Transforming Learning Spaces on a Budget: Action Research and Service-Learning for Co-Creating Sustainable Spaces

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theme on which the manuscript focuses is novel and reflects on an issue that is highly relevant to learning: the physical spaces in which it develops.

However, the theoretical background is limited (beyond the explanation of the experience) and the lack of a clear explanation of the methodology makes it difficult to understand the text.

Likewise, there is no clear explanation of the results and there is a lack of linkage with previous studies.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments for a more in-depth consideration on the subject. 

Following your indications, as well as the recommendations of other peer reviewers, we have done a major change of the work, added information and reorganized the structure. We consider it will be easier and clearer for you to reread the “new” manuscript as a whole. 

 

In order to avoid confusions we have modified the title of the article in the following way:

Before: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Education for Sustainable Development and Service-Learning hand-in-hand

(The reader would expect more detail on SL)

Now: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Action Research and Service-Learning for co-creating sustainable spaces.

(We consider it is more in line with our study as we are trying to transmit emphasis on co-creating spaces)

This article is part of a larger investigation on learning spaces that uses an action research methodology and the Service-Learning experience emerged from the investigation-reflection-investigation process. With the new structure of the article we offer more information about the global study making it easier for the reader to contextualize the situation and we present the SL experience as an example of a solution for co-creating learning spaces on a budget.  Moreover, in this way, we leave it open for a future paper once the “BIO-CLASS” space is operating in future courses and has been evaluated.

 

We hope you find the new structure and information useful and more in line with the title, as it is our interest to foster co-creation which is only possible through participation.

The references have also been revised and DOIs adjusted.

 Thank you once again for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Your manuscript addresses a thematic field, which has been reasonably in the focus of global academic and political concern on the path to sustainable development, especially in the COVID-19 pandemics.

Your paper offers a significant contribution on the field.

However, you should pay more attention to the literature review. I encourage you to write two different sections - one dedicated to the introductory part and another one for the literature review, which you may extend.

Respectfully,

Author Response

Thank you for your comments for a more in-depth consideration on the subject. 

Following your indications, as well as the recommendations of other peer reviewers, we have done a major change of the work, added information and reorganized the structure. We consider it will be easier and clearer for you to reread the “new” manuscript as a whole. 

 

In order to avoid confusions we have modified the title of the article in the following way:

Before: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Education for Sustainable Development and Service-Learning hand-in-hand

(The reader would expect more detail on SL)

Now: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Action Research and Service-Learning for co-creating sustainable spaces.

(We consider it is more in line with our study as we are trying to transmit emphasis on co-creating spaces)

This article is part of a larger investigation on learning spaces that uses an action research methodology and the Service-Learning experience emerged from the investigation-reflection-investigation process. With the new structure of the article we offer more information about the global study making it easier for the reader to contextualize the situation and we present the SL experience as an example of a solution for co-creating learning spaces on a budget.  Moreover, in this way, we leave it open for a future paper once the “BIO-CLASS” space is operating in future courses and has been evaluated.

 

We hope you find the new structure and information useful and more in line with the title, as it is our interest to foster co-creation which is only possible through participation.

The references have also been revised and DOIs adjusted.

 Thank you once again for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

En el apartado de materiales y métodos se menciona un cuestionario en los centros, cuyos resultados no se presentan más adelante, y que ofrecería una interesante visión.

Un trabajo de investigación acción participativa ofrece testimonios, referencias a los instrumentos utilizados y una forma de triangular los datos obtenidos que no se reflejan.

Los resultados deben estar más relacionados con los datos obtenidos de acuerdo con los instrumentos de investigación utilizados.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments for a more in-depth consideration on the subject. 

Following your indications, as well as the recommendations of other peer reviewers, we have done a major change of the work, added information and reorganized the structure. We consider it will be easier and clearer for you to reread the “new” manuscript as a whole. 

 

In order to avoid confusions we have modified the title of the article in the following way:

Before: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Education for Sustainable Development and Service-Learning hand-in-hand

(The reader would expect more detail on SL)

Now: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Action Research and Service-Learning for co-creating sustainable spaces.

(We consider it is more in line with our study as we are trying to transmit emphasis on co-creating spaces)

This article is part of a larger investigation on learning spaces that uses an action research methodology and the Service-Learning experience emerged from the investigation-reflection-investigation process. With the new structure of the article we offer more information about the global study making it easier for the reader to contextualize the situation and we present the SL experience as an example of a solution for co-creating learning spaces on a budget.  Moreover, in this way, we leave it open for a future paper once the “BIO-CLASS” space is operating in future courses and has been evaluated.

 

We hope you find the new structure and information useful and more in line with the title, as it is our interest to foster co-creation which is only possible through participation.

The references have also been revised and DOIs adjusted.

 Thank you once again for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article " Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Education for Sustainable Development and Service-Learning hand-in-hand". Examining how Service-Learning may be effective to foster Sustainable Development Goals is an important area of research. At first sight, the quality of ideas and methods proposed for this paper are fairly adequate and the topic itself seems relevant for the pedagogical and educational field, in my opinion. However, when you read the complete text, there are several major concerns that undermine the quality and relevance of the manuscript. As I see it, in its current state, there are a number of serious conceptual and organisational flaws which would require major modifications.

From a general perspective, the manuscript applies an action research methodology, which is a laudable decision, but it is presented as an experience, and the methodological apparatus is vague and obscure. In addition, results section presents some information that would fit better in other parts of the paper, and discussion section does not really discuss. All in all, this paper would need to be considerably conceptually refocused and reorganised for any future versions. My comments below are intended to assist the author(s) in further revising this manuscript.

 

Introduction

Introduction needs further development, for example, more consideration of SL related to sustainability would significantly enhance this section. This methodology has already been linked to SDG. I would suggest the authors to delve into these ideas to support their approach to SL towards sustainability. This will prepare the reader to better understand the table where a number of SDGs appear related to the Service-Learning program presented (Table 1).

Other SDG related to SL may be commented bearing in mind papers such as:

- (SDG6) Byker, E. J., & Ezelle-Thomas, V. (2021). Preparing Teacher Candidates with Global Competencies: Taking Action on the Global Water Crisis with Service Learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 35(2), 268-280.

- (SDG3) Chiva-Bartoll, O., Moliner, M. L., & Salvador-Garcia, C. (2020). Can service-learning promote social well-being in primary education students? A mixed method approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104841.

- (SDG17) Hernández-Barco, M., Sánchez-Martín, J., Blanco-Salas, J., & Ruiz-Téllez, T. (2020). Teaching Down to Earth—Service-Learning Methodology for Science Education and Sustainability at the University Level: A Practical Approach. Sustainability, 12(2), 542.

- (SDG16) Hinds, T., Buch, N., Delgado, V., & Morgan, J. (2020). Development of a Peace Engineering Initiative within a First-Year Engineering Program. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33, 112-117.

- (SDG3) Valverde-Esteve, T., Salvador-Garcia, C., Gil-Gómez, J., & Maravé-Vivas, M. (2021). Sustainable Service-Learning in Physical Education Teacher Education: Examining Postural Control to Promote ASD Children’s Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5216.

- (SDG5) Vergés Bosch, N., Freude, L., & Camps Calvet, C. (2021). Service Learning with a Gender Perspective: Reconnecting Service Learning with Feminist Research and Pedagogy in Sociology. Teaching Sociology, 49(2), 136-149.

 

Line 38: “This blended system caused great challenges, as well as widespread complaints made by the educational community (parents, teachers and students).” A reference supporting this statement is needed.

Line 47: “in Spain but also in many other countries with similar situations.” I would suggest the authors to specify some other examples.

Line 56: “The current concept of sustainability that includes a broader view, not only environmental but also economic and social, is gradually being implemented in the public high schools.” Could you specify the countries where this happens? Could you provide some examples and explain how they approach this issue?

 

Materials and Methods

This section needs careful thought and substantial improvement in general. As I see it, this section should be divided into different subsections (i.e. research procedure, objectives, participants, instruments, data analysis, ethical considerations) and all of them should provide detailed data. In this way, the information provided would be more structured and easier to follow and understand by the reader. Currently, the section is a bit chaotic and many information is missing.

Besides of this, general information about what Service-Learning is could be moved to the introduction section. Thus, in the “Materials and Methods” section, authors may focus on the specific program they applied and how they combined it with action research. First, I think the program carried out should be explained with more detail (service and learning outcomes and how they are connected to the curriculum, participants that took part in the program, how the interaction was carried out if some students only attended the school specific days of the week, duration and intensity of the program, etc.). In addition, authors mention that the methodology used was action research. However, its application is vague. I recommend them to look for Kemmis and McTaggart, two of the most influential authors in this respect, because the explanation concerning action research should be presented in a clearer way in this section. Furthermore, a couple of interesting papers combining Service-Learning and action research that could help the authors to structure these ideas are:

-Chiva-Bartoll, Ó., Peris, C. C., & Piquer, M. P. (2018). Investigación-acción sobre un programa de aprendizaje-servicio en la didáctica de la educación física. Revista de investigación educativa, 36(1), 277-293.

-Liu, R. L., & Tsai, H. C. (2020). Action research to enrich learning from conflict to collaboration: bridging the first-year students and the NGOs agencies in service learning program. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 33(3), 295-309.

 

Results

In my opinion, authors may move the paragraphs appearing just below the title of “Results” to the section in which the Service-Learning program is explained. I do not consider this description to be a proper result. Instead, it is the explanation of the context in which the action research was applied.

The other subsections within “Results” should be presented as part of the action research, and they should clearly depict the different cycles carried out, how data was gathered, who engaged in the reflection process, etc. The “Results” section, on its part, should present the findings of the study in a clear and sequenced way.

 

Discussion

This section starts with “a special reflection on SDG12”, which is ok because it is clearly linked to the topic and the program carried out. However, this SDG has not been specifically mentioned before in all the document (it appears in table but with many other SDGs). Therefore, it seems strange for the reader to read about it for the first time here if it is so relevant.

Another important concern regarding the discussion section is the fact that it is expected to discuss with previous literature regarding the topic examined. However, this discussion is almost non-existent (almost no references are cited). In addition, authors present new results that were not presented in the results section. As I see it, results are expected to appear in the specific section first so that, later on, these findings can be compared, contrasted and discussed with other references, authors and investigations.

A limitations paragraph should be added in the end of the discussion section. Findings cannot be generalized, because the study presented in this manuscript describes a specific context and thus, outcomes may vary depending on the setting.

 

References

Doi format is not consistent in the references list. I would suggest the authors to use always the same form.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments and the new articles suggested for a more in-depth consideration on the subject. 

Following your indications, as well as the recommendations of other peer reviewers, we have done a major change of the work, added information and reorganized the structure. We consider it will be easier and clearer for you to reread the “new” manuscript as a whole. 

 

In order to avoid confusions we have modified the title of the article in the following way:

Before: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Education for Sustainable Development and Service-Learning hand-in-hand

(The reader would expect more detail on SL)

Now: Transforming learning spaces on a budget. Action Research and Service-Learning for co-creating sustainable spaces.

(We consider it is more in line with our study as we are trying to transmit emphasis on co-creating spaces)

This article is part of a larger investigation on learning spaces that uses an action research methodology and the Service-Learning experience emerged from the investigation-reflection-investigation process. With the new structure of the article we offer more information about the global study making it easier for the reader to contextualize the situation and we present the SL experience as an example of a solution for co-creating learning spaces on a budget.  Moreover, in this way, we leave it open for a future paper once the “BIO-CLASS” space is operating in future courses and has been evaluated.

 

We hope you find the new structure and information useful and more in line with the title, as it is our interest to foster co-creation which is only possible through participation.

The references have also been revised and DOIs adjusted.

 Thank you once again for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Suggestions regarding the theoretical framework and the presentation of results have been addressed.
However, it is recommended that the new references included be revised so that they adjust to the format proposed by the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your recommendations to improve the understanding of the article. We have tried to organize and show the information in a more direct way to the reader, introducing more details about the procedures developed. The references have been revised and we trust that there are no typos.

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations on the changes introduced.
Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the response that the authors have made to my comments and the amendments included in the text. The authors have clarified several of the aspects and questions I raised in my previous review. The whole project is clearer however, there are still some aspects that, in my opinion would need further change.

 

Introduction

Introduction has been improved. However, I think SDG should be presented, specially those that could be more directly related to Service-Learning. In fact, authors mention SDG along all the text and they present a table (4) on page 13 depicting the outcomes of the Service-Learning project that target SDG. Nevertheless, these SDG are not clearly presented in the introduction for the text to be more coherent. As I shared in my previous review, there are several papers that have already linked Service-Learning to the SDG that you could cite among others (I see one has been cited, but its connection to SDG is not explicit in the introduction section):

- (SDG6) Byker, E. J., & Ezelle-Thomas, V. (2021). Preparing Teacher Candidates with Global Competencies: Taking Action on the Global Water Crisis with Service Learning. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 35(2), 268-280.

- (SDG3) Chiva-Bartoll, O., Moliner, M. L., & Salvador-Garcia, C. (2020). Can service-learning promote social well-being in primary education students? A mixed method approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104841.

- (SDG17) Hernández-Barco, M., Sánchez-Martín, J., Blanco-Salas, J., & Ruiz-Téllez, T. (2020). Teaching Down to Earth—Service-Learning Methodology for Science Education and Sustainability at the University Level: A Practical Approach. Sustainability, 12(2), 542.

- (SDG16) Hinds, T., Buch, N., Delgado, V., & Morgan, J. (2020). Development of a Peace Engineering Initiative within a First-Year Engineering Program. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 33, 112-117.

- (SDG3) Valverde-Esteve, T., Salvador-Garcia, C., Gil-Gómez, J., & Maravé-Vivas, M. (2021). Sustainable Service-Learning in Physical Education Teacher Education: Examining Postural Control to Promote ASD Children’s Well-Being. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5216.

- (SDG5) Vergés Bosch, N., Freude, L., & Camps Calvet, C. (2021). Service Learning with a Gender Perspective: Reconnecting Service Learning with Feminist Research and Pedagogy in Sociology. Teaching Sociology, 49(2), 136-149.

 

Materials and methods

The different stages and cycles of the AR carried out could be presented in a clearer way. In your response, you mention that “the Service-Learning experience emerged from the investigation-reflection-investigation process”. I would suggest the authors to explicitly present these steps in the manuscript while they preset the whole project.

In my opinion, despite the changes carried out, materials and methods section still needs to be slightly more organized. I would suggest the authors (again) to present subsections in order to clearly describe participants, instruments (the categories of the survey do appear in the current section, but information about the interviews is still vague because the reader does not know the type of interview used, their length, how they were organized, where they took place, who carried them out, etc.), data analysis, ethical considerations.

For example, in the research a survey passed to the fifteen high schools is used. However, I wonder who completed this survey. It might have been completed by the principal only, by the management team, by all teachers, by students, by all educational community. This information may be interesting to better understand who shared their perspectives on the current (at that moment) situation of the high schools.

 

Results and discussion

“Traditional teacher-centered education is still dominant in the targeted schools. However, active methodologies are being implemented, slowly but gradually.” I wonder how authors know this, it should appear in the text. A reference should appear to support this.

 

Steps in section 4.2. begin in September 2020. However, Figure 9 (where these steps are supposed to be depicted) starts with October 2020. I would suggest the authors to include this first month in this Figure too for the text to be more coherent.

In section 4.2. authors write “seven models were presented”. However, later on they explain that the winner was a project carried out by a single student and the total amount of students in the participating group were 15. I wonder why 8 students did not present their models.

In page 19 the first paragraph starts with “Table 1. ].” I wonder whether this is correct. In addition, it appears a “28)” in the middle of the paragraph, but it is difficult to understand what it means. This same paragraph presents more issues because there are sentences that do not start with capital letter, for example. I would suggest the authors to check it carefully. In any case, within this very same paragraph several ideas concerning the construction of a new high school are presented; but I would consider removing them because they do not seem to be very related to the Service-Learning carried out and explained.

 

Minor issues:

-Numbers in the references list should be checked.

-AR acronym should be presented the first time the term appears in the text.

-Figure 2 might not be needed

-Style is very important in academic texts. In this sense, for example, I would avoid referring directly to the reader (i.e. “Following you will find clues to” in page 13)

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the detailed recommendations you have provided to improve the understanding of our article. We have tried to respond to each of the points that you have so kindly sent us, which I comment below.

 

Materials and methods 

• The different stages of the action-research process are described in subsection 2.1, where Figure 4 also illustrates these steps.
• This section now includes a presentation of the different subsections in order to organize instruments, participants and methodological issues referring to statistical descriptions and tests passed. 
• More detail has been provided in order to clearly present the interviews and interviewed participants. 

Results and discussion

• Dominant patterns, as well as trends in methodological issues in the studied schools, were derived from the questionnaires and interviews to the head teams. This issue is now included in the text.
• Steps in Section 4.2 begin in September 2020, so Figure 10 has been modified in order to be coherent with the text.
• The number of models presented, as well as students participating in the Service-Learning experience is now specified: six projects were developed individually and one of them in a group of nine students.
• In page 19 we don’t find the typographical errors commented. However, a whole revision has been made. 
• Comments about the changes applied in the construction of the planned new high school are considered as a result of the action-research process described in the paper.

Minor issues

• References have been checked.
• AR acronym is presented the first time it appears.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have substantially enhanced the quality of their paper in this third round. I would like to thank the authors for their time and effort in order to improve their previous manuscript. They have clarified many of the aspects and questions I raised in my previous reviews.