Pedagogical Strategies and Critical Success Factors for Enhancing Active Learning of Undergraduate Construction and Surveying Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First and major critique of the paper is that the title does not match the content of the paper. To be specific, the authors state that the paper is about promoting information literacy while information literacy is only superficially mentioned. Authors have done some basic review of the literature on information literacy but it is not connected to the body of the research. Thus I feel that the paper would be better if they only concentrated on the pedagogical aspects of the teaching and orient the literature review towards pedagogical literature. This could be on student-centered learning, e-learning, or technology use in improving the learning process. This is my understanding of the text and research done. The results of the research conducted are all focused on the educational process and how it was improved, as well as the teachers' input in offering practice-based learning, student-centered learning, gamification etc. while there is almost no connection to the information literacy framework or at least emphasis on one of the lenses. Maybe the authors have done this. If so it should be better explained in the text as well. If the emphasis remains on pedagogy and not information literacy then I suggest the title and the literature review change.

Just to support my point of view here are some of the points that show that there is a problem with the focus of the paper:

·        On the page 5 when describing one of the projects authors state “…in improving teaching methods and facilitating students’ learning” which describes the whole paper.

·        Chapter 2.1.1. is Paget’s theory which is not referenced and there is no explanation of how it relates to information literacy. This theory is related to pedagogy which is applied in all fields and disciplines.

·        There is a lack of deeper insight into the issues of information literacy and how it is implemented in higher education. The literature review is very problematic as the majority of the literature is not mentioned. In addition, the references mentioned in section 2.1. are not even mentioned in the references at the end of the text. Thus, making it hard to judge the relevance.  Furthermore, adding to the confusion is the authors' division of the Framework into two sections: pedagogical concepts and two new pedagogical concepts. The framework was published in 2016 (Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The Association of College and Research Libraries. Chicago, Illinois, 2016) and it was based on the threshold concepts. The authors' division may be concluded from some other documents but it is unclear which ones. I need to emphasize that ACRL provides a whole range of documents on how to implement IL activities in the higher education environment.  

Regarding the methodology in chapter 3, I do not see the goals set for this research. There is a mention of the project “Enriching Learning Experience of Construction and Surveying Students with Capstone Projects” but it is unclear if the results presented in the text are the ones gathered from this project. Again, there is no clear connection to the information literacy. Furthermore, I would expect to see the hypothesis or the research questions of the study as well as some kind of commentary in the discussion section about the hypothesis/questions asked prior to conducting the research. The authors do go into detail explaining the tools and instruments used but this is more oriented towards general knowledge than the context of the research. 

When I look at the results I do not see a connection with the IL framework or even with one of the lenses. I only see the results that show pedagogical approaches to teaching or the usage of the new teaching methods. There are just a couple of examples that I copy from the text from the text (page 10)

·        “Thus, the classroom knowledge would be blended with practical knowledge, promoting the construction students’ literacy and enhanced understanding”

·        “….online games adoption in the classroom is a compelling approach to promoting information literacy among students”.

 

The conclusion is written on the same note, promoting pedagogy and literacy in general.

To conclude my review, if this paper is still going to be on information literacy then major editing should be done in the literature review, discussion and conclusion.

Author Response

1. First and major critique of the paper is that the title does not match the content of the paper. To be specific, the authors state that the paper is about promoting information literacy while information literacy is only superficially mentioned. Authors have done some basic review of the literature on information literacy, but it is not connected to the body of the research. Thus, I feel that the paper would be better if they only concentrated on the pedagogical aspects of the teaching and orient the literature review towards pedagogical literature. This could be on student-centred learning, e-learning, or technology use in improving the learning process. This is my understanding of the text and research done. The results of the research conducted are all focused on the educational process and how it was improved, as well as the teachers' input in offering practice-based learning, student-centered learning, gamification etc. while there is almost no connection to the information literacy framework or at least emphasis on one of the lenses. Maybe the authors have done this. If so it should be better explained in the text as well. If the emphasis remains on pedagogy and not information literacy, then I suggest the title and the literature review change. Just to support my point of view here are some of the points that show that there is a problem with the focus of the paper:On the page 5 when describing one of the projects authors state “…in improving teaching methods and facilitating students’ learning” which describes the whole paper.Chapter 2.1.1. is Paget’s theory which is not referenced and there is no explanation of how it relates to information literacy. This theory is related to pedagogy which is applied in all fields and disciplines.There is a lack of deeper insight into the issues of information literacy and how it is implemented in higher education. The literature review is very problematic as the majority of the literature is not mentioned. In addition, the references mentioned in section 2.1. are not even mentioned in the references at the end of the text. Thus, making it hard to judge the relevance.  Furthermore, adding to the confusion is the authors' division of the Framework into two sections: pedagogical concepts and two new pedagogical concepts. The framework was published in 2016 (Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. The Association of College and Research Libraries. Chicago, Illinois, 2016) and it was based on the threshold concepts. The authors' division may be concluded from some other documents, but it is unclear which ones. I need to emphasize that ACRL provides a whole range of documents on how to implement IL activities in the higher education environment. 

Response: Thank you for the comprehensive comments. The authors have changed the paper title and done major changes in the Abstract, Introduction (Section 1, p.3-6) and the Literature Review (Para 1 and 2, Section 2 p. 8-9) sections as per the comments. The focus of the paper has been clarified to identify and evaluate a series of effective pedagogical strategies and critical success factors for enhancing active learning among undergraduate construction and surveying students in Hong Kong via an institutional student-based survey. And the sections were revised accordingly to match the aim of the study.

3. Regarding the methodology in chapter 3, I do not see the goals set for this research. There is a mention of the project “Enriching Learning Experience of Construction and Surveying Students with Capstone Projects” but it is unclear if the results presented in the text are the ones gathered from this project. Again, there is no clear connection to the information literacy. Furthermore, I would expect to see the hypothesis or the research questions of the study as well as some kind of commentary in the discussion section about the hypothesis/questions asked prior to conducting the research. The authors do go into detail explaining the tools and instruments used but this is more oriented towards general knowledge than the context of the research.

Response: Thank you for the comments. The authors addressed the comments by adding the research aim and research question addressed in the study at the beginning of Section 3 (para 1, p.13-14). Further, the researchers have now clarified and focused on identifying and evaluating a series of effective pedagogical strategies and critical success factors for enhancing active learning among undergraduate construction and surveying students in Hong Kong by means of an institutional student-based survey. Some kind of commentary in the Discussion section about the research questions asked prior to conducting the research was provided in the revised manuscript (Table 1). The authors explained the research tools and instruments used specifically in the context of the research.

 

3. When I look at the results I do not see a connection with the IL framework or even with one of the lenses. I only see the results that show pedagogical approaches to teaching or the usage of the new teaching methods. There are just a couple of examples that I copy from the text from the text (page 10)

 “Thus, the classroom knowledge would be blended with practical knowledge, promoting the construction students’ literacy and enhanced understanding”

“….online games adoption in the classroom is a compelling approach to promoting information literacy among students”.

The conclusion is written on the same note, promoting pedagogy and literacy in general.

To conclude my review, if this paper is still going to be on information literacy then major editing should be done in the literature review, discussion and conclusion.

Response: Thank you for the comments. The researchers have now clarified and focused on identifying and evaluating a series of effective pedagogical strategies and critical success factors for enhancing active learning among undergraduate construction and surveying students in Hong Kong. All the sections were revised accordingly to address the comments as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have done a very comprehensive study and data is well presented.

Author Response

Authors have done a very comprehensive study and data is well presented.

Response: Many thanks for the positive comments provided on the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The majority of the changes is done but still the author refers to Information literacy framework which he names Pedagogical concepts. This is unrelated to the rest of the work and should be excluded as it creates confusion. I am talking about the chapter 2.1 Four Pedagogical Concepts of Active Learning. The next one 2.1.1 Five Pedagogical Approaches (2C-2I-1R) should than be 2.1.

Author Response

Comment 1: The majority of the changes is done but still the author refers to Information literacy framework which he names Pedagogical concepts. This is unrelated to the rest of the work and should be excluded as it creates confusion. I am talking about the chapter 2.1 Four Pedagogical Concepts of Active Learning. The next one 2.1.1 Five Pedagogical Approaches (2C-2I-1R) should than be 2.1.

Response: Thank you for the positive comments and valuable suggestions to enhance the manuscript. The authors have duly addressed the comment by removing the section on the four pedagogical concepts of active learning and the authors corrected the numbering afterwards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx