McLuhan’s Tetrad as a Tool to Interpret the Impact of Online Studio Education on Design Studio Pedagogy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting approach to analyzing the impact of online studio education using Marshall McLuhan's tetradic approach. The key observations and findings are insightful and contribute to the understanding of the challenges and opportunities posed by the shift to online design studio teaching methods during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, there are several remarks that need attention for further improvement:

1. Introduction Structure:
The introduction lacks a clear structure with sub-sections such as a Significant Statement, Purpose of the Study, and Research Questions. The reviewer suggests including a more detailed introduction that explicitly outlines the research questions beyond those derived from McLuhan's tetradic approach.

2. Lack of Research Framework:
The article lacks a clear research framework or scheme. While part of the article delves into scrutinizing the literature, the rest of the content appears to be reflections without a solid basis in research. Establishing a well-defined research framework would enhance the credibility and rigor of the study.

3. Unclear Basis for Analysis:
The article includes Table 1, presenting extracted data categorized under topics/themes with supporting quotes and findings. However, it is unclear on what basis these specific topics/themes were chosen for the analysis, and this needs clarification in the article.

The rationale for choosing archetypes in Table 2 is not explained and needs clarification in the article.

Additionally, while the figures showing McLuhan's media tetrad applied to aspects of the online studio (Fig. 3-5) are representative, they lack proper source attribution, creating ambiguity. There is no clear connection between the reviewed articles and these graphs.

5. Insufficient Connection to Previous Studies:
The Discussion Chapter lacks adequate support and comparison between the current data and previous literature studies. The article needs to establish clearer connections between its findings and existing research, highlighting similarities and differences.

6. Need for a Limitation Section:
A section on limitations is missing within the discussion chapter. Including a discussion of potential limitations would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the research scope.

7. Implications and Contributions: The article should conclude with a dedicated section discussing the implications and contributions of the research to practice and knowledge. This will help in providing a more complete and impactful manuscript.

Addressing these remarks will strengthen the overall structure, clarity, and scholarly rigor of the article, making it more impactful for the intended audience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There appears to be an error in the transition between lines 337 and 338. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- For the interest of readers, it would be useful to briefly introduce 'Marshall McLuhan’s tetradic approach'.

- In the Abstract, please quantitatively quantify the impact of online studio education on design studio pedagogy. - Moreover, the number of papers considered in this study should be mentioned in the Abstract. - The main scientific contributions of this article (in comparison to the literature) should be explicitly stated in the Introduction section. - Figure 1 is drawn by the authors. If not, then, a reference is required. The title could be more descriptive and self-contained and should better depict the details presented in the paper. - Please include the paper structure (outlines) at the end of Section 1 (Introduction). - (Line 43) Add references to the published works Laws of Media (1977) and The Global Village 43 (1989). - What are the limitations of the proposed tetradic approach? - The efficacy and impact of the tetradic approach needs to be more rigorously analysed and discussed. - Please thoroughly proofread the paper for typos and other linguistic improvements. e.g. there are three dots on Line 28. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English language changes are required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the revisions made to the manuscript. Your attention to detail and willingness to address the concerns raised by reviewers have significantly strengthened the clarity and impact of your work.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper has been significantly improved and can be accepted.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.