Excursions as an Immersion Pedagogy to Enhance Self-Directed Learning in Pre-Service Teacher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proofreader

because there are some linguistic mistakes that should be fixed. The title

needs further thought - shortened and more accurate. 

The Abstract in its sub-sections needs re-organization and it does not

adequately summarise the gist of the study.

Also, the writing style of the manuscript is not overall academic and formal.

The article is proposed to be supplemented with a flowchart illustrating the

research technique. A review of the literature is insufficient. It is critical to

include some recent work (2018–2020) in the literature review. A literature

review should be added in order to illustrate the central topic in a more

detailed way. Some further explanations and interpretations are required for

the results.

It is recommended to include a well-organized discussion of the

findings, strengths, and limitations of the present project with additional

explanation/details and a conclusion with future work.

I think the submission holds promise, but comprehensive editing is required.

The authors should ask for the help of a native English-speaking proofreader

because there are some linguistic mistakes that should be fixed. The title

needs further thought - shortened and more accurate. 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presents a correct structure, all the parts that make it up are consistent with the title and the proposed objectives. The research values ​​educational practices sometimes forgotten in schools. The introduction is clear and well structured, the method is well described with all its subsections well defined, the results are correctly presented and easily understandable. In the conclusions part, I would encourage the authors to expand and make the texts more coherent with the authors they cite in the introduction, this would help to better cohere the ideas with the results found. The bibliographical references are current, pertinent and relevant. Overall, it's a good job, congratulations to the authors!

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper describes a long term teacher training experience in several universities in South Africa.

This experience is worthwhile. Undoubtedly, it is an activity with great intrinsic value for teacher training.

However, the paper needs some significant improvements to be able to adapt to the format of a scientific article.

I present below some of these issues.

 

1. Introduction.

In the introduction section, results of other similar previous studies should be presented.

Given that the experience is truly novel, in the event that the authors have not been able to locate this type of study, it would be interesting to indicate it explicitly.

It should be clearly specified what the objective of the study is and justify the interest of this objective.

 

2. Materials and Methods.

It is suggested that this section contains subsections (participants and instruments at least), to show more clearly the methodology used.

The number of students who answered the questionnaires and/or participated in the discussion groups should be indicated. This is done in some cases later, in the results section (line 282). But it should be done in the materials and methods section.

Also, figures should be provided on how many interviews were coded and how many newspapers were analyzed.

 

3. Organization of the text.

In the current version of the paper, the description and objectives of the excursions are found in the results section (for example lines 126-150; 161-184; 186-212,...)

It would be more appropriate for these descriptions to appear in the materials and methods section, as this is not a result itself.

 

4. Results.

The results should be presented in a more systematic way.

The materials and methods section talks about interviews that were transcribed and coded. It should be specified how many students were interviewed.

The results section should clearly show which categories emerged from the interviews.

Newspaper reflections are also mentioned in the materials and methods section.

Accordingly, the results section should present results derived from the analysis of this instrument.

 

As it is now built, this results section contains inappropriate elements. On the one hand, it includes the description of the experience (which should appear in the materials and methods section); and also includes an interpretation by the authors themselves of the results of the experiment. This interpretation should appear in the discussion section.

I believe that the improvement in the structuring of the text and the improvement in the clarity of the results are essential aspects that must be addressed in depth by the authors.

 

5. Limitations and future lines of research.

The limitations of the study should be specified. And also possible future avenues of research.

 

6. Formal aspects.

6.1. Acronyms and abbreviations.

The first time an acronym or abbreviation appears, its meaning must be specified (for example B. Ed., HEI).

 

6.2. Values ​​e.g.

The value 0.000 should be avoided. Instead p < .001 should be used.

 

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The version of the manuscript is an ameliorated one. Some further suggestions to the authors:

1. Literature review is missing. A short section after the introduction with some more references to the theme with the presentation of other pedagogical practices should be added.

2. In lines 169-172 ethical principles should be added at the end after conclusion in a section entitled: Ethical Considerations.

3. In the section materials and methods a flowchart should be added in order to illustrate the research technique.

4. The section on future research implications should be extended a bit more.

5. Reference list should be extended with some more recent studies.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback, which is greatly appreciated!

I have made the literature review more comprehensive. The problem was that we had to restrict self-citations, and I have been working with teams for 17 years on such excursions. I therefore had to (after discussions with the Publisher) select a few core articles for the literature review. I trust that I have paid justice to your recommendation. 

I have added a heading "Ethical considerations" to highlight ethical aspects, as suggested.

I have created a flowchart as suggested. I agree that it enhances the discussion of the research methodology.

Thank you once again. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed the vast majority of the recommendations in my first report.

I think the paper has improved significantly from its previous version.

I congratulate the authors for their work.

Some small modifications of formal aspect still have to be made.

The format of the table must conform to APA standards.

Expression of p-values ​​should also conform to APA standards.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback, which is greatly appreciated!

The Table (also reflecting p values) has been revised according to APA standards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf