Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While your paper is a good starting point, the depth of the analysis is rather poor. Please find below some comments for further improvement of your work:

 

- Literature gap is not evident. The work lacks a clear innovative side added to the literature.

- The research questions are too generic and it lacks some specification on the expected outcomes. Is there any hypothesis you raised? This should be linked with the literature.

- The methodology you used is very simple and it offers only some terms of data description, but not a deep analysis of them.  I would strongly recommend you use the reliability test with Cronbach’s alpha and with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. The use of Confirmatory Factor Analysis helps in identifying issues of multi-dimensionality in scales.

- Enhance the discussion and conclusion sessions by adding the output of the above-mentioned analysis.

I trust these comments will not discourage you but instead help improve your work.

 

Kind regards, 

Author Response

Please see attached files.

Reviewer 2 Report

Notes:

Paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 can be made at the same paragraph.

line 266 Table 1 and not 2.

I think that the resuls of qualitative research are not presented.

I think that the exploitation of data can be improved to measure the design thinking learning effectiveness. The results show just the agreement of interviewers about the approach.  You can show also the differencies between the government agencies from different ministries,... 

Author Response

Please see attached files.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

 

In the new version submitted, you have nade some modifications and clariferd some issues. However I feel that the changes done are not so in-depth.

Wishing you good luck with your paper.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

I agrre with your improving the text.