Teaching and Learning of Cultural Heritage: Engaging Education, Professional Training, and Experimental Activities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I enjoyed the paper, which provides a timely insight into teaching in the field of digital built heritage, and associated research. It is also notable that the paper concludes by considering approaches which were appropriate during lockdown, but which might in fact have resonance in the longer term.

I have a few suggestions and observations, which may be worth considering. Where I refer to line numbers, these are the ‘numbers’ down the right hand side of the pdf.

- I feel that the UN goal 11 (especially 11.4) and one could also argue that by offering training that there are positive implications for goal 8 (in the sense that new jobs might emerge)

- The paper occasionally refers to ‘our country’ (page 1, line 33), ‘central management (page 2, line 49), and so on. I suggest that the authors should amended the text to instead refer to Italy, particular types of govt body, and so on.

- page 2 (line 80) refers to ‘professionals, teachers and other operators’. This could be explained further, maybe in the context of the range of disciplines attending summer schools.

- page 3 deals really well with the range of course types which are or could be offered, but this could be better referenced. For example, are there any training initiatives which could be cited?

- page 4 opens with a statement about didactic, which seems incomplete. Might it be useful to say a bit more about didactics, and how the approach of the summer schools involves a mixture of didactic and collaborative teaching?

- page 4, line 166 - is ‘connotations’ the right term?

- page 4, line 188, might benefit from 2 or 3 citations to recent research.

- Section 2, I felt, would benefit some some further sub division. For example, ‘Context” (page 4), ‘Methods’ (page 7), ‘Education and learning’ (page 9) ‘Student evaluation and legacy’ (page 11).

- On page 7, could you include a brief explanation of what SfM techniques refer to, and how they work? This might widen audience understanding. 

- Might section 2.2 be better as a separate overall section 3.0, maybe titled ‘Wider audience and access’?

- Page 13 should include a note that VT stands for virtual tour.

- Could page 16 include a few citations to research about heritage and children? This would nicely bookend the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have tried to incorporate all your suggestions into the text.
The text is attached in a Word file (in 'revision' mode).
We remain at your disposal and thank you for your suggestions.
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper lacks a research question and thus academic relevance. Paragraph 2 contains of descriptions of cultural heritage education in different educational settings (university, high school). The authors merely describe the activities but do not present any new data (e.g. questionaires among students who participated in the activities) and do not reflect on their activities. The authors do not engage in a scientific discussion and only sparsely cite literature on cultural heritage education/ heritage interpretation/ teaching methods. The argumentation  is thus weak. 

I suggest that the paper needs major revision before being considered for publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we have tried to incorporate all your suggestions into the text.
The text is attached in a Word file (in 'revision' mode).
We remain at your disposal and thank you for your suggestions.
The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the changes which improve the overall quality of the paper.