Systematic Review: Revisiting Challenge-Based Learning Teaching Practices in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Grammar could be improved. For instance, L7 “<…> institutions has <…>” is grammatically incorrect (subject-verb agreement rule).

The author(s) seem(s) to really like the word “meticulous” and its different forms. It seems like they are trying a bit too had to convince the reader that the analysis was really well done.

There could be more consistency in the use of terminology. For example, in the abstract, “Higher Education” is capitalized, whereas in L27 and L34, it is not. In line 100, it is used as “higher-education”. The same case with “Challenge-Based Learning” vs “challenge-based learning”.

L237 – when a specific table is referred to, the word is capitalized, when it is just a mention of a table without any numbering, it should not be capitalized.

Text construction could be improved. The general recommendation is that a (sub)section should have at least three paragraphs, otherwise, there is no need to distinguish it as something disconnected from previous/further text. For example, 1.1., 1.4, 1.5 are only one paragraph long. In addition, it is not recommended to finish sections (e.g. 2.4, 3.2.1) with tables and figures, they should be integrated into the text instead.

It is not clear why the authors only chose WoS and SCOPUS. In Social Sciences, publishing in journals indexed in those two DBs is a rather recent goal and/or requirement. Systematic literature reviews usually include many more DBs.

Turnitin shows that the RQ is an exact word-by-word match with another source, namely, https://inplasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/INPLASY-Protocol-6340.pdf. There are other parts of the manuscript that are identical with little changes to the identified source. Overall, Turnitin shows 8% overlap of the present manuscript with the identified source. For example, Section 2.5 is also almost an exact word-by-word match.

When explaining the selection process, the author(s) mention(s) assessing the articles for quality, yet it is not disclosed based on what criteria the quality was assessed.

 

Even though this literature review provides a systematic overview of various teaching practices, activities, ITCs used, etc., it has an unfinished feel to it. The reader is directed to see the information provided in the tables, yet there is little to no commentary on them. The reader is supposed to make their own interpretations of what such categorizations and results mean. If the tables are removed, the review would be incomprehensible. This is something that should definitely be improved. Finishing the findings sections with sentences like “The identified teaching practices are listed in Table <…>”, “Teaching practices are listed in Table 4”, “The analysis revealed the following key teaching practices (see Table 6)” is not acceptable for scientific reporting. Tables and figures should simply illustrate the findings described in text, they should not be just there as stand-alone objects that the reader has to interpret themselves.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some comments are already available in the overall feedback.

Something additional that I would suggest is to check for some words that seem to be overused (e.g. "meticulous*") as well as some other words like "underscore" that are a bit of a red flag for GenAi being used to improve the quality of the language or even write the text instead of the author(s). 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable work as a reviewer and for providing us with important suggestions. We have carefully addressed each of your comments. Please find attached our point-by-point responses to your feedback. As per the instructions, I have entered “Please see the attachment” in the response box.

Thank you again for your thorough review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your work continuing to expand the field of CBL research, which is a pedagogy becoming widely adopted. The manuscript is well structured and provides a solid overview of teacher's role and functions in CBL. I believe this manuscript can be impactful and i wish the authors best of luck with their research!

I have two main recommendations:

1) to revisit the search procedure and identify whether additional articles may be included. For section 2.2, I note that two synonyms for teachers are instructor and educator, and authors may also consider these additional search terms. Challenge based learning is also used synonymously to Challenge Based Instruction and Challenge Based Education, and I suggest the author include these alternative terms as well.

2) Section 3: i wonder whether “teaching approaches” is an adequate label given that the search query was focused specifically on “teachers in CBL education”. The aspects described in tables 3-6 refer to teacher practices or teacher roles or teacher functions (which is a different matter than teaching practices). To use the label teaching practices a search query should have been teach* (as the asterisk is used with a truncated word to identify all variants, which in this case would not be teacher*) Please revisit the subsection titles accordingly. To this reviewer, many aspects described are about the functions of teachers in CBL according to the literature - and if the authors agree, than this should be more explicitly stated at critical points of the manuscript when describing the aim and the findings.

Minor suggestions:

I think the titles of tables 3,4,5,6 should contain CBL for specificity (i.e. Pedagogical approaches/functions of CBL teachers ; CBL teacher functions for technological integration a.s.o.)

For section 2.3 please add more detail about the quality assessment of the publications. Avoid also vague formulations such as ‘reputable journals’ for more specificity of what a reputable publication avenue is. Readers may have differences interpreting what is reputable or not (i.e. peer reviewed publications? A threshold for impact factor? Top % journals in the higher education field? Linked to a professional association?)

The study mentions twice the term “frequently” in connection to the aims. As the analysis is not numerical (which I think is positive and leads to rich descriptions), this term is not accurate. To me, the study identified “patterns” rather than “frequencies” in the teaching practices associated with CBL in higher education (lines 10; 345-6). And those patterns can guide teachers in the setup of CBL activities, which can be better highlighted as a contribution of the literature review.

The implications for further research are well traced. In the conclusion, please also do justice to the practical implications for teaching, as the study makes an important contribution  in this area as well. i.e. table & can serve as a sort of checklist, while tables 3-6 offer insights that can guide educators considering to setup CBL.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable work as a reviewer and for providing us with important suggestions. We have carefully addressed each of your comments. Please find attached our point-by-point responses to your feedback. As per the instructions, I have entered “Please see the attachment” in the response box.

Thank you again for your thorough review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main idea here is to conduct a systematic review of the teaching practices associated with Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) in higher education. This is a valuable and timely topic, as CBL has emerged as an important pedagogical approach for developing critical thinking, problem-solving, and entrepreneurial skills in students.

Overall, the flow of ideas in this draft is quite strong and logical. The authors start by introducing the importance of pedagogical innovations in higher education, then provide a clear conceptualization of CBL and its connections to entrepreneurial mindsets and innovative capabilities. The purpose and research question are well-defined.

The materials and methods section is thorough and transparent, walking the reader through the systematic review process step-by-step. The use of the PRISMA guidelines and the Delphi method for assessing risk of bias are excellent steps to ensure rigor.

In the results section, the authors have organized the findings into four key dimensions - pedagogical approaches, technological integration, industry engagement, and support/development. This provides a nice framework for synthesizing the teaching practices. The tables summarizing the key practices within each dimension are very helpful.

The discussion section does a great job of highlighting the significance of the findings, the role of educators in CBL, and the limitations of the current research. It situates the review within the broader context of evolving educational needs and the impact of the pandemic.

A few  suggestions:

- Consider adding a visual (e.g. diagram, model) to help illustrate the four key dimensions and how they interconnect;

- Expand a bit more on the specific teaching practices within each dimension, providing more detail on what they entail;

- Strengthen the discussion around the limitations, highlighting areas for future research to build on this work.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Suggestions for grammatical corrections:

- Line 7:"Higher Education institutions have..."

- Line 16:"...a shift in teaching practices in CBL towards student-centered learning..."

- Line 217: "This streamlined approach effectively consolidates expert insights into the efficacy of CBL teaching practices."

- Line 219: "After a meticulous analysis of the 20 studies, diverse findings are presented in this section."

- Line 293: "The teaching practices are listed in Table 4."

- Line 336: "Table 7 presents the core teaching practices in the CBL context."

- Line 355: "This approach propels students beyond the passive reception of information and encourages their active engagement with real-world problems."

- Line 373: "...the literature suggests (Tang and Chow, 2021; Van den Beemt et al., 2023) that overcoming these barriers is essential for the evolution of teaching and learning practices in higher education, leading to more engaging educational experiences."

- Line 375: "Moreover, the role of educators is paramount to the success of CBL."

- Line 388*: "This insight into the importance of educator training bridges the broader implications of CBL for student growth and adaptability."

- Line 389: "CBL significantly contributes to student growth and supports the development of a diverse set of skills through engagement with real-world challenges."

- Line 400: "This shift underscores the necessity of integrating ICTs and enhancing digital competencies for both educators and students."

- Line 404: "This reflection on the transition to online learning due to the pandemic situates CBL within the current educational challenges and opportunities, emphasizing the need for ongoing adaptation and innovation in teaching practices."

- Line 417: "While this study outlines and categorizes core teaching practices, it does not delve into detailed methodologies or tactical steps for practical implementation."

- Line 444: "This not only democratizes the learning process but also enhances student motivation through managing uncertainty and doubt."

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable work as a reviewer and for providing us with important suggestions. We have carefully addressed each of your comments. Please find attached our point-by-point responses to your feedback. As per the instructions, I have entered “Please see the attachment” in the response box.

Thank you again for your thorough review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf