STEAM Education Using Natural Resources in Rural Areas: Case Study of a Grouped Rural School in Avila, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript, “STEAM Education Using Natural Resources in Rural Areas: Case Study of the Grouped Rural School Las Cogotas in Ávila, Spain,” submitted to Sustainability. This article presents a practical case at the Grouped Rural School (CRA) Las Cogotas in Ávila, Castilla y León (Spain), where STEAM education was implemented in an outdoor classroom setting to enhance the rural environment and foster environmental awareness in students through local rural and natural resources.

There is much to praise: the literature is thoroughly reviewed, the objectives are clearly defined and well-grounded in existing research, an appropriate case study design is utilized, the findings are clearly linked to the data, and the discussion and conclusion remain within the scope of the data. Overall, the authors have done excellent work, and I appreciate their contribution to such an important topic.

I have one small suggestion for improvement: keeping in mind the limitations of case study research, it would be beneficial to include a brief paragraph towards the end of the paper that summarizes how your findings could inform policymakers and contribute to the advancement of future research in this field.

Thank you again for your important work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is fine, could just use another round or editing to slightly improve clarity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for your time and thoughtful review of our article. We appreciate your positive comments and constructive suggestions for improvement.

Below, we address your recommendations and describe the changes implemented in the revised manuscript:

We have expanded the discussion and conclusion sections to enhance the manuscript further, incorporating the additional information you suggested.

We have also rewritten the abstract, added a new keyword, and improved the title. The article has been restructured, and the Objectives and Methods section has been strengthened. New and improved figures have been added, and the bibliography has been updated. Finally, the English language throughout the manuscript has been thoroughly revised.

 

With these revisions, we believe the article is now suitable for publication.

 

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our work.

 

Sincerely,

TheAuthors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to congratulate the authors for their efforts to write this interesting paper and for the topic of their research.

The paper presents an interesting case study related to implementing STEAM education in rural environment in Spain, using natural. The paper highlights the benefits of outdoor learning for student engagement and the development of the community, so the topic of the paper is relevant to sustainability and education. The literature review is relevant to the study and it adequately situates the research within the broader discourse on STEAM education and rural sustainability. However, certain aspects require clarification and elaboration before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Here are my questions/observations/recommendations:

• The study’s findings are based on a very small sample size, with students from only four rural municipalities. While qualitative case studies can provide rich insights, the limited number of participants restricts the generalizability of the findings. The authors should acknowledge this limitation more explicitly in the discussion section and suggest directions for future research that could expand the sample size.
• Data collection and analysis should be explained in more detail in the methodology section to ensure the replicability of the research.
• The use of structured interviews and surveys is appropriate, but the exact number of participants for each method should be clearly stated.
• I recommend that the authors provide more details about how the qualitative data was coded and analyzed using ATLAS.ti. Were there specific coding frameworks or themes used?
• Also, in the methodology section of the paper it would be useful to clarify how were survey items developed and validated? Was any pilot testing conducted?
• The results are presented descriptively, but additional statistical analysis, even if basic (e.g., percentage distributions, correlation analysis), could add depth to the findings.
• The discussion currently reiterates the findings without deeply analyzing their implications. The authors should engage more critically with the broader literature and discuss how their findings align with or differ from previous studies.
• Address the potential biases or limitations that may have influenced student responses (e.g., social desirability bias, interviewer influence).
• The manuscript should provide clearer practical recommendations for educators, policymakers, and researchers.
• How can the findings inform broader efforts to integrate STEAM education in rural settings beyond Spain?
• Consider discussing possible interventions that could address the challenges identified, such as teacher training programs or curriculum modifications.
• Improve the readability of figures (e.g., Figure 3 and Figure 4). Ensure all visual elements are appropriately labelled (e.g. the label “Figure 3” appears both in line 386 “Figure 3. Results of questions asked” and in line 531 “Figure 3. Survey results”).
• Some sentences could be more concise. A professional language edit would enhance clarity.

The study presents valuable insights into STEAM education in rural settings, but significant methodological clarifications and stronger analytical depth are required. I recommend major revisions focusing on methodological transparency, sample size discussion, and deeper engagement with the results. With these improvements, the paper has strong potential for publication in Sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and insightful review of our article. We appreciate your positive comments and constructive suggestions.

Below, we address your key concerns and describe the changes implemented in the revised manuscript:

As you recommended, we have acknowledged the limitations of our study due to the limited number of participants and suggested avenues for future research with larger sample sizes to obtain more robust data. This is emphasized at the beginning of the conclusions section (lines 658-664).

The Objectives and Methods section has been revised and improved (lines 262-268, 286-289, 291, and 300).

The number of participants in the case study has been explicitly stated (lines 386-389).

We have improved existing figures and added new ones (Figures 3 and 4), including a percentage distribution table.

The discussion and conclusions sections have been strengthened. Twelve new bibliographic citations have been added to further support our arguments.

Potential biases or limitations that may have influenced student responses have been addressed (lines 722-726).

Following your suggestions, we have included more explicit practical recommendations for educators, policymakers, and researchers in the discussion and conclusion sections.

The English throughout the manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed, with particular attention to the abstract, which has been rewritten. A new keyword has been added, and the title has been improved.

Finally, the article's structure has been revised for improved organization.

We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript and are now suitable for publication.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in improving our work.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is innovative and makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature because it aims to highlight the educational resources that rural areas offer to develop STEAM education and it can help teachers and legislators regarding these types of experiences. In this regard, the paper presents a practical case carried out at the Grouped Rural School Las Cogotas in the province of Ávila in Castilla y León (Spain), developing STEAM education in the outdoor classroom from the objectives of working for the improvement of the rural environment and awakening sensitivity in students using local rural and natural resources.

The paper effectively describes and contextualizes its content within the framework of previous and current theoretical foundations, as well as related research on the topic. It demonstrates a solid understanding of the relevant literature in the field and references a suitable range of sources. The literature review situates this contribution within the broader context of STEAM Education and Education for Sustainable Development.

The study's contribution is clearly outlined in the introduction, with its objective explicitly stated, although it would be desirable to explicitly include the research questions.

The research design and methods are well-articulated, and the arguments are substantiated by the collected data. However, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to reformulate the sections of the article in the following way:

1. Introduction                                                                                                                         1.1.    Problems and strengths of Rural Spain
   1.2.    Education as a way to improve the problems of Rural Spain                                               1.2.1  STEAM  Education for the Improvement of Rural Spain

2. Objectives and Methods

        2.1. Case Study in STEAM Education outside the classrrom in the CEIP CRA Las   Cogotas of Castilla y León

       2.2. Development of the sessions

3. Results

3.1. Interview Results

3.1.1 About the accepting material that awakens curiosity, scientific interest, and learning through experience.

3.1.2 About the affective and emotional bond with the town

3.1.3 About educational resources for studying outdoors

3.1.4 About learning several subjects at the same time

3.1.5 About the care and maintenance of the town

3.2 Survey Results

4. Discussion
5. Conclusion

The discussion of findings is coherent, although it would be useful to include a comparison with the results of other authors who have carried out similar interventions.

The following paragraph is repeated in the conclusions: “Students learning from an early age to care for, respect, and admire nature and their rural environment, including its countryside, animals, and plants, can lead to awakening a sensitivity towards everything that surrounds them in future society. The emotional, affective, and social ties that children may have with their town must also be strengthened in rural schools in their daily learning”.

Additional aspects to be taken into account would be:

- On page 9 under ‘Interview Results’ indicate the sample of participating students.

- On page 13 the title of the Figure should be “Figure 4. Survey results” and it would be convenient to indicate the sample of participating students.

- On page 15, when it is indicated on line 608 “If we analyze the graph made with ATLAS.ti” indicate explicitly whether it is Figure 3.

- Do not include the name of the school in the title or in the keywords.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and thoughtful review of our article. We appreciate your positive comments and constructive suggestions.

Following your recommendation, the article's sections have been restructured to improve organization. As you noted, this has resulted in a much more effective flow.

The discussion and conclusion sections have been strengthened by incorporating findings from other authors and adding twelve new bibliographic citations to further support our arguments.

The repeated paragraph has been removed.

The number of participants in the case study has been explicitly stated (lines 386-389).

We have reviewed, improved, and added new figures (Figures 3 and 4), including a percentage distribution table.

As you suggested, the school name has been removed from the title and keywords.

The abstract has been rewritten, and the English throughout the manuscript has been thoroughly revised.

We believe that these revisions, guided by your insightful feedback, have significantly enhanced the article and are now suitable for publication.

Thank you again for your valuable recommendations, which have been instrumental in improving our work.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In introduction section (lines 128- 131), the authors state that the article proposes how to value the resources offered by the rural environment and its strengths through a case study of the activity developed at the Grouped Rural School (CRA in Spanish) Las Cogotas to awaken students' sensitivity towards their environment and observe the value of those resources for their education.

In conclusion section (lines 590-591), the authors state that this article aims to show that natural resources in rural areas can be used as didactic educational resources to carry out STEAM education in rural classrooms, while in abstract they note that this article aims to highlight the educational resources that rural areas offer to develop STEAM education.

The manuscript is interesting but it substantially suffers.

First of all, the purpose and individual objectives of the article are not clearly presented.

The coherence and relevance between the various sections of the article is not evident.

The methodology the authors use is not clearly described.

A lot of elements and data that are presented in the text nothing add to the manuscript, while make the understanding of it more difficult.

The sample is not clearly described, while it is not clear how the questionnaire is structured.

The results are not presented in a way that shows the research objectives are achieved leading thus the reader to conclusions.

An in-depth discussion of the results of the present study in comparison with the results of previous similar or analogous studies is needed.

The conclusion does not include sufficient generalisations that could attract the interest of the scientists.

Propositions for practitioners and scientific community are not sufficiently presented.

The literature review is too poor. The international bibliographic sources that have been included do not integrate the research effort into the global scientific debate. It isn’t apparent that the requirements/guidelines of the journal in the reference cite are met.

In conclusion, the manuscript isn’t friendly to the audience of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical and phrasal corrections are needed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and thorough review of our article. We sincerely appreciate your detailed and valuable feedback, which has been instrumental in significantly improving the quality and clarity of our work.

Below, we address your key concerns and describe the changes implemented in the revised manuscript:

The purpose and objectives have been revised, and the article's sections have been restructured for improved coherence and flow.

The Objectives and Methods section has been strengthened.

The English throughout the manuscript has been thoroughly reviewed and improved.

The abstract has been rewritten, a new keyword has been added, and the title has been improved. New and improved figures have been introduced, and the bibliography has been updated with twelve new citations to support our arguments further.

The discussion and conclusion sections have been enhanced. As you suggested, we have explicitly acknowledged the limitations of our study due to the limited number of participants and suggested avenues for future research with larger sample sizes to obtain more robust data. This is emphasized at the beginning of the conclusions section.

We have improved existing figures and added new ones (Figures 3 and 4), including a percentage distribution table.

Potential biases or limitations that may have influenced student responses have been addressed.

More explicit practical recommendations for educators, policymakers, and researchers have been incorporated into the discussion and conclusion sections.

We believe that these revisions, guided by your insightful feedback, have significantly strengthened the manuscript and that it is now suitable for publication.

Thank you again for your valuable recommendations, which have been essential to improving our work.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. We sincerely appreciate your detailed and valuable review of our article. Your comments have been of great help to us in significantly improving the quality and clarity of our work.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of the summary and conclusion, removing redundant phrases and ensuring that both concisely highlight the study's key findings and their implications.

We have incorporated a specific research question focused on the general and secondary objectives.

We have expanded the discussion on the challenges and opportunities of STEAM education in rural contexts, including a review of the structural barriers that schools face, such as funding limitations and teacher training.

While we recognize the limitations of studying only two municipalities, we have added a discussion about the scope of the study and how the findings may be relevant to other rural contexts.

We have strengthened the literature review, positioning the study more clearly within existing research on rural education and STEAM integration.

We have addressed concerns about qualitative and quantitative methodology. We added a deeper analysis of the survey responses and discussed the limitations of structured interviews and Likert scale surveys. The limitations are noted due to the limited number of participants in the case study, and future research is suggested that could expand the sample size to obtain more reliable data; all of this is emphasized at the beginning of the conclusions section.

We have reviewed the presentation of findings, ensuring that claims about the impact of outdoor STEAM education are supported by clear evidence and specific results.

In addition, a new bibliography is incorporated to reinforce our arguments, and 12 new bibliographical citations are incorporated.

We have improved the quality of figures and graphs, adding clear titles, subtitles, and axis labels. We have revised the bar graph to make it easier to interpret and cited the source of graph 1. We have proceeded to review, improve, and incorporate new graphs (Figures 3 and 4), adding a table of Percentage Distributions.

We have expanded the conclusions section to include more concrete recommendations for how policymakers and educators can apply the study's findings. The discussion section and conclusions section have been improved.

We hope that these changes have addressed your concerns and that the revised article meets the standards for publication.

We thank you again for your time and valuable comments.

Sincerely,

The Authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf