A Service-Learning Based Computers Reuse Program
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper is related with a Service-Learning Based Computers Reuse Program, but main part of the text is related with the Reuse Program and little information is provided with the learning process. More information about the impact and appreciation of the involved students should be given. Relation with OSD should be provided.
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments
Paper is related with a Service-Learning Based Computers Reuse Program, but main part of the text is related with the Reuse Program and little information is provided with the learning process. More information about the impact and appreciation of the involved students should be given.
Authors’ answer
We have improved Section 3.2 “Evaluating the impact on student learning” to fulfill the reviewer’s requirements. In particular, we have included the following text:
“Evaluating the impact of the UPC-ReuTIlitza program on the learning of participating students is not an easy task, because students dedicate very few hours of their lab practices to the program, and not all of them dedicate the same number of hours. All students of the FIB’s Bachelor Degree in Informatics do at least one practice within the subject "Circuit Interfaces", which is compulsory, but some even do practices in the four subjects that participate in the program. The learning that students achieve depends, therefore, on the number of times they participate in the Reuse workshop (between 1 and 4).
From the point of view of technical competencies, students who only participate in the practices of the subject "Circuit Interfaces" learn to identify the different parts of a computer (motherboard, processor, memory DIMMs, hard disk, etc. ) and to perform basic operations such as modifying the amount of RAM or changing the hard disk. These students studied in theoretical classes the mission of the different components of a computer, but had not had the opportunity to do a hardware practice with a real computer.
The students who take the subject "PC Architecture" have studied in depth in the theory classes the operation of the different components of a PC. During the Reuse workshop, they have the opportunity to face the need to repair computers that are not working properly. This practice could not be carried out if the Reuse workshop did not exist, since it offers them the opportunity to carry out real and different repairs. In addition, these students are specially trained in the field of reuse, since to repair computers there are no new spare parts, but elements from other computers that have not been repaired and whose functional parts have been removed to be used as spare parts for future repairs.
Finally, students who also participate in one (or both) subjects related to operating systems learn to install a Linux operating system via the network. This would be a very simple practice for these students if the installation were done individually. However, the computers are installed in groups of 20 and simultaneously using a high-bandwidth switch, which adds value to the training of these students, who also must detect when an operating system has not been installed correctly due to a hardware problem.
From the point of view of ESD, all students receive, at the beginning of each session, a 10-minute talk in which they are explained (1) the objectives of the UPC-ReuTIlitza program and (2) the destination of the computers that they are going to fine-tune. In this way, they are made partakers of the “service” that they provide with their “learning”. They are also offered to participate as volunteers in TxT and are shown the possibility of doing a Final Degree Project in the field of cooperation thanks to the annual call for funded coo-eration projects carried out by the CCD.
Of the four subjects that participate in the Reuse workshop, it is in the subject "PC Architecture" where students receive further training in ESD.”
Reviewer’s comments
Relation with OSD should be provided.
Authors’ answer
We have included in the Discussion Section the following paragraph: “This work contributes to achieving some of the 17 SDGs. Indirectly, it helps to advance the achievement of all the SDGs thanks to the fact that the computers propagated by the UPC-ReuTIlitza Program are donated to entities whose main mission is to contribute to some of the 17 SDGs in different countries of the world, such as SDG1 (No Poverty), SDG2 (Zero Hunger), SDG5 (Gender Equality), SDG6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG10 (Reducing Inequality) or SDG16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). In the environmental field, computers are also provided to entities whose mission is to advance in the achievement of the objectives SDG13 (Climate Action), SDG14 (Life Below Water), or SDG15 (Life On Land).
However, the UPC-ReuTIlitza Program contributes in a very special way to achieving the SDG4 (Quality Education) and SDG12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) objectives.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author, the presented study is very interesting, but requires some profound changes to be considered for publication, which are detailed below.
It would be advisable to state the objectives of the study at the end of the introduction. Furthermore, the last stated objective "The acquisition of technical competencies by students while increasing their competencies for sustainable development" needs to be revised, as it is not formulated correctly and is not defined as an objective. In general, the objectives do not fully correspond to part of the study, as it does not include how to assess the impact on learning as indicated in the description of the instruments.
The methodology of the study should be revised and adjusted to the type of study it is. From the research point of view, the type of research and the methodology used are not described. The abstract states that it is a case study. Throughout the manuscript this type of methodology/research is not mentioned again.
Figures 1 and 2 must be described. They cannot simply be presented in the document. In case they have been or will be treated throughout the document, insert where necessary their indication.
Data on the validation of the survey used to assess the impact on learning, at least the reliability obtained for this study, must be presented.
The procedure and statistical analysis used for this study should be described, identifying and justifying its use.
The discussion could be revised and improved. In addition to the author's interpretation based on the study, the discussion should try to justify, relate and compare the results with other studies, including those mentioned in the introduction. The author does not do this correctly.
The conclusions could be presented in accordance with the stated objectives.
The references should be revised, as there are various typos or errors in their presentation in accordance with the journal's regulations.
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments
Dear author, the presented study is very interesting, but requires some profound changes to be considered for publication, which are detailed below.
It would be advisable to state the objectives of the study at the end of the introduction.
Authors’ answer
The objectives of the work have been included at the end of the introduction, as proposed by the reviewer, as follows:
“The objectives of this work are described below:
- Present a methodology to design a Service-Learning based CRP in the field of an educational institution where technical training related to computers is provided to students
- Present a model to evaluate the impact of the CRP
- Present, as an example, a case study in which the two methodologies described in objectives 1 and 2 have been applied.”
We have tweaked some parts of the article to be consistent with the defined objectives.
Please, note that the objectives of the work are different from the objectives of the CRP described at Section 2.2.1.
Reviewer’s comments
Furthermore, the last stated objective "The acquisition of technical competencies by students while increasing their competencies for sustainable development" needs to be revised, as it is not formulated correctly and is not defined as an objective.
Authors’ answer
We have rewritten this objective to be consistent to the other two objectives. The new objective is as follows: “To increase the students‘ technical competencies and increase student commitment to sustainable development”
Reviewer’s comments
In general, the objectives do not fully correspond to part of the study, as it does not include how to assess the impact on learning as indicated in the description of the instruments.
Authors’ answer
The reviewer is right. We consider that the new definition of objectives (at the end of Introduction Section) is aligned with the work described at the paper. The objectives of the CRP are met by the design of the CRP. The CRP1 and CRP2 objectives are met by the very nature of the program. The CRP3 objective is achieved by having students do the practices of some subjects within the Reuse Workshop. The increase in technical skills is demonstrated thanks to the revision, repair and installation of computers. The increase in social commitment can be seen in the responses to the survey described in Section 2.2.2. whose results are presented in Table 1.
Reviewer’s comments
The methodology of the study should be revised and adjusted to the type of study it is. From the research point of view, the type of research and the methodology used are not described. The abstract states that it is a case study. Throughout the manuscript this type of methodology/research is not mentioned again.
Authors’ answer
The case study has been presented in an appendix to facilitate the reading of the rest of the article. However, since in fact there is hardly any mention in the paper that a case study is included, we have indicated it where it seemed appropriate to do so.
Regarding the research methodology, there are three independent points to highlight:
1.- The CRP design methodology describes the basic elements that a CRP must have to achieve the CRP1-3 objectives. The methodology is summarized in Figures 1 and 2, which, as the reviewer comments later, are not sufficiently described. This point has been improved.
2.- To evaluate the CRP, a new methodology is not proposed, but rather to use methodologies already described in the literature that are appropriate to carry out the evaluation.
3.- The case study presented in the appendix has been designed and evaluated based on the methodologies described in the two previous points.
Reviewer’s comments
Figures 1 and 2 must be described. They cannot simply be presented in the document. In case they have been or will be treated throughout the document, insert where necessary their indication.
Authors’ answer
The reviewer is right. In addition, these figures are important because they describe the methodology of design and operation of the CRP.
We have included a complete description of the Figures in the paper.
Description of Figure 1:
“There are three key elements in the design of a CRP: The two work teams (technical and communication) and the reuse workshop. The technical team and the communica-tion team are in constant contact thanks to regular meetings, but each one develops their work independently. The technical team is in charge of managing the warehouse (receiv-ing computer donations and delivering the prepared equipment to the receiving entities) and the reuse workshop, as well as the use and maintenance of the analysis and installa-tion tools. During the reuse workshop, the technical team guarantees that the computers are conveniently prepared by the students. The communication team manages the appli-cations of the entities and verifies that they meet the program requirements to receive computers. Applications are managed through a website and all information is stored in a database.”
Description of Figure 2:
“Computers considered obsolete are delivered to the CRP and stored in the warehouse until the next Reuse workshop is held. During the Reuse workshop, students repair and install computers as part of their subject practice. The computers return to the warehouse ready to be delivered to the receiving entities. However, to avoid possible problems due to relocation or subsequent breakdowns, all computers are checked before being delivered to an entity.”
Reviewer’s comments
Data on the validation of the survey used to assess the impact on learning, at least the reliability obtained for this study, must be presented. The procedure and statistical analysis used for this study should be described, identifying and justifying its use.
Authors’ answer
The survey consists of 34 sustainability-related questions using a 4-point Likert scale. The first version was developed by a team of 10 experts and validated using the structured expert judgement method [55] by the Sustainability Competency Working Group of the National Universities Rectors Committee. Once reviewed and revised, it was tested by 52 participants from 6 universities, organized into 8 focus groups composed of between 5 and 9 members with gender equality. Thus, on conclusion of this process, the mutual exclusion, homogeneity, relevance, objectivity, fidelity and productivity of the survey can be assured.
Of the 34 questions in the survey, seven correspond directly or indirectly to the student's commitment to sustainable development. As discussed in Section 3.2, in order to ensure that these seven questions are internally coherent, the Cronbach alpha test has been calculated, yielding results of 0.91 (overall), 0.82 (pre- survey) and 0.78 (post- survey). As all the results are over 0.6, the set of questions analyzed can be considered reliable.
Table 1 shows the questions chosen (column 1) and the mean differences between the pre- and post-survey (column 2). Column 3 shows the Mann-Whitney U-test; on analysis of the resulting p-values, in all cases a value p< .001 is found. Thus, there is a statistically significant difference (increment) between the pre- and post-answers, with a level of significance greater than 99.9%. Finally, column 4 shows the Cohen’s D effect size; since all the results are over 0.8 (sometimes much larger than 0.8), the effect size can be considered large.
Reviewer’s comments
The discussion could be revised and improved. In addition to the author's interpretation based on the study, the discussion should try to justify, relate and compare the results with other studies, including those mentioned in the introduction. The author does not do this correctly.
Authors’ answer
This paper presents a methodology to design a computer Reuse program and a methodology to evaluate its impact. In the analysis of the impact evaluation, it is of a very technical nature, so we have decided to include it in an appendix, instead of in the document. For that reason, the part of the discussion referring to this analysis is in Appendix B. Section 2.2.3 presents the most general ideas of said analysis, and relates the methodology used in the paper with the methodologies proposed in the literature. However, as the reviewer suggests, some of these conclusions have been included in the "Discussion" Section. For this, Section 4.2 has been expanded and the title has been changed, adding the environmental impact.
Several paragraphs have also been included in the “Discussion” Section indicating to which SDGs the work presented in this paper contributes.
Finally, we have also improved the discussion in Section 4.1 by relating our work to some of the works mentioned in the introduction, in particular [28-35].
Reviewer’s comments
The conclusions could be presented in accordance with the stated objectives.
Authors’ answer
We have written some parts of the conclusions and introduced some new paragraphs so that the conclusions are now aligned with the objectives of the work.
Reviewer’s comments
The references should be revised, as there are various typos or errors in their presentation in accordance with the journal's regulations.
Authors’ answer
We have revised the references and corrected some mistakes.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Reviewer 2 Report
The changes made have been sufficient, the article can be accepted for publication.
Kind regards
