The Role of Mathematics in STEM Secondary Classrooms: A Systematic Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors' intention is relevant. The manuscript aims to contribute to the discussion on the role of Mathematics in secondary STEM education, however, there are various concerns. Following are suggestions that could strengthen the quality and outreach of the paper:
- Line 2: Since the paper investigates "secondary" education, the title of the paper shall be modified.
- Lines 8 - 9: What is the meaning of this statement - "especially in a pandemic"?
- Line 11: Quotations are not typical for abstracts. Reconsideration of inclusion is needed.
- Line 13: How many eligible documents were investigated (13 or 14)? Make it consistent (e.g. see lines 225, 238, 265, 491).
- Lines 17 - 18: The keywords should not be written in brackets.
- Lines 30 - 33: Respect the gender rules in academic writing, please.
- Lines 32, 50, 87, 121, 136 etc: Follow the editorial rules for referencing.
- Line 51 and 61: The statement "a research gap" is quite strong, and the phrase "our (surrounding) world" is not necessary. Reconsider its use.
- Lines 167 / 171: Specify the "secondary" classrooms in RQ1/2.
- Line 171: Is the RQ2 appropriately formulated? Does the reader find the relevant answer in the manuscript?
- Line 180: What was the criterion for setting up the 5-year interval? There was a pandemic, and it affected the research and especially the education regarding the topic. Please, specify in the paper.
- Line 186: The reviewer is of an opinion that this is NOT "an emerging topic".
- Section 4.1: Can the authors explain why the Scopus database was not included? The reviewer is of an opinion that this database will enrich the dataset of research papers regarding the topic.
- Table 1: In the context of the "secondary STEM classrooms", the search term "secondary" is missing. Did this fact negatively affect the examined dataset?
- Lines 206 - 209: Hence it is stated in the Discussion or lines 230-231 as a limitation or bias, the authors excluded the electives or extracurricular activities e.g. summer camps. What was their motivation? In general, is it really possible according to curricula, time allocation for subjects and their specific topic to fully integrate Math? Resp. to teach a separate STEM subject? (See the statement in line 350). Such extra activities are helpful in this context, indeed. (Not all students have an inborn talent in Math / are interested in / have cognitive predispositions). This part of the research may be useful.
- Table 2: IC5 shall be substituted by IC4.
- Line 253: The last sentence is irrelevant (see Author´s contribution).
- Line 313: What is the relevance of documents, if the research design information is not provided?
- Figures 8 and 9: Are these results relevant or do they represent only the opinion of the authors of the manuscript? What was the methodology?
- Line 372: Figure 7 (b) shall be corrected into Figure 8 (b).
- Lines 377/380 and Figure 9 (a-b): Unify the word auxiliary/ancillary for better understanding of readers.
- Line 383: "the author´s view" - please, specify that they are authors of the investigated publications.
- Table 5: This table is quite confusing for the reader, some explanation would be nice, if possible.
- Line 394: What does the value of -0,87 mean? Please, specify.
- Lines 408 and 411/412: Notions as "underrepresented" and "completely ignored" are quite strong and probably not true. Please reconsider.
- Lines 415-418: This statement is not clear.
- Line 427: Reference missing.
- Lines 434-435: According to Fig. 5, this statement is not true.
- The list of references shall be enriched.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we would like to thank you for your constructive feedback! We gratefully accept your suggestions for improving the paper.
We responded to your review in detail in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article presents a systematic literature research in mathematics, in the context of the STEM disciplines. However, the aim of the paper is not clearly stated in the article. 3 databases (WOS, ERIC, TCR) have been revised. The content included in the last sections (results, discussion, conclusions) should be reviewed for the authors, since there are parts that should be included in different sections.
--
Comments and suggestions
Type of the paper: ‘Systematic literature review’; it should be ‘Review’
Title: ‘The role of Mathematics in STEM classrooms: a literature review’
· The title should include the word ‘Systematic’ (e.g. ‘The role of Mathematics in STEM: a Systematic Literature Review’)
Abstract
Line 8 to 9.- ‘Especially the times of the pandemic have shown how important mathematical understanding is in global challenges ...’
There are no references to 'mathematics and pandemic' in the paper. Is the sentence included in the abstract just as an opinion? Are there any elements in the paper that support the statement?
The abstract does not include conclusions.
Keywords: ‘STEM Education; role of mathematics; systematic literature review (mathematics, STEM, classroom, role of mathematics, literature review.)’
You need to include, at least, three keywords.
Minor issues: there are some typos, e.g. …
Lines 87; 236; 301; 318; 332; 368.
· Format issue. A ‘full stop’ should be included after ‘Figure #’: ‘Figure #. Explanation’.
Lines 40 to 42.- Considerer rewording this sentence to a better understanding: ‘On the one hand, because mathematics acts as a communication aid or language of all disciplines mentioned in the term, on the other hand, because the applications from science, technology and engineering are usually based on (complex) mathematical models.’
Line 58; epigraph 2.2 / Line 106, epigraph 2.1.
Line 65.- ‘in one[7].’. A space is required ... ‘in one [7]’.
Line 91.- ‘Figure one’... ‘Figure 1’
Line 121.- [e.g. 1,5,6,11,e.g. 13].
Line 165.- ‘Numbered The main purpose of our study...’
Line 166.- ‘research question questions’
Line 184.- ‘Second, we present the results of our analysis’
Despite Table 2 (section 4) includes some results, this sentence may drive to some confusion, since results appear in another section (section 5).
Line 192 & 193.- remove spaces.
Line 197.- A blank row should be removed in Table 1.
Line 210. Table 2.- Inclusion criterium ‘IC4’ is missing.
What do you mean by ‘EC5: Studies not indexed in any database included IC4’? Is ‘IC5’ really ‘IC4’?
Line 257.- ‘parts: First,... Second...’
Line 277.- ‘only two (15%) Journals’ ... ‘only two journals (15%)’.
Line 339.- ‘Table 4. Sample size’.
· Only the raw related to ‘Sample size 0-20’ is underlined (?). Is there any reason?
· Column ‘%’, adds 98%, instead of 100%; consider including one decimal number.
Line 349.- ‘(n=5, 36%) There...’. A full stop is missed.
Line 359.- reasarch ... research
Line 386.- ‘Ohm’s Las’ .. Law
Line 426.- Yasin et al., ... The reference (21) should be included.
Aim of the study (lines 51&52?)
In the article can be read:
Line 11.- ‘Therefore, the question arises: “What is the current role of mathematics in STEM classrooms?”’
Line 14.- ‘This literature review paper is intended to contribute to the current state of engagement of mathematics in STEM education.
Line 51 & 52.- ‘In this paper we highlight a research gap and by analyzing the current state of research on the integration of mathematics in STEM education in secondary school classrooms with this systematic literature review’.
Line 186 & 187.- ‘we aim to provide an up-to-date summary of the state-of-the-art research on the role of mathematics in STEM education’
Line 429.- ‘This review study systematically investigated the current role of mathematics in STEM classrooms.’
The aim of the systematic literature review should be clearly stated.
Research terms
Once the research question is well-explained, it can be analyzed if the selected ‘research terms’ match with the research question.
Inclusion criteria
Line 210. Table 2.- Inclusion criterium ‘IC4’ is missing. It is only cited in ‘EC5’.
‘IC5’ is really ‘IC4’? ‘IC4’ is missing?
Results
This section should only include results. There are other sections in the paper to include discussions and conclusions.
Line 270.- Our results indicated. The Distribution … What does it mean?
Line 399.- ‘5.4 Conclusion to the role of mathematics’ (line 399 to 427). Epigraph 5 should include only results. Parts of this subsection should be moved to the proper section (discussion or conclusions).
Discussion
The discussion, excluding the limitations of the research, is described in 25 lines (line 429 to 454). It should be great to discuss the obtained results as answers or comments to the research questions, in line what you have done in section 4 (results).
Line 445.- ‘Niss and Højgaard emphasize in their work’. The reference should be included. (Is it 18?)
Conclusions
Line 498.- ‘As a result, there is a need to promote and fund research project and develop educational programs and curricula’. Is this a conclusion that you can extract of the data or is it your suggestion based on your personal perceptions?
A synthesis of your conclusions should be included in the abstract, as previously mentioned.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we would like to thank you for your constructive feedback! We gratefully accept your suggestions for improving the paper.
We responded to your review in detail in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The role of Mathematics in STEM classrooms: a literature review
The submitted paper addressed an interesting methodological issue and literature review: The role of Mathematics in STEM classrooms. The topic is well argumented and documented with previous studies from the scientific literature.
§ At the ‘abstract’ must be included a mention for results.
§ I don’t agree with the keywords. Maybe these keywords inside () must be not included in a ().
§ The introduction is very clear and accurate.
§ There is a very good connection between previous literature and the elements included in the questionnaire.
§ Every aspect considered (authority, incentives, survey structure/form, ethical issues, reminders and pre-notifications, and survey time) is identified in the literature review and, after that, is included in the research instrument.
§ Also, the diagram of the manuscript selection process is very clear.
§ The description of ‘Types of documents’ in pages 8-9 is very good.
§ The results are presented in a logical and clear manner which makes the paper easy to read and understand.
§ For figures (for example 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc) I will propose other style of diagrams and not this style of figure (pie). But it is only a suggestion, not a problem.
§ The authors should include Implications and limitations in a separate field (numbered 7, after discussion which is numbered 6)
§ More extensive linking of the findings to previous research cited in the Literature review would be useful in the discussion
§ The authors should check that all references are relevant to the contents of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
we would like to thank you for your constructive feedback! We gratefully accept your suggestions for improving the paper.
We responded to your review in detail in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your revisions.
