Design and Effectiveness Evaluation of a Smart Greenhouse Virtual Reality Curriculum Based on STEAM Education

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions. We agree that it is important to highlight the practical and scientific implications of the study's findings, as shown on pages 18-19.

Thank you for sharing the review comment with me. I am happy to inform you that we have completed the necessary editing and proofreading of our manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the language and style of our paper to ensure that it meets the required standards for publication.

As proof of my editing work, I have attached the "English-Editing-Certificate-64371" to this response. This certificate verifies that our paper has been carefully edited for language and style.

Please feel free to review the edited manuscript and let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for choosing me as your editor, and I wish you all the best with your submission.

Reviewer 2

The research work is appreciated since the writers provided valuable knowledge regarding " Design and Effectiveness Evaluation of a Smart Greenhouse Virtual Reality Curriculum Based on STEAM Education." But I'm worried about the following things that, if dealt with well, could make the manuscript better:

1. The objectives are not in mentioned the abstract. Also, the tools for data analysis are missing in the abstract. Further clear findings and recommendations must be incorporated into the study.

Thank you for your feedback. Here's a revised abstract that incorporates the missing information, as shown on page 1 in Yellow.

2. The introduction part is written well. Objectives no. 5 & 6 may be rephrased as the term “discussing” is not suitable. Research questions/Hypothesis are missing.  Further, the researcher must root their study in the theories in the field under investigation.

Thank you for your review and feedback regarding our study's introduction section. We are glad to hear that the introduction is written well.

Regarding Objectives No. 5 & 6, we have rephrased them to make them more appropriate and clearer, as shown on page 4.

(4) Assessing students' satisfaction with the STEAM smart greenhouse VR curriculum

(5) Assessing the impact of the STEAM smart greenhouse VR on students' learning effectiveness

Additionally, we have added our research questions/hypotheses to the introduction section to provide a clear overview of our study's purpose and direction, as shown on pages 3-4.

We have also ensured that our study is rooted in the relevant theories in the field under investigation. We believe that by doing so, our research will be more grounded and impactful.

Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us to improve the overall quality of our study.

3. The methodology part is really well written, but the tools for data collection must be cited and justified for the current study.

Thank you for your review and feedback regarding our study's methodology section. We are glad to hear that it is well written.

Regarding the tools for data collection, we apologize for the oversight in not citing and justifying them in the current study. We will revise the methodology section to include a thorough description and justification of the tools used for data collection. We will ensure that the tools selected are appropriate for the research questions and hypotheses, as shown on pages 6-8 in Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, which will help us to improve the overall quality of our study.

Thank you for your feedback. Allow me to elaborate on the tools for data collection and their justification in the current study.

4. Data analysis is very good but the structure of table no. 2 (curriculum outline) seems very awkward.

Further figures are not effectively displayed.

Thank you for your review and feedback regarding our study's data analysis section. We are glad to hear that it is very good.

Regarding your comments on Table 2 (curriculum outline) and the figures displayed in our study, we apologize for any awkwardness or lack of effectiveness in their presentation. We will thoroughly review all tables and figures in the manuscript to ensure that they are well-structured and effectively displayed, as shown on pages 9-10.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, which will help us to improve the overall quality of our study.

Thank you for your feedback on our data analysis. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the awkward structure of Table 2 (curriculum outline). We will review the layout of the entire document's tables and make necessary changes to improve its readability and usability.

5. The findings from the three tools must be inter-co-related

To sum up, the study looked at an important topic and very good efforts and may be considered for publication after minor suggestions. 

Thank you for your review and feedback regarding our study's findings. We would like to clarify that the three tools used in our study are the Fuzzy Delphi Method, the case study method, and the questionnaire survey method.

We agree that it is important to inter-co-relate the findings from these three tools to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the research topic. We will revise our manuscript to include a more thorough analysis of the interrelationships among the findings obtained from each tool.

Thank you for your valuable feedback, which will help us to improve the overall quality of our study.

(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

Thank you for sharing the review comment with me. I am happy to inform you that we have completed the necessary editing and proofreading of our manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the language and style of our paper to ensure that it meets the required standards for publication.

As proof of my editing work, I have attached the "English-Editing-Certificate-64371" to this response. This certificate verifies that our paper has been carefully edited for language and style.

Please feel free to review the edited manuscript and let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for choosing me as your editor, and I wish you all the best with your submission.

Reviewer 3

I suggest evaluating why authors such as Chung, C. C., Huang, S. L., Cheng, Y. M., Lou, S. J. are cited numerous times.

Thank you for the suggestion. Chung, C. C., Huang, S. L., Cheng, Y. M., Lou, S. J. were cited numerous times because their research is relevant to our study and provides valuable insights that we build upon. However, we agree that it is important to include a wider range of references in our study. We will include additional references, such as Chatzopoulos, A., Papoutsidakis, M., Kalogiannakis, M., and Psycharis, S. (2020); Kalogiannakis, M., and Papadakis, S. (2022), and others, to strengthen our theoretical framework and enhance the overall quality of our study. Thank you for your valuable feedback.

Almost all tables need to be reviewed and formatted.

Thank you for your feedback. We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the formatting issues in our tables. We will review and revise all of our tables to ensure that they are properly formatted, clear, and easy to read. We will also ensure that all necessary information is included and that the tables are consistent with the overall style and format of the research report. If you have any further concerns or suggestions, please feel free to let us know. Thank you for your valuable feedback, which will help us improve the quality of our research.

Figure 5 appears to be out of focus.

Overall, this is a very interesting work.

Thank you for your review. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by Figure 5 appearing out of focus. We have reviewed the figure and have determined that it cannot be improved due to the quality of the original image. Therefore, we will proceed with the removal of Figure 5 from our submission. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Reviewer 4

1. This manuscript hoped to develop a smart greenhouse virtual reality curriculum based on STEAM learning and explore the students' satisfaction and learning effectiveness using a Fuzzy Delphi Method. The effectiveness of the curriculum was examined in an experimental study on 26 engineering students in student-centered interdisciplinary knowledge integrated learning and hands-on learning activities.

2. The article is generally written in a good structure. However, I observed several areas for improvement in the following aspects:

2.1 Introduction

 Some of the points raised required reference. For example, the authors wrote, "Professional development should focus on cultivating the following capabilities: interdisciplinary integration, innovation, and technological innovation application, which attaches great importance to interdisciplinary education" (Page 1, L36-38). This is important since other capabilities are also needed, but in what way these three are essential?

 In the introduction section, much emphasis was made on interdisciplinary capabilities. Little has been said about innovation and technological innovation application.

 It is also interesting if the authors briefly discuss VR and its importance in the STEAM education curriculum.

Interdisciplinary integration means using knowledge from different areas to solve problems. Innovation involves creating new solutions, while technological innovation application means effectively using technology to solve problems. These capabilities are crucial in STEAM education because they allow learners to take a holistic approach to problem-solving, think creatively, and use technology effectively to find innovative solutions, as shown on page 3.

Virtual Reality (VR) is a technology that can provide immersive and interactive experiences for learners. In STEAM education, VR can be used to simulate real-life situations, allowing learners to explore scientific, engineering, and mathematical concepts. It can also be used to teach design concepts and enable learners to create and test prototypes in a virtual environment. Overall, incorporating VR into the STEAM education curriculum can enhance learners' understanding and mastery of STEAM concepts and skills, as shown on page 3.

2.2 Literature Review [Page 2].

 This section cannot be called a literature review since it involves descriptions regarding the concepts (STEAM, VR). Very little information regarding studies related to these two concepts was provided.

 This section could be shortened and included in the introduction.

 Previous studies regarding STEAM education & VR are required.

Thank you for your feedback. Based on your review, we have updated the section heading from "Literature Review" to "Conceptual Overview" to better reflect the content of the section, as shown on page 4. Additionally, we have added a new section titled "2.3 The Role of VR in STEAM Education" to provide a more in-depth discussion of the intersection between these two concepts and to review previous studies related to this topic, as shown on pages 5-6. We hope that these changes address your concerns and improve the overall quality of our manuscript. Thank you for your guidance and feedback.

2.3 Research Method and Design [Page 3]

 Is the curriculum based on expert judgment only, or have the researchers already developed the initial curriculum, and the experts only provided their agreement during the FDM session? Either way, more descriptions are required. For example, how do the indicators developed? What are the contents of the greenhouse VR curriculum? Etc.

 Again more descriptions are required in the FDM section – for example, what are the opinions required from the experts? In what way is the questionnaire developed using these opinions? In general, there is a need for the authors to explain HOW the FDM is conducted.

 Questionnaire Survey Method – again, more descriptions are required. For example, the author wrote, “In terms of the expert validity of the questionnaire, two experts were invited to evaluate the validity of the first draft of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then revised based on their opinions, and item analysis and factor analysis were performed in the pre-test” [Page 5, L197-200]. It would be good if the author could provide an example of the areas that have been revised, findings from the item, and the factor analysis.

Thank you for your review and feedback regarding our study's methodology section. We are glad to hear that it is well written.

Regarding the tools for data collection, we apologize for the oversight in not citing and justifying them in the current study. We will revise the methodology section to include a thorough description and justification of the tools used for data collection. We will ensure that the tools selected are appropriate for the research questions and hypotheses, as shown on pages 6-8 in Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3.

We appreciate your valuable feedback, which will help us to improve the overall quality of our study.

Thank you for your feedback. Allow me to elaborate on the tools for data collection and their justification in the current study.

Thank you for your feedback on our questionnaire survey method. We will provide a more detailed description of the revisions made to the questionnaire based on the experts' feedback, as shown on page 8. During the expert validity evaluation, the two experts provided suggestions for rewording some of the items in the questionnaire to make them clearer and more relevant to the research context. For example, one item was modified from "This curriculum helps me learn in a fun way" to "This curriculum makes learning more interesting," and another item was modified from "This curriculum helps me learn faster and better" to "This curriculum makes learning more efficient."

We will provide more detailed information on the specific revisions made to the questionnaire in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your feedback and suggestions.

2.4 Results and Discussion [Page 5]

 Table 1 – what are L- and R-values? More importantly, what do they tell readers?

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to assist you. Based on the review comment, the L- and R-values refer to specific values that are important for understanding the FDM (Fuzzy Delphi Method) in the context of the research article.

As per the suggested modification, changing the labels of "L- and R-values" to "Min. Value and Max. Value" would make the table clearer and more understandable for readers, as shown on page 8. This modification would also help to avoid any confusion that may arise from using the terms L- and R-values, which may not be familiar to all readers.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the FDM method and the importance of the L- and R-values in the context of the research article.

 How are classifications of indicators into three categories made?

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you. Based on the review comment, the classifications of indicators into three categories are made using the Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) method proposed by Martilla and James in 1977, as shown on page 9.

The classification of STEAM capability indicators into three categories of high importance/high practicability, high importance/low practicability, and low importance/low practicability was based on the method of Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) proposed by Martilla and James (1977). In this method, the importance and practicability scores of each indicator were plotted on a graph with the x-axis representing importance and the y-axis representing practicability.

Martilla, J.A. and James, J.C. (1977) Importance-Performance Analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41, 77-79.

 I need to revise Table 2 so that it is easily read.

Thank you for sharing the review comment with me. Based on the feedback, it appears that Table 2 in your paper had some readability issues. To improve its clarity, modifications can be made to the table, as shown on pages 9-10.

 Design of STEAM innovative greenhouse VR assisted teaching – This is an important section in this article. Nevertheless, many questions were left unanswered. For example, what are the curriculum objectives or curriculum content? Is the smart greenhouse practice field already in the “biological environment control engineering and practice” curriculum? etc.

Thank you for sharing the review comment with me. To address these concerns, we modified Table 2 and added a section on Curriculum Outline to provide more details on the curriculum objectives and content, as shown on pages 9-10. In the Curriculum Outline section, we described the specific learning objectives, as well as the topics and activities that will be covered in the course.

 Analysis of curriculum satisfaction – what is the purpose of the on-sample t-test here, and why the value of 3 is chosen?

Thank you for bringing this up. The purpose of conducting the one-sample t-test in the analysis of curriculum satisfaction is to determine whether the mean satisfaction score of the sample is significantly different from a hypothesized value of 3 (neutral score on a 5-point Likert scale). The value of 3 is chosen as it represents the neutral point on the scale, and a significant difference from this value would indicate either a positive or negative deviation from the neutral perception of satisfaction, as shown on pages 7; 10-11.

 The sample of 26 students is considered small for inferential testing.

Thank you for sharing the review comment with me. Based on the feedback, it seems that the sample size of 26 students used in your study may be considered small for inferential testing.

We acknowledged the potential limitations of the small sample size in our paper and discuss any implications this may have on the generalizability of your findings, as shown on page 7 in section 3.2.

 The authors wrote, "The 288 satisfaction of 26 students with this curriculum ranged from 4.04 to 5.54” [Page 9, L288-289). What do these values mean?

Thank you for sharing the review comments with me. Regarding the satisfaction ratings reported in the paper, the range of 4.04 to 5.54 represents the average ratings of the 26 students on a scale of 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. These values provide some indication of the overall satisfaction of the students with the curriculum, but further explanation and interpretation of these findings would be helpful in the discussion section, as shown on pages 10-11.

 In general, the article provides many findings. Nevertheless, it is good to provide more meaningful discussions regarding the findings. For example, instead of providing statistics, the author needs to provide information regarding what these statistics inform us. Currently, no information is provided – thus, I feel that the discussion section is the weakest part of this article.

Thank you for sharing the review comment with me. Specifically, the reviewer suggests that instead of simply presenting statistics, it would be beneficial to provide more information on what these statistics actually inform us.

To address this concern, we revised our discussion section to provide a more comprehensive and detailed interpretation of our results. This may involve going beyond the numbers and statistics to provide a deeper analysis of the implications and significance of our findings, as shown on pages 11, 17-19.

Item

Average

Standard deviation

t

Rank

1-1 I learn interdisciplinary knowledge and application in the curriculum

4.08

.929

5.715^***

2

1-2 I will integrate more than two kinds of interdisciplinary knowledge and thinking operations

3.96

.908

5.171^***

3

1-3 I think it is important to learn the interdisciplinary integration capability

4.33

.702

9.305^***

1

1-4 I can practice and explore the principles of curriculum knowledge

4.38

.770

8.752^***

1

1-5 I construct knowledge from hands-on practice

4.29

.806

7.847^***

2

1-6 I like hands-on practice

4.25

.847

7.230^***

3

1-7 I am good at using hands-on practice to learn knowledge

4.13

.900

6.125^***

4

1-8 This curriculum can cultivate my curiosity about daily life problems

4.21

.779

7.599^***

1

1-9 I can disassemble and analyze daily life problems

4.08

.830

6.397^***

3

1-10 I can apply the curriculum knowledge to my daily life

4.00

.780

6.279^***

4

1-11 I can judge the effect of problem-solving methods under certain conditions

4.13

.741

7.439^***

2

1-12 I can identify problems and make systematic statements

4.04

.859

5.943^***

3

1-13 I can collect data and take appropriate information to collate the problem

4.13

.741

7.439^***

1

1-14 I can put forward assumptions and multiple feasible solutions according to problems

3.92

.830

5.412^***

4

1-15 I can carry out the division of labor, process planning, and planned operation

4.08

.830

6.397^***

2

1-16 I can test and correct according to the proposed assumptions

3.88

.797

5.376^***

5

1-17 This curriculum can provide me with diversified learning stimulations

4.33

.702

9.305^***

4

1-18 This curriculum can cultivate my comprehensive learning through my 5 senses

4.38

.647

10.413^***

3

1-19 This curriculum can stimulate my potential and learning capabilities

4.33

.817

8.000^***

4

1-20 This curriculum can cultivate my imagination

4.42

.654

10.614^***

2

1-21 This curriculum can cultivate my creativity

4.54

.588

12.840^***

1