Empowering Diverse Learners: Integrating Tangible Technologies and Low-Tech Tools to Foster STEM Engagement and Creativity in Early Childhood Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a qualitative study on a pedagogical experience about the integration of  tangible technologies and low-tech tools to foster STEM engagement and creativity in Early Childhood Education. The integration of STEM education into early childhood classrooms has gained considerable attention in recent years, driven by the need to prepare young learners for a rapidly evolving technological world. The topic is consistent with the purpose and scope of the journal. However, there are major revisions to bring before acceptance of the manuscript. One potential weakness of the article is the limited amount of empirical evidence provided to support the use of tangible interfaces in early childhood education. The research design is weak, with a qualitative investigation which doesn't allow to make generalizable inferences. Moreover, the theoretical framework on integrating tangible technologies and low-tech tools in early childhood STEM education requires a huge effort to integrate more international literature. The article, while advocating for both high-tech and low-tech tools, lacks specificity in terms of which tools are most effective for different age groups or learning objectives. The final reference to the implication to build more inclusive learning space seems to be juxtapposed as an additional implication not adequately supported by the outcomes of the study. 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written paper. If the authors could comment on the external validity of this study, it could strengthen the paper further. That is, will this result hold in other settings? 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has a lot of potential and deals with a very relevant topic for inclusive early childhood education. However, it needs a major reorganization in its analysis, methodology, and critical discussion to meet the academic standards of indexed journals, such as Education Sciences.

1. Underdeveloped theoretical framework: Although foundations such as inquiry-based learning (IBL), Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and social constructivism are mentioned, the relationship between these theories is not clearly explained or directly linked to the analysis of the results. Strengthening this part would make the connection between theory and practice more fluid.
2. Weak methodological design: Although the article indicates a qualitative case study, little detail is given on how the data was collected and analyzed. The coding approach, analysis criteria, and how internal validity (such as triangulation or peer validation) is ensured are not clearly explained, making the results less reliable.
3. Unclear presentation of results: Although general findings are mentioned, they are not differentiated from interpretations. There is a lack of direct quotes from participants (children or teachers), enriched descriptions of the classroom, or specific examples of the use of tangible technologies that would help to better understand the points presented.
4. Vague discussion and conclusions: The discussion of the results is more descriptive than analytical. It would be helpful to more explicitly connect the findings to existing literature and justify how this research contributes new or relevant knowledge.
5. Quality of language: Although the text is generally understandable, several long and confusing sentences and redundant use of academic language are present. Revising the style would help make it more fluent and precise.
6. Structure and coherence: The article is long but lacks an internal structure to guide the reader. Reorganizing some sections, especially methods and results, would make it easier to read.
7. Discussion: There is a lack of critical articulation and excessive repetition. Although the importance of integrating technologies in inclusive settings is addressed, the discussion does not go deeply into the possible challenges or limitations of the study, which is essential for a solid analysis. Furthermore, it repeats ideas already presented in the introduction and results without providing new analysis or synthesis. It is recommended that the findings be contrasted with studies that show difficulties or contradictions in incorporating technologies in early childhood education to enrich the debate and show a critical and informed position.
8. The role of the teacher: a key issue that was not explored in depth. Although it is mentioned that teachers went from being fearful to being confident in the use of technology thanks to professional training, this point deserves further analysis. It would be interesting to include testimonies, examples of changes in practice, or descriptions of how different types of training influenced teachers. In addition, further exploration of change processes in teachers' beliefs and practices, supported by models of continuing professional development, would contribute to a more complete understanding of the issue.
9. Family and community involvement: Valuable but anecdotal contribution

The article rightly recognizes the importance of families and community as key actors in children's learning. Yet this involvement is presented more as an anecdotal description than an outcome analyzed with clear criteria.

 Include categories of analysis or systematized evidence to demonstrate how this participation had a concrete impact on children's learning or attitudes. This would reinforce the article's empirical character.

10. Future lines of research: Relevant but vague

The “Future Research” section raises promising lines, such as a longitudinal study or the analysis of culturally sustainable practices, but lacks methodological concreteness. It does not specify how such studies could be structured or what gaps in the present work they would address.

Be more specific in defining the variables, methodological approaches, or contexts to be explored. For example, what indicators would be used to assess the impact of family-school relationships in the long term?

11. Conclusions: Repetitive and uncritical

The conclusions section reiterates ideas already mentioned in the discussion without moving towards a more analytical synthesis or explicitly acknowledging the study's limitations. Furthermore, the findings are assumed to be generalizable despite being a single case study with a qualitative approach.

Language quality: Although the text is generally comprehensible, several long and confusing sentences and redundant use of academic language are present. It is advisable to revise the style to make it more fluent, clear, and precise. In addition, minor grammatical errors and unnatural constructions affect the professionalism of the manuscript. Proofreading by a native speaker or a language editing service specialized in academic texts in English would be highly recommended to reach the standards of indexed journals such as Education Sciences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language quality: Although the text is generally comprehensible, several long and confusing sentences and redundant use of academic language are present. It is advisable to revise the style to make it more fluent, clear, and precise. In addition, minor grammatical errors and unnatural constructions affect the professionalism of the manuscript. Proofreading by a native speaker or a language editing service specialized in academic texts in English would be highly recommended to reach the standards of indexed journals such as Education Sciences.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find all the elements of consistency and soundness in the methodological proposal presented in the article, which perfectly integrates the proposal for visual analysis and the proposal for thematic analysis that accounts for inclusion in digital teaching and learning environments; data triangulation, the incorporation of some updated theoretical references, and the fact of being explicit in proposing and/or describing analytical procedures, among other things, make the findings presented credible and valid. In this sense, the article meets the scientific quality criteria established by the journal Education Sciences and can therefore be considered suitable for publication.

 

Author Response

Please check the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf