Combining Hydroponics and Three-Dimensional Printing to Foster 21st Century Skills in Elementary Students
, Vassilios Tsiantos 1,*, Euripides Hatzikraniotis 2, Dimitris Karampatzakis 3 and Michalis Maragakis 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has a reasonable structure and clear expression. The exploratory research mentioned is beneficial for education. The manuscript needs to clarify whether the 3D printing process may cause physical harm to students, such as breaking fingers, etc.
Author Response
Comment 1: The manuscript needs to clarify whether the 3D printing process may cause physical harm to students, such as breaking fingers, etc.
Response: Thank you very much for your comment regarding the potential physical injuries that the 3D printing process may cause to students, such as finger injuries. I have taken your observation into account and have incorporated a relevant addition in section 4.2 of the Methodology in the revised version of the manuscript.
The new addition may ensure that students were introduced to the safe use of the 3D printing equipment and were supervised during the process. Our aim aws to protect the students and to promote a safe learning experience.
Thank you for your valuable contribution.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe relevant recommendations are as follows:
1. The research sample consisted of 57 students from a primary school in Greece. The sample size is relatively small and only involved one school. Did the authors consider the impact of the sample size on the research results?
2. The study mainly focused on the short-term impact of the teaching intervention on students' 4Cs skills. However, did the authors consider the long-term effects of this teaching model? For example, whether students can continue to maintain and develop these skills in their subsequent learning and life after being trained through this teaching model.
3. The paper mentions that the school's technological infrastructure does not meet the needs of 3D design and 3D printing courses. In light of this situation, did the authors consider any alternative solutions to ensure the smooth implementation of the teaching activities?
4. Did the study consider the impact of individual differences among students (such as learning abilities) on the effectiveness of the teaching?
Author Response
|
Comment 1: The research sample consisted of 57 students from a primary school in Greece. The sample size is relatively small and only involved one school. Did the authors consider the impact of the sample size on the research results? |
|
Response 1: Thank you very much for your observation regarding the sample size of the research. In the revised version of the paper, we have added a relevant paragraph in the “Limitations” section, where we discuss the limitations associated with the small sample size and the focus on a single school in Greece. We acknowledge that the sample size may impact the research findings and that the results may not be generalizable to larger and more diverse populations. We hope that this addition will enhance the clarity of our work and address your concerns.
Comment 2: The study mainly focused on the short-term impact of the teaching intervention on students' 4Cs skills. However, did the authors consider the long-term effects of this teaching model? For example, whether students can continue to maintain and develop these skills in their subsequent learning and life after being trained through this teaching model. |
Response 2: In response to your inquiry regarding the long-term effects of the teaching model, we have added a relevant paragraph in the “Limitations” section of the paper. This paragraph discusses the need for further research to evaluate whether students can sustain and further develop their 4Cs skills and prudent water use habits over time after experiencing the teaching intervention. We appreciate your suggestion, as it highlights an important aspect of the study that warrants attention.
Comment 3: The paper mentions that the school's technological infrastructure does not meet the needs of 3D design and 3D printing courses. In light of this situation, did the authors consider any alternative solutions to ensure the smooth implementation of the teaching activities?
Response 3: In response to comment regarding the limitations of the school's technological infrastructure for 3D design and 3D printing courses, we (the authors) explored partnerships with the local university centers that house advanced technological resources, allowing students to access these facilities for hands-on learning experiences. This collaboration provided the opportunity for student visit, where they gained practical knowledge and skills in 3D design and printing. Additionally, the implementation of online platforms, such as Tinkercad, which can be accessed through basic computing devices, was considered as a way to facilitate the design process remotely. This would allow students to practice their design skills even in the absence of physical 3D printers.
Comment 4: Did the study consider the impact of individual differences among students (such as learning abilities) on the effectiveness of the teaching?
Response 4: The study primarily focused on the collective outcomes of the educational intervention through the lens of 4Cs and did not specifically address the impact of individual differences among students, such as varying learning abilities. While the methodology included a diverse group of 57 students from 4th and 5th grades, the analysis did not segment results based on individual learning profiles or abilities. Future research could benefit from a more nuanced approach that takes these individual differences into account, exploring how different learning abilities may influence the effectiveness of the teaching intervention and the overall engagement and performance of students in similar educational settings. This consideration could provide deeper insights into how to better tailor educational interventions to meet the diverse needs of all students and that is why it was incorporated at the “Limitations” section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverview
This manuscript considers the integration of hydroponic and 3D printing into 4th-5th grade afterschool programs. The manuscript provides suggestions for how the concepts could be integrated into formal curriculum.
I think a few areas of the manuscript should be significantly improved. Namely the methodology and results section.
Introduction
The authors lay the foundations for the rationale of the project well. Conversations around water security and the use of hydroponics, as well as ascertains that early education is important are all correct and appropriately cited.
Methodology
The authors are encouraged to be more explicit about their case study design and how case studies are structured. Currently the authors have research questions but are missing explicit statements regarding their propositions, units of analysis, data linkage, boundaries of the case and criteria of analysis.
Research process and sample
More details regarding the sampling is required.
For the first phase: What are the criteria for selection to review the materials? What made them experts to review the material? Does this include years of teaching experience?
For the second phase: What was the selection criteria for the teachers? Had they prior experience/expertise to provide instruction on hydroponics and/or 3D printing?
section 4.3.1
This section needs more explanations to guide the reader. For example, in Table 1 you present the communication criteria without operationalized definitions for how an individual would score these criteria. I would not be sure that if I picked up the rubric and applied it to my own class, that I would be looking for the same thing. This comment also holds true for Table 2, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. These tables would benefit from criteria similar to those demonstrated in Table 3.
The formatting of table 2 needs to be addressed. The word performance should not be spread across three lines.
Table 6 seems to have some questions that can be answered yes or no (e.g. I was able to design my own hydroponic pot on paper). I'm not sure what benefit a Likert scale presents for this type of question.
What professional training did those collecting the data have to apply to the rubrics used in the study? For example, who ran the observations for student communications? Were these observations run live or was the data captured using a video and then subsequently reviewed? What credentials did that researcher collecting the observations have to be considered 'trained' in this technique?
Data analysis section missing. There is not description for the statistical methods used nor the programs used to analyze your data. The authors stated earlier in this section that they collected qualitative and quantitative data. However, I see no evidence of qualitative data being collected, nor do I see any evidence for how the qualitative data was treated and analyzed.
Results
This whole section needs reformatting. Tables 7-10 are not sufficiently legible to decern the content they are trying to present. This makes reviewing the discussion and conclusions section impossible. There is also no presentation of any qualitative data.
Discussion
The discussion section is significantly underdeveloped and in parts draws on results that are not presented. This will need a significant overhaul to be acceptable.
Conclusion/Implications
The authors should consider including a dedicated conclusions and implications section. At the moment it isn't possible to state what the implications are of their pilot, nor what the logical next steps should be as part of the process.
Appendix A
The rubric descriptions should be in the main body of the paper. This will allow the authors to support the reader better, and ensure that they can reference them in a more developed discussion section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageFor the most part the English is fine, although the authors are encouraged to review the whole paper to address the odd occasion where the sentence structure is convoluted, or the wrong word is used to describe something (although this is infrequent).
Author Response
|
Comment 1: More details regarding the sampling is required. For the first phase: What are the criteria for selection to review the materials? What made them experts to review the material? Does this include years of teaching experience? |
|
Response 1: Thank you very much for your observation. Supplementary details were added at the “Research Process and Sample” section. I would like to emphasize that the perspective of the teachers was essential prior to the implementation of the materials. Since they were the ones who would be applying the educational scenario in their classrooms, their insights and feedback were crucial for ensuring the materials were suitable and effective. The selection criteria included their professional experience and qualifications in the field of education, which ideally encompassed several years of teaching experience. This ensured they had a deep understanding of pedagogical practices, enabling them to provide valuable input on the materials before they were used in the classroom setting.
Comment 2: What was the selection criteria for the teachers? Had they prior experience/expertise to provide instruction on hydroponics and/or 3D printing? |
Response 2: In response to the reviewer’s comment regarding the selection criteria for the teachers in the second phase, I would like to clarify that these were the same teachers who participated in the previous phase of the project. The goal was not to have instructors with specialized knowledge or advanced academic degrees specifically in 3D printing or hydroponics. Instead, the priority was to select educators who possessed relevant knowledge and an interest in integrating technology into their teaching practice. This approach ensured that the teachers could effectively engage students in learning about hydroponics and 3D printing while fostering the development of essential 21st-century skills without the necessity of extensive prior expertise in these specific fields.
Comment 3: section 4.3.1
This section needs more explanations to guide the reader. For example, in Table 1 you present the communication criteria without operationalized definitions for how an individual would score these criteria. I would not be sure that if I picked up the rubric and applied it to my own class that I would be looking for the same thing. This comment also holds true for Table 2, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6. These tables would benefit from criteria similar to those demonstrated in Table 3.
The formatting of table 2 needs to be addressed. The word performance should not be spread across three lines.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment and your suggestion regarding the clarification of the content in section 4.3.1. It is important to ensure that readers fully understand how the scoring of the criteria works in the categorization of skills. Within each skill, there are the "behavior" fields and three dimensions are considered for each "behavior". This separation allows us to analyze each skill in more detail, making the assessment process clearer and more systematic. Each dimension is graded and scored on a scale of 1, 2, 3, where 1 indicates that more effort is needed, 2 indicates satisfactory effort and 3 indicates excellent effort. The tables are designed to provide a concise representation of the criteria being assessed, focusing on the key features of each dimension. The general definitions we have used allow educators to apply them in their assessment, without being limited to specific examples that might limit their professional judgment. The operational definitions may introduce limitations in the interpretation and application of this tool. Each educator and classroom is unique, so the ability to easily adapt them to the specific needs and dynamics of students is critical. By having broader definitions, we allow for a flexibility that is vital for education.
Regarding table 2, thank you for your comment regarding the formatting. We took into account the suggested change to ensure that the presentation is clear and readable.
Comment 4: Table 6 seems to have some questions that can be answered yes or no (e.g. I was able to design my own hydroponic pot on paper). I'm not sure what benefit a Likert scale presents for this type of question.
Response 4: In response to comment 4, the Likert scale was chosen as it allows participants to express varying degrees of opinion, rather than simply a yes or no answer. A simple yes or no response does not capture the level of confidence or comfort a participant has with a particular statement. For example, if someone answers “yes” to the question “I designed my own hydroponic container,” this does not tell us how easy or difficult it was for them to do so. The Likert scale can provide invaluable information about the importance or unpleasantness of the process.
Comment 5: What professional training did those collecting the data have to apply to the rubrics used in the study? For example, who ran the observations for student communications? Were these observations run live or was the data captured using a video and then subsequently reviewed? What credentials did that researcher collecting the observations have to be considered 'trained' in this technique?
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable observation. Regarding the training of the data collectors and the rubrics used in the study, I would like to clarify that the observations and the completion of the rubrics were carried out by the teachers who participated in the project. The teachers had the opportunity to be supported by the researchers who clarified the specific fields of the rubric and be prepared to use the rubrics in an appropriate manner. Also, the observations on the students’ communication were carried out in real time by the teachers, who were present during the activities. This ensured the authenticity and validity of the data collected. Although the teachers did not have specific institutional certificates regarding observation, their professional training and experience in the field of education made them capable of using the observation and assessment of the students based on the criteria that define the rubrics.
Comment 6: Data analysis section missing. There is not description for the statistical methods used nor the programs used to analyze your data. The authors stated earlier in this section that they collected qualitative and quantitative data. However, I see no evidence of qualitative data being collected, nor do I see any evidence for how the qualitative data was treated and analyzed.
Response 6: We appreciate your observation about the lack of description for the statistical methods and programs utilized in our analysis. In response to this, we have taken your point into consideration and have integrated a relevant addition into the "Results" section of the manuscript. This amended section now includes a detailed account of both the qualitative and quantitative data collection processes, as well as the specific statistical methods and software programs utilized for data analysis. We believe this enhancement clarifies our approach and adequately addresses your concerns regarding the qualitative data handling and analysis.
Comment 7: Results
This whole section needs reformatting. Tables 7-10 are not sufficiently legible to discern the content they are trying to present. This makes reviewing the discussion and conclusions section impossible. There is also no presentation of any qualitative data.
Response 7: We have taken your comments into careful consideration and have revised Tables 7-10 maintaining precision up to the second decimal place, to enhance their legibility and clarity. The formatting has been improved to ensure that the content they present is easily discernible, which should facilitate a more effective review of the discussion and conclusions sections.
Comment 8: Discussion
The discussion section is significantly underdeveloped and in parts draws on results that are not presented. This will need a significant overhaul to be acceptable.
Response 8: We consider the discussion is an opportunity to delve into the findings and connect theory with practice to highlight their significance. Each observation or conclusion that emerges is predicated on our research data and reflects our research philosophy that seeks to provide a comprehensive picture of hydroponics education and application. Therefore, we believe that our discussion provides an adequate and accurate analysis of the findings and ensures the consistency and validity of our research. We are at your disposal for further explanations or clarifications regarding our findings and the corresponding analyses.
Comment 9: Conclusion/Implications
The authors should consider including a dedicated conclusions and implications section. At the moment it isn't possible to state what the implications are of their pilot, nor what the logical next steps should be as part of the process.
Response 9: We appreciate your suggestion to include a dedicated conclusions and implications section. We agree that clarifying the implications of our study are crucial for providing a comprehensive understanding of our research. In the revised version of our manuscript, we incorporated a specific section that addresses the implications of our findings.
Comment 10: Appendix A
The rubric descriptions should be in the main body of the paper. This will allow the authors to support the reader better, and ensure that they can reference them in a more developed discussion section.
Response 10: We have taken your comments into careful consideration. However rubrics often contain detailed technical information and structures that could distract from the main flow of discussion within the body of the text. Positioning them in the appendix allows readers to refer to them without interrupting the flow of the central argument. This facilitates understanding and absorption of the central ideas presented in the work. References to the rubric can be made clearly within the central discussion by simply stating that the descriptions are located in the appendix. This will maintain the connection between the main text and the rubric while preserving the integrity of the overall presentation. In summary, we recommend retaining the rubric descriptions in the appendix to ensure a smooth flow of ideas in the main text, to provide an opportunity for detailed analysis for interested readers, and to facilitate references away from the central argumentation.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease find attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
|
Presentation aspects Comment 1: This work provides the description of an educational activity but fails to depict correctly the pretension in the academical context. Which is that authors are highlighting, the hydroponics introduction, the goal on sustainable Education, the 3D printing implementation? Explain and set the main objective of the research (development should be consistent with the further research objectives settled). |
|
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Taking your comments into consideration, we have restructured the abstract of our work to better reflect its academic goals. In this new version, we have more clearly emphasized the introduction to hydroponics and the application of 3D printing. Furthermore, the research questions have been revised to align more closely with the updated research goals. The main aim of our research is to examine the effectiveness of an educational intervention that combines the teaching of hydroponics with 3D printing, in the context of promoting 21st-century skills in children, particularly regarding collaboration, creativity, communication, and critical thinking.
Comment 2: At the end of the Literature Review section, I become completely lost about the main goal of this work, which is not explicitly settled and becomes dispersed and diluted in the last paragraphs of this section, instead as expected, provide continuity in the further reading. |
Response 2: In response to the reviewer’s comment a relevant section has been incorporated at the end of the literature review to clarify and reinforce the main goal of the work, ensuring that the narrative remains cohesive and provides a clear pathway for the subsequent reading.
Comment 3: The article fails to explain the target population involved for the activity being presented. Are the entire basic Education students the goal, or the 4th and 5th grade students? In the country, in a city? How could this experience be successfully replicated? Which are the possible limitations that other educators could meet?
Response 3: Thank you for your observation regarding the lack of clarity regarding the intended population involved in the proposed activity. The article focuses specifically on students in grades 4 and 5 of basic education. These students were selected due to their potential to understand and engage with the concept of hydroponics and 3D printing, which are the main themes of the program.
Regarding the application of the experience in other areas, the process could be adapted for other classes or schools, however, it is important to take into account local conditions and infrastructure. For example, schools in areas with fewer resources may have limitations in the technological infrastructure required for 3D design and printing.
Taking your comments into account, the “Limitations” section was enriched.
Comment 4: In the Methodology section, the methodology to develop the activity is deeply depicted, but the methodology of research is mixed and unclear. The current description for the development may be synthetized, then include a section depicting the methodology for the research.
Response 4: In response to the reviewer’s comment regarding the “Methodology” section, I would like to point out that the current format and content of the methodology provide a comprehensive and detailed picture of the process of developing the educational activity, as well as the research practices followed. The inclusion of detailed information about the development of the activities is essential because this information provides readers with an understanding of the context and approach used to explore 21st Century Skills in students. This information includes the lesson plan, the specific activities implemented, and the students’ interaction with the educational material, elements that are not only important for understanding the research process, but are also crucial for applying the findings to future practices. The description of the research methodology is thorough and clearly identifies the different types of data collected (qualitative and quantitative). Although it may be considered necessary to combine the two sections of the methodology, the current format allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the interaction between educational practice and research analysis. The distinction of individual processes contributes to clarity, allowing readers to distinguish teaching methods from research techniques. Finally, the existing structure can better support transparency in research, enabling researchers and educators to reuse or adapt methods in different educational settings. In conclusion, the current format of the "Methodology" section is not only appropriate but also necessary for the construction of a comprehensive and transparent research approach that connects practice with theory.
Comment 5: Precisely, Data collection assumes a complete and clear description of the research methodology, which was based on rubrics. Those paired relation should be settled in this section.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable observation. Revisions were included in the “Data collection” section.
Comment 6: Most of the analysis outcomes are based on statistical central maesures or in some cases (Table 7) in dispersions. In a formal analysis, inference tests are expected, but it requires compare treatments, with or without intervention. How could the author justify that those measures show faithful outcomes for the research?
Response 6: Thank you for your constructive comment on the use of central measures and variances in the analysis of our research data. However, we would like to highlight a few points that may justify our approach. First, central measures (such as the mean, median, and mode) provide valuable information about the typical behavior of the variables measured. In the case of this research, central measures were used to provide an overview of the 4Cs (creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, and communication) skills of students, based on a statistical rubric. This approach is particularly useful in educational research, as it offers an easy and understandable way to present and interpret the findings. Furthermore, differences in variance values ​​give us information about the homogeneity among students, which is crucial for evaluating the intervention. Although the use of statistical central measures may seem limited, the information these measures provide is fundamental to understanding how students coped with the proposed instructional strategies. Rather than visually comparing outcomes with and without intervention, we focus on assessing students’ performance before and after the instructional activity in order to capture overall progress and skill development. The information gathered and analyzed in this way allows conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of instructional practices. Furthermore, the use of central measures in conjunction with statistical descriptions of the data can provide a strong basis for interpreting student performance, even without the application of standard statistical tests.
Comment 7: Note that the discussion of outcomes is only based on statistical central measures instead of inference, making the conclusions weak. Unfortunately the experimental design is poor in terms to compare with another group of control, the comparing the respective indicators involved not in the operativity of the activity, instead Educative goals related with curricula or with the sustainability Education.
Response 7: Thank you for your feedback on our work. We truly appreciate your comments and believe it is important to clarify some of the points you raise. First, regarding the use of only statistical central measures in the analysis of the results, we would like to point out that central measures provide a fundamental understanding of our data, allowing for the identification of group bias. However, we recognize the importance of statistical hypotheses and their testing in strengthening the reliability of the conclusions. In our research, although we used central measures, we supported our findings with qualitative analysis that provides a more comprehensive picture of the learning process and students’ experiences. Second, regarding the research design and the need for a control group, we would like to acknowledge that choosing a design without a control group may limit our ability to make direct comparisons. However, the nature of the intervention we studied focuses on the specific learning methodology and the benefits of technology (such as hydroponics and 3D printing) within a specific educational context. The goals and expectations of the intervention were designed to align with curricula and educational needs, enhancing sustainable education. Finally, the above observations regarding the lack of comparative indicators of the effectiveness of the intervention do not negate the obvious progress and engagement of students. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data helps to outline the achievements and strengths of the participants, revealing the impact of the intervention in the field of educational practices.
Comment 8: The author does not report the ethical committee authorization for the research, which is necessary in this case. The “Informed Consent Statement” is necessary but not sufficient. Please include it.
Response 8: We included the document at the “supplementary files” section.
Content improvements
Comment 1: Despite that the Abstract set the main goal of the activity, it should refer to their importance related to some planned skills involved in the curricula (formal or informal), to realize the importance in such context (as instance that established in lines 39-40).
Response 1: We have acknowledged this feedback and made the necessary adjustments to ensure that the relevant points are now effectively integrated into the last paragraph of the literature review section.
Comment 2: I recommend extending the discussion of reference in academic literature, particularly regarding the inclusion of innovative intervention to promote sustainability. In addition, if previously there is an already stablished program of content, it should be settled and discussed. Why has this activity become important? How is it compared with the previous situation in the courses?
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the discussion of references in academic literature on innovative interventions aimed at promoting sustainability. We appreciate your suggestion to extend this section, as it is crucial to situate our work within the existing body of research. The extension of the “Discussion” section was incorporated in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: In the last sense, the Introduction (and the Abstract) fails to set which is the main objective of the work, hydroponics or the educative activity by itself? Please set the main objective of the work.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made the necessary adjustments to clarify the main objective of the work in both the Introduction and the Abstract. The revised text now explicitly states the primary focus.
Comment 4: Despite the outcomes were already obtained at this stage, the second research question is unclear and non-meaningful. Instead, a more deep enquire is recommended in terms of the accomplishment of the activity.
Response 4: We wish to clarify that, after careful analysis of the results we collected in the initial stages of the research, we decided to exempt this specific research question.
Comment 5: Please include a minimal explanation for your current Appendix. The same should be fulfilled if rubrics are moved there.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge the need for a clearer explanation regarding the current Appendix, particularly in relation to the rubrics. We have provided a brief overview of the purpose and content of the Appendix, ensuring that it offers a comprehensive understanding of the materials included.
Format styles and other concerns
Comment 1: Change the citing style in line 172 “[16] Provided the background…” to (for instance)
“Background of STEM education in Hong Kong has been provided by [16]”.
Response 1: Thank you for your insightful feedback.
Comment 2: In line 346, please consult the authors’ guidelines to improve the presentation of building blocks reported there
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback.
Comment 3: I recommend moving the rubrics (Table 2-6) into Appendices, each one with a proper explanation. There are a lot of tables mixed with the main text, making the reading hard. In any case, improve the presentation of some of those tables (2-6).
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion regarding the transfer of tables (Tables 2-6) to appendices. We would like to present some arguments in favor of keeping the tables in their current position, as they are integrated into the main text. First, the direct integration of the tables into the text facilitates the understanding of the data as the reader proceeds with the reading. This allows readers to connect the information they are reading with the corresponding data, reducing the need for constant switching between the text and the appendices. Rather than distracting, the tables enhance the argument being made and facilitate information retrieval.
Second, the tables contain critical data that support the analyses and concluding findings of the research. Direct access to this data helps readers better understand the methodology and results. If the tables are moved to appendices, they may lose their immediacy and validity, which could undermine the overall presentation of the research.
Third, the presence of the tables in the main text helps maintain the flow of the narrative. The tables are naturally integrated into the flow of the text, varying the presentation and enhancing reader engagement. An excessive focus on the typology of appendices can, in some cases, divert attention from the central idea of the work.
Comment 4: Table 1 is unclear, which is the idea behind this information should be a table?
Response 4: Thank you for your feedback regarding Table 1. We appreciate your concern about the clarity of the information presented. The main idea behind using a table format is to provide a structured and organized way to display multiple criteria for assessing student communication breaking down specific behavioral indicators into clearly defined categories. By using a table structure, the information is organized in a way that allows teachers and evaluators to quickly identify different aspects of student communication skills. For example, it delineates behaviors into categories such as "Respect the ideas of others," "Displays socially acceptable language and behavior," and others. The table format allows for an easy comparison across different levels of performance (More effort is required, Satisfactory effort, Excellent effort). This facilitates understanding of what distinguishes each level of proficiency. For instance, under "Respect the ideas of others," we see that the indicators range from outright rejection of peers' ideas to consistent acceptance with diplomatic disagreement. Table 1 serves as a functional example of how to effectively categorize and communicate expectations regarding student communication skills. Its structure is designed to enhance understanding, facilitate assessment, and support educators in providing precise feedback.
Comment 5: Should Figure 1 be another table?
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have made the necessary adjustments.
Comment 6: Does sense to report the values of tables 7-10 with 3 or until five figures?
Response 6: We have taken your comments into careful consideration and maintained up to the second decimal place.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept.
Author Response
We would like to thank you very much f or the detailed evaluation and for accepting our article. We would also like to express our appreciation for your comments and observations, which are extremely useful and contribute to the further improvement of our research. We look forward to seeing the article published and to being able to share our findings with the wider scientific community. We believe that the results of our research will contribute to science and will encourage further discussions and developments in our field. Thank you again for your support and for the opportunity to publish our work.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverview
Overall outline of the paper has not changed since the original submission. The manuscript still reports on an after school activity to promote learning of both hydroponics and 3D printing in a STEAM program. The manuscript reports on both teacher and student perspectives and interactions with the program. The manuscript provides suggestions for how the concepts could be integrated into formal curriculum.
Line 244- In the methods section there is limited explanation for how the data was collected. For example, the authors do not state to what degree they provided training to the teachers to use their rubrics. It is therefore unclear throughout the section as to when a teacher observer scored a student at a particular Likert score whether another teacher would score the same way. The authors must be more clear about how they ensure the validity of their instrument, particularly if they choose to use statistics rather than qualitative analysis to support their claims.
Line 251- “… presented to the teacher who were eager to participate…” Are the authors referring to one teacher or two teachers. The sentence structure lends itself to either being a single teacher by using the word ‘teacher’ or multiple teachers by using the word ‘were’.
Line 255- The authors state “The teachers’ perspective was essential prior to the implementation. Since they were going to apply the educational scenario in their classrooms, their insights were crucial for ensuring the material were suitable.” What were the qualifications of the teachers to provide the essential perspectives? Were they disciplinary, content and/or pedagogical experts? This should be made more clear regarding what expertise they are providing to ‘validate’ the instruments you are using (e.g. the worksheets, presentation files, teacher reflection sheets and the rubric.
Is the word “teachers’” intended to be plural possessive or singular possessive. The sentence from line 251 does not make this clear.
Line 260- What do you mean by the word foreseen?
Line 262- Recorded how? Through an observation protocol? Did you record this through writing, audio, and/or video? Was this conversation held with the research team or the teachers providing the instruction?
Line 268-271- Reading this section I would expect to see written formal consent provided by parents for their child to be involved in research activities. Please provide how consent was taken from minors, and the approving body that provides your ethical approval.
Line 280-281- “each group and to function with guidance and support as criteria.” Which criteria are the authors referring to?
Line 349- “This particular step.” The authors may have left some editing artefacts in their manuscript. This may be an incomplete sentence or need deleting.
Line 366- “highly qualified teachers were preferred…” does this mean that not all your experts were highly qualified? Please clarify how you are qualifying the term ‘highly qualified’. Does this mean that they were content, disciplinary and/or pedagogical experts? Are you qualifying their expertise based on years of service, university qualification…?
Line 376- “At each of the four skills criteria were rendered” should read “At each of the four skills, criteria were rendered.”
Line 397- “…controlling the teaching act and…”. What is meant by the word ‘act’? I’m wondering if the sentence should read “…controlling the act of teaching and…”
Line 405- what is meant by the phrase “field I”?
Table 6- some of the questions don’t lend themselves to a likert style question. Please clarify in the manuscript what instructions were provided to students for them to complete the evaluation. Were they instructed to indicate to what degree they agreed with the statement?
Line 421- “… planting processes functioned complementary…” what do you mean by the phrase complementary?
Line 418 & 423- “For the analysis of the research data, the convergent parallel design method was used, where qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed in parallel…. This section presents the results of the research as they emerged from the statistical processing of the data. First, the statistical results are presented, followed by the descriptive results.” Based on the results you are presenting I am struggling to see how you are representing your qualitative data. The results presented are not a true representation of a mixed method approach, nor are there any indications that analysis of the qualitative data has occurred. In the discussion section, the authors provide a single quote that “kids in other schools would love it.”
Table 8- This is not a table, it’s a figure that the authors have pasted into the manuscript. The authors are encouraged to either rebuild the item as a table and move the table caption to above the table, or leave the figure in place and recaption the figure as such.
Table 10- The authors are encouraged to rebuild their table 10 to improve legibility. This may require the authors to edit the orientation of the table to prevent words on the line 2 of the table from spreading across multiple lines. Please also consider for an international audience the use of periods instead of commas for denoting decimal places. For example, I read the number 37,100 as thirty seven thousand one hundred, rather thirty seven point 1. This cultural difference in value notation may have been one reason I struggled to review the tables content previously.
Table 11- The authors are encouraged to realign columns in table 11 to prevent words from spreading across multiple lines e.g. “suggested” and “encountered”. There appears to be sufficient space for these column adjustments to occur.
Table 12- The authors are encouraged to rebuild their table 12 to improve legibility. This may require the authors to edit the orientation of the table to prevent words on the line 2 of the table from spreading across multiple lines.
Line 459- The conclusion should occur after the discussions.
Line 467- “…of ideas and suggestions enhanced.” Enhanced what? I do not follow what you are saying.
Line 487- I don’t think the word allegation is the correct word to use here.
Figure 2- The authors need to verify that they have permissions to publish the photos of minors. Confirmation should be provided as part of the informed consent process. Please provide somewhere in the manuscript if/how ethical approval was obtained and how consent was taken from the minors.
Discussion section- The developments to this section of the paper are fine. I think the discussion would be developed more if the authors drew direct links to their results section, and make their claims more explicit by grounding them in the results they have presented. I also think this discussion section would benefit from additional quotable data beyond just “Kids in other schools would love it.” This is because it would provide a stronger voice to your student and teacher participants.
Limitations section- I think this section is much better developed. One thing I have been thinking throughout this evaluation is why this particular grade level. I read through with the assumption that this grade was purposefully sampled, but looking at the limitations section this may or may not have been the case. This might be something to address here or earlier under participant recruitment for why the grade was chosen, and maybe would similar effects be seen if the students were in an earlier or later grade level.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors are strongly encouraged to proof read through the manuscript to ensure the appropriate words are used and pluralizations are reviewed. I would also encourage the authors to consider grammar errors throughout the manuscript, adding more commas to help the reader with the flow of some sentences would dramatically improve the readability.
Author Response
|
Comment 1: In the methods section there is limited explanation for how the data was collected. For example, the authors do not state to what degree they provided training to the teachers to use their rubrics. It is therefore unclear throughout the section as to when a teacher observer scored a student at a particular Likert score whether another teacher would score the same way. The authors must be more clear about how they ensure the validity of their instrument, particularly if they choose to use statistics rather than qualitative analysis to support their claims. |
|
Response 1: We appreciate your attention to detail concerning the data collection process and the training provided to teachers. In response to your feedback, we revised the methods section to include a comprehensive explanation of the training provided to teachers regarding the use of the rubric. Specifically, we detailed the teachers training sessions prior to the implementation of the rubric. These sessions included an overview of the rubric's structure, detailed descriptions of each performance level, and discussions on how to observe and evaluate students according to the specified criteria. Comment 2: Line 251- “… presented to the teacher who were eager to participate…” Are the authors referring to one teacher or two teachers. The sentence structure lends itself to either being a single teacher by using the word ‘teacher’ or multiple teachers by using the word ‘were’. |
Response 2: Thank you for your comment regarding line 251. The phrase "teacher who were eager to participate" indeed creates ambiguity in the number of teachers being referred to. The sentence is adjusted “... presented to the teachers” for grammatical accuracy and clarity.
Comment 3: Line 255- The authors state “The teachers’ perspective was essential prior to the implementation. Since they were going to apply the educational scenario in their classrooms, their insights were crucial for ensuring the material were suitable.” What were the qualifications of the teachers to provide the essential perspectives? Were they disciplinary, content and/or pedagogical experts? This should be made more clear regarding what expertise they are providing to ‘validate’ the instruments you are using (e.g. the worksheets, presentation files, teacher reflection sheets and the rubric.
Is the word “teachers’” intended to be plural possessive or singular possessive. The sentence from line 251 does not make this clear.
Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the qualifications of the teachers involved in the study. We appreciate the importance of clarifying their expertise in order to substantiate their perspectives and contributions to the validation of our educational materials. In our study, the teachers who participated held relevant qualifications in both content knowledge and pedagogical skills. Specifically, two of them held at least one master’s degree at Pedagogy and the third one 400-hour specialized training certificate in STEAM education. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the term "teachers’" in the original text was indeed intended to be plural possessive, as multiple teachers collaboratively provided their perspectives.
Comment 4: Line 260- What do you mean by the word foreseen?
Response 4: The line in question has been deleted to avoid any potential misunderstanding or misinterpretation regarding the meaning of the word "foreseen." Thank you for pointing this out.
Comment 5: Line 262- Recorded how? Through an observation protocol? Did you record this through writing, audio, and/or video? Was this conversation held with the research team or the teachers providing the instruction?
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable observation. The conversations and observations were indeed identified and recorded verbally. This process was conducted through oral documentation rather than written, audio, or video recordings. The discussions involved interactions primarily with the research team and the teachers who were providing the instruction, ensuring that the insights gathered were accurately captured during the implementation of the educational scenario.
Comment 6: Line 268-271- Reading this section I would expect to see written formal consent provided by parents for their child to be involved in research activities. Please provide how consent was taken from minors, and the approving body that provides your ethical approval.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the consent process for minors involved in the research. In response to your comment, we would like to clarify that informed consent was obtained from all parents or guardians of the participating students. We utilized a formal consent form that detailed the purpose of the research, the activities involved, and any potential risks. This consent form was sent home with the students and was required to be signed and returned prior to their participation in the study.
Also, since the research involved an educational scenario that was designed to be part of the teachers’ annual planning, its implementation in a specific primary school required the ethical approval of the school principal. However, the study received ethical approval from the highest administrative body of our Prefecture, the Directorate of Primary Education.
Comment 7: Line 280-281- “each group and to function with guidance and support as criteria.” Which criteria are the authors referring to?
Response 7: In response to the reviewer’s comment, we would like to clarify that the criteria for the teacher's role in this context are indeed guidance and support. The transformation of the teacher's role is essential to foster cohesion and synergy among the students. By focusing on providing guidance, the teacher helps students navigate through their mixed ideas and previous knowledge while ensuring that they feel supported in their collaborative efforts.
Comment 8: Line 349- “This particular step.” The authors may have left some editing artefacts in their manuscript. This may be an incomplete sentence or need deleting.
Response 8: Thank you for your comment regarding the text in line 349. We appreciate your attention to detail and have revised this section for clarity. The incomplete sentence has been removed to enhance the overall coherence of the manuscript.
Comment 9: Line 366- “highly qualified teachers were preferred…” does this mean that not all your experts were highly qualified? Please clarify how you are qualifying the term ‘highly qualified’. Does this mean that they were content, disciplinary and/or pedagogical experts? Are you qualifying their expertise based on years of service, university qualification…?
Response 9: We have taken your comment regarding line 366, we would like to clarify the term "highly qualified teachers" into careful consideration. The experts we selected for the review process possessed extensive experience and academic qualifications in their respective fields. Their qualifications included advanced degrees in education, with a focus on pedagogical expertise. Specifically, the experts had a proven track record in pedagogical approaches, particularly those related to project-based learning, ensuring their insights would be beneficial to our study and years of experience. Each expert had several years of teaching experience in primary education, which provided them with practical insights into the curriculum and the effectiveness of various teaching methodologies. We appreciate your comment regarding the possible editing artifacts present in the manuscript. We revised the section for clarity and completeness.
Comment 10: Line 376- “At each of the four skills criteria were rendered” should read “At each of the four skills, criteria were rendered.”
Response 10: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your attention to detail. We made the correction
Comment 11: Line 376- “At each of the four skills criteria were rendered” should read “At each of the four skills, criteria were rendered.”
Response 11: Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your attention to detail. We made the correction
Comment 12: Line 397- “…controlling the teaching act and…”. What is meant by the word ‘act’? I’m wondering if the sentence should read “…controlling the act of teaching and…”
Response 12: We consider your comment is valid. The phrase "controlling the teaching act" could indeed be clearer if rephrased. We adjusted the segment from the text.
Comment 13: Line 405- what is meant by the phrase “field I”?
Response 13: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The phrase "field I" appears to be a typographical error.
Comment 14: Table 6- some of the questions don’t lend themselves to a likert style question. Please clarify in the manuscript what instructions were provided to students for them to complete the evaluation. Were they instructed to indicate to what degree they agreed with the statement?
Response 14: In response to the comment regarding Table 6, it is acknowledged that some of the evaluation questions might not be ideally suited for a Likert-style response format. To clarify, specified in the manuscript that students were provided with explicit instructions for completing the evaluation form. Students were instructed to indicate the degree to which they agreed with each statement on a scale ranging from "Poor" to "Very much". This should help ensure that the students understood how to engage with the questions appropriately, allowing for more valid data collection.
Comment 15: “… planting processes functioned complementary…” what do you mean by the phrase complementary?
Response 15: Thank you for your comment. The term "complementary" in this context means that the planting processes worked together in a way that enhanced or supported one another. Each process contributed to the overall effectiveness of the hydroponic system, ensuring that the plants were nurtured adequately while allowing for the integration of learning through 3D design and printing technologies.
Comment 16: Line 418 & 423- “For the analysis of the research data, the convergent parallel design method was used, where qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed in parallel…. This section presents the results of the research as they emerged from the statistical processing of the data. First, the statistical results are presented, followed by the descriptive results.” Based on the results you are presenting I am struggling to see how you are representing your qualitative data. The results presented are not a true representation of a mixed method approach, nor are there any indications that analysis of the qualitative data has occurred. In the discussion section, the authors provide a single quote that “kids in other schools would love it.”
Response 16: Thank you once again for your constructive criticism. It is invaluable for the improvement of our manuscript. We acknowledge your concern about the clarity of our mixed-methods approach and the analysis of the qualitative data alongside the quantitative results. To clarify, the photographs we collected during the research served as critical qualitative data that complemented our findings. We have indeed incorporated two subsections dedicated to qualitative data collection and results. These sections detail how the visual material—representing student engagement and the processes involved in hydroponics and 3D printing—contributes to our overall analysis.
Comment 17: Table 8- This is not a table, it’s a figure that the authors have pasted into the manuscript. The authors are encouraged to either rebuild the item as a table and move the table caption to above the table, or leave the figure in place and recaption the figure as such.
Response 17: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Table 8. We acknowledge your observation that the item presented is more akin to a figure than a traditional table format. In light of your suggestion, we have decided to retain it as a figure. We have also updated the caption accordingly to reflect its presentation as a figure.
Comment 18: Table 10- The authors are encouraged to rebuild their table 10 to improve legibility. This may require the authors to edit the orientation of the table to prevent words on the line 2 of the table from spreading across multiple lines. Please also consider for an international audience the use of periods instead of commas for denoting decimal places. For example, I read the number 37,100 as thirty seven thousand one hundred, rather thirty seven point 1. This cultural difference in value notation may have been one reason I struggled to review the tables content previously.
Response 18: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Table 10. We appreciate your suggestion to improve the legibility of the table. We have taken your comments into account and have worked on rebuilding Table 10 to enhance its readability. Additionally, we ensured that decimal places are denoted with periods instead of commas to accommodate an international audience.
Comment 19: Table 11- The authors are encouraged to realign columns in table 11 to prevent words from spreading across multiple lines e.g. “suggested” and “encountered”. There appears to be sufficient space for these column adjustments to occur.
Response 19: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Table 11. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have realigned the columns to ensure that words do not spread across multiple lines.
Comment 20: Table 12- The authors are encouraged to rebuild their table 12 to improve legibility. This may require the authors to edit the orientation of the table to prevent words on the line 2 of the table from spreading across multiple lines.
Response 20: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding Table 12. We took this into consideration and revised the table to enhance its legibility, including editing the orientation to ensure that text does not spread across multiple lines.
Comment 21: Line 459- The conclusion should occur after the discussions.
Response 21: Thank you for your feedback regarding the placement of the conclusion. We appreciate your suggestion and ensured that the conclusion was positioned appropriately after the discussions to improve the overall structure and flow of the paper.
Comment 22: Line 467- “…of ideas and suggestions enhanced.” Enhanced what? I do not follow what you are saying.
Response 22: Thank you for your feedback. The phrase "ideas and suggestions enhanced" appears to be incomplete or lacks clarity, which may lead to confusion about what specifically was enhanced. We specified what was being enhanced.
Comment 23: Line 487- I don’t think the word allegation is the correct word to use here.
Response 23: Thank you for your comment regarding the use of the word "allegation" in line 487. You are correct; this term may not accurately convey the intended meaning in this context. To ensure clarity and precision in the text, we revised that part of the sentence.
Comment 24: Figure 2- The authors need to verify that they have permissions to publish the photos of minors. Confirmation should be provided as part of the informed consent process. Please provide somewhere in the manuscript if/how ethical approval was obtained and how consent was taken from the minors.
Response 24: Thank you for your comment. We provided at the end of “4.1. Research Process and Sample” necessary details. The research was kept completely anonymous to ensure the protection of personal data. No sensitive information was collected about the participants, but only relevant information about their learning outcomes was collected in order to evaluate the educational process. Also, since the research involved an educational scenario that was designed to be part of the teachers’ annual planning, its implementation in a specific primary school required the approval of the school principal. However, the researchers secured approval from a higher administrative body, the Directorate of Primary Education. Teachers participating gave their informed consent. In addition, all students took part after their parents' informed consent. This process ensures that the necessary ethical principles were observed and that the research was conducted in accordance with the regulations applicable to Primary Education Institutions.
Comment 25: Discussion section- The developments to this section of the paper are fine. I think the discussion would be developed more if the authors drew direct links to their results section, and make their claims more explicit by grounding them in the results they have presented. I also think this discussion section would benefit from additional quotable data beyond just “Kids in other schools would love it.” This is because it would provide a stronger voice to your student and teacher participants.
Response 25: Thank you for your valuable feedback on the discussion section of our paper. We appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the connections between our results and the claims made in the discussion. We agree that incorporating more quotable data from our student and teacher participants would enhance the discussion. We included more direct quotes and testimonials that reflect their experiences and perspectives, which provided a stronger voice and made the findings more relatable and impactful. Your insights were instrumental in improving this section. Thank you once again for your constructive comments.
Comment 26: Limitations section- I think this section is much better developed. One thing I have been thinking throughout this evaluation is why this particular grade level. I read through with the assumption that this grade was purposefully sampled, but looking at the limitations section this may or may not have been the case. This might be something to address here or earlier under participant recruitment for why the grade was chosen, and maybe would similar effects be seen if the students were in an earlier or later grade level.
Response 26: Thank you for your insightful feedback on the limitations section. It is indeed crucial to clarify the reasoning behind the selection of the specific grade levels for this study. To address your points, we revised the limitations section to explicitly state that the choice of 4th and 5th grades was based on several factors including educational curriculum relevance and the developmental stage of the students that aligns with the objectives of the hydroponics and 3D printing educational intervention.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDespite the authors have addressed the most of my concerns and suggestion, I still shoul insist on some critical aspect:
a) There is not a proper description from the population involved (not just the grades, instead the type of school (public, private), region of location. It should be introduced since the Introduction, then in the objectives.
b) I can understand that statistical central mesures become the main element to judge on the oucomes and conclusions, nevertheless authors have put effort to describe limitations, but then, I still will expect a minimal comment about the honest differences observed with this innovation as compared to the previous situation without it. I recommend introduce such an analysis in the Discussion.
In addition, it is just a reiterative comment despite authors explained me the reasons (not admisible for several reasons). The sections in the manuscript with lot of tables incrusted looks messed, thus difficulting the reading and continuous understanding. I still notice certain tables not properly necessary to be reviewed together with the main text. In fact, the reasons provided by the authors not seem valid for me because the manuscript is leaving to the tables the adecquate explanation missed in the text. An expected well redacted description of the outcomes is expected, intead that tables "speak" by themselves. I belive it is not acceptable (whenever those tables are or not moved as Appendices). Just note:
a) Tables1,2 and 4, just with few elements, why this should be a Table instead a list (a more estructured an crossed content is expected for a table)
b) Table 5 and 6, just present an evaluation form, which probably (because it is secondary to the main topic considered) the most of authors will put in an Appendix.
c) Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12, are not properly worked to ease their lecture. Moreover, use consistent number format 0.32 instead .32, align numbers to the right, long heads are difficult to read an looks not professional
d) Table 8 is in fact a figure not following the guidelines
While the first two aspects in this report are minor changes, I still consider that the Result section is not properly worked and then presented. Authors have not really considered that they are not only launchin values and cyphers, instead explaining, properly presenting and explaining their outcomes, which agail leave to this manuscript in major changes needed.
In this last aspect, I invite the autors to review some other articles in the journal to understand how other authors put more effort in the results presentation.
Author Response
Comment 1: There is not a proper description from the population involved (not just the grades, instead the type of school (public, private), region of location. It should be introduced since the Introduction, then in the objectives.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the description of the population involved in the study. It is essential to provide a comprehensive overview of the context in which the research was conducted. We addressed this comment by including detailed information about the type of school (public or private) and the region of location right from the Introduction and in the objectives.
Comment 2: I can understand that statistical central measures become the main element to judge on the outcomes and conclusions, nevertheless authors have put effort to describe limitations, but then, I still will expect a minimal comment about the honest differences observed with this innovation as compared to the previous situation without it. I recommend introduce such an analysis in the Discussion.
Response 2: We appreciate the insightful feedback regarding the need for a more explicit analysis of the differences observed with this innovative approach. In response to your recommendation, we have enriched the Discussion section with direct quotes from participants that highlight their experiences and perceptions of the innovation. This qualitative enhancement aims to complement the quantitative findings and provide a more holistic view of the impact of our intervention. We believe that this addition will satisfy the need for a comparative analysis with prior methods and strengthen the overall findings of the study.
Comment 3: Tables1,2 and 4, just with few elements, why this should be a Table instead a list (a more structured an crossed content is expected for a table)
Response 3: Thank you for your comment on Tables 1, 2 and 4. We understand the reasons you point out for the need for these tables to be more structured and with cross-referencing content.
However through the tables, information can be grouped in such a way that it is easier to understand the relationship between the various elements. As mentioned above, using tables allows for cross-referencing. This means that they include more information in less space, making the data easier to read and analyze. In particular, tables can show relationships between different dimensions, which is more difficult to capture in a list. Finally, the requirements for clarity and precision in the presentation of information are important. Tables fulfill these requirements, as they allow a more precise and predefined presentation of data.
Based on the above, we considered important to review the structure of these tables and improve them to better meet your expectations for a more structured and cross-referenced content.
Comment 4: Table 5 and 6, just present an evaluation form, which probably (because it is secondary to the main topic considered) the most of authors will put in an Appendix.
Response 4: Thank you for your comment regarding the presentation of Tables 5 and 6 in the main text. We would like to explain why we consider it preferable to keep them there, since they are directly related to the second research question of our study. The second research objective examines the opinion and evaluation of teachers on the teaching intervention related to education in hydroponics and 3D printing. Tables 5 and 6 contain critical information regarding data collection process, which are essential for understanding the results of the intervention and the impact it had on the participants. Placing tables in the main text ensures that readers can access relevant information without having to search for it in a separate section. This facilitates the flow of reading and understanding of the study's findings. For these reasons, we consider Tables 5 and 6 to be crucial for understanding our research question and for the completeness of the presentation of our findings. We hope you understand our position and look forward to further comments or suggestions.
Comment 5: Tables 9, 10, 11 and 12, are not properly worked to ease their lecture. Moreover, use consistent number format 0.32 instead .32, align numbers to the right, long heads are difficult to read and looks not professional
Response 5: Thank you for your feedback regarding Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12. We appreciate your observations and have taken them into account. We ensured that the tables are properly formatted to enhance readability, including using consistent number formatting (e.g., 0.32 instead of .32), right-aligned numbers, and more concise column headings.
Comment 6: Table 8 is in fact a figure not following the guidelines.
Response 6: We appreciate your input, and we took your feedback into consideration. We ensured that the figure adheres to the appropriate guidelines in our revised submission. Thank you for helping us improve our work.
Comment 7: While the first two aspects in this report are minor changes, I still consider that the Result section is not properly worked and then presented. Authors have not really considered that they are not only launching values and cyphers, instead explaining, properly presenting and explaining their outcomes, which again leave to this manuscript in major changes needed.
Response 7: Thank you for your feedback on our study results section. We would like to clarify that this section has recently been enriched with an additional subsection called "Core themes and categories". This subsection is designed to provide a more detailed presentation and explanation of our results, rather than simply reporting numerical values ​​and data. In this way, we intend to illuminate the main thematic axes that emerged during the data analysis and to delve deeper into their interpretation, explaining their implications for the educational process.
We believe that these additions will enrich the understanding of the results for readers and contribute to a better presentation of the findings. We hope that this revision will address your concerns and provide a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the research results.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the authors for persevering with this manuscript. I believe they have created a good article and that the manuscript reflects the importance of their work. I enjoyed reading it.
There are some grammar issues that might want to be corrected during the proofing phase (e.g. pluralization and prepositions), but I don’t see those as reasons to prevent it from moving forwards.
Great job.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments and for taking the precious time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the importance of our work and are excited to learn that you enjoyed reading the article. Your feedback regarding grammar issues is invaluable, and we will ensure that these points are addressed during the proofing phase. We are committed to refining our manuscript to meet the highest standards. Once again, thank you for your encouragement and support. We look forward to seeing our work published.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNevertheless some criticisms have been addressed, after this second round some important aspects still are pending in my opinion, unfortunately there are not a common undestanding between the author and the reviewer.
First, I completely insist there are a lot of tables (tables 1 through 6) which are poorly explained in the text. I don't believe that their inclusion in the text helps to the reader for a better undestanding, instead a proper explanation in the text providing continuity to the exposition. I think that author confuses the real objective of his article, he is not reporting the educative procedure, instead he is reporting a derived research activity. For that reason the communication effort fails without clarity in which aspects should be emphasized. As a minor aspect easily solvable, please align the cyphers on the following tables (8-11), take care of clarity in some fields there, which are not described in the text.
Second. Unfortunately the author have introduced large new materials (probably as a response for the reviewing), but I have comments about those sections. Figures 2-6 will be better presented in a unified panel, they are small and it is unnecessary be presented one by one. Instead a continuous presentation in the text is better, of course with a proper reference to the panel (A), (C), etc. remarking the cathegory. Note particularly that Figure 2 is completely illegible.
Third. The final section "Limitations" is odd. Those declarations should be properly intergated in the Conclusions or in the Results sections.
Both two last aspects probably are due to a clear knowledge of the common structure of research works. I think that author will correct them easily. But unfortunately I find a discrepancy in the first issue regarding the Tables, which have been repeatedly present in the review.
Author Response
Comment 1: First, I completely insist there are a lot of tables (tables 1 through 6) which are poorly explained in the text. I don't believe that their inclusion in the text helps to the reader for a better undestanding, instead a proper explanation in the text providing continuity to the exposition. I think that author confuses the real objective of his article, he is not reporting the educative procedure, instead he is reporting a derived research activity. For that reason the communication effort fails without clarity in which aspects should be emphasized. As a minor aspect easily solvable, please align the cyphers on the following tables (8-11), take care of clarity in some fields there, which are not described in the text.
Response 1: Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the use of tables within the article. We appreciate your emphasis on clarity and the need for a cohesive understanding of the material presented. We would like to clarify that Tables 1-4 have been integrated as part of the narrative flow of the article. Moreover, the content of Tables 5 and 6, while included in Appendix B, was intended to supplement the main text without disrupting the overall narrative structure. We understand your concerns that this may have led to confusion, and we strive to provide clearer explanations that enhance the reader's comprehension. Additionally, we addressed the formatting of Tables 8-11 to ensure that all figures were aligned and comprehensible. We recognize the importance of presenting data in a clear and accessible manner, and we appreciate your guidance on this aspect.
Comment 2: Unfortunately the author have introduced large new materials (probably as a response for the reviewing), but I have comments about those sections. Figures 2-6 will be better presented in a unified panel, they are small and it is unnecessary be presented one by one. Instead a continuous presentation in the text is better, of course with a proper reference to the panel (A), (C), etc. remarking the category. Note particularly that Figure 2 is completely illegible.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the figures. We have taken your comments into account and created a unified panel for Figures 2-6, as you suggested. This presentation allows for a more coherent and continuous representation in the text, with appropriate references such as (A), (B), etc. highlighting each category.
We would like to clarify that Figure 2 specifically aims to depict the environment of the tinkercad, rather than elements of the digital classroom's personnel. We appreciate your input, and we believe this revised presentation enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the figures.
Comment 3: Third. The final section "Limitations" is odd. Those declarations should be properly intergated in the Conclusions or in the Results sections.
Response 3: Thank you for your feedback regarding the "Limitations" section. We have taken your comments into consideration and have made adjustments to enhance the integration of these declarations into the Conclusions sections.
