Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, it is a very interesting and innovative paper. Could you, please, add some more references having to do with same research, at least in theoretical level and then you could strengthen your arguments with them at the level of discussion and conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1, 

I have uploaded the file with responses to your review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research presented appears to be well-founded and well-structured. The topic is relevant, and the work successfully addresses it. However, some aspects could be improved. Specifically, more context and references should be provided regarding the "ATC21S approach" and the "CSB Test 1." Although the research question is addressed in the conclusions, it does not seem directly connected to the research question, making it harder to pinpoint the answer within the article and understand the authors' conclusions. Additionally, it is unclear whether the "individual puzzle process" and the "group puzzle process" were conducted during the two-hour sessions mentioned in section 3.2.3. In Table 1, it’s unclear what lies between the "Point1" and "Point2" columns (e.g., "+41% Decline"). Providing more detailed information here would be helpful. Overall, the research is valuable, and the article should be considered.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

I have uploaded the revised manuscript and our responses to your comments.

Thank you very much!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf