Active Learning Increases Knowledge and Understanding of Wildlife Friendly Farming in Middle School Students in Java, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is original research manuscripts

    The title of paper has 17 words.

The Abstract has 270 words 

The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions#references)

The paper is following chapter:

1. Introduction

The introduction chapter has briefly placed the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. 

 

The paper should have the goal of the work, the aims of the research and its significance, including specific hypothesis being tested.

The research objectives must be included in the article.

 

2. Materials and Methods 

 

2.1. Participants 

2.2. Curriculum

2.3. Questionnaires 

2.4. Data Analysis

3. Results 

3.1. Pre-test versus post-test

3.2. Predictors of post-test response

4. Discussion

5. Conclusions

References

Remarks

The Abstract has 270 words 

The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions#references)

The research objectives must be included in the article.

On line 88, it must be replaced with the correct form  

increasing vs  in-creasing 88

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The Abstract has 270 words

The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions#references)

We have reduced the number of words in the abstract, please see tracked changes.

The research objectives must be included in the article.

We have now reworded the sentences to make our objectives clearer – see line 104 page 2

Our main research question was to understand if our curriculum including interventions with different learning styles, active learning and interaction with parents can bring an increase in knowledge and understanding of wildlife friendly coffee farming. We predicted that this combination of learning styles and varied adult interactions would improve the knowledge on organic and wildlife friendly farming, and on the importance of wildlife in coffee fields. We considered that additional factors, i.e., school location and occupation of the parent, might affect the knowledge retention of students.

On line 88, it must be replaced with the correct form 

We have changed the sentence

 

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

 

Overall, the study aims to assess the effectiveness of an curriculum including active learning and different learning styles to promote environmental education. The article has good flow, organization and clear structure. The authors proved to have good knowledge of the field. The authors used of a survey to collect and explore the effective understanding of some contents of environmental education.

We thank the reviewer for the kind words, we appreciate that the overall feeling over the paper was very positive and we appreciated the suggestions to improve it.

However, solely based on students responses it is quite challenging to attain the aim of the research.

We wanted to test if the increase in knowledge and understanding was linked to more engagement with the active learning experiment and interaction with parents/guardians. Also in general we wanted to see if the curriculum (which included different interventions and learning styles) was effective. Questionnaires were used to evaluate knowledge and understanding, and that is a common method in conservation education. We hope to have clarified the objectives/research questions; to this end we have rephrased the end of the introduction.

The objectives are clear, yet a research question would provide a better understanding of the research methodology.

We have added a research question (please see response to reviewer above).

There is not a clear argumentation of the how learning styles were assessed or how the teaching was used based on learning styles. In the research objective you also introduce active learning as a variable, however it is not measured during the research.

We consider learning styles in the curriculum development as indicated in table 1. We did not separate the elements of learning styles in the model as we just considered the curriculum in general (we wanted to show that we considered different learning styles while developing the curriculum). We did consider active learning (experiment with coffee saplings) and interaction with parents/guardians as factors in the model (please refer to tables 2 and 3). Thus, we considered if the increase in knowledge and understanding was related to active learning and interaction with parents/guardians.  

The survey is just a knowledge assessment, not clear how active learning was explored.

We hope that now it is clear that active learning was considered in the models. We have specified also in the objectives that active learning refers to the experiment. We agree with the reviewer that this was not highlighted enough in the first version, and we thank the reviewer for spotting that.

The conclusion are premature, as engagement and active learning are not clearly measured and presented. The conclusion should be more transparent with research questions.

Again we hope that now it is clear that active learning (experiment) was considered in the models.

 

Hope the comments will help improve the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Overall, the study aims to assess the effectiveness of an curriculum including active learning and different learning styles to promote environmental education. The article has good flow, organization and clear structure. The authors proved to have good knowledge of the field. The authors used of a survey to collect and explore the effective understanding of some contents of environmental education. However, solely based on students responses it is quite challenging to attain the aim of the research. The objectives are clear, yet a research question would provide a better understanding of the research methodology. There is not a clear argumentation of the how learning styles were assessed or how the teaching was used based on learning styles. In the research objective you also introduce active learning as a variable, however it is not measured during the research. The survey is just a knowledge assessment, not clear how active learning was explored. The conclusion are premature, as engagement and active learning are not clearly measured and presented. The conclusion should be more transparent with research questions. 

Hope the comments will help improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The Abstract has 270 words

The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions#references)

We have reduced the number of words in the abstract, please see tracked changes.

The research objectives must be included in the article.

We have now reworded the sentences to make our objectives clearer – see line 104 page 2

Our main research question was to understand if our curriculum including interventions with different learning styles, active learning and interaction with parents can bring an increase in knowledge and understanding of wildlife friendly coffee farming. We predicted that this combination of learning styles and varied adult interactions would improve the knowledge on organic and wildlife friendly farming, and on the importance of wildlife in coffee fields. We considered that additional factors, i.e., school location and occupation of the parent, might affect the knowledge retention of students.

On line 88, it must be replaced with the correct form 

We have changed the sentence

 

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

 

Overall, the study aims to assess the effectiveness of an curriculum including active learning and different learning styles to promote environmental education. The article has good flow, organization and clear structure. The authors proved to have good knowledge of the field. The authors used of a survey to collect and explore the effective understanding of some contents of environmental education.

We thank the reviewer for the kind words, we appreciate that the overall feeling over the paper was very positive and we appreciated the suggestions to improve it.

However, solely based on students responses it is quite challenging to attain the aim of the research.

We wanted to test if the increase in knowledge and understanding was linked to more engagement with the active learning experiment and interaction with parents/guardians. Also in general we wanted to see if the curriculum (which included different interventions and learning styles) was effective. Questionnaires were used to evaluate knowledge and understanding, and that is a common method in conservation education. We hope to have clarified the objectives/research questions; to this end we have rephrased the end of the introduction.

The objectives are clear, yet a research question would provide a better understanding of the research methodology.

We have added a research question (please see response to reviewer above).

There is not a clear argumentation of the how learning styles were assessed or how the teaching was used based on learning styles. In the research objective you also introduce active learning as a variable, however it is not measured during the research.

We consider learning styles in the curriculum development as indicated in table 1. We did not separate the elements of learning styles in the model as we just considered the curriculum in general (we wanted to show that we considered different learning styles while developing the curriculum). We did consider active learning (experiment with coffee saplings) and interaction with parents/guardians as factors in the model (please refer to tables 2 and 3). Thus, we considered if the increase in knowledge and understanding was related to active learning and interaction with parents/guardians.  

The survey is just a knowledge assessment, not clear how active learning was explored.

We hope that now it is clear that active learning was considered in the models. We have specified also in the objectives that active learning refers to the experiment. We agree with the reviewer that this was not highlighted enough in the first version, and we thank the reviewer for spotting that.

The conclusion are premature, as engagement and active learning are not clearly measured and presented. The conclusion should be more transparent with research questions.

Again we hope that now it is clear that active learning (experiment) was considered in the models.

 

Hope the comments will help improve the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for addressing all the recommendations. 

Kind regards,