Research on the Sustainable Improvement Mechanism of the Chemical Engineering and Technology Major Based on the Concepts of Outcome-Based Education–Plan-Do-Check-Act (OBE–PDCA) in Engineering Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript discusses the application of outcome-based education (OBE) and the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model to improve the sustainable development of the Chemical Engineering and Technology major at Nanjing Forestry University. The study is based on the principles of engineering education accreditation and focuses on cultivating high-quality, innovative, and interdisciplinary engineering talents. Although the manuscript proposes a practical approach and is well aligned with the concept of continuous improvement in education, there are several areas that require further clarification, in-depth, and refinement.
1. This study aims to improve the quality of education and employability of students in the Chemical Engineering major by introducing a structured improvement mechanism based on OBE and PDCA. The core motivation is clear: to improve students' academic performance in accordance with social needs. However, the paper does not adequately emphasize the novelty of the proposed model compared to existing educational reform models. The authors should emphasize why this specific combination of OBE and PDCA is more effective than other models and how it uniquely addresses the challenges faced by this specific discipline.
2. The discussion and results sections of the article are dense and can be revised from a clearer perspective and more concise language.
3. The methodology section lacks sufficient details on how the OBE-PDCA model was specifically implemented. The focus is on the restructuring of the curriculum, and more details are needed in the implementation process, such as teacher training, student involvement, and intervention schedule.
4. In the literature review section, a discussion of comparison with existing teaching methods should be added.
5. The conclusions are too simple and lack a description of the limitations of the study.
6. The clarity of the figures and tables needs to be improved, as some of the content is presented in too small a font. In addition, the literature review should be expanded and discussed in light of recent research to provide a more comprehensive context.
Author Response
Please see the attachment. THANKS.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe introduction needs to emphasize why this topic is important – what is the significance of the study. What’s new, what gap is it trying to fill? What is the objective of the study?
There is no structure leading to the bullet points 1 – 4?
Section 2 is not sufficient as a literature review. It only lists a few challenges.
More background the theme is necessary. The title mentions sustainability but the sustainability theme is lacking?
Why is this topic important? What research as been done on this topic? What makes this study different?
“by analyzing domestic and international engineering education…” where is domestic? The study area has not been explained.
When was this study conducted?
The methodology does not link with the theory- For instance, lines 168-172 “educational philosophies” none of these important topics were discussed in the literature review.
The OBE-PDCA needs to be explained in the first part of the methodology where it is first mentioned.
Line 281 of the Results section is the first time that its mentioned that “surveys conducted with graduates and 281 employers”. This has not been discussed or explained in the methodology.
What questions were asked? What was the aim? How were students and staff selected? Which universities are they from? The same goes for the questionnaires.
The methodology needs to be significantly improved. The results section cannot be the first time that certain methods are explained or mentioned.
The results are presented, but there is no discussion. What are the main significant findings and how does that relate to theory? What is similar or different to other research?
Avoid using the type of bullet point structuring
“The research closely aligns with national strategies and industrial needs” Where is the support for this? How?
The conclusion needs to be improved. Was the objective achieved? Main significant findings? Implications? Limitations? Areas for future research?
Author Response
Please see the attachment. THANKS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBasically, this manuscript introduces a case study about the engineering education accreditation in China following the Washington Accords. Both the theory of OBE and PDCA are under the framework and have no creative contribution. The effects are not very clear as the affiliation of the author chosen is not very typical in Chemical Engineering. In my opinion it thereby shall be rejected. However, if someone else think it might be accepted. Some details may be improved.
- The characteristics of the University and educational objectives of The students should be clearer.
- The study fails to compare the OBE-PDCA model with existing approaches.
- Despite mentioning "sustainable development," the paper does not explicitly tie the model to sustainability outcomes
-
Sample sizes and selection criteria for surveys (graduates, employers) are unclear, raising questions about representativeness.
-
Potential biases in self-assessment data (e.g., student satisfaction) are not addressed
- The texts in some figures is too small to see.
no
Author Response
Please see the attachment. THANKS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work examines the OBE (outcome-based education) – PDCA (plan-do-check-act) concept as applied to the Chemical Engineering and Technology major at Nanjing Forestry University. The article shows that as a result of the implementation of OBE-PDCA engineering education philosophy according to graduate employment statistics, over the past three years, the employment rate, graduate school enrollment rate, and overseas study rate at this institution have all increased. The results presented in the article indicate the absolute success of the applied approach. However, I would like to ask a few questions to the authors and make a few comments:
- At the end of the Introduction section, the purpose of the study should be more clearly stated. It is necessary to clearly distinguish this work from other similar ones.
- The quality of all figures definitely should be improved; the size and quality of the images make the scales unreadable.
- The conclusion section should provide more detailed plans for further use of the results obtained. It would be useful to receive an assessment of the possibility of using the developed approach for other specialties besides Chemical Engineering and Technology.
- The Chemical Engineering and Technology direction is often represented by various specialties (chemical technology of organic and inorganic substances, chemical technology of natural energy sources, chemical technology of silicate materials, biotechnology, etc.), which differ significantly in the required set of knowledge and competencies. How is this reflected in the OBE-PDCA approach?
- Chemical Engineering and Technology direction often include a large number of practical and experimental courses, and today also require a significant number of digital skills. How is this reflected in the OBE-PDCA approach?
Author Response
Please see the attachment. THANKS.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors这篇文章是可以接受的。
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made all of the necessary adjustments and the paper seems ready for publication
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept as it is
