Instructional Efficiency of STEM Approach in Biology Teaching in Primary School in Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your research. It is an interesting theme and important for the teacher's activity and practice. But as your references may confirm the STEAM method is not new and had been already proven to be efficient.

You may particularize your study with an approach of STEAM method applied under the online/hybrid/covid context. You may also specify that your research can not be extrapolated over the entire population and that it is restricted to your school. Even the title is too general.

The article respects the correct structure and formatting style. The methodology is correctly described and applied. The results are coherent.

The results are discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being overinterpreted.

Mainly the conclusions supported by references or results. The study design was appropriate to answer the aim. I found no major flaws in this article and the article is consistent with itself.

Please study and cite articles published in the last 3 years.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments, both those affirmative ones and those that point to shortcomings in the manuscript. We have accepted all your comments and suggestions, as well as the suggestions from the Reviewer 2.

Based on your comments, the section Discussion has been extended with a part on STEM approach applied under the online/hybrid context. The part dealing with the study limitations (at the end of Discussion section) now includes limitations related to a small number of study sample and small amount of content covered in the intervention period. The title has been changed and now it is specified to the context of primary school teaching in the Republic of Serbia. We have also included some new references (published in the last three years).

Following the suggestions of the Reviewer 2, the Methodology section now includes more details on the content covered by the pretest and posttest/retest and there is a brief description of Biology curriculum in the Republic of Serbia, as its learning outcomes served as guidelines for the applied tests. The Results section now includes the pretest, posttest and retest matrixes (Table 1) and an analysis of the obtained values.

We hope that the changes we have made meet your requirements and that the revised version can be accepted for the publication.

Yours faithfully,

Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer’s Information

“Empirical Study on the Instructional Efficiency of STEM Ap-2 proach in Biology Teaching in Primary School”

I enjoyed reading and analysing the present work.

The review work raised up the following questions/comments.

Page 5, lines 213 -215: What are the contents of the pre-test? What is the pretest matrix?

This information will improve the clarity of the document.

Page 6, lines 271 -272: we can read de following  sentence

“Upon the completion of the analysis of the teaching subtopics ‘DCRU’, students from both groups took a posttest on the same day”.

What are the contents of the pos-test? What is the posttest matrix?

The evaluation of a study process should take into account criteria and learning objectives. They are different in STEM and non-STEM approaches. How did the authors deal with this fact?

This clarification is very important to understand the discussion of the results (e.g.. The results referring to the students’ performance in the pretest, posttest and retest).

Page 11, lines 488-491 “Students who acquired biological concepts by the STEM approach showed greater achievement on the knowledge test with less mental effort invested, and the knowledge they gained maintained for a longer period of time than in their non-STEM group peers.”

A test of the knowledge of students who have developed activities within a SEAM approach should be the same as a test of the knowledge of students who have developed activities within a non-STEM approach? Of course not.

An assessment process should be as integrated as possible with learning. It is clear that learning is related to study processes and didactic and pedagogical approaches.

I propose that the authors reflect on the nature of pretest and posttest, in the sense that the reader understands the discussion of the results and conclusions of the paper.

It seems to me that a presentation of the mathematics topics of the student’s grade would be useful, in order to better understand the support between the various areas.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your positive review and the comments pointing to some shortcomings in the manuscript. We have accepted all your comments and suggestions, as well as the suggestions from the Reviewer 1.

Based on your comments, the revised version now includes more details on the content of the pretest, posttest/retest and a brief description of the current Biology curriculum in state primary schools in Serbia, which is the context of our research study. The curriculum is of a spiral organization and oriented toward learning outcomes. The learning outcomes are defined in such a way that they require from students to think logically and focus on problem solutions, by combining new content with already acquired knowledge and everyday situations and thus establishing both vertical and horizontal coordination of the teaching contents.

At the end of the pedagogical experiment the E and C group students did the same test including items that measured the acquired knowledge in relation to the learning outcomes defined in the Biology curriculum. This enabled us to see potential differences in acquiring the learning outcomes after the application of STEM and non-STEM approaches.

Also, complying with your comment, the Results section now includes Table 1 referring to the pretest, posttest and retest matrixes, and it is followed by the analysis of the obtained values.

Responding to the suggestions of the Reviewer 2, limitations of the study have been added at the end of the Discussion section, and several references (published in the last three years) have been added to the theoretical background. Also, the title has been changed and now it is more specific, including the context of the research, i.e. primary school teaching in Serbia.

We hope that the changes we have made meet your requirements and that the revised version can be accepted for the publication.

Yours faithfully,

Authors