Enacting Remote and Flexible Learning Placements during a Global Pandemic—A Case Report
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general, this paper deals with a significant phenomenon everybody has faced for the last three years. The author describes the whole thing in detail and provides useful information to readers. I suggest several points to be revised.
First, I recommend you to introduce the aim of this research explicitly. In the introduction, the author addressed the necessity of a teacher training program based on online/remote learning and introduced three key features that he took in this study. However, I could not find out what the author tried to explain by introducing his own teacher program. As well, the last part (4. what did we learn) should present the conclusion of this study. I admit that the program was useful in some ways. You'd better give some implications for pedagogies relevant to online/remote teacher education, based on the research findings.
Second, you should introduce a big picture of the main program you mentioned in this study. The author mentioned a variety of things such as remote and flexible placement, mursion, social media and so on. It is possible for me to envision the whole structure of the program. How long did it take to complete the program? How many teachers took part in the program? How did you assess the outcome of the teacher program?
Third, Table 1 is too long to be included in the body of the manuscript. You should provide a more concise version or it should be moved to the supplement material.
Fourth, the reference style in the manuscript is not appropriate and you should check it out again.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
I am grateful for your time and detailed review of the submission
I would like to point out that this paper has been prepared for a special issue which invited authors to contribute papers sharing the strengths and positive experiences emerging from the pandemic and the other challenges.
The Guest Editors have asked authors to prepare a piece that looked to articulate the following:
What strategies have you implemented to best support your students?
What processes were implemented to deal with the disruption on professional experience?
How have you changed your programs to embed more learning about wellbeing and resilience?
With this in mind I have referred to your feedback and made adjustments as best possible as this is not an empirical study but rather a reflective piece / case report that recounts teaching and learning in a professional practice unit of study during the pandemic.
Alterations
I have included clarity of the case study method and inclusion of the guiding questions.
The subheadings have been reworked to support the reader.
The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
The lesson plan and assessment guide tables have been removed.
Additional references have been included.
The referencing in text has been modified.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
It is an interesting and important topic to discuss about teaching strategies during a pandemic. I am personally interested in this topic.
Unfortunately, however, this manuscript appears to be a case-study approach, simply presenting teaching strategies in one school district. In my opinion, this cannot highlight the representativeness of this case, or the current situation of this case can present any suggestions worthy of emulation by later scholars and research institutions.
Although this is a case report, I believe that a good manuscript should:
1. An engaging opening question.
2. In-depth and rigorous research methods.
3. Analytical process with reliability or validity results. (Analysis results must at least have a comparison method)
4. Meaningful analysis and discussion.
5. Convincing conclusions and suggestions.
However, this manuscript does provide instructional strategies though. And explain their teaching methods. But I believe that these teaching methods are not unique to this area or school. Moreover, what are the differences between them, and whether this manuscript has reached the level of international journal manuscripts. Or this result is enough to become the attention of countries or other school institutions, teachers and others.
It is a pity that this manuscript cannot allow me to discover this process and answer.
I am happy to assist, but I believe that the manuscript will need to be re-edited to be of sufficient quality for international journal review.
good luck,
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
I am grateful for your time and detailed review of the submission
I would like to point out that this paper has been prepared for a special issue which invited authors to contribute papers sharing the strengths and positive experiences emerging from the pandemic and the other challenges.
The guest editors have asked authors to prepare a piece that looked to articulate the following:
What strategies have you implemented to best support your students?
What processes were implemented to deal with the disruption on professional experience?
How have you changed your programs to embed more learning about wellbeing and resilience?
The Guest Editors will also share their own personal stories as leaders in teacher education by identifying the issues and the solutions to make teacher training sustainable during uncertain times.
With this in mind I have referred to your feedback and made adjustments as best possible as this is not an empirical study but rather a reflective piece/ case report that recounts teaching and learning in a professional practice unit of study during the pandemic.
Alterations
I have made include clarity of the case study method and inclusion of the guiding questions. The subheadings have been reworked to support the reader.
The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
The lesson plan and assessment guide tables have been removed.
Additional references.
Referencing has been modified.
- The title of the paper is too long.
Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1.
The title is revised it is still long but includes the required context of the paper.
Enacting Remote and flexible learning placements during a global pandemic a Case report.
- The Abstract section should be re-write based on the scientific paper principles.
Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2.
The abstract has been edited to provide more context to the paper as a single case study in relation to the special issue.
- The “remote and flexible learning placement” is a too long keyword
Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3.
The key words are edited and still includes ‘remote and flexible learning placement’ as this is a term that is unable to be changed as it was devised by the Council of Deans and used by the Department of Education in Victoria, Australia.
- It is unclear which research method was used in the study. The method of the study is unclear.
Response 4/5: Please provide your response for Point 4.
The method has been made more explicit with a new section and literature on case study
The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
- The main sections in scientific articles such as literature review, related research, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion are not found in this article.
Response 5: Please provide your response for Point 5.
As this is a reflective paper the methodology is around reflective practice, there are no specific as no data was collected other than the authors journal notes, the discussion, and The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
A conclusion have been included
- It is not clear what the purpose of the study is.
Response 6: Please provide your response for Point 6.
The study purpose is around the effects and changes used in a unit of study to support Pre-services teachers undertaking a placement during a pandemic. This is an accordance with the guest editors request for this special issue.
- The APA format style of the references used in the paper should be revised. For example; Bahr & Mellor, 2016 [1]); Sasski, et al., 2020 [2[).
Response 7: Please provide your response for Point 7.
Revisions have been made to all references.
Reviewer 3 Report
You have written a quality paper but you need to address some major errors to improve the standard of the paper. I explain my concerns in more detail below. I ask that the authors specifically address each of my comments in their responses.
1. The title of the paper is too long.
2. The Abstract section should be re-write based on the scientific paper principles.
3. The “remote and flexible learning placement” is a too long keyword.
4. The APA format style of the references used in the paper should be revised. For example; Bahr & Mellor, 2016 [1]); Sasski, et al., 2020 [2[).
5. It is unclear which research method was used in the study.
6. The method of the study is unclear.
7. The main sections in scientific articles such as literature review, related research, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion are not found in this article.
8. It is not clear what the purpose of the study is.
9. In conclusion, I have to state that this paper is far from a scientific article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
I am grateful for your time and detailed review of the submission
I would like to point out that this paper has been prepared for a special issue which invited authors to contribute papers sharing the strengths and positive experiences emerging from the pandemic and the other challenges.
The guest editors have asked authors to prepare a piece that looked to articulate the following:
What strategies have you implemented to best support your students?
What processes were implemented to deal with the disruption on professional experience?
How have you changed your programs to embed more learning about wellbeing and resilience?
The Guest Editors will also share their own personal stories as leaders in teacher education by identifying the issues and the solutions to make teacher training sustainable during uncertain times.
With this in mind I have referred to your feedback and made adjustments as best possible as this is not an empirical study but rather a reflective piece/ case report that recounts teaching and learning in a professional practice unit of study during the pandemic.
Alterations
I have made include clarity of the case study method and inclusion of the guiding questions. The subheadings have been reworked to support the reader.
The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
The lesson plan and assessment guide tables have been removed.
Additional references.
Referencing has been modified.
- The title of the paper is too long.
Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1.
The title is revised it is still long but includes the required context of the paper.
Enacting Remote and flexible learning placements during a global pandemic a Case report.
- The Abstract section should be re-write based on the scientific paper principles.
Response 2: Please provide your response for Point 2.
The abstract has been edited to provide more context to the paper as a single case study in relation to the special issue.
- The “remote and flexible learning placement” is a too long keyword
Response 3: Please provide your response for Point 3.
The key words are edited and still includes ‘remote and flexible learning placement’ as this is a term that is unable to be changed as it was devised by the Council of Deans and used by the Department of Education in Victoria, Australia.
- It is unclear which research method was used in the study. The method of the study is unclear.
Response 4/5: Please provide your response for Point 4.
The method has been made more explicit with a new section and literature on case study
The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
- The main sections in scientific articles such as literature review, related research, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion are not found in this article.
Response 5: Please provide your response for Point 5.
As this is a reflective paper the methodology is around reflective practice, there are no specific as no data was collected other than the authors journal notes, the discussion, and The Sustainable education EFS framework has been included to support the analysis.
A conclusion have been included
- It is not clear what the purpose of the study is.
Response 6: Please provide your response for Point 6.
The study purpose is around the effects and changes used in a unit of study to support Pre-services teachers undertaking a placement during a pandemic. This is an accordance with the guest editors request for this special issue.
- The APA format style of the references used in the paper should be revised. For example; Bahr & Mellor, 2016 [1]); Sasski, et al., 2020 [2[).
Response 7: Please provide your response for Point 7.
Revisions have been made to all references.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
It is good that the revised manuscript looks more complete. However, there still seems to be a way of confusing the manuscript typesetting.
For example:
Line 168, Innovations within a Remote flexible learning placement. Is this a subheading or a main heading?
Moreover, there is an error between this typesetting and the line spacing in other texts.
Line 178, Innovations within a Remote flexible learning placement. ...etc.
In my opinion, this manuscript still requires proper planning. The visualization of this manuscript can only be re-evaluated after meeting the specifications of the journal's Instructions for Authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your feedback, it is most appreciated
The submission has been improved with the manuscript typesetting and further editing.
- All headings and tables are formatted
- References bookmarked
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic? The content has been edited and a further section of the analysis using the EfS framework has been added using the 5 phases
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? The sources have been checked and are relevant to the topics and themes
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated? The author believes that the above have been clearly stated
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? As this is a case report and based on reflective practice the author believes the qualtatitive aspects of the approach are addressed
Is the article adequately referenced? The author believes that the citations and references are adequate
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? The author believes given the context of the paper and the guest editor questions that the conclusions meet the case report requirements
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author
Thank you for your constructive feedback and your corrections.
Author Response
Dear reviewer
Thank you for your feedback
I am delighted at the acceptance
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
This revised manuscript is much clearer than the previous two. Overall well done. I think it has reached the level of further assignments. However, an English correction is recommended for the manuscript content. After waiting for completion, I recommend that the editorial office consider adopting this revised manuscript.
good luck
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
Thank you for your feedback and valuable time with the revisions.
I have conducted a thorough edit of the paper and have made grammatical edits throughout
