Project-Based Learning at Universities: A Sustainable Approach to Renewable Energy in Latin America—A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the project-based educational methodology has been effectively discussed, it would be useful to further expand on the project's challenges and achievements to see how these may affect the broader adoption of similar practices in other engineering educational contexts. The deeper relationship of energy needs to the regional context, including comparisons with other similar efforts in Latin America, will further strengthen the argument in favor of this method. Consider analyzing performance losses in small-scale installations in more detail.

What is the main question addressed by the research?

Researchers used project-based learning to evaluate the energy potential of water channels in fish farms in Loreto, Peru.

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it

Yes, I do because the topic focuses on sustainable energy solutions in a marginalized area.

Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

It addresses a gap in renewable energy and educational approaches; in this study researchers brought up how theoretical learning can be used to solve real-world issues

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

In this study, fish farms were used to produce micro hydropower. This provides a new perspective on sustainable energy sources in remote areas.  

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

NA

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented  and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this

is/is not the case.

The conclusions are consistent with evidence and argument. They found that fish farms can generate renewable energy, and the educational approach is successful in enhancing students' skills.

• Are the references appropriate?

Yes

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Figure 1. Fundo Sarita's Location is not cited in the text.

Figure 2. Location of the channels used by the students in the project. is not cited in the text

Figures S1 and S2 are not available. 

Author Response

See document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript begins in a clear manner and appears relevant for the field. The introduction does an excellent job of providing information and context around several of the topics being presented in the study (hydropower, renewable energies, fish farms, project-based learning). However, as it progresses, it is not presented in a well-structured manner so as to allow for easy interpretation and the flow is disjointed at times.  

The relevance of this work lies in identifying a renewable energy alternative through the analysis of hydrodynamic variables of under-researched water bodies in the Peruvian Amazon. Although the students are included in the discussion, there is limited value added to the manuscript related to the student participation or their importance in the study.

The manuscript is not scientifically sound and does not provide an experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis, as there is no hypothesis provided to test. The methodology and tools used to complete the study were properly not fully detailed (energy and channel potential and project-based learning survey) enough so as to allow for reproduction. The details provided in the project execution (3.1) are detailed and can be replicated and validated. However, the project-based learning survey (2.4) is limited in detail and the learning outcomes in section (3.2) are not substantiated by data. There is limited information provided about the survey (type, processes, sample, etc.). Much work is needed for this section.

The figures/tables/images are all appropriately used and easy to interpret for the hydropower section. They provide value to the manuscript. However, there is very limited details for the student’s project-based learning experience.

The ratio of older cited references versus recent (within the last 5 years) is about 50/50. There should be an effort made to bring more recent and relevant references into the study.

It is not possible to draw conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented.

Numerous “Error! Reference source not found”. These need to be corrected.

Line 334. Table should not be highlighted

Author Response

See document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments are:

 

1. In my opinion, the list of keywords does not correspond to the content of the work. The title of the work does not contain any keyword from the list. Usually, keywords in the list should be present in the title of the manuscript.

 

2.Respected authors are recommended to formulate the importance and relevance of their work more clearly (lines 108-115) in order to interest not only local (Loreto) readers but also readers from the global scientific community.

 

3. It seems to me that the conclusions should also be structured more clearly. Dear authors are recommended to avoid general words.

 

4. I dear to advise for the respected authors to present more quantitative results and not to use theoretical considerations in Abstract, which are surely important. The Abstract should be as brief as possible but to contain the main (preferably quantitative) results.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

See document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adding several paragraphs of additional information that help to clarify many of the gaps in details and addressing concerns. This is helpful.

However, this manuscript reads more like a practitioner's report than a research study. Even if a report, the details have to go back to an original study that provides how the research was completed. The research procedures for 2.3 study of energy and channel potential is accurate and sound. However, the second part of the methodology is related to the project-based learning "methodology".

(Project-based learning is not a methodology. It is a system. Explain the system or framework. A single paragraph would suffice. Make sure to connect it to the manuscript.)

The information provided, in particular, the methodology, does not provide enough detail to explain how the results were determined and findings provided. It is apparent based upon the newly added sections that this took place, but the manuscript does not have enough information. 

Moreover, section 2.4. Project-based learning – survey and (???) has been be more clearly defined. 

The impact of the project-based learning methodology applied in the field of renewable energies was evaluated in a survey (anonymous) that was developed and administered to the students. The objective was to compare their perceptions of this experience with traditional teaching methods and measure (qualitative) its influence on their learning and professional readiness. (SEE QUESTIONS IN RED BELOW)

The students completed the survey at the end of the project, and the collected data were analyzed by the faculties to identify patterns and trends in their responses. The survey consisted of four closed-ended questions and a section for additional comments. (THIS IS THE PART THAT HAS TO BE ELABORATED ON THE MOST. WHAT TYPE OF SURVEY WAS USED, HOW WAS THE SURVEY DISTRIBUTED, SAMPLE SIZE, SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS,  SOFTWARE USED FOR COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS, ANALYSIS PROCEDURES).    The questions assessed the following aspects: (EXPLAIN HOW THESE WERE ASSESSED)
1. Development of practical skills and problem-solving capabilities. 
2. Increase in motivation when addressing practical situations. 
3. Strengthening the integration of theory and practice. 
4. Relevance of the acquired knowledge for their future professional careers. (INFORMATION GAINED FROM EACH OF THESE FOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED IN THE FINDINGS AND RESULTS. TABLES OF DATA SHOULD BE INCLUDED. HOW CAN RESULTS & FINDINGS TAKE PLACE WITHOUT DATA?)     

Author Response

See document attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revision provided sufficient details to better understand how project based learning was included in the study and it's relevance. 

The new information could be reviewed one additional time for flow and structure. The information is there but it is a bit disjointed and does not flow smoothly. Otherwise, manuscript is ready.

Author Response

see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf