Effectiveness of a School-Based Outdoor Education Curriculum and Online Learning Environment among Prospective Teachers
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written and the content is well designed and complex.
Author Response
For English language and style a fine/minor spell check is done
Reviewer 2 Report
As a general suggestion, it would be helpful for the authors to specifically address each comment when submitting revisions. As with previous reviews, I do not feel each comment was specifically attended to.
This research is interesting and is designed to potentially to add to our knowledge on the effectiveness of pedagogy surrounding outdoor education. In my opinion, however, the authors make bold claims about the problem and results. For example, outdoor education is quite often taught using experiential learning. Furthermore, the use of online learning platforms and blended learning pedagogies is so common I cannot think of a colleague who does not use these practices. I see this study supporting best practices, but not paving the way for new pedagogies.
Finally, I recommend the article be reviewed for grammar with a focus on removing passive statements such as ‘It can be said’ and ‘it can be seen’.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The necessary corrections are made and detailed information is given with a word file. Thanks a lot for improvement of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
please pay attention to the following:
• The title focuses only outdoor education, but the study is also online learning.
• Is not clarify the contribution of the study for the sustainability.
and on the following:
• The sub-objectives are not questions (see line 166…). The specific objectives in the infinitive. For example: - to develop…
• What are the research questions?
• See line 167: “… junior…”.Why?
• See line 160: Two purposes? See lines 12-14. Why have changed?
• The research methods must also be improved. Take, for example: line 243 before “Research plan and design”. See line 398 e line 243.
this article presents some problems related to research question and research methods. The focus of the sustainability in the “Introduction” is clear in the text written in red, but in aim has not been clarified. The “conclusion” is very poor.
I consider be necessary to review these points.
Author Response
The title focuses only outdoor education, but the study is also online learning.
Answer: It is changed.
• The sub-objectives are not questions (see line 166…). The specific objectives in the infinitive. For example: - to develop…
• What are the research questions?
Answer: It is written as "research questions".
• See line 167: “… junior…”.Why?
Answer: It is deleted
• See line 160: Two purposes? See lines 12-14. Why have changed?
Answer: It is one purpose now.
• The research methods must also be improved. Take, for example: line 243 before “Research plan and design”. See line 398 e line 243.
Answer: It is taken now
this article presents some problems related to research question and research methods. The focus of the sustainability in the “Introduction” is clear in the text written in red, but in aim has not been clarified. The “conclusion” is very poor.
Answer: The necessary correction are done
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the improved version. The writing is much improved. However, I still find it difficult to follow the paper because the objectives appear to vary throughout. For example, in the 'Significance of the Study' section, the authors claim that the paper can support the confidence of future teachers and support of administrators with regard to using outdoor learning environments. However, in the Discussion (lines 679-680), the authors state state 'Since this is an outdoor sports course, teaching must be provided in the natural environment, not indoors or in a classroom.' If outdoor sports courses are already being delivered outside, the significance doesn't align. Should the significance read that the study is supporting the joint delivery or hybrid model of teaching that includes both outdoor learning and an online learning platform? If so, I feel the authors must be clear that using this hybrid model is not novel and the results support this pedagogy as a best practice.
In future revisions, please use track changes or provide a response to reviewers document that outlines the exact edits you have made.
Author Response
Thank you for the improved version. The writing is much improved. However, I still find it difficult to follow the paper because the objectives appear to vary throughout. For example, in the 'Significance of the Study' section, the authors claim that the paper can support the confidence of future teachers and support of administrators with regard to using outdoor learning environments. However, in the Discussion (lines 679-680), the authors state state 'Since this is an outdoor sports course, teaching must be provided in the natural environment, not indoors or in a classroom.' If outdoor sports courses are already being delivered outside, the significance doesn't align. Should the significance read that the study is supporting the joint delivery or hybrid model of teaching that includes both outdoor learning and an online learning platform? If so, I feel the authors must be clear that using this hybrid model is not novel and the results support this pedagogy as a best practice.
Answer: Corrected as
Since this is an outdoor sports course, teaching must be provided in the natural environment too, not only indoors or in a classroom.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript has some major improvements, however, there is also necessary write one a very short sentence, in the conclusion, about the contribution from the research on the sustainability. In accordance with this idea, I suggest write, for example: teaching-learning in contact with nature it is also promoting sustainability, because real opportunities for outdoor learning provides health, sustainable development education and global citizenship….; “Education is identified as a key element of sustainability “
Author Response
The manuscript has some major improvements, however, there is also necessary write one a very short sentence, in the conclusion, about the contribution from the research on the sustainability. In accordance with this idea, I suggest write, for example: teaching-learning in contact with nature it is also promoting sustainability, because real opportunities for outdoor learning provides health, sustainable development education and global citizenship….; “Education is identified as a key element of sustainability “
Answer: "Education is defined as a key element of sustainability. Learning environments are one of the most important factors affecting students' learning processes. A good learning environment supports the interests and aspirations of students and the sustainability of such situations. Teaching-learning in contact with nature also promotes sustainability because it provides real health, sustainable development education and global citizenship opportunities for outdoor learning." is added to conclusion.
