Technological Innovation in Engineering Education: A Psychopedagogical Approach for Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The abstract paragraph is slightly lengthy, and some expressions are repetitive.
2. The current keywords do not fully reflect core topics such as "psychopedagogical strategies" and "Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)".
3. The discussion of the "psychopedagogical role" in the introduction is rather general, and it does not clarify how it drives the sustainability of technological innovation.
4. The literature citations are relatively scattered, lacking a systematic review of the "technology - psychopedagogy - sustainability" triangular relationship.
5. The discussion of some technologies (such as AI, VR) remains at the theoretical level, lacking data on the implementation effects of specific institutions or projects.
6. The coping strategies for challenges such as "digital inclusion" and "cognitive load" are relatively macroscopic, lacking an operable implementation path.
7. Although SDGs are mentioned, it is not clear how each technology specifically supports the SDG goals.
8. The conclusion part does not mention the research limitations, which may affect readers' understanding of the research boundaries.
9. The reference formats are inconsistent.
10. The full text is mainly based on text discussions, and the application of complex technologies lacks visual representation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which have contributed significantly to improving the article. The changes are highlighted in blue to facilitate analysis, including replacing previously existing sections where necessary. We are grateful for the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our work.

 

Reviewer question 1. The abstract paragraph is slightly lengthy, and some expressions are repetitive.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive comment. We revised the abstract to make it more concise, eliminating repetitive expressions and improving the text’s flow, ensuring that the main ideas remain clear and focused.

 

Reviewer question 2. The current keywords do not fully reflect core topics such as "psychopedagogical strategies" and "Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)".

Authors’ response: We appreciate the relevant suggestion. The keywords have been revised to more accurately reflect the central themes addressed in the article, including psychopedagogical strategies and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

 

Reviewer question 3. The discussion of the "psychopedagogical role" in the introduction is rather general, and it does not clarify how it drives the sustainability of technological innovation.

Authors’ response: In response to the observation, we have inserted a passage that clarifies the psychopedagogical role in promoting the sustainability of technological innovation in education. The added text highlights that psychopedagogy contributes to a lasting and inclusive adoption of technology, integrating with pedagogical practices to meet the diverse needs of students, while also aligning with the principles of educational and environmental sustainability.

 

Reviewer question 4. The literature citations are relatively scattered, lacking a systematic review of the "technology - psychopedagogy - sustainability" triangular relationship.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the suggestion. A reorganisation and systematisation of the content concerning the relationship between technology, psychopedagogy, and sustainability in engineering education was undertaken. We included a new section (4.5) that presents an integrated review of this triad, highlighting how these pillars interact to promote inclusive, effective, and environmentally responsible teaching. This section was constructed based on the literature already cited, with selected references that demonstrate the articulation between technological, psychopedagogical, and sustainable aspects. Additionally, we retained reference (8), which provides a systematic review of the influence of technology in higher education, thereby reinforcing the theoretical foundation. These changes aim to address the reviewer’s request for a more cohesive and systematic approach to the topic.

 

Reviewer question 5. The discussion of some technologies (such as AI, VR) remains at the theoretical level, lacking data on the implementation effects of specific institutions or projects.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the observation. The text has been revised and expanded in sections 3.1 and 3.2 with the inclusion of recent empirical evidence demonstrating the effects of implementing these technologies in institutional contexts. In this way, the discussion now incorporates concrete data on their practical application and the outcomes observed in real educational environments. The new authors have been included in the References section.

 

Reviewer question 6. The coping strategies for challenges such as "digital inclusion" and "cognitive load" are relatively macroscopic, lacking an operable implementation path.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the need to present actionable pathways to address the challenges of digital inclusion and cognitive overload. We understand the importance of going beyond macroscopic strategies and demonstrating practical implementation examples. In this regard, we incorporated two concrete examples into the text that illustrate operational approaches to these challenges: In section 4.1, we present the study by Carvalho Ribeiro et al. (2020), which analysed the application of the gamified platform Classcraft in a Brazilian technical school. In section 4.5, we highlight the European project OpenU, associated with the UNESCO report (2019), which exemplifies the integration of digital platforms, teacher training, and sustainable guidelines to promote digital inclusion and collaborative learning experiences across several EU countries. Considering that the article already includes several up-to-date references, we believe these two examples provide a solid and operational response to the issue raised, connecting theory and practice and demonstrating concrete pathways for the implementation of the proposed strategies. A new author has been added to the References section.

 

Reviewer question 7. Although SDGs are mentioned, it is not clear how each technology specifically supports the SDG goals.

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for the comment and, in response, we have strengthened section 4.5 of the article by making the relationship between each analysed technology and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) more explicit. We clarified how the technologies directly support specific SDG targets, highlighting the concrete contribution of each one in the context of sustainable and inclusive education.

 

Reviewer question 8. The conclusion part does not mention the research limitations, which may affect readers' understanding of the research boundaries.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the comment. This article is theoretical and exploratory, and in response, the conclusion has been completely revised to more clearly state the study’s limitations. It highlights that, although no empirical results are presented, the work proposes a conceptual framework that points to the need for future research to validate and expand upon the reflections presented here. Therefore, we believe the study’s limitations are appropriately contextualised, maintaining the article’s coherence and focus.

 

Reviewer question 9. The reference formats are inconsistent.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the observation. We have reviewed and standardised all references according to the guidelines of the journal Sustainability. Variations in style were corrected, including inconsistent use of uppercase and lowercase letters in titles, the order and formatting of authors’ names, standardised abbreviation of journal names, punctuation, dates, as well as the correct and uniform inclusion of DOI identifiers or access links, when applicable.

 

Reviewer question 10. The full text is mainly based on text discussions, and the application of complex technologies lacks visual representation.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the pertinent observation. We agree that the previous version of the manuscript contained a predominance of textual discussions, which could hinder the visualisation of the educational technologies addressed. To address this recommendation, visual representations in the form of analytical tables have been included.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is not following the scope and structure of a scientific article: research objectives are not clearly formulated, no knowledge gap identified, no research methodology etc. It seems to be more a descriptive analysis of the digital tools applied in the engineering education. It looks more like a book chapter then a scientific article.

In conclusion it cannot be mentioned that the topic is original or relevant to the field, nor it addresses a specific gap in the field. The added value of the investigated subject compared with other published material can not be identified. I would suggest to either keep it like a book chapter or to modify it in the sense of a literature review paper, with the required research methodology applied in this sense.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to improving the article. The changes are highlighted in green to facilitate analysis, including replacing previously existing excerpts where necessary. We appreciate the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our work.

 

Revisor 2

 

Reviewer question 1. This paper is not following the scope and structure of a scientific article: research objectives are not clearly formulated, no knowledge gap identified, no research methodology etc. It seems to be more a descriptive analysis of the digital tools applied in the engineering education. It looks more like a book chapter then a scientific article.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the scope and structure of the article. Indeed, this study is theoretical and exploratory in nature, with the primary aim of mapping and critically analysing digital tools applied in engineering education, identifying trends and gaps in the existing literature. This approach seeks to provide a solid conceptual foundation that can guide future empirical research and practical applications.

Although the article does not present a traditional empirical methodology, it adopts a systematic literature review method, as detailed in Sections 2, 3, and 4, where the criteria for selecting and analysing the consulted studies are explained. We acknowledge that the methodology could be more clearly emphasised and have therefore reinforced this aspect by including a dedicated section.

Additionally, and in response to other reviewers' suggestions, we included a new section (4.5) that offers an integrated perspective on the relationship between technology, psychopedagogy, and sustainability, explicitly detailing how the technologies support the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the context of engineering education. This inclusion aims to address recommendations and make the concrete contribution of each technology to specific SDG targets more explicit.

This theoretical-exploratory focus aligns with the special issue’s aim, which values studies presenting new developments and applications in analytical and modelling methods within educational and psychological research.

Thus, the article seeks to contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field, not merely as a description but as a study that points towards directions for future empirical investigations, as highlighted in the abstract and conclusion.

 

Reviewer question 2. In conclusion it cannot be mentioned that the topic is original or relevant to the field, nor it addresses a specific gap in the field. The added value of the investigated subject compared with other published material cannot be identified. I would suggest to either keep it like a book chapter or to modify it in the sense of a literature review paper, with the required research methodology applied in this sense.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the observation regarding the originality and relevance of the topic. We would like to emphasise that the article's main focus is the integration of technological, psychopedagogical, and sustainability aspects in engineering education—an interdisciplinary approach that, although present in a fragmented manner in the literature, still lacks integrated and systematised analysis, particularly in the context of engineering education.

The added value of the article lies precisely in presenting this consolidated triangular framework, highlighting the interrelations between technology, psychopedagogy, and sustainability, and proposing a conceptual model capable of guiding both research and educational practice.

We acknowledge that the current structure is more suitable for a theoretical-exploratory study and that an empirical format would require a methodological redesign. However, we believe the current format is appropriate for the special issue “Recent Developments and Applications of Advanced Analytic and Modelling Methods in Educational and Psychological Research,” in which the article is included.

Finally, we stress that the article indicates directions for future investigations and practical applications, reinforcing its role as a relevant contribution to the scientific and pedagogical debate on innovation and sustainability in engineering education.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and relevant manuscript that explores the intersection of educational technologies, engineering education, and psychopedagogical principles. The topic aligns well with the journal’s scope, and the writing is clear. However, several areas require clarification and deepening to improve scholarly rigor:

• The manuscript lacks standard sections (e.g., methods, results, discussion). Pls clarify whether this is a research article or a conceptual/perspective piece and structure it accordingly.

 

• The paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of the research gap and what NEW knowledge or insight it offers beyond existing literature. I recommend adding a dedicated section that explains the novelty of the research.

 

• In the conclusion, it is mentioned that the adoption of new technology requires a structured psychopedagogical approach. Could you clarify what these structured approaches entail?

 

• The conclusion makes several strong claims without adequately clarifying whether these are derived from your research findings or synthesized from existing literature. If the conclusions are based on the literature, pls make this explicit. If not, it would be helpful to specify what aspects of your argument emerge from original insights or conceptual synthesis.

 

• The paper attempts to cover multiple technologies (AI, VR, gamification, remote labs), but this results in surface-level discussion. Focusing on one or two with deeper analysis—especially their psychopedagogical and sustainability implications—would improve impact.

 

• Section 2.1, Evolution of Engineering Teaching Methodologies in the Digital Age, briefly touches on the impact and evolution of the digital age in teaching. The reviewer suggests strengthening the argument by incorporating counterpoints—such as the potential adverse effects of technology on teaching—as discussed in the following study:
  “We gain a lot… but what are we losing? A critical reflection on the implications of digital design technologies.”

 

• In the gamification section, more clarity is needed—what kind of games are being referred to? Are these serious games? If so, pls cite relevant research. Also, including a counterargument that games may not fully capture the qualitative nuances that influence education would strengthen the discussion. For reference, refer to: Parametrizing the Unmeasurable: Urban Qualities as Quantitative Parameters for Computer Games.

 

• To improve the scholarly quality of the paper, the reviewer suggests narrowing the scope of the research. Rather than addressing AI, Virtual Reality, Gamification, and Remote Laboratories all at once, focus on one or two of these technologies and explore in greater depth the nuances of their complexity and how, through a psychopedagogical approach, they contribute to sustainability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of the article. The changes are highlighted in red to facilitate your review, including replacing previously existing passages where necessary. We appreciate the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our work.

This is a timely and relevant manuscript that explores the intersection of educational technologies, engineering education, and psychopedagogical principles. The topic aligns well with the journal’s scope, and the writing is clear. However, several areas require clarification and deepening to improve scholarly rigor:

Reviewer question 1. The manuscript lacks standard sections (e.g., methods, results, discussion). Pls clarify whether this is a research article or a conceptual/perspective piece and structure it accordingly.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the acknowledgement of the manuscript’s relevance and clarity. As noted, this work is a theoretical and exploratory study of a conceptual nature, whose primary objective is to map and articulate the psychopedagogical challenges associated with the integration of digital technologies in engineering education, with particular attention to educational sustainability.

Accordingly, the manuscript does not include conventional sections on methods, results, and discussion typically found in empirical studies, as no original data collection or analysis was conducted at this stage. Instead, we adopted a structure that emphasises a critical review of the literature and the proposal of a conceptual framework integrating the pillars of technology, psychopedagogy, and sustainability, as detailed in Sections 4 and 5 of the article.

For greater clarity and alignment with the journal’s guidelines, we have committed to explicitly stating the conceptual nature of the study in the introduction and/or in a dedicated section, highlighting its objectives and limitations. Thus, the current structure aims to serve as a foundation for future empirical investigations that may validate and expand the reflections presented here.

Efforts were made to adjust the manuscript’s organisation, in line with editorial guidance, to ensure greater transparency regarding the study’s scope and methodology.

 

Reviewer question 2. The paper would benefit from a clearer articulation of the research gap and what NEW knowledge or insight it offers beyond existing literature. I recommend adding a dedicated section that explains the novelty of the research.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the pertinent observation regarding the need to more clearly articulate the research gap and the original contribution of the article. In response, the manuscript has been revised and expanded to include a new paragraph (highlighted in red) that explicitly outlines the originality of the proposal and its added value to the existing literature. This paragraph was inserted in the introductory section, immediately after the contextualization of the problem and before the statement of the study’s objectives. This reorganisation strengthens the argument and clearly states the theoretical contribution of the article, directly addressing the request to clarify its novelty regarding the state of the art.

 

Reviewer question 3. In the conclusion, it is mentioned that the adoption of new technology requires a structured psychopedagogical approach. Could you clarify what these structured approaches entail?

Authors’ response: We thank you for your observation regarding the need to clarify what is meant by a “structured psychopedagogical approach.” We acknowledge that the previous wording could leave room for imprecise interpretations.

We inform you that the Conclusion section has been substantially revised, in response not only to this comment but also to suggestions from other reviewers, with the aim of making the article’s conceptual proposal clearer and more integrated.

In the new version, we chose not to retain the aforementioned expression and instead detailed the main psychopedagogical challenges discussed throughout the text (such as cognitive load management, intrinsic motivation, digital inclusion, and emotional well-being), in addition to emphasising the articulation with sustainability and the proposal of an integrative conceptual framework.

We believe that this reformulation contributes to a more precise conclusion, consistent with the content of the article, and that it adequately addresses the issue raised.

We therefore consider that the elements previously encompassed by the expression “structured psychopedagogical approach” have been maintained and deepened in the new wording, to ensure greater conceptual clarity and alignment with the article’s objectives.

 

Reviewer question 4. The conclusion makes several strong claims without adequately clarifying whether these are derived from your research findings or synthesized from existing literature. If the conclusions are based on the literature, pls make this explicit. If not, it would be helpful to specify what aspects of your argument emerge from original insights or conceptual synthesis.

Authors’ response: We appreciate your careful observation regarding the need to clarify whether the statements in the Conclusion derive from research findings or a synthesis of the literature.

We would like to inform you that the Conclusion has been substantially revised, not only in response to this specific comment but also in alignment with observations made by other reviewers. The new version aims to make explicit that the article presents a theoretical and exploratory study, based on a conceptual review and articulation of the existing literature.

Accordingly, the revised Conclusion emphasises that this is a proposal for a conceptual framework, without empirical results, and that the arguments presented stem from a critical analysis of the reviewed literature. We believe this new wording contributes to a clearer understanding of the nature and scope of the article.

 

Reviewer question 5. The paper attempts to cover multiple technologies (AI, VR, gamification, remote labs), but this results in surface-level discussion. Focusing on one or two with deeper analysis—especially their psychopedagogical and sustainability implications—would improve impact.

Authors’ response: Thank you for your comment. We agree that a more in-depth focus on one or two technologies could make the manuscript more cohesive and analytically rigorous. In response, we have reformulated and reorganised significant portions of the article, particularly the Literature Review section and the presentation of the Conceptual Framework.

In these revised sections, we made it clear that, although other relevant technologies (such as VR and remote laboratories) are briefly acknowledged, the core analytical focus is placed on Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI was chosen as a transversal and priority example due to its wide-ranging applications and educational impact.

This more defined scope allowed us to deepen the discussion on the psychopedagogical and sustainability implications associated with AI, offering a more critical, focused, and conceptually aligned analysis with the aims of the article.

 

Reviewer question 6. Section 2.1, Evolution of Engineering Teaching Methodologies in the Digital Age, briefly touches on the impact and evolution of the digital age in teaching. The reviewer suggests strengthening the argument by incorporating counterpoints—such as the potential adverse effects of technology on teaching—as discussed in the following study:
“We gain a lot… but what are we losing? A critical reflection on the implications of digital design technologies.”

Authors’ response: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the need for a more critical and balanced perspective in section 2.1 on the evolution of engineering education methodologies in the digital era.

In response to this recommendation, we have revised the text to incorporate a reflection on the potential adverse effects of digitalisation, as highlighted in the study by Soulikias et al. (2021) — “We gain a lot… but what are we losing?” This addition emphasises possible losses in analogue skills and the increasing dependence on digital tools, reinforcing the need for a careful and psychopedagogical grounded integration of digital technologies.

As a result, section 2.1 now presents a more balanced overview, addressing both the advancements and the challenges associated with digital transformation in engineering education, thus aligning with the reviewer’s suggestion to strengthen the rigour and depth of the discussion.

 

Reviewer question 7. In the gamification section, more clarity is needed—what kind of games are being referred to? Are these serious games? If so, pls cite relevant research. Also, including a counterargument that games may not fully capture the qualitative nuances that influence education would strengthen the discussion. For reference, refer to: Parametrizing the Unmeasurable: Urban Qualities as Quantitative Parameters for Computer Games.

Authors’ response: Thank you for the pertinent observation. We have specified in section 3.3 on gamification that the types of games discussed include serious games, that is, digital games developed for educational purposes. Additionally, we incorporated a counter-argument based on the study by Cucuzzella et al. (2024), which highlights the limitations of games in fully capturing the qualitative and contextual nuances present in the learning process.

 

Reviewer question 8. To improve the scholarly quality of the paper, the reviewer suggests narrowing the scope of the research. Rather than addressing AI, Virtual Reality, Gamification, and Remote Laboratories all at once, focus on one or two of these technologies and explore in greater depth the nuances of their complexity and how, through a psychopedagogical approach, they contribute to sustainability.

Authors’ response: We also appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the suggestion to narrow the technological scope of the article to allow for a deeper academic analysis. Please note that this recommendation was duly considered and addressed in the previous section of this response, where we highlighted that the manuscript underwent revisions to focus the analysis on Artificial Intelligence (AI) as the central technology. This choice enabled a more thorough discussion of its psychopedagogical and sustainability implications, thus meeting the suggestion for greater focus and analytical depth.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The paper attempts to examine technological innovation, engineering education, and educational psychology, but may clarify particular research topics or hypotheses. A clearer objective statement would improve the article's direction.
  • The application of psychopedagogical principles like Cognitive Load Theory and Self-Determination Theory to engineering education remains understudied. More examples of how these theories affect technology integration would improve the topic.
  • SDG 4 and SDG 9 are linked to technological innovation in the article. However, the link to environmental sustainability (e.g., reduced carbon footprint) is vague and unquantified.
  • The literature review may better synthesize conflicting findings or gaps in existing research, despite comprehensive references. It discusses digital inclusion but ignores studies that dispute technology's efficacy.
  • The article lacks a clear methodology section. It appears to be a theoretical or review study, but stating the approach (e.g., systematic literature review, narrative review) and reference selection criteria would improve rigor.
  • While AI, VR, and Remote Laboratories are intriguing, they lack case studies or empirical data to prove their efficacy in engineering education. Including real-world examples would strengthen the case.
  • The digital inclusion section discusses key topics like the Latin American digital divide but offers no answers beyond infrastructure and training. Detailed policy or institutional recommendations would improve this section.
  • The article covers mental health concerns in digital education (e.g., information overload, isolation) but might benefit from increased evidence-based solutions. It cites socio-emotional learning (SEL) but does not explain how engineering programs use it.
  The narrative of technology benefits (e.g., VR enhancing knowledge retention, AI personalizing learning) may be imbalanced by ignoring potential constraints or settings where these technologies may be less effective.
  • The article covers various themes, however transitions between sections (e.g., technology techniques to psychopedagogical problems) might be abrupt. A clearer conceptual framework or better signposting would improve reading and flow.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions, which have significantly contributed to the improvement of the article. The changes are highlighted in purple to facilitate the analysis, including replacing previously existing sections. We appreciate the time and attention dedicated to reviewing our work.

 Reviewer question 1. The paper attempts to examine technological innovation, engineering education, and educational psychology, but may clarify particular research topics or hypotheses. A clearer objective statement would improve the article's direction.

Authors’ response: We appreciate your observation regarding the need to make the research topics and objectives of the article clearer. We acknowledge that a more precise formulation of these elements is essential to strengthen the direction and academic rigour of the work.

We inform you that, in response to this and other comments received during the review process, the text has been revised and expanded. The changes made in the body of the article—marked with different colours—include a more direct clarification of the conceptual nature of the study, delimitation of the analytical focus, and a clear presentation of the proposed objectives. Passages that contextualise the research gap addressed, justifying the relevance and originality of the contribution, were also inserted. We believe these modifications adequately respond to your suggestion and help reinforce the clarity and coherence of the article.

 

Reviewer question 2. The application of psychopedagogical principles like Cognitive Load Theory and Self-Determination Theory to engineering education remains understudied. More examples of how these theories affect technology integration would improve the topic.

Authors’ response: We thank you for the pertinent observation. In order to address your suggestion, the manuscript was expanded to include examples that more clearly demonstrate the application of psychopedagogical principles—namely, Cognitive Load Theory and Self-Determination Theory—in the integration of digital technologies in engineering education.

These improvements were incorporated in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 4.1, highlighting how these theoretical approaches guide the pedagogical use of emerging technologies. For example, in section 3.2 (on Virtual and Augmented Reality), the discussion was enriched with empirical studies and pedagogical strategies that address cognitive load management and student motivation, emphasising how immersive environments must be carefully designed to avoid overload and foster meaningful learning.

Section 3.3 discusses the integration of gamification and project-based learning and explicitly interprets their benefits through the lens of Cognitive Load Theory and Self-Determination Theory, showing how well-designed gamified tasks can reduce extraneous load and enhance intrinsic motivation by promoting autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Section 4.1 further consolidates these principles and presents them in Table 2, which synthesises the key psychopedagogical foundations and their practical integration with digital technologies, illustrating the pedagogical intentionality behind each strategy. Additionally, this section provides examples of gamified platforms and active learning methodologies (such as PBL and IBL) applied in real contexts, reinforcing the theoretical and practical relevance of the approaches adopted.

We believe that these additions strengthen the theoretical foundation of the article and deepen the discussion on the topic, responding appropriately to the point raised.

 

Reviewer question 3. SDG 4 and SDG 9 are linked to technological innovation in the article. However, the link to environmental sustainability (e.g., reduced carbon footprint) is vague and unquantified.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the pertinent observation regarding the need to clarify the link between technological innovation and environmental sustainability (SDG 13). To address this suggestion, we have revised sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the manuscript, incorporating passages that explicitly explain how digital technologies—especially virtual and augmented reality—contribute to reducing the carbon footprint and physical resource consumption in engineering education. The revised paragraphs directly address the potential of these technologies to replace on-site laboratories, minimise travel, and optimise educational infrastructure, thereby promoting more sustainable pedagogical practices.

 

Reviewer question 4. The literature review may better synthesize conflicting findings or gaps in existing research, despite comprehensive references. It discusses digital inclusion but ignores studies that dispute technology's efficacy.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To address this issue, we made additions and adjustments to section 2.3, where we synthesise conflicting results and highlight existing gaps in the literature regarding the effectiveness of educational technologies. We included reflections on the variable impact of technologies, which strongly depend on the pedagogical context, available infrastructure, and teacher preparedness. Additionally, we emphasised the lack of a structured integration of psychopedagogical principles in technological innovation processes, underscoring the need for future studies that address this integration, as well as aspects of digital inclusion and sustainability. In this way, we sought to respond to the reviewer’s recommendation and enrich the discussion on the challenges and limitations of using technology in engineering education.

 

Reviewer question 5. The article lacks a clear methodology section. It appears to be a theoretical or review study, but stating the approach (e.g., systematic literature review, narrative review) and reference selection criteria would improve rigor.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. As suggested, we have clarified at the end of the introduction (last paragraph of section 1) that this article adopts a theoretical and exploratory approach based on a narrative literature review. This approach aims to critically articulate the domains of technological innovation, psychopedagogy, and sustainability in the context of engineering education, seeking to build a robust conceptual foundation for future research. Furthermore, we have made explicit the criteria for source selection—namely, the currency, thematic relevance, and academic impact of the included studies, with emphasis on recent meta-analyses and well-established literature in the field. We believe this revision helps to strengthen the rigour and methodological transparency of the work.

 

Reviewer question 6. While AI, VR, and Remote Laboratories are intriguing, they lack case studies or empirical data to prove their efficacy in engineering education. Including real-world examples would strengthen the case.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the absence of case studies or empirical data related to the application of technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and remote laboratories in engineering education. We would like to clarify that this article is theoretically exploratory, as indicated at the end of the introduction, based on a narrative literature review. Thus, its main objective is to propose a conceptual framework integrating technological innovation, sustainability, and psychopedagogy, not to present original empirical evidence.

However, several empirical and systematic studies supporting the discussions have been incorporated into the text. For example:

* Sailer et al. (2024) present a meta-meta-analysis with quantitative evidence on the impacts of technology on learning in higher education, discussing the effectiveness of different types of technology use;

* Tamim et al. (2020) are referenced for their meta-analysis showing moderate gains with technologies depending on the mode of implementation;

* Cuban (2020) empirically analyses the limits of effectiveness of technological reforms in education;

* Selwyn (2016) offers a well-established critique of technology’s impact on education, highlighting risks of reinforcing inequalities.

These studies strengthen the article’s central arguments by providing empirical support for the theoretical reflection proposed. The aim is precisely to highlight gaps that future applied research and case studies can explore based on this conceptual foundation.

Reviewer question 7. The digital inclusion section discusses key topics like the Latin American digital divide but offers no answers beyond infrastructure and training. Detailed policy or institutional recommendations would improve this section.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the observation regarding the section on digital inclusion. In response to the recommendation, we have expanded the discussion in section 2.3 of the manuscript by including a new paragraph that goes beyond merely mentioning infrastructure and training, proposing more detailed policy and institutional recommendations. This passage highlights the need for structured institutional policies that broadly promote digital inclusion, encompassing financial support, the development of students’ digital skills, and strategies to ensure continuous and equitable access to digital educational resources, especially in socioeconomically vulnerable contexts and regions with low connectivity. We also emphasise that the effectiveness of technology strongly depends on the institutional context and policies that align pedagogical innovation with digital equity.

 

Reviewer question 8. The article covers mental health concerns in digital education (e.g., information overload, isolation) but might benefit from increased evidence-based solutions. It cites socio-emotional learning (SEL) but does not explain how engineering programs use it.
The narrative of technology benefits (e.g., VR enhancing knowledge retention, AI personalizing learning) may be imbalanced by ignoring potential constraints or settings where these technologies may be less effective.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the insightful comment regarding the need to include evidence-based solutions for mental health concerns in digital education, as well as the contextualization of social-emotional learning (SEL) within engineering programs. In response, we have revised the manuscript to better address these issues.

In section 2.3, we inserted discussions on the importance of integrating psychopedagogical principles, highlighting not only emotional challenges such as cognitive overload and isolation but also approaches and programs that promote students’ socio-emotional well-being, aligned with social-emotional learning practices adapted for engineering education.

Additionally, we strengthened the discussion on the limitations and contexts of application of digital technologies, including virtual reality and artificial intelligence, pointing to the need for critical and contextualised implementation that considers factors such as infrastructure, teacher training, and student profiles. These passages are located at the end of section 2.3, where the text discusses both the benefits and limitations of technologies in higher engineering education, emphasising sensitivity to context and the need for future research integrating inclusion, sustainability, and psychopedagogy.

We believe these changes provide a clearer balance between the benefits and challenges of digital technologies in engineering education, adequately addressing the concerns raised.

Reviewer question 9. The article covers various themes, however transitions between sections (e.g., technology techniques to psychopedagogical problems) might be abrupt. A clearer conceptual framework or better signposting would improve reading and flow.

Authors’ response: We appreciate the comment regarding the transitions between the sections of the article. We agree that fluency and clarity in connecting the topics are essential for a cohesive and understandable reading experience, especially given the multidimensional approach that includes technology, psychopedagogy, and sustainability.

To address this issue, we have strengthened the textual cues between sections with transition sentences that clearly explain the logical relationship among the topics discussed. Additionally, we included conceptual frameworks (such as Tables 2 and 3) that synthesise the main principles and interrelations among the technological, psychopedagogical, and sustainability pillars, offering a visual and structured guide that contributes to an integrated understanding of the content.

We believe these improvements promote a more natural and coherent flow between sections, facilitating the reading and comprehension of the multiple aspects addressed. We remain available to make any further adjustments the editorial team considers necessary to enhance the manuscript’s cohesion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time and insightful comments during the evaluation of our revised manuscript. Their constructive feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We appreciate their dedication and effort in helping us enhance this study.

The Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the paper. It’s clear that the quality has improved.

I have just two minor comments:

1. The revised conclusion is much stronger. However, could you also clarify the limitations of your research? You mention that you are conducting a critical review of the literature, and that no data collection or analysis has been conducted. So, what would be the limitations of this type of research? 
   
   
2. Reference 25 is incorrect. Kindly refer to the following citation:“ Soulikias, Aristofanis, et al. "We gain a lot… but what are we losing? A critical reflection on the implications of digital design technologies." Open House International 46.3 (2021): 444-458.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time and insightful comments during the evaluation of our revised manuscript. Their constructive feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We appreciate their dedication and effort in helping us enhance this study.

The Authors

 

Thank you for revising the paper. It’s clear that the quality has improved.

I have just two minor comments:

Reviewer question 1:  The revised conclusion is much stronger. However, could you also clarify the limitations of your research? You mention that you are conducting a critical review of the literature, and that no data collection or analysis has been conducted. So, what would be the limitations of this type of research?

Authors’ response: We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding the limitations of our research. As this study is based on a critical review of the literature, its primary limitation lies in the absence of empirical data collection or direct analysis of educational practices in real contexts. Consequently, the conclusions drawn are theoretical and rely on the interpretation and synthesis of existing studies, which the scope and quality of the selected literature may influence. Additionally, although efforts were made to include diverse sources, there is the possibility of publication bias or the exclusion of relevant non-English or non-indexed works. Therefore, future empirical research is essential to test, validate, or refine the proposed conceptual framework in different educational settings. In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, this discussion has been explicitly added (bold) to the final part of the Conclusions section.

Reviewer question2: Reference 25 is incorrect. Kindly refer to the following citation: “ Soulikias, Aristofanis, et al. "We gain a lot… but what are we losing? A critical reflection on the implications of digital design technologies." Open House International 46.3 (2021): 444-458.”

Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for the observation. The reference has been revised in accordance with the formatting guidelines of Sustainability.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest the acceptance of the paper

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable time and insightful comments during the evaluation of our revised manuscript. Their constructive feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We appreciate their dedication and effort in helping us enhance this study.

The Authors