The Design and Implementation of an Innovative Course on the Creation of Cultural Landscape Images: A Case Study of Dalin Township in Taiwan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Your efforts in curriculum design and teaching are fully recognized. Overall, the article is interesting and meaningful. In general, the article's idea, structure, and methodology are satisfactory. However, we believe that the relevant discussion needs to be further developed. Additionally, some normative issues need to be addressed. Here are some comments and suggestions:
General issues
1. A clearer statement of the purpose is required.
2. It is generally the author’s habit to quote literature first, followed by quantitative results or interviews. It is not impossible to accomplish this. However, we suggest that the author comment on the theories related to this article at the beginning of the paper. In fact, the authors’ questionnaires and focus group interview questions are based on these theories.
3. In subsections 3.2 and 3.3, the content is the same. It may be possible to combine them. Additionally, in section 3.2, the author quotes feedback from a student? Or is this a distillation of the author’s feedback from all students? This needs to be clarified by the author.
4. The author’s reflections on the curriculum may be contained within a separate chapter, such as “Chapter 5: Conclusions and Suggestions”. Furthermore, we recommend that the authors explain how to minimize the impact of potential limitations in the implementation of the curriculum. By doing so, the study’s findings may be used more widely.
5. Is there any further research planned by the authors? For example, do the student's works reflect local characteristics? Will these works be of interest to the locals? It may be worthwhile to explore further if the authors have conducted follow-up studies.
Minor issues
1. Consider adding subtitles, such as: “A Case Study of Dalin Township in Taiwan”. This allows the article to be better searched and reflects where the content discussed in the article came from.
2. It is recommended that the figure can be appropriately enlarged under the premise of complying with the format specifications. It is proposed to add an English translation to the Chinese in Figure 4.
3. If the figure is not original by the author, then the source needs to be indicated, such as Figure 3.
4. To make it easier for readers to read, we recommend that authors paraphrase students’ responses in the form of tables.
5. The format of the appendix also needs to meet the requirements of the journal. For example: Appendix C, it is not recommended to replace text with figures, otherwise it will affect editing. Appendices A and B, the format of the table also needs to be modified according to the template.
6. Appendix C may not be sufficient to list only relevant questions. Due to space constraints, it may not be possible to present all of the interviews in Appendix C. Therefore, we recommend that authors upload the interview content to an electronic database and provide the URL to readers who need it.
7. The format of the text and references are not standardized. Some information is missing. Ask the authors to double-check that each reference is formatted correctly and that their information is complete.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Figure 3: 'nuit 3' should read 'unit 3'
The discussion at the end could do with a closing concluding paragraph after the list of 3 'conversing with' themes.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a research of great interest focused on evaluating a course on rural cultural landscapes. In the introduction, the authors reflect on the importance of DBL, the need for reform in education and the revitalization of rural areas. Their context seems very appropriate, as does the experience.
However, there are some questions that the authors should answer in order to ensure that the publication is up to the standards of a prestigious journal such as Education Sciences, and which, if not resolved correctly, would force us to reject the contribution.
- In Figure 1, "Unit 2" is repeated twice. Perhaps it is intended to refer to Unit 3.
- It should be clarified what is meant by a multidisciplinary teacher. It is repeated several times and is not clear. Do you mean that he/she teaches several disciplines?
- On page 3, line 3, there is an extra space between two words.
- In figure 3, the word "unit 3" is written as "nuit 3". The entire text of the graphs should be corrected and revised so that the wording is correct in English.
- The objectives of the study have not been made explicit. A work without objectives has no coherence from a scientific point of view. If the objectives are not clearly defined at the end of the introduction, the work is not solid because the results do not respond to anything concrete.
- The context in which the developed course was implemented must be clearly defined. Questions such as whether it was online or face-to-face, the age of the students (second course is not relevant if the educational system is not made explicit), gender and sociodemographic variables are very important for assessing the adequacy of the results obtained.
- There is a basic methodological error that consists of not having taken into account a control group that would allow us to analyze whether the results obtained are a consequence of the program implemented or, on the contrary, of the students' own maturation with the passage of time.
- The purpose of the focus group interviews is not clear. In order to carry out these interviews, it is necessary to clearly define the purpose of the interviews.
- Student's t-test should not be used when the n is less than 30. It is indicated that the participants are 21 students, therefore, non-parametric statistics should be used, as long as they meet the appropriate criteria. Accordingly, all the results of the study cannot be taken into consideration.
- It is recommended that the information provided in the appendices should not be based on images, but on digitally created graphs entered in the layout file. In the current version, these instruments are difficult to read.
Author Response
請參閱附件。
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The changes you made are more adequate and accurate.
Overall, the revised article, its quality has been further improved.
It is suggested that the author can review the full text again and check the language. “Acknowledgements” also need to be added, especially the names of the students who participated in the study. In addition, the abstract needs to be concise (200 words maximum.).
Author Response
Thanks for your comments and Suggestions. Based on the suggestions, the manuscript was revised and marked with color in the modification.
I reviewed the full text again. The abstract was revised to 200 words (please check page 1). And, a list of “Acknowledgements” was added at the end of the manuscript (please check page 21).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have satisfactorily corrected all the objections raised to their work and we therefore agree to the revision.
Author Response
Thanks so much for your rigorous and professional review comments, which helped me to make the revision of the paper more complete.
