A Systematic Review on Education Outside the Classroom: Lessons for Science EOC Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I like the idea of the manuscript. It is valuable to understand EOC practices better. There are, however, some aspects I would like you to consider:

1. Your introduction is too superficial and does not get to the point. I first thought your research was about science education, and once I came upon your 'many disciplines,' I was not sure what you meant by it. Only at the end of your introduction do you give a ratio. So please define your study approach with its many disciplines and explain why you take it.

2. For clarity, please also provide more information on the learning process (how do you define learning? Is it only factual knowledge or other competencies?). Please also explain what you encompass by EOC: What is EOC in an urban setting, and what do you mean by classrooms with learning challenges? It is also not clear how you incorporate the curriculum. If you make such a point to the curriculum, you need to acknowledge it in your study findings and in the discussion. Please go through your introduction and define your framework.

3. Methods: "In total, 157 full texts were obtained, read, and considered for inclusion." Please provide more information on your exclusion criteria. This is also lacking in Figure 1.

4. "The focus on European Counties and two dominant examples may have resulted in relevant articles, conducted within other jurisdictions, not being included in the review." Please rephrase or give more explanation. It would be best to move the study limitations to the discussion.

5. Findings: The footnotes do not work. Please provide the information in another format.

6. Findings, major issue: I think it is essential not only to summarize study findings on a descriptive level but also to give effect sizes and statistically standardize and relate those to see overall effects that meet statistical quality criteria.

7. Findings, formatting: Instead of bullet points, I suggest adding tables explicitly mentioning the references and the variables assessed. It is cumbersome to see numbers as references and jump to the list of references each time. I prefer a table overview with all relevant information (often used in review articles).

8. Findings: It would be helpful to extend such tables on the information you provide in the text that is not linked to any reference (e.g., on the study design, such as pre-post-questionnaires).

9. Findings: I would have liked to learn more about the nature of those field trips mentioned (e.g., a table on program duration, learning goals, and instruments used).

 

In general, I think there is much potential in the manuscript. What I miss most is a quality check of the reviewed articles. Instead of mentioning study results of increased attitude or knowledge levels on a descriptive level, I miss quality checks to see if those studies meet quality criteria and, in that regard, to compare effect sizes so the reader can identify serious research and filter genuinely relevant results. Longitudinal research is challenging to implement. That is why we need reviews like yours but to go into more detail regarding the studies' quality criteria. In this regard, it is your or a review's job to relate studies for geographical effects, not that of the reviewed articles.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor aspects, e.g., on punctiation

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their helpful and thorough comments. We feel they have improved the paper since its first submission and appreciate this guidance and support. The table below briefly outlines how we have taken on board the reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I enjoyed reading this manuscript and appreciated the clarity-just a few thoughts to consider:

Method

EOC has gained popularity over the years with the recognition of the importance of experiential learning. Its formalization and widespread adoption can be traced back to the late 20th and early 21st centuries, so a reader will be curious as to how it was decided that a 10-year window would cover all relevant literature. Consensually?

 

Was there identified and agreed criteria for inclusion/ exclusion in the pilot? Or are the same criteria used for the full study? Clarification is required in the narrative.

 

Usually, the info in the box under Figure 1 could have been included in the narrative as integral to the method.

 

3.1 spacing issue, studies 1

 

Roth and Reynold require a date consistent with other citations in the para.

 

Word contraction is not recommended.

 

Bullet points-check they all begin with a capital letter.

 

The reference to augmented experiences suggests the need for a table showing the dates of the various articles included in the study.

 

A final sentence(s) would be an appropriate conclusion to the manuscript

 

Author Response

Thanks to the reviewers for their helpful and thorough comments. We feel they have improved the paper since its first submission and appreciate this guidance and support. The table below briefly outlines how we have taken on board the reviewers comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf