Transforming Learning Environments: Asset Management, Social Innovation and Design Thinking for Educational Facilities 5.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. The paper presents a transdisciplinary methodology illustrating the intersection between human creativity and technology to develop resilient, human-centric and sustainable systems in the example of Education 5.0. A strength of the paper is that it showcases social innovation, design thinking, and asset management to facilitate the development of an educational facilities, illustrated through the case study. The convergence of these conceptual frameworks demonstrates the potential for achieving aspired for practices and pedagogies within the educational community. Thank you, and I hope that these general and specific comments are helpful in the development of your manuscript.

General comments

The innovative approach to this research is evident in demonstrating possibilities for human-computer interaction. It could be strengthened by providing a more explicit grounding in the authors’ positionality. I am curious to learn more about the disciplinary values and practices that could help to position the authors’ use of LLM. There is some explanation of the benefits and limitations of using LLM in section 5.4, yet it is unclear what the underpinning values or ideas are for the use of LLM in research.

Could the authors also provide some further information about the pedagogical implications of this decision, in relation to non-efficiency related objectives? For example, in design thinking practices, collaborative analysis is often a learning tool and can also be done manually with participants to promote active engagement further foster empathy and co-creation in achieving the overarching aims and objectives of the piece of work. What about the biases of open AI? Some further critique of the function of ChatGPT on collaborative work, pedagogy and analysis is required.

The authors also position the methodology as transdisciplinary. It is unclear how the methodology might be adopted by various disciplines where epistemology or other intellectual foundations differ. For example, social justice focused disciplines such as Social Work may have different ethical ideas underpinning their use or non-use of LLM? What of the Education discipline? Further explanation here is needed in both the introduction and in the discussion/conclusions.

Specific comments

Please use a more active voice throughout the manuscript

e.g. “it has been demonstrated that…” to “students achieve better educational outcomes when…” (p.1, line 42),

“where they have been shown to support the development” to “they are shown to support the development” (p.2 line 57-58)

p.20 line 652 “By applying the proposed methodology to a case study, three main contributions were demonstrated” to “The proposed methodology demonstrates…”

In the introduction, might the authors incorporate some work on ‘authentic assessment’ to provide some further grounding to their argument?

P.2 line 78 & 79, Clarity issue - “By drawing parallels to similar contexts, the following question can be addressed: ”Where else do these conditions occur, and what solutions have been implemented in those scenarios?” Could try something like “By drawing parallels to similar contexts, educators are able to explore where else do similar learning conditions and contexts occur, and what is implemented in those scenarios?”

A description or definition of Industry 5.0 is needed at first mention on page 2

Conceptual Background

A brief description of ‘blue-card brainstorming’ is needed – judging by figure 2, it seems like this is the use of sticky notes or post-it notes (known in my context as a post it brainstorm). Is this correct?

p.6 line 256. “didactic” what?

It would be useful to have a sentence that articulates the significance of the limitations (p.8, lines 331-334), further analysing the impact of the exclusion of particular elements of the ideation and selection.

p.15 line 457 this sentence is unclear “Building on this foundation, the methodology offers key benefits demonstrated thorough its application on the Clermont case study.”

In the reporting of Asset Management Knowledge, the transformation of data into knowledge is reminiscent of the DIKW pyramid (Ackoff), which is commonly used in design processes. The authors may also wish to reference this work to provide intellectual grounding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article identifies the need for transformative practices in educational institutions and proposes a novel transdisciplinary methodology combining AM, SI, and DT to co-design “Educational Facilities 5.0.” The methodology is applied to a real-world case study (Clermont AgroLab), demonstrating its relevance and practical utility.

The manuscript heavily draws on asset management literature, with limited integration of established educational theories. Strengthen the theoretical foundation by incorporating key concepts from education science for example constructivism, experiential learning, and 21st-century competencies.

The section on Design Thinking (DT) could be significantly strengthened by incorporating additional academic references and elaborating on the conceptual foundations of DT. Currently, the definition is brief and primarily relies on limited sources. To provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding, it is recommended to include references from seminal DT literature as well as empirical studies demonstrating DT’s application in educational settings. Furthermore, discussing how DT facilitates empathy, iterative thinking, and user-centered design in learning environments would help contextualize its relevance to educational transformation.

In the conclusion section, the manuscript would benefit from explicitly reconnecting with the literature cited in the introduction. While the authors provide a rich theoretical background-particularly on living labs, makerspaces, and Education 5.0-the final reflections do not sufficiently discuss how the proposed methodology confirms, extends, or diverges from previous studies. Integrating such discussion would enhance the academic rigor and help readers better position the contribution within the broader educational innovation landscape.

Given that the study involves human participants including students, teachers, parents, and staff, and collects qualitative data through workshops and brainstorming sessions, the authors must clarify whether ethical approval was obtained from an ethics committee. If formal approval was not required due to local institutional policies, this should be explicitly stated along with a description of how informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you. All comments and suggestions are addressed to with clarity and consideration.