Enhancing Early STEM Engagement: The Impact of Inquiry-Based Robotics Projects on First-Grade Students’ Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy and Collaborative Attitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some concepts are repeated (e.g., benefits of robotics and benefits of inquiry-based learning). These could be summarized to make the text more concise.

References: There are several incomplete citations (Author, 20XX); actual references should be added. Link to research questions: Some parts explain what robotics is, what inquiry is, etc., without linking directly to the RQs. It is suggested that the theoretical framework be emphasized to give meaning to each part of the RQ. There is a lot of emphasis on robotics, but less on the fundamentals of inquiry-based learning.

Some sections (instruments, procedures) are long; they could be summarized in tables or diagrams for better readability. Justification of the design: It is classified as quasi-experimental, although the lack of randomization and bias management could be argued.
Details on the analysis:Chi-square and t-tests are indicated, but the handling of missing values or test assumptions is omitted.

There is repetition of the interpretations of each table, which could be summarized in paragraphs by RQ.
Visualization: Tables with many numbers could be replaced by simple graphs to highlight significant differences.
Practical significance: In addition to the p-value, including the effect size may help to interpret the educational relevance.
Writing: Simplify long and redundant sentences to make reading easier.

Occasionally, the discussion repeats results without linking them to theory. More emphasis could be placed on how the findings are explained or refuted by previous studies.
I'd like you to present alternative explanations and methodological limitations more succinctly.
Gender: A pervasive discussion on gender ensued, which can be summarized, focusing on the most relevant findings and their implications.
Conclusions

Redundancy: Several of the ideas have already been transferred to the discussion. It could be a short paragraph per key finding.
Practical recommendations: Specify them clearly, such as those referring to ‘including inquiry projects at the end of the course to reinforce problem solving.’
Future research: summarize in 2-3 main ideas; do not repeat very scattered ideas.
English
There are many very long and very formal sentences; simplifying them would make them more understandable.
Technical terms: Ensure that terms such as inquiry-based learning, self-efficacy, and capstone project are consistently and clearly translated.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are many very long and very formal sentences; simplifying them would make them more understandable.
Technical terms: Ensure that terms such as inquiry-based learning, self-efficacy, and capstone project are consistently and clearly translated.

Author Response

Thank you.
A detailed reply is attached is the file.

Comment 1:
Some concepts are repeated (e.g., benefits of robotics and benefits of inquiry-based learning). These could be summarized to make the text more concise.

Response 1:
We agree and have revised the text to remove repetition and streamline overlapping discussions of robotics and inquiry-based learning, making the section more concise and focused.

Comment 2:
References: There are several incomplete citations (Author, 20XX); actual references should be added.

Response 2:
Thank you for drawing attention to the placeholder citations (e.g., Author, 20XX). These placeholders were intentionally used to comply with the journal’s double-blind review policy. The full and accurate references are included in the de-anonymized version of the manuscript, which will be submitted upon acceptance or once the review stage requiring anonymity concludes.

Comment 3:
Link to research questions: Some parts explain what robotics is, what inquiry is, etc., without linking directly to the RQs. It is suggested that the theoretical framework be emphasized to give meaning to each part of the RQ. There is a lot of emphasis on robotics, but less on inquiry-based learning.

Response 3:
Thank you for highlighting the need to more clearly connect the theoretical background to the study’s aims and research questions. We added explicit linking sentences at the end of the Theoretical Framework section to clarify how constructivism, inquiry-based learning, and motivational theories underpin the study.
We also strengthened the discussion of inquiry-based learning by adding new subsections:

• 2.3. Pedagogical Approaches: Integrating Inquiry and Projects

• 2.6. Gender and Inquiry-Based Learning
  These changes create a more balanced theoretical foundation aligned with the study’s aims and RQs.

Comment 4:
Some sections (instruments, procedures) are long; they could be summarized in tables or diagrams for better readability.

Response 4:
We appreciate this suggestion. To improve readability, we added Table 1 (Summary of Study Instruments and Measures), which concisely presents all measures linked to each construct. We also shortened and reorganized the text to avoid redundancy and improve flow.

Comment 5:
Justification of the design: It is classified as quasi-experimental, although the lack of randomization and bias management could be argued.

Response 5:
We revised the Research Design section to justify the quasi-experimental classification and detail bias mitigation steps:

• Verified baseline equivalence between groups on demographic and pre-study performance measures.

• Confirmed no significant differences across groups.

• Noted both groups received the same robotics curriculum to minimize instructional variability.
  We also expanded the Limitations section to clarify that although causal inference is limited, baseline equivalence strengthens confidence in group comparisons.

Comment 6:
Details on the analysis: Chi-square and t-tests are indicated, but the handling of missing values or test assumptions is omitted.

Response 6:
We clarified data handling in the Data Analysis section:
Only the 176 children who completed both pre- and post-tests were included in the final analysis. Participants with missing data were excluded, and test assumptions for Chi-square and t-tests were verified.
We added the following sentence to subsection 4.3:
“Children with missing data at either time point were excluded to ensure consistency across comparisons.”

Comment 7:
There is repetition of the interpretations of each table, which could be summarized in paragraphs by RQ. Visualization: Tables with many numbers could be replaced by simple graphs to highlight significant differences.

Response 7:
We fully agree and revised Section 5 to enhance clarity and flow:

1. Text Conciseness: Repetitive table interpretations were condensed into concise paragraphs organized by RQ.

2. Gender Analysis (RQ6): Replaced lengthy itemized descriptions with a single summary paragraph focusing on the main pattern of results.

3. Visualization: While one reviewer requested keeping detailed tables, we reduced narrative redundancy and removed redundant symbols for cleaner presentation.

Comment 8:
Writing: Simplify long and redundant sentences to make reading easier.

Response 8:
We simplified lengthy and repetitive sentences throughout the manuscript to improve clarity and readability.

Comment 9:

Occasionally, the discussion repeats results without linking them to theory. More emphasis could be placed on how the findings are explained or refuted by previous studies. Present alternative explanations and methodological limitations more succinctly.

Response 9:
We revised the Discussion, Conclusions, and Limitations sections to reduce repetition and strengthen theory integration.
Key theoretical links were added:

• Constructionism: Hands-on robotics fosters early self-efficacy (Papert, 1980).

• Social Cognitive Theory: Gains in self-efficacy framed by mastery and social validation (Bandura, 1986).

• Self-Determination Theory: Collaborative inquiry promotes relatedness and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

• Inquiry-Based Learning: The final project enabled knowledge transfer and deeper conceptualization (de Jong et al., 2023; Pedaste et al., 2015).
  We also made alternative explanations and limitations more concise and theory-grounded.

Comment 10:
Gender: The discussion on gender is extensive and could be summarized to focus on the most relevant findings and implications.

Response 10:
We added a new subsection 2.6. Gender and Inquiry-Based Learning to establish a stronger theoretical foundation and contextualize gender-related findings.
We then condensed Section 6.6 (Gender as a Moderator) to highlight only the most relevant results and implications:
Girls showed stronger gains in problem-solving self-efficacy and inquiry-based problem-solving, aligning with research suggesting that inquiry-rich, collaborative contexts particularly support girls’ confidence and engagement (Beisser, 2012; Montuori et al., 2022; Angeli & Valanides, 2020).
These findings indicate that gender differences are not innate but develop later, emphasizing the protective value of early IBL robotics experiences in promoting equitable STEM engagement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research focuses on methodological challenges in robotics education for primary schools and their significant implications for STEM education. Its results can be applied from both theoretical and practical perspectives. However, the manuscript requires improvement in several areas.

- The Introduction section simplifies the differences between traditional, non-inquiry-based teaching that relies on summative assessment and inquiry-based teaching that utilises formative assessment. Knowledge construction can occur through various approaches, and numerous teaching methods emphasise student activity. Additionally, methods focused on information transfer can also incorporate formal assessments.

- The Theoretical background section should be revised and expanded. It is important to provide an overview of the curriculum objectives, research directions, and preliminary research findings related to educational robotics in an international context, particularly in the areas of elementary school and early childhood education. What educational goals did the previous research aim to achieve, and what methods were employed? What are the outcomes of this research, and what is the research gap?

- In its current form, the theoretical background seems to be more concerned with supporting the background of its own intervention. It is essential to use terms accurately, as the text also mentions inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based, and model-based learning, as well as their various combinations, such as inquiry-driven problem-solving. It is unclear why the method used in this program is referred to as inquiry-based learning, as it appears to be a mixed-method approach that incorporates elements from several other teaching methods.

- There are several forms of inquiry-based learning (structured, guided, open). How was open inquiry implemented at this age? How was the students' work guided?

- Research question 6. concerns gender impact. This topic will be discussed in the discussion section only. Preliminary research on gender issues should be discussed in the theoretical section.

- It is unclear why these particular dependent variables were examined.

- It is not clear how exactly the control group learned. What were the common and different elements in the learning of the two groups?

- A specific example (as in the appendix) helps to understand the final project (its process, duration, whether extra study time was required, what kind of teacher support the students received during its carrying out).

- How reliable are the measuring instruments, given the limited items used for each variable? The conclusions drawn from the results should be treated with caution.

- In the tables, it is sufficient to write the % sign in the header.

- The conclusions should be approached with caution. Only those conclusions that are backed by data collected during the study should be drawn. For example, since the students' solutions were not evaluated for correctness and their knowledge and skills were not assessed, this particular statement needs to be reevaluated: “One of the most robust findings of this study was the significant positive effect on inquiry-driven problem-solving and the ability to apply learning in real-world contexts. Children who participated in the final project were significantly more confident in using robotics to address practical challenges and imagine solutions to community problems. This suggests that these culminating experiences do more than simply build technical skills; they foster the critical transfer of learning by helping students bridge abstract concepts with meaningful, real-life applications.” (In the Discussion section 6.4)

- What further research would be needed to verify the effectiveness of the method used in the experimental group? 

Author Response

Thank you for all your suggestions.

The detailed  answer to all the comments is attached as a file.
A shorter version is:

Comment 1

The research focuses on methodological challenges in robotics education for primary schools and their significant implications for STEM education. Its results can be applied from both theoretical and practical perspectives. However, the manuscript requires improvement in several areas.

Response 1

We appreciate the reviewer’s recognition of the study’s methodological relevance and agree that several sections required strengthening. The manuscript has been extensively revised to address all identified areas, as detailed below.

Comment 2

The Introduction section simplifies the differences between traditional, non-inquiry-based teaching that relies on summative assessment and inquiry-based teaching that utilizes formative assessment. Knowledge construction can occur through various approaches, and numerous teaching methods emphasize student activity. Additionally, methods focused on information transfer can also incorporate formal assessments.

Response 2

Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that our original framing oversimplified the distinctions between instructional methods. We revised the Introduction to present a more nuanced view, clarifying that inquiry-based and teacher-led methods exist on a continuum rather than as a strict dichotomy.

Revised Introduction (new first paragraph):
Across educational theory and practice, differences are often drawn between inquiry-based and more teacher-led approaches, but in reality these categories overlap and exist on a continuum. Many traditional models emphasize direct instruction, where educators transmit knowledge through lectures, demonstrations, and structured assignments; however, such approaches can also include student activities and formative feedback. Inquiry-based learning (IBL), rooted in constructivist theories, places greater emphasis on students generating questions, investigating, experimenting, and reflecting (Chin & Chia, 2004; Pedaste et al., 2015; Spronken-Smith, 2012). Rather than passively receiving information, students are encouraged to explore problems, form hypotheses, and seek evidence-based solutions through hands-on engagement. This process can nurture deeper conceptual understanding, intrinsic motivation, and transferable thinking skills.

Comment 3

The Theoretical Background section should be revised and expanded.

Response 3

Thank you for this valuable recommendation. The section was substantially expanded with new subsections providing a stronger theoretical basis:

• 2.2. Educational Robotics in International Early Childhood Context

• 2.3. Pedagogical Approaches: Integrating Inquiry and Projects

• 2.6. Gender and Inquiry-Based Learning

These additions offer a global perspective on educational robotics, outline key pedagogical models, and integrate current research findings and gaps relevant to early childhood education.

Comment 4

It is essential to use terms accurately, as the text mentions inquiry-based, problem-based, project-based, and model-based learning. It is unclear why the method used in this program is referred to as inquiry-based learning, as it appears to be a mixed-method approach.

Response 4

We appreciate this observation. The revised Section 2.3 (Pedagogical Approaches: Integrating Inquiry and Projects) clarifies that while related learner-centered pedagogies share overlapping features, our study adopts IBL as its primary descriptor because it emphasizes questioning, hypothesis testing, and evidence-based reasoning. Project and problem-based elements were embedded within the inquiry cycle but did not represent separate pedagogical paradigms. The term inquiry-driven problem solving was consistently replaced with inquiry-based problem solving for terminological precision.

Comment 5

There are several forms of inquiry-based learning (structured, guided, open). How was open inquiry implemented at this age? How was the students' work guided?

Response 5

Thank you for raising this point. Section 3.3 was expanded to describe the scaffolding process. Although described as “open inquiry,” the project was adapted to be age-appropriate: teachers facilitated brainstorming, guided planning, and used reflective questions (e.g., “What is the need?” “What is the technological solution?”) without providing direct solutions. Decision-making remained student-led, and a final reflection phase supported iterative thinking.

Comment 6

Research Question 6 concerns gender impact. Preliminary research on gender issues should be discussed in the theoretical section.

Response 6

We agree and added subsection 2.6. Gender and Inquiry-Based Learning, which synthesizes prior research showing that girls often respond positively to collaborative, inquiry-rich robotics contexts (Beisser, 2012; Montuori et al., 2022; Angeli & Valanides, 2020). This provides a theoretical foundation for examining gender as a moderating variable in our study.

Comment 7

It is unclear why these particular dependent variables were examined.

Response 7

We clarified the rationale in the final paragraph of the Theoretical Framework. The selected variables—problem-solving self-efficacy, collaboration, inquiry orientation, and future STEM interest—represent key outcomes emphasized in early STEM and robotics education literature, reflecting both cognitive and affective engagement dimensions.

Comment 8

It is not clear how exactly the control group learned. What were the common and different elements in the learning of the two groups?

Response 8

This was clarified in Section 4.4.6 (Procedure). Both groups followed the same robotics curriculum; the difference lay in the final 4–5 weeks. The research group engaged in an inquiry-based final project, while the control group continued teacher-led, structured lessons covering the same content but through predefined tasks.

Comment 9

A specific example (as in the appendix) helps to understand the final project.

Response 9

We added Appendix A: Detailed Example of Moon Settlement Final Project Implementation, describing the context, timeline, and teacher support for the project. The example outlines a seven-phase inquiry process, emphasizing iterative design, teamwork, reflection, and teacher facilitation.

Comment 10

How reliable are the measuring instruments, given the limited items used for each variable? The conclusions should be treated with caution.

Response 10

We fully agree. The Limitations section was strengthened to explicitly discuss the limited reliability due to few items per construct. We also tempered the Discussion and Conclusions, clarifying that findings indicate associations rather than causal effects. Future research recommendations now include validation and triangulation with performance-based measures.

Comment 11

In the tables, it is sufficient to write the % sign in the header.

Response 11

All tables were corrected accordingly—the % sign now appears only in the column headers.

Comment 12

The conclusions should be approached with caution. Only conclusions supported by collected data should be drawn.

Response 12

We agree completely. Section 6.4 (Discussion) and the Conclusions were revised to ensure all interpretations align strictly with the collected data. Claims about “real-world problem solving” and “deep transfer” were modified to reflect children’s self-reported confidence rather than objectively assessed performance.

Comment 13

What further research would be needed to verify the effectiveness of the method used in the experimental group?

Response 13

The Conclusions and Future Directions section was expanded to outline specific next steps: replication across diverse settings, inclusion of objective measures (e.g., coding accuracy, spatial reasoning tasks), and longitudinal studies of retention. We also recommend exploring gender-responsive instructional designs and comparing different inquiry-based approaches to broaden understanding of their educational impact.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carefully considered the reviewers' suggestions to enhance the manuscript. They made comprehensive revisions and additions, resulting in a work that is now much more accurate and easier to understand. This research represents a valuable contribution to the study of robotics in early childhood STEM education.