Assessment and Evaluation in Active Learning Implementations: Introducing the Engineering Education Active Learning Maturity Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript aims to present a method to assess and evaluate active learning in engineering education.
First, the Introduction section is too short, it lacks to define active learning and to justify better the necessity of the study presented in this manuscript. Second, the Methodology section needs to be expanded to describe correctly the used method. With regard to the Results section, they should be explained better, as some of the KSFs are described in a very concise way and this makes the manuscript difficult to understand. Finally, the Discussion section needs to be enlarged, as in this section there is only one citation to other studies. The theoretical framework of the study is weak and lacking literature support. In addition, the generalisation and significance of the study in contributing to the literature need to be further substantiated.
I highly recommend including some extensions to the study before being considered for publication: define the scale of each variable, determine the weights of each KSF in their respective dimensions, create tools to measure all variables… Otherwise the study lacks some crucial parts to be useful for engineering education.
Moreover, there are some other details to correct:
- Define all the acronyms (CDIO, ABET…) that appear in the manuscript
- Correct citations to Tables throughout the text
- Add legend of Figure 2
- Improve English language
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest the following comments:
- The authors should add a new section (2) about the problem's background. The problem statement of this research is not clear. Thus, I suggest the authors add a new section (2) about the problem's background. After that, it will be easier to show the problem statement of this research.
- The authors should add a new section (2.1) about related theories.From my understanding, the authors don't mention the research theories on active learning implementation. Thus, I suggested the authors add a new section (2) about the related theories.
- Typesetting error, please ignore it!（Explain more about the word in the Chinese language, e.g. (e 错误!).When I read the paper, I didn't understand the language. ）
- The authors should add a new section about the conclusion (4.1).This paper mentions discussion, but they should add a conclusion to a new section (4.1).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been considerably improved following my suggested comments.
Still, I suggest that the authors check the format of the citations to the Tables and their legends.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find attached our revised article ref. no: education-1381600, with title “Assessment and Evaluation in Active Learning implementations: introducing the Engineering Education Active Learning Maturity Model", which is submitted to "Education Sciences".
Based on second round of advice received from you, we proceeded with a revision of the format of the citations to the tables and their captions.
Please find below our answers.
Point 1. The manuscript has been considerably improved following my suggested comments.
Response 1: We are very grateful for your suggestions! We are sure the manuscript level has risen highly due to the changes we made to respond to them.
Point 2. Still, I suggest that the authors check the format of the citations to the Tables and their legends.
Response 2: We reviewed all tables, their captions and in-text citation formats, according to your suggestion. We identified points that needed correction in the text, in addition to correcting the captions that disagreed with the journal template.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
