Adding Machine-Learning Functionality to Real Equipment for Water Preservation: An Evaluation Case Study in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article, titled Adding Machine Learning Functionality to Real Equipment for 2 Water Preservation: An Evaluation Case Study in Higher Education by authors Kondoyanni et al., describes the results of an educational intervention using PBL in higher education students. The problem mentioned is that of the design of agricultural equipment.

The project has various objectives: On the one hand, it aims to teach agricultural engineering students based on the development of a final product. On the other hand, it is a foray into education for sustainability. The third is the use of emerging technologies in agriculture. I suggest authors focus on just one of the objectives, or, on the contrary, describe them specifically in the document and base the structure of the article on these objectives.

Specifically, I believe that the work has very relevant information, especially in the introduction to the theoretical framework of challenges in education and sustainability. However, the rest of the document is somewhat confusing.

I suggest changing the name of the 2.2 Educational Arrangements subtitle to a subtitle that represents the content of the section. In addition to including in this part the theory about challenge-based learning and and STEM competencies, instead of problem-based learning. 

On the other hand, part of sections 2.2, 2.3 and 3 should go in a methodology section.

Finally, improving the quality of the graphs in Figures 10 to 16 is recommended.

Dear authors, please modify the structure of your work to make it easier to read in accordance with the previous suggestions.

Author Response

Please find our response attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting approach to using technology to demonstrate the impacts of experiential learning. The introduction needs further citations to support your arguments. For example, lines 54-59 and 64 are too general. Furthermore, I believe too much emphasis is placed on the many moving parts of both systems and not enough detail on the participants (ie. how many students participated? Did they have any previous experience with this type of activity? How were they surveyed? Were there results anonymous?) Lastly, the conclusion lacks depth and clarity. 

English is appropriate.

Author Response

Please find our response attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript, "Adding Machine Learning Functionality to Real Equipment for Water Preservation: An Evaluation Case Study in Higher Education," presents an innovative approach integrating machine learning and smart sensor technology within an educational framework. The study is commendable for its aim to bridge theoretical knowledge and practical application, fostering sustainable agricultural practices among engineering students. Upon critical review, some areas require attention to enhance the manuscript's clarity, rigor, and contribution to the field:

- the paper would benefit from a more coherent structure, ensuring a logical flow from introduction through to conclusions. Clear objectives, detailed methodology, and articulated findings are essential for readers to grasp the study's significance fully.

- expand your review to include recent studies on similar integrations of technology in agriculture and education. This will contextualize your work within the current research landscape and highlight its novel contributions.

- elaborate on the machine learning models developed, including data collection, algorithm selection, and model validation processes. Detailed technical specifications and the rationale behind component choices will strengthen the study's methodological foundation.

- a critical discussion on the limitations of your study, potential biases, and challenges encountered will offer a balanced view and suggest areas for future research.

Your study contributes valuable insights to the fields of environmental engineering and educational technology. Addressing these points will significantly enhance the manuscript's contribution to advancing sustainable practices through education.

Sincerely,

Author Response

Please find our response attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for considering my comments.

The authors responded to all the comments satisfactorily.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Having read through the revised manuscript, I must confess that I am quite pleased with the improvements; the manuscript now seems to be addressing my concerns to a much greater extent than the issues I raised during the first analysis. Here is the revised section, where this paper has been organized with an updated literature review, in-depth technical details about the developed machine learning models, and constructive critical discussions about the drawbacks and limitations associated with the present study. Should these changes be made, they will not only meet the given requirements but will also substantially enhance the scientific level of the paper.

Regards,