Storytelling as a Skeleton to Design a Learning Unit: A Model for Teaching and Learning Optics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript contributes something new to the field by suggesting an innovative way of designing a learning pathway using storytelling. Modelling, argumentation, meta-reflection are key competencies to be developed in the suggested Storytelling Learning Unit (SLU).

 

Some recommendations are made as follows:

 

1.    Suggested title: Storytelling as a skeleton to design a learning unit: A model for teaching and learning optics.

2.    Abstract:

Avoid abbreviation in the abstract. Spell DIST-M out in full - Digital Interactive Storytelling in Mathematics.

 Keywords need to be written in alphabetical order.

It is suggested to remove STEM from the keywords. STEM is not mentioned in the abstract as well as in the content.

Include modelling and argumentation skills in the Keywords.

 

4.    Line 324, an apriori analysis – please correct

 

The strength of the manuscript:

1.    The rationale of using storytelling, modelling and argumentation and their interconnection are well explained.

2.    A comprehensive literature review has been conducted.

3.    Inquiry, Conjecture, and Proof are clearly explained.

4.  A DIST-M cycle is provided which would really help in framing the learning unit.

5.   Bloom’s taxonomy is used in formulating the Learning outcomes of the SLU

 

Contribution of the study:

The study provides 7 key principles and some other recommendations to

 both researchers and teachers for the design of a SLU.

Author Response

Thank you for your precious feedback. Please find a letter with detailed answers to your suggestions in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This paper introduces an interesting way for students to learn some concepts in optics. The storytelling and role playing approach seems as if it can meet many goals such as problem solving and scientific reasoning. Thus, the approach should be of interest to many physics instructors and others interesting in STEM education.

The methods of designing the instructional material have been thought through well and thus should lead to materials that will be appropriate for the intended audience and address the goals of the teaching/learning unit very well. The backward design process is described well and should be easy to follow even for readers who are not familiar with this process.

The resulting lessons seem quite appropriate and should help students meet the stated goals. The continuing assessment of the students’ learning will help the students and instructor see how the learning is progressing. Further, the nested learning cycles create a good learning environment.

The paper is very well written, Readers should enjoy the style and content.

While I feel quite positive about the paper as it is presented, I find one serious omission. The authors do not describe the results of actually using the instructional materials in a classroom. For research and development of this nature we really need to know how it works. Questions that need to be addressed include:

Do the students reach the intended goals for both content, model building, and reasoning?

How do they respond to the storytelling and role playing?

What modifications, in any, were needed after classroom implementation?

Were there any students for who storytelling was not a good learning experience?

Throughout my review I have used words such as “should” and “seem to” because no empirical data are provided to support the teaching/learning conjectures presented in the paper. Without these data to support the answers to the types of questions that are listed above the paper is a nice exercise in applying some theories and methods of learning/teaching. However, it does not address the fundamental issue of whether the lessons described here actually improve STEM education.

Author Response

Thank you for your precious feedback. Please find a letter with detailed answers to your suggestions in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The basic idea of the paper is vell presented, documented, and it offers a clear description of the method which has been used. The presentation forms, the analyse of data, the discussion and conclusions seem to be coherent with the subject chosen, and present a rather new view of the applicability of the storytelling for physics and mathematics, moreover it highlights the educational and communication features of the subject in study. The single, personal remark should be that the I would prefer other example than that of the Fellowship of Rings, appendix A, however it has a large popularity, but in my opinion, there are several other possible examples.

Author Response

Thank you for your precious feedback. Please find a letter with detailed answers to your suggestions in the file attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed my concerns.