Frames in Outdoor Environmental Education Programs: What We Communicate and Why We Think It Matters

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript deals with a relevant topic: the importance of frames or implicit framing in shaping the message that is effectively communicated to the learners.

5 outdoor learning programmes were analyzed, and their surface (metaphorical) and deep frames identified. In general, programmes were explicit about the surface frames, but did not explicitly convey the deep ones, which could compromise the effectivity of the message.

The paper is interesting and well written. I'd recommend a couple of changes:

1. In line 46, it would be beneficial to explain the nature of the metaphors used in the program Leave no Trace. It's easier for the reader to understand the authors' point as starting from some concrete examples.
2. Describe better the methodology: How is it determined whether a program is linked or not to sustainability, and how is sustainability linked; which data were obtained from the programs' description; and which type of interviews were conducted, including which questions.
3. The conclusion is not clear enough. The deep frames were not explicitly stated, and even the surface frames were sometimes explained using contradictory ideas. Even though, the programs were effective in passing on the idea of valuing and protecting nature. Is it not somehow contradictory with the claim that frames matter?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your inspiring comments. We hope to be able to meet all of them. There is a list of changes we have done:

1. In line 46, it would be beneficial to explain the nature of the metaphors used in the program Leave no Trace. It's easier for the reader to understand the authors' point as starting from some concrete examples.

• We have explained the nature of the applied metaphor in the Leave no Trace on an example in lines 46-51. 

2. Describe better the methodology: How is it determined whether a program is linked or not to sustainability, and how is sustainability linked; which data were obtained from the programs' description; and which type of interviews were conducted, including which questions.

• In Methodology, we have explained the way for checking the focus of the selected program on sustainability, we have provided detailed information about the interviews (including examples of questions), and we specified what data we got from program descriptions.

3. The conclusion is not clear enough. The deep frames were not explicitly stated, and even the surface frames were sometimes explained using contradictory ideas. Even though, the programs were effective in passing on the idea of valuing and protecting nature. Is it not somehow contradictory with the claim that frames matter?

• We are thankful for this important comment. Based on this, we extended the Conclusion to make clear in what conditions well-elaborated frames matter and when they may be less salient for the program design.

Once again, thank you for your comments!

The Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting approach to understanding the impact of programs and what they communicate. I have three main suggestions to strengthen the manuscript:

1. Clarify the distinctions between terms: deep frame, surface frame, symbolic frame, alternative frame and theme would be helpful.  Particularly it seemed that theme, storyline, and surface frame were being used interchangeably making the tables difficult. This can be done by going more deeply into frame analysis and the construction of meaning across different disciplines before considering how framing has been used in interp and OE.
2. There seemed to be a disconnect between the goals of the programs being about shaping values (from lines 176 on) and the prompts being about what was learned (line 209 on). It might be helpful to articulate learning goals of the programs for consistency - and this might fit more tightly with meaning as knowledge construction influenced by frames.
3. Lines 265 and on spoke of limitations before the results. It seems to me these should come into play in the discussion rather than before the results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your work and useful comments. There is a summarization of changes we have done to meet them:

1. Clarify the distinctions between terms: deep frame, surface frame, symbolic frame, alternative frame and theme would be helpful.  Particularly it seemed that theme, storyline, and surface frame were being used interchangeably making the tables difficult. This can be done by going more deeply into frame analysis and the construction of meaning across different disciplines before considering how framing has been used in interp and OE.

In Methodology, we included a subchapter "Terminology" defining the terms we use in the Analyses.

2. There seemed to be a disconnect between the goals of the programs being about shaping values (from lines 176 on) and the prompts being about what was learned (line 209 on). It might be helpful to articulate learning goals of the programs for consistency - and this might fit more tightly with meaning as knowledge construction influenced by frames.

In "Methodology: Data collection" we have provided more information about programs' learning goals, to make the connection with the program frames more clear. 

3. Lines 265 and on spoke of limitations before the results. It seems to me these should come into play in the discussion rather than before the results.

We moved the limitations from Methodology to Discussion, as you suggested.

Once again, thank you very much for your important comments.

Your Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This is more more readily comprehensible.  The two small suggestions I have are:

1) in the tables where you have "surface frame" as a major column header and then "frame" and message as subheaders.  It might be more clear, if I am understanding things correctly, the make the subhead just "title" or "frame title."  This suggestion holds for the second table as well where the major column header is "deep frame."

2) lines 189-190 probably aren't necessary

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you once again for your comments. We have corrected the manuscript as you suggested, i. e.

• we have removed lines 189-190,
• we have changed the subheaders to "frame title" in both of the tables.

Thank you for your work with our manuscript.

Best regards,

Authors