Research on a Sustainable Teaching Model Based on the OBE Concept and the TSEM Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your paper on " Research on a Sustainable Teaching Model Based on the OBE Concept and the TSEM Framework" for review. I am pleased to say that overall, the paper is excellent, and the idea presented is impressive.
I appreciate the innovative approach you have taken to integrate the OBE concept and the TSEM framework to explore sustainable teaching and learning models based on "artificial intelligence + education." Your study's focus on promoting sustainable development among computer science and technology students is timely and significant, particularly in the current digital education landscape.
I would like to offer a few suggestions to improve the paper's clarity and readability. Firstly, I recommend mentioning the full form of OBE and TSEM before using abbreviations, particularly in the abstract section. This would make it easier for readers to understand the concepts presented
Secondly, it would be helpful to include relevant researches in the literature review section (pg 3) with proper references to provide context and support for your research. This would strengthen the paper's argument and demonstrate the novelty of your research.
Additionally, I suggest simplifying some of the sentences and avoiding longer sentences (for instance like pg2 line 74-78), to make it easier for readers to understand the ideas presented. I also recommend highlighting the study's contribution in bullet points in the discussion section to emphasize the important findings and the impact of the research.
Thank you
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Research on a Sustainable Teaching Model Based on the OBE Concept 2 and the TSEM Framework
In effect, “our teaching model plays an important role in student sustainable education development, enhances student engineering practice and innovation capabilities, and cultivates applied innovative talents”. The problem is that the model is spoken of in very general terms, but we do not find examples of types of learning work or evaluation activities. There is some lack of further specification of the methodology. It is also true that since there is no correspondence between the numbering and the references, it is difficult to clarify doubts.
We agree with what has been stated about the importance of the outcome-oriented curriculum, we could even delve deeper into other characteristics of this model, such as student-based curriculum, learning based curriculum, activity and application-oriented curriculum, or outcome-based curriculum. I would recommend the authors to read about the Bologna Process, which created the European Higher Education Area. Essentially, what refers to the concept of methodologies and curriculum.
The authors say that “This paper demonstrates how a sustainable teaching model that incorporates the OBE concept and the TSEM framework can assist students in pursuing in-depth computer science studies and developing their overall competence”. And as demonstration they affirm that “Since the implementation of the sustainable teaching model, the total number of national and provincial awards has increased exponentially”. Awards are a type of external reward that are not part of any teaching model. Now the competition is not well considered as a pedagogical model. Neither is the Computer Studies Employment Rates a demonstration of a good teaching model. It is usually considered to assess whether the institution teaches a curriculum applied to the world of work. If the authors intended to demonstrate the validation of a teaching model, they should have used another more appropriate research method such as control and experimental groups.
At the beginning we understood that it looked like an investigation of curriculum design: “This paper proposes a sustainable teaching model based on the TSEM framework for teaching curriculum design reform. The problem arises when they state that: “The basic data model is established based on the analysis of big data of talent demand, and the PCCM (Professional Competence Correlation Matrix) method is used”. Due to the errors in the references, we do not have the possibility of clarifying our doubts. Likewise, we would have liked a better explanation of "Table 1. Correlation matrix between curriculum and graduation competencies". We cannot find where the graduate requirements, competencies, etc. come from. university studies. And that they will be compulsory. We assume a regulation of subjects and their weight in the curriculum. As in other countries, we assume that the government establishes compulsory subjects such as the subjects "Basic Principles of Marxism" or "Introduction to Mao Zedong Thought and the Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” since otherwise we do not understand its presence in a STEM curriculum.
If the authors had made a brief reference to the curricula in the higher education system of their country, we would have clarified many doubts. The authors generalize about the "AI&Education" model including some details that we appreciate: “We developed a virtual simulation system for online experimental teaching based on MXGragh” We support the proposal of: The relationship between the course objectives and the support of the assessment line items”. However, the evaluation criteria allude to target assignments consisting of multiple-choice and judgment questions quite basic elements of assessment, and not very innovative.
The authors also state “The process of deciding the sequence of teaching work according to the laws of the teaching process, establishing the corresponding methods”. I am very sorry but there are no laws on teaching. The recommendation is a curriculum focused on student learning.
In short, it is an interesting and proper investigation that is possibly better understood when the references have been ordered and can be consulted. Finally, as a recommendation for future research, we allow ourselves to express that digital technologies make possible a great global interconnection but, in this framework, it is necessary to offer the characteristics of the context of the research so that because the meanings depend on the contexts in which they are situated. In any case, it deserves to be published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper contributes to the actual issues of integrating competencies, TSEM framework and AI facilities in the educational process.
There are several issues that could be improved in the paper:
1. The authors do not provide a hypothesis and research questions. However, they describe a profound research. A clear hypothesis and research questions would make the paper more structured and understandable. In the end of the paper, the authors should sum up the results according to the hypothesis and research questions.
2. The research sample is not very clear. What was the amount of students, their age, gender, any other significant features? How the sample features influenced the results?
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
