Review Reports

Minor edit :

In the first sentence of the introduction, it claims that STEM represents the

“interconnected domains… that children naturally encounter during everyday play.”

This is not an accepted definition of STEM and is not supported (in its current form)

by the provided citations. I recommend rephrasing this sentence to clarify your

argument that children’s interest in STEM can be leveraged through play. For

example, it is stated later in Lines 40-45.

• In Line 46, it mentions “these four disciplines,” but if they are interconnected, are they taught separately or interconnectedly? Also, how is it known that teachers (in general) are intentionally incorporating all four, particularly technology and engineering? This does not seem like a supported claim.

• In Lines 82-84, the authors claim that the “most beneficial PD approach is to

model…,” but this is misleading. Darling-Hammond (2017) outlines seven different

elements of effective PD and posits that the most effective PD incorporates most or

all of them.

Thank you for the suggestion. The introduction has been revised accordingly. We have deleted the phrase “interconnected domains”. The word “intentionally” has also been removed, as teachers may incorporate STEM both intentionally and unintentionally. In addition, the sentence has been revised to identify modelling as one effective approach to professional development.

For the PD, it is not clear what was done to better understand what participants were taking away from the PD. For example, in Section 4.1., it is discussed that a teacher used story time to deliberately make explicit links to STEM. Was this something learned in the workshops? It would help to give enough context to better make connections to the

qualitative findings. Also, the introduction talks about how play needs to be incorporated, and it would help to know how the PD facilitators constructed activities to model and discuss.

  Thank you for the suggestion. The paragraph was added to clarify what was done during the professional development session. “Hands-on practical experiences included ten examples: building a car ramp; constructing a tower; creating a stop-motion animation video; playing the Robot Turtles board game; building a bridge (beginning with reading The Three Billy Goats Gruff, followed by designing and constructing a bridge using a variety of materials); using Bee-Bots; coding a LEGO maze; exploring sinking and floating (accompanied by the story Who Sank the Boat?); measurement (linked to the story How Big Is a Dinosaur?); and volume and floating (accompanied by the story Alexander’s Outing). In addition, we provided different scenarios demonstrating how teachers can support children’s STEM learning.”

Since the authors claim to use an explanatory sequential design, it would help to better

explain how the quantitative analysis was used to purposely select the interview

participants and what connections were made for the follow-up questions. In other words,

how did the survey results inform the interview process?

Thank you for the suggestion. The clarification of how the survey results informed the interview process strengthened the study. “This study adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (QUAN → QUAL), where the quantitative phase was prioritized and used as a primary component, followed by a qualitative phase designed for clarification (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The quantitative phase involved a structured survey examining patterns, relationships, and group differences among key variables. Integration occurred at multiple stages of the research process. Survey results informed participant selection for the qualitative phase using criterion-based and maximum variation sampling (Patton, 2015), based on quantitative response profiles (e.g., high, medium, low, and unexpected patterns). Quantitative findings also directly shaped the interview protocol, with questions targeting statistically meaningful trends, subgroup differences, and ambiguous results.”

For the analysis of the interviews, what were the codes and what themes arose? Was there

any interrater agreement conducted? Who did this coding?

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the Methods section to clarify the interview analysis process by specifying the use of reflexive thematic analysis supported by MAXQDA, identifying the main themes that emerged, and explaining that coding was conducted independently by the second and third researchers with consensus-based agreement rather than formal interrater reliability statistics.

The figures are unnecessary since you already have the information shared in each table.

The visuals are not appropriate for those statistics. Also, it is unclear why each of the four

survey items is in separate tables and not one larger table with all the findings discussed

afterwards.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful and constructive comment. In response, we have revised the presentation of the results by removing the figures, as the information is sufficiently and more clearly conveyed through tables. We have also combined the four survey items into a single consolidated table, rather than presenting them in separate tables, to improve clarity, coherence, and readability. The text has been revised accordingly to discuss the findings collectively after the table.

The manuscript would benefit from a more comprehensive Literature Review,

particularly with regard to the theoretical and empirical rationale for implementing

STEM education in kindergarten and early childhood settings.

Thank you for the suggestion. Literature has been revised.

“STEM learning is shaped by the sociocultural context in which teachers work. For example, cultural values emphasizing community involvement and the country’s educational policies and systems all play a significant role in influencing teacher learning (Vygotsky, 1987).”

study adopts a mixed-methods design, greater clarity is required concerning

the relative weighting and integration of the quantitative and qualitative

components. At present, this aspect of the methodology is insufficiently specified.

Thank you for the suggestion. An explanation has been added to the revised manuscript. “At the interpretive level, integration was achieved through a coherent narrative in which qualitative themes were used to explain and contextualise quantitative findings, producing integrated meta-inferences and enhancing methodological rigour in line with mixed-methods standards (Fetters et al., 2013)”

The description of the research participants is limited. Additional information

regarding the participants’ educational backgrounds is necessary to improve the

transparency and interpretability of the findings.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the participants section to provide a more detailed description of the sample, including participants’ educational backgrounds, teaching experience, and school contexts. In addition, we have added Table 1 to summarise the demographic characteristics of the qualitative interview participants, thereby improving the transparency and interpretability of the findings.

Given the relatively small number of questionnaire items, the presentation of the

quantitative results appears fragmented. Consolidating these findings into a single

comprehensive table would improve clarity and readability.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, the quantitative results have been revised and consolidated into a single comprehensive table, which improves clarity and coherence.

There is an issue with statistical notation. The manuscript refers to a T-test;

however, the correct and standard notation is t-test

Thank you for the suggestion, and it has been revised and made the changes

The qualitative findings are presented without a clear summary structure. The

inclusion of a table synthesizing key qualitative themes along with representative

excerpts would significantly strengthen the rigor and organization of the results

section.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the results section to improve clarity and organisation by adding a summary table that synthesises the four qualitative themes alongside representative participant excerpts. This table provides a structured overview of the qualitative findings and complements the narrative presentation of the results.