Integration of Technological Resources and Problem-Solving Method for the Development of Research Competencies in Engineering and Nursing Students from Two Public Universities in Peru

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

INTRODUCTION

 

-The initial part of the introduction is generally adequate and easy to read. However, before stating the objective of the work, the scientific gap that it addresses should be clear. Then, the purpose of the study's objective should be explicitly stated as a research objective. As it is mentioned now (around lines 63 to 67), it is suggested that the objective is to propose the implementation of a method. If the objective were only to propose a method, the research would not be carried out. The research objective would be more pertinent if it referred to analyzing the effectiveness of a certain method.

- The presentation of the background is too long and goes into too much detail on things that could possibly be presented more succinctly

-Regarding the research gap, at least the following issues should be addressed in Introduction section: Background and Previous Research (Has any research been conducted before on this topic? If so, in what context has this research been conducted? What findings have been uncovered through these studies?) Research Gap (Is there an absence of research in this area? What gap does this study respond to?) Has research been conducted in the specific context in which this study is proposed?) Novelty and Rationale of the Current Study (What is the novelty of this work? Why is relevant to conduct the study in Peru?)

-It does not seem necessary to make a title for literature review. And it also does not match the sections requested in the journal's instructions. Please incorporate any relevant background into the introduction section. You may use subtitles.  Use subtitles only if justified for the presentation of the rationale and background of the work.

-"Formative Research" section: Improve the content planning of this section and keep only what is essential to understand the content of the work. If you notice, "formative research" has been defined 3 times in 3 different paragraphs.

- Lines 113-117, paragraph requires sources 

-Line 133 to 138 . Clarify whether the consulted source is Jahudin and Siew (2024) or (Klever, 2021).

-Lines 139-143, paragraph requires sources.  In the case that the paragraph is an inference of your own from the ideas mentioned, it should be made clearer in the writing. "In this way, it would seem that...

-Lines 145-150, paragraph requires sources.  In the case that the paragraph is an inference of your own from the ideas mentioned, it should be made clearer in the writing. "In this way, it would seem that...

-Review that the section "Pólya’s Problem-Solving Method Through the Use of Technological Resources" is well planned in the content and ideas that you want to convey without repeating ideas

 

-Lines 191-198, presents many ideas and only one source. Are all from the same work? Or are there uncited ideas?

-  Specify general objectives and specific objectives before the method.

 

-Section 2.4 seems to be the most relevant subsection to understand and justify the work, as it appears to articulate the previously mentioned elements. However, it should be properly articulated with a gap and objectives so that the rationale between BACKGROUND-GAP-PRESENT STUDY is clear

 

METHOD

-Participants: Why these careers?

- It is confusing that you say "a validated instrument was used" (citing a previous study) and then present details like "the instrument was validated by international experts" reliability, etc, since that completely escapes the objective of the presented work. It is enough to refer to the previous study and stick to the characteristics of the instrument, which is necessary to understand the content of the work.

-Table 3 and 4, inconsistency in the use of bold

-Figure 2. It doesn't make much sense to include the projects as a figure in Spanish. You could indicate some translation and leave the originals as supplementary material

- Table 6 combines elements of a table with a figure. Please plan the content so that it is either a table or a figure at a time. It could be better presented as figures, with captions of the phases. Reformulate as the authors deem most pertinent but complying with the journal's guidelines. Avoid elements in Spanish if they will not be understood by the reader or translated.  Or transform it into supplementary material. The table is too large and difficult to follow.  The table extends over three and a half pages. It should be better planned in paper format. Same with Table 7. There are images that seem illustrative, but others are not informative, they are text that cannot be read or are irrelevant (such as the photos of the students' articles).

-The method lacks an analysis section before results. In this section, the tools used to measure the variables used and the statistical tests used to conclude on the hypotheses should be clear. In the results, there is an unnecessary emphasis on the decision rules of the scientific field (for example "since the p value was greater than ...."). The tests used and the level of significance used must be clear in analysis, not in results. In results, a more appropriate scientific style should be used. For example: "No differences were found between the groups (test statistic values and p value are indicated in parentheses). It is not necessary to explain the decision rules as it is common scientific knowledge

- The entire description of statistical tests goes in the method, not in the results. For example, in analysis it should say "First, the normality of .. was contrasted for which the Shapiro Wilk test was used when n < 50 and Kolmogorov Smirnov when n>50. A significance level of 5% was considered. In results, only the results of these tests should be presented "In the case of engineering students, the data were normally distributed, as presented in the table ..

 

- The entire results section requires verification of these elements. Once the study objectives are clearly outlined, the alignment between objectives-presented results, as well as discussions, can be better verified

Other comments

-Line 15 “No substantial differences were found”

Did you mean “No significant differences were found"?

Significant is not the same as substantial.

-Line 27 “Among these methodologies, formative research stands out. It is understood as a pedagogical process that seeks to foster in students”. Please be more clear with the subject of the second sentence, for example  “…formative research stands out. Formative research is understood..”

-There is a lack of clarity in the phrasing between lines 72 and 73, "Achieving this goal". The connection of ideas should be reviewed

Line 87, only in engineering programs?

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed a letter addressing the comments provided on the manuscript.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ronald Paucar

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a relevant and contemporary initiative that integrates Pólya’s problem-solving method with accessible technological tools to develop research competencies in first-year university students. Several areas require improvement to enhance the manuscript's overall clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution.

1) The theoretical contextualization could be made more succinct and better structured.  The literature review tends to be descriptive and lacks critical synthesis. For instance, the references to multiple studies on Pólya’s method (lines 113–158) could be better grouped thematically rather than listed sequentially. A clearer distinction between prior work and the novelty of this study would help demonstrate the originality and contribution of the proposed pedagogical approach.

2) The research design is explained, but key elements are not sufficiently foregrounded. The hypotheses are embedded within the method section (lines 426–451), but they would benefit from clearer upfront articulation in the introduction or as a separate section. The justification for the choice of a quasi-experimental design and the rationale for using different statistical tests (t-test and Wilcoxon) for the two groups is not fully discussed, even though these are pivotal to the credibility of the findings.

3) The description of student projects is a strong part of the manuscript (e.g., Tables 3–7), but the discussion of findings remains largely descriptive. For example, in the Results section (lines 403–510), the authors provide summaries of mean scores and percentage shifts across categories but offer limited interpretation of these changes beyond stating that they are statistically significant. More critical engagement with why some phases (e.g., solution review) showed greater improvement than others would enrich the argument. Similarly, the brief mention that the design phase showed a decrease in “high” but an increase in “very high” responses (line 538) is insightful but underdeveloped.

4) The conclusion is largely a restatement of prior sections and could be improved by explicitly linking findings to the broader educational context in Peru or Latin America. Although the authors stress cross-disciplinary applicability, there is no reflection on the different baseline skills or technological familiarity of nursing versus engineering students, which could have influenced the results.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used is generally understandable but contains awkward or redundant phrasing (e.g., “visual block-based programming interface developed on the mBlock platform, using Python-based libraries,” line 206), which can be streamlined for clarity. A thorough proofreading would improve readability and academic tone.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed a letter addressing the comments provided on the manuscript.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ronald Paucar

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is certainly worth of publication (with minor changes, in my humble opinion, but even with no changes if the authors prefer it) as it is a very interesting and helpful example of introducing a system of thought and guided project using the Polya method.

Although Polya restricted it to mathematics and mathematical education, the authors successfully have adapted it to technological endeavours, and even gave us the opportunity of comparing engineering and nursing students. But being a member that exceptional group that was humorously called the "Martians" (Budapest born Jews who came to USA around WWII and greatly succeeded in their respective fields) Polya's books and methods have a much wider and deeper potential.

The authors did a very good job in adapting the educational methods and presenting them in a practical and helpful way.

Some minor suggestions that are for the authors to chose whether to adopt or not are detailed hereunder.

The title could have been shorter like: Technology, Heuristics and Formative Research: Peru Engineering and Nursing Students .

The authors maybe could detail and even show pics or other graphics of mentioned very interesting educational kit: "In Peru, an educational STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) electronic kit was designed and implemented, consisting of six thematic electronic boards: agriculture, aquaculture, environment, health, education, and livestock (PROCiencia- CONCYTEC, 2024). "

Authors could detail the first stage of Polya's four stages - understanding the problem - in their specific research by giving examples of the guidance of the instructors and questions asked by the students. Polya gives examples of formulating the questions as: "What is the unknown? What are the data? What is the condition?" (Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. p.22). 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find enclosed a letter addressing the comments provided on the manuscript.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Ronald Paucar

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version reflects substantial improvements in clarity, structure, and articulation of the study's purpose and findings. The research questions and hypotheses are now clearly stated, and the discussion provides more meaningful interpretation of the results, particularly regarding differences between engineering and nursing students. The conclusion is more actionable, and the English has been refined throughout. To further strengthen the manuscript, I encourage you to deepen the critical analysis in the literature review and expand on the theoretical implications of specific observed outcomes—particularly the variability in performance across problem-solving stages.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English has improved noticeably in this revised version. The text is now clearer, more concise, and flows more smoothly. Sentence structure and terminology are more consistent with academic writing standards. Minor refinements are still possible in phrasing and transitions between sections, but overall, the manuscript is well-written and does not require further language editing.

Author Response

Dear Editor,

In response to your observation, we have incorporated the corresponding text, highlighted in red. We kindly ask you to review the following sections of the manuscript: lines 290–302, lines 623–638, and lines 676–680.

We look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,
Dr. Ronald Paucar

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf