Interactive Application as a Teaching Aid in Mechanical Engineering
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsi am grateful to have the opportunity to review your manuscript. i found it to describe work where there is high alignment between the affordances of the technology and the areas of cognitive challenge faced by the learners. there is not force fit of the technology.
further, i found the description of the method to be particularly transparent and elaborate, encouraging subsequent work to be carried out
i offer the following as suggestions to refine the manuscript:
- in the first paragraph of the Introduction, please remove the '60' and '61' which are legacy elements from an earlier iteration of the manuscript.
- with regards the second hypothesis, it is not apparent to me how this arises from the review of the literature. it is just presented without context and as a matter of fact. do try to structure towards a more naturalistic flow of your argument such that the second hypothesis does not appear in such a de-contextualised manner.
- a further problem with the second hypothesis is that i do not see how it can realistically be tested, because the nature of the hypothesis is questioning a quality of the software itself; because the software is a bespoke-designed software, all its qualities are inherently within the control of the authorial team (ie, whether or not it provides centralised access is entirely within the control of the authorial team). therefore, it should not be a hypothesis as there are no variables beyond your control.
- please help the reader understand the nature of the background music that is potentially played and the design decisions which went in to the choice of genre of the music. this is important because - by your own admission - the music serves an explicit purpose (increasing immersion), and therefore the deliberations behind the choice of genre need to be shared.
- please also cite appropriate literature to help the reader understand how background music increases immersion.
Author Response
|
We sincerely appreciate your thorough review of our manuscript. Please find belowour detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files.
|
Comment 1: In the first paragraph of the Introduction, please remove the '60' and '61' which are legacy elements from an earlier iteration of the manuscript.
Response 1: We have removed the references to '60' and '61' from the first paragraph of the Introduction section.
Comment 2: With regards to the second hypothesis, it is not apparent to me how this arises from the review of the literature. It is just presented without context and as a matter of fact. Do try to structure towards a more naturalistic flow of your argument such that the second hypothesis does not appear in such a de-contextualized manner.
Response 2: We appreciate your insight regarding the second hypothesis. After careful consideration, we agreed that the second hypothesis did not naturally arise from the literature review and appeared de-contextualized. To maintain a coherent and logical flow in our argument, we have decided to remove the second hypothesis entirely. This change allows us to focus more effectively on the primary hypothesis and related findings, ensuring that the arguments presented are well-supported by the literature.
Comment 3: A further problem with the second hypothesis is that I do not see how it can realistically be tested, because the nature of the hypothesis is questioning a quality of the software itself; because the software is a bespoke-designed software, all its qualities are inherently within the control of the authorial team (i.e., whether or not it provides centralized access is entirely within the control of the authorial team). Therefore, it should not be a hypothesis as there are no variables beyond your control.
Response 3: We acknowledge this concern and agree that the second hypothesis, which questioned an inherent quality of the bespoke-designed software, was not suitable for empirical testing. Given that the qualities of the software are within our control, it does not constitute a testable hypothesis. Therefore, we have removed the second hypothesis from the manuscript to avoid any confusion and to ensure that all hypotheses are appropriate and testable.
Comment 4: Please help the reader understand the nature of the background music that is potentially played and the design decisions which went into the choice of genre of the music. This is important because - by your own admission - the music serves an explicit purpose (increasing immersion), and therefore the deliberations behind the choice of genre need to be shared.
Response 4: We have added a detailed explanation of the background music used in the interactive application. We chose instrumental ambient music for its ability to enhance immersion without causing distractions. The decision was based on studies showing that such music can improve cognitive focus and create an immersive learning environment. We believe this additional detail clarifies the rationale behind our design choices and aligns with the purpose of increasing immersion.
Comment 5: Please also cite appropriate literature to help the reader understand how background music increases immersion.
Response 5: We have included citations to relevant literature that discusses the role of background music in increasing immersion and improving cognitive focus.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents an interactive application used as a teaching aid in the mechanical engineering education. Although the work is well-written, there are several shortcomings that I will present below:
- “augmented reality” should be written with the full term only once, and the use the abbreviation;
- The Introduction section presents a state-of-the-art of the interactive application used in the educational settings, but there are also another relevant papers presenting applications used in the field of mechanical engineering that could be cited;
- In the case study the characteristics of the participants should be presented (age, gender,..);
- To strengthen the analysis, the discussion section could be expanded to delve deeper into the implications of the case study. Consider exploring connections to existing literature and potential applications in a broader context;
- Include some pictures and explain what display device was used during the experiments.
Author Response
|
Thank you very much for your insightful review of our manuscript. Below, you will find our detailed responses to your comments, along with the corresponding revisions highlighted in the re-submitted files. Your valuable feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity and quality of our work. |
Comment 1: “Augmented reality” should be written with the full term only once, and then use the abbreviation.
Response 1: We have revised the manuscript to write "augmented reality" in full upon its first mention and then consistently use the abbreviation "AR" thereafter. Additionally, we have applied the same approach for "virtual reality" (VR) to maintain uniformity across both technologies.
Comment 2: The Introduction section presents a state-of-the-art of the interactive application used in the educational settings, but there are also other relevant papers presenting applications used in the field of mechanical engineering that could be cited.
Response 2: We have updated the Introduction section to include additional citations of relevant papers that discuss interactive applications in mechanical engineering education.
Comment 3: In the case study, the characteristics of the participants should be presented (age, gender, etc.).
Response 3: We have added a detailed description of the participants in the case study. The participants were, on average, 19 years old, with a gender distribution of 88% male and 12% female. Their educational backgrounds included 74% from technical high schools and 26% from gymnasiums.
Comment 4: To strengthen the analysis, the discussion section could be expanded to delve deeper into the implications of the case study. Consider exploring connections to existing literature and potential applications in a broader context.
Response 4: We have expanded the discussion section to delve deeper into the implications of our findings. The expanded discussion explores connections to existing literature, particularly how interactive 3D technologies can enhance experiential learning and prepare students for Industry 5.0 challenges. We also discuss potential applications of these technologies in various engineering fields, providing a broader context for our findings.
Comment 5: Include some pictures and explain what display device was used during the experiments.
Response 5: We have included a picture in the manuscript to visually demonstrate the application's use. Furthermore, we have provided detailed explanations regarding how participants utilized the application.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
