STEM, STEAM and Makerspaces in Early Childhood: A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript analyzes a relevant topic, taking into account the relevance of these areas in educational development.
The theoretical framework is pertinent and updated, offering an adequate analysis of the phenomenon under study.
Methodologically, the project is coherent and the basic dimensions of analysis are contemplated.
The results are clear and consistent with the objectives of the study.
The discussion is well-structured, contrasting the results of the study with the background of previous literature.
The citation guidelinesf should be revised, as well as the references, in order to adjust them to the directives of the publication.
Author Response
Thank you for the feedback. We have revised our manuscript in accordance with citation guidelines provided to us.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present a well-structured scoping view supported by a supplement of the texts analysed.
The authors maintain, in the discussion section, the equity between STEM and STEAM, the intersections between both STEM and STEAM..., i.e. they maintain the scientifically consolidated identity of the two acronyms.
As a technician, I do research on the use of STEM in education, however, in my articles, I have equally advocated SETAM to improve students' spatial skills, mathematical understanding and computational thinking.
Despite the above, the term science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) is a well-established term in science and engineering research and is used because it strictly refers to these scientific domains. Therefore, STEAM cannot be categorically said to include STEM as it seems to be done in the conclusions of the article by alluding to certain authors in the social sciences, specifically educators.
According to what has been said, and from my experiences in early childhood education, activities based on the term STEAM are very important from infancy, as are strictly STEM activities. It is very true that play, which is so popular in early childhood education, is increasingly used to carry out STEAM-related activities in the classroom, but this does not mean that activities strictly related to STEM are not carried out.
Particularly, I do not share the conclusions of the article by not maintaining the duality STEM/STEAM, I have to insist that STEAM broadens the scope of STEM but does not replace this other acronym, therefore, I think it should be alluded to that in early childhood education STEAM is increasingly used as opposed to STEM, but not conclude, in what seems to be an allusion that STEAM should replace the STEM concept. Although this may not have been the intention of the authors, it does seem to be the case.
Notwithstanding the above, in relation to STEAM, I recommend the authors to review the literature
https://revistas.um.es/red/article/view/470461/308221.
Congratulations on the article.
Author Response
Thank you for the considered review. We appreciate the comments made about our discussion of STEM and STEAM. We have reviewed our manuscript in connection with this feedback and have moved the discussion from an either / or discourse (which as the reviewer rightly pointed out, was not our intention), to highlight the importance of the STEM domains and the power of the arts (particularly literacy) to help explore the domains further in connection with early learning developmental theory.
Reviewer 3 Report
An article for researchers who are just beginning to be interested in the topic of STEM, STEAM and makerspaces. It contains a thematic overview of about two hundred publications devoted to STEM, STEAM and makerspaces for school children. A qualitative study of the conceptual apparatus and concepts related to the topic of STEM and STEAM was made. Also, a range of issues that have already been investigated and conclusions about their significance have been drawn. Emphasis is placed on the importance of technologies in the formation of scientific thinking and engineering skills.
The authors' goal was to determine what is known about early childhood STEM in practice, and to determine whether research is contributing to the development of practice. Conclusions are drawn for further consideration of the definition and conceptualization of STEAM. They do not reflect the specific direction of the authors' further research.
The article contains an overview of many reviews, summarizes and highlights the most significant conditions and means of accessibility of STEM and STEAM education.
The conclusions regarding the professional development and support of STEM and STEAM teachers are well described.
Author Response
Thank you for the review. We have carefully proofread our manuscript. We have also clarified the work this review does in informing future research directions.
