Workshop with Hydrogen Cells: A Pedagogical and Motivating Experience for the Study of Unconventional Forms of Energy Generation in Pre-School Students in Panama City
, Jorge Serrano 1, Elsa Flores 1, Alejandrina Batista 1, Reinhardt Pinzón 1,2,3,*, Marta Álvarez 1 and Jose Rogelio Fábrega Duque 1,3
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors.
The study aims to promote the study of non-conventional forms of electrical energy generation, focusing on hydrogen cells, to create a resilient society with awareness and capacity for development and experimentation. It targets secondary education to strengthen educational skills and boost interest in renewable energy technologies.
This paper is well-structured with 6 sections: Objective, Methodology, Workshop Structure, Experiments Conducted, and Results, Discussions.
Overall, the study highlights the potential of using hands-on workshops with hydrogen cells to foster interest in renewable energy technologies among high school students, providing a model that can be replicated in other educational settings. This study provide a way to educate and encourage future generations in sustainable energy technologies.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript presents a very interesting research topic, and I agree with the author's viewpoint that studies on low-carbon and environmentally friendly practices should start from primary and secondary education, as these students form the reserve force for future research. However, there are a few minor issues that need to be addressed before publication: 1. Some formatting issues raise concerns about whether this paper was translated using translation software. All details should be carefully checked, such as in lines 90, 547, 556, 563, and 565 with “[twenty-one], etc.”. 2. In the introduction, too much focus is placed on individual researchers without logical analysis between these studies. What issues exist in the current stage of research? What are the limitations? How advanced is the research methodology in this paper? Are the research subjects consistent? The introduction needs to be reorganized. 3. The conclusion section should provide more specific results, including aspects of teaching effectiveness. 4. The limitations of the study, prospects for development, possible improvements, and future development plans should be given. 5. Images should ensure clarity, such as Figures 18, 19, and 20. 6. The formatting of references is inconsistent and needs to be corrected. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your feedback.
Comments and suggestions for authors
- Some formatting issues raise questions about whether this document was translated using translation software. All details should be carefully checked, as on lines 90, 547, 556, 563, and 565 with "[twenty-one], etc.".
Answer: Corrected in the document
- In the introduction, too much emphasis is placed on individual researchers without a logical analysis between these studies. What problems exist in the current stage of the research? What are the limitations? How advanced is the research methodology in this work? Are the research subjects coherent? The introduction needs to be rearranged.
Answer: As has been verified in the review of the literature, the workshops carried out focus mostly on the types of solar, hydraulic, and biomass generation, however, regarding workshops related to hydrogen cell technology, at an international level has very little evidence of related work. In the case of Panama, there is no evidence of the development of workshops that apply this type of technology. Therefore, the project presented here attempts to cover these gaps, presenting the development of workshops through the management and experimentation with small-scale fuel cells, to quantitatively and qualitatively measure the knowledge and interest acquired by a sample of 44 students from the pre-media level of an Educational Center in Panama City.
- The conclusions section should provide more specific results, including aspects of teaching effectiveness.
Answer: Corrected in the document
- The limitations of the study, development prospects, possible improvements and future development plans should be indicated.
Answer: Corrected in the document
- Images should ensure clarity, such as Figures 18, 19, and 20.
Answer: Corrected in the document
- The formatting of the references is inconsistent and needs to be corrected.
Answer: Corrected in the document
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript “Workshop with hydrogen cells: pedagogical and motivating experience for the study of unconventional forms of energy generation in pre-school students in Panama City” has presented, from a mixed methodological approach, the use of workshops with hydrogen cells as a tool to strengthen educational skills and boost the interest of a sample of 44 high school students. This paper lacks innovation and the manuscript has some major defects. Thus, I suggest that the paper be major revision.
Q1: In paper, please avoid the lump literature, such as [12-14] and so on, summarize the main contribution of each references paper in separate sentences. The reference style should be checked again according to the journal standard.
Q2: There are a lot of abbreviations in the article, and the full names are not indicated, such as CL, PEMFC. It is necessary for the author to add a nomenclature at the beginning or end of the article. In the Abstract, the Reference should be avoided as much as possible.
Q3: The writing and grammar should be improved, especially the current version of the manuscript. The author should checked the paper.
For example
“On the other hand, Watkins et al.[22]They work with energy efficiency and solar…”.
“Delgado et al.[27]develop a project framed in the field of home energy sustainability…”.
Q4: The innovation of the article should be revised. The research background of energy generation in pre-school students should be introduced in detail.
Q5: In the section 1, a framework Figure of the paper should be added so that the author can better understand the structure and key points of the article.
Q6: The Fig. 3 includes four parts: Induction, assembly and kit validation, cell application on a breadboard and program simulation. The author should explain the importance of each section.
Q7: If possible, the author should identify the main components in the Figs 6-13, such as motor, fuel cell and so on. Otherwise, readers will not be able to better understand the content in the diagram.
Q8: The Figs. 15-20 should be improved. The clarity of the images in the paper is very important
Q9: The Results and Discussion section is written too simply, and the authors are advised to rewrite the Discussion and Results section. In addition, the practical application and significance of this study should be further elaborated in the result. It should only contain the important achievements, harvested information and new discoveries of this manuscript. The author is suggested to rewrite the section.
Q10: The conclusion and Abstract are not well organized and should be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguagePlease see the Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Author Response
Thank you for your corrections.
Q1: In the paper, avoid literature in chunks, such as [12-14] and so on, summarize the main contribution of each reference paper in separate sentences. The reference style should be revised again according to the journal's standard.
Answer: It has been edited
Q2: There are many abbreviations in the article and full names are not stated, such as CL, PEMFC. It is necessary for the author to add a nomenclature at the beginning or end of the article. In the Abstract, the Referral should be avoided as much as possible.
Answer: It has been revised and the abbreviation has its corresponding full word:
proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs)
The author's full name has been inserted:
CL: Clara Calderón
Q3: Writing and grammar should be improved, especially the current version of the manuscript. The author should review the article.
For example
"On the other hand, Watkins et al.[22] They work with energy efficiency and solar energy..."
"Delgado et al.[27] develop a project framed in the field of energy sustainability of the home...".
Answer: It has been revised
Q4: The innovation of the article should be reviewed. The research background on energy generation in preschool students should be presented in detail.
Answer: Within the literature shown in the background, research has been found, specifically in Panama, on biomass, hydraulic, solar, wind energy generation, however, generation by means of hydrogen cells is a topic that has not yet been developed in Panama and much less in schools, which is why our workshop is a pioneer in this topic. at least in Panama.
Q5: In section 1, a frame figure of the article should be added so that the author can better understand the structure and key points of the article.
Answer: It's already been placed.
P6: Fig. 3 includes four parts: Induction, assembly and validation of the kit, application of the cell on a breadboard, and simulation of the program. The author should explain the importance of each section.
Answer: These parts are explained in the following sections. Check 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.
Q7: If possible, the author should identify the main components in Figs. 6-13, such as the engine, fuel cell, etc. Otherwise, readers won't be able to understand the contents of the diagram better.
Answer:They have been identified.
Q8: Figs. 15-20 should be improved. The clarity of the images on paper is very important
Answer: The graphics have been modified. (16, 17 and 18 missing).
Q9: The Results and Discussion section is written too simply, and authors are advised to rewrite the Discussion and Results section. In addition, the practical application and importance of this study should be deepened in the outcome. It should only contain the important achievements, information gathered, and new discoveries of this manuscript. The author is suggested to rewrite the section.
Answer: It has been improved.
Q10: The conclusion and summary are not well organized and should be improved.
Answer: It has been improved.
Comments on the quality of the English language
The English language in the manuscript has been revised.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The authors discuss the pedagogical approach of promoting unconventional ways of energy generation for preschool students. It is critical to promote alternative energy sources like hydrogen cells. The authors have carried out a workshop for 44 students showing them how to set, test, and analyze the results. The authors were conducting several stages to teach the students, I like this approach a lot. They also validated the knowledge of the students by conducting the student’s evaluations, surveys, and quality of projects.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field?
This topic is very important for showing alternative (renewable) energy sources and related problems with greenhouse gas emissions to young generations. This work explores the challenges of hydrogen fuel cells and other related conversion devices. The authors suggest how to teach students and motivate them to study the proton exchange membrane cell.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?
The authors summarized many proposed methods and alternative energy sources by other researchers that were implemented to tech and motivate students. This is a very good summary that proves a good literature search.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?
I would discuss a little bit more about how many percent are taken by oil, coal, gas, and alternative sources. A recently released statistical review of energy sources indicates that the energy comes from natural gas (26%), oil(23%), coal(32%), nuclear(4%), Hydro(6%), and renewable (8%). https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review#:~:text=Coal%20retained%20its%20position%20as,contribution%20from%20renewables%20at%2072%25
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed?
The authors are giving conclusions on the work they have performed. The conclusions seem to be consistent with the manuscript text. The method is great and has been reinforced with Arduino and programming to monitor the experiments. Students have learned by creating their projects and integrating the small-scale fuel cells. It is concluded that workshops in schools are a very effective tool and learning technique, specifically in the field of renewable energy sources.
6. Are the references appropriate?
Yes, they look consistent and relevant.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Thank you so much for letting me review this work. All pictures are ok however, I suggest making pictures of the same size and format. Figures 18,19 and 20 are very difficult to read.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language and grammar mistakes.
Page 2, line 49: “.in the face” should it be “In the face”
Page 2, line 51: “Due to the above” I would delete.
Page 2, line 59: “…superficially.[10].” should be “…superficially.[10]”
Page 2, line 64: “…projects[eleven]…” should be “…projects[11]”
The same mistakes should be corrected along the entire text, I am not going to put every single one.
Page 4, line 180: “…of a sample of 44 high school students” should be “of 44 high school students”
Author Response
Thank you so much for your feedback!
the manuscript has been corrected based on your comments
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have carried out a thorough and careful revision and the revised manuscript improved a lot in terms of technical quality and language. Therefore, I would recommend it for publication in the Journal.
