An Innovative STEAM-Based Method for Teaching Cycloidal Curves in Engineering Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) designed a sophisticated study, but it brought about certain challenges in terms of the organization of the paper. I understand the study still continues, and there are lots of steps taken which is appreciated. On the other hand, the paper should be reconsidered in terms of following issues:

1. The abstract lacks important details to provide an overview for readers. The methods and the steps should be summarized clearly. For example, "quantitative studies were carried out" statement should be rewritten to specify the type of quan study. The abstract lacks the statement of overall results. "The effectiveness of method" or "experimental results indicate" are not the right wording. The author(s) should be much more specific.

2. In the introduction, there are too many superficial arguments that need to be supported scientifically. For example, the sentences between lines 48-50 require statistical data or concrete proof. Lines 82-83, 104-106, and 367-373 suffer from the same problem. The literature should be enriched by adding the LOGO programming language and the physical programming literature. 

3. In section 1.1, the details are too much for the readership of this journal. Please shorten the technical details and explain how this topic relates to engineering education in combination with robotics. You can also explain and compare the current and the previous approaches to teaching the topic. You can provide a rationale for why they were not effective. 

4. The model is named "Four-Stage Methodological Model for Cycloidal Curves". Is this model only valid for teaching cycloidal curves or can it be adopted by other engineering subjects? If the former is correct, then the validity of the model should be reported well. If the latter is correct, then the naming should be reconsidered.

5. The methods section should be improved. For example, the research pattern was not explained clearly. I think it would be better if the overall process were visualized neatly. The procedures (steps taken) lacks many details. The Four-Stage  methodology model is a model but in the paper it was assumed as the research method. The research method and the utilization of the model should be separated from each other. 

6. The first research question includes bizarre terminology. The model was categorized as a didactic technique, but I think it does not match its pedagogical background, which is student-centered.

7. The data source to be analyzed for answering either research question is limited to students' papers. I think it is quite a big threat to the generalizability of the results.

8. The procedures for the experimental group and control group should be described separately.

9. The scoring guide can be demonstrated and explained. A sample analysis can also be provided because all details are very vague. 

10. The sample sizes varies across groups, which I think beyond acceptable limits. This should be discussed well as a limitation.

11. For the second research question, past scores were taken into account, but the reader was not informed about it till 3.2 section. Moreover, the rational for grouping was not provided in the introduction. The reasoning was given between lines 607-609, so it should be moved to intro.

12. Although the activities were attached as appendices, the reader still expects to understand certain parts of the materials to relate the research questions and the results.

13. The discussion and conclusion section should be rewritten. The first and the second paragraphs seem like introductory information, so they should be removed. In general, this section consists of too much summary but little discussion. It lacks of literature support. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the language is not problematic, there are a few grammatical violations. Moreover, the structure and flow of the paper is very hard to pursue. It should be reorganized.

Author Response

Pease see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is fascinating and innovative; however, I suggest further exploration or addressing the following points:

Line 232: The article clearly defines the 4C model, describing it as an iterative process and a learning spiral. However, the accompanying figure depicts it more as a closed cycle than a proper spiral. Since the spiral metaphor suggests continuous progression, it would be advisable to modify the diagram or add additional information better to reflect the dynamic and iterative nature of the process. The same suggestion applies to Figure 5, where the visual representation of the methodological model could benefit from greater clarity and better alignment with the theoretical description.

Lines 611-637: This section makes interesting claims regarding the importance of mathematics education for engineering students and its connection to critical problem-solving skills. However, these assertions would benefit from additional references to support the arguments presented. Incorporating citations from previous studies or relevant literature would strengthen the academic rigor of the claims and connect them to established research in the field.

Limitations: The section on study limitations mainly addresses general constraints related to infrastructure and resources but does not delve into the specific limitations of the experiment conducted. It is essential to acknowledge the inherent limitations of the study, such as sample size, the predominantly male composition (90.82%), and the lack of demographic diversity. This is relevant for assessing the potential scalability and replicability of the study in broader contexts. Additionally, replicating the study in courses with a higher female presence would be valuable to explore whether the results remain consistent in more diverse populations. This approach would enrich the findings and provide a more equitable understanding of the methodology's effectiveness across different student groups.

 

BR

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The findings of the study should be discussed considering the current state of the art. 

Author Response

Comment: The findings of the study should be discussed considering the current state of the art. 

Answer:  Thank you for your work and comment. We have contextualised our results within recent educational advancements. In our revised manuscript, we have emphasised how our study on the effectiveness of the novel four-stage model for teaching cycloidal curves aligns with the growing focus on active learning and technological integration in mathematics education. We have cited relevant studies highlighting the significance of hands-on experiences and the role of educational robotics in enhancing student engagement and understanding. We have expanded our discussion to reinforce the connection between our findings and existing literature that supports the positive impact of innovative teaching methods and project-based learning on diverse learner populations. We believe the revision strengthens our conclusions and better aligns our findings with contemporary trends in engineering mathematics education and STEM disciplines.

The new paragraph is highlighted in blue and can be found at the end of the Discussion and Conclusions section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf