Leveraging Virtual Reality in Engineering Education to Optimize Manufacturing Sustainability in Industry 4.0

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank you for having been invited to read the document.

The authors have done an excellent job. Each of the comments shared seeks to strengthen the study.

The comments can be found in the PDF document.

Likewise, some of the comments on some of the points that need to be reformulated in the document are shared below:

 

The objective of the study on the knowledge gap it seeks to fill and the contributions made by the present study are not clear.

 

Characteristics of the sample, academic year, age, etc., could be added.

 

There is a statistical test to strengthen the number of participants. It would be important to perform a power test to determine the sample size and thus make the research more rigorous.

 

When unifying the results and discussion section, the contribution of the findings in the light of the other studies is not clear. At the same time, the results of the present study are not discussed with other studies, which makes it difficult to detail the most relevant aspects. It is suggested that the results and discussion section be divided in order to understand the importance of what was found and what was discussed with other references.

 

A section on the limitations of the study could be added.

 

And the other contribution that can be made from this study has to do with a section on practical recommendations and future perspectives. There, the idea is to be able to share the advances that this type of study generates in the field of engineering and professional training.

 

It is suggested to review the following references that can help to support the work done and, at the same time, strengthen the discussion:

 

Ghazali, A. K., Ab. Aziz, N. A., Ab. Aziz, K., & Tse Kian, N. (2024). The usage of virtual reality in engineering education. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2319441

 

Abulrub, A.-H G., Attridge, A., & Williams, M. A. (2011). Virtual reality in engineering education: The future of creative learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 6(4), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v6i4.1766

 

Anuar, S., Nizar, N., & Ismail, M. A. (2021). The impact of using augmented reality as teaching material on students’ motivation. Asian Journal of Vocational Education and Humanities, 2(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.53797/ajvah.v2i1.1.2021

 

Enzai, N. I. M., Ahmad, N., Ghani, M. A. H. A., Rais, S. S., & Mohamed, S. (2021). Development of augmented reality (AR) for innovative teaching and learning in engineering education. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11954

 

Halabi, O. (2020). Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(3-4), 2987–3004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08214-8

 

Kim, J., Kim, K. S., Ka, J., & Kim, W. (2023). Teaching methodology for understanding virtual reality and application development in engineering major. Sustainability, 15(3), 2725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032725

 

Finally, it is necessary to revise the references because they do not comply with the journal's standards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Note: Reviewer 1 comments are incorporated in RED 

First of all, I would like to thank you for having been invited to read the document.

The authors have done an excellent job. Each of the comments shared seeks to strengthen the study.

Response:

The authors are thankful to the reviewers for the time and efforts. As per the suggestions, authors have tried their best to improve the quality of the manuscript.

 

Comment 1:

The objective of the study on the knowledge gap it seeks to fill and the contributions made by the present study are not clear.

 

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comment. The objectives of the study have been clarified in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 14–17, 194–199

 

Comment 2:

Characteristics of the sample, academic year, age, etc., could be added.

 

Response 2:

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment. The sample characteristics have been added to revised manuscript now.

Lines 275–294

 

Comment 3:

There is a statistical test to strengthen the number of participants. It would be important to perform a power test to determine the sample size and thus make the research more rigorous.

 

Response 3:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. As suggested, the power analysis has been added for sample size determination to strengthen the study's rigor in the revised manuscript.

Line: 245-271

 

Comment 4:

When unifying the results and discussion section, the contribution of the findings in the light of the other studies is not clear.

Response 4:

The authors thank the reviewer for their time and efforts towards improving the manuscript. The results and discussion sections have now been separated, making the contribution of the findings in light of other studies clearer in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 487–566

 

Comment 4.1:

At the same time, the results of the present study are not discussed with other studies, which makes it difficult to detail the most relevant aspects. It is suggested that the results and discussion section be divided in order to understand the importance of what was found and what was discussed with other references.

 

Response 4.1:

The authors thank the reviewer for their time and efforts towards improving the manuscript. The results and discussion sections have now been separated, making the contribution of the findings in light of other studies clearer in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 330–566

 

Comment 5:

A section on the limitations of the study could be added.

 

Response 5:

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. The limitations of the study have been included.

Lines 550–556

 

Comment 6:

And the other contribution that can be made from this study has to do with a section on practical recommendations and future perspectives. There, the idea is to be able to share the advances that this type of study generates in the field of engineering and professional training.

 

Response 6:

Thank you for your valuable efforts towards improving the manuscript. Future directions for research have been incorporated into the revised manuscript now.

Lines 557–566

 

Comment 7:

It is suggested to review the following references that can help to support the work done and, at the same time, strengthen the discussion:

 

• Ghazali, A. K., Ab. Aziz, N. A., Ab. Aziz, K., & Tse Kian, N. (2024). The usage of virtual reality in engineering education. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2319441
• Abulrub, A.-H G., Attridge, A., & Williams, M. A. (2011). Virtual reality in engineering education: The future of creative learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 6(4), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v6i4.1766
• Anuar, S., Nizar, N., & Ismail, M. A. (2021). The impact of using augmented reality as teaching material on students’ motivation. Asian Journal of Vocational Education and Humanities, 2(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.53797/ajvah.v2i1.1.2021
• Enzai, N. I. M., Ahmad, N., Ghani, M. A. H. A., Rais, S. S., & Mohamed, S. (2021). Development of augmented reality (AR) for innovative teaching and learning in engineering education. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(4), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i4.11954
• Halabi, O. (2020). Immersive virtual reality to enforce teaching in engineering education. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 79(3-4), 2987–3004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-08214-8
• Kim, J., Kim, K. S., Ka, J., & Kim, W. (2023). Teaching methodology for understanding virtual reality and application development in engineering major. Sustainability, 15(3), 2725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032725

Response 7:

The authors are appreciative of the reviewer’s valuable comments. The suggest references have been incorporated into the revised manuscript now.

Lines 155-183,

Lines 506-535,

Lines 662-673

 

Comment 8:

Finally, it is necessary to revise the references because they do not comply with the journal's standards.

 

Response 8:

We appreciate your efforts to improving our manuscript. The references are now revised to fit the journal’s standards.

Lines 618-673

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is relevant, but the following changes should be made.

 

-The introduction should be expanded, emphasizing the important of VR in education and its impact.

-Clarify the main objective and secondary objectives.

-Some hypotheses raised as research questions can be incorporated.

-Explain through authors the methodology used.

-There is no information on the questionnaire, whether it has been validated or not.

-The type of sampling should be explained, since it is not specified.

-Discussions are not included in the results, they should be separated.

-Create a discussion section

-The conclusions are a summary of the previous comments. It should be reformulated and supported by some studies. Limitations and prospection do not appear. 

 

The methodology should be emphasized, because there is a lack of information: methodology, sampling, questionnaire ....

Author Response

 

Note: Reviewer 2 comments are incorporated in GREEN

 

Comment 1:

The introduction should be expanded, emphasizing the important of VR in education and its impact.

 

Response 1:

The authors are appreciative of the reviewer’s valuable comments. The introduction has been expanded to emphasize the importance of VR in education and its impact.

Lines 194–229

 

Comment 2:

Clarify the main objective and secondary objectives.

 

Response 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. The main and secondary objectives have been clarified in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 14–17, 194–199

 

Comment 3:

Some hypotheses raised as research questions can be incorporated.

 

Response 3:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. As suggested, the hypotheses have been formulated in the revised manuscript.

Line: 200-229

 

Comment 4:

Explain through authors the methodology used.

 

Response 4:

Thank you for your valuable comments. The methodology has been revised and explained in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 273–302

 

Comment 5:

There is no information on the questionnaire, whether it has been validated or not.

 

Response 5:

The authors appreciate the reviewer’s time and efforts in improving the manuscript. The validation of the questionnaire has been clarified in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 282–294

 

Comment 6:

The type of sampling should be explained, since it is not specified.

 

Response 6:

The authors thank the reviewer for their thoughtful comment. The revised manuscript now specifies the type of sampling employed.

Lines 244-294

 

Comment 7:

Discussions are not included in the results, they should be separated.

 

Response 7:

Thank you for your comment. The Discussion section has now been separated in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 487-566

 

Comment 8:

Create a discussion section

 

Response 8:

Thank you for your comment. The Discussion section has now been separated in the revised manuscript now.

Lines 487-566

 

Comment 9:

The conclusions are a summary of the previous comments. It should be reformulated and supported by some studies. Limitations and prospection do not appear.

 

Response 9:

We appreciate the valuable comment of the reviewer. The conclusion has been reformulated and now presents the limitations of the study and future directions for research.

Lines 550–566

 

Comment 10

The methodology should be emphasized, because there is a lack of information: methodology, sampling, questionnaire.

 

Response 10:

Thank you for your valuable comment. The methodology has been thoroughly revised in the manuscript now.

Lines 244–302

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To congratulate the researchers for improving the document presented. The authors have managed to resolve all the suggestions that were made.

I have only one consideration after reviewing the new document. It is suggested that the explanation of figures and tables go first and then whether figure or table. This allows the reader to have a better understanding of the document. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The changes have been made and the article has been substantially improved.