Analysis of MOOC Quality Requirements for Landscape Architecture Based on the KANO Model in the Context of the COVID-19 Epidemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author, I find your article interesting. But it is necessary to intervene on the text and to change and improve some lines to be published. Please, here you can find my specific suggestions.
Line 58: It is possible to improve the bibliography about online auto-learning, especially in the last years. I suggest to the author to quote the most recent published studies.
Line 82: Please, quote more works about the psychological needs of students and competitiveness, educational environment, related to the teaching methods.
Line 88: Please, add some lines where you explain and discuss even the negative aspects of e-learning and more specifically about MOOC (e.g. lack of sociality and interaction in presence; difficulties for students; digital divide, etc).
Lines 106-107: Please, explain better the models you took into account.
Line 363: Please, quote more studies.
Lines 370-374: Please quote more studies about the lack of technologies for teaching/learning.
The "Conclusions" need to be improved. Above all, they seem to be another abstract and not properly conclusions. The reader expects an (even) short presentation of the results of your work. They need a short presentation.
Lines 440-441: Please, give some examples to enforce your discussion.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
We would like to thank Sustainability for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.
Thanks for all the help.
Best wishes,
Yichuan Zhang
Corresponding Author
Responses to Reviewer 2
Overall, we added nearly 20 references to support or reinforce our point of view.
Line 58: It is possible to improve the bibliography about online auto-learning, especially in the last years. I suggest to the author to quote the most recent published studies.
RE: We have added relevant references.
For detailed modifications, see line 63-73.
Line 82: Please, quote more works about the psychological needs of students and competitiveness, educational environment, related to the teaching methods.
RE: We have added relevant references.
For detailed modifications, see line 82-88.
Line 88: Please, add some lines where you explain and discuss even the negative aspects of e-learning and more specifically about MOOC (e.g. lack of sociality and interaction in presence; difficulties for students; digital divide, etc).
RE:We have added references to the negative impact of online courses.
For detailed modifications, see line 98-113.
Lines 106-107: Please, explain better the models you took into account.
RE: We have reorganized this section and added related references.
For detailed modifications, see line 133-140.
Line 363: Please, quote more studies.
RE:We have added relevant references.
For detailed modifications, see line 429-432.
Lines 370-374: Please quote more studies about the lack of technologies for teaching/learning.
RE: We have added relevant references.
For detailed modifications, see line 433-437.
The "Conclusions" need to be improved. Above all, they seem to be another abstract and not properly conclusions. The reader expects an (even) short presentation of the results of your work. They need a short presentation.
RE:We reorganized the content of this section.
For detailed modifications, see line 483-490.
Lines 440-441: Please, give some examples to enforce your discussion.
RE: We add examples where artificial intelligence and emotion recognition might be useful in the future.
For detailed modifications, see line 513-525.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the contents of this article are excellent and comprehensive. Still, there are several parts that need to be explained, including (p.11) Abstract writing style using a sub-topic that is not commonly used by MDPI, (p.138) The purpose of this study is also good if it can be stated clearly, in accordance with the data obtained in the results and discussion section, (p.141) In this section (methods and materials) it is necessary to explain the type of research, samples, locations, instruments used for data collection and methods of data analysis and arranged in the form of sub-chapters. Full notes are in the article, please check and revise according to our suggestions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor:
We would like to thank Sustainability for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.
We would like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.
Thanks for all the help.
Best wishes,
Yichuan Zhang
Corresponding Author
Responses to Reviewer 1
Overall, the contents of this article are excellent and comprehensive. Still, there are several parts that need to be explained, including (p.11) Abstract writing style using a sub-topic that is not commonly used by MDPI, (p.138) The purpose of this study is also good if it can be stated clearly, in accordance with the data obtained in the results and discussion section, (p.141) In this section (methods and materials) it is necessary to explain the type of research, samples, locations, instruments used for data collection and methods of data analysis and arranged in the form of sub-chapters. Full notes are in the article, please check and revise according to our suggestions.
RE: (1) We revised the Abstract. In the materials and methods section, we have added a step-by-step description to make the research process look clearer.
(2) We have adjusted the organization of the materials and methods section. We adjusted the organizational structure of the materials and methods section, which is divided into two parts: questionnaire design & survey and methods.
(3) Overall, we added nearly 20 references to support or reinforce our point of view.
(4) We adjusted the format of the reference to follow the publisher's template requirements.
For detailed modifications, see line 183-278.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your work to improve your article. Now it can be published.
