Pedagogical Competence Analysis Based on the TPACK Model: Focus on VR-Based Survival Swimming Instructors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The research paper provides a detailed analysis of the pedagogical competence of VR-based survival instructors using the TPACK (Technology, Pedagogy, and Content Knowledge) theoretical framework. It also highlights the importance of integrating VR technology into survival training and emphasizes the need for adequate instructor preparation to manage the technology and adapt teaching methods to the needs and abilities of students. Additionally, it recognizes the importance of aligning technology with learning content and pedagogical strategies, as well as the need for comprehensive professional development programs.

However, I believe the paper has major shortcomings, which I would like to mention:

• Lines 57-65: This paragraph repeats a series of ideas. Please restructure and outline the main idea.
• In Part II – Theoretical Background – there are references to bibliographic sources, but they are not numbered, making identification and research extremely difficult. Also, here I think reference should be made to figure 1 and added in the text so that the reader understands what is being referred to.
• Lines 104-105: If the sentence begins with "The literature on TPACK framework ......", then you will need to list the bibliographic sources or mention what that literature is....
• Lines 111-114: Can you list some of the students' previous experiences to identify their level? How do you know what tangible experiences they provide if you don't know what they are? It is also quite confusing.... are these experiences part of the present study or findings from other studies? If they come from the present study, there is no data to support these arguments. Please clarify this aspect!
• Lines 118: figure 2???? The figure is not presented where it is referred to. Please rectify this issue!
• Regarding the recruitment and selection process of participants, please specify how many institutions were contacted? What are they? What is the metropolitan area you are referring to? What are those 7 rounds? Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study! I recommend restructuring this chapter so that the data is presented in a logical order.
• In the data collection section – I believe the main directions of the two interviews should be presented here. What were the questions asked of the instructors? Were they the same for all 11 instructors? Were they grouped into TCK, TPK, PCK, understanding of learners, and pedagogical beliefs components? Were the same questions used during the second interview? The data provided is inconclusive and may cause confusion about the scientific process carried out.
• In the Research Findings section – there is no statistical support for what is presented. For example, it is not known how many students the 11 instructors had in total, how many each of them had, what their age was, what the general interview scheme was, etc. The data presented by the authors represent only sequences of subjective analysis, without offering an overview that would support the qualitative and quantitative data! From my point of view, the analysis is incorrectly performed. All the analysis presented does not represent an evaluation but only opinions of some instructors on the interested research components/directions. I recommend revisiting the data and transforming the responses into numeric values/scores to highlight the weight of each component per instructor and then in general. If there were a generic presentation of the interview on the 5 components, there should be no problems with quantitative statistical interpretation!
• Regarding the theoretical and practical implications of the study, I believe they are not well-founded, as there is no data to support the authors' claims! In practice, there are five interview directions, and the data is presented unconvincingly and poorly systematized, without statistical coverage!
• The bibliography is not numbered according to journal requirements, and identifying the sources referenced is extremely difficult.

In general, the presentation of this study is chaotic! Please revisit it and present statistical data, not generalizations from 2-3 instructors! Also, please be careful with the presentation of the procedure as, in my opinion, it is very vague and incomplete.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback. We have incorporated your suggestions to the best of our ability and believe that the quality of the revised version of the manuscript has been substantially improved. We are submitting our response in PDF format. Changes and additions have been highlighted in red for easy identification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study examined the integration of Virtual Reality (VR) technology in the setting of survival swimming instruction. It is particularly noteworthy to focus on the pedagogical competence of VR-based instructors which is known as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). This study provides a theoretical and practical perspective on the role of VR in enhancing pedagogical competence. The authors have explained the limitations which I am concerned about also.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and are pleased to hear that our study has garnered interest. Additionally, we have carefully considered the suggestions made by other reviewers and have incorporated changes that enhance the clarity and depth of our analysis. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened our paper, aligning it more closely with the journal's standards and readers' expectations. Thank you once again for your valuable input, which has been instrumental in refining our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Although I am an experienced swimmer, and also have a swimming teacher certificate (very old and never used), I was not aware of a curricular concept of "survival swimming". I can only conclude that there are large national and regional variations in the curricular swimming requirements. I thus suggest that the authors provide a bit more detail about the curricular context, including age group and organization of the teaching, as well as content and goals. A schematic figure showing the organization might be useful.

Sometimes during a quick reading, I was confused about who was referred to as a "student" (children or swimming instructors), e.g. in the section "Enhancing Student Engagement".

I was fascinated by the concept of using VR for providing "immersive" swimming instructor teaching without any immersion in water. I am not quite convinced about the claim "VR content has the advantage of directly immersing participants in a realistic experience." for this context.

Lines 405-411 discuss CPR training - and I wonder whether the equipment also included haptics, since there is a need for a relatively large force to make the procedure effective.

The comment on line 448-9: "The students did not have much exposure to swimming; therefore, we evaluated them using relatively simple questions." does not convince me that the students (which students?) learn swimming - certainly a quiz is no substitute for a test.

I find that the paper focuses more on general aspects on TPACK than on the content of what is being taught, not even describing it before embarking on the technology and VR environment. I also lack a discussion of the educational challenges of "simulation of realistic water safety scenarios in a controlled and safe virtual environment" to prepare students to deal with less safe situations.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your insightful and constructive feedback. We have incorporated your suggestions to the best of our ability and believe that the quality of the revised version of the manuscript has been substantially improved. We are submitting our response in PDF format. Changes and additions have been highlighted in red for easy identification.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled "Pedagogical Competence Analysis Based on the TPACK Model: Focus on VR-based Survival Swimming Instructors" is clearly aligned with the scope of the journal, and the abstract is clear, concise, and informative regarding the purposes and findings of the research.

Regarding the abstract, it should clearly identify the methodology used and reference the main results obtained, instead of providing a background or introduction to the topic, or associating the study's outcome with future perspectives.

The introduction is well-crafted, providing a current overview and citations from key authors in the field. The thematic context is comprehensively presented, ensuring a clear understanding of the subject under analysis. This organization facilitates a fluent and orderly reading of the methodological choices adopted by the authors throughout the research, effectively serving the purpose of an introduction in a study of this nature.

The materials and methods section is well-structured, following a logical and methodologically coherent sequence.

The results are presented clearly and objectively, with appropriate subdivision of items and a dynamic, logical sequence supported by statistical analysis. Additionally, graphical and visual elements accompany the results, aiding comprehension.

The discussion is equally clear and well-founded, providing an in-depth analysis of the results obtained.

 The conclusions and future perspectives are precise, objective, and offer valuable insights for future studies.

 The limitations of the research are clearly and satisfactorily identified.

 The bibliography is robust, up-to-date, and based on relevant open-access research, deserving recognition.

However, from a formal standpoint, there are several items to improve. It is advisable to remove the red underlining from various paragraphs indicating 'comments' (which are not visible). This should be a simple fix. Therefore, a formal review of the entire template used in the journal is necessary.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the detailed comments which have significantly helped in refining our presentation and focus.

1. We have revised the abstract to more clearly articulate the methodology used in our study and to directly highlight the main results obtained. 
2. We also conducted a thorough review of the manuscript to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines.

We believe these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript, making the study’s contributions clearer and ensuring that the format meets the journal’s professional standards.

Reviewer 5 Report

Dear authors,

The paper addresses a pertinent topic on Virtual/Augmented Reality, and the revised version is considered suitable for publication. The introduction accurately contextualizes the study, emphasizing its importance and outlining the purpose of the work. The significance of the research is clearly defined. The Research Methodology is thorough, providing detailed descriptions and rigorously highlighting both theoretical and practical implications of the study. Additionally, the manuscript acknowledges its limitations. In my opinion is suitable for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your insightful comments and are pleased to hear that our study has garnered interest. Additionally, we have carefully considered the suggestions made by other reviewers and have incorporated changes that enhance the clarity and depth of our analysis. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened our paper, aligning it more closely with the journal's standards and readers' expectations. Thank you once again for your valuable input, which has been instrumental in refining our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for taking my suggestions into consideration, and I believe the paper has been greatly improved.

Best of luck in your future research endeavors!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments regarding our manuscript. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and providing such insightful feedback.

Implementing your suggestions has significantly enhanced the quality of our paper, making it a more comprehensive and robust contribution to our field. Your expertise and detailed advice were instrumental in achieving these improvements.

Thank you once again for your valuable contributions to our work. Best wishes for your ongoing and future projects as well.

Warm regards,