Effect of Adding Emotion Recognition to Film Teaching—Impact of Emotion Feedback on Learning through Puzzle Films
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review for
Effect of Adding Emotion Recognition to Film Teaching—Impact of emotion feedback on learning through puzzle films
The level of originality of the paper is high. The literature review and proposed methodology are properly discussed and compared to the previous studies.
- Abstract is very weak. It needs to rewrite at all in accordance with journal rules.
- The introduction section has benefit from having a clearer structure of what to expect in the paper. Furthermore, the author(s) would benefit from being more concise in their writing, as much of the content was redundant and overemphasized. While it is good practice to assume the reader has no prior knowledge of the content, a topic and/or discussion does not need to be explained over and over again if it is stated both adequately and appropriately once.
- In this paper, authors used 32 sources, containing both historical and fundamental works, as well as the latest scientific research on this topic. But the literature review can be structured. The papers discussed many points of this study. Please, discuss these papers.
Morkovkin D.E., Gibadullin A.A., Kolosova E.V., Semkina N.S., Fasehzoda I.S. (2020). Modern transformation of the production base in the conditions of Industry 4.0: problems and prospects. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1515, 032014.
An, J., Mikhaylov, A., Jung, S.-U. (2021). A Linear Programming Approach for Robust Network Revenue Management in the Airline Industry. Journal of Air Transport Management, 91(3), 101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101979
Mikhaylov, A. (2021). Development of Friedrich von HayekĘĽs theory of private money and economic implications for digital currencies. Terra Economicus, 19(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2021-19-1-53-62
- Some conclusions contribute to the study of the problem. The author does not formulate the problem itself – it makes impossible to analyse the contribution of the paper. The aim or the question of the paper (or even the hypothesis of the author) are formulated.
- Overall, it is very clear to grasp understanding of the manuscript and content in its current state. I strongly advise using hypothesis points to articulate and/or express material in scientific writing. Publication of this piece seems likely in any reputable scientific periodical after a correction in the writing of the manuscript.
- Table 1 is important to explore the specifics. Author needs to wide it. Some conclusions can contribute to the study of the problem.
- Author needs to add more details on the range of simulation considered in this work should be clearly outlined within the abstract. The current statements are vague and too general to get an idea of the work that have been accomplished.
The paper possesses a proper form of well-structured and readable technical language of the field and represents the expected knowledge of the journal`s readership. There are minor errors in English, but this does not affect the general nature of the work. The current study brings many new to the existing literature or field. For one, the author(s) seem to have a good grasp of the current literature on their topic area (i.e., recent literature and seminal texts relevant to their study is not cited/referenced).
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions for revision of my paper. I have completely revised it in accordance with your comments. Please help review again, thank you very much.Some of the reference papers you gave me are very well written.If I write a paper in the future, I will definitely refer to their writing. Thank you very much for your guidance, thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for your interesting research which will be interesting for academia
There are some comments:
1) Abstract is too long - 865 words. Usually abstracts are up to 400 words
2) Keywords usually are 5-8. Here are only 3
3) There is a sentence in the text "if contour is larger or the distance between the eyes is larger, it means that the student is very interested in the content of the course, and is very concentrated, while when the facial contour is detected smaller, it indicates that this student is not interested anymore, and is not concentrated" and it is referenced form Özek. When I open the paper which is referenced, I can clearly see that Özek is referencing other authors - , , and Also I do not believe that face contour or distance between eyes can tell something about interest in the topic. It is unacceptable for researchers of 21st century to believe in such information and to cite such nonsense.
4) authors sometimes talk about learning effectiveness sometimes about learning satisfaction but in literature review there is nothing about learning, learning principles or something similar.
5) I suggest that scripts are added as annexes not in the main text.
6) It is not clear how the sample was formed
7) It is not clear what kind of questionnaires are used, how they were distributed, collected etc.
8) It is not clear how the ethical requirements are met.
9) Conclusions are not clear but maybe that is because there is no research question, or research objectives.
10) The list of references is very messy
11) In the list of references there are a lot of materials by Mayer but in the text there are only few of them cited
12) One material of Paivio included in the list of references is not cited in the text
13) In the text there is a citation of Mary E et al. but it is the name of author not surname
1
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions for revision of my paper. I have completely revised it in accordance with your comments. Please help review again, thank you very much. References cited from Özek have been deleted. Thank you very much for your guidance, thank you.
I have updated the new revised response in the attachment, please have a check.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, the paper it is very interesting, but the objetives would be clear (I cannot read it). So it is necessary to describe the scene of the classrooms, and the resources used by pupils (personal pc, tablets..., what is the program used to recognice emotions?). The plots of the movies are explained too extensively, I think it´s not necessary.
It would be interesting to have included some measure of the learning acquired between the two groups, and not only their satisfaction.
The data analysis should include the effect size of the differences between the two groups to make it more complete.
Good luck with your research
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions for revision of my paper. I have completely revised it in accordance with your comments. Please help review again, Thank you very much for your guidance, thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for submitting improved material.
Unfortunately also in this version there is no research question or research hypothesis.
In conclusions authors talk about improved motivation but I didn't find any data which confirms that. In research papers everything should be supported by data
Author Response
Thank you very much for your suggestions for revision of my paper. I have completely revised it in accordance with your comments. Please help review again, Thank you very much for your guidance, thank you.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for the improvements done in your paper.
