Teacher-Identified Needs-Driven Professional Development in Rural Education: Designing for Engineering and Interdisciplinary Integration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written and timely manuscript that thoughtfully examines the challenges of designing meaningful professional development in rural contexts. Results will be of immediate value to teacher educators developing professional learning opportunities, especially around engineering education and in rural school communities. The authors should be commended for effectively challenging deficit-based framings of rurality and instead foregrounding the assets of rural schools and communities, particularly the professional and contextual resources that support teachers’ learning.

The background section is well grounded in the literature, especially the discussion of teacher pedagogical choice. This framing is well suited to rural contexts, especially given the adaptive and dynamic nature of rural teaching. This approach aligns well with STEM and engineering education. The manuscript also clearly articulates the theory/practice gap in professional development, and makes a strong case for collaborative, practice-embedded models as a way to address this challenge.

The sequential mixed-methods design is clearly described, with a compelling outline of how the survey informed the interview protocol and how follow-up interviews were used to contextualize survey findings. Further, it is encouraging to see the needs analysis directly inform the design of the professional development workshops, as well as the authors’ emphasis on ongoing engagement beyond a stand-alone PD experience. The authors and design team should be commended for such a thoughtful approach for designing professional learning opportunities.

Several areas, in particular with the methodology, would benefit from clarification or strengthening. Although the study is framed as a needs analysis with a well-articulated purpose, explicit research questions are not provided. Including research questions would help align the purpose, methods, and analyses, and and also help clarify the analytic focus of both the quantitative and qualitative phases.

Additional detail on survey development is also needed. For exanmple, how were the survey items generated? Were they written by the authors? Based on the literature? Were they adapted from existing instruments? Further, the manuscript would benefit from a deeper discussion of qualitative trustworthiness, such as the use of memoing, member-checking, or other strategies during analysis.

Finally, there are some minor editorial issues that affect readability. The authors might consider these suggestions to improve flow. First, the frequent use of one- and two-sentence paragraphs gives parts of the manuscript a somewhat staccato reading quality. This nature of the writing occasionally interrupts the flow and cohesion of the argument. For example, see Section 1.3 - STEM and Engineering-Focused PD for Teachers. The authors are encouraged to consider adding a bit more depth to each of these short paragraphs to reduce the choppy and abrupt nature to how some of those sections read.

Additionally, the placement of the comment on line 342 regarding follow-up interviews may unintentionally suggest that demographic statistics were the only quantitative analyses conducted. Relocating this discussion may improve clarity. And the authors might instead make clear after that statement that the following section includes results from both the survey and interview analyses.

With that said, overall, this is a strong contribution with clear relevance to engineering/STEM education and rural professional development, and these revisions would further strengthen its impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this an interesting and well-developed paper overall. The abstract clearly sets out the aims and conclusions of the study. The introduction also does a good job of explaining why these challenges exist within the specific discipline of engineering and why they are particularly relevant in south-west Virginia.

The paper sets the scene well and is supported by relevant evidence. I was also pleased to see that, alongside the barriers, there is recognition of the benefits and advantages of rural contexts. In particular, I appreciated the point that rural skills and contexts should not simply be seen as substitutes for urban opportunities, but that rural schools can offer meaningful spaces for professional learning in their own right.

The arguments around professional development models are well developed, particularly the explanation of professional development as a structuring condition rather than simply a background variable. That is a strong contribution. That said, I think there could be stronger linking between the engineering focus of the paper and the discussion of professional development more broadly. Both elements make excellent points, but the connection between engineering-specific needs and the characteristics of professional learning could be drawn out more clearly.

Related to this, there is an interesting tension between the discussion of discrete professional learning opportunities (as opposed to national provision) and the later emphasis on community-based and place-based approaches in rural areas. For me, the second argument is stronger and seems to be the one that runs most consistently through the paper, particularly in relation to flexibility, choice, and responsiveness to local contexts. At the same time, I recognise that engineering education may require a range of approaches, and the paper does ultimately bring this together well in its prioritisation of flexibility and teacher agency.

The context of the study is well explained, and the inclusion of the map helps situate the work geographically. The methodology also makes sense and is clearly explained, particularly the decision to begin with a questionnaire and then follow up with interviews. One point I did wonder about, however, is that not all of those interviewed appear to be from STEM subject areas. I appreciate that the questions relate to wider professional development opportunities, but it does raise the question of how far the findings can be considered engineering-specific. Clarifying this might help with the overall framing of the paper.

I also noted the use of generative AI in the coding of the qualitative data. It would be helpful to see a little more explanation of what checks or validation processes were undertaken to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the coding.

The results are generally presented clearly and organised around key themes from the survey and interview data. The tables summarising participant information are helpful and support the narrative. Some of the findings, such as the challenges of lecture-based professional development formats, do not necessarily seem specific to rural contexts. Others, however, such as the observation that many professional learning opportunities are designed for larger or better-resourced schools, are highly relevant and speak directly to the rural context of the study. Including a few illustrative interview quotations could also strengthen the qualitative dimension of the findings.

At points I found myself wondering what the central focus of the paper is intended to be. Is it primarily about professional development, engineering education, or rural education? All three elements are clearly present, but clarifying which one is the main framing might help strengthen the overall coherence of the argument.

The three guiding principles that emerge from the analysis make sense and provide a useful synthesis of the findings. In particular, the emphasis on flexible professional learning, practical and relevant content, and opportunities for teachers to connect beyond their own schools feels well grounded in the data.

I also found the section discussing the workshop particularly interesting. It is easy to see how this kind of space could be very valuable for educators, especially in addressing technology implementation issues within individual school contexts. The paper does well to highlight both the systemic barriers and the lived experiences of teachers in rural settings. There is, however, a little repetition around the workshop as a standalone event, particularly in section 4.5, and some of this material might be streamlined or introduced earlier where the workshop is first mentioned.

One section that felt slightly less integrated with the rest of the paper was the discussion of data science and artificial intelligence as structural areas. I was not entirely clear where this fitted within the overall argument. It appeared somewhat suddenly and felt like a bit of a departure from the rest of the narrative. A clearer explanation of how this emerged from the study, or how it connects to the broader argument, would help.

In terms of the broader scholarly framing, the paper provides a clear overview of the literature on rural education, teacher professional development, and engineering integration. The study is well situated within existing research and the references are appropriate and generally up to date. The introduction could perhaps be shortened slightly in places, as some points about rural constraints and the relevance of professional development are repeated.

The research design and methods are clearly described, and the mixed-methods approach is transparent. It would strengthen the paper further if the research questions were stated more explicitly to guide the reader through the study.

The discussion of the findings is generally coherent and links well to the literature on rural professional development. In a few places it becomes slightly descriptive, and a little more critical reflection on the implications of the findings would strengthen the argument.

Overall, the conclusions are consistent with the results and appropriately cautious in their claims. The link between the needs assessment and the design of the professional development workshop is clearly articulated. It might also be helpful to include a short acknowledgement of the study’s limitations in the final section.

Overall, this is a thoughtful and well-developed paper that makes a useful contribution to discussions about professional learning in rural contexts, and with a little tightening and clarification in places the argument could become even stronger.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf