Attributes and Knowledge of the Lead Organizer in Planning a Virtual Teacher Professional Development Series: The Case of the Organizer of the Schoolyard Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read the manuscript in its revised version anew. I see some improvements that offer a sharper picture. Nevertheless, I see major shortcomings. In the following, I mention two main points.

Your revised manuscript clarifies the questions of your study. However, their scientific relevance is not clear. What does it add to the academic debate when you want to find out “[w]hat experiences does the lead organizer have”? What do other PLCs learn from the organizer’s experiences? As a partial answer to this second research question in the results section, you describe that the organizer felt “alone in education”. Why is this relevant? How is it related to the academic debate about PLC?

As a second (and most important) point, I do not see enough evidence in your results section to support some of your most important conclusions. For instance, in the discussion section, you recommend “Use alternative, appealing, convenient environments for PLCs.”

I understand that this is one of the basic elements of the philosophy of the Tremont Institute. However, in the results section, you do not provide evidence that justifies this recommendation. (Moreover, this recommendation is not related to your research question as it is neither part of the organizer’s experiences nor is it part of the organizational structure that supported the organizer. Rather, this is simply the starting point of the institute's philosophy.)

The same holds for the first recommendation in the results section. You argue “Lead organizers of PLCs should provide in-person opportunities that can help build relationships with faculty”. Again, I do not see how this flows out of the evidence that you provide in the results section.

I hope that these comments do not discourage you from continuing with your research about PLCs and outdoor elements and wish you good luck with your further research.

Minor points:

Line 238: “Finally, to improve trustworthiness of results, the research team utilized member checking techniques to validate findings [35]. “

What are member checking techniques? Explain in more detail what you did. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor point: Overall good. The sentence construction is sometimes quite complex, leading to long and hard-to-understand sentences.  (At least for me.)

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1 

Note: We are wondering if Reviewer 1 used the correct manuscript submission for review because Reviewer 1’s last comment 
included a numbered reference “[35]” for the initial submissions formatting that was removed and replaced with APA referencing 
for this 2nd round of review. Reading an old version of the manuscript could be adding to some of the comments on needing more clarity in connections across research questions, results and discussion sections. 

1) Your revised manuscript clarifies the questions of your study. However, their scientific relevance is not clear. What does 
it add to the academic debate when you want to find out “[w]hat experiences does the lead organizer have”? What do 
other PLCs learn from the organizer’s experiences?  

This review comment only referenced the first portion of the research question, which on lines 79-80 reads “2) What experiences does the lead organizer have that drive the Schoolyard Network?” The key organizers experiences and perspective drive their pedagogical decisions in a socio-constructivist perspective and that aspect provides the scientific relevance (though not generalizable) of providing an avenue to attempt to replicate this work in other unique settings across the globe, given the unique circumstances and attributes each organization might hold are going to be different than GSMITs and this PLC. Furthermore, scientific relevance is grounded in research in lines 81-86 when stating: “Findings of this research aim to provide further support on how to combat calls to improve the outcomes of STEM higher education (Davies & Hamilton, 2018b; Gamage et al., 2022; Taylor, 2012). Given educators are wanting and willing to progress past replicating indoor-instruction outside a school building (Maynard & Waters, 2007), meaningful, timely, relationship-driven professional development like that provided by the Schoolyard Network might be the missing support for educators.” Therefore, evidence from this research adds to the academic debate by providing key case study findings of an exemplary non-profit organizations PLC focused on K-12 teacher outdoor experiential learning. This research is unique to PLC research in that it targets outdoor experiential learning at a non-profit connected to the National Park Service. We are wondering if reviewer 1 is needs clarity on how case study research is and is not applied. Therefore, in the discussion section, lines 718-722 now provide some strengths and limitations of case study research and it’s scientific impact grounded in a reference: 
“Given case study research is readily accepted as methodology that offers unique, in-depth, holistic insight on a specific 
phenomenon, but lacks generalizability and replicability (Drew, 2023) the Schoolyard Network’s story can be helpful if repurposed by other PLC organizers impacting local educators in other locations.” 

2) As a partial answer to this second research question in the results section, you describe that the organizer felt “alone in 
education”. Why is this relevant? How is it related to the academic debate about PLC? 

Both researchers while coding transcripts found that the lead organizers experiences of feeling alone influenced “what information is delivered during professional development” and “how the material was delivered” during SYN sessions which are critical given the lens of this research. Explicitly, this loneliness attribute answers some of the 2nd research question stated in lines 79-80: “What experiences does the lead organizer have that drive the Schoolyard Network?” as a key experience that fuels PLC session structure. Further relevance is discussed in Section 2 manuscript on lines 100-107: “the key to understanding most successful professional development opportunities often lies in understanding the human leadership team-making decisions about what information is delivered in the professional development and how that material is delivered. In other words, a single person with the right knowledge and skillset can often effectively design and implement meaningful professional development for educators. Therefore, conducting a case study focused on the key leader of the Schoolyard Network provided the mechanism to understanding the organization’s effectiveness.” With this framing, the construct relates to the academic debate about PLC structure by providing a motivation attribute that was found to clearly influence the lead organizers decisions. Lines 313-318 further explain this relationship while clearly linking loneliness as a driver for PLC session pedagogical choices: “The lead organizer’s experiences with loneliness is embedded in how they reach out to educators in the Schoolyard Network. There are intentional design-choices and actions during Schoolyard Network sessions to reach educators across the virtual platform. Personal experiences of loneliness were a driver for an intense interest in connecting practicing educators to in-person activities, including the Schoolyard Escape and trips to Tremont.” 
Together, this series of points in the manuscript package the relevance to understanding an exemplary case of a lead organizers experiences, which in turn closely influence PLC structure. We hope this clarifies the concern about this important influential factor in the lead organizers experiences. 

3) As a second (and most important) point, I do not see enough evidence in your results section to support some of your 
most important conclusions. For instance, in the discussion section, you recommend “Use alternative, appealing, 
convenient environments for PLCs.” I understand that this is one of the basic elements of the philosophy of the Tremont 
Institute. However, in the results section, you do not provide evidence that justifies this recommendation. (Moreover, this 
recommendation is not related to your research question as it is neither part of the organizer’s experiences nor is it part 
of the organizational structure that supported the organizer. Rather, this is simply the starting point of the institute's 
philosophy.) 

The quoted example, described in the manuscript as a “key lessons this research suggests prioritizing to cultivate a productive, impactful environment” on lines 722-723 are discussed near the end of the discussion section in a reflective manner, a portion of this article that happens after summarizing the article and is now stretching the reader to consider how they might apply some of the case study research findings in their own circumstances. In this comment, Reviewer 1 separated a bulleted point and created a sense of unclarity in this comment as the entire bulleted point in 742-744 reads: “Providing the PLC’s educators the opportunity to rethink instruction outside provides unique pedagogical opportunities that are hard to create inside a school. Use alternative, appealing, convenient environments for PLCs.” This bullet phrasing in its entirety was written to help a reader who could be involved in another PLC’s leadership to think about overarching ideas that can help direct their pedagogical choices. The bullet was framed not as a “conclusion” but as a “key lesson this research suggests prioritizing to cultivate a product, impactful (PLC) environment” on lines 722-723. Given all the text provided, there is clear support from the results section both from the model on line 287 and from the developed findings focused on the lead organizers experiences, lead organizer’s vision for the future, and the SYN Design.  

4) The same holds for the first recommendation in the results section. You argue “Lead organizers of PLCs should provide 
in-person opportunities that can help build relationships with faculty”. Again, I do not see how this flows out of the evidence 
that you provide in the results section. 

We recognize the reviewers point here and are grateful for this comment’s detail and made some substantial changes to the 
manuscript to connect readers with the Schoolyard Escape. First however, it is important to note there are a handful of places in the article that reinforce the importance of in-person interaction that the reviewer did not connect with. For example, in-person opportunities are foundational for GSMIT as seen in the model shown in Figure 1 on line 287 under the “GSMIT Mission & Philosophy” section that are the backbone for the “Schoolyard Network Design” section, explicitly in the “personal, local, and relevant learning” attribute. In the results section heading “Alone in Education” section we stated: “Personal experiences of loneliness were a driver for an intense interest in connecting practicing educators to in-person activities, including the Schoolyard Escape and trips to Tremont.” in lines 316-319, providing a clear connection to both the second research question and the need for in-person connection. Perhaps most critical in the results section heading 4.3.2 Persistently Adapting to Educator Needs, development for this recommendation is repetitively addressed, but is also now being strengthened by this comment. In line 562-564 the manuscript states: “Perhaps the most poignant Schoolyard Network adjustment was the response to educators wanting to see each other’s schoolyards and celebrate the end of the series of sessions with an in-person event called the Schoolyard Escape.” This sentence demonstrating a close connection PLC participants developed and how a desire grew to connect beyond the virtual environment inperson. The importance of “in-person” connection is mentioned and underlies the paragraphs for lines 547-576.  Now, we want to share that we decided to add an addition quote from the findings about the development of the Schoolyard Escape that was discussed in text but clearly needs more emphasis for readers with a similar perspective as reviewer 1. The added text on lines 570-575 now reads: “During an interview, the lead organizer described the connectivity of the Schoolyard Escape: “We met each other in person this summer, and they didn’t know each other before the Schoolyard Network. Had never talked, never met, they didn’t even live in the same state. And then, (they) decided to meet up over the summer to hang out in person.” Through the addition of this quote, there is a clear purpose and support for why lead organizers of PLCs should provide in-person opportunities 
that can help build relationships. To place an emphasis on relationships across all members of the PLC, we also revised the first sentence of this discussion bullet on lines 724-725 to read “Lead organizers of PLCs should provide in-person opportunities that can help build relationships, grounded in an organizations mission and philosophy.” 

5) Minor points: Line 238: “Finally, to improve trustworthiness of results, the research team utilized member checking 
techniques to validate findings [35]. What are member checking techniques? Explain in more detail what you did.” 

We have made this more explicit by updated lines 270-275 to read: “Finally, to improve trustworthiness of results, the research team utilized member checking techniques, or sharing findings with participants to validate findings (Espedal et al., 2022). The 
researchers used member checking by offering the lead organizer the opportunity to approve their narrative contributions of the study in the research report in rough draft and final draft forms (Carlson, 2014; Creswell, 1998).” 

6) Minor point: Overall good. The sentence construction is sometimes quite complex, leading to long and hard-to-understand 
sentences. (At least for me.) 

To try and simplify delivery of information, longer sentences were evaluated and simplified for clarity often by repositioning 
language into multiple sentence. Hyphened phrases were a particular point of emphasis to clean-up. We are grateful for this 
feedback. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has already been revised

Author Response

The only comment is “This paper has already been revised.”  

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Attributes and Knowledge of the Lead Organizer in Planning

a Virtual Teacher Professional Development Series:

The Case of the Organizer of the Schoolyard Network

This is a strong qualitative study that makes a valuable contribution to understanding effective virtual professional development for outdoor education. The focus on the Lead Organizer’s perspective provides unique insights into program design and implementation. While some areas could be strengthened, the paper demonstrates how virtual PLCs can support teacher development in outdoor and STEM education.

The study’s emphasis on relationship-building, mindfulness, and responsive facilitation offers important lessons for other professional development programs. The findings regarding the importance of flexible design and attention to teacher well-being are particularly relevant given current challenges in education.

The study has several notable strengths:

·      The research significance and timeliness are particularly compelling. This study addresses a gap in teacher professional development literature in an era where STEM education and outdoor learning have become increasingly critical. The researchers have identified a crucial intersection between virtual professional development, outdoor education, and STEM teaching – areas traditionally studied in isolation. The timing of this research is especially pertinent, emerging from the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced educators to rethink professional development delivery methods in extreme cases.

·      The methodological approach exhibits rigor and thoughtful design. The choice of a case study methodology is well-suited to examining the nuanced role of the lead organizer in the Schoolyard Network. The semi-structured interview approach balances maintaining consistent inquiry across sessions while allowing for organic exploration of emerging themes. This flexibility proved valuable in uncovering unexpected insights about the program's evolution and impact. The iterative coding processes involving multiple researchers strengthen the reliability of the findings.

·      The theoretical framework of the study stands out for its comprehensive and integrated approach. The researchers have effectively grounded their work in established literature on Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), demonstrating a deep understanding of how these communities function and evolve. Their connection to the BEETLES framework provides a solid foundation for understanding inquiry-based learning in outdoor education contexts. The framework bridges theoretical understanding with practical application.

·      In the Results section, the visual model (Figure 1) effectively synthesizes the findings. Rich use of direct quotes supports key themes. Clear organization of findings into meaningful categories. Strong connection between lead organizer's background and program design choices

Some suggestions for improvement

·      While generally sound, the Methodology section needs additional detail and clarity. A primary concern is the limited information provided about participant selection criteria (76-81). How did you choose your participants? The researchers could enhance the study's reproducibility by explicitly outlining how they identified and selected participants, including any specific inclusion or exclusion criteria used. State the total number of interviews conducted, their duration, and the time they took place. This temporal context is particularly important for understanding the depth and breadth of data collection. The coding process, while mentioned, could be more thoroughly explained. Specifically, the researchers could detail their approach to developing the coding framework, and how disagreements between coders were resolved.

·      In the Discussion section, the researchers could more explicitly address the limitations of their study, acknowledging potential biases and constraints that might affect the generalizability of their findings.

·      A critical missing element is a thorough exploration of scalability challenges (lines 93-133) – how might this model be adapted for larger groups or different institutional contexts?  Discuss the long-term sustainability of the Schoolyard Network. This could involve strategies for funding, scaling, and evolving the program to meet future educational needs. Providing insights into the sustainability of the program would help stakeholders understand how it can continue to impact education over time. Introduce a section discussing any limitations or challenges encountered during the implementation of the Schoolyard Network. This could include logistical issues, resistance from participants, or technological barriers. Acknowledging challenges adds credibility to the study and provides a balanced view that could be useful for others looking to implement similar programs.

·      Enhance the section on Policy and Practice Implications (Lines 690-713)

·      There are obvious grammar lapses that may distract from the smooth flow of the text.  Pay attention to this.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are obvious grammar lapses that may distract from the smooth flow of the text.  Pay attention to this.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3:

1) While generally sound, the Methodology section needs additional detail and clarity. A primary concern is the limited 
information provided about participant selection criteria (76-81). How did you choose your participants? The researchers 
could enhance the study's reproducibility by explicitly outlining how they identified and selected participants, including 
any specific inclusion or exclusion criteria used. State the total number of interviews conducted, their duration, and the 
time they took place. This temporal context is particularly important for understanding the depth and breadth of data 
collection. The coding process, while mentioned, could be more thoroughly explained. Specifically, the researchers could 
detail their approach to developing the coding framework, and how disagreements between coders were resolved. 

We appreciated this suggestion and added some clarifying information to the article to help the reader understand the exemplary nature of GSMIT and the Schoolyard Network PLC. There was already some information describing the unique, exemplary nature of GSMIT; for example, in lines 37-39 GSMIT’s history is described as an “established STEM and outdoor organization that, for the past 54 years, has served educators and students (GSMIT, 2024).”  
More importantly though, we want to note the selection of the Schoolyard Network is unique in that there is only one other non-profit organization working with the National Park Service that are able to run a sustained, consistent PLC for teachers and this is now stated in the manuscript. On lines 201-203 the sentence “GSMIT was selected because it is one of only two non-profit organizations in the United States (i.e., Teton Science School) that runs a regularly-meeting PLC operating closely with the National Parks Service.” was added to provide information about the selection process. The total number of interviews varied in length given the semi-structured format, while the timeframe of these interviews spanned across 4 monthly sessions of the SYN are stated on lines 235-237. We are adding “four unique” for clarity, now reading: “A macro
view of the research design called for a series of four semi-structured interviews completed over the course of four months after members of the research team observed four unique, Schoolyard Network sessions.” Information about the session length is already stated in the Introduction lines on line 50: “…meetings on Thursdays from 4:30-6pm supporting…” 
Much of the coding process is described in detail already in lines 236-255 and was recognized by reviewer 3 as presented clearly, but to address reviewer 3’s suggestion to “the researchers could detail their approach to developing the coding framework, and how disagreements between coders were resolved”, sentences were tweaked in this paragraph to mention further information about how the framework consistent of tabular markings and cross-interview connections while developing themes (lines 241-242) and that “Disagreements by researchers were resolved by using further analysis of data and multiple meetings to discuss codes, themes and overarching themes.” (lines 268-270). 
 
2) In the Discussion section, the researchers could more explicitly address the limitations of their study, acknowledging 
potential biases and constraints that might affect the generalizability of their findings. 
 
Given reviewer 1 and 3 feedback, we felt it appropriate to add a sentence addressing the limitations of case studies implied with this line of research although most researchers understand the implications of case study research already (hence this being omitted initially). Therefore lines 718-722 now read “Given case study research is readily accepted as methodology that offers unique, in-depth, holistic insight on a specific phenomenon, but lacks generalizability and replicability (Drew, 2023) the Schoolyard Network’s story can be helpful if repurposed by other aspiring PLC organizers impacting local educators in other locations.” 
 
3) A critical missing element is a thorough exploration of scalability challenges (lines 93-133) – how might this model be 
adapted for larger groups or different institutional contexts? Discuss the long-term sustainability of the Schoolyard 
Network. This could involve strategies for funding, scaling, and evolving the program to meet future educational needs. 
Providing insights into the sustainability of the program would help stakeholders understand how it can continue to impact 
education over time. Introduce a section discussing any limitations or challenges encountered during the implementation 
of the Schoolyard Network. This could include logistical issues, resistance from participants, or technological barriers. 
Acknowledging challenges adds credibility to the study and provides a balanced view that could be useful for others looking 
to implement similar programs. 
 
Reviewer 3’s point was very helpful to consider and perhaps a future research direction for work similar to the SYN. I think some of the information wanted here is found in the results and discussion sections, given “Section 2 - Organization Background and Theory” is highlighting overarching ideas about PLC pedagogy, case study research and GSMIT’s lead organizer as figure positioned to develop a model around, and the importance of sustainability education and the beyond STEM impact on students that happens with physical, social, and developmental milestones. Because of the broad nature of this comment, a paragraph was developed to ground more information earlier about the attendance development of both the Schoolyard Network and the Schoolyard Escape from lines 181-195: “The Schoolyard Network and the Schoolyard Escape are both exceptionally rare examples of PLC outdoor experiential professional development programming that is being conducted by non-profit organizations connected to the National Park System. The regular schedule, consistent leadership and participants in the PLC provide a unique case study opportunity. Teacher attendance of Schoolyard Network monthly sessions 
has grown substantially since its inception in 2020, with attendance numbers during the first two academic years averaging around six regular attendees committed to the PLC. During the 2022-23 academic year the PLC grew to 15 regular attendees with usually around five newer or perspective participants across sessions, while during the most recent academic years there are 20 regular attendees and five newer or perspective participants. The group is supported in-between monthly session meetings with reminders and additional posts of information to maintain a connection between group members. Similarly, the Schoolyard Escape continues to be a culminating, in-person connection Schoolyard Network PLC members attend, selling-out its 30 participant slots the last three years.” It is noteworthy that this paragraph could add support for some of Review 1’s comments as well, particular with the apparent disconnect with understanding why GSMIT’s SYN lead organizer is an ideal selection for a case study. 
 
4) Enhance the section on Policy and Practice Implications (Lines 690-713) 
 
We do not understand this feedback line, given there is not a “Policy and Practice Implications (Lines 690-713)” section in our 
article. Furthermore, 706-713 are lines that include closing information including Author Contributions, Funding, etc.

5) There are obvious grammar lapses that may distract from the smooth flow of the text.  Pay attention to this. 

Grammatical and punctuation errors have been corrected in this revision, some of which were tied to a shift to APA referencing while others were missed by us in earlier drafts. We believe the current draft, although not likely flawless yet, has a substantially less grammatical and punctuation errors.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for letting me read your revised manuscript once more.

Unfortunately, I do not see how your revisions address my two main points of concern and I think they are still valid. I repeat them in the following.

What is the relevance of your research question 2 about the experiences of the lead organizer?  “What do other PLCs learn from the organizer’s experiences? As a partial answer to this second research question in the results section, you describe that the organizer felt “alone in education”. Why is this relevant? How is it related to the academic debate about PLCs?”

As a second point, I cannot find enough evidence for your claim that your recommendations are effective design principles. In one of your revisions (line 572ff), you provide as evidence for the effectiveness of the director’s principles that the participating educators “decided to meet up over the summer to hang out in person”. 

This may have happened for many reasons and does not justify the strong conclusions that you draw.

I wish your research and your institute success in your future educational and other activities. I respect and appreciate the institute’s kind of activities. However, your study does not provide enough evidence that justify your claims.

Author Response

See attachment. Thank you for your time and efforts!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has satisfied my comments.  This revised manuscript is now a lot better than the original draft. Alignment is more evident. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment provided. Thank you for all your time and effort!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

The article examines the planning of a virtual teacher professional development series. Especially, it aims at describing the lead organizer’s characteristics, including skills and other attributes and the design choices in the planning.

Teachers’ professional development is an important issue to be studied as its outcomes likely translate into better student learning experiences. The study offers a unique perspective on teachers’ professional development as it describes so-called bio-diverse activities.

I see several limitations and issues that need to be overcome or addressed.

-The introduction does not offer a clearly formulated research question. The only hint I could find is the following: “Findings of this research aim to provide further support on how to combat calls to improve the outcomes of STEM higher education” (p.2).

The question itself is made explicit later in the article in several other sections. Fi., on page 2, you write:

“This case study focuses on the characteristics and decisions the director of GSMIT’s Schoolyard Network demonstrates to organize the professional development sequence. Given the unique perspective of GSMIT, studying key personnel that hold deep pedagogical knowledge as to how to evaluate and implement outdoor lessons is meaningful to consider how replication could happen in other organizations. ”

It is not clear to me whether the director’s characteristics are the most important factors for the success of such a series. I have two recommendations about this issue:

First, formulate your research question explicitly already in the introduction. Second, provide a reasoning demonstrating why it is a relevant question. You need to convince the reader better about the relevance of this article. In its current form, it is unclear why this is of relevance to a general audience

-The authors seem to be colleagues of the main organizer. (Or is the organizer a member of the team of authors?) In the results section, there are no valid indicators that document the “success” of the learning community, apart from the impressions of the organizers (including the authors) themselves. In what sense are there indicators of “success” that are independent of the organizers’ perceptions?

-In the discussion, the conclusions often either are vague or trivial. F.i, on p 14, you argue: “Consider the PLC’s educators frequently when designing professional development sessions. The lead organizer’s relationships and interactions with educators provide direction on designing successful sessions.”

I would encourage you to focus more on innovative insights that have not yet been discussed in the literature. You may want to put these more central in the discussion.

Minor points:

-P5: “Finally, to improve 218 trustworthiness or validity of results, the research team utilized participant validity.” What does this mean?

-Some parts of Figure 1 are not explained. What is meant with “Outdoor Magic”?

I wish you good luck with improving the paper. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several sentences have odd formulations. Just take the examples in the authors' comments as starting point. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper adds very little to the literature on teacher's professional development. This was a case study. I would have preferred if the study was on the perceptions of the teachers who had gone through the professional development. However, since it relates to STEM area, it could be moved forward.