Experiential Learning for Applying Green Patents in Sustainable Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is devoted to the problem of empirical learning in the application of green patents in sustainable education. The main thing in the article is the issues of effective training. It is well known that this problem and its solutions are quite philosophical in nature. Any approach to learning can be criticized. Therefore, it is only important whether the proposed approach to learning works or not.  I consider all possible comments on articles of this type to be meaningless. I don't see any contradictions in the authors' article. Therefore, I think that the article can be accepted in its current form (of course, after literary editing).

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewers' comments. Yes, learning methods yield different results in various contexts. They are all worth our attention and study. Thank you again for your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Thank you for the interesting paper! At the current stage, the article needs some improvement before it meets the standards of Sustainability. Currently your methods are scattered around the Results section (line 224: semi-structured interviews, 225, 232: focus group interviews, 357: regression analysis, 406: 9-box analysis, 424: pre and post surveys), but they are not mentioned in the methods section. Your mixed methods should be properly introduced and discussed in Methods. Adding specific details of the used methods would increase the reliability of the study.

Also, I would like to read (perhaps in Conclusions) about how graduating students gained practical experience from your course/study; the aim of the paper (lines 26-27) relates to their experiences and some evidence of their gains would be important to present. How many people participated in the study (students, instructors)? What was the students’ background? Age?

The current conclusion is rather short. Please elaborate how your study contributes to Experiential Learning Methods and Business Strategies for Patent Analysis. Also a summary of experiential teaching methods found in this study would be a good take home message for teachers. Are there weaknesses in your approach that future studies could explore?

 

Observations

lines 19-20: please use the name of the conference before an abbreviation: “UN Climate Change Conference (COP26)”

line 24: please elaborate: R20 Climate Action Regional Organization [which …]

line 34: self-action-to => self-action to

lines 65-74: please add page numbers when using direct citations.

lines 119, 122: Whose learning cycle? D. Kolb’s? Kolb & Kolb?

lines 129-130: “the Supreme Administrative Court's 129 Judgment No. 126 of 2014” - Doesn't say much. Please elaborate who did what and where?

lines 162-164: Perhaps you could add that technology-based patent mining is not in the focus of the article.

line 192: [9] refers to Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. - Should it be [8] here?

line 197-, Table 2: Try to add more space between Activity and Description columns. Also, it is hard to see which descriptions are part of Modules 2 and 3.

line 239: bellow => below

lines 306-312 should be presented first in this section right after the title.

lines 356-365: What is the quantitative data (n=?)? When the data were collected? What methods were used?

Table 3: (1) The questions (Q1-Q9) are not presented but they should be. (2) Some words are not visible in the table, perhaps a smaller font will do the trick. (3) What should “Y” tell to the reader?

lines 393-395: What about MODEL 3 (Patent strategy layout)? MODELS 3 & 5 are both p<0.01.

line 402: ” P-value less than 10%”  => p<0.1

line 403: “highlighted them with fluorescent shading” => was bolded.

lines 405-406: “...considering all variables or conducting regression analysis specifically for the business model.”  => What is the business model?

line 407: “Business Model Nine-Box Analysis” Please explain: what is the 9-box analysis?

lines 424-425: When and where the surveys were gathered? How many respondents (n=?)? What was their background? How the qualitative data were analyzed? 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See above.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewer. In response to the comments you have provided, I would like to address them as follows:

The conclusion and discussion section has been revised as follows:
This research aims to address specific questions and serve as a foundation for discussions, with the overarching goal of validating the contributions of this paper to educational practices.
Discussion Question 1: Enhancing Understanding of Green Patent Strategies through Experiential Learning: In this study, we have selected four course modules to delve into the understanding of green patent strategies. Specifically, these modules aim to deepen students' comprehension through the following components:
Reflective Observation Module: Centered on variables related to corporate sustainability policies, this module guides students in understanding how enterprises practice sustainability through reflective observation.
Abstract Conceptualization Module: Focused on variables in business model analysis, this module facilitates a deeper understanding of how companies achieve sustainability through abstract conceptualization.
Active Experimentation Module: Prioritizing variables related to patent strategy layout, this module involves students in active experimentation to gain insights into the application and practicality of green patent strategies.
Concrete Experience Module: Centered around case analysis variables, this module allows students to gain a profound understanding of how companies implement green patent strategies through concrete experiences.

Discussion Question 2: Integrating Sustainable Development and ESG Issues into University Curricula:The core objective of this discussion, aligning with the initial purpose of the research, revolves around incorporating sustainability issues into university curricula. This is a widely acknowledged concern among educators. Key concepts include:
Define Course Objectives and Learning Outcomes: Establish clear course objectives and learning outcomes to ensure students gain practical experience and a profound understanding of sustainable development and ESG issues.
Utilize Experiential Learning Methods: Employ experiential learning methods, in-cluding case studies, competitions, and field visits, enabling students to apply ac-quired knowledge and skills in practical settings.
Invite Industry Experts and Lecturers: Engage industry experts and lecturers in the course to provide valuable insights and real-world perspectives, enriching students' learning experiences.
Establish Practical Experiences: Through internships, laboratories, and community service, students can apply their knowledge and skills in real-world scenarios, gaining practical experiences.

Discussion Question 3: Comprehensive Coverage of Sustainability Issues in Case Studies:
The research employs a case study approach, using green patents to explore a company's direction in green product development. Beyond green patents, sustainability issues encompass the guidance of corporate sustainability strategies. Guiding students to swiftly comprehend a company's green patent layout and product strategy is challenging. However, through guided case studies using various methodologies such as business model analysis, students can systematically gain in-depth insights.

Discussion Question 4: Driving Sustainable Development through Business Model Analysis:
The pivotal element in a business model lies in value positioning. In this study, experiential teaching methods integrate business models into discussions, gradually familiarizing students with the importance of value positioning. Assuming every company incorporates sustainability-related issues into its value positioning, the impact on environmental sustainability can be substantial. This approach facilitates identifying the company's direction for sustainable development.

At the same time, the abstract section has also been updated accordingly:
The primary objective of this study is to enrich students' learning experiences by integrating "Experiential Learning Methods" and "Green Patent Strategies." The research categorizes experiential learning into four distinct modules, each systematically analyzed with the inclusion of four variables. These modules comprise Module 1: Reflective Observation, focusing on the "Corporate Sustainability Policy" variable; Module 2: Abstract Conceptualization, centering on the "Business Model Analysis" variable; Module 3: Active Experimentation, emphasizing the "Patent Strategy Layout" variable; and Module 4: Concrete Experience, delving into the "Case Analysis" variable. Within the "Patent Strategy Layout" module, additional depth is provided through subtopics such as "Green Patents," "Keywords for Patent Application Writing," "Zero-Carbon Patent Search Technology," and "Enterprise Detection and Operation Analysis," contributing to the thoroughness of the research analysis. Survey results indicate that students have attained a lucid understanding of sustainability-related subjects, including "Business Model Analysis," "Corporate Sustainability Policy," and "Patent Strategy Deployment." Practical exercises have further elevated their comprehension of green patent strategies. The overarching goal of this study is to stimulate inspiration for future curriculum designs that seamlessly integrate sustainability elements, fostering interdisciplinary learning opportunities for students within the framework of sustainable education.

The model discuss you referred to underwent modifications during the process of English writing and editing. The changes are relatively substantial, and I invite you to review the edited document.
Once again, I appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this work, the authors integrates "Experiential Learning Methods" with "Green Patent Strategy Layout" in teaching modules to help students understand sustainability concepts and green patent applications in corporate strategy. Surveys indicated that students grasped key sustainability topics, and practical exercises furthered their knowledge of green patent strategies. The study hopes to guide future sustainable education course designs and encourage interdisciplinary learning. Despite the manuscript has good English language usage and a well-organized structure, some points require attention to enhance the quality of the paper:

 

 

- Improve the introductory section of the manuscript by highlighting and listing the “contributions” points of this research and the work's limitations;

 

-  The literature section for this study (section 2)  design is divided into two main sections: one focuses on the exploration of experiential learning methods, and the other centres around the business model layout primarily based on patent analysis. From a technical point of view in this last second point (patent analysis), the literature lacks relevant technical approaches used in the domain of sustainability.  Some relevant approaches used as intelligent systems for sustainability should be cited and discussed or taken as case studies: i.e., 10.1109/SMARTCOMP52413.2021.00080, 10.3390/s23094549, 10.1007/s40436-020-00302-5, 10.1109/SMARTCOMP50058.2020.00071, and so on.  All these recommended papers are essential to integrate modern technical methodologies by providing a comprehensive view of contemporary sustainability practices. 

 

-   The methods section needs the necessary formulae to compute like F-value, P-value, R-square, etc. metrics shown in the result section.  I recommend improving this part by focusing on the empirical part of your case study.

 

-  The conclusion section needs a clear exposition on how the initial goal of the study was achieved, I suggest this part to support these with adequate numerical results and references, offering a more critical/discursive view of future research.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is well-structured and exhibits clarity in its conveyance of ideas, particularly in the domain of experiential learning and patent analysis. On the whole, the English in the manuscript is commendable, maintaining a consistent formal tone apt for academic settings, with only minor areas for refinement.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewer. In response to the comments you have provided, I would like to address them as follows:

The improvement to the introductory section of the manuscript that you mentioned, highlighting and listing the "contributions" of this research and the limitations of the work, has been addressed in the abstract and discussion sections. Please refer to the following revisions: 

The conclusion and discussion section has been revised as follows:

This research aims to address specific questions and serve as a foundation for discussions, with the overarching goal of validating the contributions of this paper to educational practices.

Discussion Question 1: Enhancing Understanding of Green Patent Strategies through Experiential Learning: In this study, we have selected four course modules to delve into the understanding of green patent strategies. Specifically, these modules aim to deepen students' comprehension through the following components:

Reflective Observation Module: Centered on variables related to corporate sustainability policies, this module guides students in understanding how enterprises practice sustainability through reflective observation.

Abstract Conceptualization Module: Focused on variables in business model analysis, this module facilitates a deeper understanding of how companies achieve sustainability through abstract conceptualization.

Active Experimentation Module: Prioritizing variables related to patent strategy layout, this module involves students in active experimentation to gain insights into the application and practicality of green patent strategies.

Concrete Experience Module: Centered around case analysis variables, this module allows students to gain a profound understanding of how companies implement green patent strategies through concrete experiences.

 

Discussion Question 2: Integrating Sustainable Development and ESG Issues into University Curricula:The core objective of this discussion, aligning with the initial purpose of the research, revolves around incorporating sustainability issues into university curricula. This is a widely acknowledged concern among educators. Key concepts include:

Define Course Objectives and Learning Outcomes: Establish clear course objectives and learning outcomes to ensure students gain practical experience and a profound understanding of sustainable development and ESG issues.

Utilize Experiential Learning Methods: Employ experiential learning methods, in-cluding case studies, competitions, and field visits, enabling students to apply ac-quired knowledge and skills in practical settings.

Invite Industry Experts and Lecturers: Engage industry experts and lecturers in the course to provide valuable insights and real-world perspectives, enriching students' learning experiences.

Establish Practical Experiences: Through internships, laboratories, and community service, students can apply their knowledge and skills in real-world scenarios, gaining practical experiences.

 

Discussion Question 3: Comprehensive Coverage of Sustainability Issues in Case Studies:

The research employs a case study approach, using green patents to explore a company's direction in green product development. Beyond green patents, sustainability issues encompass the guidance of corporate sustainability strategies. Guiding students to swiftly comprehend a company's green patent layout and product strategy is challenging. However, through guided case studies using various methodologies such as business model analysis, students can systematically gain in-depth insights.

 

Discussion Question 4: Driving Sustainable Development through Business Model Analysis:

The pivotal element in a business model lies in value positioning. In this study, experiential teaching methods integrate business models into discussions, gradually familiarizing students with the importance of value positioning. Assuming every company incorporates sustainability-related issues into its value positioning, the impact on environmental sustainability can be substantial. This approach facilitates identifying the company's direction for sustainable development.

 

 

At the same time, the abstract section has also been updated accordingly:

The primary objective of this study is to enrich students' learning experiences by integrating "Experiential Learning Methods" and "Green Patent Strategies." The research categorizes experiential learning into four distinct modules, each systematically analyzed with the inclusion of four variables. These modules comprise Module 1: Reflective Observation, focusing on the "Corporate Sustainability Policy" variable; Module 2: Abstract Conceptualization, centering on the "Business Model Analysis" variable; Module 3: Active Experimentation, emphasizing the "Patent Strategy Layout" variable; and Module 4: Concrete Experience, delving into the "Case Analysis" variable. Within the "Patent Strategy Layout" module, additional depth is provided through subtopics such as "Green Patents," "Keywords for Patent Application Writing," "Zero-Carbon Patent Search Technology," and "Enterprise Detection and Operation Analysis," contributing to the thoroughness of the research analysis. Survey results indicate that students have attained a lucid understanding of sustainability-related subjects, including "Business Model Analysis," "Corporate Sustainability Policy," and "Patent Strategy Deployment." Practical exercises have further elevated their comprehension of green patent strategies. The overarching goal of this study is to stimulate inspiration for future curriculum designs that seamlessly integrate sustainability elements, fostering interdisciplinary learning opportunities for students within the framework of sustainable education.

 

The model discourse you referred to underwent modifications during the process of English writing and editing. The changes are relatively substantial, and I invite you to review the edited document.

Once again, I appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) Please revise the abstract. Typically, abstracts consist of four primary sections: context or background, objectives, methods, and results. However, the current abstract lacks the background section.

2) Please update the labeling of the Methods section to "3. Methods" instead of "2. Methods," with "2" currently referring to the Literature Review section.

3) The literature review can be enhanced by including a more comprehensive range of relevant journal articles and detailing how other researchers have conducted their studies in this field. As it stands, the current literature review primarily focuses on the evolution of experiential learning over time, but it could benefit from a deeper exploration of the methodologies and findings of other scholars in the area.

4) Regarding the results, I am interested in seeing a more comprehensive comparison of your proposed method with other existing methods. There is significant potential for improvement in both the results and discussion sections in this regard.

5) Lastly, I couldn't discern how this article contributes to the field of sustainability, which is the primary focus of this journal. There is a need to clarify and emphasize the relevance of your work to sustainability in order to align it more closely with the journal's core theme.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewer. In response to the comments you have provided, I would like to address them as follows:

The abstract section has also been updated accordingly:The primary objective of this study is to enrich students' learning experiences by integrating "Experiential Learning Methods" and "Green Patent Strategies." The research categorizes experiential learning into four distinct modules, each systematically analyzed with the inclusion of four variables. These modules comprise Module 1: Reflective Observation, focusing on the "Corporate Sustainability Policy" variable; Module 2: Abstract Conceptualization, centering on the "Business Model Analysis" variable; Module 3: Active Experimentation, emphasizing the "Patent Strategy Layout" variable; and Module 4: Concrete Experience, delving into the "Case Analysis" variable. Within the "Patent Strategy Layout" module, additional depth is provided through subtopics such as "Green Patents," "Keywords for Patent Application Writing," "Zero-Carbon Patent Search Technology," and "Enterprise Detection and Operation Analysis," contributing to the thoroughness of the research analysis. Survey results indicate that students have attained a lucid understanding of sustainability-related subjects, including "Business Model Analysis," "Corporate Sustainability Policy," and "Patent Strategy Deployment." Practical exercises have further elevated their comprehension of green patent strategies. The overarching goal of this study is to stimulate inspiration for future curriculum designs that seamlessly integrate sustainability elements, fostering interdisciplinary learning opportunities for students within the framework of sustainable education.

For the literature review, numerous relevant sections have been added:

On the other side, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, hybrid teaching in educational settings has undergone significant transformations. Educators have embraced innovative methodologies, such as the integration of Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), or the amalgamation of immersive and experiential teaching techniques. Kee and Zhang's study [14] extensively explores the challenges encountered in horticulture and landscape management during the pandemic, highlighting the strategic and effective utilization of AR and VR for sustainable teaching. Conducted at a higher education institution in Hong Kong, their research thoroughly examines students' perceptions of digital technology application in team-based hybrid learning, with a specific focus on sustainable tree management. Lai [15] discusses augmented reality and virtual reality, collectively termed extended reality (XR), and its significant advancements in both theory and practice within the education sector. Ongoing research primarily concentrates on educators implementing XR to teach real-world phenomena and on students learning through immersive experiences. This article surveys existing XR research, with a special emphasis on the implications of immersive extended realities for teaching and learning engineering mathematics in higher education institutions. It also explores various interactive multimedia associated with XR before delving into the implications of XR as an educational tool for current mathematics pedagogy. Ultimately, the scoping review contributes an adaptable XR implementation framework for educators and suggests potential academic advancements for researchers. Shifting the focus to business education, Clifft et al. [16] examine the impact of the pandemic on French Business Schools in the subsequent section. The mandatory implementation of health restrictions has resulted in diverse online and offline teaching methods. Despite acknowledging potential challenges stemming from cultural constraints, the study advocates for the adoption of hybrid teaching as a practical and advanced solution. Chatpinyakoop et al. [17] underscore the necessity for experimental research on active learning methods in the subsequent discussion. Through an empirical study evaluating the effectiveness of an online simulation in a Master of Management program in Thailand, the authors illustrate significant shifts in knowledge and attitudes toward sustainability. In the context of entrepreneurship education, Knox and Stephen [18] reflect on various teaching modalities within a virtual learning environment, revealing diverse student engagement motives. The study advocates for the adoption of hybrid-based approaches to address these varied motivations. Salinas-Navarro et al. [19] draw attention to sustainability-related learning experiences in supply chain management in the subsequent review. The authors propose a comprehensive framework that integrates experiential learning, instructional design models, sustainability principles, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to meet the dynamic demands of higher education. Ho [20] delves into the realm of game-based learning as a strategic tool for promoting awareness of the United Nations' SDGs. The developed game-based learning approach, both digital and non-digital, is demonstrated to be effective in enhancing students' knowledge and attitudes toward sustainable development.

Once again, I appreciate the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

This paper is a significant study and has a scientific for experiential learning methods and green patent strategy layout. Thus, the subject addressed in this paper is relevant. The subject and factors have been well identified, presented, and discussed.

However, there are errors that require revisions to improve the quality of the paper, as follows:

1. The abstract needs to highlight more sentences to present the research background, method, and contribution of the paper.

2. The introduction must extend more information on green patents, and sustainable education... and give relative studies.

3. Figure 1, 2 – kindly show the source (citation) of these Figures.

4. Lines 132 – 134, please present the source of this Article. Lines 135-137 also need to provide the source.

5. Result, Line 125 – In our research, we divided, …. I saw this paper was written by one author, please correct the subject here.

6. In the abstract, the author mentioned that the paper made a survey; however, I cannot find any information on this survey in the main text.

7. Table 3 needs to be presented with more details of the result.

8. The reference citation is incorrect, please cross-check and revise all of them.

9. Conclusion, this Section should give one small paragraph to present the paper’s key contribution.

10. References – lines 476 – 497. The references weren’t correct. Check and revise all references accordingly.

11. The English language quality of this paper is poor. The author needs to check and revise.

 

 Thanks!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper has lots of error so it must be improved.

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. The English portion has been revised through English editing. Simultaneously, additional information has been incorporated into the abstract and discussion sections. The recommendations made by the reviewer have been addressed and improved in the manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable suggestions.

Your suggestions, particularly in the abstract section, have undergone substantial revisions. Please refer to the following: 

The primary objective of this study is to enrich students' learning experiences by integrating "Experiential Learning Methods" and "Green Patent Strategies." The research categorizes experiential learning into four distinct modules, each systematically analyzed with the inclusion of four variables. These modules comprise Module 1: Reflective Observation, focusing on the "Corporate Sustainability Policy" variable; Module 2: Abstract Conceptualization, centering on the "Business Model Analysis" variable; Module 3: Active Experimentation, emphasizing the "Patent Strategy Layout" variable; and Module 4: Concrete Experience, delving into the "Case Analysis" variable. Within the "Patent Strategy Layout" module, additional depth is provided through subtopics such as "Green Patents," "Keywords for Patent Application Writing," "Zero-Carbon Patent Search Technology," and "Enterprise Detection and Operation Analysis," contributing to the thoroughness of the research analysis. Survey results indicate that students have attained a lucid understanding of sustainability-related subjects, including "Business Model Analysis," "Corporate Sustainability Policy," and "Patent Strategy Deployment." Practical exercises have further elevated their comprehension of green patent strategies. The overarching goal of this study is to stimulate inspiration for future curriculum designs that seamlessly integrate sustainability elements, fostering interdisciplinary learning opportunities for students within the framework of sustainable education.

For other more detailed aspects, please refer to the manuscript. Thank you.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The manuscript has improved from its previous version, but it still lacks a clear presentation of the research methods and research material used.

Starting with the abstract, it simply states that there was a survey. We don't know much of the survey. Who participated in the survey? Who conducted the survey? How many respondents participated? When was the survey conducted?

Pre- and post-surveys were also conducted; the same questions apply to them.

As I pointed out in the first round, your research methods are scattered around the manuscript. Collect them together and show the reader appropriate descriptive statistics (e.g. the number of participants in different surveys).

It seems that many of my comments have not received action, so I will repeat some of them.

-

How many people participated in the study (students, instructors)? What was the students’ background? Age?

line 29: use the name of the conference before the abbreviation: "UN Climate Change Conference (COP26)"

line 34: expand: "R20 Climate Action Regional Organization" [which …]

This is important: add page numbers when using direct citations. (lines 81-82).

line 129: Whose learning period? In references [9]=Kolb & Kolb / line 129: [9]= Kolb

lines 140-141: "the Supreme Administrative Court's 129 Judgment No. 126 of 2014" - It doesn't say much. Refine who did what and where?

lines 173-175: Perhaps you could add that technology-based patent mining is not the focus of the article.

line 189: "EcoPC patent" - Explain.

lines 202-219, 230-233. How will AR, VR, and XR studies impact this research? If they do, you should reflect on them in the manuscript (e.g. in a discussion).

line 278: "In addition to quantitative analysis". You have not presented your quantitative analysis before this line.

line 278. What is your quantitative data (n=)? When was the data collected? What methods were used?

line 279. You collected qualitative data from focus group interviews. When was the data collected? How many people attended? How many hours were recorded? How many pages were transcribed? What did you do with the transcribed material? 

lines 448-449. What about MODEL 3 (patent strategy layout)? MODELS 3 and 5 are both p<0.01.

In lines 488-489 you write: "all questions had statistical significance" — this is not the case! From Table 7, Q4's p = 0.2281, n.s. (line 479).

 

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewers. Following their comments, we have addressed each point individually in the sections following the title. Once again, we appreciate your time and valuable suggestions.

How many people participated in the study (students, instructors)? What was the students’ background? Age? In this study, we integrated 150 junior and senior students majoring in International Business from the School of Business. The participants' ages ranged from approximately 20 to 22 years old. (add more explaining in line 317-319)

line 29: use the name of the conference before the abbreviation: "UN Climate Change Conference (COP26)” (modified in line 29-30)

line 34: expand: "R20 Climate Action Regional Organization" [which …]  (add more explaining in line34-38)

This is important: add page numbers when using direct citations. (add more explaining in line 86-88）

line 129: Whose learning period? In references [9]=Kolb & Kolb / line 129: [9]= Kolb (correction in line 137)

line 189: "EcoPC patent" - Explain. (correction in line 235)

lines 202-219, 230-233. How will AR, VR, and XR studies impact this research? If they do, you should reflect on them in the manuscript (e.g. in a discussion).

line 278: "In addition to quantitative analysis". You have not presented your quantitative analysis before this line.(correction in line 334) 

line 278. What is your quantitative data (n=)? When was the data collected? What methods were used? (add more explaining in line 323-329）

line 279. You collected qualitative data from focus group interviews. When was the data collected? How many people attended? How many hours were recorded? How many pages were transcribed? What did you do with the transcribed material?  (add more explaining in line 323-329）

lines 448-449. What about MODEL 3 (patent strategy layout)? MODELS 3 and 5 are both p<0.01. (correction in line 570-572)

In lines 488-489 you write: "all questions had statistical significance" — this is not the case! From Table 7, Q4's p = 0.2281, n.s. (line 479). (correction in line 570-572) 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study hopes to guide future sustainable education course designs and encourage interdisciplinary learning. The manuscript has been improved the English language usage and the overall structure of the manuscript, but some points have not been attended to improve the quality of the paper:

 

 

-     The actual reference section presents only 20 cited works. From a technical point of view in this last second point (patent analysis), the literature lacks relevant technical approaches used in the domain of sustainability.  Some relevant approaches used as intelligent systems for sustainability should be cited and discussed or taken as case studies: i.e., 10.3390/s23094549, 10.1007/s40436-020-00302-5, and so on.  All these recommended papers, taken as an example, are relevant and can integrate modern technical methodologies by contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the field for readers;

 

-     The methods section needs the necessary formulae to compute like F-value, P-value, R-square, etc. metrics shown in the result section.  I recommend improving this part by focusing on the empirical part of your case study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, the English is commendable and maintains a consistent formal tone suitable for research contexts.

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions.

The revised manuscript has included enhanced narrative details, supplemented explanations for data collection, and clarified professional terminologies.

It is hoped that these improvements align with the spirit of the study.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The primary objective outlined in lines 42 to 44 appears somewhat confusing.

I am unable to discern the connection between hybrid learning, extended learning (lines 200 to 241), and business strategies for patent analysis outlined in section 2.2. If no correlation exists, I suggest considering a new sub-section to address this topic.

Considering the insights gathered from your literature review, what is your evaluative perspective or critical viewpoint?

Line 242 should be revised to replace "2. methods" with "3. Methods."

There is a incorrect reference in line 243 for "Green Patents [JB3]"

Redesign the Table 4.

Within the Results section, the overall respondent population in your questionnaire is not apparent. Additionally, there is a lack of information on how the experiment was structured in your case study.

The results presented in Section 3 do not seem to align with the discussion in Section 4. An illustration of this mismatch is evident in line 528, where you reference "University Curricula" without prior mention in Section 3.

Author Response

Thank you for the feedback provided by the reviewers. Following comments, we have addressed each point individually in the sections following the title. Once again, we appreciate your time and valuable suggestions.

As highlighted in the issues you mentioned (as follows), we have incorporated more precise explanations into the manuscript. It is hoped that this will contribute to a more comprehensive article.

----------

Within the Results section, the overall respondent population in your questionnaire is not apparent. Additionally, there is a lack of information on how the experiment was structured in your case study.

The results presented in Section 3 do not seem to align with the discussion in Section 4. An illustration of this mismatch is evident in line 528, where you reference "University Curricula" without prior mention in Section 3.

-----------

Correction:  The study employed both focus groups and questionnaire surveys. Each focus group consisted of eight participants, totaling 15 groups interviewed. Each interview session lasted for a total of three hours, with the key points aggregated into Table 3. The questions from Table 3 were then translated into a questionnaire survey. Three classes of students participated in the survey, aged between 19 to 24 years old, including third-year undergraduates, fourth-year undergraduates, and master's students, totaling 325 individuals. The results of the questionnaire survey are presented in Table 4.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The manuscript has shown improvement from its previous versions, making it easier for the reader to grasp its key educational contributions related to Sustainability. However, some corrections are still required in order to meet publication standards. Additionally, I had highlighted certain points (e.g., 4, 6, 7, and 10) in a previous review round, but these have not been addressed. Please make sure to address these points in the current revision.

1. Abstract, on line 9, “Experiential Learning Methods” are integrated into “Green Patent Strategies.” On lines 247, 251, 254, and so on, it is called the “Experiential Learning Cycle.” Are we dealing with methods or a cycle? Also note in lines 492-3 you mention again the “Methods” but “Green Patent Strategy Layout.” Please ensure consistency in the concepts throughout the manuscript.

2. The section starting from line 204 to line 244 has nothing to do with 2.2. Business strategies for patent analysis. Therefore, move the section to 2.1. Experiential learning method, preferably continue from line 138.

3. Reference numbering is largely incorrect. On lines 86 and 92, [2] refers both to Dewey and Piaget.

4. From Table 3, it can be read that there are questions Q1-Q8. Table 4 refers to Q9. Please add Q9 and a relevant survey question to Table 3.

5. Please check the titles of Table 4. Some letters are missing.

6. Line 469. “Fluorescent shading” - simply put: highlighted with bolded text.

7. Line 473. Could you please provide more detailed information about the business model of the nine-box analysis? This topic seems to have been introduced unexpectedly.

8. Tables 6 & 7, please verify the font size of the title text. It seems that Q2 has a larger font than Q1, Q3 and Q4. Also, Q5-9 are in the upper position.

9. Table 7, what is the “Y” column doing there? Consider removing it from the table.

10. On lines 579-580, it is argued that “all responses to the questions reached statistical significance.” If this refers to Table 7, then it is incorrect because the P-value of Q4 is 0.22 (ns).

 

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. You always provide very positive and detailed feedback. Allow me to address your points one by one. 

1. Abstract, on line 9, “Experiential Learning Methods” are integrated into “Green Patent Strategies.” On lines 247, 251, 254, and so on, it is called the “Experiential Learning Cycle.” Are we dealing with methods or a cycle? Also note in lines 492-3 you mention again the “Methods” but “Green Patent Strategy Layout.” Please ensure consistency in the concepts throughout the manuscript.

Reply:We have added the following explanation in line 291: This study employs the Experiential Learning Cycle from the Experiential Learning Method. The primary purpose of this cycle is to verify the implementation and effectiveness of Experiential Learning.

2. The section starting from line 204 to line 244 has nothing to do with 2.2. Business strategies for patent analysis. Therefore, move the section to 2.1. Experiential learning method, preferably continue from line 138.

Reply: Thank you for the reviewer’s suggestion. However, line 138 discusses the overall procedure of the Experiential Learning Cycle and is not related to the introduction of patent classification. Please allow me to retain this section under the introduction of patent strategies for better coherence of the article.Green patent strategies are typically handled using these two classifications, which is why they are introduced in this section.

3. Reference numbering is largely incorrect. On lines 86 and 92, [2] refers both to Dewey and Piaget.

Reply:All changes have been synchronized.

4. From Table 3, it can be read that there are questions Q1-Q8. Table 4 refers to Q9. Please add Q9 and a relevant survey question to Table 3.

Reply:Thank you for the meticulous suggestion. We have incorporated the missed ninth question back into Table 3. i.e. Q9:Do you know the societal impacts of these companies' implemented sustainability strategies?

5. Please check the titles of Table 4. Some letters are missing.

Reply:The missing question has been reinstated.

6. Line 469. “Fluorescent shading” - simply put: highlighted with bolded text.

Reply:Thank you for the meticulous suggestion.

7. Line 473. Could you please provide more detailed information about the business model of the nine-box analysis? This topic seems to have been introduced unexpectedly.

Reply: Regarding this section, additional information has been provided from lines 539 to 547. Please refer to it for further details.：This underscores the necessity of offering comprehensive elucidations of the Business Model Nine-Box Grid analysis. The Business Model Canvas, alternatively referred to as the Business Model Nine-Box Grid, constitutes an analytical framework comprising nine key components: Channels, Customer Segments, Key Activities, Revenue Streams, Key Partnerships, Key Resources, Cost Structure, Customer Relationships, and Value Proposition. This framework encompasses a total of nine indispensable elements. Within this research, these nine components are employed to instruct students on their implementation and to evaluate a company's operational efficiency.

8. Tables 6 & 7, please verify the font size of the title text. It seems that Q2 has a larger font than Q1, Q3 and Q4. Also, Q5-9 are in the upper position.

Reply:The formatting has been adjusted.

9. Table 7, what is the “Y” column doing there? Consider removing it from the table.

Reply:The formatting has been adjusted.

10. On lines 579-580, it is argued that “all responses to the questions reached statistical significance.” If this refers to Table 7, then it is incorrect because the P-value of Q4 is 0.22 (ns).

Reply: Regarding this section, additional information has been provided from lines 662 to 669. Please refer to it for further details：Based on the regression analysis conducted in this study, the following conclusions have been drawn: significant results were observed for "Business Model Analysis," "Corporate Sustainability," and "Corporate Strategy Layout," as indicated by their respective p-values. Furthermore, the case analyses highlighted the critical importance of the core concepts covered in the course, thereby further enhancing students' understanding of corporate strategy. Additionally, students engaged in practical exercises regarding green patent layout for various companies during the process of applying for green patents, ultimately leading to product layout development.

-------------------

Additionally, we have provided responses to the questions that were missed during the second review.

1. lines 140-141: "the Supreme Administrative Court's 129 Judgment No. 126 of 2014" - It doesn't say much. Refine who did what and where?

Reply: Regarding this section, additional information has been provided from lines 174 to 186. Please refer to it for further details：Starting with the Supreme Administrative Court's Judgment, our current definition and interpretation of green patents include the "greenness" of patents as a legitimate and possible criterion within the traditional patentability requirements. The revision was made to abbreviate it due to the lengthy reference number, following consultation with the respective unit, it can now be simply referred to as "Supreme Court Judgment."

        2.lines 173-175: Perhaps you could add that technology-based patent mining is not the focus of the article.

Reply: From lines 211 to 218, may I be allowed to retain this passage? I aim for readers to understand that green patent strategies are typically handled using these two classifications. While I initially omitted these concepts when explaining to students, I found that providing additional explanations facilitated their comprehension.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I understand that the author is utilising the experiential learning cycle with green patents and incorporating these concepts into the course. However, there appears to be a lack of new or improved methodologies for conducting this research as the approach mainly involves using existing methods for experiments. Given that this is a Q2 Journal in the Web of Science, I am particularly interested in whether the author can identify and apply any innovative or enhanced methods to this case study. 

Author Response

Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions.

Experiential learning has indeed been applied in various contexts, but in this paper, it is more deeply integrated into each step and aspect of the course design. In addition to quantitatively assessing the content, each teaching material is designed innovatively. The effectiveness of this approach is then verified once more.

The application of green patents in product strategies or business models is relatively rare. Most research focuses on patent layout or patent families to improve products. This paper’s course applies a strategy and business model approach, enabling students to understand alternative uses of green patents. Through experiential learning, it aims to innovate teaching practices.