A Blended Approach to Inquiry-Based Learning Using the Example of the Interdisciplinary Course of BIM in Spatial Management Studies: A Perspective of Students and Professor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe presented topic and reported results are interesting and impressive that 6 out 14 manuscripts were of outstanding quality. It gives merit the proposed approach of teaching. Great work overall.
The proposed approach of Inquiry-based learning is explained well and clearly. However, application within a classroom is not as clear. What type of classes does this approach work with? Is this just for research-based courses? Can it be applied in a technical engineering course? If yes how should the professor go about it?
Some details are a little vague. For example, this was tested in interdisciplinary BIM class, was BIM also utilized during the process or was it research focused? Did this approach increase student’s motivation to lean about BIM as a topic?
What were the demographics of students in class? Age, experience, gender? Did the demographic affect the student responses to the survey questions?
What was the previous format of this course? How was the class conducted and how did performance change from old method to new proposed method?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting paper. It describes an approach to delivering a course on BIM that is unusual in the institution concerned. The author(s) clearly managed to engage their students. Other academics would be interested to learn how this was accomplished (I certainly was). However, the paper focuses (intentionally) on the feedback garnered from the students. I was left with some concerns which distracted me. How DID the authors manage to get a cohort of Masters students to provide feedback about something as abstract as a teaching methodology? The tutor(s) (authors) were clearly enthusiastic and supportive of their students but in my experience, that only goes so far. Most students are motivated to a large degree by the way they will be assessed. However, little is said about this. In my experience, students focus on assessment, and this drives their engagement with a subject.
The discussion section needs to be supported by relevant literature. Without references, this section is unconvincing.
The title doesn’t adequately reflect the fact that the paper is based on a student evaluation.
In the summary section, the author(s) say “Applying the approach presented is not easy...” For those interested in adopting the approaches described in this paper, this would be most interesting and helpful to read. However, nothing further is said about this.
I have made several suggestions as ‘comments’ in the attached version of the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a case study where inquiry-based learning was applied. The topic of this paper is adequate for this journal. The paper is correctly structured, the English writing is very good, the number of references shows high intellectual deep in the topic.
The Reviewer thinks the paper has enough scientific merit and deserves to be published, however, there are some points which could be enhanced before the publication, as detailed below. It is recommended authors improve the paper to achieve a better-quality paper.
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1- Line 72 to 88 should be in Section 2 and not in Section 1.
2- The end of Section 1 should have a paragraph with a resume of what was done.
3- Section 3 includes results and discussion because it includes many references to other authors, so this is not a results section but also discussion section! In opposite, in Section 4, where it is expected comparison with other authors, almost, there is not any references. It includes only general remarks and do not discuss the results presented in this paper. It is suggested to join Section 3 and 4 (Results and Discussion), or rewriting Section 4.
4- The conclusions are again only general remarks, and there is not mention to the work developed, and the question/objective presented in the Introduction is not answered (“Hence, the aim of this research was to find out whether a mixed-methods approach, incorporating different tools and techniques, could yield even greater benefits”). It is suggested adding conclusions about the work developed and answer the question written in the Introduction.
SCIENTIFIC COMMENTS:
1- There is not any comment/information about the time which students spend with IBL compared with traditional. If the objective is to compare IBL with traditional methodology it is important to know if the workload was the same or not.
2- Please indicate was many credits (ECTS) this course has.
3- There is not enough information about assessment of the course, and it is appears in different sections.
4- Please comment in paper the sentence “and the focus was on providing quick and complete feedback”. This is usually not good idea, it makes undesirable competition between students and can prejudice the students with low resources (example: having internet access), or the students that prefer reflect and review before publish feedback.
5- Lines 74 to 82 are unclear, please clearly show in a table what are the goals, the desired outcomes and the supporting knowledge of this course.
6- Lines 77 to 79 describes several technologies, however Table 1 almost has BIM, please clarify it.
7- Lines 82 to 88 are incomplete, please add the BIM definition according to BuildingSMART (“BIM is a collaborative way of working underpinned by digital technologies, which allow for more efficient methods of designing, delivering, and maintaining physical built assets throughout their entire lifecycle”).
8- In Line 93, there were 2 groups of students, but there is not more any indication or comparison in the paper for what this was done. Why 2 groups? Why so big groups (15 students)?
9- Although it is said it is a Master course, how can authors guarantee that topics in Table 1 developed by students achieve the level of master?
10- The main lack of this paper is that the assessment of students passed from the “goals / desired outcomes / supporting knowledge of the course” to “what they did”. How can we guarantee that students achieved these desired outcomes?
11- Traditionally the courses in universities have strict supporting knowledge. In which situations can IBL be applied? It would be interesting a comment about it.
12- Lines 143 to 146 seems to extrapolate what was questioned to students. Please moderate it.
13- All the paper focus on the advantages of IBL, please include something about the preparation of professors to be able to do it. Any professor is able to do it? Do you have any recommendations?
14- Line 303 should be reformulated. Grading students is not assessing students, grading is a result of the assessment required by society for many things.
15- Lines 310 to 312 seems to be wrong. In any learning methodology, the planning, monitoring and reflecting is essential. And not only in IBL!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The topic and the idea of the study are understandable, interesting, but in their current form they do not contribute innovative results to the topic at hand. The summary is general therefore it should be improved and the main results and achievements should be more emphasised. The primary aim of the study was to see if a mixed methods approach involving different tools and techniques could be of even greater benefit. The experimental classes were carried out as part of a course (BIM) delivered at the Spatial Economy (MSc) degree programme. The class was attended by 29 students divided into two experimental groups (15 and 14 students).The first parts of the article concern the presentation of the study and its stages and final results. As far as this part is concerned, the authors presented it very synthetically and the results too generally, so this should definitely be improved. The presented study can be significant for education but, unfortunately, the sample of participants is too small to generalise the results of the study. Therefore, the study cannot be said to be objective. The way the results are presented in the graphs is clear. However, their description and interpretation need a more methodological form in order to make it easier to understand which are more or less important and why. The 'Discussion' section absolutely needs to be expanded and thoroughly problematised, including reference to the results of other similar broad studies. Therefore, the final conclusions will also need to be revised. In conclusion, the presented material requires major additions and improvements. In its present form, it cannot be taken into account.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version of the paper has been positively received, but the reviewer suggests enhancing the clarity and comprehensibility of the research methodology section by incorporating a flowchart. This flowchart should explicitly outline the workflow of the research process.
Author Response
Thank you for this comment. You are right, hence I developed the flowchart and inserted it in the article in the "Materials and Methods" section as Figure 1.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you to the authors for improving the article.
The entire argument is clearly presented and formulated in a concise and understandable manner.
The results contain important and interesting information on the main aspects and are presented clearly.
I recommend that the article be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind words and the positive reception of my work.
