Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents importance of online learning-by-doing approach of learning systems by using the CodeLab programming tool. The manuscript considerably well written and deserves publication in the prestigious journal “Applied Sciences”. It needs minor corrections before its final acceptance for publication. My specific comments are given below:

1.      Abstract needs to be revised and name and location of university where this research carried out should be added.

2.      Proper definition of learning-by-doing should be given in the “Introduction section”

3.      A concise review of literature pertaining to learning-by-doing should be provided.

4.      Name of some learning-by-doing tools that have been used around the globe may be included.

5.      Section 3.2. Research model and hypothesis development may be condensed.

6.      Proper name and place where this study was carried out mentioned may properly be mentioned in relevant places within the manuscript for the benefit of readers.

7.      A paper whose reference given below may be consulted:

Role of Open Educational Resources to Support Higher Geoscience Education in India, Journal of Geosciences 2021, 6(1), 1-10. (Link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Omkar-Verma/publication/352256159_Role_of_Open_Educational_Resources_to_Support_Higher_Geoscience_Education_in_India/links/60c0bb894585157774bf6e48/Role-of-Open-Educational-Resources-to-Support-Higher-Geoscience-Education-in-India.pdf)

8.      Some minor corrections are given in the attached file.

This manuscript strongly recommended for publication after minor revision.

Yours sincerely

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The Abstract needs revision so as to  improve cohesion and coherence, avoiding repetitions and introducing important concepts of the research context and method. Regarding the Introduction section, my strong recommendation would be authors to carefully think about the concept that they wish to introduce per paragraph and present important features; this could enhance the cohesion of the paper. For example in paragraph one authors talk about TEL, Online Learning and then they move back on On line learning in paragraph 3; this could be avoided. The reference and presentation of the model used could be introduced and analysed in later sections of the paper and not in the Introduction section; there it is important to introduced important  concepts and show their connection with the research conducted. The readability of the paper could be improved by discerning sections in the Theoretical Background : refer on theoretical background on learning theories and on line learning, refer on the importance of the selected theory and reasons for choosing the specific theory for the research conducted. The research schema needs to be introduced in a more detailed manner; it is also important to refer upon the research methodology selected and reasons for doing so. In pages 8 and 9 there is a problem with a couple of references. Authors need to include a Discussion section, in which they compare and discuss their results with existing literature findings and in a sense highlight also the importance of their approach.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The Abstract needs revision so as to a) avoid repetition in words, b) introduce by title the tool used. The reference to  the on line tool and model has to be specific in  the Abstract section.In the Theoretical Background my suggestion would be authors to focus more on modern approaches of learning by doing and their significance to modern education.6 hypotheses have been presented by authors- my suggestion would be to try and narrow these down. The questionnaire and software used for its development need justification and references when mentioned in the Procedure for data collection section. The Discussion section needs further processing, in terms of exactly mirroring the results of the research and highlighting their relationship with existing literature. Authors also need to comment on the added value of their research in the sense of highlighting its importance for modern education: why this could be a promising research scheme for modern education and why tutors could rely on that? A more critical approach to the findings and use of this research could enhance the quality of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx