PROSPER (Project, Sustainability, and Perseverance) Learning Model in English for Computer Science

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the learning model that is being proposed in this paper as a means for teaching about sustainability in a systems-thinking PBL model in ESP courses. There seems to be promise in this model. That being said, I have some concerns about how this model is being communicated in the paper. I've included some comments that are aimed at helping the authors restructure this paper so it is easier to read.

There are several hyperbolic claims made in the paper that seem unnecessary. I believe readers would appreciate the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic and call for climate justice being presented with a more rational tone. 

On page 2, I noticed some repetition in your wording: "However, individuals have demonstrated altering their ways of life, work, and organization to sustain their ways of life, work, and organization to have sustainable lives." 

On page 3, it states that English is "taught not only to the English Department but also to other majors". Please clarify what you mean by English department.

At the bottom of page 4, it states "Based on the above elaboration, ECS should not be offered as a course detached from students’ nature. It should be incorporated with things that students really need in their real life as well as their field of study (Ruslanovna, 2017)." Please define nature and possibly provide examples of things that students need in their real life and field of study. 

The introduction to the Prosper Model could benefit from further clarification or restructuring of section 3.1 altogether. Instead of a numbered list followed by tables, it would be helpful to see examples with additional context.

I do not understand what "syntax" refers to in section 3.1. Are those the steps that students follow? (This is mentioned later and states that the syntax refers to PBL. Again, this needs clarity.) 

Section 3.1 Principles should be renumbered as section 3.2.

There is a (yellow) table on p. 7 that is not labeled. It needs additional context. 

The authors clearly establish that PBL is considered effective for ESP courses. And they state that "The integration of the sustainability concept with the ESP and the discipline taught, ECS, is how the PROSPER learning paradigm is put into action." But making ECS and ESP courses more eco-forward seems like a primary argument that needs to be made first. Is the PROSPER model only effective for ESP courses that promote sustainability awareness? Should ESP courses be redesigned to promote sustainability first?

Please clarify this sentence on p. 10: "Therefore, the writers propose the PROSPER learning model which its curriculum is better in representing an ecological."

Please clarify this sentence on p. 11: "Firstly, this learning model will dredge up 4C as basic comp21st-century 21st century learners."

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review. 

On page 2. We have omitted the repetition sentence.

On page 3. We have clarified that the English Department is the English Literature or English Education Program offered at Universities.

On page 4. We have explained the nature and have given the example.

Syntax in Section 3.1 means the procedures in instructional models. The term of "syntax' is commonly used in the instructional model context. Yes, they are the kinds of steps that both teachers and students should follow.

We have renumbered Section 3.1 Principles as section 3.2. 

The yellow table on p. 7 has been labeled as Table 2. State-of-the Art Rubric of the PROSPER Learning Model Syntax.

The next table has also been labeled as Table 3. Operational Syntax of the PROSPER Learning Model

On page 10. We have clarified that Therefore, the writers propose the PROSPER learning model which its curriculum is better in representing an ecological. This model will be effective for ESP courses such as ECS that promote sustainability awareness. The courses should be redesigned to promote sustainability. In order to do this, rather than reductively separating fact-based disciplines, the goal is to integrate sustainability awareness with competencies such as learning how to learn, critical thinking, creativity, transformation organization, and dispute resolution. The students are taught the importance of doing task-based learning in collaboration, language construction and usage, responding to genuine language in a setting, and many other skills.

On page 11, we have revised the sentence into "Firstly, this learning model will dredge up 4C as basic skills for 21st-century learners." It was just mistyping that ruined the meaning of the sentences. 

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a really interesting paper. It would be very useful to de added a paragraph about the development of critical thinking through PROSPER. More details about the development of critical thinking which is what our century is all about should be added.

Language should be checked in some paragraphs, for example paragraph 2, 10 and 11.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your review.

We do appreciate your review that we should add a paragraph on the development of critical thinking. However, we are afraid that we cannot do that. If we do that, we should also develop a paragraph on the other 3Cs (Creativity, Collaboration, Communication). It is not our focus. Our focus is to propose PROSPER Learning Model. 

We have checked the language in paragraphs 2, 10, and 11 as per your suggestions and made some revision.

Thank you, 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper reads as rather a polemic. You must tone down the bias and hyperbole for a scientific paper. You should avoid emotionally charged words as well. Also you jump right in to the ESP course talking about GE with no transition and also you need to define your terms and spell out acronyms the first time you use them. Later in the paper you have a section that does this but it needs to come earlier. Note: The concept of grit has recently been replaced by growth mindset as the preferred theory. You are lacking a transition between your definitions and the proposed model. This is a very interesting model but the format of the article and it's presentation takes away from your focus. You need to make explicit connections between the various parts of your paper and you may want to cut the introduction as being a bit over-the-top. The discussion may actually work better toward the beginning of the paper to set up the model.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review.

1. We have made some revisions to our tone and tried to omit the bias and hyperbolic ones as per your suggestion.
2. We have worked on making our paper run smoothly in each transition. 
3. We have added the concept of a growth mindset to the perseverance point. Thank you for your information. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the time the authors took to revise their manuscript. They addressed my questions and concerns in their revisions. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Although you stated that you toned down the hyperbolic language, you did not. In a scientific research paper you cannot use overblown/biased words such as "perpetrator" and "miserable." I would suggest cutting all material that does not directly apply to your particular scientific study. (for instance, the first 2-3 paragraphs you could cut). "Editorializing" about the state of the planet really does not belong in this paper. You also need to check that you are using the proper register for academic writing. For instance "dig up" is a colloquial usage.

The learning model is fine and well-supported. The language still needs work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have omitted paragraph 2 in the previous revision and now we also omit paragraph 3 as per your suggestion.

The word "miserable" and "perpetrator" have also been cut. The "dig up" has also been replaced.

We hope that it will fulfill your expectation. Thank you.