Challenging Examples of the Wise Use of Computer Tools for the Sustainability of Knowledge and Developing Active and Innovative Methods in STEAM and Mathematics Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work will be very useful for specialists in mathematics and related disciplines in order to use software tools and teach students to apply them adequately in their special areas of knowledge. The work is written in intelligible language.
Author Response
Authors response:
We thank the Reviewer’s comments, we are grateful for the positive feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript addresses an interest topic that it is to identify the best way to improve mathematical Knowledge of the students in this challenge world, throughout - a theoretical way, using ICT tools or a combination of the two. The manuscript also fits into the scope of the Sustainability journal.
The manuscript is a good paper in general well written and coherent throughout the different components. However, I just pose a few questions to the authors for reflection
- I suggest to review some keywords, as they are quite long to search, such as "sustainable integration of technology in mathematical education”
- Line 156, it is stated that ”research methodology adopted is quantitative and secondary qualitative”.
It is important to clarify the meaning of "secondary qualitative". From what I read in the description of the results, I think that according to Creswell (2003) the research methodology follows a mixed-methods approach throughout a Sequential Explanatory Design - occurs in two distinct interactive phases, the beginning with the collection and analysis of the quantitative data to expand the first phase quantitative results followed by the designing of the second, qualitative phase on the basis of the quantitative findings
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications
- The quantitative part and the results obtained are well defined, but the qualitative approach and its results should also be identified.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript addresses an interest topic that it is to identify the best way to improve mathematical Knowledge of the students in this challenge world, throughout - a theoretical way, using ICT tools or a combination of the two. The manuscript also fits into the scope of the Sustainability journal.
Authors response:
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments, which helped improve this manuscript's quality. We have carefully addressed all the comments.
Please find below our changes in the paper according to your remarks.
The manuscript is a good paper in general well written and coherent throughout the different components. However, I just pose a few questions to the authors for reflection
- I suggest to review some keywords, as they are quite long to search, such as "sustainable integration of technology in mathematical education”
Response. The keywords were revised; sustainable integration of technology in mathematical education was modified to sustainable integration of technology; math curricula in 21st century to 21st-century math curricula; combining of teaching and learning methods to mix teaching methods; digital preparedness was eliminated, and STEAM was introduced.
- Line 156, it is stated that ”research methodology adopted is quantitative and secondary qualitative”.
It is important to clarify the meaning of "secondary qualitative".
Response: We added the definition, namely that "Secondary research: collecting existing data in the form of texts, images, audio or video recordings, etc." is considered a qualitative research method ( (Bhandari, 2020)
From what I read in the description of the results, I think that according to Creswell (2003) the research methodology follows a mixed-methods approach throughout a Sequential Explanatory Design - occurs in two distinct interactive phases, the beginning with the collection and analysis of the quantitative data to expand the first phase quantitative results followed by the designing of the second, qualitative phase on the basis of the quantitative findings
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications
- The quantitative part and the results obtained are well defined, but the qualitative approach and its results should also be identified.
Response:
The integrative literature review is the qualitative approach that was conducted to evaluate the theory; it provides an overview of the knowledge base and serves to analyze the methodological issues to answer the research questions.
– literature review as a research methodology (Snyder, 2019)
Based on Creswell, J.W. (2003) Line 163 -The research methodology adopted is quantitative and secondary qualitative, was reformulated as
The adopted research methodology follows a mixed-methods approach. (see Line 158)
Reviewer 3 Report
It is a well-known and studied problem the use or not of ICTs in mathematics. There exists several studies of both ways, most of them and the most important ones have been ignored by the authors and this is a main problem with the paper.
Moreover, a big lack is shown in the methodology used and consequently I must reject the paper:
- Three groups obtain different notes in the test one, so how can you conclude that the second test results are due to the use of combined ICTs?
- Test should be explained in depth in order to compare the difficulty of both and to study the results obtained.
- There is no mean comparison so results cannot be described or interpreted.
- Control group obtained better improved than Experimental Group 2 and similar to experimental group 3, so is it better to use ICTs?
- Which sampling method did you use?
Taking into account the previous comments paper cannot be accepted.
Author Response
Authors response:
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments, which helped improve this manuscript's quality. We have carefully addressed all the comments.
Please find below our changes in the paper according to your remarks.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is a well-known and studied problem the use or not of ICTs in mathematics.
Response: The paper focuses on methodological aspects of math teaching in STEAM education, contributing ideas to select the most adequate software in different educational situations, especially in developing basic mathematical notions.
There exists several studies of both ways, most of them and the most important ones have been ignored by the authors and this is a main problem with the paper.
Response: The reference list has been completed, See reference list: 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 32, 42
Moreover, a big lack is shown in the methodology used and consequently I must reject the paper:
- Three groups obtain different notes in the test one, so how can you conclude that the second test results are due to the use of combined ICTs?
Response: During the experiment, the individual progress of participants was measured; based on the findings, it can be concluded that the maximal progress of knowledge, (), appeared when using the mixed method in the case of Experimental group 2 (ExpGr2) and visualized in Figure 2. (see Line 281 and 283-287)
- Test should be explained in depth in order to compare the difficulty of both and to study the results obtained.
Response: The aim of Section 2 was to highlight the methodological conclusions, not a detailed presentation of the experiment. See: Line 192-193
- There is no mean comparison so results cannot be described or interpreted.
Response: The individual progress measurements were totalized in each group to obtain the change of average relative success rates, see Figure 2, and a comparison was based on it.
- Control group obtained better improved than Experimental Group 2 and similar to experimental group 3, so is it better to use ICTs?
Response: The experiment aimed to measure the level of knowledge progress of the groups.
Based on the results (Figure 2), the best progress in level of knowledge was obtained by Experimental group 2 using the mixed teaching method (used in the case of ExpGr2).
The experiment highlights that only computer use (to give a computer/ math software, (in case of ExpGr1) without theoretical background is not enough to improve the knowledge. In this case, the classical teaching method (Control group) to graph functions is more efficient in developing sustainable math knowledge than only using the software. (see Line 281 and 283-287)
- Which sampling method did you use?
Response: Non-probability sampling (non-random selection) was used, see Line-214-216
Reviewer 4 Report
This paper is focused on an innovative learning and teaching mathematics and analyses approach. The paper's goal is to direct the attention to the intelligent use of computer tools and the conclusion provides educators and learners with new elements of active strategies and innovative learning models to be immediately applied in education.
This paper presents teaching/learning activities with ICT for certain mathematical topics, such as Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry Systems related to sustainable STEAM education. The theme is interesting and well presented in terms of clarity in descriptions and illustrations
-The pedagogical research part is however weak.
Please provide some information about the sample size, and synthesis (were the groups equivalent?). Some reference to validity and reliability issues is needed
-Pay attention to some expressions like “(abstract: “The study proves that the proper use of CAS…”)”.Empirical evidence is not a proοf.
-Please pay attention to English language issues.
-The Limitation of the research should be discussed.
This is a moderate revision that will improve the paper.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is focused on an innovative learning and teaching mathematics and analyses approach. The paper's goal is to direct the attention to the intelligent use of computer tools and the conclusion provides educators and learners with new elements of active strategies and innovative learning models to be immediately applied in education.
This paper presents teaching/learning activities with ICT for certain mathematical topics, such as Computer Algebra Systems and Dynamic Geometry Systems related to sustainable STEAM education. The theme is interesting and well presented in terms of clarity in descriptions and illustrations
Authors response:
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments, which helped improve this manuscript's quality. We have carefully addressed all the comments.
Please find below our changes in the paper according to your remarks.
-The pedagogical research part is however weak.
Please provide some information about the sample size, and synthesis (were the groups equivalent?).
Response: Forty-seven bachelor's level 1st year students participated in the study, see Line 196-197 and in all three groups were represented students with different secondary school backgrounds, see Line-213-217
Some reference to validity and reliability issues is needed
Response: The test-retest method used in the experiment is considered highly reliable (Middleton, 2019). See Line: 219
We completed the paper with the below paragraph:
To confirm the validity of the testing, the relationship between the mathematical entry exam results of the students participating in the experiment and the Test results 1 were verified. The calculated Pearson correlation coefficient is r = 0,8782, showing high validity. See Line: 257-260
-Pay attention to some expressions like “(abstract: “The study proves that the proper use of CAS…”)”.Empirical evidence is not a proοf.
Response: It was reformulated as: The study highlights’ prove that the proper use of CAS and DGS can be an efficient instrument…, please see the Abstract.
-Please pay attention to English language issues.
Response: We have revised the paper and corrected the language issues we found.
-The Limitation of the research should be discussed.
Response: The research was limited to one area of math, the graphing of functions as one of the most important and problematic issues in the education of 1st year-level university students. From a critical point of view, the challenges were analyzed for this area to highlight the need for the right and intelligent use of math software, see Line 569-573.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I still consider that paper contribution is not enough to be considered as a possible publication and I recommend again rejection.
Author Response
Authors response
Based on the valuable comments and suggestions received, we made revisions to the paper.
Please find below our changes in the paper according to the comments.
-The content was improved according to detailed remarks (see Lines: 160-169, 187-189, 287-289, 380-386, 571-577)
- The reference list was revised and 5 items, ref. no. 58, 60, 63, 65 and 67 were eliminate, and in 2 cases the reference was completed by the English translation of the titles: see ref. 29 and 54.
- According to detailed remarks the research design, the research questions were reconsidered (see Lines: 160-165 )
- According to detailed remarks Section 2, Section 4 and the Conclusions have been completed. (see Lines: 160-169, 187-189, 287-289, 380-386, 571-577)
- The editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english was used.
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors have responded satisfactorily to the review comments and suggestions. I endorse the publication of this paper.
Author Response
Authors response
The authors would like to thank you for your valuable comments, which helped improve this manuscript's quality. We thank the Reviewer’s comments, we are grateful for the positive feedback.
- The editing services listed at https://www.mdpi.com/authors/english was used.
