IBPT: An Approach to Promote Research and Technological Competencies in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract section should be structured as follows: two to three lines of introduction, one line of study objective, one line of methodology, two lines of results, and one line of conclusions, following the journal template guidelines of up to 200 words.

It is suggested that the research question or hypotheses be presented at the end of the introduction, and that it end explicitly with the research objective (what you are going to do, why you are going to do it, and how you are going to do it).

We suggest that Figure 1 does not contain excessive text in the image. For example, in Formative Research, only the main terms should be left.

Regarding section 2.5, try to avoid sub-sub sections, that is, leave only two levels and not three. This is because some of these subsections only have two paragraphs and do not benefit the reading of the field of study.

In Figure 3, the identification of the problem should be improved. Avoid text in Spanish; although the problem focuses on an activity of the spoken language, it is better to replace it with a term or image (instead of using text in Spanish). The rest of the figure is fine, but it should follow the journal's format and include (a, b, c, and d).

Tables 6 and 7 present descriptive statistical data, and section 4.3 presents hypotheses, but no hypotheses are identified in the introduction section. Furthermore, it is clear that there is a null hypothesis (Ho), but there is no evidence of the alternative hypothesis (H1).

The work is very good, but the discussion section needs to be improved by comparing the results achieved with the literature review. The conclusions should also be expanded.

It is recommended that references have a DOI so that the citation used can be verified.

Reference 2: the link is incorrect. Please check the others.
Reference 21.
Reference 36: the link is incorrect; it describes the ORCID number rather than a DOI identifier or an indexed journal site.
References 45 and 47: the texts should alternate between upper and lower case.
Reference 62 has a broken link.

The work is relevant to the area of research study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Nothing new.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, in which we have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We believe the changes made have improved the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ronald Paucar

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I consider the purpose of your research to be relevant. 
Having reflected on your article, I believe there are gaps in its epistemological dimension.
 Please consider my comments as suggestions for improving your article.

Reflecting on the objective and scope of the research conducted, and analyzing what you write.
“IBPT: An Approach to Promote Research and Technological  Competencies toward Sustainable Education”

“This article presents and validates the Problem- and Technology-Based Research (IBPT) approach as an innovative pedagogical proposal to strengthen research competencies in higher education.” 

“In response to these challenges and the limitations of traditional active methodologies in the 21st century, where technology plays a central role, this study proposes the adoption of the Problem- and Technology-Based Research (IBPT) approach in the context of formative research. IBPT builds upon Pólya’s problem-solving framework while incorporating accessible technological resources. The classroom interventions were implemented with first-year engineering and nursing students.”

I believe there is a need for deep reflection, as well as for the necessary improvements to be made.

Also I do not consider that:
“This article presents and validates the Problem- and Technology-Based Research (IBPT) approach as an innovative pedagogical proposal to strengthen research competencies in higher education.”

Upon examining the title, abstract and keywords:

The title suggests that the focus is on 'sustainable education', yet this term is only mentioned three times in the article and is not a keyword. In fact, it is unclear why the abstract refers to:“ Sustainable Development Goals on quality education (SDG 4) and innovation (SDG 9).” 
The article does not explain how they arrived at this conclusion.

It seems to me that “research competencies” is a fundamental construct of your research.

The theoretical framework states: “Research competence is conceived as an integrative construct that articulates knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities oriented toward the practice of research.” 

and

“prepares students to critically and adaptively face future professional challenges. In terms of competencies, this phase develops knowledge  related to evaluation and continuous improvement, skills for metacognitive reflection and optimization, and attitudes such as logical reasoning, autonomy, and critical awareness key for sustaining lifelong research engagement.”

If we cross with the title :“ (...) Promote Research and Technological  Competencies toward Sustainable Education”

The article does not make clear what “knowledge, skills, attitudes, and abilities” they intended to develop. E.g.: “Monitoring humidity and temperature in the computer (...)” –  what learning objective is this task based on? Is the aim of this activity to learn about the humidity factor? Or is the aim to develop equipment handling skills? It seems to me that you should reflect on these aspects and revise the article.

You wrote: “These projects addressed real problems from the students’ own environments:” However, the text is too vague to understand what ‘research competence’ is to be developed, or what action plans were envisaged for the activities to be carried out.

It would be helpful to add a table of the planned actions, clearly stating the learning objectives (e.g. identifying the scope in terms of skills for each task/activity), the resources used, the implementation time and the assessment (observational?).

When referring to the instrument used (section 3.2), it would be helpful to include a table showing the organisation of the questionnaire items to enable understanding of Table 5, as well as include for which the technological resources that is expected promove  active, reflective, and interdisciplinary learning .

In section 3.2 (lines 346-355), you need to write down the theoretical references you followed. Incidentally, it seems to me that your sample constitutes a limitation of your research. I suggest introducing a section on 'Limitations and future research'.

Rew

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Please find attached the revised version of our manuscript, in which we have addressed all the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We believe the changes made have improved the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the paper.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ronald Paucar

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers an original and impactful contribution to the academic literature by introducing and validating the Problem- and Technology-Based Research (IBPT) approach as a novel pedagogical framework aimed at enhancing research competencies in higher education. It presents compelling and relevant findings that support its publication, positioning IBPT as a flexible and adaptable methodology suitable for integration across diverse university programs. The approach strengthens formative research practices, cultivates critical thinking, and addresses the imperatives of sustainable education, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals related to quality education (SDG 4) and innovation (SDG 9).

The manuscript effectively situates its content within established and emerging theoretical paradigms, demonstrating a thorough engagement with existing scholarship. The literature review is comprehensive and well-integrated, contextualizing the study within the broader discourse on formative research and pedagogical innovation.

While the acronym IBPT is used to denote Problem- and Technology-Based Research, the authors may wish to reconsider whether the initial ‘I’ should be replaced with ‘R’ to more accurately reflect the term ‘research’. Additionally, it is recommended that the introduction explicitly articulate the study’s objective and outline the guiding research questions to enhance clarity and focus.

The research design and methodology are clearly articulated, with arguments supported by robust data. The discussion of findings is coherent, balanced, and persuasive, with results presented in a clear and structured manner. The analysis is thoughtfully connected to prior literature, and citations are appropriately and consistently applied.

Overall, the paper makes a significant scholarly contribution by demonstrating that the implementation of the IBPT approach effectively enhances research competencies among university students across disciplines. The writing is precise, accessible, and well-organized, ensuring the paper’s arguments are communicated with clarity and rigor.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Your article has been significantly improved. It is now more scientifically sound.

Rew