STEM Distance Teaching: Investigating STEM Teachers’ Attitudes, Barriers, and Training Needs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The research presented in this study is focused on STEM distance teaching. The text is now clearer in terms of content and structure.

--

Comments and suggestions

Minor issues: there are some typos, e.g. …

Abstract: the size of the letters should be enlarged. Distance between ‘Abstract’ and ‘Keywords’

Too much space begore epigraph 2 (Materials and methods)

...[[item2]” -> ... [item2]”

Table 3.

iv) The phase of qualitative analysis includes thematic analysis

delete a line after ...         described in [25], and [26]:

minor format issues in Table 6 & Table 9 (missing lines)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

I think more detail should be given to how this relates to teachers in general, not just secondary. COVID affected all teachers teaching STEM. While the study mentioned significant components of teaching STEM with teachers' interactions with students distantly, I think more should have discussed how teachers handled teaching hands-on since STEM is about acquiring knowledge and skills through experiences. I felt that the authors did a great job, and the paper shares more information about DT during COVID, but I feel that the authors need to share more about what it will take to prepare for future studies.

STEM, in most cases, is thought to improve students' motivation, then I agree that there should be more teacher professional development to support teachers who find this challenging in DT.

Previously studies are cited during the paper, but I feel more needs to be discussed on how teachers feel about teacher efficacy, anxiety, and being prepared to teach within the barriers of DT.

Of course, it is difficult when students do not have the necessary equipment, but how can teachers teach and be successful in helping students meet their needs in learning teachers meet the need of teaching?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the work the authors put into this study, especially with respect to the data collection and analysis.

 

In lines 22-24, the authors indicated that compared to other disciplines, STEM “has several particularities” that require teachers “to use specific training methods and digital tools.” In the following sentence (lines 24-26), they identified STEM-specific learning strategies (e.g., problem-solving, creativity). However, one of my concerns is that the findings did not explicitly address STEM-specific strategies and how the attitudes, barriers, and training needs were specific to STEM teachers; one could reasonably expect their findings would also be applicable with respect to the strategies from, and teachers of, non-STEM disciplines.

 

Other concerns include the following:

§  I did not see a definition of distance teaching (i.e., what counts as distance teaching). For instance, the authors addressed mobile technologies (line 113) and MOOCs (lines 116, 120) as part of their review of distance education (which is also different from distance teaching – yet seemed to be used interchangeably throughout the manuscript), but both can also be used in non-distance teaching/education settings.

§  In the introduction, when the authors addressed studies conducted by others, they did not share the takeaway message of those articles (e.g., lines 41-44, 47-49, 57-60, 338-340). It was unclear how the studies they reported supported their argument for their study.

§  In the methods section, the number of items was stated for the second section of the closed-ended question (line 132) but not stated for the first section of the closed-ended question (line 129). The authors were also not consistent with the type of data analysis they used to address the open-ended prompts (content thematic analysis [line 205] vs. thematic content analysis [lines 209, 213] vs. thematic analysis [line 228]). It was not clear how the codes and themes were developed or related to their study because the authors provided generic procedures (e.g., lines 224-227).

§  One part of the finding (validation of measurement model – Tables 3 and 4) did not seem to address any of the research questions.

§  Throughout the manuscript, there were many sentences that included a claim that was not substantiated (e.g. lacking citation) or unclear. For instance, they said ICT programs can support STEM teachers’ appropriation of digital tools in their teaching (lines 29-31) – without connecting this back to their original argument of how to support STEM distance teaching. Table 8 did not show how the themes were connected/related to each other (e.g., why was infrastructure and skills two different themes?). in lines 418-420, it was stated that learning DE tools was a high priority because it was critical to the successfulness of DE courses – what is the critical role? In the discussion, it was stated that the findings imply that the needs perceived by the STEM teachers “might yield to solutions to the difficulties” they face – without explaining why or how. The limitations section stated that self-reported responses could cause bias in the quantitative results (lines 465-466), but did not explain the biases or how those biases would impact their findings.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer#1

In the following paragraphs, we explain how we addressed each one of the reviewer’s suggestions. The revised/added text in the manuscript is blue colored, so the reviewer can easily detect the revised parts.

First, we thank the reviewer for all these valuable suggestions. The really helped us to significantly optimize the quality of the paper.

Comment#1: In lines 22-24, the authors indicated that compared to other disciplines, STEM “has several particularities” that require teachers “to use specific training methods and digital tools.” In the following sentence (lines 24-26), they identified STEM-specific learning strategies (e.g., problem-solving, creativity). However, one of my concerns is that the findings did not explicitly address STEM-specific strategies and how the attitudes, barriers, and training needs were specific to STEM teachers; one could reasonably expect their findings would also be applicable with respect to the strategies from, and teachers of, non-STEM disciplines.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for this contributing comment. As suggested to align the STEM-specific strategies with the generated needs and barriers we added one paragraph in Discussion section. There we describe some STEM-specific approaches for teaching: “Overall, the findings significantly outline the need for STEM-specific teaching and learning strategies. STEM teachers expressed their need for STEM-oriented pedagogies to engage students and help them succeed in STEM disciplines. For instance, pedagogies for the development of self-regulated learning are crucial in STEM courses. In this context, STEM teachers should have the knowledge and ability to cultivate skills of Observation, Formulation, Analysis Reformulation, and Evaluation, as suggested in [34]. Other STEM-specific skills of students, like motivation, [6],  problem-solving and creativity [1][2],  should also be a high pedagogical priority of STEM teachers. However, to efficiently apply such pedagogies online, STEM  teachers need to be trained on the DE technological facilities that might be differentiated or utilized in different manner from online courses of non-STEM disciplines. STEM teachers should be trained on how and when to use each DE modality like videos, online games, online collaborative rooms etc. to achieve every defined STEM learning outcome. The knowledge to apply STEM- useful learning theories like experiential learning [35] in online teaching environments will possibly be a strong component of STEM DT achievement. Finally, as expressed by the examined teachers, STEM related online software should be available and easily accessible, to assist them in conducting STEM online practical tasks. “

 

Comment#2:  I did not see a definition of distance teaching (i.e., what counts as distance teaching). For instance, the authors addressed mobile technologies (line 113) and MOOCs (lines 116, 120) as part of their review of distance education (which is also different from distance teaching – yet seemed to be used interchangeably throughout the manuscript), but both can also be used in non-distance teaching/education settings.

Reply: Thank you for this observation. We added one paragraph n Introduction explaining the term of STEM distance teaching, as well as distance education, by providing adequate citations: “In this study, STEM distance teaching refers to the process of teaching online courses of STEM disciplines, in the context of Distance Education. According to UNESCO’s definition DE refers to the exploitation of online teaching methods and tools, alone or in a combined/blended learning mode [32]. However, due to the covid-19 pandemic emergent situation this study regards fully remote courses and particularly synchronous remote courses. The term ‘remote’ reflects a branch of DE, outlining the geographical separation of the individuals [33].”

Comment#3:  In the introduction, when the authors addressed studies conducted by others, they did not share the takeaway message of those articles (e.g., lines 41-44, 47-49, 57-60, 338-340). It was unclear how the studies they reported supported their argument for their study.

Reply: We added some text in Discussion to align the cited messages with our results and suggested implications. E.g.: “For example, leveraging the students’ digital skills will provide students with the skills of the modern age and make STEM DE equally accessible by all students [7], eliminating issues of low attendance….

Other STEM-specific skills of students, like motivation, [6],…

However, the challenges of STEM oriented physical labs should be considered [4] to provide hybrid and/or tailored solutions.”

 

Comment#4: In the methods section, the number of items was stated for the second section of the closed-ended question (line 132) but not stated for the first section of the closed-ended question (line 129). The authors were also not consistent with the type of data analysis they used to address the open-ended prompts (content thematic analysis [line 205] vs. thematic content analysis [lines 209, 213] vs. thematic analysis [line 228]). It was not clear how the codes and themes were developed or related to their study because the authors provided generic procedures (e.g., lines 224-227).

Reply: We addressed all raised concerns. In particular:

• We added the number of questions for the first section as well.
• We now use only the term ‘thematic analysis’ throughout the manuscript
• Some more details and explanations of the procedure are now provided in the text: “…. The generated codes were focused around the research objectives of this study, that us barriers and training needs, neglecting non-relevant concepts. Some coding examples include hardware, software, engagement, communication, equipment, pedagogy, etc. …

Thus, we aggregated similar conceptual codes into themes of barriers and needs. For instance codes related to issues of interaction, communication, engagement and attendance were grouped under theme ‘Students’ interaction & engagement’.”

 

Comment#5: One part of the finding (validation of measurement model – Tables 3 and 4) did not seem to address any of the research questions.

Reply: We moved this part under section 3.1. where we describe the measurement model.

Comment#6: Throughout the manuscript, there were many sentences that included a claim that was not substantiated (e.g. lacking citation) or unclear. For instance, they said ICT programs can support STEM teachers’ appropriation of digital tools in their teaching (lines 29-31) – without connecting this back to their original argument of how to support STEM distance teaching. Table 8 did not show how the themes were connected/related to each other (e.g., why was infrastructure and skills two different themes?). in lines 418-420, it was stated that learning DE tools was a high priority because it was critical to the successfulness of DE courses – what is the critical role? In the discussion, it was stated that the findings imply that the needs perceived by the STEM teachers “might yield to solutions to the difficulties” they face – without explaining why or how. The limitations section stated that self-reported responses could cause bias in the quantitative results (lines 465-466) but did not explain the biases or how those biases would impact their findings.

Reply:  We have addressed all suggested concerns. In particular:

• We deleted the unclaimed phrase (l.29-31)
• We added some text to explain that the themes’ identification was based on previous qualitative findings in the field, that generated similar themes related issues/barriers: “The identification of the themes was mainly based on previous findings on teachers’ perceived ICT barriers [4][8].”
• The sentence in lines 418-420 is deleted, since as well noticed by the reviewer it does not provide any argument to the afore mentioned statements.
• Some more examples have been added to explain the sentence “might yield to solutions to the difficulties”: “For example, leveraging the students’ digital skills will provide students with the skills of the modern age and make STEM DE equally accessible by all students [7], eliminating issues of low attendance. Also,…”
• We added some text in the limitations section to explain the types of bias that can occur in the current self-reporting study: “Research shows that self-reported responses are at the risk of not fully representing the truth because of the human need for social desirability or approval [36]. Another source of potential self-reporting bias in the current study is recall error, which reflects the participants’ erroneous responses that depend on their ability to recall past events [36].”

 

 

We hope we have sufficiently addressed all raised concerns

Sincerely,

The Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The research presented in this study is focused on STEM distance teaching. The aim of the research is not clearly stated. The structure of the article (section 4 and section 5) should be changed to follow the guidelines included in the ‘Research Manuscript Sections’ ( https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions ): Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results (provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn); Discussion; Conclusions (This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex).

--

Comments and suggestions

Minor issues: there are some typos, e.g. …

Line 42.- Format issue (length of the line).

Line 93.- research; perhaps ‘research works’ or ‘researchers’?

Line 118.- ofDE; ‘of DE’. An extra space is required.

Line 136.- etc. and   supported; delete and extra space. IT also happens in lines 139; 141

Line 213 & 214.- This sentence could be reworded to a better understanding: ‘The following steps were followed during the thematic content analysis according to the procedure described in [25], and [26]: Kiger and Varpio (2020):’

Line 215: Why do you start with (iv) instead of (i)?

Line 439 to 471.- Line length

 

Some considerations …

Aim of the study

The aim of the study should be clearly stated within the paper, and it should be consistent in all the sections (abstract included).

Line 6 (in the abstract).- ‘this study examined the perceived barriers and trained needs towards STEM Distance Teaching (DT)’.

Line 61 & 62.- ‘this study seeks to explore the STEM teachers’ attitudes towards distance teaching and their perceived outcomes of using distance teaching practice in terms of barriers and training needs’

Line 75.- ‘The main contribution of this study is to shed light on the STEM teachers’ attitudes, barriers, and training needs in the context of distance teaching of STEM subjects’

 

Participants

Line 163 to 166.- ´The project is also known as B-Level ICT Teacher Training which followed the previous A-Level ICT Training and was mainly addressed on the following teaching disciplines: Philology-Language, Mathematics, Physical Sciences, Informatics, Primary Education and Kindergarten Teachers.’

Line 170 to 177.- ‘…a total of 5800 teachers were enrolled in the project that was scheduled to run within 2020. The questionnaire for this survey was distributed on the teachers participating in the program. Of those 849 successfully completed the survey, including 158 teachers (81 males, 77 females) in the STEM disciplines of Mathematics (23.4%), Informatics (27.2%), Natural Science (19%), and Engineering (30.4%). All 158 STEM teachers replied on the required and quantitative part (measured variables) of the questionnaire, while 114 of them also replied to the open-ended question regarding perceived barriers and 111 replied to the open-ended question regarding their needs on skills and knowledge to be included in future training programs.’

 

·         As far as I understand: Participants in the project: 5,800 teachers. The questionnaire was answered by 849 teachers (including all disciplines). STEM teachers: 158 out of 849; 158 (quantitative part of the questionnaire), 114 (qualitative; perceived barriers), 111 (qualitative, needs on skills and knowledge). You could rephrase this paragraph to make it clearer.

·         How many instructors that teach STEM disciplines and participated in the program, did not answer the questionnaire?

 

Tables

Line 145. Table 1.

·         Format issue. A ‘full stop’ should be included after ‘Table 1’: Table 1. Survey items…

·         Format: there is an extra line after EN3. The presentation of the table should be improved.

·         Instead of ES1, ES2, ES3, … in the table, or in another part of the paper, the statement linked to each of the questions (ES1, ES2, ES3, …) should be written.

 

Line 198. Table2.

·         Format issue. A ‘full stop’ should be included after ‘Table 2’: Table 2. Socio…

·         Format: it lacks a line between columns. The presentation of the table should be improved.

·         The data presented correspond to the teacher STEM teachers that answered de quantitative part of the questionnaire.

·         Column ‘n (%)’, related to ‘Teaching experience using digital technologies’: when adding all the percentages, the sum is 72,6 %, not 100%.

… All the other tables present similar format issues (lines 251, 253…)

 

Section 4: Results and Discussion versus Section 5: Discussion

Both sections need to be reorganized:

·         Section 4 should include only results (quantitative) and findings (qualitative). So, the title of section 4 should be changed).

·         Some of the contend that now is included in section 4 should be moved to section 5 (Discussion).

·         Once rewritten both sections, some additional consideration abouts the collected data could be added to the final writing. E.g. The findings of this research, when talking about ‘interaction’ could be compared and contextualized with the findings of other research works, …

 

Conclusions

Consider rewording the whole section.

It should be nice to start this section with a synthetic explanation of the goal of the research work.

 

References

It would be nice to add some additional references. There are just 18 references in the first two sections of the article (‘Introduction’ and ‘Theoretical framework’). Since the research has one focus on ‘detailed the perceived barriers to teach STEM disciplines through distance teaching during the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic’ (line 303), some additional references about the COVID-19 and experiences using emergency remote teaching (ERT) could complete the theoretical framework in which the study is contextualized.

Some DOI are missed, e.g.

·         STEM outreach activities: an approach to teachers’ professional development

Farzana Aslam et al.

DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2018.1422618

·         Characterizing STEM Teacher Education: Affordances and Constraints of Explicit STEM Preparation for Elementary Teachers

Carol R. Rinke, Wendy Gladstone-Brown, C. Ryan Kinlaw, Jean Cappiello

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12185

·         Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process

Japhet E. Lawrence & Usman A. Tar

DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712

·         …

Author Response

In the following paragraphs, we explain how we addressed each one of the reviewer’s suggestions. The revised/added text in the manuscript is blue colored, so the reviewer can easily detect the revised parts.

First, we thank the reviewer for all these valuable suggestions.

Comment#1: The research presented in this study is focused on STEM distance teaching. The aim of the research is not clearly stated. The structure of the article (section 4 and section 5) should be changed to follow the guidelines included in the ‘Research Manuscript Sections’ ( https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions ): Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results (provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn); Discussion; Conclusions (This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex).

Reply: We modified the structure of the manuscript as suggested.

The aim of this study is now clearly presented also in the beginning of the Abstract

 

Comment#2:  Minor issues: there are some typos, e.g. …

Line 42.- Format issue (length of the line).

Line 93.- research; perhaps ‘research works’ or ‘researchers’?

Line 118.- ofDE; ‘of DE’. An extra space is required.

Line 136.- etc. and   supported; delete and extra space. IT also happens in lines 139; 141

Line 213 & 214.- This sentence could be reworded to a better understanding: ‘The following steps were followed during the thematic content analysis according to the procedure described in [25], and [26]: Kiger and Varpio (2020):’

Line 215: Why do you start with (iv) instead of (i)?

Line 439 to 471.- Line length

Reply: We thank the reviewer for these corrections. They are all fixed

Comment#3:  The aim of the study should be clearly stated within the paper, and it should be consistent in all the sections (abstract included).

Line 6 (in the abstract).- ‘this study examined the perceived barriers and trained needs towards STEM Distance Teaching (DT)’.

Line 61 & 62.- ‘this study seeks to explore the STEM teachers’ attitudes towards distance teaching and their perceived outcomes of using distance teaching practice in terms of barriers and training needs’

Line 75.- ‘The main contribution of this study is to shed light on the STEM teachers’ attitudes, barriers, and training needs in the context of distance teaching of STEM subjects’

Reply:  We have rephrased all outlined sentences to reflect the same objective.

 

Comment#4:  As far as I understand: Participants in the project: 5,800 teachers. The questionnaire was answered by 849 teachers (including all disciplines). STEM teachers: 158 out of 849; 158 (quantitative part of the questionnaire), 114 (qualitative; perceived barriers), 111 (qualitative, needs on skills and knowledge). You could rephrase this paragraph to make it clearer.

• How many instructors that teach STEM disciplines and participated in the program, did not answer the questionnaire?

 

Reply:  We rephrased this part to make it clearer.

 

Comment#5: Tables

Line 145. Table 1.

• Format issue. A ‘full stop’ should be included after ‘Table 1’: Table 1.Survey items…
• Format: there is an extra line after EN3. The presentation of the table should be improved.
• Instead of ES1, ES2, ES3, … in the table, or in another part of the paper, the statement linked to each of the questions (ES1, ES2, ES3, …) should be written. – We added an explanation text above the Table

 

Line 198. Table2.

• Format issue. A ‘full stop’ should be included after ‘Table 2’: Table 2.Socio…
• Format: it lacks a line between columns. The presentation of the table should be improved.
• The data presented correspond to the teacher STEM teachers that answered de quantitative part of the questionnaire.
• Column ‘n (%)’, related to ‘Teaching experience using digital technologies’: when adding all the percentages, the sum is 72,6 %, not 100%.

… All the other tables present similar format issues (lines 251, 253…)

Reply: We thank the reviewer for these corrections. They are all fixed (Note, Table 2 is now Table 4)

 

Comment#6: Both sections need to be reorganized:

• Section 4 should include only results (quantitative) and findings (qualitative). So, the title of section 4 should be changed).
• Some of the contend that now is included in section 4 should be moved to section 5 (Discussion).
• Once rewritten both sections, some additional consideration abouts the collected data could be added to the final writing. E.g. The findings of this research, when talking about ‘interaction’ could be compared and contextualized with the findings of other research works, …

Reply:  We have re-organized the sections as suggested

 

Comment#7: Conclusions

Consider rewording the whole section.

It should be nice to start this section with a synthetic explanation of the goal of the research work.

Reply: We elaborated the text in Conclusions as suggested.

 

 

Comment#8: It would be nice to add some additional references. There are just 18 references in the first two sections of the article (‘Introduction’ and ‘Theoretical framework’). Since the research has one focus on ‘detailed the perceived barriers to teach STEM disciplines through distance teaching during the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic’ (line 303), some additional references about the COVID-19 and experiences using emergency remote teaching (ERT) could complete the theoretical framework in which the study is contextualized.

Some DOI are missed, e.g.

• STEM outreach activities: an approach to teachers’ professional development

Farzana Aslam et al.

DOI: 10.1080/02607476.2018.1422618

• Characterizing STEM Teacher Education: Affordances and Constraints of Explicit STEM Preparation for Elementary Teachers

Carol R. Rinke, Wendy Gladstone-Brown, C. Ryan Kinlaw, Jean Cappiello

DOI: 10.1111/ssm.12185

• Factors that influence teachers’ adoption and integration of ICT in teaching/learning process

Japhet E. Lawrence & Usman A. Tar

DOI: 10.1080/09523987.2018.1439712

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the useful suggestion. We added all suggested references, and we extended the reference list with some more studies in the field.

 

We hope we have sufficiently addressed all raised concerns

Sincerely,

The authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Response to Authors’ Reply for Comment#1:

Unfortunately, adding the proposed paragraph to the discussion did not address my concern. Lines 22-24 state that STEM “has several particularities” that require teachers “to use specific training methods and digital tools.” However, it was not clear which particularities/training methods/digital tools the authors were referring to – this should be addressed at the beginning of the paper and not only in the discussion. Additionally, the statement “Other STEM-specific skills of students, like motivation, [6],  problem-solving and creativity [1][2], should also be a high pedagogical priority of STEM teachers” does not explain how motivation, problem-solving, and creativity are STEM-specific … my original comment was that these three skills are also applicable to non-STEM teachers. This statement was also unclear: “STEM teachers should be trained on how and when to use each DE modality like videos, online games, online collaborative rooms, etc. to achieve every defined STEM learning outcome.” I did not understand how the different DE modalities (videos, online games, etc.) were STEM specific – I can see the content of the DE modalities being STEM specific, but not the modalities themselves. These examples reflect the concern of my original comment.

 

Response to Authors’ Reply for Comment#2:

The added paragraph did not make clear the author’s definition of distance teaching. For instance, I did not understand the statement “STEM distance teaching refers to the process of teaching online courses of STEM disciplines, in the context of Distance Education” – i.e., what does “in the context of Distance Education” mean? The authors cite UNESCO for defining distance education, but the term “distance education” is not listed anywhere in that citation; UNESCO addressed distance learning, which is not the same thing as distance education or distance teaching. The last two sentences were also unhelpful in defining distance teaching because the authors seem to emphasize the importance of “remote” as a branch of distance education. I was expecting the authors to choose an expression that best describes their work (e.g., distance education, distance teaching, distance learning) and to refer to it consistently throughout the manuscript when addressing their work.

 

Response to Authors’ Reply for Comment#3:

One of the added texts to the discussion misrepresented the original findings from the cited studies. For instance, the statement “…leveraging the students’ digital skills will provide students with the skills of the modern age and make STEM DE equally accessible by all students [7], eliminating issues of low attendance…” is misleading because the authors originally indicated that [7] was about researchers agreeing that STEM DE “could also ensure equal opportunities in education and provide students with the skills of the modern age” and not that it makes STEM DE equally accessible by all students. The remaining revisions that were added by the authors refer to previous studies they mentioned earlier in the manuscript, but still do not summarize the findings of those studies… I was expecting the takeaway messages of the articles to be addressed in the introduction as they were introduced so that readers not familiar with those studies could understand how those studies contributed to the authors’ current study.

 

Response to Authors’ Reply for Comment#4:

Part of the quote from the third bullet point in the reply from the authors was unclear: “…objectives of this study, that us barriers and training needs, neglecting non-relevant concepts…” – what does “us barriers” mean? Also, the title of one of the citations for thematic analysis was content analysis, which is inconsistent with the authors’ stated use of thematic analysis in their study.

 

Response to Authors’ Reply for Comment#5 and Comment#6:

Ok.

Reviewer 2 Report

There are some minor format issues in the tables (alignment of texts, full stops,...)