Outdoor STEAM Education: Opportunities and Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, find my comments in the attached file.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments, which were extremely helpful in improving and clarifying our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thanks for the interesting articles. I would like to raise the following ideas to improve it's quality:

- I do not see the connection between COVID and outdoor learning (page 2). Do you state that it has gained in popularity since the pandemic? Still many of the research comes from a time before the pandemic.

- The research questions are well developed. Still, I wonder if teachers struggle because we have many ideas, e.g. for outdoor mathematics, but not for outdoor STEAM. Are there any studies or differences concerning the individual subjects and the integrated STEAM approach? Is it more challenging etc.?

- The method is well understandable. Please hightlight the number of participants already in the introduction of this part.

- Further, I would like to have more information on the steps of the thematic content analysis.

- The same is for the development of the questionnaire: Why did you use so many items? Which categories/topics are in the questionnaire? Based on which literature? Why did you use a Likert scale with 5 points?

- The results section is interesting. In my opinion, it would improve through an introduction in which you explain the structure of this section (first you focus on the topic x and so on).

- The example of the teacher on page 8 made me aware of my previous comment again. I have the feeling that it contains a lot of outdoor math, but not STEAM in what is said here. Could you discuss this in more detail? What is your idea of outdoor STEAM? One of the subjects taught individually or all of them integrated? I think it would strengthen the discussion, too.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments, which were extremely helpful in improving and clarifying our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments for Authors

The manuscript explores teachers’ perspectives on perceived challenges to integrating STEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics) education with outdoor learning, which is an under-studied topic in education. Consequently, the study is timely and contributes relevant information to the body of literature. The limited scope of the study (i.e., one school cluster in a single city with a 29.5% response rate for the survey) limits the generalizability of the findings, which is acknowledged in the Conclusion section. However, the study is still insightful and eventually in conjunction with similar studies in other areas, could contribute to a review article on this subject.

 

In general, the manuscript is well-written with only minor revision necessary in wording. It also seems well-supported with citations to relevant literature. Clarification and/or expanded explanation for statements and concepts will be helpful in some areas. Some additional explanation is also needed to better describe the methodology and rationale used in the study. Please refer to the specific comments below for recommendations.

 

Specific Comments for Authors

Line 56 – “Inversion” (i.e., reversal) does not sound like the correct word to describe the transition of STEM into STEAM. I suggest “expansion.”

 

Line 56-7 – The phrase “multiple situations…in question” is unclear as presently written as a follow-up to describe STEM. Please rephrase to clarify.

 

Line 61 – The use of the phrase “greater success” is unclear. Does this refer to improved ability to learn in STEAM? Achievement of higher grades in school in general? Other?

 

Line 76 – Please clarify whether you are referring to the time during the pandemic or the years following the pandemic. A number of popular interest articles during the pandemic showed an increase in outdoor activity during the pandemic in some nations, as defined by visits to parks where attendance was tracked as well as by participants self-reporting their activities. This contrasts to the Pombo et al. article you cite here, so outdoor activity in response to the pandemic may be nation-specific.

 

Line 84 – The term “flagrant” carries a negative connotation (i.e., wrong, immoral, or offensive) so is not an appropriate term to use here. Perhaps “outstanding” or “particularly relevant” would better convey the message you intend here.

 

Lines 90-1 – The phrase “this integration extends to teacher education” is unclear. Are you referring to the integration of the various disciplines listed above or more specifically the skills needed for orienteering? Do you mean it is used in teacher education training or that it ought to be used for such?

 

Line 126 – “first phase” is unnecessarily repeated in this line.

 

Line 127 – How were the eight interviewees selected for the study and did the same individuals also participate in the follow-up online survey? You acknowledged in the Conclusion section that their participation did not necessarily reflect the makeup of the schools in the study, but it isn’t evident how or why they were selected to serve in preliminary interviews. Also, were the interviews conducted in-person, over the phone, via Zoom?

 

Line 133 – Were the two teachers referenced here not teaching middle school at all during the time of the survey or were they teaching both at the middle school and elementary school level? If the former, do you mean that they were originally trained to be middle school teachers but ultimately switched to elementary? Please clarify.

 

Line 161 – The reference to “experts with recognized work” in outdoor and STEAM education is vague. Please clarify whether this refers to teaching in these fields, research and publication in these fields, or some other achievement. This will provide better context for the reader as to the level of “expertise” these individuals have.

 

Lines 167-68 – The low response rate (i.e., 29.5%) is a concern. Did you pursue a 2^nd round of email communication with non-participants to provide a 2^nd chance at completing the survey in an attempt to increase the response rate? Did you consider pursuing the same study within another school cluster to increase the breadth of the study? Please provide an explanation to justify why you feel your study is still valid and ready for publication using only these data. References to other studies that have used a similar response rate would help justify your approach.

 

Line 221 – Does the phrase “a significant number of teachers” refer to statistical significance? If so, please report the data to establish this. If not, I recommend using another word, as the term “significance” generally implies statistical analysis in formal studies.

 

Line 241 (and elsewhere) – The correct phrasing should be “refer to…” This occurs in multiple instances between lines 241-294.  

 

Lines 290-1 – The phrase “with several teachers” is unclear. Are you referring to collaborative teaching involving multiple teachers contributing different components to the curriculum?

 

Lines 333-4 – You point out that approximately 1/3 agreed and 1/3 disagreed, but what about the other 1/3? The previous statistic in the lines above included the “no opinion” group with the “disagreed” group.

 

Line 357 – The current phrasing sounds like it is missing a word. I recommend “…that allows them to work…”

 

Line 401 – The correct English spelling is “frequency.”

 

Line 431 – There is an unnecessary “o” here.

Line 437 – “Outdoors” should actually just be “outdoor” in its usage here.

 

Lines 459-60 – The use of double vs. single quotations is inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript here.

 

Line 511 – The phrase “hindering from” is incorrect. I think you mean “…stemming from…”

 

Line 533 – There appears to be an extra space before the citation here.

 

Line 540 – This line also appears to be an unnecessary extra space between the paragraphs.

 

Line 547 – More consistent with what – with the published literature or within your own study?

 

Lines 607-09 – In its present form, this is an incomplete sentence. Changing “though” to “however” could remedy this.

 

Line 653 – This should be “informed” rather than “formed.”

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-written and in need of only minor editing to improve the wording. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the insightful comments, which were extremely helpful in improving and clarifying our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf