D-Learning: An Experimental Approach to Determining Student Learning Outcomes Using Augmented Reality (AR) Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an excellent article, dealing with a very interesting study.  There would be two areas that I would recommend for improvement:

1.  The discussion section, while clear and flowing from the results, does not discuss the relevance of the findings to existing literature and, consequently, does not show the impact of the current study on previous research in the area.  This section would, as a consequent, need revision to address this issue.

2.  Figure 1 is not clear.   Some explanation is provided from lines 496- 500 but more clarity is needed.  Please consider re-presenting the graphical illustration as that might provide greater clarity.

Author Response

Thanks for this revision. We really appreciate your help, time and effort. Thanks for the inspiring suggestions. Appreciated!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The significance of the study  was stated as the following : examine and determine the existence, relationship, and intensity of the relationships created by the information constructs Perception and Knowledge, by assessing the impact of active learning using augmented reality. 

Yet, these were the research questions : Q1: Do different forms of active learning using AR affect cadets' knowledge?  Q2: Is it possible to assess the impact of AR on the quality of learning outcomes? 

I think your questions should be better crafted to support your significance of your research and the results you actually reported. 

You also stated: The purpose of the research was to critically examine the assessment of the impact of active learning using augmented reality on the knowledge of the cadets at the BLANK. In order to achieve this purpose, the research  aimed to determine the best predictors of academic success of active learning using augmented reality on the cadets' knowledge and to propose a model for improving academic success. 

However it is not clear how this fits in with existence, relationship, and instenity nor do the results provided support this as well. 

n/a

Author Response

Thanks for this revision. We really appreciate your help, time and effort. Thanks for the inspiring suggestions. Appreciated!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please pay attention to the comments on the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for this revision. We really appreciate your help, time and effort. Thanks for the inspiring suggestions. Appreciated!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

There is not a discussion. The discussion should not simply repeat the results. The discussion should connect with the extant literature and highlight new findings, gaps, recommendations, and future research.  Remove all the results from the discussion.

Were all groups of cadets equal? Knowing the organization and levels is important to understand if there was a baseline equivalence.

With a stratified sample, did random sampling by name produce random sampling representative of the larger population? Were the instructors the same.

Something that is a limitation is some groups spent longer on a topic. More time should equal more learning.

427-429 is not true. There is a difference between groups, though it is small.

422-423:  "In this regard, cadets from the Situated + Games group achieved the lowest average score on the final knowledge test (M = 5.12, SE = 0.17, 95% IP [4.78, 5.46])." Do you mean the initial test here?

According to baseline equivalency, for the initial test, the differences are significant. If you do not have a statistical adjustment, point out this difference is a limitation. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_brief_baseline_080715.pdf 

Line 481/499: Not true: "there were no differences in the average scores obtained."

Figure 1 hypothesizes that one factor could be limited to knowing the strength. This study did not conduct such an analysis; more time and initial differences plus time on the tests are all factors. I would remove it.

Mentioned on line 388 that Cronbach's alpha was used, but then there are no results.

Was the final test correlated to each group, so one knows every point was taught?

Author Response

Thanks for this revision. We really appreciate your help, time and effort. Thanks for the inspiring suggestions. Appreciated!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There remains a lack of discussion of the relevance of the findings in the context of existing literature.  That needs to happen in the discussion section

Author Response

Thanks for this revision. We really appreciate your help, time and effort. Thanks for the inspiring suggestions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Much improved. Some authors do not follow suggestions. When that happens, peer review is a joke. Thank you for working with me.

Author Response

Thank you again for the review. We really appreciate your help, time and effort. Thanks for the inspiring suggestions. Appreciated!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx