Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

 

Congratulations on all your hard work. This paper has the potential to be very influential. However, I am suggesting some revisions before it is accepted for publication. 

 

1. Your review of literature regarding Buddhist philosophies of education is extremely limited. Depending on how you read it, you only referenced one or two authors who talk in very general terms about the idea of Buddhist philosophy. There is a great deal of literature on this (see the lit review in Ashcraft & Calvert's article on the Nidanakatha) and it is crucial to include it here. You cannot write an article analyzing the applicability of Buddhist philosophies of education to education itself without first outlining what those philosophies are in the first place.
2. Apart from reviewing literature from Buddhist sources, you also need to include a review of other articles that have attempted to apply Buddhist principles to a variety of educational contexts (which you have not done yet). Your paper will be much stronger if you include this kind of literature. 
3. We need more detail about the qualitative methodology of your paper. How did you choose the experts you interviewed? Why did you choose the number of people you did? How long were the interviews? How did you analyze their content? Did you utilize member checking or triangulation to verify the trustworthiness of your data? Answers to these questions should all be included in your methodological description of the qualitative element of your paper if you intent to match the excellent rigor of the quantitative portion of it. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Your review of literature regarding Buddhist philosophies of education is extremely limited. Depending on how you read it, you only referenced one or two authors who talk in very general terms about the idea of Buddhist philosophy. There is a great deal of literature on this (see the lit review in Ashcraft & Calvert's article on the Nidanakatha) and it is crucial to include it here. You cannot write an article analyzing the applicability of Buddhist philosophies of education to education itself without first outlining what those philosophies are in the first place.

Author’s Response:
Thank you for your insightful and constructive comment. I fully acknowledge the importance of grounding the discussion in a robust and comprehensive literature review, especially when dealing with a topic as philosophically and pedagogically rich as Buddhist philosophies of education. In response to your observation, I have revised the literature review section to include a broader and deeper foundation of relevant sources and conceptual frameworks.

First, I have expanded the discussion of Buddhist educational philosophy by including multiple key sources that articulate the foundational principles, such as:

• Gunapala Dharmasiri (1989) and R.S. Perera (2001) on the ethical and soteriological dimensions of Buddhist learning.

• Jackson & Makransky (2000), who contextualize contemplative learning within Western and Eastern educational paradigms.

• Ashcraft & Calvert (2020), as you rightly suggested, whose literature review on the Nidanakatha provides an essential framework for how Buddhist narrative functions pedagogically within historical and spiritual transmission.

• I also added sources from Kumarapala (2006) and Tatsuo Inoue (2004), who provide insights into the application of Buddhist ideals such as paṭiccasamuppāda (dependent origination), sīla-samādhi-paññā (ethical conduct, concentration, and wisdom), and upāya (skillful means) in contemporary educational contexts.

By incorporating these sources, I now clearly outline what constitutes Buddhist educational philosophy—including its emphasis on self-transformation, mindful learning, compassion, and liberation from suffering—as well as its pedagogical implications in formal and informal learning environments.

Reviewer Comment (related fragment):
"An obvious fact, and not a very academic statement + Fragments like this make me feeling that this a policy making proposal, and not an academic project."

Author’s Response:
Thank you for highlighting the tone and style concern. Upon review, I recognize that certain earlier statements lacked academic rigor and may have appeared as general assertions rather than evidence-based arguments. I have revised these sections thoroughly to ensure that all claims are grounded in scholarly literature and framed with clear academic intent.

For example, previously vague phrases have been rewritten in a more formal and academic tone. Statements such as "An obvious fact..." have been removed or replaced with carefully cited arguments. The revised narrative now uses terms such as "Buddhist epistemology offers a holistic and non-dualistic approach to knowledge construction..." and "As highlighted in the works of Inoue (2004) and Makransky (2019), Buddhist education emphasizes not only intellectual cultivation but also ethical embodiment and spiritual transformation, aligning closely with humanistic educational ideals."

Furthermore, the structure of the paper has been adjusted to reflect a scholarly analysis rather than a policy recommendation. The study is now framed as an exploratory theoretical investigation, with clear research questions, conceptual analysis, and a coherent methodological orientation rooted in qualitative interpretive inquiry. 

I had rewrite for the goal is to strengthen that I claim with evidence and citations, as recommended. 

Reviewer Comment:
Apart from reviewing literature from Buddhist sources, you also need to include a review of other articles that have attempted to apply Buddhist principles to a variety of educational contexts (which you have not done yet). Your paper will be much stronger if you include this kind of literature.

Author’s Response:
Thank you very much for your valuable and insightful feedback. I appreciate your suggestion to broaden the literature base beyond canonical Buddhist texts by including research that explores the application of Buddhist principles in contemporary educational contexts. In response to your recommendation, I have significantly expanded the literature review to address this gap and clarify the relevance of Buddhist thought to modern educational theory and practice.

Specifically, the revised section now incorporates interdisciplinary perspectives that bridge Buddhist philosophical concepts with transformative education, ethical development, and cognitive-emotional integration:

I introduced Sherman & Boukydis (2023), who emphasize Buddhist-inspired education as a process grounded in self-reflection, ethical conduct, and critical inquiry. This aligns with core educational goals of nurturing mindfulness (sati), moral discernment (sīla), and contemplative insight (paññā).

I also integrated insights from Du Plessis (2019), who articulates how consciousness and learning capacities are interrelated and how Buddhist mindfulness practices enhance metacognitive awareness, emotional intelligence, and lifelong learning skills.

Additionally, I referenced Nerubasska et al. (2020) to show how philosophical principles—particularly those from Eastern traditions—are already being applied across subjects and educational levels to promote cognitive skills like critical thinking, inquiry, and evaluation, which mirror Buddhist goals of wisdom cultivation.

The revised section situates Theravāda Buddhist pedagogy within the broader discourse on transformative and holistic education by referencing works such as Van der Merwe (2019) and Whitehead (1996), who support the integration of spiritual and rational dimensions in education.

Lastly, I included contemporary Buddhist scholars such as Bhikkhu Bodhi (2000) and Ñāṇamoli (1995) to bridge traditional Theravāda teachings with present-day educational goals such as social responsibility, ethical citizenship, and learner autonomy.

Together, these additions demonstrate that Buddhist principles are not only historically significant but also practically relevant and adaptable to modern pedagogical frameworks. By grounding the discussion in both classical sources and modern scholarly applications, the paper now provides a more comprehensive and academically robust foundation for analyzing the potential of Buddhist philosophies in education.

Response to Reviewer 3

Comment:
“We need more detail about the qualitative methodology of your paper. How did you choose the experts you interviewed? Why did you choose the number of people you did? How long were the interviews? How did you analyze their content? Did you utilize member checking or triangulation to verify the trustworthiness of your data? Answers to these questions should all be included in your methodological description of the qualitative element of your paper if you intend to match the excellent rigor of the quantitative portion of it.”

Response:
Thank you for your detailed feedback and for encouraging a more rigorous description of the qualitative methodology. Based on your comments, I have revised and expanded the methodological section to address all key concerns, as outlined below:

1. Selection of Experts
   A total of 5 experts were selected from a pool of 20 qualified individuals using snowball sampling (Berndt, 2020) with expert referral. The selection was purposive, focusing on those with significant academic and professional experience in Buddhist education, learning theory, and philosophical pedagogy (e.g., professors, curriculum designers, and Buddhist scholars).

2. Sample Size Justification
   The use of five experts aligns with Creswell’s (2013) recommendation for small, specialized focus groups in qualitative research, aimed at gaining in-depth, content-rich insights rather than statistical generalization. This size enabled efficient management and depth of discussion necessary for developing the CLS–BP framework.

3. Interview Duration and Format
   Each expert participated in a semi-structured focus group discussion lasting 90–120 minutes. This format allowed for guided exploration of core themes while enabling flexibility to capture nuanced perspectives.

4. Qualitative Data Analysis
   The data from the focus groups were analyzed using content analysis. Themes were coded and categorized based on the Creative Pedagogy Framework by Aleinikov (1989), allowing the synthesis of key concepts to refine the model. Data were interpreted through thematic analysis, with results presented in mean scores, standard deviations, and rankings for clarity.

5. Trustworthiness: Member Checking and Triangulation
   To ensure validity and reliability:

• Member checking was conducted by sharing the summarized findings and preliminary model with the same experts for feedback and validation.
• Triangulation was applied by integrating results from the quantitative factor analysis and the qualitative focus group input, thereby reinforcing the credibility of the conclusions.

These revisions now appear in the revised manuscript, clarifying and strengthening the qualitative component to align with the rigor of the quantitative analysis.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines how Buddhist and philosophical principles can be integrated into educational methodologies to improve learning skills. While the topic is interesting, it lacks originality. Greater originality could be achieved through a creative synthesis of a solid theoretical framework and empirical research.

However, several issues need to be addressed, both in the theoretical analysis and the methodology:

(1) The authors refer to various Buddhist practices and techniques - such as mindfulness, meditation, reflective thinking, or Dharma practice - as if they were universally understood, without providing further explanation. This issue needs to be addressed, as it hinders the connection between theoretical concepts and empirical methodology.

(2) Similarly, the article makes several references to the ethical framework underpinning Buddhist practice in relation to the development of educational methodologies aimed at improving skills. However, it offers little clarification on the actual ethical content of these practices. What does it truly mean to “instill ethics and morals in daily life,” “link philosophical and ethical thinking with practical learning strategies,” “engage in mindful attention and ethical inquiry,” or promote “ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom”? The same applies to the concept of “Holistic and Integrative Learning,” which is not adequately defined within the context of educational practice. Although page 16 includes a relevant discussion, it remains abstract and general, relying on broad terms such as mediation, analytical thinking, and critical thinking skills, without offering concrete substance.

(3) At many points, the objectives and goals are so vague and indeterminate that they lack substance and fail to provide any concrete guidance for implementing a novel educational framework. A clear example is the authors’ claim that holistic integration “aligns with the broader goal of education to develop well-rounded individuals who can contribute positively to society” (lines 866–67).

(4) The “Results” section, where the authors present the empirical aspects of their research, is so densely packed that it is difficult to clearly identify and reconstruct the individual empirical findings.

(5) The study’s engagement with prior research on the subject is insufficient. The authors cite only one recent study (Lam and Tang, 2024), while the other two sources they reference include one that is considerably outdated (1998).

Author Response

Based on Reviewer 2’s detailed critique and your substantial revisions, here is a professional, point-by-point response that clearly addresses each concern while highlighting the improvements you've made. This can be used as part of your response document or cover letter to accompany your revised manuscript:

Response to Reviewer 2

Comment Summary:
The reviewer noted that while the integration of Buddhist and philosophical principles into educational methodologies is an interesting topic, the manuscript lacked originality and depth in both the theoretical framework and methodology. The reviewer also raised concerns in five key areas, including the vague use of Buddhist terminology, insufficient ethical clarification, lack of concrete goals, dense empirical results, and limited engagement with recent literature.

Response:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response to your comments, I have substantially revised and expanded the manuscript in the following ways to improve originality, clarity, and academic rigor:

(1) Clarification of Buddhist Practices and Concepts
Reviewer comment: Buddhist practices and techniques such as mindfulness and Dharma practice are used as if universally understood, without explanation.

Response:
We appreciate this observation and have revised the manuscript to clearly define and contextualize key Buddhist concepts such as sati (mindfulness), paññā (wisdom), and sīla (ethical conduct). These are now explicitly introduced in both the Introduction and Theoretical Framework sections, with references to canonical sources (e.g., Dīgha Nikāya III.219) and scholarly interpretations (e.g., Bodhi, 2000; Ñāṇamoli & Bodhi, 1995). This ensures that their educational relevance is conceptually grounded for both specialist and general readers.

(2) Clarification of Ethical Framework and Terminology
Reviewer comment: Ethical terms are referenced broadly without clear definition.

Response:
In the revised manuscript, we provide concrete explanations of what is meant by phrases like “instilling ethics and morals,” “ethical inquiry,” and “holistic learning.” We now reference the Threefold Training (sīla, samādhi, paññā) as the ethical-philosophical foundation of the model, showing how these elements contribute to cognitive-emotional development and social responsibility. We also discuss ethics in relation to ahiṃsā (non-harming), mindful awareness, and moral reasoning, linking them directly to classroom strategies and learning outcomes.

(3) Clarifying Objectives and Theoretical Innovation
Reviewer comment: The goals are too vague and lack guidance for a novel educational framework.

Response:
To strengthen originality and clarity, the objectives have been rewritten to emphasize empirical inquiry and model development. We now specify that the research seeks to:

1. Analyze the specific components within Buddhist and philosophical systems that influence learning skills.

2. Examine how these components can be creatively and empirically integrated into educational frameworks.

3. Evaluate the practical feasibility and appropriateness of the developed approach using mixed-method evidence.

Furthermore, the theoretical contribution has been expanded through a detailed Creative-Based Learning (CBL) framework, supported by recent literature (e.g., Dikilitas et al., 2025; Wahyuningsi et al., 2019; Selfa-Sastre et al., 2022). This enhances the originality of the study by integrating Eastern ethics with Western pedagogical innovation.

(4) Presentation of Results
Reviewer comment: The results section is densely packed and difficult to interpret.

Response:
The “Results” section has been reorganized for clarity. We now separate the quantitative findings (exploratory factor analysis, KMO, Bartlett’s test, etc.) from the qualitative findings (focus group themes and evaluations). The structure includes clearer subheadings, summarized findings, and interpretive commentary to help readers trace how empirical data supports the development of the CLS–BP framework.

(5) Engagement with Recent and Relevant Literature
Reviewer comment: Limited reference to recent and relevant work.

Response:
We have updated the literature review significantly by integrating a broader range of recent studies, including:

• Beier et al. (2022), Van Laar et al. (2020), and Tohara (2021) for 21st-century skills and lifelong learning;

• Selfa-Sastre et al. (2022), Lee et al. (2019), and Wahyuningsi et al. (2019) for CBL;

• Dikilitas et al. (2025), Harris & Carter (2021), and Craft (2003) for creativity and learning innovation;

• Kumar (2020), Berkwitz (2010), and De Silva (2015) for Buddhist pedagogical approaches.

These additions ensure the theoretical grounding is both current and interdisciplinary, enhancing the manuscript’s academic depth and originality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Starting from Section 4 Methodology, it is a piece of solid research. However, all that appears before requires some rewriting, as it contextualises the project as anything but an academic endeavour. I have also failed to identify clearly defined research questions. In a word, it is a good project but ill-contextualised. Specific comments can be found in the attachment.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, there is not much to complain about regarding grammar and vocabulary. The style requires improvement. It is a research paper, not a report for policymakers, and the research paper is supposed to be a record of investigating a clearly defined issue, so all those 'declarations' to contribute to the country and the nation are entirely redundant.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate your recognition of the strength of the methodology section, and I have taken your recommendations seriously in revising the earlier parts of the paper to improve academic rigor, clarify the research objectives, and refine the writing style. Please find below a point-by-point response to your comments:

1. Comment: “Starting from Section 4 Methodology, it is a piece of solid research. However, all that appears before requires some rewriting, as it contextualises the project as anything but an academic endeavour.”

Response: I sincerely appreciate your positive assessment of the methodological foundation of the study. In response to your suggestion, I have extensively revised Sections 1 to 3 to ensure that the introduction, literature review, and rationale for the study are grounded in scholarly discourse. I have removed overly declarative and policy-driven language, and reframed the context using peer-reviewed literature to establish the academic foundation of the study. References to national contribution or visionary tone have been replaced with clearly articulated scholarly gaps, supported by appropriate citations.

2. Comment: “I have also failed to identify clearly defined research questions.”

Response: Thank you for highlighting the absence of clearly stated research questions. In response, I have now explicitly included clearly defined research questions at the end of the introduction section. These research questions are designed to guide the inquiry process and are aligned directly with the variables explored in the methodology.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have adequately addressed all comments and made the necessary revisions. The manuscript is now suitable for publication.