Determining the Learning Profile of Engineering Projects Students from Their Characteristic Motivational Profile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the paper. The use of learner profiles in engineering educations appears to be novel enough for publication. Please verify some grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript and missing punctuation points (e.g., missing period in section 2.2.). Also, the manuscript could be better improved from sample questions of the survey used (even if they are five or six) to give the reader a clearer idea of what was asked. Include a larger and separate limitation section to the manuscript. Also, it would be useful to include an Implications sections explaining how these findings can be used in engineering education in the future. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their work, which has definitely been of great guidance. Please note that all the recommendations have been taken into account. The revisions have been clearly highlighted in red in new version of the manuscript, so as to be easily visible to the editor and reviewers.

Please verify some grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript and missing punctuation points (e.g., missing period in section 2.2.).

Grammatical mistakes and missing punctuation points have been revised in the new version of manuscript. Thank you.

Also, the manuscript could be better improved from sample questions of the survey used (even if they are five or six) to give the reader a clearer idea of what was asked.

Examples of the questionnaire used to assess the motivation of engineering students have been added. The questionnaire has been referenced several times throughout the manuscript and cannot be appended due to copyright.

Include a larger and separate limitation section to the manuscript.

A new larger and separate limitation section has been added in the last version of the manuscript. Two main limitations have been identified. One is related to the extrapolation of these results to other engineering higher education programs. The other limitation deals with the applicability of the methodology due to the need for a representative sample. 

Also, it would be useful to include an Implications sections explaining how these findings can be used in engineering education in the future. 

A section on implications has been included. Within this section, the benefits of the results obtained in the study and possible improvements in engineering education have been developed.

We consider that thanks to your contributions our work has improved a lot. Thank you for your effort and time.

Reviewer 2 Report

The idea of this study is interesting, however, I have a few main problems and some minor.

 

First of all what is the research question? What is it you want to investigate? Please give explicit a research question.

 

Second is the problem of traceability. If I want to redo this study I have no idea how to do it.
You use Map-3 but this is Spanish (I think). So an English version as appendix is required. En why is map-3 suitable for your situation. Say something about it. The examples you mantion are about medicine.

 

Third You make a lot of strict claims based on the statistics. But the beautiful graphs are for me useless to check if your claims are correct. Often a table provide more insight. E.g. “ Men and women only coincide in the position of performance-enabling anxiety (S7), 223 which ranks third, and lack of interest in the work and rejecting it (S6) which ranks last. 224’ I have no idea how to check this. And how do you interpret it? And are there more variables to regard? I think here is some work to do.

 

 

Monor things:

41 “SO” It is not clear where it refers to.

49 What is the result of Wewe’s research

The literature feels like a list, but is not an ongoing story.

 

98 A dot and space is missing

 

101 Add S1, S2 etc

111 Spanish

112 How was the selection?

144 Spanish

137 Which H0?

The tables and figures are hard to read and the titels are not helping

 

As you mention, the results in this study are in line with other studies. So, what did you do else and what are your recommendations according to your results?

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their work, which has definitely been of great guidance. Please note that all the recommendations have been taken into account. The revisions have been clearly highlighted in red in new version of the manuscript, so as to be easily visible to the editor and reviewers.

Reviewer #2

First, we would like to use this opportunity and thank you for your effort and time on our work entitled “Determining the learning profile of engineering projects students from their characteristic motivational profile”. We feel you dedicated time and expertise in evaluating it. The current document presents for you all the changes we have made on the original manuscript. We feel confident this new version will fit the requirements for publication and we hope this manuscript will attract researchers’ attention prompt.

First of all what is the research question? What is it you want to investigate? Please give explicit a research question. 

The research question has been stated at the end of the introduction section. It has been clarified what is to be investigated and its implications.

Second is the problem of traceability. If I want to redo this study I have no idea how to do it. You use Map-3 but this is Spanish (I think). So an English version as appendix is required.

Examples of questions from the questionnaire have been added to help the reader understand what was asked. In addition, the questionnaire used has been referenced in the text. However, MAPE-3 is copyrighted, and it is not possible to publish its translation as an appendix.

Why is map-3 suitable for your situation. Say something about it. The examples you mention are about medicine.

An explanation why it is interesting to apply MAPE-3 to determine the learning profile has been added. The applicability of this questionnaire in the field of engineering has also been justified.

You make a lot of strict claims based on the statistics. But the beautiful graphs are for me useless to check if your claims are correct. Often a table provide more insight. E.g. “ Men and women only coincide in the position of performance-enabling anxiety (S7), 223 which ranks third, and lack of interest in the work and rejecting it (S6) which ranks last. 224’ I have no idea how to check this. And how do you interpret it? And are there more variables to regard? I think here is some work to do.

Figures have been replaced by tables to improve the clarity of the results. How the statements in section 3.5 were derived has been explained in detail. The interpretation of the T-scores for the dimensions and for the scales has also been clarified.

41 “SO” It is not clear where it refers to.

This typographical mistake has been corrected in the manuscript.

49 What is the result of Wewe’s research

The results of Wewe’s research have been added in the new version of manuscript.

The literature feels like a list but is not an ongoing story.

The wording of the introduction section has been improved.

98 A dot and space is missing

Missing punctuation points have been revised in the new version of manuscript. Thank you.

101 Add S1, S2 etc

S1, S2, S3… have been to improve the comprehension of the manuscript.

111 Spanish

It has been corrected.

112 How was the selection?

Details have been given on how the selection of the individuals making up the sample was carried out. The criteria for the selection of students have also been defined.

144 Spanish

This typographical mistake has been corrected in the manuscript.

137 Which H0?

The meaning of H0 has been included in the text.

The tables and figures are and the titels are not helping

Figures and tables hard to read have been removed and new tables have been added. The titles of the figures and tables have been changed to make them easier to understand.

As you mention, the results in this study are in line with other studies. So, what did you do else and what are your recommendations according to your results?

The differences between previous studies and this study have been clarified. The novelty and contribution of this study has been detailed. A section on implications has been added, outlining the benefits of the results obtained. In addition, recommendations based on the learning profile resulting from the study have been added.

We consider that thanks to your contributions our work has improved a lot. Thank you for your effort and time.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did a great job to improve the document

Author Response

We consider that thanks to your contributions our work has improved a lot. Thank you very much for your effort and time.