Advancing Learning Assignments in Remote Sensing of the Environment Through Simulation Games
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for the opportunity to read this paper. The principal objective of this paper is to introduce the simulation-game technique in the context of teaching remote sensing.
The article, in my assessment, is not yet ready for publication, but has much promise, if the authors are willing to undertake some revisions:
- For the application of the teaching and learning methodology, students of a Master in the field of Remote Sensing have been selected. (line# 85-87) which subject has been selected?
- (Lines #177-182). The practical application of advanced remote sensing techniques in the evaluation of soil moisture content and its relationship to agricultural productivity is very complex. It is very complicated to analyze it with novice students during only 18 weeks of the course. Has an evaluation been made of the students' knowledge of remote sensing in order to access the subject? In the process of selecting students, what other disciplines are required to have been studied? Is there a minimum knowledge profile for a student to follow the methodology outlined? Have these profiles been used for the assignment of students to stakeholders?
- Figure 2 clearly shows the consecutive stages of the remosSSoil simulation game, this scheme makes it clear that 18 weeks are used to complete the course. What is the weekly dedication by the students to each of the aspects: Face-to-face classes, preparatory work, etc? Could you specify them in order to evaluate their applicability in other scenarios?
- Line #194- Could you specify how many students have participated in the experience? how many people per group? has only one group been formed for each type of actor: satellite manufacturer, ministry of the environment, agricultural association and irrigation company, or if there were many students, would several of these groups be created?
- How many facilitators have worked in the experience, have one or more pro-groups been assigned, what profile did these facilitators have, what was the weekly dedication of each one of them?
- Page #218. Outcomes.
The results presented in the article seem to refer to the application of the methodology of using Simulation Games in the teaching of remote sensing rather than to the evaluation of the remote sensing knowledge itself. Has a comparison been made between the level of knowledge acquired by the students about remote sensing applied to the determination of soil moisture using these techniques versus classical techniques?
Author Response
For the application of the teaching and learning methodology, students of a Master in the field of Remote Sensing have been selected. (line# 85-87) which subject has been selected? specified in lines 86-88
(Lines #177-182). The practical application of advanced remote sensing techniques in the evaluation of soil moisture content and its relationship to agricultural productivity is very complex. It is very complicated to analyze it with novice students during only 18 weeks of the course. Has an evaluation been made of the students' knowledge of remote sensing in order to access the subject? In the process of selecting students, what other disciplines are required to have been studied? Is there a minimum knowledge profile for a student to follow the methodology outlined? Have these profiles been used for the assignment of students to stakeholders? specified in lines 114-115 and 175-178
Figure 2 clearly shows the consecutive stages of the remosSSoil simulation game, this scheme makes it clear that 18 weeks are used to complete the course. What is the weekly dedication by the students to each of the aspects: Face-to-face classes, preparatory work, etc? Could you specify them in order to evaluate their applicability in other scenarios? specified in lines 196-199
Line #194- Could you specify how many students have participated in the experience? how many people per group? has only one group been formed for each type of actor: satellite manufacturer, ministry of the environment, agricultural association and irrigation company, or if there were many students, would several of these groups be created? specified in lines 142-168
How many facilitators have worked in the experience, have one or more pro-groups been assigned, what profile did these facilitators have, what was the weekly dedication of each one of them? specified in lines 218-221
Page #218. Outcomes. The results presented in the article seem to refer to the application of the methodology of using Simulation Games in the teaching of remote sensing rather than to the evaluation of the remote sensing knowledge itself. Has a comparison been made between the level of knowledge acquired by the students about remote sensing applied to the determination of soil moisture using these techniques versus classical techniques? specified in lines 385-389
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a novel approach on teaching/learning remote sensing.
In my opinion:
-11 keywords are more than usual and some of them are not mentioned in the body of the manuscript as "optical remote sensing"
-There are very few recent references on simulation games or in game-based learning.
-The experiment is not deeply defined, since no information on the number of students involved is given; results are vaguely described ("few felt some unease...", "few feared that..."). I consider it is a descriptive paper more than a research paper (it is not clear for me if it is a "letter" or a "research paper"), at least for "Remote Sensing" journal. I think, this paper could be more suitable for an education journal.
-Line 30: "Remote sensing is the fastest growing area in geodesy..." As far as I know remote sensing is not a part of geodesy, but geographical science.
-Line 37-38. The redaction of this part of the manuscript must be improved as it is unclear.
-Although the document is written in British English, in line 39 "specialized" is found in stead of "specialised".
-Line 62-63: "only 18 studies..." 12 conference proceedings and 8 journal articles. Is there any inconsistency here?
Kind regards
Author Response
11 keywords are more than usual and some of them are not mentioned in the body of the manuscript as "optical remote sensing" specified in lines 27-28
There are very few recent references on simulation games or in game-based learning. specified in lines 58-74
The experiment is not deeply defined, since no information on the number of students involved is given; results are vaguely described ("few felt some unease...", "few feared that..."). I consider it is a descriptive paper more than a research paper (it is not clear for me if it is a "letter" or a "research paper"), at least for "Remote Sensing" journal. I think, this paper could be more suitable for an education journal. specified in lines 86-90
Line 30: "Remote sensing is the fastest growing area in geodesy..." As far as I know remote sensing is not a part of geodesy, but geographical science. specified in line 31
Line 37-38. The redaction of this part of the manuscript must be improved as it is unclear. specified in lines 31-45
Although the document is written in British English, in line 39 "specialized" is found in stead of "specialised". specified in line 41
-Line 62-63: "only 18 studies..." 12 conference proceedings and 8 journal articles. Is there any inconsistency here? specified in lines 58-74
Reviewer 3 Report
The article discusses the simulation game technique in the context of remote sensing. Overall, the article is well written and has the merit to be published. I have noticed a few problems which could be considered in the next round of review. A thorough revision could help to improve the readability of the manuscript. The introduction part needs a bit brush up mostly. Please consider correcting the language in some parts of the manuscript too.
Some of the points that could be improved:
Abstract:
Lines 12-14 - not clear.
The abstract needs modification. You have started it correctly, however, the last part of it is not well written. Please revise.
Introduction:
Lines 35-36: ambiguities with land surface components - what do you mean by this?
Lines 37-38: 'Since remote sensing is dealing with technological innovations.' - Not complete.
Line 43: Please re-write as, ' In order to ensure cross-cutting learning, corresponding techniques or formats are very promising.'
Line 65: a comma is missing.
Lines 69-70: Please fix the error.
Lines 70-71: remote sensing data application in the fields of hydrology,...?
Figure 1: Legend in the vertical axis [# of articles/publications] is missing. The legend in the x-axis could be better oriented.
Author Response
The article discusses the simulation game technique in the context of remote sensing. Overall, the article is well written and has the merit to be published. I have noticed a few problems which could be considered in the next round of review. A thorough revision could help to improve the readability of the manuscript. The introduction part needs a bit brush up mostly. Please consider correcting the language in some parts of the manuscript too. specified in lines 30-57
Some of the points that could be improved: Abstract: Lines 12-14 - not clear. The abstract needs modification. You have started it correctly, however, the last part of it is not well written. Please revise. specified in lines 8-26
Introduction:
Lines 35-36: ambiguities with land surface components - what do you mean by this? specified in lines 37-38 and 126-127
Lines 37-38: 'Since remote sensing is dealing with technological innovations.' - Not complete. specified in lines 39-45
Line 43: Please re-write as, ' In order to ensure cross-cutting learning, corresponding techniques or formats are very promising.' specified in lines 44-45
Line 65: a comma is missing. fixed
Lines 69-70: Please fix the error. fixed
Lines 70-71: remote sensing data application in the fields of hydrology,...? disagree
Figure 1: Legend in the vertical axis [# of articles/publications] is missing. The legend in the x-axis could be better oriented. fixed, included in the caption
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors:
Thank you for having done the corrections I proposed. A minor issue, maybe to be corrected in proofreading stage:
Line 60-63:
"A request for the past five years (2015 – 2019) using remote sensing teaching as 60 key word selects 93 articles and out of these only 18 studies could be selected to address the topic. Twelve of the articles are conference proceedings; eight are journal articles. All 18 publications were cited 42 times (without self-citation) relating to..."
This sentence remains unclear to me: It's been said "18 studies", but there are 20 involved: 12 conference proceedings + 8 journal articles. Am I wrong?
Regards
Author Response
Thanks for making us aware of this error; specified and corrected accordingly in lines 64-66.
