Effect of the Organizational Model of the Subject of Activities in the Natural Environment on Students’ Satisfaction and Learning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The originality of the text is 77.44%.

The research is devoted to improving the quality of the teaching process in higher education. The authors set the goal of the work - to increase student satisfaction in the process of obtaining new scientific knowledge. As a hypothesis, it was assumed that this goal can be achieved if classes are conducted in a "natural environment". The authors developed 4 models of teaching students in classical and innovative forms and their combination. The study was conducted at the Polytechnic University of Madrid, the total number of subjects was 169 people. The article has a logical structure, references to literature correspond to the topic of the study, and the work has tables.

The work has the following comments:

1. It should be borne in mind that the goal of education is to obtain new scientific knowledge, and not student satisfaction. Therefore, first of all, you need to control the level of student knowledge, and not satisfaction. If you control student satisfaction from the learning process, then this should be done only in conjunction with the level of knowledge. The article does not contain statistically significant data on the dynamics of increasing student knowledge.

2. The work lacks a hypothesis, which should be at the end of the Introduction section.

3. It should not be indicated that the classical learning model is criticized by students from the point of view of boredom (line 34). This can only be said about specific teachers.

4. The list of references should be expanded for a more detailed study of the problem.

5. Unfortunately, the article does not have a single beautiful graph or diagram for a more visual presentation of the obtained data.

6. The duration of the experiment must be specified.

7. When using statistical methods for processing experimental data, there is no need to use covariance analysis (ANCOVA); to obtain statistically significant data, it is sufficient to use sign criteria and analysis of the sample characteristic by the excess and asymmetry coefficient.

Point 2.5. is very poorly described, there is no list of the methods used, in addition, not all of the methods used are valid.

8. Subjective assessment of students about the level of satisfaction with the learning process is extremely insufficient for improving the learning process at the university. It should be presented with the level of knowledge acquisition. If the level of students' knowledge increases despite student satisfaction, then this is not bad. And if the level of students' knowledge falls, and satisfaction grows, then this is very bad.

9. In section "4. Discussion" the authors should discuss the data obtained during their own experiment. In this section, a large number of references to other studies is undesirable. There are repetitions of references, for example, references No. 24, 27.

 

Unfortunately, the acquisition of knowledge was not taken into account in this work, there is no statistical data on this before and after the experiment. In this regard, I believe that this approach contradicts the purpose of education at the university and cannot be submitted for publication.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors for the interesting study. It deals with interesting and little studied topics, which has advantages and disadvantages.

Some improvements are recommended in order to improve the study.

In section 2.1 Design, it would be convenient to provide some bibliographical reference that has been considered to carry out these designs.

In the sample, it would be convenient to indicate how the organisation by groups was carried out.

It is necessary to provide data on the validity of the instruments. If there are no data on this test in previous validations, it would be useful to provide data on the confirmatory factor analysis. It would also be useful to provide more information on the questionnaire (ISS), number of items, dimensions and an example of a question.

It would be useful to include an ad hoc questionnaire in an appendix or in the article itself, if it has not been previously published.

The results in table 2 show the differences between groups but it is not clear whether this refers to the initial level or the differences between the initial and final sample. ANCOVA is used, but what are the covariates? It is necessary to clarify the results section.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

12.09.2024

Dear authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the article

 

Effect of the organizational model of the subject of activities in natural environment on students’ satisfaction and learning

 

The article's subject is important to the educational world and presents a new point of view that is not necessarily familiar to everyone. Not all educators recognize the importance of the organization and the study environment from the point of view that the article deals with.

 

Abstract: In this section, two more sentences describing the findings and key insights from the study should be added.

 

Keywords: Rethinking is required for the correct choice of the keywords for example        "physical activities in the natural environment" appears only once and only in this section.

In addition, I recommend the use of initials for example:  "educational innovation" = "EI"

 

Introduction:

 In the introduction to the article, there are also examples from other studies written in one complete sequence without a significant literature survey on an important topic that the article deals with.

A significant literature review must be prepared on the subject of the article and of course, it must be current for the last 5 years.

 

Materials and Methods

The research description is good. A diagram or sketch describing the research process should be added. This will make it easier for the readers.

 

 Results

The findings chapter is well described. It should be noted that table number 2 exceeds the page limits.

 

Discussion: requires re-editing and reference to suitable biographical sources from the literature review. See for example in lines: 199-214 there is no reference to literature as well as in lines 229-243.

 

References:  The list of the  references is not written in a uniform manner and according to the required rules of the journal.

For example, in item number 1 the year is highlighted and in item number 8 the year is not highlighted, in addition, not all the links are active.

 

 

I hope that the authors of the article will find my comments useful comments to improve their article.

I look forward to hear from the authors regarding the resubmission.

 

Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have corrected almost all my comments. The answers are justified. I recommend the work for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors of the article

There has indeed been a considerable improvement in the article and it has been corrected to my satisfaction

I wish the authors of the article the best of luck in their research journey in the field

Good Luck!!!