Student–Teacher Role Reversal at University Level—An Experience in Naval Engineering Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript begins with a detailed introduction of the background and the need for engineering students to combine theory with practice, but students in the final year of undergraduate studies often do not put much effort into the class. The case improved the teaching effect and students’ comprehensive ability through the role reversal practice between teachers and students. The manuscript is meaningful, and the figures are impressive, but some issues should be worked out before publication.

First, although the proposed methodology is described in detail and certainly significant to this manuscript, the method section focuses on the class design and does not follow the typical structure (sample, instrument, procedure, and data analysis). Some issues are not explained clearly, i.e., what quantitative analysis would be used to evaluate the teaching effect is not mentioned.

Second, the results section states the main findings of the study and subjects them to contrast with other similar studies, but it is suggested to be divided into two parts (results and discussion)

Third, in the Tasks comparison, what are the marks? Is it the marks of test 1 and test 2, or a separate exam? Additionally, what do you mean “based on the master classes”? Was the study sample the same class, and did the study compare their participation in the proposed methodology when they were senior and graduate students? More information about the participants and the research procedure is required.

Fourth, some interpretation in the results section is vague, which requires further explanation. “The increase of the marks in test 2 by most students was attributed to the doubts solved by the lecturer and the studying time.” How did the study get the attribution?

Fifth, are there any limitations to this methodology? As some issues are proposed about students’ time management, does the methodology have any feasible suggestions to compensate?

Author Response

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper details a proposed class structure for a student-as-teacher implementation within a Naval Engineering class to increase engagement and success in the classroom. 

The paper needs to be reviewed for clarity and consistency. For example, the proper term for a Type XXI submarine in English is a "U-Boat", but the paper references it as a U-boot, U boot, and Uboot. These are incorrect and, more importantly, not internally consistent. There are similar issues with Bachelor vs bachelor's vs bachelor and with Naval Engineering vs Naval engineering.

Figure 5 is not entirely legible, and is primarily in Spanish.

The caption for Fig 6 is incorrect with half of it above the diagram and half below.

The results are unclear. Figure 6 is said to represent the grades for a student in both the traditional and proposed course, however there is no indication in the report that the students were tested on the material twice, that there was a control group of students who were not in the proposed class, or that the results are from a follow-on questions. The text references a "master class" but shows results for a "traditional class" Additionally, results in Figure 6 do not reflect the data shown in the paragraph above. For example, in AY 2022-23, the "master class" results are 8.14 +/- 1.18 but this is not reflected in the data. The paper says that the new method improved scores but in 2022-2023, the improvement seems fairly negligible (8.14 vs 8.3). The ANOVA test is performed but the specifics of the test are not provided so the results cannot be confirmed (ex: no n value is given). 

Author Response

Please see the attachmen

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf