Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for choosing our journal. The manuscript focuses on qualitative research conducted with future primary level 6 teachers using a STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) approach. The topic is relevant, and its European context is highlighted. I would like to continue with the issues that need major revision. The novelty of the research is unclear: the research questions are not original, and they lack substantiation by a coherent, systematic review of studies, selecting studies according to the manuscript's topic. The cited references are primarily recent publications (within the last 5-10 years). Many of the statements in Part 2 lack detailed references to research and do not build a conceptual model. STEAM education tools are linked to various student outcomes, but mechanisms, relationships, etc., are not analyzed. The research questions, therefore, do not follow the theoretical background, and the aim and objectives of the paper are unclear. Presumably, this relates to the "Generation of research theory" mentioned in line 384. Some keywords are not explained or discussed (i.e., learning strategies, cognitive boost, p. 16). The algorithm provided by students for preparing the device may advance the current knowledge of STEAM education, but the steps (Fig. 7-8) are not explained in the main body of the paper. The conversations of the research participants during the post-activity phase are not analyzed, so it is unclear what the purpose of this part of the paper is. The key findings in the discussion section are not linked to the study results, and it is unclear from which data they are derived. I would suggest that in revising the article, it would be essential to present the research findings in a table or appendix and to code them properly. The English language should be improved. The ethics statements were not provided. The authors' interesting research on STEAM education aligns with the journal's scope and may interest the readership.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answers to reviewer 1:

Answer: Thank you for your review and your recommendations.

 

The novelty of the research is unclear: the research questions are not original, and they lack substantiation by a coherent, systematic review of studies, selecting studies according to the manuscript's topic. The cited references are primarily recent publications (within the last 5-10 years). 

Answer: Our approach in the teaching of STEM-related content is specific through the usage of 4D Frame Mechatronics Kit. The additional information about this mentioned toll with new reference [46] was added on the page 6 after row 265, on the page 18, after row 605 in the text and also in References page 20 after row 725. Our research has novelty in fact, that the toll developed in South Korea was used in Slovakian (Central European) condition at the Faculty of Education of Comenius University Bratislava.

 

Many of the statements in Part 2 lack detailed references to research and do not build a conceptual model. STEAM education tools are linked to various student outcomes, but mechanisms, relationships, etc., are not analysed. The research questions, therefore, do not follow the theoretical background, and the aim and objectives of the paper are unclear. Presumably, this relates to the "Generation of research theory" mentioned in line 384.

Answer: The goal of the research was to support pedagogical thinking by future primary education teachers, who obtain the possibility to be in the role of pupils. The qualitative research in principle doesn’t use existing previous research results, for this reason, we don’t use them in the frame of review studies.

We would like to underline, that the focus of the research was based on the pedagogical reasoning of students – future primary education teachers and the discussion specifies the didactic intervention that emerges from the students' interpretations. This statement is visible also in the part Discussion and Conclusion on the page 15 after row 553 in the new additional text.

Some keywords are not explained or discussed (i.e., learning strategies, cognitive boost, p. 16). The algorithm provided by students for preparing the device may advance the current knowledge of STEAM education, but the steps (Fig. 7-8) are not explained in the main body of the paper. The conversations of the research participants during the post-activity phase are not analysed, so it is unclear what the purpose of this part of the paper is. The key findings in the discussion section are not linked to the study results, and it is unclear from which data they are derived. I would suggest that in revising the article, it would be essential to present the research findings in a table or appendix and to code them properly.

Answer: The methodology of the qualitative research is already explained in the paper. The activities of students connected with Figures 7 and 8 is described in the text  on the pages 15-16 after row 513 and after row 526. The key findings are used also in the text on the page 18, row 605-611.  Key findings were processed according to the rules of qualitative educational research, mostly on the base of focused interviews. This research is presented in the Table 1 (text after page 8, row 394 ) and Table 2 (text after page 10, row 411) in the paper. The Tables have additional text. In the tables to the categories and concepts, it is highlighted that this is a demonstration and in one category - to student learning strategies, related (sub-categories) are also listed.

The part Discussion and Conclusion one the page 17 after row 553 has additional text, which demonstrates  the research results.

The ethics statements were not provided.

Answer: It was already communicate with Editorial Board of the journal via following email statement:

The research of this study was realized according to the Internal regulation Nr. 32/2022 “The internal quality assurance system for higher education of the Comenius University Bratislava”, part Eight „The Code of research ethics and rules of creative activity at Comenius University Bratislava”.

The report protocols and focused interviews were anonymous, and we didn’t collect any personal data from students. For this reason, according to Internal regulation Nr. 32/2022 ethics approval is not required for this type of study.

I obtained following answer:

From: Mason Xue <mason.xue@mdpi.com>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 3:04 AM
To: Gunčaga Ján <guncaga@fedu.uniba.sk>
Subject: Re: Ethics Information: Jan Guncaga: [Education Sciences] Manuscript ID: education-2987631 - Ethical Questions Confirmation

Dear Professor Guncaga,

Thank you for the detailed clarification. I shall take a record and transfer it to the office for further assessing.

Kind regards,

Mr. Mason Xue
E-Mail: mason.xue@mdpi.com

--
MDPI Office Tongzhou, Poly Metropolitan, Room 1202, Tongzhou

MDPI Education Science Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
E-Mail: education@mdpi.com
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is well-explained study with a very thorough literature review! The photos and captions help the reader better identify the experiential learning segments. I found minor typographical errors on lines: 335 (full-time); 344 (from, not form). I really like the approach used that required the students to create a how-to manual to help train future students. This is a great way for them to review the course content, experiments, etc. all the while challenging them to create a publication for their peers. Was a grading rubric used to evaluate any of the activities associated with this project? My other concern is that there was no meniton of the student population/participants. Had they completed a similar assignment(s) in previous classes? What were their learning preferences? 

Plenty of literature spanning decades has proven that experiential learning appraches can be an effective tool in teaching many subjects; especially STEM-related content. How is this any different??

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Well written manuscript.

Author Response

Answers to the reviewer 2:

Answer: Thank you for your review and your recommendations.

I found minor typographical errors on lines: 335 (full-time); 344 (from, not form).

Answer: The text was corrected at the mentioned lines.

Was a grading rubric used to evaluate any of the activities associated with this project?

Answer: The observation was not structured, for this reason we don’t´ use the grading rubric.

Had they completed a similar assignment(s) in previous classes? What were their learning preferences? 

Answer: It is added the information (page 7, row 340) that subject “Technical Education in Primary Education” is compulsory course in the study program “Teacher Training for Primary Education”. That means that participation at this course is independent from the learning preferences of the students.

Plenty of literature spanning decades has proven that experiential learning approaches can be an effective tool in teaching many subjects; especially STEM-related content. How is this any different??

Answer: Our approach in the teaching of STEM-related content is specific through the usage of 4D Frame Mechatronics Kit. The additional information about this mentioned toll with new reference [46] was added on the page 6 after row 265, on the page 18, after row 616 in the text and also in References page 20 after row 758. The additional text is in the part Discussion and Conclusion on the page 17 after row 553.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the answers.

The data are adequate to test the research questions and remain the same.

No new analyses were added (not mentioned in Phase 1) 

The authors' conclusions are based on the data.

Useful new additional text—the focus of the study, in the 'Discussion and Conclusions' section on page 17, one page after line 553, contains additional text that illustrates the study's results.

References should be corrected according to https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answer: Thank you for your review and your recommendations.

No new analyses were added (not mentioned in Phase 1) 

Answer: It was added additional text with new references on the page 10, row 421-430. The new references were added to the page 21 after row 778.

References should be corrected according to https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references

Answer: References were controlled and change according to the mentioned webpage