Active Learning, Living Laboratories, Student Empowerment, and Urban Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The basic idea of the article is really interesting as it explores the implications for the mission and the functioning of universities (such as, for example, sustainability) due to major changes and transformations in society, but we believe that the overall presentation needs more precise structuring and targeting. First of all, the two terms used in the theoretical starting point, namely passive and active learning, are contradictory. A key question is why we should combine passive and active learning instead of switching only to active learning. We believe that in today's world there is now a need for passive learning∙ rather all learning activities should be active. This should be identified and analysed in more detail. Furthermore, a synthesis of the interconnection of the modules is necessary to better show the intended learning outcomes with the proposed activities. I find the article very interesting and with the proposed changes it will be more understandable.

Author Response

Reviewers are thanked for their evaluation of and comments to this manuscript. Below, and for each reviewer, I extracted what I viewed as specific comments and requests for revisions, and responses are included.

Reviewer 1

Comments:

1. The two terms used in the theoretical starting point, namely passive and active learning, are contradictory.
2. A key question is why we should combine passive and active learning instead of switching only to active learning. We believe that in today's world there is now a need for passive learning∙ rather all learning activities should be active. This should be identified and analysed in more detail.
3. Furthermore, a synthesis of the interconnection of the modules is necessary to better show the intended learning outcomes with the proposed activities.

Responses: As described and defined in the article, the two terms, passive and active learning are not contradictory – they are complementary. Moreover, passive learning is defined as: “passive learning may be viewed as conventional classroom teaching, in which students are exposed to information and taught concepts and theories.”. In the abstract, I wrote: “Traditional and more theoretical educational programs (here referred to as passive learning) may be tied to projects and activities (active learning), in which students gain hands-on practical experience with planning, development, implementation, maintenance and presentation of different solution-focused activities.”. I will argue that there is and always will be needs for conventional class room teaching based on this definition. But the article argues that it needs to be complemented by active learning activities.

              The reviewer appears to be requesting a detailed analysis of why all learning activities should be active. As I disagree with the premise that all learning should be active, and because this is a perspective article (with a significant word limitation), the proposed analysis appears to be beyond the scope of this article.

              Finally, the reviewer is requesting “a synthesis of the interconnection of the modules is necessary to better show the intended learning outcomes with the proposed activities.”. It was unclear, what “modules” is being referred to? The article does not describe any modules. Now, the reviewer uses the term, “intended learning outcomes”, and that term was not used explicitly – revisions throughout have been made to include this important term.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think that the study addresses an interesting topic that also includes current problems in education. However, I believe that important corrections should also be made in order for it to be published in the journal in question.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewers are thanked for their evaluation of and comments to this manuscript. Below, and for each reviewer, I extracted what I viewed as specific comments and requests for revisions, and responses are included.

Reviewer 2

Comments:

1. There should definitely be a sentence about the result of the study.
2. The method of study should be briefly explained in this section.
3. At the end of the introduction section, the importance of the study should be emphasized in a slightly wider paragraph, and the hypotheses expressed should be included here.
4. Since an important topic is discussed, a literature review should definitely be done in the article after the “Introduction” section, and similar studies should be evaluated here. Then, the method of study should definitely be explained in a broad and clear way under a heading.
5. The study should definitely be titled “Findings” and the findings of the research should be given under this title.
6. There should be no citations from different articles in the conclusion section. There should be a discussion section and the articles in question should be discussed here.
7. There should be no purpose sentence in the conclusion section. (In summary, this perspective article intends to promote the notion that focus on active learning and living laboratories can go hand in hand with improved sustainability of schools and universities)
8. There should also be no suggestion sentence in the conclusion section. Suggestions should be given under a separate heading. (Such data sets could be used to engage students in active learning related to a wide range of topics, including calculations of environmental footprints and/or material flow analyses”.

Response: Instead of addressing each of the 8 comments individually, I wish to highlight a general trend in the Reviewer’s comments – it does not appear that the reviewer was aware of this being a perspective article. I did not conduct a “study”, and there are no “findings”. Meaning, this is not a research article, and it was not submitted as one. Accordingly, there are no methods, nor was there a hypothesis. The article provides an opinion/perspective based on relevant literature, activities at UC Davis, and a course I am teaching. In its structure, it follows the journal guidelines, and relevant literature was included throughout and its relevance was discussed.

The reviewer states that there should be no purpose and suggestion sentences – as this is a perspective article, it seems quite appropriate to offer both purpose and suggestion with the given article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewers are thanked for their evaluation of and comments to this manuscript. Below, and for each reviewer, I extracted what I viewed as specific comments and requests for revisions, and responses are included.

Reviewer 3

Comments:

1. This article emphasizes the role of educational institutions in promoting sustainability and highlights the initiatives taken by the University of California, Davis. It should be evident from the title that this is the presentation of the sustainability program of the University of California Davis
2. Towards the end of the introduction, the author mentions the stress caused by climate change on young people and suggests the need for active learning about this issue. However, this paragraph deserves more attention. It would be more appropriate to provide a more detailed description of the uncertainty climate change creates for young people and the ways universities can address this issue in a separate section, rather than just a part of the introduction.
3. An enriched bibliography about the dark shadow over their long-term career aspirations is suggested, otherwise, this would seem like a personal opinion, and it is not stated as that.
4. It would be valuable to the reader if there was feedback by the California Davis students regarding this highly-rated sustainability program provided in this article.
5. The conclusions section is a little confusing. It is advisable not to introduce any new information or references in the conclusion section. Therefore, it would have been preferable to incorporate all the new information in the main article or create a separate discussion section.

Responses: Regarding comment 1, this article does not describe a sustainability program of the University of California Davis, per se. Do to poor language, I see how and why the Reviewer got the impression that the article was describing a fully developed sustainability program at UC Davis. Revision has bene done to clarify this important point. Moreover, some activities on campus are briefly described but, the article refers to a much larger a number of “missed opportunities” for active learning and sustainability at UC Davis – activities which should be on-going, but are not. Here is a quote from the article supporting this statement: “Thus, sustainability of food production is a common and important theme across teaching, mentoring, and research in many departments. However, it appears that there is tremendous potential for further promotion of sustainability at higher education institutions at this university and more broadly.”.

Regarding comment 2, it is explicitly stated that active learning activities might mitigate climate anxiety: “It is therefore paramount that education, through active learning and living laboratories, gives tangible sources of inspiration and provide a strong sense of empowerment and to ability to drive change.” – It would certainly be possible to expand upon this important aspect, as well as many other aspects touched upon in this article, but it is very important to highlight the word limitation on perspective articles.

Regarding comment 3, this article is a perspective article – so, it should not be considered inappropriate and/or out of the order, if certain points are flavored by personal opinion.

Regarding comment 4, it was my original intention to include some of the weekly assignments by students. Along the way, I moved away from this, but I truly thank the reviewer from bringing this to my attention! I have reached out to the students and received permission to include references to their assignments. Thus, the article now links to a website, which contains examples of (posted as youtube videos) students short video assignment submissions (https://chrnansen.wixsite.com/nansen2/urbanfood).

Regarding comment 5, revisions were made to accommodate this valid point.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

I have already seen that the study is a perspective article, and in my report it is written that the quote I gave from you in parentheses is a perspective article. I just couldn't be sure whether the relevant journal included such studies, because there are questions I need to answer about the findings and hypotheses of the study in the report. In addition, there should definitely be purpose and suggestion sentences, I just wanted them not to be included in the result.

When I consider it as a perspective-style article, I think that the study together with the new resources added is suitable for publication.

Best regards.