Teachers’ Views on STEM Education in Bulgaria: A Qualitative Survey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper offers valuable insights into teachers’s view on STEM education in Bulgaria.
Overall, the paper is well-structured and presents a valuable contribution to the understanding how STEM methods are present in educational practice.
The article presents result from qualitative research conducted through semi-structured interviews with expert school teachers implementing innovative STEM methods in their educational practice. The focus of the study is on the qualitative analysis of modern methods and good practices applied in teaching STEM subjects in Bulgaria.
The choice of theme is good, the study is very well developed and useful. It contains original results on an important topic.
Using an adequate literature review (54 items), the theoretical part of the paper is adequate, precise and the language is understandable. The research part of the paper fulfils its objectives: three research questions were formulated and answered.
The methodology used are correct, and the conclusions are valid.
The research questions RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 formulated in the article are correct and have been answered.
The limitations of the research were also discussed. Also the way forward.
It is a formally adequate paper. I have the following comments:
1.The authors affirmed that: „Almost all the interviewees teach in schools located in the capital city; therefore, the findings primarily concern schools in Sofia, rather than those in the province.”
I believe that in this case, the title of the article should reflect it and needs to be changed, because when reading the current title, the reader expects to get a general overview of the country's schools, including those in rural areas, small towns, and the capital.
- It should be stated explicitly that the sample is not representative, and the method by which the 32 interviewed teachers were selected must be specified—whether it was random selection, snowball sampling, or some other method.
- In the line nr. 148: „Most frequently utilized Interactive methods, project-based learning, problem-based learning, practice-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and game- based learning promote students’ engagement and learning through experience. Their short description is as follows:...”
It would be preferable if the methods were briefly described in the same order in which they are listed afterward—or, alternatively, they should be listed in the order in which they are subsequently described.
- 4. In case of references: The references are not formatted correctly in the text; for example, they should be like this: (Nite et al., 2017) instead of [15].
- The list of references should be arranged in alphabetical order and formatted according to APA style.
For example: instead of
Nite, S.; Capraro, M.; Capraro, R.; Bicer, A. Explicating the Characteristics of STEM Teaching and Learning: A Metasynthe-939 sis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education 2017. Vol 52 (1), https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE52.1Nite
in APA7:
Nite, S., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Bicer, A. (2017). Explicating the characteristics of STEM teaching and learning: A metasynthesis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE52.1Nite
- I miss a brief description of the results in the abstract. What are the key themes and insights that emerge from the interviews, briefly?
I agree with everything else, I did not notice any other mistakes. Congratulations to the article!
Author Response
Comment 1. The authors affirmed that: „Almost all the interviewees teach in schools located in the capital city; therefore, the findings primarily concern schools in Sofia, rather than those in the province.”
I believe that in this case, the title of the article should reflect it and needs to be changed, because when reading the current title, the reader expects to get a general overview of the country's schools, including those in rural areas, small towns, and the capital.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this remark. In the revised version, we explained that seven of our respondents (i.e., around ¼ of them) were from the province, and the oth-ers were from the capital; hence, the respondents’ distribution provides a general overview of the country's schools, including those in rural areas, small towns, and the capital.
Comment 2. It should be stated explicitly that the sample is not representative, and the method by which the 32 interviewed teachers were selected must be specified—whether it was random selection, snowball sampling, or some other method.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this question. We added the following explanation: “The authors have announced the campaign among more than 100 teachers during several thematic events dedicated to STEM education (conferences, workshops, training course) held in capital and in other cities in Bulgaria. Thirty-two of them agreed to participate in this survey.”
Comment 3. In the line nr. 148: „Most frequently utilized Interactive methods, project-based learning, problem-based learning, practice-based learning, inquiry-based learning, and game- based learning promote students’ engagement and learning through experience. Their short description is as follows:...”
It would be preferable if the methods were briefly described in the same order in which they are listed afterward—or, alternatively, they should be listed in the order in which they are subsequently described.
Response 3: Thank you very much for this remark. In the revised version, we reordered most frequently utilized Interactive methods in the order they are subsequently described.
Comment 4. In case of references: The references are not formatted correctly in the text; for example, they should be like this: (Nite et al., 2017) instead of [15].
The list of references should be arranged in alphabetical order and formatted according to APA style.
For example: instead of
Nite, S.; Capraro, M.; Capraro, R.; Bicer, A. Explicating the Characteristics of STEM Teaching and Learning: A Metasynthe-939 sis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education 2017. Vol 52 (1), https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE52.1Nite
in APA7:
Nite, S., Capraro, M. M., Capraro, R. M., & Bicer, A. (2017). Explicating the characteristics of STEM teaching and learning: A metasynthesis. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.30707/JSTE52.1Nite
Response 4: Thank you very much for these notes. In the revised version, the references are formatted in the text and arranged in the list according to the journal’s requirements.
Comment 5. I miss a brief description of the results in the abstract. What are the key themes and insights that emerge from the interviews, briefly?
Response 5: Thank you for this proposal. A brief description of the results was added in the abstract, namely: "The findings revealed that teachers miss time in the curriculum dedicated to STEM lessons and need more integrated learning resources and additional qualifications to apply STEM methods effectively."
I agree with everything else, I did not notice any other mistakes. Congratulations to the article!
Тhe authors express their gratitude for all questions, recommendations, and remarks made by the reviewer. They gave us significant feedback and allowed us to improve the quality of the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article examines “Teachers’ View on STEM Education in Bulgaria - a Qualitative Survey” using qualitative analysis in teaching STEM subjects in Bulgaria.
I commend the authors for studying an interesting and important topic with a STEM that sounds promising for supporting STEM teaching learning in schools in Bulgaria. Data collection and analysis focused on answering research questions highlighting institutional support, school conditions and teachers’ competencies. The study is important but unfortunately, the article suffers from a number of limitations.
The study lacks theoretical and methodological detail along with clarifying its scholarly significance.
Throughout the manuscript it seems the idea is repeated without getting directly to the point. For example, in the abstract L10-15 described the method. Then again for “The key themes and insights that emerged from the interview reveals the condition for STEM education in Bulgarian schools…” So the question is it is understood that the analysis was done to answer the RQ which include revealing the condition, already explained in the previous part, readers expect to understand what those conditions are.
Importantly, the study is framed as views on STEM education, but the authors do not provide a clear definition of what is meant by STEM education in general and for grounding STEM education in Bulgarian context. The first paragraph describes technologies in the 21st century. The second paragraph describes some approaches. Then what the team in Bulgaria investigated. STEM Teaching methods is comprehensively covered. Under challenges in STEM education it seems authors want to provide analyze many topics and did not provide adequately to any for e.g., solutions and theoretical insights. Better if you focus on challenges in this part. This part is confusing when they are bringing equity, ethical aspects of AI, please explain.
The Methodology section also repeatedly mentioned the same things. Please make it precise. How do you define subject experts? In the results section authors mentions specialized STEM training and additional general training. Where did you clarify how these two trainings are different and what is the outcome, are there evidences of their impact? Similarly how you describe integrative learning resources, etc. Section 4.5 lists key themes and insights phrases and provided some quotes to substantiate it. It is imperative that in thematic analysis you interpret those themes and not just list 2-3 quotes to substantiate those. Discussion section mentions about “qualified teachers” what is qualified and how do you set those qualification. Why flipped classrooms impact STEM education? Please check for punctuation and sentence construction (L124).
The reviewer feels the manuscript fails to engage with or contribute meaningfully to ongoing scholarly conversations. The study may appear isolated or under-theorized, reducing its perceived academic value.
Author Response
Comment 1: The study lacks theoretical and methodological detail along with clarifying its scholarly significance.
Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment. We summarized the significance of the research as follows: “The importance of the study is in its exhaustive scope, and its findings can benefit authorities for further amendments and improvements in the process of developing STEM education in Bulgaria.”
Comment 2: Throughout the manuscript it seems the idea is repeated without getting directly to the point. For example, in the abstract L10-15 described the method. Then again for “The key themes and insights that emerged from the interview reveals the condition for STEM education in Bulgarian schools…” So the question is it is understood that the analysis was done to answer the RQ which include revealing the condition, already explained in the previous part, readers expect to understand what those conditions are.
Response 2: Thank you very much for this remark. In the revised version, we have made clarifications and added explanations to avoid misunderstanding about “the conditions for STEM education in Bulgarian schools…”.
Comment 3: Importantly, the study is framed as views on STEM education, but the authors do not provide a clear definition of what is meant by STEM education in general and for grounding STEM education in Bulgarian context. The first paragraph describes technologies in the 21st century. The second paragraph describes some approaches. Then what the team in Bulgaria investigated. STEM Teaching methods is comprehensively covered.
Response 3: This is an essential comment. First, now we included in the second paragraph a clear definition of what is meant by STEM education. Second, we explained better what is our subject of investigation, that is is focused on the current state of personalization and optimization of STEM teaching methods in Bulgarian schools.
Comment 4: Under challenges in STEM education it seems authors want to provide analyze many topics and did not provide adequately to any for e.g., solutions and theoretical insights. Better if you focus on challenges in this part. This part is confusing when they are bringing equity, ethical aspects of AI, please explain.
Response 4: Thank you very much for this comment. In the end of Section 2.3 of the revised version, we explained in detail how AI and VR challenge STEM education globally and in the Bulgarian context regarding several issues:
• Access, equity, and inclusion
• Pedagogical redesign and teacher roles
• Curriculum alignment
• Data privacy, security, and ethics
Comment 5: The Methodology section also repeatedly mentioned the same things. Please make it precise.
Response 5: Thank you very much for this essential remark. The Methodology section was shortened and improved.
Comment 6: How do you define subject experts?
Response 6: Thank you for this question. We specified the term as “teachers with experience in applying STEM methods”.
Comment 7: In the results section authors mentions specialized STEM training and additional general training. Where did you clarify how these two trainings are different and what is the outcome, are there evidences of their impact?
Response 7: Thank you for the question. We explained the terms as: “specialized training for applying STEM methods in the classroom” and “ additional general training for working with innovative technologies ” Their impact is pointed out in the Discussion section in the “Teachers’ competencies” part.
Comment 8: Similarly how you describe integrative learning resources, etc.
Response 8: Thank you for the note. We added a description for integrative learning resources: “learning resources incorporating knowledge from several subjects”.
Comment 9: Section 4.5 lists key themes and insights phrases and provided some quotes to substantiate it. It is imperative that in thematic analysis you interpret those themes and not just list 2-3 quotes to substantiate those.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing out this gap. We added comments on these phrases in the Discussion section, as follows:
In addition, preparing for STEM lessons requires a lot of time and resources, which is one of the reasons why teachers do not apply these methods more often (see S6). This obstacle can be mitigated by trainings for teachers and supporting them with a variety of appropriate learning resources. The interviewees believe that the contemporary technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things, robotics will be implement-ed in the STEM education in a few years. They would allow students to be more crea-tive, and acquire practical skills. They also will influence new educational methods that reflect the students' needs for modern learning (see S4, S5, S7). Many teachers need a specialized training for applying the modern technologies to be more confident in the classroom.
Despite the obstacles, the respondents prefer to apply the STEM method because of their ability to prepare students for future careers, developing important skills which are essential for emerging professions (S8, S9). These facts motivate teachers to improve the application of STEM methods at all educational stages (S10, S12). The improvement of the technology equipment will allow more intensive application of these methods, which will become the predominant type of education (S11, S12, S13). The interviewed teachers state that it is difficult to start STEM education in Bulgarian schools, but it will have a great future, and the results in the long term will be significant (S14, S15).
Comment 10: Discussion section mentions about “qualified teachers” what is qualified and how do you set those qualification.
Response 10: Thank you for pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement. We added clarification on it: “the majority of teachers lack experience in teaching through STEM methods”.
Comment 11: Why flipped classrooms impact STEM education?
Response 11: Thank you for the question. We added an explanation on the impact of this method on the STEM education: “The flipped approach allows using the class time for significant in STEM activities like analysis, discussions, and evaluation, instead of passively taking notes. The students can focus on deepening their understanding through practice and interact with experiments or design challenges during class. They also develop skills to independently acquire and review knowledge, which is important for the STEM fields (Fung et al., 2022).”
Comment 12: Please check for punctuation and sentence construction (L124).
Response 12: Thank you for the note. We edited the sentence as follows: “These classrooms will represent educational and research spaces where learning will occur by combining active and scientific methods, thus stimulating creativity, research approach, and practical-oriented knowledge acquisition.”
Comment 13: The reviewer feels the manuscript fails to engage with or contribute meaningfully to ongoing scholarly conversations. The study may appear isolated or under-theorized, reducing its perceived academic value.
Response 13: Thank you very much for this remark. We add a paragraph clarifying the importance of the study for the STEM teachers’ community and the stakeholders in the area.
Тhe authors express their gratitude for all questions, recommendations, and remarks made by the reviewer. The authors did their best to reflect them. The comments gave them significant feedback and allowed the quality improvement of the article.
