Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is novel and innovative.Through long-term practical teaching experience and combing the policy form, the author group discussed some changes and teaching thinking of resource exploration engineering specialty in the process of realizing carbon neutralization from the teaching point of view, which is of teaching and scientific research value. In order to provide article quality, I have the following suggestions: 1. Add some data of teaching in 2016-2022, such as test scores, change rules, and combine it with policy changes. 2. Some pictures of the article need to be modified, as a published article, some Chinese need to be translated, and the quality of the pictures needs to be optimized. 3. Some of the content does not read very smoothly and needs to be revised. 4. Online learning is a hot topic under the epidemic situation. In this respect, it is suggested that the author add some content for discussion.
I hope these suggestions will be useful for the author to improve the quality of the article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer one：

Thank you very much for your work.We have learned much from your and other reviewers’ comments,which are fair,encouraging and constructive.After carefully studying the comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes.

1. Add some data of teaching in 2016-2022, such as test scores, change rules, and combine it with policy changes

A chapter was added as a supplement.

4. Analysis of final exam results

4.1. Method of analysis

Using the corresponding questionnaire survey set in the final examination paper score analysis and the online course evaluation system as a research tool, the reliability of the questionnaire survey results was determined by examining the results of students who took the examination papers in the resource exploration major from 2017 to 2022 (Guizhou University of Technology was founded in 2013, Mineral Resources Exploration is a senior course, and the first professional examinations took place in 2017). By examining the number of marks lost in the final examination paper and assessing the students' expectations for the curriculum reform, which they provided in the reliable questionnaire, we will reform the teaching content and form suitably each year.

Table2. Final examination results of Mineral Resources Exploration from 2017 to 2022. 

Year	Number of examinees	Fail（＜60）	Pass（60-70）	Good (70-85）	Outstanding（＞85）
2017	96	11	28	42	15
2018	52	4	18	21	9
2019	46	3	13	28	2
2020	33	2	7	22	2
2021	48	2	19	24	3
2022	36	0	11	22	3

 

If we want to understand the characteristics of students, we must use the corresponding research tools; the test bank is a good tool for this purpose. There are both advantages and disadvantages to the construction of an examination question bank. A test question bank separates teaching and examination and makes the students' scores more authentic, but it also affects the depth of teachers' teaching content and the development of students' creative thinking; therefore, the creation of a high-quality question bank is suggested. Therefore, under the leadership of Professor Liu Youping, over three years, a streamlined and efficient test bank was established for the Mineral Resources Exploration course. In order to clarify the students' ability to master, apply, analyze and solve problems, the final examination paper is composed of questions from the question bank, as well as questions related to the introduction of current hot issues and the latest natural phenomena and natural disasters. Every year since 2020, we have added a number of examples and engineering applications related to carbon neutrality.

At present, the final examination paper includes three aspects: T1, basic knowledge points; T2, knowledge application ability; T3, analysis and comprehensive ability. The highest attainable score for T1, basic knowledge is 40; the highest attainable score for T2, application ability is 30; and the highest attainable score for T3, analysis and comprehensive ability is 30. The closed-book examination lasts for 120 minutes, but there are too many questions to answer in that time, and overall, the examination questions are difficult. At the end of each final exam, students will receive a questionnaire before receiving their scores. The questionnaire is divided into two parts which comprise an anonymous questionnaire related to students' evaluation of teaching (A: A1, satisfaction with classroom teaching; A2, the helpfulness of course teaching; A3, teachers' interest in learning caused by teaching) and students’ self-evaluation using their real name (B: B1, test paper difficulty; B2, knowledge mastery of each chapter; B3, usual learning status and classroom interest survey).

 

4.2. The result of the analysis

Table 3 presents the scores from the students’ final examination papers in the resource exploration engineering class from 2016 to 2022. For T1 basic knowledge, there is little difference in the scores of students in each score section, which is about 30 points, but there is a big gap in the application ability of T2 knowledge; the biggest gap reaches more than 15 points, while for T3 analysis and comprehensive ability, there is a significant gap between students who scored more than 85 points and students who scored less than 60 points. Generally, the values in each score segment of T3 are ladder-like.

Table3. Score sheet for final examination.

Number of examinees	T1 average score	T2 average score	T3 average score
Fail（＜60）	28.00	6.00	19.71
Pass（60-70）	29.60	11.40	22.60
Good (70-85）	33.50	10.92	25.42
Outstanding（＞85）	32.40	21.00	28.31

 

Next, we examined the questionnaire results. A is the anonymous questionnaire with which students' evaluations of teaching were gathered, and the score of each element is A1/A2/A3, which is 60%/20%/20%. The data samples from students who took the resource exploration engineering course from 2016 to 2022 were collected from the Academic Affairs Office, and the average score of students was 94.42; this was a good result. In terms of teacher scoring, Yang Wu, as the main lecturer, scored the highest, ranking among the top three in the evaluation of all of the courses in the school from 2019 to 2021. The overall results from questionnaire B are as follows: In the B1 test paper difficulty survey, 22 students scored below 60 points, of which, 80% felt that the examination was average in difficulty. Among the 389 students who scored more than 60 points, 87% of them felt the examination was difficult, and out of the whole cohort, 75% of them felt the examination was difficult. Among them, those with low scores felt that the difficulty of the test paper was average, while only 57% of those with high scores felt that the difficulty was average. See Table 4 for information regarding the mastery of knowledge points in each chapter of B2. Regarding B3, which encompasses the survey results regarding usual learning situations, it was found that 210 people could listen to the whole course carefully, 193 people could listen to the key and difficult concepts carefully, 107 people were distracted by the influence of mobile phones, and 19 people did not like this course and did not want to listen to it.

 

From the analysis of the consistency between questionnaire A, B and the final examination paper, we can confirm the true reliability of questionnaire B, questionnaire A and the final examination paper. Therefore, the course should be reformed in terms of the teaching content according to the corresponding questionnaire B and the scores from the final examination paper. In terms of content, according to the marks lost on the paper and the results of B2, case materials, training exercises and discussion and answering classes corresponding to the key and difficult knowledge should be added to the teaching links for Chapter 3, Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. In terms of the lack of the comprehensive application of knowledge, by adding content in the form of discussion or curriculum practice design, students can connect knowledge together. The adjustment of teaching and curriculum forms for failing students can help ensure the needs of all students in the class are met by arousing their interest. In B3, six people suggested that the provision of vivid examples and interactive classroom teaching links would arouse their interest. Therefore, first of all, we amended the course by introducing the key and difficult knowledge in the book chapters by using examples pertinent in real life, and then, the questions in the examples are discussed and answered after an explanation is provided, so as to enhance students' practical sense of the knowledge they have learned. Secondly, the training content is designed to let students complete it themselves, so as to increase their sense of participation and interaction. This allows students to feel that they also have initiative when learning the content of the course.

 

 

Table4. Statistical table of students' mastery of each chapter knowledge point.

Mastery of knowledge points	Introduction	Chapter 1-2	Chapter 3-5	Chapter 6	Chapter 7-8	Chapter 9-10	Chapter 11-14	Chapter 15-17
Use	23	111	103	80	73	112	100	52
Mastery	48	127	137	153	188	152	167	221
Know	188	73	93	129	62	130	112	83
Forgot	52	100	78	49	88	17	32	55

 

 

2. Some pictures of the article need to be modified, as a published article, some Chinese need to be translated, and the quality of the pictures needs to be optimized.

It really should be. We put an English translation in the picture, or an explanation in the picture title.

3. Some of the content does not read very smoothly and needs to be revised.

Our English expression is really not enough, we use the official mdpi polish, hoping to meet your requirements.

 

 

4.Online learning is a hot topic under the epidemic situation. In this respect, it is suggested that the author add some content for discussion

 The impact of the epidemic on our school is relatively small, and we have hardly suspended classes, because our courses have curriculum design and field training, so we all use offline teaching..

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of this paper suggests its topic, still it could be rephrased in „ Reform of Majors Resources ….”.

 In subchapter 2.2.1 it is stated: “In 2020, China's total emissions will be about 13 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent,” and, further: “Carbon dioxide emissions from China's energy system are likely to increase by more than 300 million tons, or 3%, in 2021 ….”.

This paper has been submitted for review in 2022, so which is the time synchronization ????

 The whole chapter 2, named Review of literature has none of the References cited in text.

 In the first paragraph of chapter 3 it is mentioned:” Based on resource endowment theory, "two mountains" theory, capability theory, externality theory and "two common" theory Theory as a guide.” – but, as it can be noticed, there is no verb in this sentence.

Neither of the mentioned “capability theory, externality theory” is detailed in this paper.

 The title of chapter 4 is “challenging”, what about the more classic “Results” ?!

Figure 5 and figure 7 are so very difficult to be understood by many of potential paper readers (this is almost similar the case with figure 2).

English language needs to be carefully checked.

Author Response

Regional Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China (41463003), Surface Project (41573043), Concealed Ore Deposit Exploration and Innovation Team of Guizhou Colleges and Universities (Guizhou Education and Cooperation Talent Team [2015]56), Provincial Key Discipline of Geological Resources and Geological Engineering of Guizhou Province (ZDXK[2018]001), Huang Danian Resources of National colleges and universities Teachers' Team of Exploration Engineering (Teacher Letter [2018] No. 1), Geological Resources and Geological Engineering Talent Base of Guizhou Province (RCJD2018-3), Key Laboratory of Karst Engineering Geology and Hidden Mineral Resources of Guizhou Province (Qianjiaohe KY [2018] No. 486), Education and Teaching Reform Research Project of Guizhou Institute of Technology (JGZD202107)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, check at page 2, when you cite references [1-5]. It should not be superscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your work. We have made corresponding changes in the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx