PONE-D-20-32439

Revelations of Service-Learning Project:

Multiple Perspectives of College Students’ Reflection

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The two reviewers both acknowledged that this is an interesting topic and the author has done a good job in using the data to support the argument. However, they also raised a series of concerns which are expected to be resolved through an extensive revision. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mingming Zhou, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments

- The article is interesting, the topic is actual and the text is well-written, however, from my point of view further improvements should be made. I strongly encourage the author to continue working on it because the topic is relevant and highly topical. It is important to build a rigorous corpus of knowledge based on empirical evidence that supports all the research that is being done in this regard. Therefore, several suggestions should be made in order to keep improving it and achieve the high-quality level required by this journal.

- I recommend to the authors the option of linking the expression ‘service-learning’ with a script, since there is scientific-pedagogical literature that advises it. In my opinion it is a convenient option since it implies an indissoluble union between the terms that best defines the global concept of SL. In any case it is a personal option but, please, authors should be consistent in the entire text.

- Please, author should make sure that the text follows the journal guidelines (formatting, references, etc.)

Title:

- In my opinion, the current title fits the content of the manuscript.

Abstract:

- In the current version of the abstract, the method is not yet clearly explained. For instance, I would appreciate to know clearer information on the service actions on which the SL program was built. Finally, I strongly advise for a proper specification/description and justification of the data analysis approach and techniques.

Introduction

- It would be essential to clarify the gap existent in this field in order to justify the reasons why it is necessary to investigate along these lines. There are several studies on SL in the field of Physical Education Teacher Training that could update and reinforce this foundation on SL reflection outcomes.

- The aim of the study should be clearly specified and justified.

I would like the author to reinforce the final paragraph in page 4 with more references.

Method

- I am surprised that all the participants had previous SL experience. Could this background have conditioned the results somehow? Could you deepen on this issue?

- In relation to the SL intervention programme carried out, it should be better organized from my point of view

- On what theoretical bases was the structure of the focus group interviews supported?

- Could you better explain the sampling, analysis and saturation processes? In this vein, I think it would be necessary to incorporate references to strengthen the analysis section: qualitative approach, saturation, sampling techniques…

Results and Discussion

- If possible, the results and discussion section should be completed with more recent and specific references on SL in teacher training.

- There are a lot of subsections in this section. Is it possible to simplify or clarify them?

Conclusion:

- I would appreciate the incorporation of the main limitations and future research lines of the study.

Final comments

I would like to encourage the authors to work in the suggested comments, since the topic and the results obtained seem truly relevant and of great interest to me. If you have any other questions do not hesitate to contact and ask for as many explanations as you need.

Reviewer #2: This paper is quite interesting and delves into SL experiences in undergraduate students working with children, which is a topic of outmost importance. In order to improve the quality of the paper, here are my recommendations:

1. The introduction gives context and highlights important features of service learning. However, I think it is too specific when describing the theoretical background using Dewey and Kolb’s theories. Instead of that, I would include more information on the context of service learning in Taiwan, particularly with pre-schoolers.

2. It is not clear if the research had a Research Ethics Committee approval. It would be worth mentioning if it did and, if not, why did the researcher decide not to have this approval. This is particularly important, as apparently the professor in charge of the course is also the researcher. What are the implications in terms of the pre, during and post activities and data collection strategies?

3. Table 3 is not clear. Why does it start with 5 and 6 in the first row?

4. Results can be presented at the beginning in a table summarising the main themes and subthemes or in a figure. Sometimes it was hard to follow.

5. The results section can benefit of more in-depth analysis. Results could be more specific in terms of the transformation path of the students, and further explain themes such as personal growth, or acquire active learning, for example. These are some of the examples:

a. Personal growth is very descriptive and doesn’t provide an analysis of all the possible links to the student’s responses. The first stage (pre-service) is definitely the moment to set personal expectations, however, it would be worth noting the different types of expectations, if there were individual only, or focused on the collective, for example.

b. In the case of “in service reflection…” theme, this particular part: “After interacting with the preschoolers, the participants noticed how a family environment affected children. P25 said, “After this experience, I found that children are not empty-headed. There was a kid who had a dog at home, and he knew how to take care of it. This may be related to the family environment” (R-3-P25), is an example of context in the SL experience, however it shouldn’t be the only one because this is one of the key aspects of the SL strategy. Later on, during post-service reflections, you mention how students are much more aware of the challenges at the societal level, this is a theme that is worth exploring with more depth to really analyse how the students move from recognising children as thinking humans, to understanding the complexities of the social sphere.

6. Conclusions present central issues developed throughout the paper. However, I would suggest to link it much more with the national context, the implications for undergraduate teaching and how this pedagogical strategy serves to improve societal issues, for example.

7. Recommendations can be more specific on specific actions to be taken at different levels.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Laura Fonseca

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PONE-D-20-32439R1

Revelations of Service-Learning Project:

Multiple Perspectives of College Students’ Reflection

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lin,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mingming Zhou, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The article has improved substantially since the last revision I did. In my opinion, the current version of the manuscript almost meets all the elements required for its publication in such hight impact journal. I would only ask the authors that, at this point of the process, it would be convenient to update and reinforece the theoretical framework and discussion section with recent articles (published during the last three or less years) with maximum impact on this topic. The following are suggested. All of them present common features that could slightly enrich the authors approach.

- Marttinen, R., N. D. Daum, D. Banville, and R. N. Fredrick. (2020). “Pre-service teachers learning through service-learning in a low SES school”. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25 (1): 1-15.

- Chiva-Bartoll, O., Moliner, L., Salvador-García, C. (2020). Can service-learning promote social well-being in primary education students? A mixed method approach. Children and Youth Services Review; 111 pp. 1-8.

- García-Rico, L., Martínez-Muñoz, F., Santos-Pastor, M.L., Chiva-Bartoll, O. (2021). Service-learning in physical education teacher education: a pedagogical model towards sustainable development goals (Epub ahead of print). International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education; online pp. --.

- MacPhail, A., and R. Sohun . (2019). “Interrogating the enactment of a service-learning course in a Physical Education teacher education programme: Less is more?”, European Physical Education Review 25 (3): 876-892.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revelations of Service-Learning Project:

Multiple Perspectives of College Students’ Reflection

PONE-D-20-32439R2

Dear Dr. Lin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mingming Zhou, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No