The Learning Experience for Earthquake Awareness Program (LEAP): An Experiential Approach to Seismic Design for Young Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your careful revision and detailed response. The paper has improved markedly in clarity, methodological transparency, and pedagogical replicability. In particular:

• The new Figure 1 makes the LEAP workflow (phases, activities, learning outcomes, and evaluation points) much clearer for replication.
• The Introduction now positions LEAP more analytically within recent debates (2023–2025), articulating the gap for low‑cost, scalable, empirically evaluated interventions that move beyond “awareness only”
• The Methods/Results section reports sample (n=141 across 6 sessions), IRB details, pre/post design, Wilcoxon tests, effect sizes (r), and Cronbach’s α, which strengthens inferential clarity.  

To finalize, please address the following short, high‑impact edits:

1. The design uses convenience sampling, no control group, and an immediate post‑test; please add one sentence in the Abstract and Conclusions acknowledging these constraints and framing the findings as associative/exploratory, not causal.
2. You justify dichotomizing Likert (4–5) on pedagogical grounds; include a brief robustness check (e.g., ordinal descriptives or a simple ordinal model) showing that conclusions do not depend on dichotomization. Reference it in Methods/Results and place details in the Supplement.
3. In Discussion/Implications, make explicit:
• Design levers: early scaffolds for structural/relational recognition; staged tasks for temporal‑causal reasoning across longer horizons.
• Feedback loops: inquiry action ↔ observable model response on the shake table ↔ teacher facilitation.
• Trade‑offs: fast engagement/recognition vs. slower‑maturing causal reasoning.
4. Add a sentence in Methods clarifying a simple protocol (e.g., approximate duration/number of cycles per trial) to enhance inter‑session consistency while keeping the qualitative intent.
5. Optional—but helpful: If available, estimate time/cost ranges per session (materials, set‑up) to substantiate the “low‑cost” and “replicable” claims; even approximate figures will aid adoption.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In light of the comments provided by the previous reviewers, the authors meticulously revised the manuscript. Considering the present circumstances, I am of the opinion that this manuscript satisfies the acceptance criteria. 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive and encouraging comments. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to this evaluation and are pleased to know that the manuscript is considered ready for publication. The reviewer’s feedback has been highly valuable to us.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Learning Experience for Earthquake Awareness Program. The program is developed to address the need for more inclusive and practical seismic risk education by bridging the gap between technical construction knowledge and community-level understanding. Prior to the acceptance of the manuscript, corresponding clarifications or modifications are required with respect to the following issues.

• It is recommended that the description of the survey sample in the second paragraph of page 9 be discussed in Section 2 (Design and Implementation).
• In the "Results and Discussion" section, the textual explanations for data figures should not be placed at an excessive distance from the figures themselves. For example, the content of the fourth paragraph on page 9 clearly serves as an explanation of the data in Figure 11.
• Among the ten questions formulated by the author for the survey, why were there no questions related to Figures 5 and 6?
• According to the author's design, the participants in Group-1 survey are all students, those in the Group-2 are middle - school students, and those in the Group-3 are college students. Therefore, the survey data of Group-1 should exhibit a certain correlation with that of Group-2 and Group-3. It is recommended that the author offer an explanation.
• In the "Conclusion" section, it is recommended that quantitative data be employed to summarize the outcomes of this research.

Author Response

Por favor vea el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your paper. I have reviewed the document titled “The Learning Experience for Earthquake Awareness Program (LEAP): Experiential Learning in Seismic Design for Young Students.”. The study addresses an important topic and demonstrates innovative strategies for earthquake risk education, especially in highly vulnerable areas such as the Andean region of Colombia. The integration of experiential learning with playful activities is commendable.

I want to highlight some aspects that require attention to strengthen the manuscript:

- The descriptive content (Introduction & Results and Discussion) should be reduced, and emphasis should be placed on the research gap and the originality of your approach. A more critical analysis should be presented.

Details regarding participant selection and potential biases are lacking. A visual diagram summarizing the entire intervention process could be included.

- Confidence intervals and effect sizes are not included to complement the p-values ​​and improve the interpretation of practical significance. Similarly, the dichotomization of Likert responses reduces the available information. This could be better justified, or a more robust analysis could be used. - It is not compared with other similar studies in Latin America or in similar contexts of vulnerability.

- It does not explain why certain elements showed limited improvement.

- Concrete recommendations should be offered to expand the program in resource-limited settings and integrate it into formal curricula.

- Compare with similar experiences and explain why certain questions (e.g., Q9) did not show changes.

- Limitations are not addressed in depth (e.g., non-random sample, possible motivational bias).

- Concrete strategies for replicability and scalability should be proposed.

Overall, the manuscript makes a significant contribution to STEM education, particularly in the context of earthquake disaster prevention and response.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The study presents a valuable and well-conceived educational initiative that contributes meaningfully to seismic awareness and experiential learning for young students. The manuscript is clearly written, well structured, and addresses an important societal need. Your integration of hands-on activities, structural models, and survey-based assessment represents a strong and engaging approach.

To support further strengthening of the work, I have prepared a detailed set of recommendations regarding methodological clarity, statistical reporting, figures, and references. Please refer to the accompanying recommendations file, where all comments are provided in a structured and actionable format.

I hope these suggestions are helpful as you refine your manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author offered requisite explanations in reply to the previous review comments or made requisite revisions to the manuscript. The author's response was satisfactory to me.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive and encouraging comments. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to this evaluation and are pleased to know that the manuscript is considered ready for publication. The reviewer’s feedback has been highly valuable to us.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I appreciate your efforts in reviewing your paper. I have read both the reply letter and the revised version of the article.

In general, most of my comments have been satisfactorily addressed:

The introduction and discussion now more clearly emphasize the research gap and the originality of the approach.

Explicit limitations have been incorporated (non-random sampling, lack of a control group, motivational bias).

Practical recommendations for replicability and scalability in resource-limited contexts have been added.

The comparison with similar experiences in Latin America and other vulnerable contexts is now better integrated.

However, I note two points that still require attention:

- As a reviewer, I requested a visual diagram of the intervention process. The revised version describes the procedure in detail, but the diagram was not included. I believe this graphic element is important for reinforcing the program's pedagogical clarity and replicability.

- There were no improvements in the literature review to include references from the last three years.
I have attached a comment made in the REFERENCES section of the previous evaluation:

"Although the paper includes recent studies, older sources predominate; it is suggested that this be balanced with literature from the last three years, showcasing recent studies on earthquake education and experiential learning."

 

Author Response

Por favor vea el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for their thorough and diligent revision of the manuscript, which addresses all of my previous suggestions. The revised version demonstrates significantly improved methodological transparency and a more profound critical discussion of the findings. Furthermore, the figures have been greatly enhanced, and the addition of 18 new references effectively addresses the gaps identified in my initial review. Given these improvements, I believe the manuscript now meets the standards for publication. Congratulations to the authors on their excellent work.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive and encouraging comments. We greatly appreciate the time and expertise dedicated to this evaluation and are pleased to know that the manuscript is considered ready for publication. The reviewer’s feedback has been highly valuable to us.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the effort made by the authors to revise the manuscript and to provide a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. 

However, after reviewing the revised version, I find that the revisions are mostly formal rather than substantive. The diagram presented in Figure 1 is a general overview of the three phases, but it does not provide the level of procedural detail requested to reinforce pedagogical clarity and replicability. Similarly, while recent references have been added.

I must emphasize that the revisions remain largely superficial. The literature review, although updated with recent citations, continues to be descriptive rather than analytical, and does not critically situate the LEAP program within current debates in earthquake education and experiential learning. This weakens the manuscript’s contribution and leaves the narrative overstated relative to the evidence presented.

It is important to stress that reviewers’ comments are not intended as obstacles, but as constructive guidance to help the manuscript reach the standards expected of a Q1 journal. When such comments are only partially addressed or addressed superficially, it conveys a lack of genuine commitment to improving the work and, consequently, to ensuring its suitability for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf