A Living Lab Model for Elementary Informatics Education: Enhancing Sustainability Competencies Through Collaborative Problem-Solving, Computational Thinking, and Communication
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
Having had the opportunity to review your manuscript "A Living Lab Model for Sustainable Informatics Education: Integrating Collaborative Problem-Solving, Communication, and Computational Thinking in Elementary Schools.” I share my assessment and recommendations:
After reading this paper, I can declare this is a well-conceived and timely study that addresses a topic and research gap of relevance for the journal. The authors present a novel framework rooted in the Living Lab approach, seeking to enhance competencies such as collaborative problem-solving, computational thinking, and collaborative communication. The model is empirically validated through a quasi-experimental design, with clear indications of its effectiveness. I appreciate the clarity and description. As part of my assessment, I share some remarks and recommendations.
Title and Abstract:
The current title accurately reflects the scope but could benefit from a slight rephrasing to highlight the “elementary education” and “sustainability competencies” more directly for a broader audience.
The abstract is informative but might be improved by including a more explicit statement about the modest improvements in CC, thus reflecting the paper’s full findings. The authors might also consider including some figures (numbers) to give readers a quick visual overview of the improvements
Introduction & Lit Review:
The rationale for emphasizing Communication Skills is strong but could benefit from a clearer distinction between implicit versus structured communication instruction in current practices.
In line “Key among these competencies are collaborative problem-solving (CPS), computational thinking (CT), and robust communication skills.” I suggest adding any references that support why these competences”
For those readers who are not quite familiar with the approach, introduce the reader more about the Living Lab approach before description (Line 117).
Considering the background of the study, the section could also briefly reference comparable international efforts to contextualize South Korea’s curriculum reforms or pointing out the relevance of the Living Lab approach.
Methodology:
The use of NLP for curriculum analysis is innovative, but the technical description of the process (Table 1) could be streamlined for clarity. Adding a brief definition or example of a “submission” or “competency mapping cluster” would improve accessibility for non-specialist readers.
More elaboration on how researcher bias was mitigated during coding and analysis (beyond triangulation) would enhance transparency.
While recruiting voluntary participants in the study, authors could explain in the methodology section or in the study limitations how they dealt with the potential selection bias.
Results:
The results are clearly presented and statistically robust. However, the inclusion of a visual summary. A bar chart showing pre-post differences or the magnitude of improvement by factor could help the reader to see and compare better the results. This is a recommendation.
See that in Table 4, the predictor “Automation” and “Abstraction”, “Information gathering” are misaligned from the correct table raw.
The paragraph lines 397 to 406 could be probably moved to the discussion section as it provided interesting inferences rather than descriptive results.
Discussion and Implications:
The discussion is comprehensive but could benefit from a sharper distinction between theoretical implications and practical recommendations. Also, triangulation with other studies in the line might be necessary to better understand results and implications. (Triangulate with your Lit. Review if necessary).
Other aspects may need more elaboration to improve the clarity, for example: Although the authors identify the need for explicit CC instruction this point could be strengthened by proposing concrete instructional methods.
Authors could also briefly address how the model could be adapted to other educational contexts to enhance the relevance of the findings.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Title and Abstract: The title would benefit from emphasizing “elementary education” and “sustainability competencies,” and the abstract should explicitly state the modest improvements in CC with numerical data.
Response 1:
We have revised the title to clearly highlight these points: “A Living Lab Model for Sustainable Informatics Education in Elementary Schools: Enhancing Collaborative Problem‑Solving, Computational Thinking, and Sustainability Competencies” (p. 1, title line). Additionally, the abstract now explicitly mentions the experimental and control groups, pre- and post-test structure, statistical analyses, and modest improvements in CC (e.g., creative communication from 3.31 to 3.81, p = .006) (p. 1, abstract lines 13–22) [marked in red].
Comment 2:
Clearly distinguish explicit vs. implicit communication instructional methods in the introduction.
Response 2:
The distinction between explicit and implicit instructional approaches for communication has been clearly articulated in the introduction. Definitions and references (Johnson & Johnson, 1999; McComb & Kennedy, 2020; OECD, 2017) were added to support this clarification (p. 2, Introduction par. 3, lines 64–75) [marked in red].
Comment 3:
Briefly add a conceptual explanation of the Living Lab approach earlier in the manuscript.
Response 3:
A concise definition and conceptual background of the Living Lab approach, emphasizing collaboration among schools, local communities, and businesses, have been added early in the introduction (p. 2, Introduction par. 5, lines 79–85) [marked in red].
Comment 4:
Include international examples to contextualize the Korean curriculum.
Response 4:
International examples of educational frameworks similar to Korea’s curriculum (e.g., UK’s National Curriculum—Computing, USA’s Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), and Australia’s Australian Curriculum (General Capabilities)) have been included to provide global context (p. 2, Introduction par. 2, lines 51–60) [marked in red].
Comment 5:
Clarify NLP methods, add examples, and describe measures for minimizing researcher bias beyond triangulation.
Response 5:
We have clarified NLP methodologies by adding specific examples of “competency mapping clusters” and detailed descriptions in Table 1. Additionally, explicit measures to reduce researcher bias—such as detailed documentation, peer feedback sessions, and rigorous comparative reviews—were included. These supplement the use of Cohen’s Kappa (p. 6–7, Section 3.1, lines 235–274) [marked in red].
Comment 6:
Provide visualizations of pre- and post-test results.
Response 6:
Normalized gain scores were integrated into Table 3 and visually presented through a new bar chart (Figure 6). This visual enhancement clearly illustrates the magnitude of improvements (p. 12–13, Results section lines 409–444, Table 3, Figure 6) [marked in red].
Comment 7:
Explicitly state the exact numbers in experimental/control groups and clearly answer research questions.
Response 7:
Section 3.4 on Research Participants now explicitly mentions the exact number of students—98 in the experimental group and 98 in the control group—and clearly details the experimental design (p. 12, lines 375–406) [marked in red].
Furthermore, explicit responses to RQ1 and RQ2 have been incorporated into the Discussion (p. 16, lines 541–549) and Conclusions sections (p.17, lines 577–583).
Comment 8:
Clearly distinguish theoretical vs. practical implications and reinforce triangulation with other studies.
Response 8:
The Discussion section clearly separates “Theoretical Implications” from “Practical Implications” and reinforces triangulation by integrating references from OECD (2017), Wing (2006), Grover & Pea (2013), and Johnson & Johnson (1999) to contextualize the findings (p. 17–18, lines 559–624) [marked in red].
Comment 9:
Expand future research directions by referencing AI-driven tools.
Response 9:
Future research directions now include additional insights into AI-driven interaction analytics, citing both Zhai et al. (2021) and Ouyang & Zhang (2024), thereby clearly articulating potential research expansions (p. 19, lines 652–684) [marked in red].
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCOMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Review Report for Manuscript sustainability-3666896
Title: A Living Lab Model for Sustainable Informatics Education: Integrating Collaborative Problem-Solving, Communication, and Computational Thinking in Elementary Schools
Journal: Sustainability
Dear authors,
This study takes an innovative approach to research and development, emphasizing real-world experimentation and collaboration. In my opinion, computational thinking involves breaking down a problem into manageable parts and applying key techniques to find an efficient solution. It is important for students to develop this skill from an early age. I find this aspect of the research work very interesting. Overall, the paper makes significant contributions to informatics education by introducing a comprehensive model that integrates essential competencies, provides empirical validation.
One of the weaknesses identified in the manuscript is the modest improvement in collaborative communication (CC) skills among students. While significant advancements were observed in collaborative problem-solving (CPS) and computational thinking (CT), the limited progress in CC suggests that the instructional strategies employed were insufficient to foster these skills effectively. This discrepancy highlights the need for more targeted and structured communication interventions within the educational framework.
Furthermore, the study recognises the inherent complexity of developing interpersonal communication skills. It suggests that these skills usually require more extensive and deliberate instructional support than technical competencies. If this complexity is not adequately addressed, the effectiveness of the LL-CPS model could be limited, indicating a potential gap in the instructional design. Did the authors assess communication skills beforehand? It would be helpful if you could outline the changes that occurred before and after the intervention, as this would provide a more comprehensive overview of the situation.
Although I find this manuscript interesting and promising, I suggest that the authors address all the comments that I believe need to be clarified.
With best wishes.
Comments and Suggestions:
1. Why don't the authors mention in the abstract that there are control and experimental groups? Why is it not mentioned that a pre- and post-test was carried out, the results of which demonstrate the effectiveness of the study? Why is the statistical analysis not mentioned?
2. About the research questions: I suggest that the authors explicitly answer their research questions, which will provide a more solid foundation for the rest of the study.
3. Section 3.4 does not specify how many of the 196 students were in the experimental group and how many were in the control group. Table 3 does not mention this either. I suggest plotting the results in a box plot, for example.
The learning gain published by Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64-74. could provide clarity on the authors' results.
4. I suggest to the authors that they show the results in Table 4 in a graph as well.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Include explicit mention of groups, pre/post-tests, and statistical analysis in abstract/title.
Response 1:
Explicit references to control/experimental groups, pre/post-tests, and statistical analyses were included in the revised abstract (p. 1, abstract lines 13–22) [marked in red].
Comment 2:
Explicitly address research questions within the manuscript.
Response 2:
Explicit responses to RQ1 and RQ2 have been provided in the Discussion and Conclusions sections (p. 16, lines 541–549 / p.17, lines 577–583).
Comment 3:
Clarify exact numbers in each group and suggest visual for results.
Response 3:
The exact numbers of students (98 experimental, 98 control) are clearly specified in Section 3.4 (p. 12, lines 375–406) [marked in red]. Additionally, normalized gains have been visualized in a clear bar chart (Figure 6) to complement Table 3 (p. 12–13, Results section lines 409–444, Table 3, Figure 6) [marked in red].
Comment 4:
Use Hake’s (1998) normalized learning gains.
Response 4:
We incorporated normalized learning gains into Table 3 and Figure 6, aligning our analysis closely with Hake’s (1998) methodology (p. 12–13, Results section lines 409–444, Table 3, Figure 6) [marked in red].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript presents a valuable and timely contribution by addressing the development of key and transversal competencies in elementary education, such as collaborative problem-solving, computational thinking, and communication. The research questions are well articulated and, overall, are adequately addressed throughout the article. I have no major objections regarding the relevance or contribution of the study to the journal.
However, I must point out an important issue that requires attention. The exact same paragraph appears twice—once between lines 361–370 and again between lines 397–406. This duplication raises concerns about the editorial rigor applied during manuscript preparation. Was this a result of oversight in text organization, or might it be related to the unsupervised use of generative AI tools? If AI tools were used in the writing process, I would appreciate clarification on which sections were generated or assisted by such tools and for what purpose. Although this may seem like a minor issue, it raises legitimate questions regarding the integrity of the manuscript’s development. I recommend a thorough review of the full text to ensure consistency and transparency, particularly concerning the potential use of AI in its preparation.
BR.
Author Response
Comment:
Concerns regarding duplicate paragraphs (lines 361–370 and 397–406) and clarification on AI usage.
Response:
The duplication arose from formatting errors during the LaTeX-to-Word conversion process. We confirm that generative AI was used minimally and solely for translation and preliminary drafting. All duplicated text has been completely removed, and we have clarified this point explicitly within the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well founded and meets the requirements of a scientific text. The text proposes an innovative model in the development of education in South Korea, encouraging collaboration between school and community settings. It presents strong empirical evidence, thanks to the sample of 196 participants, resulting in a factor analysis methodology consistent with the experiment developed. In addition, it presents a clear interdisciplinary approach, linking computer science with sustainability and community issues. In this sense, it highlights the importance given in the study to the study in the development of structured communication as a key competence. In addition, and in the educational field, it presents a structured framework for its application in teaching, fostering critical thinking and the school-community relationship. With all this, the acceptance of their article in the present form is recommended, and the authors are congratulated for the great work done.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and kind recommendation. We are delighted that our paper’s interdisciplinary approach, clear empirical evidence, and structured framework for enhancing collaboration between schools and communities were recognized and appreciated. Your comments greatly encourage us, and we appreciate your acknowledgment of our efforts in developing structured communication and critical thinking competencies.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for taking my comments into account. The new version of the manuscript is clear and comprehensive. Table 1 contains a typo. Please take a look at the Mapping to Definitions section.
