Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of this manuscript tested the hypothesis "Constructivism collaboration process" by integrating BIM and IPD in the academic Curriculum. Their aim was to improve the collaboration process based on these methods and identify the most suitable constructivism method. Overall, the manuscript is scientifically sound, so no major modifications are required. The manuscript is well written, the methodology is extensively described and suitable and the results are interesting. However, the discussion of the obtained results could be improved (i.e. reasons that might explain the differences in the charts). I believe the manuscript should be considered for publication after some improvements are done.

The Introduction lacks a suitable literature review (even if brief, so that you are able to present us the research gap) and the arguments presented by you need to be supported by references.

The literature is not up to date, only a few articles were published in the last 3 years. The use of BIM in the education is a field that received a considerable attention recently, so you should incorporate the latest findings in your manuscript.

The first sentence of the Introduction does not indicate the country of reference.

Recheck table 1. Step 2 seems to have two 1. (when you are at page 3, it starts over).

Please check throughout the manuscript if you have the full term in the first type that an acronym is used.

As I indicated above, you could have provided a more extensive discussion of the results. Why there is big differences in some factors while in others there are not? Perhaps a qualitative approach (e.g. open-ended questions) could have been used to identify the reasons behind the discrepancies, which could have helped in improving the quality of the course.

Author Response

However, the discussion of the obtained results could be improved (i.e. reasons that might explain the differences in the charts). I believe the manuscript should be considered for publication after some improvements are done.

-> The conclusions were reanalyzed and FCI was conducted on team leaders who participated in the experiment and the results were inserted into the table.

The Introduction lacks a suitable literature review (even if brief, so that you are able to present us the research gap) and the arguments presented by you need to be supported by references.

->An additional references has been drawn up.

The literature is not up to date, only a few articles were published in the last 3 years. The use of BIM in the education is a field that received a considerable attention recently, so you should incorporate the latest findings in your manuscript

->Recent papers on BIM education and constructivism learning have been supplemented although they are lacking a lot.

The first sentence of the Introduction does not indicate the country of reference.

->Revised

Recheck table 1. Step 2 seems to have two 1. (when you are at page 3, it starts over).

->Revised

Please check throughout the manuscript if you have the full term in the first type that an acronym is used.

->Revised

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The present paper studies to use the constructivism education theory to confirm the effectiveness of constructivism education theories in BIM/IPD collaborative education. The paper is well structured and adequately exposed. It provides many references about the state of the knowledge and it is well written and well presented. 

Author Response

The justification of the conclusion was compiled into a table by FGI analysis to the team leader of the experimental group again. "Constructivism collaboration process has proven to have more impact on 'Collaboration level' than on 'Collaborative Satisfaction'.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx