Developing Computational Thinking: Design-Based Learning and Interdisciplinary Activity Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Summary

This paper overviews a learning intervention designed to engage students in design-based learning in a Scratch environment to promote computational thinking behaviors and skills. While the results are encouraging, useful, and relevant to the field, the paper needs significant restructuring and editing prior to publication. Some of the major revisions I would suggest are reorganizing much of the text (details below), as well as expansion of certain parts of the paper (specifically the description of the implementation and the discussion sections). Because I believe this paper could eventually be suitable for publication in this journal, my suggestion is a decision of revise and resubmit or major revisions.

Abstract

I think the abstract has the necessary information. As with much of the manuscript, it could use some additional grammar and editing.

Introduction

The introduction is okay. A couple of notes:

·         The introduction could use some expansion to include more on the definition of computational thinking. There are some prominent literature reviews that would be useful in discussing this definition. I think it could also use some expansion to introduce us to the population of interest in this paper, as well as different types of technology that will be useful to be familiar with throughout the paper.

·         I would also include explicit research questions in the introduction in order to help focus the reader on what the paper will ultimately be answering.

·         There are sections of the introduction that are very difficult to understand grammatically what is being said. I would suggest significant editing be done to this section in terms of language and grammar.

Conceptual Framework

·         Overall I think this section is mistitled. Perhaps changing this section to Background would be more indicative of what is written here.

Connotation evolution of CT

·         This section is a little bit confusing. I believe that it is trying to make the argument that the definition of CT has evolved with the rise of STEAM education. However, the connection is not made explicit. I would be more precise and explicit with how the definition of CT has been changing throughout the literature and use examples of how it relates to STEAM education.

The strategy and mode of developing CT

·         I think this section is well written.

Interdisciplinary and CT

·         While what is written here is correct, I believe it could be expanded a bit with more literature connecting CT to different disciplines.

Methodology

·         I think that nearly everything in 2.1 and 2.2 should be in the previous section and condensed as it really it just overviewing design-based learning. Then 2.3 should be the beginning of a section on the Methods for the paper. 

Implementation

·         The implementation section should largely be in the methods section (3.1-3.2).

·         3.2 is a great section that really is one of the more valuable contributions of the paper. Perhaps you could in more detail explain how the example activity given (I am an Explorer) differed from the same material in the traditional learning environment. This would be very useful to practitioners wanting to make similar changes in their course environments.

Results and Discussion

·         This should be it’s own section after the methods section of the paper.

·         The results are promising and are useful to the field. I think that it is interesting how you saw so much difference between the two groups. Because the discussion should be included here, perhaps you could spend some time diving into why you think there was such a big difference and how the literature broadly aligns with your results. There really isn’t much of a discussion at all, and the results should be tied into the largely body of research around CT and DBL.

Conclusions and limitations

·         There weren’t really any limitations of the study listed. The limitations section really just summarized the study and some of the results.

Teaching Suggestions

·         So I think that this section could form the basis of a discussion section, where the results are discussed in terms of teaching practices. Perhaps this should be moved before the conclusions section and expanded to include more connections to the broader literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting article. I would have liked to see a more detailed description of how the classes are conducted. E.G. some examples from lesson plans showing the different approaches of the two methods.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The method needed simplification. For example, In 107, the authors refer to Dale's The Core of Experience, which is not explained in the text. 

2. A number of abbreviations were used before they were explained, which made the reading of the paper confusing. Having the abbreviations at the end was not very helpful in following the explanations. Authors could use the full name and put the abbreviation or acronym in parentheses when the name is first introduced.

3. The idea of control and experimental groups was clearly mentioned in results section but not described in methods. Include this grouping and the selection os groups.

4. References were not in a logical order, which made it challenging to identify which ones had been used. For example, I couldn't reference 1 in the text. I suggest revising the reference organization.

5. Some figures such as figure 3 need more description to make it easier for the reader to follow.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think the modifications largely make the paper more readable and ready for publication. I think overall, the paper is likely ready to move forward for editing and finalization. The only thing I would say is that my preference would be for the study to not simply remove the limitations section, but to type up a limitations section that actually includes the limitations of the study (contextually bound, small sample size, etc.). 

Author Response

We submitted the manuscript for English editing. We revised this manuscript especially the section of 0 Introduction, 1.1. The evolution of the concept of CT , 2.1. DBL and CT Development , 2.4. CT-oriented interdisciplinary activity design, 3.2. Design and practice of teaching activities, 3.3. Research results, 4.2. Conclusions and 4.3. Discussion.

We added the limitations section and noted three limitations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Is it possible to translate text in figures such as fig 3.

Revisions have improved the manuscript.

Author Response

In the Methodology section, we revised relevant paragraphs, especially 2.1. DBL and CT Development and 2.4. CT-oriented interdisciplinary activity design. In 2.1.,we revised the description about the relationship between DBL and CT development. In 2.4.,we revised our interdisciplinary activity design for the development of CT.

We replaced fig 3 with a new translated one.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf