Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Enhorabuena por la investigación, la investigación en RV y RA es fundamental puesto que abre nuevas líneas de investigación y docencia. La investigación es interesante y está bien estructurada.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking your time to review our manuscript!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author,

Congratulations on your study and building of a virtual learning system! Your paper that experimentally addresses the issue of performance in learning English, as a foreign language, in virtual and real space by undergraduates is interesting. Through the topic, current during the pandemic, but also in normal times, and through the experimental approach, the article could be attractive to readers.

My review presents details that could be used to improve the considered paper.

1. Please, pay more attention to keyword selection.
2. The Introduction is, in my opinion, too broad and can be reduced. The considerations regarding the sustainability of learning, which are otherwise necessary, are not sufficiently used in your discussions, conclusions or recommendations for readers.
3. Instead, the introductory part requires a discount. Additional, for lines 27-51, you do not cite any previous book or article.
4. The literature review is extensive, but the selection of ideas does not retain its relevance throughout the dedicated section. These ideas are poorly used in discussing their own data, which does not benefit readers in positioning the article's contribution compared to previous contributions.
5. The description of the research methodology needs improvements as well as the discussions and conclusions.

• Although you have opted for two question research, I believe that elaboration of hypotheses is possible, based on the previous literature.How do you justify the option for questions and the abandonment of hypotheses?this is not an exploratory study and no qualitative research.

The description of the sample of participants needs to be improved by adding information on the year of study, vocational fields, gender. Here, lines 299-303 concern the procedure and need to be positioned at Section 4.3.

4.2.2 Experimental questionnaire is an inappropriate title; these are psychological questionnaires / tools that diagnose the learning style and are used in pre-test stage. Please specify for readers, what is <validity over 0.5> in the context and how it was computed!

To compare the two experimental groups, it is necessary to know their performance in English before the experiment.In order to make the comparison correctly, it was also necessary for the group performances to be at the same level.Please to complete this information regarding the participants.Otherwise, the experimental procedure is not accurate.

What is the duration of the experiment?

How were the participants distributed the two learning situations, VR condition and real condition? All this information is necessary for the experiment to be replicated by other researchers.

 

6. The section Results includes the discussions too. Thus, the title must be change in Results and discussion
7. In my opinion, you have correctly described the results, but they are poor, reduced to comparing the performances associated with learning styles field dependent and field independent
8. L412-419 a very broad phrase, difficult to read.It can be fragmented
9. The promised discussions are very poor, almost absent and the reference to the cited literature is not made.Thus, the literature review does not contribute to the positioning of the results and the findings cannot be justified. Please explain the inconsistent results with previous researches.
10. Generally, a more careful organization of the information would help the reading and understanding of the article. Also, a part of Conclusions can be used in the previous section, at discussion, e.g. 478-520.

 

Dear authors, a part of the references are not correct presented. E.g.

2. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
3. Brown, H. D. PRINCIPLES of LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING.

I recommend you the past papers, useful for explain yours results:

Pithers R. T. (2002) Cognitive learning style: a review of the field dependent-field independent approach, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54:1, 117-132, DOI:
10.1080/13636820200200191

Yulong Bianet al. (2020). The Role of the Field Dependence-independence Construct on the Flow-performance Link in Virtual Reality. I3D '20: Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games, May 2020 Article No.: 17Pages 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3384382.3384529

 

Jeanine M. Williamson,2018 in Teaching to Individual Differences in Science and Engineering Librarianship, Adapting Library Instruction to Learning Styles and Personality Characteristics, pp 1-10

Mestre, L.S. (2012). Designing Effective Library Tutorials, the learning styles debate: do we need to match up learning styles with presentation styles? https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-688-3.50001-9

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate your effort in answering all my questions. I think this version can be published.

Best regards,

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you again for your suggestions concerning our manuscript!

Best regards,