Using Technologies to Spatialize STEM Learning by Co-Creating Symbols with Young Children

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important paper because there is so little work on teachers supporting young children engaging in STEM. I thought the way the results were presented was clear, with strong assertions and data to back them up through conversations and photographs. Here are a few suggestions I feel would strengthen the manuscript:

1. A little more description of how the data were analyzed would be helpful. There was not enough information provided on the process.

2. An inquiry-based model (or something similar) was apparent from what was taking place in the classroom and how the teacher was a facilitator in the learning process, as opposed to utilizing a more traditional teaching model of the teacher as all-knowing and providing all of the knowledge. I think this should be discussed more in the context of the study. It is not typical, and more should be said about the philosophy of the school or teacher that embraces this. 

Author Response

Comments 1: A little more description of how the data were analyzed would be helpful. There was not enough information provided on the process.

Responds 1: Thank you for pointing out this. We have detailed the development process of coding schemes and the data analysis process. (see section 2.4). 

Comments 2: An inquiry-based model (or something similar) was apparent from what was taking place in the classroom and how the teacher was a facilitator in the learning process, as opposed to utilizing a more traditional teaching model of the teacher as all-knowing and providing all of the knowledge. I think this should be discussed more in the context of the study. It is not typical, and more should be said about the philosophy of the school or teacher that embraces this.

Responds 2: We strongly agree with your suggestion. Therefore, we have supplemented and adjusted the content in both the literature review and discussion parts. In the literature review part, we have supplemented the part where we discuss that more teachers are increasing their use of integrative technologies and in their selection of scaffolding strategies to promote learning(see lines 135-150). We have highlighted the traditional teachers’ role in building knowledge in the Hong Kong context (see lines 190-220). In the discussion part, we have also supplemented the content on transforming teachers' roles and the impact on Asia's early STEM classroom culture. (see section 4.4).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is an exploratory case study on the application of technology in early childhood STEM education. Conducted in a kindergarten in Hong Kong, it demonstrates how technology integration fosters the co-creation of symbols between children and teachers, transforming the culture of STEM learning. The study identifies three new roles technology plays in children’s STEM learning—application, mediation, and catalyst. Through a series of activities, including the use of digital maps and programmable toys, it enhances children’s co-construction of knowledge and development of spatial thinking. The main contribution of this research lies in illustrating how technology supports children's inquiry-based learning within STEM tasks and shifts the approach from knowledge transfer to co-creation of new knowledge through teachers’ scaffolded instruction strategies. A limitation of this study is its small sample size, involving only one class and one teacher, which may impact the generalizability of the results.

Feedback for Revision:

1. Abstract 1.1 The study’s significance is not explicitly stated; a brief introduction highlighting the study's innovation would be beneficial. 1.2 The research question is somewhat ambiguous. 1.3 While the research findings are clear and specific, the description of the research methods is unclear; the methods could be improved by including details on the analysis approach.

2. Introduction 2.1 The first two paragraphs provide a comprehensive overview of STEM education implementation and its impact on child development but do not emphasize the study’s focus—technology use in STEM education. Adding details from the review could strengthen the connection to the research question. 2.2 The Introduction introduces STEM education and how children actively acquire knowledge, yet these sections seem somewhat disconnected. For example, the discussion of children’s active knowledge acquisition should be closely tied to STEM education, with a mention of the study's innovation of shifting from passive reception to collaborative creation in STEM education.

3. Literature Review 3.1 In “New Trends Incorporating Technologies in ECE STEM Education,” the integration of technology and STEM education is well-explained, but even though STEM is no longer a new term, a brief introduction to STEM education could improve the transition to technology integration, enhancing the completeness of the article. 3.2 In "The way children use technologies to develop STEM knowledge is dynamic and adaptable" (P2), should the bold text be uniformly formatted with first-line indentation? 3.3 In Table 1 (P3), “Identification of abstract concepts or theory” appears twice and is numbered as 4; however, “Questioning” lacks a number. Should this be corrected?

4. Method 4.1 Information about the participating teacher and children is unclear. 4.2 Data collection details are ambiguous; what types of data were collected—text, video, or other forms? 4.3 The source for Deductive Coding is not provided. 4.4 The Data Analysis section is overly brief; could you elaborate on the coding process, stages, themes, and specific coding approaches used?

5. Result 5.1 In “Activity 1: Co-recognize the symbols of the landmarks on digital maps” (P6), the content discusses how the teacher uses scaffolding and technology to help children learn symbols on the electronic map. Would "symbols on the electronic map" be more appropriate than "symbols of the landmarks"? 5.2 In the paragraph following Figure 3 (P9), terms like “through,” “from,” and “in stu” are italicized; should this be modified? 5.3 In the interview text above Figure 5 (P9), it mentions pressing the digital toy twice to move from the current location to a specific school. Why twice? Could you briefly describe the child’s route planning? 5.4 “However, they noticed that their vehicles frequently crashed into each other. The teacher took this opportunity to initiate a discussion about traffic congestion with the children” (P9). Why was traffic congestion discussed in response to vehicle collisions, as it seems inconsistent with the subsequent content?

6. Discussion 6.1 Line 7, “This signifies a departure from the previously separate use of technology by teachers and children in ECE STEM education in Hong Kong”—a brief explanation of previous practices in Hong Kong ECE STEM would clarify the contrast. 6.2 The second paragraph (P13) does not clearly state the role of technology as a "catalyst," though it specifies its roles as "application" and "mediator" in the first two paragraphs. Would clarifying the catalytic role be helpful?

7. Conclusion 7.1 In the second paragraph, “The limitation of this study is that only one class of children and one teacher were selected to analyze the process of co-creating knowledge.” This limitation is somewhat broad; could you specify the potential impact of this sample?

Author Response

Comments 1: Abstract 1.1 The study’s significance is not explicitly stated; a brief introduction highlighting the study's innovation would be beneficial. 1.2 The research question is somewhat ambiguous. 1.3 While the research findings are clear and specific, the description of the research methods is unclear; the methods could be improved by including details on the analysis approach.

Responds 1: Thank you for your suggestions. We have re-organized the abstract. (see line 4-22). We also revised the research question 2 (see line 206-212).

Comments 2: Introduction 2.1 The first two paragraphs provide a comprehensive overview of STEM education implementation and its impact on child development but do not emphasize the study’s focus—technology use in STEM education. Adding details from the review could strengthen the connection to the research question. 2.2 The Introduction introduces STEM education and how children actively acquire knowledge, yet these sections seem somewhat disconnected. For example, the discussion of children’s active knowledge acquisition should be closely tied to STEM education, with a mention of the study's innovation of shifting from passive reception to collaborative creation in STEM education.

Responds 2: Thank you for your great suggestion. We have reorganized the introduction to clarify the two roles of STEM education for young children’s learning and development. We included/ added more details on the role of technologies in the process. (see line 31-75).

Comments 3: Literature Review 3.1 In “New Trends Incorporating Technologies in ECE STEM Education,” the integration of technology and STEM education is well-explained, but even though STEM is no longer a new term, a brief introduction to STEM education could improve the transition to technology integration, enhancing the completeness of the article. 3.2 In "The way children use technologies to develop STEM knowledge is dynamic and adaptable" (P2), should the bold text be uniformly formatted with first-line indentation? 3.3 In Table 1 (P3), “Identification of abstract concepts or theory” appears twice and is numbered as 4; however, “Questioning” lacks a number. Should this be corrected?

Responds 3: We strongly agree with you. We have revised point to point: 3.1) we have added a brief introduction to STEM education to help readers understand the importance of early STEM. (see lines 68-99); 3.2-3.3) we have corrected the content (see lines 99-102 and Table 1).

Comments 4: Method 4.1 Information about the participating teacher and children is unclear. 4.2 Data collection details are ambiguous; what types of data were collected—text, video, or other forms? 4.3 The source for Deductive Coding is not provided. 4.4 The Data Analysis section is overly brief; could you elaborate on the coding process, stages, themes, and specific coding approaches used?

Responds 4: Thank you for pointing out this. We have revised points to the point: 4.1) we have separated the description of participants as a sub-section for a holistic and clear illustration of the participating teacher (see section 2.2); 4.2) we have reorganized the content to clarify the data types. (see lines 259-288); 4.3-4.4) we have detailed the development process of coding schemes and data analysis process. (see section 2.4).

Comments 5: Result 5.1 In “Activity 1: Co-recognize the symbols of the landmarks on digital maps” (P6), the content discusses how the teacher uses scaffolding and technology to help children learn symbols on the electronic map. Would "symbols on the electronic map" be more appropriate than "symbols of the landmarks"? 5.2 In the paragraph following Figure 3 (P9), terms like “through,” “from,” and “in stu” are italicized; should this be modified? 5.3 In the interview text above Figure 5 (P9), it mentions pressing the digital toy twice to move from the current location to a specific school. Why twice? Could you briefly describe the child’s route planning? 5.4 “However, they noticed that their vehicles frequently crashed into each other. The teacher took this opportunity to initiate a discussion about traffic congestion with the children” (P9). Why was traffic congestion discussed in response to vehicle collisions, as it seems inconsistent with the subsequent content?

Responds 5: Thank you for your careful attention to detail. We have revised point to point: 5.1) We have adjusted it to “Co-recognize the symbols on digital maps”. (see lines 337-342); 5.2) we have removed unnecessary italics and retained only the core indicators in the coding scheme in the 'Results' section to help readers understand; 5.3) we have supplemented the situation description of the child’s design pathway after the dialogue. (see lines 435-450); and 5.4) we have corrected. (see lines 442-452).

Comments 6: Discussion 6.1 Line 7, “This signifies a departure from the previously separate use of technology by teachers and children in ECE STEM education in Hong Kong”—a brief explanation of previous practices in Hong Kong ECE STEM would clarify the contrast. 6.2 The second paragraph (P13) does not clearly state the role of technology as a "catalyst," though it specifies its roles as "application" and "mediator" in the first two paragraphs. Would clarifying the catalytic role be helpful?

Responds 6: Thank you for your suggestions. We have supplemented the content (see lines 490-501) and added some clarification (see lines 575-595).

Comments 7: Conclusion 7.1 In the second paragraph, “The limitation of this study is that only one class of children and one teacher were selected to analyze the process of co-creating knowledge.” This limitation is somewhat broad; could you specify the potential impact of this sample?

Responds 7: Thank you for pointing out this. We specify the potential impact of the limitation of the small sample and include references to future scenarios (see lines 700-720).