The Effect of Course Characteristics and Self-Efficacy on Practical Training Course Satisfaction: Moderating Effect of the Perceived Usefulness of Wisdom Teaching
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper deals with a model of learning-related variables for a single course, involving simulation of a virtual enterprise in a single business school, located at a Chinese university. However, it is extremely difficult to conclude this, since authors' language is extremely difficult to understand for an average English-speaking reader. The authors keep referring to a 'inter-professional comprehensive practical training course', which is, probably, an attempt to translate something that might be completely comprehensive to the Chinese audience, but does not really tell anything to an average reader of a MDPI journal. There are some other sentences, such as: "A study shows that 14% of students are not satisfied with the hardware quality of the inter-professional comprehensive practical training course...", where a reader is left to wonder what might be the "hardware quality" of an university course?!
Introduction serves as a literature overview, which is not a good practice, and does not follow the usual IMRAD structure of a scientific study. Literature is a mix of different sources, but it is rather recent, which is a strength of this study.
I do like the idea to use the SOR framework, but cannot understand what the construct of "wisdom teaching" means, and why it should moderate the relationship between the learning attitude and the course satisfaction. It seems to be some kind of a measure of the interactivity of teaching and the course design. Authors refer to a study by Sallnas et al, 2000, who might have used the construct, but the reference is left out of the reference list.
Information about measurement and the survey items used is very brief and does not provide enough information on the questionnaire used. The questionnaire should be provided as an appendix. Reporting of PLS results is sub-standard and should be adjusted to standard reporting patterns, such as those, suggested by e.g. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European business review, 31(1), 2-24.
I would recommend that the authors also report the results of their hypotheses testing by using a table in the Conclusion section.
However, with all these revisions made, I do not see the point of publishing results, based on a single university class. The generalizability is very limited in this case and the entire discussion section could be applied to a single generation of a single class at one Chinese business school. Therefore, I would that this paper is submitted to a regional management education journal, where it might serve a better purpose to informing national and regional readers on some national and/or regional circumstances on management education in China.
Author Response
First of all, thank you for your excellent work on our paper. Your comments have been extremely useful in improving the quality. We have revised the paper in line with your and other reviewers’ suggestions.
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Citations and references are not in the format required by the journal. The form "(Last Name, Year)" must be replaced by a number. At the end, the numbered references should appear in order of appearance.
The format in which the references appear at the end of the document is also not correct. Please, review the instructions for authors of the magazine and put them correctly.
It would be necessary to argue with more criteria in the introduction and for this it is recommended to add more references, if possible current and not local. References that have an impact and are relevant.
The discussion is correct.
But the conclusions, although it is appreciated that they are differentiated into theoretical and practical considerations and the latter in the different established areas, it would be appreciated if as a final conclusion some general conclusion were drawn up (all in the same paragraph and alluding to everything that contributes this research).
The results are very well presented and also the analysis is rigorous and consistent.
The methodology used is very pertinent and guarantees the reliability of the results presented.
It is a good article, but it is a pity that it does not fit the format and structure proposed by the magazine. Hence, it has to adhere to the rules established by the journal and correct those aspects mentioned above to be an article that can be considered for publication.
Author Response
First of all, thank you for your excellent work on our paper. Your comments have been extremely useful in improving the quality. We have revised the paper in line with your and other reviewers’ suggestions.
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for submitting the manuscript. A few suggestions:
1. It will be great if the research aims/questions could be made explicit and the results could reflect how they are addressed;
2. It will be useful if the significance of the study could be clearer (e.g., what are the impacts on teaching and learning?);
3. It will be beneficial for the manuscript to go through professional proof reading to enhance readability.
Look forward to the revised version :)
Author Response
First of all, thank you for your excellent work on our paper. Your comments have been extremely useful in improving the quality. We have revised the paper in line with your and other reviewers’ suggestions.
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have included additional reporting on research results, which is now more aligned with the practice of reporting Structural Equations Modelling (SEM)-based empirical work. They have also put a lot of effort into developing a detailed response to the reviewer. However, many aspects of the paper, including some language issues (the questionable terms mentioned in the manuscript) have been nicely described in a response to the reviewers, but the corresponding changes have not been incorporated into a new revision of the paper???! The point of a revision is not to convince the reviewer(s) that your paper deserves publishing, but rather that you develop a new revision of the manuscript, which will be clear and readable for the main journal auditorium. Please, incorporate ALL EXPLANATIONS AND CHANGES MENTIONED IN THE RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER TO YOUR MANUSCRIPT ! I would also appreciate that you add some additional information on the educational context that you are studying. Please make sure to follow the technical standards of the MDPI journals and format your manuscript accordingly (there are some formatting glitches and spelling mistakes across the revised manuscript).
Author Response
Point 1: However, many aspects of the paper, including some language issues (the questionable terms mentioned in the manuscript) have been nicely described in a response to the reviewers, but the corresponding changes have not been incorporated into a new revision of the paper???! The point of a revision is not to convince the reviewer(s) that your paper deserves publishing, but rather that you develop a new revision of the manuscript, which will be clear and readable for the main journal auditorium. Please, incorporate ALL EXPLANATIONS AND CHANGES MENTIONED IN THE RESPONSE TO THE REVIEWER TO YOUR MANUSCRIPT !
Response 1:
Thank you for your suggestion. Your comments are very important to us. In order to make the readers of this journal clear and easy to read, we have added part of the explanation of the first reply letter to the original text, such as: the pertinence of the survey object (page 5), the value of studying interdisciplinary comprehensive practical training courses (page 1), and the innovation of smart teaching (page 2).
Point 2: I would also appreciate that you add some additional information on the educational context that you are studying.
Response 2:
Thank you for your suggestion. My PhD is in management science and engineering. I am mainly engaged in entrepreneurship teaching and educational psychology and behavior research.
Point 3: Please make sure to follow the technical standards of the MDPI journals and format your manuscript accordingly (there are some formatting glitches and spelling mistakes across the revised manuscript).
Response 3:
Thank you for your comments. Your comments are very important to us. We are very sorry for the mistakes caused by our carelessness. We have changed the formatting glitches and spelling mistakes(Verb agreement error, Singular-Plural error, Infinitive error etc.).
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for the revised manuscript by addressing all the provided feedback. No further revision is required.
Author Response
Thank you for your excellent work on our paper.
