Study of STEM for Sustainability in Design Education: Framework for Student Learning and Outcomes with Design for a Disaster Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study. Here are some of my comments:

1. What is the problem statement addressed by the research?

The problem statement in the abstract seems to be “While STEM successfully employs design, design education currently conducts subjective procedures and lacks the framework for adopting the critical thinking process”. The abstract continues with the aim of the study “Therefore, it has the opportunity of developing students' cognitive skills by reflecting STEM learning experiences. This study articulates the framework for design education by investigating problem-based and project-based learning and the double-diamond diagram for innovation”. I suggest that the authors also reiterate the problem statement and aim of study briefly in the introduction.

 

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why?

STEM4S has been explored before. However, this article presents some originality by including problem-based learning, project-based learning, and the double-diamond diagram for innovation.

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

STEM Education for Sustainability relates with a number of SDGs, one of which includes SDG 4 (Quality Education). In the discussion, the authors lack comparison with findings from other published material, namely from peer reviewed journal papers of recent years. My suggestion is to find more journal articles pertaining to the relevant SDGs, and relate them with the findings of our study in the discussion section. In order to distinguish this clearly, please split the discussion section from the conclusion section.

 

4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology?

The sample size of the study was small, so it is difficult to draw an inference based on the mean statistic. Perhaps the authors could check the normality of the data. If the dataset does not differ from being symmetric, perhaps the mean analysis is still acceptable, but if it does, the authors could consider comparing the medians.

 

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

The conclusion should be split away from the discussion section as per item 3. Please systematically highlight on the addressal of the aim of study from item 1, the major findings, the limitations of study, and the recommendations for future research, preferably in sub-sections.

 

6. Are the references appropriate?

The references are satisfactory, but I advise the authors to add a few more (perhaps 3-6 more) very recent references (from the year 2021) relevant to STEM or STEM4S in order to improve the literature synthesis or discussion (see item 3) of the study.

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

The tables and figures are fine. But I suggest the authors to send their article for extensive proofreading to tighten up the grammar, structure, and syntax in the paper.

 

Thank you, well done, and all the best.

Author Response

Suggestion 1. 
The suggested contents are incorporated in the introduction paragraph. Please take a look at lines 69 - 76. The lines state the research question and aim of the study.  

Suggestion 2. 
Thank you for your inducement.

Suggestion 3. 
SDG 4 (Quality Education) is referenced in the introduction paragraph, and also, the finding of the research is compared with recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the discussion paragraph. Please find lines 59 - 66 in the introduction and discussion paragraph. 

Suggestion 4. 
The normality of the data was studied with the bar chart to seek liability. In addition, the bar charts' symmetric and asymmetric conditions were studied in the result chapter. Please find figure 8 (a-c) and lines 398 - 405.

Suggestion 5. 
The discussion and conclusion are split into two paragraphs. The discussion paragraph compares SDG 4 and STEM education for sustainability with other peer-reviewed journal articles. The conclusion paragraph consists of the subsection of the aim of the study, the major findings, the limitation of the study, and recommendations for future research. Please refer to the manuscript. 

Suggestion 6. 
A few more references related to SDGs and STEM education for sustainability are added in the manuscript. In the discussion paragraph, these references are used to compare this study. Please refer to the manuscript. 

Suggestion 7. 
The manuscript is checked by a proofreading service to verify. Please refer to the certificate of proofreading. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: Research of Problem-Solving ability development through STEM education with design for disaster projects

We have verified that the research has been restructured and thoroughly reviewed by the authors. Therefore, there is an improvement in the conceptual framework, defining the concepts and references more appropriately. Likewise, the research methodology is clearer and more conclusive. Work has been done to improve the presentation of results and in the same way the Discussion.

We value the effort to redo the presentation of an investigation in detail. It is certainly now more accessible to the audience and can be accepted.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your inducement.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The paper needs careful editing from the authors as well from native-English language editor.
2. The authors need to enrich the literature review concerning the relationship of sustainability and STEM. 
3. The research questions are not present!!! The authors should do that. 
4. Sometimes, the reference is after the point, where it should be before it, as in the case: "STEM education. [3]".
5. Somtimes the reference is not clear, ass in the case of the sentence in lines 55-57. Another example is "Here, they distinguish between" in line 64. Where here? We use here for the present research. Are the authors referring to the previous reference. They should name it. A third example is: "The research indicates that the result of DBS units shows substantial scientific knowledge for solving design problems" (Lines 69-70). Which research? More attention to this issue is requested throughout the paper.
6. Sometimes, the sentences are not connected, as in the case of the sentence in lines 57-58. More attention to this issue is requested throughout the paper.
7. The authors should detail more their description and comments on Figure 7, line 338.
8. What do the authors mean by "with qualitative analysis of participants" (line 8). There is no qualititave results in the present research.
9. The authors say: "To evaluate the outcome of the students' critical thinking development". It is not clear what this outcome was. It is also not clear what the results for the four aspects (lines 311-314).
10. The section "Discussion and Conclusion" should be divided into two sections, one for discussion and the other for conclusions. 

Author Response

Point 1
The manuscript is checked by a proofreading service to verify. Please refer to the certificate of proofreading. 

Point 2
A few more references related to SDGs and STEM education for sustainability are added in the manuscript. In the discussion paragraph, these references are used to compare this study. Please refer to the manuscript. 

Point 3
The suggested contents are incorporated in the introduction paragraph. Please take a look at lines 69 - 76. The lines state the research question and aim of the study.  

Point 4
These error points were fixed and reviewed by proofreading. Please refer to the manuscript.

Point 5
These points were fixed in the manuscript and reviewed by proofreading. Please refer to the text. 

Point 6
These points were fixed in the manuscript and reviewed by proofreading. Please refer to the text. 

Point 7
The description of figure 7 is updated. Please refer to the manuscript. 

Point 8
Chapter 4.1 Observation of participant

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has revised the document to connect to sustainability which was not as apparent in the original manuscript.   The paper is well written and does add value and should be of interest to readers.   

Author Response

Thank you for your inducement.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe the authors have addressed most of my comments. The paper is now in an appropriate condition for publication in this journal. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the changes. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and logically constructed.  The main suggestion is to check your English tenses. For example Results vs. Result. There are a number of these issues and the editor may be able to assist.  

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting article. Here are some of my comments:

 

1. There is actually a lack of consistency in the aim of study throughout the paper, especially in the abstract, introduction and conclusion. In the abstract, it is mentioned that “This study investigates how students can develop critical thinking ability when they face learning challenges, and it aims to establish an educational framework with interdisciplinary knowledge input”. However, in the introduction, the aim was proclaimed as “This study examines the student's problem-solving ability development by comparing problem-based and project-based learning”, which in my opinion differs from what was presented in the abstract. Finally, the conclusion reiterates the achieved aim as “This research reviewed the difference between problem-based and project-based learning and how to efficiently apply it in creative education”, which is a slightly different aim once again compared to the other earlier aims. The authors need to be very consistent and careful when explaining the aim of the study so that readers do not get misled. My suggestion is to use one common aim of study (presented in the abstract and introduction, and addressed in the conclusion), followed by a few objectives that trickle from this aim of study (presented in the introduction, and addressed in the conclusion). This way is quite systematic. An even more systematic way is to use research questions, but this way requires the researcher to do further breakdowns from the objectives, which can make things more complicated.
2. While the intention of using the framework for the assignment was made clear after Figure 2, there still needs to be some scholarly justification and references on why the UK Design Council's framework for innovation was specifically selected as the procedure model. Perhaps the authors can clarify this in one paragraph in sub-section 2.3.
3. The use of the word “interdisciplinary” is an adjective, and in the context of Line 25 and Line 215, it appears you would like to use it as a noun. I suggest that you use the term “interdisciplinarity” in these contexts instead.
4. The English used is at an average level. The first four pages seemed to have minor errors, but the last 4 pages had significant errors. I advise the authors to send this article for proofreading so that the grammar, structure and syntax in the paper are more polished and consistent. Some suggestions include Editage, Enago or American Journal Experts.
5. Under Section 4 (Result), although it has been partially mentioned in the footnotes of Table 3, it is still important to clearly mention in the main text the type of scale used for the questionnaire, and the definitions of the scale (e.g., 5-point Likert Scale, with 1 being strongly disagree, 2 being disagree, 3 being neutral, etc).
6. There needs to be some comparison of the results with past scholarly findings or works, regardless of whether they are direct or indirect comparisons. This is to establish where your research stands amongst the other academic works within your area or other areas.
7. Apart from achieving the aim of study in the Conclusion, there is a need to separate the Limitations of Study and Directions for Future Research from the conclusion section, and describe them in more detail.
8. I advise the authors to have a paragraph to link this study with a broader aspect of Sustainability in order to improve the readership in regard to the academic community of Sustainability. My suggestion is to tie the article with one or some of the 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs). This can be presented in one paragraph under the conclusion section.
9. This comment is a very minor comment, and might be an individual bias as well, but the word “However” was mentioned a good 9 times throughout the article. In the introduction, it was almost used consecutively. While it is not incorrect to do so, my suggestion is to mix it around with words like “Nevertheless” or “Nonetheless” or “Even so” (you could find more synonyms as well), just to potentially improve the readability. If you disagree with this comment, it is fine.

 

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The topic is an interesting one. 
2. The authors need to compare between stem design thinking and the  the studio teaching method, how they meet and how they do not. 
3. As the topic is relatively new, a specific example is needed to illustrate Figure (Line 117). 
4. The authors do not address the critical thinking issue sufficiently in the introduction and the theoretical background. More serious addressing is requested. Doing that, the authors should address the relationship between design thinking and critical thinking, as well as the relationship between the  the studio teaching method and the critical thinking. 
5. The paper does not provide sufficient description of the participants. A detailed description of the participants is requested.
6. The authors need to describe in detail the data analysis that they performed, including the statistical exams. Doing so, they need to depend on previous studies that described the statistical issues.
7. Does the questionnaire have domains? What are these domains?
8. The number of participants is low (19), so qualitative data is requested here. Were the participants interviewed? What did they say?
9. There is no discussion section. The authors need to add a discussion section.