Development of STEM-Based AI Education Program for Sustainable Improvement of Elementary Learners

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article addresses an interesting topic for the educational community, focusing on educational practice to foster students' knowledge about artificial intelligence. It clearly states the research questions, the research method and the results obtained. The conclusions stimulate reflection on how to teach these new competencies and the achievements that have been found by presenting a training proposal on IA.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your interest on our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The presented document is set in the field of artificial intelligence in education (AIED). The rapid advancement of digital information and communication technologies has facilitated the implementation of AIED applications. The use of AI (Artificial Intelligence) technologies in educational environments have the potential to facilitate teaching, learning, and decision-making.

I think it is a relevant, current topic and interesting reading for researchers, students, and professionals working or interested in the area. I remind you that the AIED is of an interdisciplinary nature and that it presents a great challenge for researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds.

The document presents aims to develop a STEM-based AIED plan, linking the importance of AIED content with the efficiency of the STEM education method and applying it to analyze the educational effect. The application was carried out, for a semester, with 120 students in five classes in grades K-6 of an elementary school. It was applied for one semester. Teachers involved in the process participated in a pre-training session and a monthly meeting to discuss class progress and the effective learning process to improve their competence to operate the developed program.

The document is formalized with the following sections: 1. Introduction; 2 Theoretical Backgrounds (The Research Trend of STEM and AI Education; AI Education; STEM Education); Methods (Backward Design; Research Participants; Data Collection and Analysis); Results (Development of STEM Program for AI Education; Change in creative problem-solving ability, literacy of AI, and attitude toward AI; Sentiment Analysis of Learning Experience); and, Discussion and Conclusion.

I think the sections are sufficient for a scientific article, however, some require refinements or minor adjustments. I understand that the sections dealing with the Summary Discussion and Conclusion need to be improved. Care that authors should take is to establish certain boundaries between sections, for example, the methodology should not include results, which does not happen in the document. It should be noted that the section dealing with the methodology aims to describe how data related to the study's objective was collected, organized, and analyzed. It must also be possible to reproduce/replicate. This section should describe in an orderly manner and in chronological sequence what was done (not what was found), and what does not occur in the document.

Another observation. I understand that the appendices should be included after the Bibliographic References. In the document appear before. On the other hand, the appendices show the four questionnaires applied, which was very useful for reading the document.

The following are some specific comments about other parts of the document.

The title is of adequate length, with 11 words, (Development of STEM-based AI Education Program for Sustainable Improvement of Learners). It must be taken into account that the reader can select the article for reading based on the title assigned and, therefore, it must reflect its content, be concise, and include the most relevant terms of the objective of the work. In terms of writing, the title must answer three fundamental questions:

1. What was done? 2. What was done about it? 3. Where was it made? I think it answers the first two questions, but it doesn't answer the third. In this case, the application took place in primary education, in the K-6 of an elementary school

The “abstract” is very important because of its significant use in electronic databases. The text presented in the document is of adequate size with 164 words, distributed in 6 sentences and presenting an average of 27.3 words/sentence. I think that the average number of words used in the sentences is very high, and it can make it difficult to read, for those who are not very familiar with the subject. For example, for a better reader experience, it is recommended to write more objective sentences. According to the Oxford Guide for Writing (2020):

·         Sentences of up to 12 words are easy

·         Sentences of 13-17 words are acceptable

·         Sentences with 18-25 words are difficult

·         Sentences with more than 25 words are very difficult

Regarding construction, I think that the abstract presents structure problems and, in my opinion, partially presents the items needed for this part of the document. Namely: “What was studied” (Introduction); “How the study was carried out” (Materials and Methods); “What was found” (Results) and “What it means” (Conclusion). Another pertinent observation is that the abstract must be written in the past tense, except for the last paragraph or the concluding sentence. Which does not occur in the part of the text. Thus, I am of the opinion that the abstract needs to have its wording improved.

The authors present 3 (Artificial Intelligence education; STEM; elementary school). I think that a number is adequate. However, it is desirable that the order of presentation of the keywords is from the most comprehensive to the most specific, which does not occur in the document.

Discussion. In the discussion, you compare your results with the results of other researchers. To do this, use the present.

The authors present a section called “Discussion and Conclusion”. I remind you that the discussion is the part of the article where the reader must find clear and direct answers to the following questions:

·         Did the study help to solve the problem posed in the introduction?

·         What was the real contribution?

·         What theoretical-practical conclusions and implications can be inferred from the study?

The conclusion should be aligned with the research objectives, aiming to answer the research questions posed in the introduction, as well as the questions that led to the project and the research. I think the text presented could be improved.

The authors provide a list of 25 references that are all cited in the document. I think that the number of references is adequate, for the profile of the proposed, and consists of 14 pages. Regarding the actuality of the references, it was not possible to determine precisely, because, for documents accessed on the Web, the authors indicated the date of recovery of the document, but not its date of publication.

Figures, tables, and charts are intended to communicate information visually and quickly. The authors present 5 tables and 5 figures, which I think is a good number for the document. It happens that tables 1;2; and 3 are not identified/cited in the text. I remind you that they must be properly identified to help the reading and understanding of the document. Another point is related to the size of the tables, for example, Table 1 occupies half on page 2 and a half on page 3. A “Table 4. Pre /Post-survey results” occupies pages 10 and 11, that is, it is very long, and maybe it could be divided into categories. Regarding the figures, Figure 2 (page 6) could be adjusted to be just on the page. 5. “Figure 3. Details of Developed STEM- based AIED Program”, occupies pages 8 and 9 and could also be adjusted.

I remember that many readers will initially look at the graphics without reading the main text of the article. Thus, it is very important that these elements “can speak for themselves and clearly convey their most significant results”.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is interesting for the community but several points should be improved. References should be updated, within the last 5 years many papers were published on the topic and therefore are interesting to be included. Figure 1 is not visible enough.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf