Teacher Professional Development in Integrated STEAM Education: A Study on Its Contribution to the Development of the PCK of Physics Teachers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript aims at studying the impact of a Teacher Professional Development program on integrated STEM education on the development of Physics teachers' PCK related to "Electrical circuits with associations in series and parallel" among five in-service Physics teachers. 

The research appears to be solid and the results are interesting and based on the data collected.

Some review is needed

Author Response

Answer to Reviewer 1: We thank you for the comment and, as suggested, English was improved.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript illustrates a study which aims “to investigate the impact of a TPD program on integrated STEM education on the TSPCK related to "Electrical circuits with associations in series and parallel" among five in-service Physics teachers. The significance of this study lies in addressing the existing gap in the education of teachers in integrated STEM education” (p. 19, lines 907-910). There are some criticalities, however, that I would like to highlight.

·     Both the Introduction and the Theoretical Background sections lack standard components expected in a manuscript, which should include sections such as a reason (or reasons) for conducting the study, the theoretical and conceptual background, and the study's implications. A critical issue in the present study is the absence of a real justification for the study, which undermines its conceptual and epistemological foundation.

Moreover, the authors should try to define what iStem is (I was not really able to understand what iSTEM means on the basis of their manuscript).

Furthermore, I was not able to find any research questions.

·     The sample consisted of only five teachers, a very low number, and the authors might discuss this as a limitation to their study.

·     At the beginning of the Results section the authors write: “The analysis of the data collected through the previously described instruments allowed the assessment of the TSPCK related to the topic in question for each of the teachers before and after their participation in the TPD. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3”. The authors should explain it in more detail. Table 3 is totally unclear. The authors should explain how they calculated the pre-score and the post-score. More generally, the manuscript’s results are not reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.

·     The Discussion and conclusion section appears to be a repetition of the Results section. The authors should explain the meaning of their results in the Discussion section and their implications for further studies. However, it is difficult to do it if there are no real research questions.

Author Response

We would like to begin by thanking you for all the relevant comments and questions you have provided. We hope that we have addressed all the raised issues.

Below are the comments/questions and their respective answers:

Comment 1: Both the Introduction and the Theoretical Background sections lack standard components expected in a manuscript, which should include sections such as a reason (or reasons) for conducting the study, the theoretical and conceptual background, and the study's implications. A critical issue in the present study is the absence of a real justification for the study, which undermines its conceptual and epistemological foundation.

Answer to Comment 1: We appreciate your commentaries, and we agree that there were some shortcomings in our first version. We have taken into consideration your comments to improve it and to include all the missing aspects.

Comment 2: Moreover, the authors should try to define what iStem is (I was not really able to understand what iSTEM means on the basis of their manuscript).

Answer to Comment 2: Following the comments of the guest editor, we have reframed our work to iSTEAM and clarified its meaning.

Comment 3: Furthermore, I was not able to find any research questions.

Answer to Comment 3: Research questions were included in the manuscript.

Comment 4: The sample consisted of only five teachers, a very low number, and the authors might discuss this as a limitation to their study.

Answer to Comment 4: We have mentioned that limitation in the first version but only briefly. In the reviewed manuscript we elaborated on the limitations of our study a bit more.

Comment 5: At the beginning of the Results section the authors write: “The analysis of the data collected through the previously described instruments allowed the assessment of the TSPCK related to the topic in question for each of the teachers before and after their participation in the TPD. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 3”. The authors should explain it in more detail. Table 3 is totally unclear. The authors should explain how they calculated the pre-score and the post-score. More generally, the manuscript’s results are not reproducible based on the details given in the methods section.

 Answer to Comment 5: We agree. We have introduced more information regarding the calculation of the scores. To avoid a very dense description we have introduced that information in Appendix F (Table A5) .

Comment 6: The Discussion and conclusion section appears to be a repetition of the Results section. The authors should explain the meaning of their results in the Discussion section and their implications for further studies. However, it is difficult to do it if there are no real research questions.

Answer to Comment 6: The “Discussion and Conclusion” section was completely rewritten and was organized in terms of research questions.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript.  The area of focus, the translation of professional learning into classroom practice is relevant and of significant value to the field.  

What follows is merely my perspective and feedback - I recognize that you know your study better than anyone and my comments should be viewed through that lens.

1. While the stated focus is on iSTEM, I was not clear on how this was not simply science education.  The professional learning topic and subsequent lesson development appears to be only science.  My read of the manuscript did not leave me believing that this was iSTEM.  If you simply removed any reference to iSTEM and replaced it with science education, you would have the same manuscript.  Plus, you would have a clearer focus on the the translation of professional learning into classroom practice.

My suggestion here might be to better articulate why the task with electrical circuits is truly an iSTEM task.  Maybe map this onto the adopted definition of iSTEM in section 2.1.

2. There is a significant body of research differentiating lesson planning, lesson development, and lesson design.  You use the terms interchangeably in the review of literature (See section 2.4).  I would consider clarifying that a bit more.  I know this may be a bit picky, but the richness of the task appears to be more than a lesson plan or lesson development, but a well designed experience.

3. I have may have missed this particular detail, but was their triangulation of the qualitative data?  If not, that analytic aspect is important given the nature of this study.  Furthermore, which qualitative approach was taken here?  Grounded Theory?  Phenomenology?  Content Analysis?  While I am sure this was done, this information would better strengthen the manuscript.  

4. The discussion and conclusions section seems to overgeneralize the findings.  While the study does seek to address the gap, for these five individuals, there needs to be a clear assertion that in this particular context, these are the findings.  But the broader context or field still requires additional research.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this work.  I hope that my comments have been helpful.  I look forward to seeing your work in published form.

Author Response

We would like to begin by thanking you for all the relevant comments and questions you have provided. We hope that we have addressed all the issues raised.

Below you can find the comments/questions and their respective answers.

Comment 1: While the stated focus is on iSTEM, I was not clear on how this was not simply science education.  The professional learning topic and subsequent lesson development appears to be only science.  My read of the manuscript did not leave me believing that this was iSTEM.  If you simply removed any reference to iSTEM and replaced it with science education, you would have the same manuscript.  Plus, you would have a clearer focus on the the translation of professional learning into classroom practice. My suggestion here might be to better articulate why the task with electrical circuits is truly an iSTEM task.  Maybe map this onto the adopted definition of iSTEM in section 2.1.

Answer to Comment 1: We have introduced more information (Appendix A, Table A.1) regarding the areas involved in the task. In our perspective, although the main focus was on science/Physics learning there were other areas involved in different moments of the activity. We really hope that this aspect was made more clear with the information regarding all the involved areas.

Comment 2: There is a significant body of research differentiating lesson planning, lesson development, and lesson design.  You use the terms interchangeably in the review of literature (See section 2.4).  I would consider clarifying that a bit more.  I know this may be a bit picky, but the richness of the task appears to be more than a lesson plan or lesson development, but a well designed experience.

Answer to Comment 2: We have taken into account the suggestions of the Guest Editor and changed the framework and part of that problematic section.

Comment 3: I have may have missed this particular detail, but was their triangulation of the qualitative data?  If not, that analytic aspect is important given the nature of this study.  Furthermore, which qualitative approach was taken here?  Grounded Theory?  Phenomenology?  Content Analysis?  While I am sure this was done, this information would better strengthen the manuscript.  

Answer to Comment 3: We appreciate this comment and we have realized that we missed some information. We believe that now these issues are explicit.

Comment 4: The discussion and conclusions section seems to overgeneralize the findings.  While the study does seek to address the gap, for these five individuals, there needs to be a clear assertion that in this particular context, these are the findings.  But the broader context or field still requires additional research.

Answer to Comment 4: We totally agree. We have completely reformulated this section.

Kind regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

With relation to my previous comments, I wish to point out that the authors answered positively to some critical points which I highlighted and the changes in the paper are pertinent.

Reviewer 3 Report

You have addressed all feedback that I have to offer.  I appreciate the time and thoroughness in the responses. My original scoring for this article is below and I leave the subsequent decision up to the Editor. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this work.  I am always humbled by the work of colleagues.