Cultural STEM Night: An Online Collaboration for Culturally Responsive Teaching Between American and Korean Teacher Candidates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• This is an innovative approach. I enjoyed learning about this strategy. 
• You walked readers through the context and value of the study in the introduction nicely.
• This is missing a more traditional literature review. What you have here is a nice start, but not thorough enough to serve the purposes of a literature review. 
• The methods are appropriate to the research questions.
• You've described your methods clearly and effectively. 
• Your discussion of results is clear and useful. 
• I would like more of your understanding about why Korean students' response to "How good at STEM are you?" decreased in the post-survey. 
• Your inclusion of participant quotes was nicely balanced. 

Author Response

Comments 1: This is missing a more traditional literature review. What you have here is a nice start, but not thorough enough to serve the purposes of a literature review.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included a traditional literature review (line 38-42 in Page 1), updated the subtitles for the literature review (line 88, 104, & 119 in Page 2), and repositioned the research questions to appear after this section (line 163 in Page 3).   “The literature review examines five key strands of scholarship relevant to the present study: (1) equity in STEM education, (2) culturally responsive teaching in STEM, (3) teacher preparation for CRT, (4) cross-national collaborations in teacher education, and (5) the role of technology in facilitating culturally responsive STEM instruction.”

Comments 2: I would like more of your understanding about why Korean students' response to "How good at STEM are you?" decreased in the post-survey.

 

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised the Self-Identity section under the Results now to includes a more detailed explanation for the decrease observed in Korean students’ post-survey responses (line 320-330 Page 8). “Engaging with peers from a different educational system and encountering alternative approaches to problem-solving might have made some participants more aware of areas for growth, leading to more conservative self-ratings. This shift does not necessarily indicate a loss of actual competence, but rather a recalibration of self-perception in light of new experiences and higher perceived benchmarks. These findings are consistent with Kim (2022), who reported that Korean teacher candidates often exhibit lower self-efficacy in inquiry-based teaching despite strong content knowledge. Cultural norms that emphasize modesty or discourage self-assertion may further contribute to this contrast in confidence between U.S. and Korean participants. Together, these factors suggest that the decrease in self-rating may reflect increased self-awareness rather than diminished ability.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The study is well-conceived, clearly structured, and grounded in a solid methodological framework. It addresses a highly relevant topic in the field of teacher education, with particular attention to intercultural competence and inclusivity in STEM instruction.

The manuscript presents a thoughtful combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. The use of the STEM Affinity Test and the Cultural Intelligence Scale in a pre- and post-program survey format over six weeks is methodologically sound. The quantitative findings show statistically significant improvements across all subdomains of STEM affinity—identity, interest, self-concept, value, and attitudes—as well as in key areas of cultural intelligence, including the metacognitive, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions. The acknowledgment that motivational CQ did not show significant gains, likely due to limited interaction time, demonstrates a critical and balanced interpretation of the results.

The qualitative data, obtained from written reflections and focus group discussions, reinforces the quantitative findings and provides valuable insights. Participants reported greater instructional adaptability, increased cultural awareness, and enhanced confidence in designing inclusive STEM lessons. These findings highlight the effectiveness of the program in promoting reflective and culturally responsive teaching practices.

The description of the Cultural STEM Night (CSN) initiative is clear and compelling. By engaging teacher candidates from the U.S. and South Korea in synchronous workshops and collaborative lesson planning, the program meaningfully integrates cultural elements into STEM education. The study directly addresses the issue of disengagement among underrepresented student populations, especially where culturally relevant teaching materials are lacking.

 

The paper offers a scalable model for international, culturally immersive teacher training programs, supported by digital collaboration tools. As the authors conclude, “Findings underscore the importance of integrating culturally responsive teaching into STEM education to promote equity, engagement, and global competence.” This point is well substantiated by both the empirical results and the theoretical framework.

The manuscript is clearly written, well-argued, and contributes meaningfully to ongoing discussions on equity, inclusion, and global competence in education.

 

I recommend acceptance of the manuscript in its current form, without revisions.

Author Response

No additional comments were provided, as the reviewer accepted the article in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview

The abstract of the article is very clear and provides a fairly comprehensive summary of everything covered in the article.

The article begins with an introduction section that addresses the importance of contextualising STEM practices in the cultural contexts of students, which is reinforced by the initiative that contextualises this research work, the cultural STEM night, to establish collaboration between future American and Korean teachers in order to improve the design of STEM lessons. The impact of this initiative is evaluated by assessing STEM affinity and cultural intelligence among teachers. To make this assessment, two simple research questions are posed:

1) Does the CSN programme effectively enhance STEM affinity among the participants

in the United States and South Korea?

2) Is the CSN programme effective in increasing cultural intelligence among the participants

in the United States and South Korea?

The introduction contains several sections. The first addresses equity in STEM education, discussing the importance of all students having access to quality STEM education, highlighting the importance of doing so for students from disadvantaged areas. The second addresses the pedagogical approach mentioned in the introduction and used in the work, Culturally Responsive Teaching. It`s approached from an empirical evidence perspective, highlighting how easy it is to include different strategies and the guarantee it offers for equitable access to STEM education. This is followed by a section that discusses the importance of adequate investment in teacher training to implement Culturally Responsive Teaching in STEM education. It does so with an adequate bibliographic basis to accept these approaches as something positive for students' STEM education. The next section discusses the importance of collaboration between future American and Korean teachers. It draws on results that support the effectiveness of this type of programme, highlighting some key aspects such as collaborative learning, the importance of cultural context in the design of STEM practices, and reflection and feedback. Finally, it discusses the importance of the technological resources used in this work process.

The following section outlines the materials and method. It begins by clarifying how participants were grouped during a semester under a single design and implementation model. This is followed by several sections with aspects relevant to the work process: participants, study design and procedure, which describes the work carried out each week of the semester, data collections and analysis, quantitative instruments, qualitative reflections, data analysis procedures, and use of technology and AI disclosure.

Section 3 presents the results of the research. It is divided into two main sections: one referring to the different relationships in the STEM field (divided into five components) and another referring to the relationship with cultural intelligence (with four domains). The results of both sections are presented in a very clear and detaileway.

The discussion section of the article highlights the importance and positive impact of the aspects addressed in the CSN initiative on the needs of future teachers. It also emphasises the importance of cultural exchange as a motivation for teacher training and for adapting the reality and context of students to the design of STEM practices with the aim of enhancing their learning.

 

Suggestions

• In the introduction, it would be useful to provide more detail about the main objective of the research and the sub-objectives to be achieved, so that they can be linked to the research questions.

• Section 1.5 could include any technological resources that have been worked on during the training sessions, beyond zoom or Padlet (if it's possible). Or if a workshop has been held on a particular educational resource. Discussing videoconferencing tools is a too simplistic for a research paper to be included as a relevant technological resource. Alternatively, another option to complete this section could be to explain how the sessions were moderated or how these videoconferences were planned to make the most of the time available and ensure an effective process.

• Figure 1 is not very relevant to the article.

• Section 2.3 could include some considerations about the mixed research methodology to substantiate the usefulness of this design for this work.

  • Johnson, B., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. . (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 474–498.

• The same applies to the design of a study with initial and final tests.

  • Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research (R. McNally (ed.)).

• In section 2.3.1, there is a reference to the first validated tool, but it does not appear in the bibliography. It may also be useful to expand on the information about these tools so that other researchers can better understand their basis when reading this article.

• In section 2.3.2, it would be interesting to include why these questions are relevant and how each one relates to the research questions.

• If a particular tool has been used in section 2.3.3, it should be cited.

• The statement made between lines 244 and 247 should be accompanied by a bibliographical reference.

• Tables 2 and 8, as they are the main ones, could be accompanied by a graph to better illustrate the results of each component of both categories of analysis.

• On page 16, the participants' comments are in cursive format. However, this is not the case on the previous pages. It'important to keep the same format.

Author Response

Comments 1: it would be useful to provide more detail about the main objective of the research and the sub-objectives to be achieved, so that they can be linked to the research questions.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have included the main objectives of the research and the sub-objectives in the Introduction (Line 39 Page 1 – Line 58 in Page 2). “Addressing this gap, the present study’s main objective is to evaluate how a cross-national, culturally responsive STEM initiative can simultaneously strengthen teacher candidates’ STEM affinity and cultural intelligence. To achieve this overarching aim, the study pursues three sub-objectives: 1.     To examine whether participation in the Cultural STEM Night (CSN) program enhances teacher candidates’ confidence and identification with STEM disciplines. 2.     To assess the program’s effectiveness in developing participants’ intercultural competence and cultural awareness. 3.     To explore how technology-mediated, cross-national collaboration influences the design and delivery of culturally responsive STEM lessons. These objectives are directly aligned with the study’s research questions, which investigate whether the CSN program effectively (1) enhances STEM affinity and (2) increases cultural intelligence among teacher candidates in the United States and South Korea.”

Comments 2: Section 1.5 could include any technological resources that have been worked on during the training sessions, beyond zoom or Padlet (if it's possible). Or if a workshop has been held on a particular educational resource. Discussing videoconferencing tools is a too simplistic for a research paper to be included as a relevant technological resource. Alternatively, another option to complete this section could be to explain how the sessions were moderated or how these videoconferences were planned to make the most of the time available and ensure an effective process.

Response 2: We have, accordingly, revised Section 1.5 to include technology resources during the training sessions and to explain how technology used for an effective process (line 171 Page 3 – Line 210 Page 4).   “While video conferencing tools such as Zoom were used for real-time interaction and shared instructional planning across time zones (Enkhtur et al., 2024), the program also integrated a range of specialized educational technologies to enhance engagement, co-creation, and instructional planning. For example, collaborative design platforms such as Jamboard, Miro, and Canva supported visual brainstorming and lesson-material development (McCarty et al., 2021), while PhET Interactive Simulations (Perkins et al., 2006) and Tinkercad (Autodesk, 2020) were introduced as hands-on resources for STEM concept exploration. Participants also used Google Earth to integrate geographic and cultural context into science lessons, linking content to real-world locations relevant to students’ backgrounds (Butler, 2018). During training sessions, targeted workshops were conducted to familiarize teacher candidates with these tools, emphasizing not only technical functionality but also culturally responsive application. For instance, one session demonstrated how to adapt PhET simulations for bilingual instruction, while another explored ways to use Canva to incorporate culturally relevant visuals into teaching materials (Gay, 2010). To maximize the effectiveness of online meetings, videoconference sessions were carefully structured: agendas were shared in advance, breakout rooms were assigned for small-group collaboration, and time was allocated for reflection and peer feedback (Bond et al., 2021). Moderators used strategies such as rotating facilitation roles among participants to encourage equitable participation, and embedded polls or live quizzes via Mentimeter and Kahoot! to sustain engagement (Wang & Tahir, 2020). Asynchronous collaboration spaces in Google Classroom and shared cloud drives enabled participants to continue refining materials between meetings, making the exchange more flexible and inclusive (Enkhtur et al., 2024). While challenges such as internet connectivity issues, varied digital skill levels, and language differences were encountered, these were addressed through pre-session technical orientations, multilingual instructional guides, and the pairing of participants into cross-national support teams (Ortegren, 2022). Through this blended approach of synchronous, asynchronous, and specialized tool use, technology was not merely a communication medium but also it became an active enabler of culturally responsive, cross-national STEM instruction.”

 

Comments 3: Figure 1 is not very relevant to the article.

Response 3: We have removed Figure 1 (Line 310 Page 6) from the manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Section 2.3 could include some considerations about the mixed research methodology to substantiate the usefulness of this design for this work.

• Johnson, B., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Collins, K. M. . (2007). A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. The Qualitative Report, 12(2), 474–498.

The same applies to the design of a study with initial and final tests.

• Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research (R. McNally (ed.)).

Response 4: We have updated Section 2.3 to include considerations of the mixed-methods approach to highlight its usefulness for this work (Line 313 -323 Page 6)

 

“To evaluate the effectiveness of the Cultural STEM Night (CSN) initiative, a mixed-methods research design was employed, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of participants’ development in STEM affinity, cultural intelligence, and instructional practices. This approach aligns with the definition of mixed-methods research as “an intellectual and practical synthesis” of qualitative and quantitative approaches to gain deeper insights than either method alone (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). The combination of survey instruments and open-ended reflections allowed for triangulation of data, enhancing the validity and richness of the findings (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007).

Additionally, the study utilized pre- and post-program assessments, a design rooted in experimental and quasi-experimental methodology (Campbell & Stanley, 1966), to measure changes over time. This structure supports causal inferences about the impact of the CSN program by comparing participants’ responses before and after the intervention.”

 

Comments 5: In section 2.3.1, there is a reference to the first validated tool, but it does not appear in the bibliography. It may also be useful to expand on the information about these tools so that other researchers can better understand their basis when reading this article.

Response 5: We have revise section 2.3.1. to include the missing reference (line 854 Page 22) and expand on the information of these tools (line 337-345 Page 7).

 

“developed by Fouad and Santana (2017), is grounded in Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and was designed to assess students’ psychological engagement with STEM disciplines. It consists of 28 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) and measures five key constructs: STEM Identity, Self-Concept, Value, Personal Interest, and Attitudes. The instrument has demonstrated high internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.80 across subscales. Its theoretical foundation emphasizes the role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and personal goals in shaping STEM-related choices and persistence, particularly among underrepresented populations.”

 

Comments 6: In section 2.3.2, it would be interesting to include why these questions are relevant and how each one relates to the research questions.

Response 6: We have revised section 2.3.2 to include the reasons why these questions are relevant and how each one relates to the research questions (Line 353-379 Page 7).

 

“to gain deeper insight into participants’ experiences and perceptions. These methods were chosen to explore how participants engaged with culturally responsive teaching, cross-cultural collaboration, and lesson development—core themes aligned with the study’s research questions.

Participants responded to reflection prompts designed to elicit meaningful narratives that connect directly to the research aims:

• “Describe a moment during the course when your understanding of cultural responsiveness deepened.”
  This prompt relates to the research question on how participants’ perspectives on culturally responsive teaching evolved through the program. It captures shifts in awareness and pedagogical understanding.
• “How did collaborating with peers from another culture influence your approach to lesson planning?”
  This question explores the impact of cross-cultural collaboration on instructional design, directly addressing the research question about intercultural engagement and its influence on teaching practices.
• “What challenges did you face in integrating Korean culture into your STEM lessons, and how did you overcome them?”
  This prompt investigates the practical application of culturally responsive strategies and the problem-solving processes participants employed—key aspects of the study’s inquiry into implementation barriers and adaptations.

At the end of the course, virtual focus group discussions were conducted to further explore these themes. These sessions allowed participants to elaborate on their written reflections and engage in dialogue with peers. All discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and insights related to cross-cultural engagement, instructional practices, and the development of culturally responsive STEM lessons.”

 

Comments 7: If a particular tool has been used in section 2.3.3, it should be cited.

Response 7: We have revised the section 2.3.3 to cite the tools (line 423 -440 Page 8)

 

“Quantitative data from the STEM Affinity Test (Fouad & Santana, 2017) and the Cultural Intelligence Scale (Ang et al., 2007) ……. This approach aligns with standard practices in quasi-experimental designs for educational research (Campbell & Stanley, 1966), allowing for the assessment of program impact over time.

Qualitative data from written reflections and focus group transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). An inductive coding approach was applied to identify emergent themes, which were then organized into broader categories related to cultural competence, collaborative learning, and pedagogical growth. This method enabled the researchers to capture nuanced participant experiences and align them with the study’s research questions.”

 

Comments 8: The statement made between lines 244 and 247 should be accompanied by a bibliographical reference.

Response 8: We have revised the statement to include the bibliographical reference (line 435 -440 Page 8)

 

“The integration of quantitative and qualitative data followed a convergent mixed-methods design (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007), allowing for triangulation and a more comprehensive understanding of the CSN program’s impact. This methodological approach enhanced the credibility and depth of the findings and informed recommendations for future culturally responsive STEM teacher preparation models.”

 

Comments 9: Tables 2 and 8, as they are the main ones, could be accompanied by a graph to better illustrate the results of each component of both categories of analysis.

Response 9: We have included graphs to better illustrate the results (line 476-481 Page 9 for Figure 1 and line 636 -639 Page 15 for Figure 2).

 

“Figure 1 visually represents the mean differences in STEM affinity components before and after the intervention, emphasizing the growth in teacher candidates’ STEM identity, self-concept, value, personal interest, and attitudes.

 

 

Figure 1. Teacher Candidates’ STEM Affinity pre-and post-intervention

Figure 2 illustrates the pre- and post-program mean scores for teacher candidates’ cultural intelligence across four dimensions.

 

Figure 2. Teacher candidates’ Cultural Intelligence Scores”

 

Comments 10: On page 16, the participants' comments are in cursive format. However, this is not the case on the previous pages. It is important to keep the same format.

Response 10: We have updated the participants’ comments in cursive format in the previous pages to keep the same format (line 653-656 Page 16, line 684-686 & line 689-692 Page 17).

“The event opened my eyes to how important and special it is to incorporate culture into students’ learning. It strengthens their knowledge and awareness of different people and their cultures.” Another shared, “It strengthened my skills by helping me analyze all the different ways culture could be tied in, even if it’s not immediately obvious.”

“In our presentation, we talked about volcanic landscapes of Jeju Island in South Korea and compared them with similar landscapes in the U.S. In this way, I got to know about some famous national parks in various states.”

“In our presentation, we talked about volcanic landscapes of Jeju Island in South Korea and compared them with similar landscapes in the U.S. In this way, I got to know about some famous national parks in various states.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for considering the suggestions made after the review. Here you will find some comments after reviewing the modifications. It is important to pay attention to comment 9, as it is important to change the graphical representation of the data.

Response1. The approach of the work has become much clearer by defining objectives that are well aligned with the research questions.

Response2. The presentation of the resources used is very interesting. Now it seems that there is relevant work in terms of the use of technology and its integration in the teaching methods. To expand on this, and in another type of work to share this educational experience, it would be interesting to show the activities carried out, for example, with PhET or Tinkercad. The last sentence is really suitable.

Response4. The theoretical framework for the methodology used is much more complete. 
 

Response5. OK

 
Response6. It makes the work easier to read.
 

Response7. OK 

Response8. OK 

Response9. Perhaps this is not the most appropriate graph. The data does not correspond to a linear evolution, so it might be more appropriate to use a bar plot. For each value, the pre-test and post-test columns would be placed together with different colours and with the height corresponding to the mean score. This would better show the comparison of both for each of the results of teacher candidates' STEM affinity. The same can be done with graph 2. Similar tothis graph: https://images.app.goo.gl/9M8uSbHsS4AhqQyh7

Response10. OK

Author Response

Comments 9: Perhaps this is not the most appropriate graph. The data does not correspond to a linear evolution, so it might be more appropriate to use a bar plot. For each value, the pre-test and post-test columns would be placed together with different colours and with the height corresponding to the mean score. This would better show the comparison of both for each of the results of teacher candidates' STEM affinity. The same can be done with graph 2. Similar tothis graph: https://images.app.goo.gl/9M8uSbHsS4AhqQyh7

Response 9: We have replaced the line graphs to bar graphs (Line 483 Page 9 & Line 640 Page 15)