Review Reports - Mechanical Design Competition as a Strategy for Skill Development in Engineering: Integrating Artificial Intelligence and the SDGs and Its Educational Impact

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have seen the effort made to improve the article in all its parts. I think it can be published.

Author Response

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the thorough review and the time dedicated to this work.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been revised several times and meets the publication standards. The author has also answered all my questions. If possible, I can cite the following analysis from a psychological perspective:

Psychological Research of College Students Based on Online Education under COVID-19 (https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021040)

Author Response

Thank you for your positive evaluation and for suggesting the inclusion of the psychological perspective reference. We have incorporated the recommended citation in the Discussion section, where we address motivational and cognitive factors related to active learning environments:

“From a psychological perspective, studies such as Wang and Zou (2023) highlight the importance of emotional and cognitive factors in shaping students’ engagement and adaptability, aligning with the motivational outcomes observed in this challenge-based learning experience.”
(Section 6. Discussion, paragraph 2)

The full reference appears in the References list:
Wang, X., & Zou, Y. (2023). Psychological research of college students based on online education under COVID-19. Sustainability, 15(2), 1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021040

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This version of the manuscript is much improved from previous versions and it seems all of the previous reviewer concerns were addressed

Author Response

We express our gratitude to the reviewer for the thorough review and the time dedicated to this work

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The topic of the paper is extremely interesting due to the specificity of the pedagogical approach in STEM educational study programs. Recommendations for improving your work are below:

The Introduction should state the motivation for the research conducted, as well as the research questions the authors aimed to answer.
The project title should appear in the acknowledgement section, not in the Introduction.
The introduction should outline the structure of the entire paper, rather than including this information in the overview of previous research.
Most of the content currently in the introduction should be moved to the previous research section. The introduction should define the key terms relevant to the paper and introduce the reader to the issues addressed.
When the abbreviation "AI tools" is first mentioned and explained, the full term should be provided; thereafter, only the acronym "AI" should be used, and the full term should not be repeated throughout the paper.
A detailed explanation should be given for how each instrument was designed, and appropriate reliability coefficients should be calculated, taking into account the sample size and the type of data collected.
It should be specified what the student project topics were and whether the 48 students were at the beginning of the semester, and research, or if they were the ones who completed all the questionnaires and created the project.
The discussion section currently resembles a conclusion. It is necessary to discuss your own research results and compare them with similar studies. This chapter needs to be rewritten.
All bar graphs should display absolute numbers; percentages are not suitable for this type of graph. I recommend presenting some results in a table as well, given the large number of questionnaires.
Was there an option in the instruments for respondents to provide their own opinions?
This research clearly falls into the category of pilot research, and this should be explicitly stated. The instruments should also receive more attention in future studies.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough evaluation and constructive comments, which have been highly valuable in strengthening the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Comments 1: The Introduction should state the motivation for the research conducted, as well as the research questions the authors aimed to answer.

Response 1: The Introduction was substantially revised to clearly articulate the motivation and research questions. Specifically:

The opening paragraph now highlights the gap between traditional theoretical instruction and the need for active methodologies that integrate sustainability and emerging technologies.
A dedicated paragraph introduces the motivation: “The present study is motivated by the need to determine whether a challenge-based activity can effectively foster competencies related to sustainability, artificial intelligence, and core engineering skills.”
Four explicit research questions were added at the end of the Introduction:

“To what extent does the integration of CBL, AI tools, and SDGs in a core mechanical engineering course foster the development of technical and transversal competencies? …”

Location in Manuscript:
Section: Introduction, paragraphs 2–4.

Comments 2: The project title should appear in the acknowledgement section, not in the Introduction

Response 2: The project title (“Concurso de diseño de artefacto mecánico (PIEU-B/2024/57)”) was removed from the Introduction and relocated to the Funding section, as recommended.

Location in Manuscript:
Funding section (end of the article).

Comments 3: The introduction should outline the structure of the entire paper, rather than including this information in the overview of previous research.

Response 3: A concise paragraph was added at the end of the Introduction to outline the structure of the paper:

“The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the literature on ethics, active methodologies, AI, and sustainability in engineering education. Section 3 outlines the educational objectives. Section 4 describes the research methodology. Section 5 presents the results, followed by discussion in Section 6 and conclusions in Section 7.”

Location in Manuscript:
Section: Introduction, final paragraph.

Comments 4: Most of the content currently in the introduction should be moved to the previous research section. The introduction should define the key terms relevant to the paper and introduce the reader to the issues addressed.

Response 4: The Introduction was streamlined to focus on the study’s motivation, objectives, and research questions. Content related to prior studies and theoretical background was movedto the Literature Review section (Section 2), which has been expanded and reorganized into four thematic subsections:

Ethics and SDGs in engineering education
Active methodologies (PBL and CBL)
Role of AI in sustainable engineering education
Convergence of CBL, AI, and SDGs

Additionally, the Introduction now defines key terms, Challenge-Based Learning (CBL), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and clarifiestheir relevance to the study.

Location in Manuscript:

Introduction: paragraphs 1-4 (motivation, objectives, research questions, and definitions)
Literature Review: Section 2 (expanded and reorganized content)

Comments 5: When the abbreviation "AI tools" is first mentioned and explained, the full term should be provided; thereafter, only the acronym "AI" should be used, and the full term should not be repeated throughout the paper.

Response 5: The manuscript now introduces the term as follows:

“…Artificial Intelligence (AI), which encompasses computational tools that support design, analysis, and decision-making in engineering contexts…”
(Introduction, paragraph 3)

After this initial definition, the acronym AI is consistently used throughout the text without repeating the full term.

Location in Manuscript:
Introduction, paragraph 3; verified across all sections for consistency.

Comments 6: A detailed explanation should be given for how each instrument was designed, and appropriate reliability coefficients should be calculated, taking into account the sample size and the type of data collected.

Response 6: A new subsection titled “Instrument Design and Reliability Analysis” (Section 4.3) was added. It includes:

A detailed description of the item-development process, grounded invalidated instruments and aligned with the course learning outcomes.
Expert review for content validity conducted by two faculty members and one specialist in educational measurement.
Internal piloting for clarity and response time.
Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha, with coefficients reported for each subscale as well as for the overall questionnaire:

AI use subscale (6 items): α = 0.699
Transversal competencies (5 items): α = 0.851
Basic industrial competencies (4 items): α = 0.607
Mechanical technology competencies (3 items): α = 0.847
Overall questionnaire: α = 0.813

Location in Manuscript:
Section 4.3: Instrument Design and Reliability Analysis

Comments 7: It should be specified what the student project topics were and whether the 48 students were at the beginning of the semester, and research, or if they were the ones who completed all the questionnaires and created the project.

Response 7: We clarified both aspects in the revised manuscript:

Student status: An explicit statement was added in Section 4:

“All 48 students were enrolled in the Mechanical Technology course at the beginning of the semester and completed both the design project and the final questionnaire.”

Project topics: Examples were added in Section 4.1.4:

“The projects addressed diverse themes such as assistive devices for people with reduced mobility, energy-efficient solutions, and sustainability-oriented designs (e.g., solar dehydrators, multifunctional tables, smart canes).”

Comments 8: The discussion section currently resembles a conclusion. It is necessary to discuss your own research results and compare them with similar studies. This chapter needs to be rewritten.

Response 8: The Discussion was completely rewritten to:

Interprets the findings in relation to previous research (e.g., Galdames-Calderón et al., 2024; Doulougeri et al., 2024; Chaudhry et al., 2025).
Highlights key nuances such as the selective usefulness of AI tools and the motivational outcomes observed, and compares them with similar studies.
Integrates insights from open-ended responses to enrich the interpretation of results.
Provides recommendations for future work based on the limitations identified.

Location in Manuscript:
Section 6 (Discussion), fully revised.

Comments 9: All bar graphs should display absolute numbers; percentages are not suitable for this type of graph. I recommend presenting some results in a table as well, given the large number of questionnaires.

Response 9: All bar graphs were reformatted to display absolute numbers instead of percentages (e.g., Figures 2–12). Additionally, tables were added to present key questionnaire results:

Table 8: Transversal competencies
Table 9: Basic and common industrial competencies
Table 10: Mechanical technology competencies

Location in Manuscript:
Section 5 (Results) – Figures and Tables updated.

Comments 10: Was there an option in the instruments for respondents to provide their own opinions?

Response 10: Yes, and this was clarified in Section 4.2:

“In addition to closed-ended items (Likert scale and multiple choice), the questionnaire included options for open-ended input. For closed questions, an ‘Other’ category was provided to allow students to indicate responses not initially listed. Furthermore, open-ended questions were placed at the end of each section, such as ‘Any comments you wish to make regarding the use of AI,’ ‘Remarks on the work in relation to the SDGs,’ and ‘Suggestions to improve this initiative for future students.’ These questions generated 19 comments related to AI, 9 to SDGs, and several suggestions about the activity, which were analyzed descriptively and integrated into the discussion.”

Location in Manuscript:
Section 4.2 (Questionnaire), paragraph 2.

Comments 11: This research clearly falls into the category of pilot research, and this should be explicitly stated. The instruments should also receive more attention in future studies.

Response 11: We explicitly stated the pilot nature of the study in Section 4:

“This study is best described as pilot research, aimed at exploring the feasibility and educational impact of integrating Challenge-Based Learning (CBL), AI tools, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a core mechanical engineering course.”

In addition, the Limitations section highlightsthe need for further refinement and validation of instruments in future research:

“…Although the questionnaire demonstrated acceptable reliability, future studies should further refine and validate the instrument using larger samples and complementary qualitative analyses to strengthen generalizability and methodological rigor.”

Location in Manuscript:

Section 4 (Research Methodology), paragraph 1
Section 5.4 (Limitations), final paragraph.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the continued widespread use of traditional teaching methods, this article offers a new perspective on the preparation of engineering professionals by emphasizing sustainability awareness and the integration of artificial intelligence, which has become unavoidable in all spheres of society. The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of active learning methodologies to enhance a wide range of student competencies.

I would like to offer a few comments (questions):

In the artifact development project, it is stated that teams of 2 to 4 students participated. Why was this specific team size chosen, and was it sufficiently objective? Additionally, were there any students who were not accepted into a team?
In the tables that describe the questionnaire questions and their answer options, the formatting should be improved, as it is difficult to distinguish the questions. It would also be helpful to see their numbering.
As the authors themselves acknowledge, there is a significant lack of assessment of students’ baseline knowledge of the subject, which would be the most accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the methods used.

Despite minor comments, this scientific article meets all the criteria and should be published.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive assessment and for the insightful questions, which have helped us improve the clarity and overall rigor of the manuscript.

Comments 1: In the artifact development project, it is stated that teams of 2 to 4 students participated. Why was this specific team size chosen, and was it sufficiently objective? Additionally, were there any students who were not accepted into a team?

Response 1: We clarified the rationale for the team size in the Introduction:

“This team size was chosen because small groups foster active participation, equitable workload distribution, and richer interaction, while minimizing coordination issues, an approach supported by empirical evidence in engineering education and collaborative learning contexts (Chou & Chang, 2018; Wang, Jiang, & Luo, 2023; Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010).”

Also, we confirmed that all students were included:

“All 48 students were enrolled in the Mechanical Technology course at the beginning of the semester and completed both the design project and the final questionnaire.”

Location in Manuscript:

Introduction, paragraph 5
Section 4 (Research Methodology), paragraph 1

Comments 2: In the tables that describe the questionnaire questions and their answer options, the formatting should be improved, as it is difficult to distinguish the questions. It would also be helpful to see their numbering.

Response 2: We reformatted all questionnaire tables (Tables 2-7) to improve clarity and readability:

Added horizontal separator lines between questions to visually distinguish them.
Included question numbering to facilitate reference.
Retained the table structure in accordancewith MDPI editorial guidelines, which impose certain restrictions on table formatting.

Location in Manuscript:
Section 4.2 (Questionnaire) – Tables 2-7 updated.

Comments 3: As the authors themselves acknowledge, there is a significant lack of assessment of students’ baseline knowledge of the subject, which would be the most accurate way to determine the effectiveness of the methods used.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this limitation and for the positive recommendation. As suggested, we made this point explicit in the Limitations section:

“Additionally, the intervention did not incorporate a formal diagnostic test to assess students’ prior knowledge of AI or SDGs, which could have been addressed transversally in other courses. However, a detailed analysis of the Mechanical Engineering curriculum confirmed that, according to its structure, students should not possess advanced technical knowledge in the Mechanical Technology course beyond what is typically acquired in secondary education or through personal experience.”

Location in Manuscript:

Section 5.4 (Limitations), third paragraph.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

I have critically assessed your article and, overall, I believe it cannot be published in its current form. One of the most obvious weaknesses is the lack of references, which prevents the study from demonstrating meaningful connections to existing research in the field.

Besides, the study is largely descriptive, and I encourage you to consider ways to make it more analytically robust and appealing to researchers in the area.

Here are some specific points for improvement:

Abstract: The abstract should follow a standard structure, briefly addressing the research gap, objectives, design, context, participants, data collection, data analysis, findings, and implications. In its current form, it does not sufficiently cover these elements.
Introduction: The introduction is underdeveloped and lacks scholarly depth. To be candid, it resembles a student assignment rather than a research article. A strong introduction should engage with the existing literature, critically review previous studies, and clearly position your research within the field. The inclusion of only two references suggests a limited understanding of the research area and weak integration with existing scholarship.
Literature Review: This section requires expansion and clearer organization, ideally with subheadings. Many paragraphs are too brief, and the discussion of prior research lacks critical engagement.
Educational Objectives Section: This section should either be removed or integrated into the introduction, as it currently stands apart without clear justification.
Methodology: The methodology section lacks detail and structure. Instruments are overly long and should be streamlined. Please follow a standard format that includes research design, context and participants, interventions, data collection, and data analysis. Reliability and validity procedures must also be clearly presented.
Results: The results are primarily descriptive, and the number of participants is unclear, which undermines the credibility of the findings.

In summary, substantial revisions are needed to improve the quality and rigor of this article. I hope you find these comments helpful and wish you success in strengthening your work.

Best,

Reviewer

Author Response

We appreciate your observation regarding the quality of the English language. To address this, we will use the journal’s language editing services to further improve the clarity and style of the manuscript.

Comments 1: Abstract: The abstract should follow a standard structure, briefly addressing the research gap, objectives, design, context, participants, data collection, data analysis, findings, and implications. In its current form, it does not sufficiently cover these elements.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. We have restructured the abstract to follow the suggested standard sequence, explicitly addressing the research gap, the objectives, the design of the intervention, the context and participants, the data collection and analysis, the main findings, and the implications.

Comments 2: Introduction: The introduction is underdeveloped and lacks scholarly depth. To be candid, it resembles a student assignment rather than a research article. A strong introduction should engage with the existing literature, critically review previous studies, and clearly position your research within the field. The inclusion of only two references suggests a limited understanding of the research area and weak integration with existing scholarship.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. We agree that the original introduction was overly descriptive of the institutional context and did not sufficiently connect the study with the broader scholarly debate. To address this, we have thoroughly revised the introduction, which now:

- Provides a more comprehensive discussion of the challenges of teaching technical subjects in engineering and the limitations of traditional methods.

- Integrates recent international literature on challenge-based learning (CBL), artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education, and the incorporation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into engineering curricula.

- Clearly positions our study as a contribution to the ongoing debate on active methodologies and the integration of emerging technologies in engineering education.

We would also like to clarify that our manuscript includes a dedicated Literature Review section, where we conduct a deeper and more systematic analysis of the state of the art. For this reason, the number of references in the introduction remains more limited, as its purpose is to set the context, highlight the research gap, and frame the objectives, while the detailed scholarly discussion is developed later.

Finally, we have increased the number of references in the introduction itself, ensuring a stronger connection with existing scholarship and recent studies (2020–2025). In addition, in response to other reviewers’ suggestions, we have expanded the number of references in the Literature Review section, further strengthening engagement with the research area and the positioning of our study within the field.

Comments 3: Literature Review: This section requires expansion and clearer organization, ideally with subheadings. Many paragraphs are too brief, and the discussion of prior research lacks critical engagement.

Response 3: We appreciate your observation regarding the need to expand and organize the literature review section more clearly. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have restructured this section into three thematic subsections: (2.1) Ethics, Social Responsibility, and the SDGs in Engineering Education, (2.2) Active Methodologies: Project-Based and Challenge-Based Learning, and (2.3) The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Engineering Education. This organization allows for a more coherent reading and facilitates a critical analysis of prior research.

Additionally, several previously brief paragraphs have been expanded to incorporate a deeper and more connected discussion of the cited literature. It is important to note that, given the breadth of research in these areas, the aim of this review is not to provide an exhaustive account of each topic, but rather to contextualize the present study within the current state of the field, highlighting the most relevant contributions to the study’s focus.

Comments 4: Educational Objectives Section: This section should either be removed or integrated into the introduction, as it currently stands apart without clear justification.

Response 4: We sincerely appreciate your suggestion regarding the Educational Objectives section. After carefully considering your comment, we decided to retain this section as a standalone part of the manuscript. While we have substantially reworked and expanded the Introduction to provide greater scholarly depth and integration with the literature, we believe that the Educational Objectives section plays a distinct role in clearly presenting the aims of our pedagogical intervention.

We would also like to note that the other reviewers did not raise objections to the presence of this section, but instead provided valuable suggestions to improve it, which can be seen in the revised manuscript. Furthermore, in another article published in Education Sciences, we were explicitly invited to include the educational objectives in a separate section, in order to emphasize their importance and ensure clarity for readers.

For these reasons, and in line with both prior feedback from the journal and good practices in educational research reporting, we respectfully propose to keep the Educational Objectives section in its current form.

Comments 5: Methodology: The methodology section lacks detail and structure. Instruments are overly long and should be streamlined. Please follow a standard format that includes research design, context and participants, interventions, data collection, and data analysis. Reliability and validity procedures must also be clearly presented.

Response 5:

We sincerely appreciate your detailed comments regarding the Methodology section. We have carefully revised and modified this section in the manuscript, aiming to address your suggestions and improve clarity, structure, and readability.

In particular, we have updated the overview of the methodology to provide a clearer summary of the research design, context, participants, interventions, data collection, and analysis. At the same time, we have retained the descriptive sub-sections of the methodology components (i.e., the design of the mechanical artifact competition and the questionnaire), as we believe these details are essential for readers to fully understand the pedagogical intervention and its implementation.

We hope that these revisions adequately address your concerns and enhance the transparency and rigor of the methodological description.

Comments 6: Results: The results are primarily descriptive, and the number of participants is unclear, which undermines the credibility of the findings.

Response 6:

We thank the reviewer for their valuable comments regarding the Results section. In response, we have clarified that the study sample consisted of 48 students enrolled in the Mechanical Technology course during the 2024–2025 academic year, ensuring that the number of participants is explicitly stated.

We acknowledge that the results are primarily descriptive, which is inherent to the nature of this study, as it relies on students’ perceptions collected through structured questionnaires. To enhance clarity and interpretability, we have organized the results into thematic blocks: (1) use of artificial intelligence tools, (2) alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), (3) development of competencies specific to the degree program, and (4) critical thinking. Each block includes detailed figures and interpretive analysis to provide a comprehensive and well-supported overview of the educational impact.

Furthermore, we have included a Limitations section to explicitly discuss potential self-selection bias, the single-institution context, variability in project complexity, and the absence of a control group, acknowledging the boundaries of generalizability and reinforcing the credibility of the findings.

We believe that the current presentation allows for an adequate understanding of the scope and relevance of the results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following points are highlighted:

--> Lines 100 to 106 are extremely important, but then the Goal to promote sustainability, equity, and peace is only marginally addressed, since many engineers end up working on projects that are not designed to promote peace. Therefore, it is suggested to revisit this issue in the discussion (is there any scientific literature on conscientious objection?).

--> Remove empty lines such as line 132.

--> Pay attention to the citation style and double-check the editorial guidelines.

--> Lines 185 to 190 are important, but the scientific literature should be expanded (there are already studies on questions to ask AI in order to improve the teaching-learning process.).

--> A critical issue occurs from
Stage 1: Launch and Motivation. In the…
to
Stage 5: Evaluation and Deliberation. Pr…
because here the paper seems formatted by a LLM.

--> The tables on pp. 7–11 do not appear to be properly formatted.

--> On page 20, from Overall to Finally, both the English and the content should be improved, the sentences are simple and somewhat obvious. Greater academic depth is needed. In this regard, we suggest going beyond engineering teaching sources (disciplinary engineering teaching) and looking at journals on media education and teaching technologies that already address these issues..

--> At the end, better explain what is meant by longitudinal research and describe it in detail (it is better not to allude to things but to explain them clearly, or remove them).

Author Response

Comments 1: Lines 100 to 106 are extremely important, but then the Goal to promote sustainability, equity, and peace is only marginally addressed, since many engineers end up working on projects that are not designed to promote peace. Therefore, it is suggested to revisit this issue in the discussion (is there any scientific literature on conscientious objection?).

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your insightful comment regarding the importance of the ideas presented between lines 100 and 106, as well as your suggestion to further address the goal of promoting sustainability, equity, and peace within engineering practice. In the revised version of the manuscript, this section has been thoroughly rewritten to enhance clarity and depth. We have incorporated more appropriate and up-to-date references that specifically address the concept of conscientious objection in professional contexts, including its emerging application in engineering as part of an ethics framework committed to social justice and sustainability. This revision provides a more rigorous academic foundation for understanding the role of engineers as agents of change in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Comments 2: Remove empty lines such as line 132.

Response 2: Thank you for your observation. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed to remove unnecessary blank lines.

Comments 3: Pay attention to the citation style and double-check the editorial guidelines.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. All references have been reviewed and formatted according to the APA Style, 7th edition, as required by the current editorial guidelines.

Comments 4: Lines 185 to 190 are important, but the scientific literature should be expanded (there are already studies on questions to ask AI in order to improve the teaching-learning process.).

Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The paragraph indicated (lines 185 to 190) has been thoroughly revised, and more relevant references have been incorporated to better reflect the existing scientific literature on the topic you mentioned.

Comments 5: A critical issue occurs from Stage 1: Launch and Motivation. In the… to Stage 5: Evaluation and Deliberation. Pr… because here the paper seems formatted by a LLM.

Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment. In order to clarify the meaning of certain sentences and paragraphs, AI tools were used during the translation process. However, we acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the language meets academic standards. Therefore, we will use the publisher’s professional translation and text improvement service to refine the manuscript and ensure the language is appropriate and consistent throughout.

Comments 6: The tables on pp. 7–11 do not appear to be properly formatted.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The formatting of the tables on pages 7–11 has been carefully revised. Column types have been adjusted to improve clarity, table titles have been formatted according to the journal’s guidelines, bold formatting within the tables has been refined, and line thickness has been corrected. We have ensured that the overall table format now fully complies with the template provided by the journal.

Comments 7: On page 20, from Overall to Finally, both the English and the content should be improved, the sentences are simple and somewhat obvious. Greater academic depth is needed. In this regard, we suggest going beyond engineering teaching sources (disciplinary engineering teaching) and looking at journals on media education and teaching technologies that already address these issues.

Response 7: Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response to your suggestion, the section on page 20—from “Overall” to “Finally”—has been rewritten to improve both the language and the academic depth. We have incorporated new references, including sources beyond disciplinary engineering education, such as journals focused on media education and educational technologies, which address the issues raised in your comment.

Comments 8: At the end, better explain what is meant by longitudinal research and describe it in detail (it is better not to allude to things but to explain them clearly, or remove them).

Response 8: Thank you for your helpful observation. After careful consideration, we have decided to remove the text referring to longitudinal research in order to avoid ambiguity and ensure clarity throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study describes an educational innovation implemented in the Mechanical Technology course of the bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering at Miguel Hernández University of Elche, utilizing challenge-based learning (CBL) through a team-based mechanical artifact design competition. Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) tools for decision-making and report writing, and aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as evaluation criteria, 48 students designed artifacts using laboratory resources, produced technical reports justifying materials and processes, and participated in surveys assessing perceptions of skill acquisition, AI usage, and SDG awareness. Results from the surveys indicate enhanced understanding of manufacturing processes, critical thinking in AI application, increased sustainability awareness, and development of transversal skills such as creativity, decision-making, and technical communication, demonstrating the potential of CBL combined with emerging technologies to improve learning in technical programs.

The paper offers a compelling example of integrating active learning strategies with AI and sustainability principles in engineering education, supported by a practical implementation in a real course setting and empirical data from student surveys that reveal positive impacts on motivation, skill development, and awareness of global issues, thereby contributing meaningfully to the field of educational innovation in technical disciplines while highlighting the feasibility of such approaches in resource-constrained environments.

Major Issues and Suggested Improvements:

The sample size is limited to 48 students from a single institution and course, which restricts the generalizability of findings to broader educational contexts.
Reliance on self-reported surveys for evaluating skill acquisition and perceptions introduces potential response biases, with no objective measures like pre-post tests or performance metrics provided.
The description of AI tool integration lacks specificity, such as which tools were used, how they were applied in design processes, or guidelines for ethical use.
Alignment with SDGs is superficially addressed without detailed analysis of specific goals impacted or quantitative assessment of sustainability contributions in student projects.
The study design lacks a control group or comparative analysis with traditional teaching methods to robustly demonstrate the added value of the CBL approach.
Potential confounding factors, such as team dynamics or prior student knowledge, are not discussed or controlled for in the analysis.
The literature review could be strengthened by incorporating recent works on AI-assisted educational innovations, such as "Real-Time Classroom Behavior Analysis for Enhanced Engineering Education: An AI-Assisted Approach" （https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00572-y) and "Enhancing education quality: Exploring teachers' attitudes and intentions towards intelligent MR devices" education quality: Exploring teachers' attitudes and intentions towards intelligent MR devices”（https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12692).

Author Response

Comments 1: The sample size is limited to 48 students from a single institution and course, which restricts the generalizability of findings to broader educational contexts.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We acknowledge the limitation regarding the sample size, which consisted of 48 third-year students from a single institution and course. This issue has been explicitly addressed in the “Limitations of the Study” section, where we clarify that the generalizability of the findings to broader educational contexts may be limited. Additionally, we have noted that future iterations of the study will aim to expand the sample and include more diverse educational settings to enhance the robustness and external validity of the results.

Comments 2: Reliance on self-reported surveys for evaluating skill acquisition and perceptions introduces potential response biases, with no objective measures like pre-post tests or performance metrics provided.

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful comment regarding the limitations of relying solely on self-reported surveys to evaluate skill acquisition and student perceptions.

We fully agree that incorporating objective measures would enhance the precision of the evaluation, particularly with regard to transversal competencies linked to the Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. The activity was carried out within the framework of the “Mechanical Technology” course, which aims to address transversal competencies as far as its current design allows. However, the course does not currently include specific tests to objectively and quantitatively assess competencies related to Artificial Intelligence (AI) or the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Nevertheless, students do take a written exam on the production methods involved in artifact design. In the current academic year, this exam has included questions related to the manufacturing processes covered in the practical sessions, specifically those available for prototype fabrication. Looking ahead to the next academic year, we will consider the possibility of comparing the grades obtained in this exam by the reference group (48 students) with those of another group from the following academic year who have not received this specific training. This comparison will allow us to extract indicators that correlate academic results with the experience received, thus evaluating the impact of the intervention in a more objective manner.

In any case, the survey results show that a significant portion of students reported having acquired knowledge in AI and SDGs. This self-perception of learning fosters confidence and self-directed learning, especially considering that the curriculum does not include specific subjects addressing AI or SDG-related content, suggesting that prior knowledge was likely limited.

This limitation and its implications have been explicitly addressed in the Limitations of the Study section of the manuscript.

Comments 3: The description of AI tool integration lacks specificity, such as which tools were used, how they were applied in design processes, or guidelines for ethical use.

Response 3:

We sincerely appreciate your comment regarding the need for greater specificity in the integration of AI tools and the associated ethical guidelines. In response, we have expanded Section 3. Educational objectives to detail which tools were used (Gemini, Copilot, ChatGPT, Artguru, Deepseek, among others) and how they were applied in the different phases of the design process (idea generation, technical documentation, feasibility analysis, etc.). Students were given the freedom to choose the tools and were provided with a guide outlining the project requirements, thus encouraging a critical and responsible use of AI.

Regarding ethical considerations, although no formal code was established, responsible use of AI was promoted by aligning the challenge with the Sustainable Development Goals. This encouraged students to reflect on the social and environmental implications of both their projects and the tools employed.

We hope these clarifications contribute to a better understanding of the educational experience described, and we thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comments 4: Alignment with SDGs is superficially addressed without detailed analysis of specific goals impacted or quantitative assessment of sustainability contributions in student projects.

Response 4:

We sincerely appreciate your comment regarding the need for a more detailed analysis of the alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and a quantitative assessment of sustainability contributions in student projects. In response, a paragraph has been added at the end of Section 5.2, “Results on alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),” where the most impacted SDGs are identified and the scoring system used to evaluate alignment with the SDGs in the competition is described. Additionally, specific examples of artifacts proposed by students are included, which are well aligned with the characteristics and limitations of the competition.

We hope these clarifications contribute to a better understanding of the approach adopted, and we thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comments 5: The study design lacks a control group or comparative analysis with traditional teaching methods to robustly demonstrate the added value of the CBL approach.

Response 5: We appreciate your comment regarding the absence of a control group or a comparative analysis with traditional teaching methods. This aspect has been noted as a limitation in Section 5.4 Limitation of the Study.

Comments 6: Potential confounding factors, such as team dynamics or prior student knowledge, are not discussed or controlled for in the analysis.

Response 6: We appreciate your comment regarding the absence of a control group or a comparative analysis with traditional teaching methods. This aspect has been noted as a limitation in Section 5.4 Limitation of the Study.

Comments 7: The literature review could be strengthened by incorporating recent works on AI-assisted educational innovations, such as "Real-Time Classroom Behavior Analysis for Enhanced Engineering Education: An AI-Assisted Approach" （https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00572-y) and "Enhancing education quality: Exploring teachers' attitudes and intentions towards intelligent MR devices" education quality: Exploring teachers' attitudes and intentions towards intelligent MR devices”（https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12692).

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. The suggested works have indeed been included in section 2.3. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Engineering Education, where the impact of artificial intelligence on improving educational quality and sustainability in engineering training is analysed.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this work, it is an exciting and timely topic as many educators are considering further incorporation of AI into their courses. I have just a few small comments.

On line 218-219, you state that this is designed to be applicable "to any undergraduate or master's program related to engineering" but in the limitations, you state that because this study was only carried out at one institution, it may not be largely generalizable. I would suggest altering the statement on lines 218-219 so that it is not so broad when your work may not be applicable to all engineering programs.

In your figures, consider color choice with more contrast. Some of the shades of the colors are very close together and often one color means several different things throughout the paper. That can be especially difficult for readers with color blindness.

I may have missed it, but I do not see your overall sample size anywhere. You should include that in the methods. Also potentially some broad information about the institution, is it large or small? Public or private? Does any one racial/ethnic group make up most of the population or is it a more diverse institution, etc. This can help readers in determining how successful something like this would be in their own institutions and classrooms.

Author Response

Comments 1: On line 218-219, you state that this is designed to be applicable "to any undergraduate or master's program related to engineering" but in the limitations, you state that because this study was only carried out at one institution, it may not be largely generalizable. I would suggest altering the statement on lines 218-219 so that it is not so broad when your work may not be applicable to all engineering programs.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. In response, we have revised this statement to better reflect the scope of the study. It now refers specifically to undergraduate or master's programs in engineering that involve the development of industrial or construction-related projects, which aligns more accurately with the context and limitations of our research.

Comments 2: In your figures, consider color choice with more contrast. Some of the shades of the colors are very close together and often one color means several different things throughout the paper. That can be especially difficult for readers with color blindness.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. The figures have been revised to improve color contrast and ensure clearer visual differentiation. Special attention was given to selecting color palettes that are accessible to readers with color blindness, in order to enhance readability and inclusivity.

Comments 3: I may have missed it, but I do not see your overall sample size anywhere. You should include that in the methods. Also potentially some broad information about the institution, is it large or small? Public or private? Does any one racial/ethnic group make up most of the population or is it a more diverse institution, etc. This can help readers in determining how successful something like this would be in their own institutions and classrooms.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your detailed and constructive feedback. In response to your comment, we have ensured that the manuscript now clearly includes the following information:

- Overall sample size:

The sample size is explicitly stated in the Research Methodology section:

“The sample for this study consists of 48 undergraduate students enrolled in the course during the 2024–2025 academic year.”

- Institutional context:

Broad information about the institution is provided in the same section:

"UMH is a public university located in southeastern Spain, with approximately 14,800 students enrolled in official undergraduate and master's programs. It is a medium-sized institution with four campuses (Elche, Altea, Sant Joan d’Alacant, and Orihuela), and a strong commitment to educational innovation and interdisciplinary learning."

- Demographic diversity:

While specific racial/ethnic data is not included, the manuscript mentions the general composition of the student body:

“The student population is predominantly Spanish, although the university also hosts international students through mobility programs such as Erasmus+.”

We hope these additions and clarifications help readers better understand the context of the study and assess its potential applicability to other institutions and classrooms.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for submitting the revised manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the updated version. Unfortunately, I still find that the quality of the writing requires significant improvement.

First, the introduction needs to be more critical and should clearly highlight the development of the research area, specifically, Challenge-Based Learning in conjunction with Artificial Intelligence and the Sustainable Development Goals within Mechanical Engineering. A broader and more current range of references is necessary, especially those published within the last decade. While the manuscript elaborates on the specific research context in Spain, it is important to consider the relevance of your work to an international audience.

Second, although some references have been added to the literature review, they remain inadequate and do not reflect deep or comprehensive engagement with the existing body of work.

Third, the methodology section is the weakest part of the manuscript. It lacks clarity regarding how the research was implemented and fails to demonstrate strong empirical rationale or procedural rigor.

Given these substantial weaknesses, I regret to inform you that I must maintain my recommendation to reject the article.

Best,

Reviewer

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your observations have been extremely valuable in helping us improve the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and expertise you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Below, we address each of your comments in detail:

Comments 0:

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 0:

We are grateful for your observation regarding the clarity of the English language. In response, we have made a dedicated effort to improve the fluency and precision of the text throughout the manuscript. The revised version has undergone internal linguistic revision to enhance readability and coherence. Furthermore, we will contract the professional language editing services offered by the journal to ensure optimal quality of the final version, including both the text and visual materials.

Comments 1:

Response 1:

Thank you for highlighting the need for a more critical and internationally relevant introduction. We have reformulated this section to better reflect the evolution of Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) in conjunction with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within Mechanical Engineering. The revised introduction now includes recent and relevant references (2023–2025), and situates the study within a broader international context, thereby enhancing its relevance and analytical depth.

Comments 2:

Second, although some references have been added to the literature review, they remain inadequate and do not reflect deep or comprehensive engagement with the existing body of work.

Response 2:

We greatly appreciate your suggestion to strengthen the literature review. In response, we have completely restructured Section 2 into four thematic subsections that address the conceptual pillars of the study in a differentiated and comprehensive manner:

2.1. Ethics, Social Responsibility, and the SDGs in Engineering Education: Expanded with recent systematic reviews and theoretical frameworks that explore the integration of social justice, equity, and professional ethics into engineering curricula.

2.2. Active Methodologies: Project-Based and Challenge-Based Learning: Rewritten to incorporate critical studies and systematic reviews on the implementation of PBL and CBL in engineering, with attention to their limitations and transformative potential.

2.3. The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Sustainable Engineering Education: Enriched with recent literature analyzing the pedagogical, ethical, and curricular impact of AI in active learning environments.

2.4. Convergence of Active Methodologies, AI, and Sustainability in Industrial and Mechanical Engineering Education: A new subsection reviewing studies that integrate the three core dimensions of the article (PBL/CBL, AI, and SDGs) in mechanical and industrial engineering.

We have also added an introductory paragraph to Section 2 to explain the rationale behind this structure and its progressive logic. Additionally, the reference list has been thoroughly revised: several outdated sources have been removed, and new references have been incorporated, including systematic reviews and empirical studies from diverse international contexts. We believe these changes significantly enhance the scholarly foundation and coherence of the manuscript.

Comments 3:

Response 3:

Thank you very much for your critical insight regarding the methodological section. Your observation has been especially helpful in guiding a substantial revision of this part of the manuscript. In response, we have restructured the entire section to provide greater clarity, coherence, and empirical rigor.

The revised version now includes a detailed description of the implementation process, with each of the five stages of the challenge-based learning project clearly outlined and contextualized. This includes the launch and motivation phase, theoretical foundations, practical demonstrations, project development, and final evaluation. By expanding and specifying each stage, we aim to offer a transparent view of how the educational intervention was designed and executed.

We have also clarified the evaluation strategy by distinguishing between the quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative evaluation was conducted by a multidisciplinary panel using a predefined rubric with specific weightings across six criteria, including technical feasibility, creativity, SDG alignment, and AI usage. The qualitative evaluation was based on a structured questionnaire administered to all participants, covering perceptions of AI tools, sustainability integration, and competency development through Likert-scale and multiple-choice items.

Additionally, we have included a new subsection on methodological limitations, acknowledging the absence of control groups and objective performance metrics, and outlining future improvements to enhance empirical robustness.

We are confident that these improvements provide a more transparent, replicable, and pedagogically grounded account of the research design. Thank you again for encouraging us to strengthen this section, your feedback has been instrumental in refining the methodological framework of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been significantly improved through revisions. The quality has been significantly improved. The responses have addressed my questions. The author could optimize the text for easier understanding.

Author Response

Comments 1: