Development and Application of a Novel Engineering-Based Maker Education Course for Pre-Service Teachers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I liked this manuscript. I did some extra reading to better understand maker education so I learned a great deal about a topic for which I had no knowledge. The manuscript was well written with only a few suggestions (see below). The analysis was very thorough, the terms were well defined, and the quotes from the teachers' journals were very representative of the narrative discussion. The illustrations were also good (Figures 4 and 5) and also very representative of the narrative discussion.
Few suggestions: Figure 2 needs to be bigger.
line 27-30, need a reference for Fourth Industrial Revolution; line 76, which is tied to; line 80,reference needed for DIY movement;line 102, event to the humanities; line 118, but a cooperation atmosphere; line 133, What is ELA?; Table 1, fix the table, Research; Table 2, fix the bolding and fix the column headings; line 181, which is widely; line 185, whenever a course was; line 210 suggest deleting the comma after set; line 266, in a global society; line 294, do not understand "...making project in earnest"; line 457, it was not easy; line 502, that has the advantages
Author Response
Dear. Reviewer,
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Summary:
education-758339 “Development and Application of a Novel-Engineering-Based Maker Education Course for Pre-Service Teachers” is a presentation of a case study using maker education in a pre-service teacher education Information and Communication Education course. The study outlines the implementation of a type of problem-based learning and presents results of this implementation.
Overall comments:
The paper is generally well-written and the introduction does a good job of justifying the approach and basing the pedagogy in theory.
An improvement would be to provide the intended learning outcomes of the course. Some indication of if/how these were met would then be useful.
Although the data is obviously not available or it would be included, this study would be greatly strengthened by the use of a control group. What happens to STEAM, the course satisfaction test, and reflective journals in the same course delivered in a more traditional format? This study demonstrates change over time, but does not demonstrate that this method is different from others. Are there data from previous iterations of this course to which this could be compared?
The Discussion needs to be strengthened by comparing this experience to previous work and learning theories. There are many missed opportunities to cite the work of others with ideas as to how to improve the implementation of this strategy. For example, the considerable work done on group work and group construction would significantly improve the discussion about students working alone vs. in groups (paragraph beginning on page 14, line 461).
Specific comments
Page 4, line 133: Please define abbreviation, ELA.
Page 5, line 181: Please provide a complete reference for the STEAM Literacy Test.
Page 6, line 195: Please provide a complete reference for the ADDIE model.
Page 6, line 234: Please provide manufacturers and locations for the Micro:bit tinker kit and MakeCode.
Page 6, line 234: If the MakeCode used here is the Microsoft product, it is one word without a space, i.e. MakeCode instead of Made Code.
Page 7, line 253: Please provide a complete reference for the “course satisfaction test.”
Page 7, line 254 - 256: “Furthermore, participants prepared their own reflective journals in the learning management system (LMS) whenever the course was complete to investigate the response to the developed course from the students.” Might make more sense if this sentence were restructured to: Furthermore, participants prepared their own reflective journals in the learning management system (LMS) when the course was complete and these were analyzed to investigate the student response to the course.
Page 7, line 274: Replace “whenever” with “when.”
Page 10, line 360: Please provide location for SPSS manufacturer IBM.
Page 11, line 374: For ease of reading and referencing table 6, this paragraph would be improved if reorganized so that the results are presented in the same order as the data presented in table 6.
Page 11, starting in table 6 and following paragraph: Please put a 0 in front of the decimal point for the p values to ease reading of the numbers. This was done at the bottom of page 10, but is not continued.
Page 13, line 427: This complete paragraph is difficult to understand. Can it be re-written to clarify? Perhaps it is the third sentence that disrupts and confuses the paragraph.
Pages 12 – 13, sections 4.3.1 & 4.3.2: These two sections would be strengthened if data regarding the frequency of comments were provided. For example, how many students, with percentage, positively commented on “sharing effectiveness?”
Page 14, line 458: “The discussion summaries of strategies of how to apply NE-based maker education to a course as a maker education measure for pre-service teachers with various majors are as follows.” Might make more sense if this sentence were restructured to: “The following discussion summarizes strategies of how to apply NE-based maker education to a course as a maker education measure for pre-service teachers with various majors.”
References
It may be an artifact of the manuscript upload/review process, but some of the references appeared to be justified differently than others.
Tables and figures:
Page 5, Table 2: It may be an artifact of the manuscript upload/review process, but ensure that column names fit on a line. For example, the y in elementary is on a separate line from the rest of the word. This is an issue in 3 of the columns.
Page 5, Table 3: Again, it may be an artifact of the manuscript upload/review process, but, as presented, table 3 does not make sense. All of information is in the first column only.
Author Response
Dear. Reviewer,
Hello.
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The Discussion needs to be strengthened by comparing this experience to previous work and learning theories. There are still many missed opportunities to cite the work of others with ideas as to how to improve the implementation of this strategy.
How does this fit with the current body of knowledge? What does it confirm? What does it challenge? What new information is provided? Etc.
Author Response
Dear. Reviewer,
Hello. We are the authors.
Please see the attachment. Thanks.
Regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Nice improvements. Good work.
