From Data to Wisdom: A Case Study of OPOP Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have enjoyed reading this article, but it has been a challenging task for me. It appears that this article will be included in a special issue on design education and practice. I think that the topic of the manuscript is relevant for the issue. However, I have some concerns. First, it seems that the text is not well suited to inform readers that are not already knowledgeable about the models that are presented. At times the reading is confusing. For example, in one part of the text it is stated that "The acronym DIKW stands for design students" but then in another part DIKW is considered as a system. Also, there are many figures that are not well explained by the authors, so it is difficult for an external reader to actually make sense of the article. Since the main focus is the OPOP system I would suggest to make a detailed description and discussion of this model since the beginning of the article, instead of presenting many ideas that are not actually really useful for the reader to understand OPOP model. The model itself is presented very briefly only at the end of the article, without much explanation and discussion. Finally, some acronyms such as OEM, ODM and OBM are not explained at all. I think that if the authors really want to introduce this model to a larger audience a lot of work is needed, and the article should be restructured explaining how the OPOP model emerged, what are its theoretical grounds, and what are its main features and practical implications. Also the illustrations presented at the end are not very informative because they are very brief and do not allow the reader to get a deep understanding of how the model is applied in these cases. I hope my comments can be useful to the authors. Of course, my perspective is from an external reader who does not know at all this model, and I understand it might be difficult to present a complex model to a completely external reader in an article. But nevertheless, I think the authors should take this challenge because the article might gain a much higher significance if it could be understood to all the researchers in the field of learning and education, and not only to those sharing the specific theoretical grounds and research interest of the authors.
Author Response
Comment 1: I have enjoyed reading this article, but it has been a challenging task for me. It appears that this article will be included in a special issue on design education and practice. I think that the topic of the manuscript is relevant for the issue. However, I have some concerns. …Of course, my perspective is from an external reader who does not know at all this model, and I understand it might be difficult to present a complex model to a completely external reader in an article. But nevertheless, I think the authors should take this challenge because the article might gain a much higher significance if it could be understood to all the researchers in the field of learning and education, and not only to those sharing the specific theoretical grounds and research interest of the authors.
Response 1: Thank you very much for reading our paper so carefully! The questions you mentioned are very enlightening to us. We will respond to your questions one by one. In accordance with the regulations of the journal, we will upload a reply form first, and reply to your questions one by one in the form. In the revised version of the article, all changes and additions are marked in red for your review. Thanks!
Comment 2: First, it seems that the text is not well suited to inform readers that are not already knowledgeable about the models that are presented. At times the reading is confusing. For example, in one part of the text it is stated that “The acronym DIKW stands for design students” but then in another part DIKW is considered as a system.
Response 2: Thank you for reviewing these details! We will review the full text again to ensure consistency to avoid misunderstandings between reviewers and readers.
Comment 3: Also, there are many figures that are not well explained by the authors, so it is difficult for an external reader to actually make sense of the article. Since the main focus is the OPOP system I would suggest to make a detailed description and discussion of this model since the beginning of the article, instead of presenting many ideas that are not actually really useful for the reader to understand OPOP model. The model itself is presented very briefly only at the end of the article, without much explanation and discussion.
Response 3: Thank you for such a careful review! Figure 1-3 are based on the literature review. We will strengthen the explanation of the concepts in the figure and their relationship with each other. The above discussion will focus on the OPOP model.
Comment 4: Finally, some acronyms such as OEM, ODM and OBM are not explained at all. I think that if the authors really want to introduce this model to a larger audience a lot of work is needed, and the article should be restructured explaining how the OPOP model emerged, what are its theoretical grounds, and what are its main features and practical implications.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion! We will explain some proper nouns and avoid using abbreviations when they first appear. We will also re-examine the structure of the paper and further supplement the origin and theoretical basis of the OPOP model.
Comment 5: Also the illustrations presented at the end are not very informative because they are very brief and do not allow the reader to get a deep understanding of how the model is applied in these cases. I hope my comments can be useful to the authors.
Response 5: Thank you for your advice again! These three cases cited at the end are all based on the OPOP model. These illustrations are quoted from these articles. Due to space limitations, we did not over-interpret these pictures. Our intention is to arouse the interest of readers, and they can refer to the original text. These articles have carried out a more complete discussion, which can enable potential readers to understand the connotation of the OPOP model more deeply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors:
The subject of this study is significantly meaningful, especially the perspective of the OPOP, which can be implemented to improve design education and passing on experiences. If the study could be provided with a clearer OPOP model development structure and context, content, and definitions, it will allow readers to learn from it even more comprehensively. Besides, the research method, process, and composition of this study are far from what scientific research is meant to be. Mainly because the author did not provide any explicit research method so that the reference value of the result decreases; and for these reasons, it caused me to raise doubts about the reliability and validity of the study result. I suggest that the author should be given an opportunity for amending and rectifying the study. It is expected that the author will adjust the research method and rectify various questions.
Review comments:
- The categories of design and education are immense, while the study did not clearly define the field of design. It might lead readers to wonder whether program design, policy design, social design, could be discussed under the same definition. Please make a clear separation in the definition.
- Please elaborate clearly on the determinacy of the OPOP model and what model does the content fit in? Is it a hypothesis? Is it an idea? Is it an appeal? Or is it even a goal? Since a model must be rigorously examined through science and should be a law that can be repeated.
- Three case studies have been provided in the study, could you clearly describe the analysis method and who conduct the analysis? How should we know the reliability of the analysis that was conducted by these experts? Have these categorizations and verification been strictly examined through dialectic inquiries?
- About the Literature, something are missing, especially the current situation of the development of Taiwan design education as well as the problems, policies, and needs; there is no comprehensive literature analysis in this study.
- About the novelty of the study, the author suggested that OPOP can be closer to the discourse of One Possibility, One Philosophy. This proposal is similar to professor Rung-Tai Lin's theory, while in this study, is it possible to provide more improved discourses, or any updated, newer version perspectives?
- From the perspective of education on-site, how do you verify that the OPOP model is a successful education model or how do you effectively provide educators, researchers, designers with practical, explicit operation steps?
- Could you compare the difference between other education models and the OPOP model.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer A Comments
Article Title: 1344976- From Data to Wisdom: A Case Study of OPOP Model
Comment 1: 本研究的課題意義重大，尤其是OPOP的視角，可用於改進設計教育和傳遞經驗。如果能夠為研究提供更清晰的OPOP模型開發結構和上下文、內容和定義，將使讀者能夠更全面地學習。此外，這項研究的研究方法、過程和組成與科學研究的意義相去甚遠。主要是作者沒有提供明確的研究方法，導致結果的參考價值降低；由於這些原因，我對研究結果的信度和效度產生了懷疑。我建議應該給作者一個修改和糾正研究的機會。
Response 1: Thank you for your recognition of the OPOP model! For the deficiencies you mentioned, we will further review and improve them one by one. In accordance with the regulations of the journal, we will upload a reply form first, and reply to your questions one by one in the form. In the revised version of the article, all changes and additions are marked in red for your review. Thanks!
Comment 2: The categories of design and education are immense, while the study did not clearly define the field of design. It might lead readers to wonder whether program design, policy design, social design, could be discussed under the same definition. Please make a clear separation in the definition.
Response 2: Thank you very much for reading our paper so carefully! The OPOP model tries to provide students and researchers in the field of design and creativity with a way of thinking: let them look at practice with a research-based thinking, so we did not specify a particular field, which is why the second “P” can be continuously extended. It can be a product, a performance, a project and a plan, etc.
Comment 3: Please elaborate clearly on the determinacy of the OPOP model and what model does the content fit in? Is it a hypothesis? Is it an idea? Is it an appeal? Or is it even a goal? Since a model must be rigorously examined through science and should be a law that can be repeated.
Response 3: We hope to construct a “General Rule” through the OPOP model, but leave as much space as possible for researchers to develop themselves. The motivation of the OPOP model and the research process are based on the accumulation of “individual” one by one, and gradually move towards “general”. In the follow-up research, we will extend this model to different departments and schools (focusing on the fields of art, design, performance, crafts, etc.), and continue to verify this model through feedback from students and scholars.
Comment 4: 研究中提供了三個案例研究，您能否清楚地描述分析方法以及誰進行分析？我們應該如何知道這些專家進行的分析的可靠性？這些分類和核實是否經過辯證法的嚴格審查？
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion! We will add relevant explanations in “4.2. Typical Cases” so that readers can better understand how these cases were selected and the main process of their research.
Comment 5: 文獻方面，缺少一些東西，特別是台灣設計教育發展的現狀，以及存在的問題、政策和需求；本研究沒有全面的文獻分析。
Response 5: Thank you for your attention to the development of design education in Taiwan! Prof. Lin, one of the research teams, has conducted many researches on design education in Taiwan, and published them in journals and academic seminars. Based on the above reasons, this article does not spend too much space to discuss design education in Taiwan, and the OPOP model is also proposed by Prof. Lin based on his thoughts on design education in Taiwan and the world. Such as:
(1) Lin, C.; Huang, J.; Lin, R. From STEAM to CHEER: A Case Study of Design Education Development in Taiwan. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 171. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci11040171
(2) Lin, R. Looking at Taiwan’s future design development from Young Designers’ Exhibition (YODEX) (Part I). Available online: https://www.brain.com.tw/news/articlecontent?ID=18741 (accessed on 18 September 2021)
(3) Lin, R. Looking at Taiwan’s future design development from Young Designers' Exhibition (YODEX) (Part II). Available online:https://www.brain.com.tw/news/articlecontent?ID=18746 (accessed on 18 September 2021)
(4) Lin, R. The Influence of Bauhaus Style on Taiwan Design Education. In Proceedings of the International Symposium to Commemorate the 90th Anniversary of the Bauhaus (pp. 59-76). Fu Jen Catholic University, 07 December, 2009, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Based on your comments, we consider supplementing the current development of design education in Taiwan in the second part, and explain the relationship between the OPOP model and it.
Comment 6: 關於研究的新穎性，作者認為OPOP可以更貼近One Possibility, One Philosophy的話語。這個提議類似於林榮泰教授的理論，而在這項研究中，是否有可能提供更多改進的話語，或者任何更新、更新版本的觀點？
Response 6: Thank you for your comments on the follow-up development and connotation of the OPOP model! You are very familiar with Prof. Lin‘s concepts and theories. Because the meaning of the second “P” in OPOP can be continuously extended, we believe that One Possibility, One Philosophy may be more representative at this stage. The OPOP model has been continuously improved and perfected, and we are confident to put forward new ideas in follow-up research.
Comment 7: 從現場教育的角度，你如何驗證OPOP模式是一個成功的教育模式，或者你如何有效地為教育者、研究人員、設計師提供切實可行的、明確的操作步驟？
Response 7: We are very grateful for your suggestions! Since 2018, the OPOP model has become an integral part of the Graduate School of Creative Industry Design and NTUA curriculum system. Up to now, more than 30 doctoral and master students have carried out various researches based on the concept of the OPOP model. The content of these researches is very extensive (you can refer to Appendix C). We believe that this can explain the reliability of the OPOP model to some extent. Of course, any model needs to be continuously improved in the process. Therefore, we plan to extend this model to other departments and schools to collect more feedback.
Comment 8: 您能否比較其他教育模式和 OPOP 模式之間的差異。
Response 8: Thank you for your questions and suggestions! We will further explain the purpose and structure of the OPOP model in “4.1. The OPOP Model”, and explain the differences between it and other models.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the work done by the authors. The article is significantly improved in my view.
