Supporting and Sustaining Equitable STEAM Activities in High School Classrooms: Understanding Computer Science Teachers’ Needs and Practices When Implementing an E-Textiles Curriculum to Forge Connections across Communities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents an approach to sustaining STEAM activities in K-12 schools through an e-textile curriculum and accompanying Exploring Computer Science (ECS) professional development program for teachers. It is a qualitive study of a 8 selected teachers who have completed the ECS training and engaged in at least 1 year of in class delivery of the curriculum with their students.
This is a very worthwhile paper that provides insight into the perceptions of teachers in both learning and implementing these techniques in the classroom. It also provides insights into the impact being part of the ECS professional development community has on both themselves but also on the teaching practices.
There are however some concerns with this paper. It is not clear how this explicitly links to the the themes (sustainability and sustainable development) of the journal, although there are potential links these are not made explicit nor in a convincing manner. The topics of equitable learning experiences, social justice, community engagement and teacher motivation all have potential to speak to these topics, but the links are not made clearly in the current draft. This would be needed to speak to the audience of this journal. So it would be suggested that these links be made stronger going beyond and a little deeper than the repeated "sustain STEAM" currently used throughout the paper.
Need to explicitly address the initial research questions in the Discussion section.
Benefit from more clarity on how the data speaks to the equity aspects form Research Question 1. Social justice is alluded to towards the end of the paper, but not directly linked to the findings and data collection. It is not clear how this emerged from the data and reads as author conjecture.
Future work could consider who sustainability topics might become briefs for the student projects.
Suggested proofing checks:
Double comma line 215
Figure "2" caption lines 282-285 are default text and need to be updated
Check word "got" on line 514
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are thankful for the reviews on our manuscript, “ Supporting and sustaining equitable STEAM activities in high school classrooms: Understanding computer science teachers’ needs and practices forging connection across communities in implementing an e-textiles curriculum,” submitted to the Sustainability special issue on STEAM. We have substantially revised the paper in response to the reviews, detailed below.
[1] Reducing Length: In response to Reviewer 1’s comments about decreasing the length of the paper, we have removed several sections and redacted overall paper. We have also worked to streamline the findings, cutting back quotes and extra sentences so that the main points stand out more quickly.
[2] Refocusing Paper: In response to Reviewer 1’s in regard to discussions of equity and cultural responsiveness, we have largely removed discussion of equity except as an overall goal in the field of CS and STEAM education and instead focus these sections on the connectedness needed between disciplines in STEAM and within and beyond classrooms.
[3] Adding Information: In response to Reviewer 2’s request for more details on the PD intervention with teachers, we have added two paragraphs in section 2.1 (newly re-titled “E-textile Unit and Virtual PD”) with more details about what teachers did during the nine days of professional development, especially in creating their four e-textile projects. This provides more information on teachers’ experiences of the unit during PD without taking the focus off of what the teachers did in implementing the unit, which is the main focus of the paper.
[4] Stating Focus: Reviewer 2 stated “It is very helpful for the reader's understanding, if the final paragraph of this section (Introduction) reformulates the study objectives in a systematic and complete manner.” We believe the paper already does this twice, First with a three sentence outline of the paper at the end of the first part of the introduction (just before section 1.1)
“Drawing on hour-long post interviews, we examined these teachers’ reflections on implementing an e-textiles unit in their computer science classes for the first time, examining the connective practices teachers employed not only in the classroom but in their schools and broader communities at large to build equity in sustainable ways for students. We also consider what these reflections disclose about the teachers’ own social and emotional needs as they engage with the continuing challenges of teaching while learning new content and pedagogical skills to bring STEAM to their teaching environments. In the discussion we contemplate what teachers’ practices and needs say about implementing STEAM more broadly and how to widen our lens on how to sustain STEAM work in classrooms. “
In addition the paper has a summary of the study and articulation of the research questions at the end of the introduction, the very final sentences of section 1.2, before delving into Materials and Methods:
“In this study we look specifically at practices of social connection that teachers employed within and beyond their classrooms, oriented by the following research questions: (1) In what community-building practices do ECS teachers engage to promote equity and access with the e-textiles curriculum? In what ways do these practices connect within and beyond the classroom walls? And (2) What needs do ECS teachers face in implementing the e-textiles curriculum? In what ways do these needs stretch beyond classroom walls?”
[5] Providing Clarity on Teacher Demographics: Reviewer 2 asked for clarity about why we listed teachers’ demographic information, including race and ethnicity. In the United States, where this study took place, there are significant and well documented inequities in computer science education (discussed in the introduction), often along lines of race and ethnicity as well as gender, rural/urban contexts, and wealth of the community. We have clarified in a sentence in Section 2.2 “Participant Demographics” why we chose to list this information. It is not “separated” (Reviewer 2’s words) by anything (i.e., not race, gender, etc.). Rather, we list teachers in a random order and according to terms they chose to represent themselves (rather than pre-determined categories): Male, Female, Black, White, European, Puerto-Rican, etc. In the context of the United States where there is such inequity in CS educational representation according to gender, race, social class, and location (e.g., rural, urban) it is important to list this demographic information for context. In other words, we are not separating out teachers by any categories—whether gender, race, ethnicity, geography—we are simply describing them as part of the context of the study.
[6] Minor Editing: We have also gone through the paper thoroughly and cleaned up any grammatical, punctuation and other minor issues (like the superscript citation errors). In addition, in response to Reviewer 1’s request to clarify the age group of the students sooner in the paper, we have clarified in several areas that the ECS curriculum is for high school students (e.g., grades 9-12), and that all teachers taught at high schools in the United States, including in Table 1.
We believe the paper is much improved with these changes and have submitted two versions: [1] one with track changes version showing all the edits and [2] a clean version.
We’re looking forward to hearing from you soon,
Deborah Fields and Yasmin Kafai
Reviewer 2 Report
I found this to be a compelling and robust account on STEAM engagement by Computer Science teachers. The paper reports on an important part of Maker/STEM culture, that of community. The paper reports on part of a wider research program, which looks to be a significant program of research/professional development. The teachers' accounts were analysed with respect to different 'levels' of community, which brought to the fore the otherwise 'incidental' benefits of STEAM learning.
To improve the paper further, I suggest considering decreasing the length of the paper to make it more succinct.
I also recommend reconsidering the focus on equity and cultural responsiveness. I didn't see how this was incorporated into the analysis and interpretation, as it played a very minor role in the results and discussion. I also felt they were not necessary. If the authors wish to retain these themes, they would need to be more comprehensively integrated. How did the theme of equity manifest in the analysis, across the identified themes? How so the authors interpret this? In the discussion, can the authors provide a model/theoretical framework that allows them to make judgements/delivery insights related to equity? With respect to cultural responsiveness, the authors would need to provide a more explicit definition, and again, discuss how this idea impacts the analysis and is interpreted in the discussion.
Other minor points:
Some of the references are presented in superscript when they should be in regular text
Double comma line 215, page 5
Did I miss reports of the grade level of the students?
Author Response
May 8, 2023
Dear Reviewer,
We are thankful for the reviews on our manuscript, “ Supporting and sustaining equitable STEAM activities in high school classrooms: Understanding computer science teachers’ needs and practices forging connection across communities in implementing an e-textiles curriculum,” submitted to the Sustainability special issue on STEAM. We have substantially revised the paper in response to the reviews, detailed below.
[1] Reducing Length: In response to Reviewer 1’s comments about decreasing the length of the paper, we have removed several sections and redacted overall paper. We have also worked to streamline the findings, cutting back quotes and extra sentences so that the main points stand out more quickly.
[2] Refocusing Paper: In response to Reviewer 1’s in regard to discussions of equity and cultural responsiveness, we have largely removed discussion of equity except as an overall goal in the field of CS and STEAM education and instead focus these sections on the connectedness needed between disciplines in STEAM and within and beyond classrooms.
[3] Adding Information: In response to Reviewer 2’s request for more details on the PD intervention with teachers, we have added two paragraphs in section 2.1 (newly re-titled “E-textile Unit and Virtual PD”) with more details about what teachers did during the nine days of professional development, especially in creating their four e-textile projects. This provides more information on teachers’ experiences of the unit during PD without taking the focus off of what the teachers did in implementing the unit, which is the main focus of the paper.
[4] Stating Focus: Reviewer 2 stated “It is very helpful for the reader's understanding, if the final paragraph of this section (Introduction) reformulates the study objectives in a systematic and complete manner.” We believe the paper already does this twice, First with a three sentence outline of the paper at the end of the first part of the introduction (just before section 1.1)
“Drawing on hour-long post interviews, we examined these teachers’ reflections on implementing an e-textiles unit in their computer science classes for the first time, examining the connective practices teachers employed not only in the classroom but in their schools and broader communities at large to build equity in sustainable ways for students. We also consider what these reflections disclose about the teachers’ own social and emotional needs as they engage with the continuing challenges of teaching while learning new content and pedagogical skills to bring STEAM to their teaching environments. In the discussion we contemplate what teachers’ practices and needs say about implementing STEAM more broadly and how to widen our lens on how to sustain STEAM work in classrooms. “
In addition the paper has a summary of the study and articulation of the research questions at the end of the introduction, the very final sentences of section 1.2, before delving into Materials and Methods:
“In this study we look specifically at practices of social connection that teachers employed within and beyond their classrooms, oriented by the following research questions: (1) In what community-building practices do ECS teachers engage to promote equity and access with the e-textiles curriculum? In what ways do these practices connect within and beyond the classroom walls? And (2) What needs do ECS teachers face in implementing the e-textiles curriculum? In what ways do these needs stretch beyond classroom walls?”
[5] Providing Clarity on Teacher Demographics: Reviewer 2 asked for clarity about why we listed teachers’ demographic information, including race and ethnicity. In the United States, where this study took place, there are significant and well documented inequities in computer science education (discussed in the introduction), often along lines of race and ethnicity as well as gender, rural/urban contexts, and wealth of the community. We have clarified in a sentence in Section 2.2 “Participant Demographics” why we chose to list this information. It is not “separated” (Reviewer 2’s words) by anything (i.e., not race, gender, etc.). Rather, we list teachers in a random order and according to terms they chose to represent themselves (rather than pre-determined categories): Male, Female, Black, White, European, Puerto-Rican, etc. In the context of the United States where there is such inequity in CS educational representation according to gender, race, social class, and location (e.g., rural, urban) it is important to list this demographic information for context. In other words, we are not separating out teachers by any categories—whether gender, race, ethnicity, geography—we are simply describing them as part of the context of the study.
[6] Minor Editing: We have also gone through the paper thoroughly and cleaned up any grammatical, punctuation and other minor issues (like the superscript citation errors). In addition, in response to Reviewer 1’s request to clarify the age group of the students sooner in the paper, we have clarified in several areas that the ECS curriculum is for high school students (e.g., grades 9-12), and that all teachers taught at high schools in the United States, including in Table 1.
We believe the paper is much improved with these changes and have submitted two versions: [1] one with track changes version showing all the edits and [2] a clean version.
We’re looking forward to hearing from you soon,
Deborah Fields and Yasmin Kafai
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
Congratulations, you have successfully submitted an article to this journal. Overall the content of this article is good, but in the Materials and Methods section of the study it needs to be clarified, in which part and how does STEAM intervene in the learning process. All notes for improvement suggestions are in the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
May 8, 2023
Dear Reviewer,
We are thankful for the reviews on our manuscript, “ Supporting and sustaining equitable STEAM activities in high school classrooms: Understanding computer science teachers’ needs and practices forging connection across communities in implementing an e-textiles curriculum,” submitted to the Sustainability special issue on STEAM. We have substantially revised the paper in response to the reviews, detailed below.
[1] Reducing Length: In response to Reviewer 1’s comments about decreasing the length of the paper, we have removed several sections and redacted overall paper. We have also worked to streamline the findings, cutting back quotes and extra sentences so that the main points stand out more quickly.
[2] Refocusing Paper: In response to Reviewer 1’s in regard to discussions of equity and cultural responsiveness, we have largely removed discussion of equity except as an overall goal in the field of CS and STEAM education and instead focus these sections on the connectedness needed between disciplines in STEAM and within and beyond classrooms.
[3] Adding Information: In response to Reviewer 2’s request for more details on the PD intervention with teachers, we have added two paragraphs in section 2.1 (newly re-titled “E-textile Unit and Virtual PD”) with more details about what teachers did during the nine days of professional development, especially in creating their four e-textile projects. This provides more information on teachers’ experiences of the unit during PD without taking the focus off of what the teachers did in implementing the unit, which is the main focus of the paper.
[4] Stating Focus: Reviewer 2 stated “It is very helpful for the reader's understanding, if the final paragraph of this section (Introduction) reformulates the study objectives in a systematic and complete manner.” We believe the paper already does this twice, First with a three sentence outline of the paper at the end of the first part of the introduction (just before section 1.1)
“Drawing on hour-long post interviews, we examined these teachers’ reflections on implementing an e-textiles unit in their computer science classes for the first time, examining the connective practices teachers employed not only in the classroom but in their schools and broader communities at large to build equity in sustainable ways for students. We also consider what these reflections disclose about the teachers’ own social and emotional needs as they engage with the continuing challenges of teaching while learning new content and pedagogical skills to bring STEAM to their teaching environments. In the discussion we contemplate what teachers’ practices and needs say about implementing STEAM more broadly and how to widen our lens on how to sustain STEAM work in classrooms. “
In addition the paper has a summary of the study and articulation of the research questions at the end of the introduction, the very final sentences of section 1.2, before delving into Materials and Methods:
“In this study we look specifically at practices of social connection that teachers employed within and beyond their classrooms, oriented by the following research questions: (1) In what community-building practices do ECS teachers engage to promote equity and access with the e-textiles curriculum? In what ways do these practices connect within and beyond the classroom walls? And (2) What needs do ECS teachers face in implementing the e-textiles curriculum? In what ways do these needs stretch beyond classroom walls?”
[5] Providing Clarity on Teacher Demographics: Reviewer 2 asked for clarity about why we listed teachers’ demographic information, including race and ethnicity. In the United States, where this study took place, there are significant and well documented inequities in computer science education (discussed in the introduction), often along lines of race and ethnicity as well as gender, rural/urban contexts, and wealth of the community. We have clarified in a sentence in Section 2.2 “Participant Demographics” why we chose to list this information. It is not “separated” (Reviewer 2’s words) by anything (i.e., not race, gender, etc.). Rather, we list teachers in a random order and according to terms they chose to represent themselves (rather than pre-determined categories): Male, Female, Black, White, European, Puerto-Rican, etc. In the context of the United States where there is such inequity in CS educational representation according to gender, race, social class, and location (e.g., rural, urban) it is important to list this demographic information for context. In other words, we are not separating out teachers by any categories—whether gender, race, ethnicity, geography—we are simply describing them as part of the context of the study.
[6] Minor Editing: We have also gone through the paper thoroughly and cleaned up any grammatical, punctuation and other minor issues (like the superscript citation errors). In addition, in response to Reviewer 1’s request to clarify the age group of the students sooner in the paper, we have clarified in several areas that the ECS curriculum is for high school students (e.g., grades 9-12), and that all teachers taught at high schools in the United States, including in Table 1.
We believe the paper is much improved with these changes and have submitted two versions: [1] one with track changes version showing all the edits and [2] a clean version.
We’re looking forward to hearing from you soon,
Deborah Fields and Yasmin Kafai
