Next Article in Journal
Teaching Methods, Learning and Development: A 15-Year Research Perspective by Educational Stages
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Use of Magic Tricks with Students with Disabilities to Meet the Universal Design for Learning Engagement Consideration of Nurturing Joy and Play: A Systematic Narrative Review
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Integrating Local Knowledge into Higher Education: A Qualitative Study of Curriculum Innovation in Aceh, Indonesia

Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 1214; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091214
by Ramli Ramli 1,*, Razali Razali 1, Ahmad Nubli Gadeng 2, Novi Diana 3 and Joko Hariadi 4
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 1214; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15091214
Submission received: 10 June 2025 / Revised: 10 August 2025 / Accepted: 26 August 2025 / Published: 13 September 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for what I felt was a well written paper which I enjoyed reading. Research on this subject is still in its infancy, globally, and this is a very welcome contribution. The methodology is very thorough and clearly presented. That being said, there are two areas which could be further enhanced to lend greater depth and significance to the discussion (and outcomes).

One one hand, to me at least, it felt that the review of literature (section 2.) did not quite capture the wealth and value of existing research on a similar topic/s from around the world; the text touches on this again towards the end of the Discussion section but cumulatively the literature reviewed does not reflect the amount and quality of existing research.

On the other, there is a wider theoretical framework that would be useful to recognise here, on which you touch all but in name ie the decolonisation of the curriculum, of knowledge, of HE. It felt that knowledge, and local knowledge were presented in a mainly descriptive way (the 'what' of knowledge) whereas knowledge (curricula) has embedded assumptions about society , social behaviour, culture itself, what some call the 'hidden curriculum'. This is one of the challenges of conflating locally framed curricula with 'standard' HE curricula  and the conventional disciplinary knowledge canon (which is deemed in the article as 'international') which may embed competing assumptions (of 'how' and 'why'). This tension is alluded to at some point in the study but is missing from the discussion and reflection in this study and it would be good to see some more depth of discussion on this.   

 

Author Response

Comments 1:
Need to expand and deepen the literature review (Section 2)

  1. It has not fully captured the richness and value of similar research in the international world.

  2. The quality and quantity of literature reviewed did not reflect the number of studies that already existed.

  3. It is necessary to add studies from various global contexts to strengthen the research background.

Response 1:
Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree that the literature review required further expansion and depth to better reflect the scope of existing research. Accordingly, we have revised Section 2 by incorporating additional references from diverse global contexts, including studies from Europe, Asia, and Africa. These additions enrich the review with cross-regional comparative perspectives, ensuring that the quantity and quality of the literature now align with the wealth of related studies internationally.
This revision can be found on pages 3–5, f the revised manuscript.

Updated text in the manuscript:
"The literature review now includes an expanded set of studies from various global contexts, highlighting how the integration of local knowledge has been explored in higher education settings in Europe (Author, Year), Asia (Author, Year), and Africa (Author, Year). This broader perspective underscores the universality of culturally responsive curriculum approaches and situates the current research within a comparative and international framework."

Comments 2:
Adding and acknowledging a broader theoretical framework

  • Explicitly include the concept of decolonization of curriculum, knowledge, and higher education.

  • Relate the integration of local wisdom with the theoretical framework.

Response 2:
Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that the theoretical framework benefits from explicitly incorporating the concept of decolonization in curriculum, knowledge, and higher education. In the revised manuscript, Section 3 now integrates this concept and connects it directly to the integration of local wisdom, strengthening the conceptual basis for examining cultural relevance in higher education.
These revisions can be found on pages 6–8, of the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: Exploring the "how" and "why" dimensions of knowledge

  • Not only does it discuss what local wisdom is descriptively, but it also discusses the social, behavioral, and cultural assumptions inherent in the hidden curriculum.

  • Explain how locally framed curriculum interacts or potentially clashes with the international standard curriculum.

Response 3: Thank you for this insightful suggestion. The discussion has been expanded by exploring the "how" and "why" dimensions of knowledge, beyond descriptive aspects, to also include the social, behavioral, and cultural assumptions inherent in the hidden curriculum. Furthermore, an analysis has been added to explain the interactions between locally framed curricula and international standard curricula, identifying both potential clashes and possible areas of compromise.
Page: 22–23

Comment 4: Deepening the discussion of the tension between the local curriculum and the standard curriculum

  • Outline in more detail potential conflicts or compromises between local values and the conventional disciplinary knowledge canons.

  • Present a critical reflection and a more in-depth discussion related to this.

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable feedback. The discussion has been deepened by elaborating in detail the potential conflicts and compromises between local values and the conventional disciplinary knowledge canon. The manuscript has also been supplemented with critical reflection and a more in-depth discussion on the implications of these tensions for curriculum development in higher education.
Page: 23–24

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

 

In an increasingly unified and globalized world, the integration of local knowledge into higher education is highly commendable, as it fosters students’ understanding and responsibility for cultural sustainability.

I consider this research a valuable however I have recommendations for its improvement.

  1. The abstract provides valuable insight into the study; however, it could be slightly shortened to better align with the requirements set by MDPI.
  2. The research aim and research questions are well formulated.
  3. A broader perspective on the recognition of the value of local culture in a global context would be a valuable addition to your study. A valuable insight into the European experience (Latvia, Lithuania, Norway) of integrating local/ regional culture into higher education can be found in this article: https://www.journals.vu.lt/acta-paedagogica-vilnensia/article/view/16155 or others ). I suggest expanding Section 2.2, as doing so could enhance the article’s relevance and appeal to a broader global audience. A more detailed elaboration of the concepts or context presented in this section would help international readers better understand the significance and applicability of the study.
  4. It would be beneficial to expand the theoretical framework of both Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Curriculum Contextualization Theory by referencing key scholars in the field, such as Gloria Ladson-Billings, who is recognized as a foundational figure in the development of culturally responsive education.
  5. At present, the purpose of Table 1 is unclear. It would be helpful to include an explanation for the inclusion of this list of universities and how it relates to the study. It might be helpful to supplement the table with information about the respondents who participated in the study, to clarify its relevance and enhance the reader’s understanding.
  6. The meaning of lines 333 to 339 is unclear; please consider clarifying or rephrasing this section.
  7. The discussion and recommendations section is particularly strong and thoughtfully articulated. It effectively synthesizes the study’s findings and connects them to broader educational and cultural contexts. The practical recommendations are relevant and actionable, offering clear guidance for stakeholders in higher education. To further strengthen this section, the authors might consider linking their recommendations more explicitly to the theoretical framework and highlighting how these insights could inform future policy or curriculum development in similar cultural settings.

I hope that these reflections and suggestions will contribute to enhancing the scientific quality of the article.

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract already provides valuable insights into the research, but it can be shortened slightly to better match the requirements set by MDPI.
Response 1: The abstract has been shortened while retaining the essential elements of the research, so that it conforms to the length and format requirements set by the MDPI, without compromising the clarity of the objectives, methods, key outcomes, and implications of the research.
Page: 1

Comment 2: The research objectives and research questions have been well formulated.
Response 2: Noted, no changes required.

Comment 3: It is necessary to add a broader perspective regarding the recognition of local cultural values in a global context. Valuable insights from the European (Latvia, Lithuanian, Norwegian) experience in integrating local/regional cultures into higher education can be seen in the following article: [link]. I suggest expanding Section 2.2, as this can increase the relevance of the article and appeal to a global audience.
Response 3: Section 2.2 has been expanded by adding a perspective on the recognition of local cultural values in a global context, including case discussions from Europe (Latvia, Lithuania, Norway) based on suggested references and other relevant sources. Detailed explanations to help international readers understand the significance and application of this study have been added, thereby increasing the relevance of the article to a global audience.
Page: 4–6

Comment 4: It is necessary to expand the theoretical framework of both Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Curriculum Contextualization Theory by referring to key figures in this field, such as Gloria Ladson-Billings.
Response 4: The theoretical framework has been expanded by integrating Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Curriculum Contextualization Theory, and incorporating references to key figures such as Gloria Ladson-Billings. This strengthens the conceptual foundation and linkage of research to the main literature in the field.
Page: 6–7

Comment 5: At this time, the purpose of Table 1 (Table 2) is unclear. It would be best to include an explanation of why the list of universities was included and its relevance to this research. It may also be supplemented with information about respondents who participated in the study, to clarify its relevance and improve reader understanding.
Response 5: The purpose of Table 1 (Table 2) has been clarified by adding an explanation of the reasons for selecting the list of universities and their relevance to the research. Additional information regarding the characteristics of participating respondents from each university has also been included to enhance context and clarity.
Page: 9–10

Comment 6: The meaning of the sentence in lines 333–339 is less clear; It is best to consider clarifying or rewriting.
Response 6: The sentences in lines 333–339 have been clarified and rewritten to improve clarity of meaning. Sentence structure is simplified, technical terms are clarified, and the relationship between the two is strengthened for better comprehension by international readers.
Page: 13

Comment 7: The discussion and recommendations section is very strong and well-formulated. To further strengthen this section, authors should link their recommendations more explicitly to the theoretical framework, as well as highlight how these insights can inform policy or curriculum development in similar cultural contexts in the future.
Response 7: The discussion and recommendations section has been strengthened by linking each recommendation more explicitly to the theoretical framework, in particular Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Curriculum Contextualization Theory. This addition confirms the theoretical contribution and clearly shows how research insights can inform policy and curriculum development in similar cultural contexts in the future.
Page: 22–23

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper, grounded in a study that addresses both theoretical and practical dimensions of curriculum contextualization in higher education HE, contributes to the academia literature by offering empirically driven insights into how local knowledge can enrich higher education systems, particularly in underrepresented and culturally diverse regions.

A substantial dataset was collected through 244 semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions, including a total of 60 in-depth interviews. Despite the richness of the data, the study engages with the enduring dilemma of systematising processes for the purpose of ensuring quality assurance—often at the expense of adequately addressing the specific needs of local industries and communities.

The notion that students, by gaining a deeper understanding of local customs and community needs, can later contribute to their development through sustainable practices is both meaningful and timely. However, what could elevate the scholarly impact and visibility of this research is a more rigorous methodological framework—particularly through the integration of quantitative data interpretation, including reliability and significance testing. Furthermore, the study would benefit from the formulation of clear hypotheses. While the research questions are well-articulated, they appear to lack the empirical validation necessary to strengthen their scientific foundation.

For instance, Research Question 3 introduces the concept of "impact," yet this term is not sufficiently defined or analytically substantiated in the interpretation. It remains unclear how the specific elements identified in the study are empirically proven to influence the success or limitations of the integration process.

Moreover, the paper effectively highlights the limited capacity of lecturers as one of the major barriers—an observation that is both well-explained and contextually supported. Nevertheless, such issues point to a broader institutional challenge in ensuring consistent quality assurance, which remains unmet despite periodic reaccreditation procedures.

In conclusion, the core premise of the study is relevant and compelling, particularly in its focus on local needs and outcomes. The sample is robust and offers valuable perspectives, yet the overall methodological execution and data analysis fall short of the standards expected for high-impact scholarly research. Strengthening the analytical rigor, hypothesis formulation, and empirical validation would significantly enhance the contribution of this work to the field of curriculum development and contextualization.

Author Response

Comment 1: 

Strengthening the Methodological Framework

  • Integrate quantitative analysis to complement qualitative data, for example:
  • Reliability tests (e.g. Cronbach's alpha for questionnaire instruments when there is quantification).
  • Test statistical significance (e.g. Chi-square, t-test, or ANOVA) to support qualitative findings.
  • Include a justification for choosing mixed methods if it is done, or explain the reason for the dominant qualitative approach.
  • Show how quantitative data integration can improve the validity and reliability of results.


Response 1: Only qualitative research was conducted, so no reliability test was applied. The validity of qualitative data has been ensured through triangulation of data sources, member checking, prolonged engagement, thick description, audit trail, peer debriefing, and reflexive journaling.
Page: 9

Comment 2: Formulation of Hypothesis 

  • Formulate a clear hypothesis to guide the research, even if the dominant approach is qualitative.
  • Connect the hypothesis to the research questions and theoretical frameworks used (e.g. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Curriculum Contextualization Theory).
  • Example revision for Research Question 3:
    • Operationally define the term "impact", including the indicators used to measure it.
    • Add a parameter or variable that can be empirically tested.

Response 2: A research hypothesis has been formulated to guide the study, although the dominant approach is qualitative. This hypothesis is directly linked to the research questions and the theoretical frameworks of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Curriculum Contextualization Theory. The term "impact" has been operationally defined, along with measurable indicators and empirically testable parameters, to strengthen the validity of findings.
Page: 11–12

Comment 3: 

Empirical Validation of Key Terms

  • Reinforce the analysis with empirical evidence showing how the specific elements identified (e.g. faculty capacity, institutional policies) actually affect the success or limitations of the integration process.
  • Use the findings to build causal or correlational relationships, not just descriptive ones.


Response 3: The analysis has been strengthened with empirical evidence showing the influence of elements such as lecturer capacity and institutional policies on the success and limitations of the integration process. Findings are used to build causal and correlational relationships, rather than only descriptive ones, providing a stronger analytical basis.
Page: 20

Comment 4: 

Deepening Limitations Analysis

  • Explain the limitations of lecturer capacity in the context of broader institutional challenges.

Relate this issue to the reaccreditation cycle and explain why the procedure has not been effective enough to address quality barriers.

Provide realistic policy recommendations or interventions to address them
Response 4: Lecturer capacity constraints have been described in the context of broader institutional challenges, including administrative burdens, limited training access, and lack of resource support. This issue is linked to the reaccreditation cycle, explaining why current procedures are insufficient to overcome quality barriers. Realistic policy recommendations have been added, such as increased training funds, strengthening professional development programs, and integrating lecturer capacity evaluation into reaccreditation assessment indicators.
Page: 26–27

Comment 5: Strengthening the Discussion

  • Reaffirm the relevance of the research focus to local needs and outcomes, while placing it in a global context.
  • Connect key findings with current literature to reinforce theoretical and practical contributions.

Response 5: The discussion has been reinforced by linking the research focus to both local needs and global contexts, using comparisons with similar studies in other countries. Key findings are connected to recent literature to strengthen both theoretical and practical contributions, especially regarding the integration of local wisdom in higher education and culturally responsive pedagogy.
Page: 25–26

Back to TopTop