Analysis of the Problem-Based Learning Model’s Application for the Sustainable Development of Sports Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for inviting me to review your work. 

The research was performed at a satisfactory level. 

But the article needs a few tweaks to proceed further:

1. Change the keywords to something other than in the title.

2. Rebuild "Introduction". Delete subsections. They should be at an earlier stage of this section, which must end with a derivation of the problem.

3. Separate "Participants and Procedure". Put "Procedure" after "Data Analysis".

3. In "Discussion" I suggest to refer to the following works:

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.854804

DOI: 10.54941/ahfe1003498

4. "Conclusions" does not serve its purpose. "Conclusions" must be limited to specific statements. Move the second, third, fourth, fifth paragraphs and "Recommendations" to "Discussion".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this submitted manuscript.

 

This is an interesting study. The paper is generally well written and structured. Very few grammatical corrections need to adjust. Also, it was well-founded, with adequate analyzes, and met the aim proposed by authors. However, in my opinion the paper should adress:

- In the abstract you should add an introductory sentence on the central theme of the manuscript and a concluding sentence. 

-Further revision of the bibliographical references is needed. There are errors in some of them, as well as the use of bold type or incorrect punctuation. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations to the author for the relevance of the topic. In general, the article is well structured, with a robust theoretical framework and an appropriate methodological approach. The conclusions are relevant and add value to the area of knowledge in question.

Nevertheless, the following suggestions for improvement are made:

- The theoretical framework of "PBL" (PBL Education Model - line 43) should be a little more in-depth and evidenced more objectively its relationship with the academic area under study;

- In the introduction it would be interesting to clearly structure a starting question. The objectives of the study are well defined, but a clear starting question would help to better understand the scope of the study;

- Figure 1 (line 107) should indicate the source;

- Figure 2 (page 4) should be at a higher resolution (as an image). The source should also be provided;

- In the introduction, there should be a brief reference to the concept of "sports education", in order to avoid subjective interpretations of it;

- In the procedures (line 13) the author does not evidence the pre-test of the questionnaire;

- The author should justify the huge discrepancy between the male and female gender of the sample (even though the sample is non-probabilistic);

- In line 153, the author states "This study used the questionnaire method". The questionnaire is not a method. It is a data collection instrument, within the framework of a quantitative methodological approach;

- Lines 164 to 166: when the author states "In addition, the content validity of the questionnaire was confirmed by a panel of two PBL education experts, especially for items that could not be derived from previous studies or major questions that needed to be newly created.", he/she should explain which items he/she is referring to and which major questions had to be developed (so that the reader gets a detailed understanding of the data collection instrument);

- All tables in the article should reference the source;

- Indicate the source of figure 3;

- The conclusions presented should relate more directly and clearly to the objectives of the study expressed in the introduction;

- Given that the study has only one author, the point explained in lines 382 to 384 does not make sense to be filled in the way it is.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper Analysis of the Problem-Based Learning Model’s Application for the Sustainable Development of Sports Education based on Sports Majors’ Evaluations. Interesting topic.

I make several points that you should review to improve the quality of the paper.

Abstract: Unstructured abstract. It is not clear what type of study was carried out, what methodology was used to carry out the study, nor is it clear what the conclusions were. Reformulate in its.

Keywords: They should not repeat the key words, with the words that are already in the title, choose others.

Introduction: Figure 2 shows poor image quality. You can change or improve the image quality.

Materials and Methods: It is not clear how the sample selection was carried out and a sample selection diagram is missing to clarify this. Does the study not have an ethics committee opinion for its development?

It is not clear what type of study was carried out, what methodology was used to carry out the study, nor is it clear.

Change the title of table 2, it does not seem appropriate for the data it presents.

I suggest that table 3 stays on the same page.

Conclusions: The conclusion is too long and repetitive with information from the discussion. Please be more concise. The recommendations and limitations should be in the discussion.

 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Even though the idea sounds interesting, some important points need clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewriting and more information to improve this article. The design must include all the relevant information about the study population, the objectives (endpoints), the intervention program (questionnaires, evaluations, etc.) and the results. The statistical analysis should describe what statistical method was used to describe and compare the variables that were studied. The discussion should reflect whether the authors achieved the expected results.

 

1.       The manuscript needs language editing. The title should clearly reflect what the manuscript is about. The abstract requires deep improvements. The main aim must be direct and the same throughout the manuscript (abstract, introduction, etc.). Delete what is crossed out. It is not clear what is the main aim of this study. Authors should not use the words that appear in the title as keywords. References should be recent and relevant, they should be well referenced, and their use should be improved throughout the manuscript.

2.       The introduction section must be improved. An adequate presentation and a good and clear justification (reason) must be given for this study.  Why is this topic important? It would be better for the authors to provide the rationale for this study by moving from the general issues (What is the current problem?) to the specific issue that the authors investigated. This section is too long. It would be better to write between 3 to 5 paragraphs. The authors must avoid repeating the same information. Line 93-109: It would be better for the authors to integrate this description (Problem-Based Learning Model of Education) as part of the introduction section rather than as a subsection. It is not clear what it is the main aim of this study. What are the authors trying to say? What is the main aim of this study (first/second endpoints)? Lines 110-126: The description of this method must be reduced and integrated into the M&M section as part of the study design. It would be a good idea to use subsections and put together assessment/information related, such as Study Population (, Ethical Considerations, Sampling, Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria, Statistical Analysis, etc.

3.       The material and methods section requires deep improvements. The description must be clear, concise, and detailed. What type of study was it? Authors should separate the description of the study design from the results. The results obtained must be written in their respective section. Lines 170-176: The authors must integrate this description into the statistical analysis. Improve this description. Who would carry out this study? What is the population to study? It would be a good idea to use more subsections, and put together assessment/information related, such as Study Population (inclusion and exclusion criteria), Ethical Considerations (the authors must state whether permission to be conducted was obtained for this study, that it was in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, and that participants signed informed consent.), Sampling (How did the authors calculate the sample to obtain significant results?), Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (age, gender, etc.), Statistical Analysis (the description should be more detailed and the authors should describe what kind of comparisons were made and the statistical method used.), etc. All variables to study should be described, defined, and measured appropriately. The statistical analysis description should be improved. This section should provide sufficient detail on the study protocol design for it to be replicable.

4.       In the results section: In the text, the authors should write the most significant results, and they should avoid repeating the same information in the text if this data appear in the tables, figures, etc. Lines 213-219: This description is part of the M&M section. It should be clear which were the most significant results.

5.       In the discussion section: Improve this description. It should start with the main objective of this study and the most significant results. The results must be discussed from multiple angles and placed in context without over-interpreting them. Authors should focus their discussion on the central theme of the study and avoid repeating the same information previously given. The authors should indicate to what extent this study would contribute to the current understanding of this topic. What will be the impact of this study? A paragraph of limitations and suggestions for this study should be written before the conclusion.

6.       The conclusion must improve and be the same throughout the manuscript. The introduction, the study design, and the discussion of the results should lead the reader to the same conclusion as the authors.

 

I would like to encourage the authors to rewrite this manuscript, thinking about the main objective of this study, and its design and responding with the results and arguments of the discussion to the most appropriate conclusion of this research work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

Even though the manuscript has interesting points to consider improving the way of providing creative education, this manuscript lacks essential information that the authors must provide to future readers. Please see previous review report. 

 

1.       The title should clearly reflect what the manuscript is about. The main aim must be direct and the same throughout the manuscript (abstract, introduction, etc.). Delete what was crossed out. It is not clear what is the main aim of this study.

2.       The introduction section must improve. An adequate presentation and a good and clear justification (reason) must be given for this study.  The authors must avoid repeating the same information. It would be better if the authors integrate the two subsections as part of the introduction (it is very long) before the main hypothesis/objective of this study. It would be better to write no more than 5 paragraphs. What is the main aim of this study (first/second endpoints).

3.       The material and methods section requires deep improvements. The description must be clear, concise, and detailed. Was it a qualitative study? It would be better if the authors separated the study design from the results. Lines 170-176: The authors must integrate this description into the statistical analysis. Who would carry out this study? Lines 110-126: The description of this method must be reduced and integrated into the M&M section as part of the study design. It would be a good idea to use more subsections, and put together assess/information related, such as Study Population (inclusion and exclusion criteria), Ethical Considerations (The authors must declare that this study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.), Sampling (How did the authors calculate the sample to obtain significant results?), Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria (age, gender, etc.), What demographic characteristics were collected? Statistical Analysis (the description should be more detailed and the authors should describe what kind of comparisons were made and the statistical method used.), etc. What does EFA mean? Table 2: It would be better to write the full name. All variables to study should be described, defined, and measured appropriately. This section should provide sufficient detail on the study protocol design for it to be replicable.

4.       In the results section: In the text, the authors should write the most significant results, and they should avoid repeating the same information in the text if this data appear in the tables, figures, and the introduction section. Lines 213-219: This description is part of the M&M section. It should be clear which were the most significant results.

5.       In the discussion section: Improve this description. It should start with the main objective of this study and the most significant results. Authors should focus their discussion on the central theme of the study and avoid repeating the same information previously given. Authors should indicate to what extent this study would contribute to the current understanding of this topic. A paragraph of limitations and suggestions for this study should be written before the conclusion.

6.       The conclusion must improve and be the same throughout the manuscript.

 The introduction, the study design, and the discussion of the results should lead the reader to the same conclusion as the authors.

 

 

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewer's detailed correction instructions. For the quality of the study, the following modifications were made. Please note that the original file has been edited in red, and the deletion process has not been reflected. I am eager for a smooth finish to this study. Please confirm.

1. As you pointed out, the title has been modified to fit the subject of the study.
2. Abstract the purpose of this study was clearly presented at the beginning of the abstract.
3. When it was pointed out to integrate the section into the Introduction part or to write it in 5 paragraphs or less, the part about the additional explanation was boldly deleted. The two subsections have been combined and condensed to less than 5 paragraphs.
4. In the part of the research method, a part about ethical considerations was presented, and the IRB approval number for research ethics was entered to help readers understand.
5. The part about Table 2 is written in full because readers may not understand it.
6. This research is not a qualitative research, but a quantitative research method based on statistics. The answer to the question, “What does EFA mean?” is the contents of Table 2, which evaluates the reliability of each question through factor loading for each factor after checking the content validity of the questionnaire. In general, this is essential in quantitative research methods, especially in research using questionnaires.
7. The answer to the question, what demographic characteristics were collected? is clearly shown in Table 1. The number of samples should not be an issue, as typically between 250 and 400 is a typical sample size for IPA studies. In addition, there is no problem with the ratio of men and women as it is not a study that compares by difference analysis.
8. In the results section, I wrote the results of each session because I thought it would be necessary to explain that the average value for each factor was presented.
9. The discussion part was deleted because it was not necessary to mention the effectiveness and advantages of PBL in the beginning, and the purpose of the study was clearly presented as you pointed out.
10. The limitations of the study and suggestions for future research were presented one paragraph at a time, and the reason why the conclusions and limitations of the study were not separated was that 3 reviewers ordered them.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 3

Reviewer 5 Report

The manuscript has improved. There are some points to clarify.

 

The authors must declare that this study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. What does EFA mean? 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx