a STEAM course. This question could be of interest in the field of science education and STEAM education in particular, however, I have found major limitations in the work presented which I detail below.

From an overall point of view, I find a messy manuscript, lacking fundamental information, and in which the research objective has not been clear. From what I comment below, I think that it does not contribute knowledge to the line of research in which it is framed.

One of the issues that concerns me most is the lack of an introductory discourse and a clear and concise theoretical framework. Both the introduction and the sections related to the theoretical framework address a variety of topics, such as ESD, STEAM education, augmented reality (AR) or gamification. In addition to the fact that the information on these topics is quite limited and ignores the extensive current literature (e.g., on STEAM education), these thematic "axes" do not appear cohesive. In other words, each topic is discussed individually, but there is an absence of an argumentative thread that justifies their combination. Moreover, throughout these sections, information is repeated unnecessarily.

On the other hand, and no less important, I find several limitations in the methodology section. The authors erroneously use this section to review diverse literature and do not focus on essential issues such as the description of the methodological approach used, the description of the sample, the data collection procedure and the detailed process of data analysis. This section presents the design of a STEAM course considering the integration of its different disciplines. However, the contents of each discipline are not made explicit. This is a very common error in the literature on STEM and STEAM; not everything can be included under this acronym, it is necessary to detail very well how this approach is represented and under what specific theoretical framework. It is also claimed to have used a questionnaire, apparently ad-hoc, but this is not presented and the information indicated about its validity is too limited, not alluding to the process of creating the items based on the literature, a necessary issue in any construction of a new questionnaire. This issue completely negates the validity of the authors' subsequent statistical analysis and also of their final reflections. It is also unclear whether this is a post-test only or a pre- and post-test study, since both modalities are cited in different parts of the manuscript. Throughout these sections, information is also repeated unnecessarily.

Finally, the manuscript does not present discussion of its results when, as I have commented, there is a diverse literature on the effects of STEAM education.

Based on this review, I consider that the manuscript is not suitable for acceptance. However, I appreciate the effort of the authors and hope that these comments will help them to rethink and reorder their ideas so that in the future they can contribute their work to this line of research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editor

Here within enclosed is our paper for consideration to be published on Journal sustainability.  The article title: “A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses on Student Learning Effect and Motivation”.

The revisions of this paper have been clearly highlighted using the "Track Changes", and this paper has been edited by a native English speaker and authors provide a proof document for this manuscript .
This cover letter detailing any changes as below:
Answers:
Thank you very much for your kindly suggestion and authors very polite to reply your question with revision. Authors have replied all the suggestions point by point and you can see bellow and my revision manuscripts with attach file.
1.    I have revised Lines 20 to 30 in the abstract to clearly explain the purpose and results of this study.
2.    ANS: In Lines 184 to 216, I have added literature about VR and the experiential gaming model again as well as described the cases, so as to link the self-efficacy of literature review , learning motivation, and effectiveness.
3.    I have added key points about the conversion of STEM to STEAM as reported by scholars, and have explained that STEAM could improve creativity and enhance the development of cognitive skills (e.g., listening, thinking, problem solving and decision making), as well as self-expression, observation, cooperation and communication (Lines 161 to 165), when combined with art. I have also integrated this idea with an immersive VR experience course based on STEAM education. 
4.    Thanks for the valuable suggestions. I have added relevant literature to the research method (Lines 184 to 216) to echo the research design and course planning in Section 3. I have added the experiment process and experiment environment to show my intention, as well as details of the experiment time, experiment process, and number of subjects. 
5.    As required, I have quoted the literature content in the conclusion and stated my views and study findings. I have also listed topics for further studies and suggestions in Lines 565 to 581 and have presented relevant literature in Lines 662 to 665, Lines 674 to 680, and Lines 758 to 777. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for letting me review your manuscript. It is quite important to integrate art into STEM education, and you have adequately mentioned this in your study. Your study focuses on how “to combine the concept of sustainability, STEAM education, and VR in experiential learning courses. Apart from the result section( data analysis), the rest of the paper must be revised.

Here are my suggestions:

1. Abstract
   • clearly state the purpose of the study
   • highlight the results of the study
2. Introduction / literature review
   • Adhere to a format/ style (you need to ask your publisher) of writing. If you write in APA or Chicago style, make sure you follow the rules.
   • Avoid wordy sentences; Your sentences sometimes are unclear or hard to follow
   • Write shorter paragraphs and avoid mechanical errors.
   • Cite properly
   • Clearly explain the research purposes, questions, or hypothesis
3. Research method
   • Explain the learning content and research conditions vividly. Provide examples of the testing environments. Provide samples of the questionnaires used. We don’t know enough about the reliability and validity of your instruments.
   • Provide a table of your demographics
   • Clearly state the procedure
4. Results
   • Demonstrate results categorically based on each hypothesis.

• Provide enough information for each variable used. Some abbreviations need to be defined.

5. Discussion and conclusion

• Add this section to your manuscript (this section is missing)
• Briefly summarize the purposes and results at the beginning of the discussion section
• Acknowledge specific methodological limitation
• Discuss the results in terms of literature cited in your manuscript
• Discuss implications
• Discuss future research

I hope these suggestions help you organize your manuscript. Good luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editor
Here within enclosed is our paper for consideration to be published on Journal sustainability.  The article title: “A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses on Student Learning Effect and Motivation”.

The revisions of this paper have been clearly highlighted using the "Track Changes", and this paper has been edited by a native English speaker and authors provide a proof document for this manuscript . 
This cover letter detailing any changes as below:

Answers:
Thank you very much for your kindly suggestion and authors very polite to reply your question with revision. Authors have replied all the suggestions point by point and you can see bellow and my revision manuscripts with attach file.

1.    Thank you for your comments. I have revised Lines 20 to 30 in the abstract to clearly explain the purpose and results of this study. 
2.    I have changed it to the MDPI format, and have made clear the purpose and issues to be discussed in Lines 117 to 122 in the introduction. 
3.    I have added explanations and diagrams of experiment scenarios and VR equipment planning in Lines 251 to 265, as well as the number of subjects, time and statistics tables and the activity schedule of the experiment in Lines 332 to 336. 
4.    I have added the purpose and results of this study in Lines 485 to 487 and an explanation to the conclusion and discussion of each hypothesis (Lines 494 to 555), and have demonstrated the points of view put forward in relevant studies or by relevant scholars. 
5.    As required, I have quoted literature content in the conclusion and stated my views and study findings. I have also listed topics for further studies and suggestions in Lines 565 to 581, as well as relevant literature in Lines 662 to 665, Lines 674 to 680, and Lines 758 to 777. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled "A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses on Student Learning Effect and Motivation" strikes me as a well written and presented manuscript. It presents an adequate introduction and theoretical framework, with current and abundant references (although I recommend the authors to revise this manuscript, it would serve them well to justify the applied study https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2279). The research objectives are well developed and have analyzed in detail each of the dimensions developed in the study. In addition, they include several research hypotheses, thus leading to a combination of research objectives and research hypotheses, something already developed by other researchers. The research procedure, describing the entire methodology, seems to be sensational. They have followed the steps to be performed for the validation and reliability of the instrument. Even so, there are aspects that need to be improved. I indicate them below:

1.- The authors do not follow the format offered by MDPI for the preparation of their manuscripts (neither in the presentation of citations, nor in the presentation of references, nor in the format of the text, nor in the format of tables,...). This should be reviewed.
2.- A study of this caliber, and of this quality, cannot present the data as in Table 2 or 3. They should improve their presentation. Furthermore, for example, in Table 2, the percentage of boys is not 58%, it is actually 57.76%. This should be changed.
3.- I miss a point 6 and point 7, which talks about the discussion and conclusion of the manuscript. In point 6, which should be a discussion point, the authors should compare their results with those obtained by other authors (they have sufficient theoretical framework to be able to do so). In point 7, the authors should put their main conclusion of the study, in addition to establishing the main limitations and future lines of research. In addition, they should include the theoretical and practical implications of their study (which I personally consider to be quite a lot).
4.- They should append the instrument. This is very important since this instrument can serve as a reference for subsequent studies.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the authors for their work. I hope that the recommendations given will serve to improve the manuscript. I would like to revisit the study after the authors modify the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and Editor
Here within enclosed is our paper for consideration to be published on Journal sustainability.  The article title: “A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses on Student Learning Effect and Motivation”.

The revisions of this paper have been clearly highlighted using the "Track Changes", and this paper has been edited by a native English speaker and authors provide a proof document for this manuscript . 
This cover letter detailing any changes as below:

Answers:
Thank you very much for your kindly suggestion and authors very polite to reply your question with revision. Authors have replied all the suggestions point by point and you can see bellow and my revision manuscripts with attach file.

1.    Thank you for your comments. I have revised the content according to the MDPI format.
2.    Thank you for your comments. I have revised the data in Table 2.
3.    I have demonstrated the discussion of the results and the suggestions with relevant literature, as well as put forward four study results and their explanations. I have added the purpose and results of this study in Lines 485 to 487 and an explanation to the conclusion and discussion of each hypothesis (Lines 494 to 555), and I have demonstrated the points of view put forward in relevant studies or by relevant scholars. I have added explanations and diagrams of the experiment scenarios and VR equipment planning in Lines 251 to 265, as well as the number of subjects, time and statistics tables and the activity schedule of the experiment in Lines 332 to 336 in Section 3. 
4.    I have added explanations and diagrams of the experiment scenarios and VR equipment planning in Lines 251 to 265, as well as the number of subjects, time and statistics tables and activity schedule of the experiment in Lines 332 to 336.  

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Having reviewed the new version of the manuscript as well as the response of the authors, I consider that most of the major limitations that I indicated in my first review have not been corrected, nor have they responded to my indications in their letter:
- The manuscript still lacks a coherent and comprehensible discourse. Both the introduction and the theoretical framework remain a compendium of diverse ideas, but nothing more. The authors have also not added seminal literature on STEAM education. Do the authors really think that the new paragraph they have added on STEAM reflects the foundations and complexity of this approach? Do they really think that Platz's work is seminal in this regard?
- There remain major methodological limitations: first of all, I still find no explanation of the methodological design followed. The authors state "I have added relevant literature to the research method (Lines 184 to 216) to echo the research design and course planning in Section 3.". However, these lines do not correspond to the methodology, nor do I find any explanation of this below.
Although the hypotheses have been moved to a different section, they still present the same limitation that I have already indicated: in the methodological issues, there is no need to review the literature, but it should be placed in the previous sections of the manuscript, arranged in the argumentative thread.
On the other hand, the contents dealt with in each STEAM discipline are still not explicit. How then can we consider that this work is framed within the STEAM approach?

I also still miss the questionnaire I requested and the explanation of the process of creating your items based on the literature. As I have already indicated this completely negates the validity of the results and conclusions of the study.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Having reviewed the new version of the manuscript as well as the response of the authors, I consider that most of the major limitations that I indicated in my first review have not been corrected, nor have they responded to my indications in their letter:

Q1: The manuscript still lacks a coherent and comprehensible discourse. Both the introduction and the theoretical framework remain a compendium of diverse ideas, but nothing more. The authors have also not added seminal literature on STEAM education. Do the authors really think that the new paragraph they have added on STEAM reflects the foundations and complexity of this approach? Do they really think that Platz's work is seminal in this regard?

ANS 1: Thanks, the reviewer suggestion, I have added journal and references related about STEAM education, see the red font on line 69 and 75. You can see note (Reviewer 1- Q1) in the manuscript.

For example: STEAM education is presented to broaden interest in STEM fields, enhance the creativity of STEM students, and spur innovation [8]. On the other hand, the research has found that STEAM courses which incorporate exploratory learning and plentiful topics can deepen children's cognitive abilities. STEAM activities can also attract students’ attention, encourage, and improve their creativity [9-10]. Su, C. -H. (2019) explored Effect of Users’ Behavioral Intention on Gamification Augmented Reality in Stem (Gar-Stem) Education. Advanced technology and teaching can enhance the effectiveness of STEM learning and improve learners’ participation and learning attitude [11].

Q2: There remain major methodological limitations: first of all, I still find no explanation of the methodological design followed. The authors state "I have added relevant literature to the research method (Lines 184 to 216) to echo the research design and course planning in Section 3.". However, these lines do not correspond to the methodology, nor do I find any explanation of this below.

ANS 2: According to the relevant literature on lines 173 to 199, I have added the discussion of 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 to correspond and explain the research hypotheses 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3. See the red font on line249 to 307; 494 to 554. You can see note (Reviewer 1– Q2) in the manuscript.

For example:

3.1     The influence of self-efficacy on learning motivation, satisfaction and learning effectiveness.

3.2     The influence of experiential learning on learning motivation, satisfaction and learning effectiveness.

3.4     The influence of learning motivation, satisfaction and learning effectiveness.

6.1     The relevance between self-efficacy, learning motivation, satisfaction and learning effectiveness.

6.2     The relevance between experiential learning, learning motivation, satisfaction and learning effectiveness.

6.3     The relevance between learning motivation, satisfaction and learning effectiveness.

Q3: Although the hypotheses have been moved to a different section, they still present the same limitation that I have already indicated: in the methodological issues, there is no need to review the literature, but it should be placed in the previous sections of the manuscript, arranged in the argumentative thread. On the other hand, the contents dealt with in each STEAM discipline are still not explicit. How then can we consider that this work is framed within the STEAM approach?

ANS 3: I have revised and supplemented the methodology and added the discussion in Chapter 6 to analyze and discuss the impact of STEAM education into the VR experience. Finally, I summarize the conclusions and suggestions. See the red font on line249 to 307; 494 to 607. You can see note (Reviewer 1- Q3) in the manuscript.

Q4: I also still miss the questionnaire I requested and the explanation of the process of creating your items based on the literature. As I have already indicated this completely negates the validity of the results and conclusions of the study.

ANS 4: I have added the Questionnaire and Table3 on lines 339-369, related references [73-84]. You can see note (Reviewer 1– Q4) in the manuscript. And I have added the reliability and validity of the research results. Construct validity was examined in accordance with the three principles of convergent validity, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). the Cronbach’s α of all items were higher than 0.7, indicating a high confidence level. See the red font on line 434 to 443 and 483 to 485. You can see note (Reviewer 1- Q4) in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript.

It has been significantly improved. Apart from some mechanical issues, I am concerned about the citations and references. Have you discussed these issues with the publisher? It seems you are using APA but referencing at the end in Chicago style.

Line 41: citation needs a date

Line 46: delete the second author

Line 47: first-time use of AR.

Line 52: NtN?

Line 54: add references

Line 57: needs a date

Line 66: needs citation

Line 83: improper use of et al.

Line 84: improper use of et al.

Line 91: improper use of et al. ( delete the second author, please)

Line 132-135: need citations

Line 149-150: need citations

Line 153-156: need citations

Line 253: mechanical error

Line 438: consider changing this line to discussion and conclusions

It would also be beneficial if you could add pictures of your real conditions ( please add some images from your VR environments).

Thank you and good luck.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript.

Q1: It has been significantly improved. Apart from some mechanical issues, I am concerned about the citations and references. Have you discussed these issues with the publisher? It seems you are using APA but referencing at the end in Chicago style.

ANS 1: Thank the reviewer suggestion, the content and references of the paper have been revised in accordance with the MDPI journal guidelines.

For example: Reference List and Citations Style Guide. reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3].

Q2:

Q2-1 Line 41: citation needs a date.

Q2-2 Line 46: delete the second author.

ANS2-2: I have deleted the second author, for example see the red font on line 46. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-2) in the manuscript.

For example: Velázquez (2018) mentioned that the integration of augmented reality (AR) technology in the classroom can improve students’ learning motivation, and that AR technology is systematic and procedural.

Q2-3 Line 47: first-time use of AR.

ANS2-3: I modified AR to augmented reality, see the red font on line 47. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-3) in the manuscript.

For example: Velázquez (2018) mentioned that the integration of augmented reality (AR) technology in the classroom can improve students’ learning motivation, and that AR technology is systematic and procedural.

Q2-4 Line 52: NtN?

ANS2-4: I modified NTN to Nurture Thru Nature (NtN) program, see the red font on line 52 to 53. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-4) in the manuscript.

For example: They used the course materials provided by Nurture Thru Nature (NtN) program to evaluate the impact of STEM courses on Spanish elementary students and the effect of mentoring programs on college students’ employability [3].

Q2-5 Line 54: add references.

ANS2-5: I have added the references, see the red font on line 55. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-5) in the manuscript.

For example: In Vietnam, studies have shown that STEM education could motivate students and enhance their learning attitude [4].

Q2-6 Line 57: needs a date.

ANS2-6: I have added the date, see the red font on line 57. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-6) in the manuscript.

For example: Guangzhou, China, Fan et al. (2020) integrated traditional lacquer art learning and electronic technology into course design, and found that the learning effectiveness lacquer art culture was improved, which contributed to sustainable development [5].

Q2-7 Line 66: needs citation.

ANS 2-7: I have added the references, see the red font on line 67. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-7) in the manuscript.

For example: The concept was first put forward by Professor G. Yakman from Virginia Tech in 2006, who suggested that besides the four pillars of STEM, namely science, technology, engineering and mathematic, the perspective of aesthetics and society should also be included [6].

Q2-8 Line 83: improper use of et al.

ANS 2-8: I have modified the way of citation, see the red font on line 87. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-8) in the manuscript.

For example: The Internet technology has been applied to numerous fields, such as virtual learning environments [17]

Q2-9 Line 84: improper use of et al.

ANS2-9: I have modified the way of citation, see the red font on line 88. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-9) in the manuscript.

For example: as well as mobile devices, multimedia, and computer assistance [18-19].

Q2-10 Line 91: improper use of et al. (delete the second author, please)

ANS2-10: I have I have deleted the second author and modified the way of citation, see the red font on line 94. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-10) in the manuscript.

For example: After VR teaching, the learning effect is significantly improved [22-23].

Q2-11 Line 132-135: need citations.

ANS2-11: I have added the citation, see the red font on line 139. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-11) in the manuscript.

For example: Starting from the core quality of sustainable development, the educators are expanding students’ horizons on issues related to cultural heritage and are undertaking sustainability-focused cross-topic courses [27].

Q2-12 Line 149-150: need citations.

ANS2-12: I have added the citation, see the red font on line 154. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-12) in the manuscript.

For example: The combination of art and STEM education can promote the integration and coordination of various disciplines, and cultivate students’ creativity and innovation ability, as well as strengthen their artistic edification and humanistic backgrounds [31].

Q2-13 Line 153-156: need citations.

ANS2-13: I have added the citation, see the red font on line 158. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-13) in the manuscript.

For example: In the United States, STEAM education is considered an important national education reform strategy from kindergarten to high school. It encourages students to understand the world through diverse knowledge and perspectives, which is conducive to cultivating their innovation capability [32-33].

Q2-14 Line 253: mechanical error

ANS2-14: I have corrected the error, see the red font on line 254 to 255. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-14) in the manuscript.

For example: Chang and Eric Zhi-Feng Liu (2014) found that the when the college students have higher online self-efficacy, the influence on their learning motivation and performance is greater [55].

Q2-15 Line 438: consider changing this line to discussion and conclusions.

ANS2-15: I have modified the title of this section, I have added a discussion and conclusion section, see the red font on line 494 to 554 (Chapter 6 Discussion) and line556 to 607 (Chapter 7 Conclusions and Suggestions). You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q2-15) in the manuscript.

For example: Chapter6. Discussion; Chapter7. Conclusions and Suggestions.

Q3: It would also be beneficial if you could add pictures of your real conditions (please add some images from your VR environments).

ANS 3: I have added Figure 3 Students actually operate and Figure 4 Teacher lead students to operate. The teacher is teaching the students, and the students follow the course for VR operation and learning, see the red font on line 323 and 328. You can see note (Reviewer 2- Q3) in the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Although the manuscript "A Study on the Impact of STEAM Education for Sustainable Development Courses on Student Learning Effect and Motivation" has advanced in some aspects after the suggestions of the three reviewers, I still find major limitations.

From a general point of view, I still find the manuscript too hastily written, adding information after information requested by the reviewers and giving rise to a myriad of sections and subsections that make the manuscript very difficult to read and understand. The disordered manuscript of the first version has become, after the recommendations of the reviewers, a document with too much information not selected slowly and adequately. Proof of this are the 113 references in this manuscript, more than half of them completely dispensable and yet lacking in other seminal references. For example, as I commented since my first review, the authors have failed to construct a robust and thoughtful introductory discourse. For example, the authors' statement in lines 61-62 "However, as STEM education places emphasis on technology, how to integrate art into STEM education has become an emerging topic in recent years" is totally misleading. Neither STEM education needs to emphasize technology nor this issue is the cause of the integration of art into STEM. In line 46, the authors mention a paper by Velazquez (2018) that does not appear (or appears erroneously) referenced. The statement added by the authors in lines 68-70 "STEAM education is presented to broaden interest in STEM fields, enhance the creativity of STEM students, and spur innovation [8]" is also erroneous. Is there no creativity in STEM areas?, this conception assumes a reductionist view of the STEAM approach. The authors' statement in lines 78-80 "The purpose of education is to guide students to integrate interdisciplinary knowledge, trigger their interest in STEAM learning, and develop their employability through STEAM [14]" is confronted with the goal of compulsory education, i.e., in compulsory education the goal is not to improve people's employability but to form people integrally. In addition to these major limitations, I still find the introduction to be a compilation of varied ideas without a clear discourse focused on the need to conduct this study.

The same happens with the section of the theoretical framework called “STEAM education”. As I have already mentioned, the authors still have not managed to construct a theoretical framework for STEAM education that takes into account relevant literature and does not fall into reductionism and misconceptions. For example, I find at least six different conceptions about STEM and STEAM. In lines 61-62 the authors affirm that “STEM education places emphasis on technology”, in lines 63-64 they affirm that “STEAM has been adopted worldwide to indicate the involvement of art or artistic practice in education”, in lines 69 -70 state that “STEAM education is presented to broaden interest in STEM fields, enhance the creativity of STEM students, and spur innovation”, in lines 78-80 they state that “The purpose of education is to guide students to integrate interdisciplinary knowledge, trigger their interest in STEAM learning, and develop their employability through STEAM ”, in lines 141-142 they state that“ STEAM education is a teaching approach that foster learners 'interest in STEM courses by fostering individuals' capabilities of expression, innovation and aesthetic perception [28] ", in lines 147-148 they state that "STEAM education, on the basis of STEM education, integrates art courses into STEM education, so as to balance the science and technology courses in STEM”. In addition to repeating information, a question that I have already commented on in previous reviews, these statements imply different non-compatible conceptions about STEM and STEAM. For example, if the authors comment that “STEM education place emphasis on technology” it is not consistent that they later affirm that “so as to balance the science and technology courses in STEM”. In the same way, if the authors affirm “STEAM has been adopted worldwide to indicate the involvement of art or artistic practice in education” it is also not coherent that they later affirm that “STEAM education is presented to broaden interest in STEM fields, enhance the creativity of STEM students, and spur innovation ”, given that creativity, as I have mentioned, is not a capacity limited to the arts.

On the other hand, I continue to find major methodological limitations. As a result of the reviewers' recommendations, the authors have added more and more information in this regard, in an attempt to alleviate the initial shortcomings. However, they have not remedied certain issues. In the first place, the authors continue to review the literature in the sections corresponding to methodological issues, which, as I have already indicated, is not correct. The methodology of a manuscript should only and exclusively relate what has been done in this manuscript; the theoretical underpinnings should have been integrated during the theoretical framework. The first paragraph of section 4 is not an explanation of the research methodology but of the methodology used in the educational intervention. The contents of each STEAM discipline remain unexplained, what contents of mathematics, science, arts, etc. have been addressed? Without making the contents explicit, it is not possible to understand their integration and neither is it possible to understand how this work is framed in the STEAM educational approach.; I also indicated this question in previous reviews. Regarding the questionnaire and the composition of the items and the discussion, it is true that the authors have answered various of my questions but, why did the authors not include this information when I asked for it in my first review?

In summary, although the manuscript, as I have commented, has advanced in some aspects, it still find major limitations, especially theoretical ones, which make it unacceptable.

Author Response

Dear reviewer
Thank you very much for reviewer’s kindly suggestions and giving chance to improve our manuscript to be better. Authors answer your questions and finish our manuscript with tracking version. All the English was revised by Native English Speaker. You can see my revised version.