Lesson Study as a Professional Development Model for Teaching Spatial Ability in Primary STEM

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

"Lesson Study as a PD Model to Teach Spatial Ability in Primary STEM," your paper offers a useful investigation into how teachers might improve their capacity to teach spatial thinking in basic STEM education by utilizing a professional development (PD) approach through lesson study. But there are a few places where your work may be strengthened with further detail, emphasis, or explanation.

Strengths:

1. Timeliness and Relevance: A major void in the methods of instruction used in STEM education is filled by emphasizing spatial skills. The evidence supports your paper's assertion that spatial thinking abilities are critical for academic achievement in STEM professions.
2. Theoretical Framework: A solid theoretical underpinning and comprehensive literature review give your project a solid starting point. It is especially noteworthy how thoroughly the significance of spatial ability, its growth, and its influence on STEM education are discussed.
3. Methodological Approach: To assess the efficacy of the PD model, a qualitative research approach is suitable. Iterative refinement and practical insights into the use of the lesson study technique in real-world contexts are provided by the design-based research (DBR) methodology.

Areas for Improvement: 1) Clarity and Coherence: The abstract and conclusion portions of the article should do a better job of outlining the goals and conclusions. A brief summary of the study's key findings and practical consequences is necessary.
2) Comprehensive Overview of PD Activities: Although the paper describes the PD model and its elements—including workshops that emphasise spatial thinking—more thorough explanations of the activities and their particular goals for enhancing teaching of spatial ability would improve comprehension and applicability.
3) Evidence of Impact: Teacher testimonies and observed modifications to teaching methods are included in the findings section, which is a useful resource. Adding more quantitative data or concrete proof of improvements in spatial ability-related student outcomes, however, would bolster the case for the PD model's efficacy.
4) Limitations Discussion: Although certain difficulties in incorporating spatial thinking into the curriculum are noted, a more thorough examination of the study's constraints, possible biases, and the applicability of the results would offer a more impartial perspective.
5) Use of Passive vs. Active Voice: A balance between the two is often advantageous in academic writing. Although the passive voice is frequently used, the active voice can improve the readability and dynamic quality of sentences.
6) Consistency in Terminology: To prevent misunderstandings, make sure that terminology is used consistently throughout the work.
7) Punctuation and Compound Sentences: To make clauses in compound sentences more understandable, employ commas.

Author Response

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for their comments. They have been most helpful as we have revised this manuscript.

Below, we list the comments made by the reviewer and explain the changes in the manuscript we have made in accordance. Thank you very much for your time and constructive feedback.

1) Clarity and Coherence: The abstract and conclusion portions of the article should do a better job of outlining the goals and conclusions. A brief summary of the study's key findings and practical consequences is necessary.

To enhance clarity and coherence, the abstract and conclusion sections of the article have been restructured. The abstract now provides a concise summary of the study's goals, key findings, and practical implications. Similarly, the conclusion section offers a clear summary of the study's main findings and their implications for practice. This ensures that readers can easily grasp the significance of the research and its potential practical consequences.

2) Comprehensive Overview of PD Activities: Although the paper describes the PD model and its elements—including workshops that emphasise spatial thinking—more thorough explanations of the activities and their particular goals for enhancing teaching of spatial ability would improve comprehension and applicability.

A detailed explanation of each PD activity has been included to better elucidate the goals and objectives aimed at improving spatial skills. Additionally, a new table (Table.1) has been created to provide a better understanding of the content of one of the workshops. Furthermore, improvements have been made to better illustrate how the workshops are related to the phases of the Lesson Study framework. This enhancement ensures a more coherent presentation of how the PD activities align with the systematic process of lesson planning and reflection.

3) Evidence of Impact: Teacher testimonies and observed modifications to teaching methods are included in the findings section, which is a useful resource. Adding more quantitative data or concrete proof of improvements in spatial ability-related student outcomes, however, would bolster the case for the PD model's efficacy.

This study constitutes the second phase of a three-phase design-based research project. In this phase, the focus was on qualitative outcomes, including teacher testimonies and changes in teaching practices. The goal was to initially explore and understand the qualitative effects of the professional development (PD) model on teaching strategies. This foundational knowledge is crucial for effectively planning the subsequent quantitative phase. Consequently, the third phase of the study is geared towards gathering more quantitative data and performing a detailed analysis of student outcomes. This phase aims to provide the solid evidence sought by the reviewer. It leverages the qualitative insights from the previous phases to quantitatively assess improvements in students' spatial abilities. This methodical approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation of the PD model, assessing both qualitative changes in teaching methods and quantitative student learning outcomes.

4) Limitations Discussion: Although certain difficulties in incorporating spatial thinking into the curriculum are noted, a more thorough examination of the study's constraints, possible biases, and the applicability of the results would offer a more impartial perspective.

We would like to thank the reviewer for such important suggestions. In response, we have included a detailed discussion of limitations at the end of the discussion section.

5) Use of Passive vs. Active Voice: A balance between the two is often advantageous in academic writing. Although the passive voice is frequently used, the active voice can improve the readability and dynamic quality of sentences.

The manuscript has been proofread, during which the use of passive and active voice was adjusted.

6) Consistency in Terminology: To prevent misunderstandings, make sure that terminology is used consistently throughout the work.

A careful revision was conducted to ensure consistency in terminology throughout the entire article, particularly regarding the terms "spatial ability" and "spatial thinking." This was done to avoid any potential misunderstandings and to ensure an accurate representation of the concepts discussed.

7) Punctuation and Compound Sentences: To make clauses in compound sentences more understandable, employ commas.

The manuscript has undergone a proofreading process where the sentence structure, comma usage, and grammatical errors were carefully corrected.

Reviewer 2 Report

1) The title of the article is very striking for its involvement and interest with STEM education, which is very well justified in the introduction and in the first section of the theoretical framework, but this is not reflected in the process where the research is conducted and neither in the results and conclusions.
2) In the theoretical framework each section is well understood, but the relationship between the classroom study as a practice for professional development and the IMTP framework for PD assessment is missing.
3) In the methodology, the sequence and development of the workshops is explained in a very superficial way; I consider that it would be necessary to add examples of at least one of the topics.
4) It is not possible to understand the connection between the workshops that the teachers did with the classes in the elementary classroom with the students.

Author Response

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for their comments. They have been most helpful as we have revised this manuscript. Below, we list the comments made by the reviewer and explain the changes in the manuscript we have made in accordance. Thank you very much for your time and constructive feedback.

1) The title of the article is very striking for its involvement and interest with STEM education, which is very well justified in the introduction and in the first section of the theoretical framework, but this is not reflected in the process where the research is conducted and neither in the results and conclusions.

The primary goal of the entire Design-Based Research (DBR) process is to facilitate professional development for primary school teachers, aiming to improve the spatial abilities of students within STEM disciplines. In each cycle of the DBR—this study being part of the second cycle—detailed explanations are provided during workshops to show teachers the significance of various spatial components in STEM, as well as their reflection in curriculum objectives. Table 1 illustrates how STEM is related to the curricula of Mathematics, Science, Design, and Technology, emphasizing the influence of each spatial component during the workshops.

2) In the theoretical framework each section is well understood, but the relationship between the classroom study as a practice for professional development and the IMTP framework for PD assessment is missing.

Thank you for the feedback. We have expanded on how this relationship is apparent within the IMTP framework. Both phases of the PD—workshop and LS—incorporate core principles of the IMTP framework. The workshop phase focuses on instilling insights, motivating goals through reflection, and fostering techniques through lesson plan formulation. The LS phase then builds on these by fostering teacher techniques through direct observation and reflection, alongside implementing new practices through lesson planning and rehearsal in real classroom scenarios. The key to linking the classroom study (LS phase) to the IMTP framework for PD assessment lies in understanding how these activities directly contribute to professional development. The LS phase serves as a practical application of the concepts and strategies discussed in the workshop phase. Teachers implement their lesson plans, observe their peers, and refine their techniques based on real-time feedback. This cycle of planning, observing, and reflecting helps bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application, a fundamental aspect of professional development. Furthermore, the IMTP framework for PD assessment likely emphasizes the evaluation of both knowledge acquisition (as seen in the workshop phase) and the application of that knowledge in teaching practice (as demonstrated in the LS phase). By assessing the effectiveness of these implementations in the classroom, the IMTP framework can provide a comprehensive measure of PD success.

3) In the methodology, the sequence and development of the workshops is explained in a very superficial way; I consider that it would be necessary to add examples of at least one of the topics.

The workshop procedures have been significantly revised, leading to an enhanced and more detailed breakdown of each workshop phase. A new table (Table 1) offers a thorough step-by-step description of the second workshop, including the sequence of activities and the clarification of learning objectives. It also details how the spatial ability component, specifically visualization in this second workshop, is interconnected with STEM disciplines.

4) It is not possible to understand the connection between the workshops that the teachers did with the classes in the elementary classroom with the students.

A detailed revision was conducted on the workshop description, where all phases of the workshop were explained for each week and the 2nd workshop is elaborated in a new table. Following the table, a more concise explanation of the Lesson Study (LS) framework applied is provided in detail. This explanation highlights the connection between the input from the workshops, specifically the modeling phase where teachers participated, and its practical application in the LS phase. During this phase, teachers in groups of three and five collaborated to create new lesson plans with the aim of incorporating more spatial skills to enhance children's spatial abilities.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congrats, 
I accept the revision