Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting piece of research, well contextualized, conducted, and presented. However, the authors should clarify some methodological issues, discuss the limitations of the research, and suggest some new research lines based on both the limitations of this study and the doubts that it raises. For example: students in the two research groups belong to different programs of study. Does this may account for the results difference? The dimensions of the research groups are quite different. Does this may make a difference? It seems that students’ motivation was “assessed” based on teachers’ knowledge or observation of students. Can this influence the results? Should students be classified according to their level of motivation to learn physics or to enroll in the study program they are in? How do students feel when asked to attend physics courses that they may see as not being core courses of their study program?  Could something be done to have small teams sharing responsibilities among team members? Would this make a difference? What are the features of the physics teachers in charge of the two groups? Was there a unique or different teacher(s) for each group? What implications does this may have? What should be studied further?

 

I hope the authors can improve the manuscript by adding a discussion on these issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors - As mentioned in the Abstract, the objective was to determine the best ways of learning physics concepts by Engineering students. How do we ensure that the way we achieve is really the best one? It compared two approaches (PBL v/s TL), however, there might be other learning/teaching strategies as well e.g. Research-informed Learning (RIL). - In the Abstract, can we quantify the improvement e.g. how much 'suitable' is suitable? how much 'enhancing' is enhancing? - The pivotal role of PBL in the Engineering curriculum mentioned in Section 1 (Introduction) could benefit from 10.1177/03064190231218123. - Similarly, the contribution of IBL could be stated with reference to '23) A. Walker, K. R. V. Diaz, D. Mckie and J. Iqbal, “Enquiry-based learning pedagogy – Design, development and delivery of a reproducible robotics framework”, International Congress on Information and Communication Technology (ICICT), 2024'. - The results in the form of final grades obtained by the students for the basis of evaluating PBL/TL pros and cons. However, to enhance the reliability of the results, a mixed-method approach could be a better choice e.g. students' feedback could also be included to support the findings/claims made. - Explicitly mention the limitations of the study and what could be th avenues of extending this work further? - It would be interesting to give more specific examples (related to topics of Physics) delivered to the students and the potential outcome of PBL/TL. - What is the role of showing self-explanatory animations to the students explaining physical phenomena using simple yet powerful animations? - Please thoroughly proofread the paper for linguistic improvements. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate changes required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the changes suggested earlier.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.