Research on Optimization of VR Welding Course Development with ANP and Satisfaction Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes a study of designing a course on welding enhanced by virtual reality simulations.

The work appears to be methodologically sound and relevant. At the same time, the presentation of nearly every aspect of the work in the manuscript is poor or unnecessarily complicated.

1. The authors extensively describe every single item of their work. However, after reading the paper, it is hard to see how they all stand together. For example, the authors describe the welding course is described in great detail. However, nothing is said about how the previously described results led to this particular design.
2. The welding course should have been used to validate the framework of ability indexes, created based on input from experts. However, the authors presented only brief results of student satisfaction with the welding course. There are no conclusions about the validation of the ability indexes.
3. The manuscript contains no discussion and only very formal conclusions.
4. The writing style used in the paper (especially in the introduction) makes it very difficult to read. The authors are using very long sentences and make many small grammar and style errors because of that. Examples:

• Section 1 ends with a list of purposes. In addition, a very long sentence just before the list repeats all the items from this list.
• Section 2.2 has a sentence that starts with "Furthermore, welding". This sentence has multiple remunerations, incorrect use of the British comma before and, and two "etc.".
• Section 2.2 has a sentence that starts with "In terms of personal protection". This sentence uses both "such as" and "etc.", which is an error.
• Abbreviations are used incorrectly. For example, "virtual reality" is randomly used as "virtual reality" or "VR".

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The manuscript describes a study of designing a course on welding enhanced by virtual reality simulations.

The work appears to be methodologically sound and relevant. At the same time, the presentation of nearly every aspect of the work in the manuscript is poor or unnecessarily complicated.

1. The authors extensively describe every single item of their work. However, after reading the paper, it is hard to see how they all stand together. For example, the authors describe the welding course is described in great detail. However, nothing is said about how the previously described results led to this particular design.

Response 1:

(1) We had added the Section 4.3.1 and figure 4 to descript the particular design of course. (in red)

(2) We had added more current references (from JCR journals preferably) and showing their main findings and drawbacks, as show in Section 2.4. (in red)

8. DePape, A. M.; Barnes, M.; Petryschuk, J. Students’ Experiences in Higher Education With Virtual and Augmented Reality: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Innovative Practice in Higher Education 2019, 3(3), 22-57.
9. Stone, R. T., Watts, K. P., & Zhong, P. (2011). Virtual reality integrated welder training. Welding Journal, 90(7), 136-141.
10. Byrd, A. P., Anderson, R., & Stone, R. (2015). The use of virtual welding simulators to evaluate experienced welders. Welding Journal, 94(12), 389-395.
11. Stone, R. T., McLaurin, E., Zhong, P., & Watts, K. P. (2013). Full virtual reality vs. integrated virtual reality training in welding. Welding Journal, 92(6), 167-174.

The references in another Section as below.

7. Liu, Y. (2016). Toward intelligent welding robots: virtualized welding based learning of human welder behaviors. Welding in the World, 60(4), 719-729.
8. Reisgen, U., Mann, S., Middeldorf, K., Sharma, R., Buchholz, G., & Willms, K. (2019). Connected, digitalized welding production—Industrie 4.0 in gas metal arc welding. Welding in the World, 63(4), 1121-1131.
9. Chung, C. C., Chao, L. C., & Lou, S. J. (2016). The establishment of a green supplier selection and guidance mechanism with the ANP and IPA. Sustainability, 8(3), 259.
10. Peters, C., Postlethwaite, D., & Wallace, M. W. (2019). U.S. Patent No. 10,249,215. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

1. The welding course should have been used to validate the framework of ability indexes, created based on input from experts. However, the authors presented only brief results of student satisfaction with the welding course. There are no conclusions about the validation of the ability indexes.

Response 2:

We had added the Section 4.4.1 and table 8 to descript the demonstration of students' welding ability. (in red)

 

1. The manuscript contains no discussion and only very formal conclusions.

Response 3:

We had added the Section 4.5 to discussed for the research results. (in red)

 

 

1. The writing style used in the paper (especially in the introduction) makes it very difficult to read. The authors are using very long sentences and make many small grammar and style errors because of that. Examples:

• Section 1 ends with a list of purposes. In addition, a very long sentence just before the list repeats all the items from this list.

Response 4.1:

We had deleted and revised the long sentence in Section 1. (in red)

• Section 2.2 has a sentence that starts with "Furthermore, welding". This sentence has multiple remunerations, incorrect use of the British comma before and, and two "etc.".

Response 4.2:

We had revised the sentence in Section 2.2. (in red)

• Section 2.2 has a sentence that starts with "In terms of personal protection". This sentence uses both "such as" and "etc.", which is an error.

Response 4.3:

We had revised the sentence in Section 2.2. (in red)

• Abbreviations are used incorrectly. For example, "virtual reality" is randomly used as "virtual reality" or "VR".

Response 4.4:

We had revised the abbreviations of "virtual reality" in all the paper.

 

Response 5:

We had thoroughly checked and edited for language and form, as show in below certification of MDPI English language editing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors discussed the importance and feasibility of the ability indices of VR technology assisted welding practice teaching using Fuzzy Delphi and an ANP expert questionnaire, in order to develop a VR welding course and teaching activity design, and implement experimental teaching to verify its effectiveness.

The paper is well-organized but the state-of-the-art should be improved (Section 2 – Literature Review). I recommend to include much more current references (JCR journals preferably) and showing their main findings and drawbacks. This is the only way to understand the importance of the research carried out.

Likewise, the methods are adequately described.

It would be desirable to reduce the extension of the Abstract and Conclusions and Suggestions section significantly.

Regarding formal aspects, I have only some minor corrections:

1. Please, include in Table 2 (Seniority (Years))
2. Please, revise typos (e.g., page 10 – line 384) (Table 2 should be substituted to Table 4).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: In this paper, the authors discussed the importance and feasibility of the ability indices of VR technology assisted welding practice teaching using Fuzzy Delphi and an ANP expert questionnaire, in order to develop a VR welding course and teaching activity design, and implement experimental teaching to verify its effectiveness.

The paper is well-organized but the state-of-the-art should be improved (Section 2 – Literature Review). I recommend to include much more current references (JCR journals preferably) and showing their main findings and drawbacks. This is the only way to understand the importance of the research carried out.

Likewise, the methods are adequately described.

It would be desirable to reduce the extension of the Abstract and Conclusions and Suggestions section significantly.

Response 1:

Thank you.

(1) We had added more current references (from JCR journals preferably) and showing their main findings and drawbacks, as show in Section 2.4. (in red)

8. DePape, A. M.; Barnes, M.; Petryschuk, J. Students’ Experiences in Higher Education With Virtual and Augmented Reality: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Innovative Practice in Higher Education 2019, 3(3), 22-57.
9. Stone, R. T., Watts, K. P., & Zhong, P. (2011). Virtual reality integrated welder training. Welding Journal, 90(7), 136-141.
10. Byrd, A. P., Anderson, R., & Stone, R. (2015). The use of virtual welding simulators to evaluate experienced welders. Welding Journal, 94(12), 389-395.
11. Stone, R. T., McLaurin, E., Zhong, P., & Watts, K. P. (2013). Full virtual reality vs. integrated virtual reality training in welding. Welding Journal, 92(6), 167-174.

 

The references in another Section as below.

7. Liu, Y. (2016). Toward intelligent welding robots: virtualized welding based learning of human welder behaviors. Welding in the World, 60(4), 719-729.
8. Reisgen, U., Mann, S., Middeldorf, K., Sharma, R., Buchholz, G., & Willms, K. (2019). Connected, digitalized welding production—Industrie 4.0 in gas metal arc welding. Welding in the World, 63(4), 1121-1131.
9. Chung, C. C., Chao, L. C., & Lou, S. J. (2016). The establishment of a green supplier selection and guidance mechanism with the ANP and IPA. Sustainability, 8(3), 259.
10. Peters, C., Postlethwaite, D., & Wallace, M. W. (2019). U.S. Patent No. 10,249,215. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

 

(2) We had rewrite the Abstract and Conclusions and Suggestions section. (in red)

(3) We had added the Section 4.3.1 and figure 4 to descript the particular design of course. (in red)

(4) We had added the Section 4.4.1 and table 8 to descript the demonstration of students' welding ability. (in red)

(5) We had added the Section 4.5 to discussed for the research results. (in red)

 

 

 

Point 2: Regarding formal aspects, I have only some minor corrections:

1. Please, include in Table 2 (Seniority (Years))
2. Please, revise typos (e.g., page 10 – line 384) (Table 2 should be substituted to Table 4).

 

Response 2:

Thank you.

(1) We had revised the Table 2 (Seniority (Years)). (in red; page 8)

(2) We had revised the Table 2 to Table 4. (in red)

 

Response 3:

We had thoroughly checked and edited for language and form, as show in below certification of MDPI English language editing.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The improved manuscript addresses most of the technical and logical issues that I found in the original version. The new, changed or moved sessions are conveniently highlighted with red.

The two issues that are still present in the manuscript are:

1. A very shallow discussion. The discussion, although slightly improved and extended, is still written as a report. The authors do little interpretation of the results via the lens of any theoretical framework(s). The authors do not analyze or explain why they received the results they received. There are some references to the previous work in the discussion section, but no comparison to the results of the previous work. Even the components of the highly theoretical framework of interaction-immersion-imagination are only named in the conclusions with a summary of the results (and no discussion attached).
2. The writing style of extremely long sentences is still present in the manuscript. The authors split some long sentences, but more needs to be done. The manuscript still has quite some sentences that take 5 and even 7 lines.

Author Response

Round_2

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

The improved manuscript addresses most of the technical and logical issues that I found in the original version. The new, changed or moved sessions are conveniently highlighted with red.

The two issues that are still present in the manuscript are:

1. A very shallow discussion. The discussion, although slightly improved and extended, is still written as a report. The authors do little interpretation of the results via the lens of any theoretical framework(s). The authors do not analyze or explain why they received the results they received. There are some references to the previous work in the discussion section, but no comparison to the results of the previous work. Even the components of the highly theoretical framework of interaction-immersion-imagination are only named in the conclusions with a summary of the results (and no discussion attached).

Response 1:

We had added the Section 4.5.4 (Discussion; Line 684-696) and 5.1.3(Concussion; Line 729-734) to descript the components of the highly theoretical framework of interaction-immersion-imagination. (in red)

 

1. The writing style of extremely long sentences is still present in the manuscript. The authors split some long sentences, but more needs to be done. The manuscript still has quite some sentences that take 5 and even 7 lines.

Response 2:

We had split all long sentences in our revision. (in yellow background; Line 105-109; 114-119; 271-275; 335-338; 347-349; 369-375; 381-384; 390-394; 400-404; 417-420; 439-442; 527-531; 545-549; 553-557560-564; 567-571;784-788)

 

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

Response 3:

We had thoroughly checked and edited for language and form, as show in below certification of MDPI English language editing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf