STEM and HASS Disciplines in Architectural Education: Readiness of FAD-STU Bachelor Students for Practice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting research study but needs some improvements.

The abstract should refer to both STEM and HASS disciplines, while it seems to be much more focused on STEAM disciplines.  Moreover, there is a weak coherence between the abstract and the conclusions section.  

In the abstract, the authors claim that: „The main results of the research confirmed the direct correlation between STEM, especially engineering, and the quality of design studio output (…) The authors of the article found that STEM knowledge and STEM skills do not reach the required level and that the emphasis should be placed on changing curricula”.

This statement does not relate to the conclusions section.

It is not well explained why the relationship between the admission examination procedure and the academic performance of graduates in the DESIGN category was also analyzed. Specifically, it is not clear why the sub-chapter 3.10. appers in the text.

In the conclusions section, the authors write: „the results of this study confirmed the high importance of STEM disciplines and the role of technical subjects within architectural education that are closely related to the quality of design studio outputs”.

This conclusion does not seem to be coherent with the results section where the authors reveal that student performance between STEM and DESIGN categories correlates well but less significantly than in the case between HASS and DESIGN categories. The correlation between HASS and DESIGN was more significant compared to the STEM and DESIGN categories.

The conclusions should refer to both the STEM and HASS subjects and be coherent with the abstract.  

Figure 1 - "Display of comprehensive data sets interface": tables are not readable. The data or only the summary of the data should be presented in a different way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and insights on the article in order to raise the quality of our sumitted research. The revisions to the manuscript are marked up by authors using the “Track Changes” function. Our explanations to your comments are listed as follows:

1. The abstract should refer to both STEM and HASS disciplines, while it seems to be much more focused on STEAM disciplines. Moreover, there is a weak coherence between the abstract and the conclusions section.  In the abstract, the authors claim that: „The main results of the research confirmed the direct correlation between STEM, especially engineering, and the quality of design studio output (…) The authors of the article found that STEM knowledge and STEM skills do not reach the required level and that the emphasis should be placed on changing curricula”. This statement does not relate to the conclusions section.

Abstract have been revised to be more coherent with the content.

2. It is not well explained why the relationship between the admission examination procedure and the academic performance of graduates in the DESIGN category was also analyzed. Specifically, it is not clear why the sub-chapter 3.10. appears in the text.

Explanation has been added - see manuscript revisions.

3. In the conclusions section, the authors write: „the results of this study confirmed the high importance of STEM disciplines and the role of technical subjects within architectural education that are closely related to the quality of design studio outputs”. This conclusion does not seem to be coherent with the results section where the authors reveal that student performance between STEM and DESIGN categories correlates well but less significantly than in the case between HASS and DESIGN categories. The correlation between HASS and DESIGN was more significant compared to the STEM and DESIGN categories.

Conclusions section have been revised to be more coherent with the results section.

4. The conclusions should refer to both the STEM and HASS subjects and be coherent with the abstract.

Conclusions section have been revised

4. Figure 1 - "Display of comprehensive data sets interface": tables are not readable. The data or only the summary of the data should be presented in a different way.

Accepted, data sets have been included in the paper as supplementary materials – Appendix A, in particular.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

The manuscript aims to reveal the interplay between STEM and HASS disciplines in order to enrich design-based learning. Authors made significant and extensive work in making this study, but still some improvements are needed. Following are suggestions that could strengthen the quality and outreach of the paper:

1. All Tables and Figures must be referred to in the main body of the text. (also, appendices if appear).
2. Figure 1 (a, b): is not transparent and visible enough. Make them transparent, readable, and place them both (a and b) in appendix and provide reference to them in the body text.
3. Arithmetic mean or average score can be expressed with simple M, please check and modify where it appears.
4. All abbreviations/acronyms must be explained (defined) first after they may be used consistently.
5. Figure 2: Figure should be improved in quality (brightness and color purity). X and Y axis should be labelled next to axis! Each axis needs a descriptive axis label indicating which variable is represented. See figure 2,3
6. Correlation analysis needs some clarification: which method was used; which coefficient was used and how it can be interpreted (how it ranges) … see Table 3-10, 12,13,14,15! Ranges for color interpretation needed…
7. Table 11: how this relationship was measured? What numbers in table represent for? Clarification needed…

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and insights on the article in order to raise the quality of our submitted research. The revisions to the manuscript are marked up by authors using the “Track Changes” function. Our explanations to your comments are listed as follows:

1. All Tables and Figures must be referred to in the main body of the text. (also, appendices if appear).

Accepted and included in the revised manuscript.

2. Figure 1 (a, b): is not transparent and visible enough. Make them transparent, readable, and place them both (a and b) in appendix and provide reference to them in the body text.

Accepted, data sets have been included in the paper as supplementary materials – Appendix A, in particular.

3. Arithmetic mean or average score can be expressed with simple M, please check and modify where it appears.

Accepted, arithmetic mean in the paper is expressed by AM, because geometric mean and weighted arithmetic mean have been also used.

4. All abbreviations/acronyms must be explained (defined) first after they may be used consistently.

Accepted and included in the revised manuscript.

4. Figure 2: Figure should be improved in quality (brightness and color purity). X and Y axis should be labelled next to axis! Each axis needs a descriptive axis label indicating which variable is represented. See figure 2,3

Accepted and included in the revised manuscript.

6. Correlation analysis needs some clarification: which method was used; which coefficient was used and how it can be interpreted (how it ranges) … see Table 3-10, 12,13,14,15! Ranges for color interpretation needed…

Accepted and included in the revised manuscript.

7. Table 11: how this relationship was measured? What numbers in table represent for? Clarification needed…

Clarified in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

The work studies that correlation between STEM and architecture within the Bachelor’s study programme that the authors have investigated. The overall work is interesting and is significant for in today’s multidisciplinary context. However, there are various concerns:

• Line 154: How come the authors only considered mathematics, technical and engineering, but not sciences? Was it there there are no courses that tested students’ competency in the sciences? Also, is STEM a separate category on its own, so how is it different from MATH, TECH and ENGI (which I presume is a subset). Some clarity is needed here.
• I am not too clear of the intention of Figure 1.
• Line 169: How is the arithmetic mean weighted? How is the weight decided? It is also not clear here if the scores of the students are divided into a uniform distribution, or that it already follows some form of distribution (e.g., Gaussian), just that it being normalized here? Either way, authors should clarify in their text.
• Table 2: This table is confusing. In the text, SP is normalized to (0,1), but for some reason the table no longer normalized?
• Table 3: What is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd referring to here? I think it refers to levels, but what specifically does the levels refers to? It is not clear in this article.
• Line 41: Authors seems to cite only very specific case studies [4,5] to make a very general claims, they should include more works to strengthen their argument here. I would refer the authors to the article: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9678692 and the sources within, where the discourse is similarly on the STEM education within an engineering and architecture curriculum.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments and insights on the article in order to raise the quality of our submitted research. The revisions to the manuscript are marked up by authors using the “Track Changes” function. Our explanations to your comments are listed as follows:

1. Line 154: How come the authors only considered mathematics, technical and engineering, but not sciences? Was it there there are no courses that tested students’ competency in the sciences? Also, is STEM a separate category on its own, so how is it different from MATH, TECH and ENGI (which I presume is a subset). Some clarity is needed here.

Clarified in the revised manuscript.

2. I am not too clear of the intention of Figure 1.

Figure 1. - data sets have been included in the revised manuscript as supplementary materials – Appendix A, in particular.

3. Line 169: How is the arithmetic mean weighted? How is the weight decided? It is also not clear here if the scores of the students are divided into a uniform distribution, or that it already follows some form of distribution (e.g., Gaussian), just that it being normalized here? Either way, authors should clarify in their text.

Clarified in the revised manuscript.

4. Table 2: This table is confusing. In the text, SP is normalized to (0,1), but for some reason the table no longer normalized?

Clarified in the revised manuscript. Normalized values are used in Figure 3. And Tables 12-16.

5. Table 3: What is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd referring to here? I think it refers to levels, but what specifically does the levels refers to? It is not clear in this article.

Clarified in the revised manuscript, section 2.2.4. Stage No. 4.

6. Line 41: Authors seems to cite only very specific case studies [4,5] to make a very general claims, they should include more works to strengthen their argument here. I would refer the authors to the article:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9678692 and the sources within, where the discourse is similarly on the STEM education within an engineering and architecture curriculum.

Included in the revised manuscript. Thank you very much for your advise.  

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the authors for the amendments and taking my suggestions into consideration. I believe that article is significantly clearer for new readers and should be useful for anyone interested in research in the fields of multidisciplinary education.