Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting and very well structured work. The quality of the course should be highlighted for its variety in content and objectives, and the high (and deserved) importance given to the concept of co-creation of content between student and teacher. This is going to be an increasingly important issue in the future due to the use (in some cases excessive) of technology by students. As points of improvement we can find the increase in courses (even having several concurrent ones) and above all a greater number of people participating in the project.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

As much as I recommend that you engage more with the literature. This will help to appreciate the research gaps and your contribution to the literature.

The research methods were not clear described. This can particularly be seen in the Sampling.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Though not many errors were seen by me in terms of English the authors can give it a second look.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study “features a cohort of five exchange students from postsecondary institutions in Norway and the United States who collaboratively engaged in a project-based learning experience infused with aspects of place-based education, lesson study, and the pedagogical technique students as partners”. Although the issue investigated in this study could be of some interest to the readers of Education Sciences, there are many criticalities that I would like to highlight.

·     A notable weakness of this manuscript is that its aim is not clear. Are the authors focusing on the lesson architects’ learning and teaching experience or on the possible effectiveness of the educational approach adopted or on the students in the class where the lesson was implemented and their learning experience?  

·     The research questions do not seem to be research questions. They should differ from the general purposes. It is not clear what the authors want to measure and how these possible “parameters” are related to the stakeholders’ engagement.

·     An introduction section should enable the readers to learn about and understand the context in which the study unfolds, while a background section ought to illustrate the outcomes reached by the scientific research on the issues tackled in the paper. These two sections could be split and improved in your manuscript. What are the main studies and results on this issue in the scientific literature?

Although some cited references are undoubtedly essential, the bibliography does not appear on the whole to be up-to-date. Less than 25% of the cited references were published within the last five years. The authors should include a notable number of recent and appropriate papers.

·     The Methods section should be completely revised because the manuscript’s results do not appear reproducible based on the details given in the aforementioned Methods section. The authors write, for instance: “Throughout the semester, the lesson architects engaged in various assignments that contributed to data sources for this study and included: collaborative documents, discussion posts, and reflections” (lines 230-232, p. 6). How does this claim help the reader to really know what data were collected? The authors should describe these data sources and how they were used to support their results.

·     I cannot review the Results section 4 owing to the limitations regarding  the Methods section that I highlighted in the previous paragraphs. In the same way, I cannot review the Discussion and the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy for your quick response to my comments. However, I feel you have not conceptualized this manuscript very well. For instance, you can compare the previous introduction with the revised introduction to appreciate my observation. See also other comments in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With relation to my previous comments, I wish to point out that the changes in the paper were pertinent.

On balance, the manuscript is now ready to be published in the present form.

Author Response

Comment: With relation to my previous comments, I wish to point out that the changes in the paper were pertinent. On balance, the manuscript is now ready to be published in the present form.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful response. We appreciate the feedback and time you’ve provided to help us improve our manuscript.