Towards Inquiry-Based Learning in Spatial Development and Heritage Conservation: A Workshop at Corviale, Rome
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
An interesting study but lack of theoretical foundation. Literature review section is needed so that we know what has been done on the topic. Justifications of method used needed. Discussion should refer back to the literature. No limitation or theoretical contribution. No managerial implication and conclusion.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your fruitful comments. We have followed your advice and restructured and enhanced the text, especially part 1 and 2, as most of the comments were related to this part of the text. However we have also clarified part 3 and 5. Additionally, the text was revised by a English native proof-reader. Please see our responses in detail in the following.
Literature review section is needed so that we know what has been done on the topic.
The paper was reorganized (see numbering of paragraphs) and it was added a paragraph titled “Theoretical background” which gives presents main topics, and related literature, that are useful to position the workshop experimentation
Literature review was improved in both the introduction (shortened) and part two.
Justifications of method used needed.
In our opinion the application of ISB is self-justify since our intention was to experiment this approach in heritage contexts, considering uncertainty and complexity. Therefore we specified that:
Following our hypothesis, the workshop mirrored the IBL phases to test its validity in dealing with complexity and uncertainty in heritage context.
Discussion should refer back to the literature.
In the discussion the connection with main issues presented in the “theoretical background” was reinforced, specifying the nexus between IBS and complexity/uncertainty in heritage and planning sectors.
No limitation or theoretical contribution.
As our idea was to experiment the IBL-approach in heritage contexts, considering uncertainty and complexity, our conclusion sum up the contribution this experiment makes for IBL, as well as facing the challenges in education Edgar Morin had introduced.
No managerial implication and conclusion.
As our idea was to experiment the IBL-approach in heritage contexts, considering uncertainty and complexity, our conclusion sums up the contribution this experiment makes for IBL, as well as facing the challenges in education Edgar Morin had introduced.
Furthermore, few lines more highlight the importance of systematization in projects (as a common format of education in heritage and planning) which became possible through IBL.
Reviewer 2 Report
- 33-34 Since this is an article on workshops and education, it would have been interesting to focus a little more on Edgar Morin's subject, only mentioned, before moving on to the topic of climate change.
- 36-38 confused sentences
- The references in the text are not reflected in the bibliography inserted at the end without numbering. it is suggested to choose either the numbered mode, inserting the corresponding number in the bibliography, or at least to state author and year in the text.
- Among the references it would have been interesting to mention some other Italian examples of participative workshop experiences.
- the first paragraph is a bit redundant in its content
- in the text, the starting point should be explored in more detail, framing the project in which the workshop fits.
- It would have been interesting to learn more about how to involve the community, in practice.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your fruitful comments. We have followed your advice and restructured and enhanced the text, especially part 1 and 2, as most of the comments were related to this part of the text. However we have also clarified part 3 and 5. Additionally, the text was revised by an English native proof-reader. Please see our responses in detail in the following.
- 33-34 Since this is an article on workshops and education, it would have been interesting to focus a little more on Edgar Morin's subject, only mentioned, before moving on to the topic of climate change.
The revision followed this advice (36-41), but kept it short to focus the introduction.
- 36-38 confused sentences
This sentence is revised.
- The references in the text are not reflected in the bibliography inserted at the end without numbering. it is suggested to choose either the numbered mode, inserting the corresponding number in the bibliography, or at least to state author and year in the text.
This issue was solved: notes were reduced at the minimum (a, b, c, …) including information in the text, and numbers are solely used to list references
- Among the references it would have been interesting to mention some other Italian examples of participative workshop experiences.
San Siro (Milan) and Villa Mirafiori (Turin) are addressed now.
- The first paragraph is a bit redundant in its content.
We reorganized and shortened the first paragraph.
- In the text, the starting point should be explored in more detail, framing the project in which the workshop fits.
At the beginning of “3. Materials and Methods” we added some lines regarding the OpenHeritage project, during which our collaboration has started. However, we send back to the project website for details.
- It would have been interesting to learn more about how to involve the community, in practice.
We share your interest but this was not among the objectives of our exploration
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper reflects on the potential of the IBL method to teach students in architecture schools, particularly in spatial development and heritage conservation, within the context of uncertainty and complexity. To this end, the authors systematized a specialized workshop and presented in detail its philosophy, background, designed steps, and results. This paper would contribute to the discussion of teaching and research methods that are needed in the spatial development and heritage conservation. I would like to recommend its publication after addressing the following major revisions:
1) The introduction is windy. It would be appreciated if the authors could deliver it in a much more concise form.
2) The structure of the manuscript is unclear. For example, where are the section 1.1 and the section 1.2? please clarify the structures carefully.
3) The quality of the figures should be improved. Hard to see.
4) References should be indexed correctly in text, for example, Line 101 and Line 93
Author Response
Thank you very much for your fruitful comments. We have followed your advice and restructured and enhanced the text, especially part 1 and 2, as most of the comments were related to this part of the text. However we have also clarified part 3 and 5. Additionally, the text was revised by a native English proof-reader. Please see our responses in detail in the following.
The introduction is windy. It would be appreciated if the authors could deliver it in a much more concise form.
The introduction has been sharpened and split in: introduction and theoretical background. Both sections have been implemented with additional references.
The structure of the manuscript is unclear. For example, where are the section 1.1 and the section 1.2? please clarify the structures carefully.
We have reorganized the introduction into a short more general part, and followed by a “theoretical background” that deepen concepts and relevance.
The quality of the figures should be improved. Hard to see.
Fig 2 and 3 were replaced
Fig 2 and 6 were enlarged as much as possible: although the former is still not readable, it is included as sample of conducted work. It is explicative.
References should be indexed correctly in text, for example, Line 101 and Line 93
Done
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Some improvements noted. Sorry, please make more specific in your responses. For example, "Literature review was improved in both the introduction (shortened) and part two." This was your claim. Please provide me some or even all examples to justify your claim (of course, I read again your revised several times in order to see your amendments/additional explanations.
Thanks a lot for your responses on my other comments.
Author Response
Review 1:
Some improvements noted. Sorry, please make more specific in your responses. For example, "Literature review was improved in both the introduction (shortened) and part two." This was your claim. Please provide me some or even all examples to justify your claim (of course, I read again your revised several times in order to see your amendments/additional explanations.
Response:
Thank you very much for your fruitful comments. We have followed your advice and restructured and enhanced the text, especially part 1 and 2, as most of the comments were related to this part of the text. However we have also clarified part 3 and 5. Additionally, the text was revised by a English native proof-reader. Please see our responses in detail in the following.
We highlighted in yellow all the added/amended parts, including references in this revised uploaded version. Furthermore, we added 7 more books/articles to introduce more profoundly our references.
Some examples are given here, for all changes please have a look at the changes marked in yellow in the text:
Lines 34-53: We firstly reinforced the link between planning and complexity / uncertainty, stressing their relationships with the plurality of urban actors, on one side, and climate change, on the other. We have also strengthens the relation between Morins understanding of complexity and the relevance for planning in this paragraph.
Lines 74-105: Through the lens of time, it has been focused the connection between heritage and uncertainty and therefore the emerging questions related to teaching.
Par. 3. Materials and Methods presents some additional notes and references about Corviale Labs and more generally on Living Lab. Furthermore we strengthen in methods and materials our main idea: “Following our hypothesis, namely that IBL supports the education of students in heritage planning dealing with complexity and uncertainty, the workshop mirrored the IBL phases, to test its validity in this context.” (210-212) and referred to in the conclusion (see below).
Lines 363-366 developed links with other Italian experiences.
Finally, some adjustments in conclusions according to previous comments were done, such as line 444-446, 450-452, and 481-482 where specific reference were made to Morin’s understanding of complexity and how the approach of IBL contributes to a systematization of teaching to deal with complexity and uncertainty in planning.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for your effort in addressing my comments. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thanks so much for your fruitful comments in your first review.
