Analysing Students’ Spatial Abilities in Chemistry Learning Using 3D Virtual Representation

1.

I don't understand the overall design of the study. The research questions seem to be missing, but based on the aim of the study, the methodology doesn't seem to fit. The stated aim was to analyze the "spatial ability of students using a 3D virtual representation on the topic of molecular geometry." Later in the paper, there were claims of students learning chemistry and also improving spatial skills. Without a pre-post design, I do not see how you can assess whether students learned chemistry and/or improved spatial skills. If you are simply trying to measure the spatial skills and/or chemistry knowledge at a fixed point in time, then this methodology may work provided additional description is included. 

Research question has been added at lines 84-86

Molecular Geometry is a topic in the chemistry curriculum. An explanation has been added at lines 117-129

How spatial ability is measured and observed is explained at lines 170-188 in the methodology section. Observation, interviews, reflective journals, teacher notes, student worksheets, and spatial tests were used to collect data. Spatial tests were divided into the Purdue Spatial Visualization of Rotations Test and spatial tests on molecular geometry.  Spatial abilities categories are presented in Table 2

2.

The data collection instruments need additional description. What do the interview questions look like? What topics do they include? What is the PSVT:R (I know this, but not all readers do)? What is the molecular geometry spatial test? etc. 

A description of the interviews conducted with students has been added at lines 249-255

A description of the PSVR: T test and molecular geometry spatial test is included at lines 283-287

3.

The data collection/methodology could benefit from a flow chart and/or better description of when each type of data were collected and why.  

We have revised

Data collection has been revised and an explanation of each type is included at lines 244-288

4.

What is your theoretical framework? In a qualitative study, the theoretical framework is important for understanding your study.

A more detailed theoretical framework, based on the literature review related to chemistry learning and spatial ability, has been added.

5.

As a qualitative study, I would like to know more about how you coded your data, triangulated data sources, identified themes in the data, etc. What approach did you take to data analysis? How does this fit with your study and your theoretical framework?

Additional information on research methodology, including the data analysis process, has been added.

6.

The literature could better support the study, but as written, I don't know what to suggest for literature exactly as I am still unclear on many parts of the methodology of the study.

The processes of understanding students’ spatial ability during chemistry learning using 3D Virtual Representation is added.

7.

The abstract describes the research as qualitative, though later quantitative spatial ability tests are mentioned. It does appear that they were all treated as qualitative, potentially, but the manuscript does not describe how the PSVT:R was analyzed.

Further explanation has been added in methodology. Multiple data collections were employed to understand students’ spatial ability development. We employed different types of questions open questions and  multiple choices of  the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test  to explore students understanding with three categories of high spatial ability, moderate spatial ability, and low spatial ability.

8.

The phases Engage, Explore, and Explain sound like the first three parts of a 5E lesson. Was this intentional? If so, why not include Elaborate or Evaluate as well?

No, we didn’t intentional use 5E, we chose these three stages as relevant to the learning objective as students need to engage and explore the geometry molecule then explain their understanding.

9.

Lines 65-67 seem to be claiming that little or no research has been done about spatial thinking in chemistry. Yet, there is abundant research, particularly at the college level.

The research is related to spatial ability at the secondary school level. At the college level, there have been many studies on spatial abilities in the field of chemistry. We focused on secondary school as the fundamental ability in chemistry learning is started in our curricula

10.

Lines 80-81 – while geology students do need to learn how geologic structures change over time, that is hardly spatial skills in practice. The spatial skills come into play more when the geology students (and experts) are considering underlying structures of geomorphologic features of the earth, visualizing the internal structures of the Earth, understanding the chemical composition of rocks and minerals, interpreting the spatial arrangement of topical features, understanding the geometries of buried tectonic plates and faults, and the like.

An additional explanation has been added regarding spatial capabilities in understanding the chemical composition of rocks and minerals, interpreting the spatial arrangement of topical features, under-standing the geometries of buried tectonic plates and faults, etc.   

11.

The spatial skills section of the literature review could be better arranged around relevant chemistry content. Make a case for why spatial skills are needed for this particular chemistry concept rather than about chemistry (or STEM) more generally.

Further explanation has been included at lines 103-106 by providing several relevant topics and the importance of spatial ability.

12.

In 4.1, it appears to be described as predicting the shape of molecular geometry. To me, this isn’t molecular geometry. I would think of the names of shapes – tetrahedral, bent, trigonal planar, etc. – for molecular geometry or the bond angles or something like that. Instead, to me, this looks like an exercise in interpreting a 2D drawing of a 3D molecule combined with drawing skills. I would doubt these students have learned about the conventions for drawing 3D molecules on a 2D paper, so their drawings may actually be correct but they are struggling with representing it. Asking for a written or verbal explanation may help. Without it, you’re not sure if it’s a spatial skills issue or a drawing skills issue.

We have added the information of chemistry curricula topics in our context at lines 117-128 .

13.

Line 272 lists the spatial test as PSVT:R. Earlier it was called the PSVT:T-test. Is this the same test? If so, please fix the inaccurately named spots in the paper. Also, on the PSVT:R, the authors claim that students are low/medium/or high-spatial categories. What level of spatial ability is required for each of these categories? Where did the score cutoffs come from?

We have revised and added the information by revising The PSVRT: R, followed by explanation of each category.

14.

When was each assessment given? Was there a pre-post testing component? If not, how can you tell if the intervention improved spatial ability or understanding of molecular geometries?

Our research design did not use pretest and posttest. As qualitative research, we focus on the process by using different multiple research methods which we have added more information on data collections. We have explained the tests that were conducted such as the diagnostic assessment we conducted at the beginning using the PSVR: T aims to determine students' skills and knowledge about spatial in general. At the end of the study, we provide an assessment in the form of a spatial test integrated with molecular geometry content aimed at monitoring student learning on the topic of molecular geometry while using 3D virtual representation.

15.

There seems to be a lot of things being measured and considered in this research – spatial ability, molecular shape, bond angle, problem solving, rotation/reflection of molecules, bond shape, etc. There either needs to be more clear explanation of what was tested when and why or these concepts need to be either removed from this paper or split into multiple papers. As is it is way too confusing for the reader.

We have revised our explanations in introduction and methodology sections

16.

What is the molecular geometry spatial test? This test is mentioned but not described.

A description of the molecular geometry spatial test has been added.

No

Comments

Responses

17.

Overall, this article is well organized and covered the essential parts of an academic paper, However, there is room for improvement.

First, in the introduction and related work section, citations of the claim and details about the gap in the research are encouraged to be added.

Additional information has been added to identify the research gap in introduction at line 58-63 and 76-84

Second, in the methodology section, the research question is missing and further details about the research design are needed. Lastly, limitations and ethical considerations in the article were not included.

Additional information has been included under methodology sections of each data collection and analysis at lines 170-287

18.

Specifically, the introduction illustrated the importance of spatial ability in learning chemistry, particularly in the phenomena visualization. While in the reality, due to the time limit, instructors often fail to teach spatial skills to learners.  By researching other sources, researchers pointed out the use of 3D AR technology can be of great help for chemistry teaching and learning. The description in this section was clear and structured. However, researchers mentioned it was challenging for learners to visualize the microstructure, but there was no citation. Further, researchers did not mention what type of learners face the challenges the most? Did the challenges apply to all the learners?

The challenges in research context has been added at lines 65-69

19.

The related work described the significance of spatial ability in the success of learning chemistry for the students. Likewise, the advantage of AR technology that is used to improve learner’s knowledge was presented. The authors also mentioned that various researches revealed the positive outcome of using AR technology to improve students’ spatial abilities. Unfortunately, the gap for the research was not clearly stated. What is the gap of the research? Further, the reason for using marker-based AR was not mentioned. Why the researcher did not choose AR without markers? More details are needed.

Information related to the AR was used is added at lines 157-162

20.

The research question and the participants’ recruitment process were not included in the methodology section.

The selected participants have been included in methodology section at lines 171-173.

In the data collection paragraph, the authors described all the instruments/tools at the beginning. It is encouraged to describe the instruments along with the number of the phase in the study as well. In this way, readers will be easier to understand what instruments were implemented in phases 1, 2, or 3 (preliminary, implementation, and final phase).

The explanation of methodology has been added, including the figure of learning activities and data collections at lines 224-242

 Also, the use of two types of spatial tests was described. However, the reason to adopt two different RSVP tests were not included. Why the use of one general PSVR test was not enough for assessing student’s spatial abilities.

The following sentence is added at lines 199-201

The Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotation (PSVT: R) cannot identify what aspects of spatial ability have been measured, so to overcome this, we created a molecular geometric spatial test that contains three aspects of spatial abilities, such as spatial visualization, spatial orientation, and spatial relationships.

In the data analysis paragraph, further details about how to conduct data reduction and data display are needed. For instance, how did the researchers reduce the data? Likewise, what was the citation for this qualitative data analysis approach?

The data analysis has been added at lines 293-299

What’s more, in the conclusions and verification stage, the researchers mentioned progressive subjectivity and member checking, however, there was no information about who was in charge of monitoring the research results or researchers’ notes, where to store the data, and how many researchers were involved.

We have added more information at lines 306-310

21.

As there were no RQs mentioned in the article, the results were organized in a way that seems confusing at the beginning.

We have added RQs in this study at lines 82-84

The first part of this section was about student’s prior knowledge. Throughout the research design mentioned in the methodology part, the prior knowledge activity was not included in the design.

We have added more explanations in methodology section and figure 2

Additionally, some data collected seems were not appropriately presented in the result section (e.g., observation notes, reflective journals, teacher notes). Specifically, the observation data collected by the researchers while students were in the instructional activity were not clearly distinguished from other qualitative data, such as interviews and final-state evaluation. A more structured result section is encouraged. On the contrary, researchers did a good job in presenting the results using various visualized components, including bar charts, 2D and 3D molecular structure, and so forth, which helps readers to understand the results more accurately.

The methodology sections and each part of data collection has been revised and information added at lines 248-291.

22.

While the articles are mostly structured and covered all the major parts of an academic article, the limitation and ethical consideration information were missing. Were the participant’s data remained anonymous or confidential? Were the data stored in a safe place that can prevent the leak of the personal information? It is also important to include these two sections in an academic article.

 Ethical considerations, including permission. participant consent form, and privacy of the participants at lines 175-177

23.

Lastly, conclusion. The researchers summarized the findings and implications of the study in a systematic way. The new findings from the research have been summarized clearly. In the meanwhile, it is also encouraged to emphasize the significance of the finding in academia.

We have  added to the more explanations in conclusion at lines 537-540

24.

The discussion (Virtual Reality vs. Augmented Reality) appears a bit too simple (beginning in line 55). It does not consider the aspect that there a AR media and hardware systems which require a lot of effort to make spatial ability training available for non-expert users. For example, Keil et al. showed that, before using the Microsoft HoloLens in distance estimation tasks, interface programming is required to measure reliable data. I would suggest that authors indicate that there is ongoing debate on the usability of AR systems and that sometimes a lot of technical preparation is required to train spatial ability.

Further explanation, from lines 43-57,  has been added to address the ongoing debate and technical preparation required to train special ability.

25.

Your empirical results are presented in descriptive statistics which do not allow to report and discuss robust effects. Therefore, I would suggest to add a sentence toward the beginning of the discussion section stating that your results are a first empirical approach pointing to trends. These trends should be taken up and verified in future investigations.

The explanation to the data conclusion has been added at lines 537-541

26.

As indicated in my first comment, you discriminate between virtual and augmented reality (which is, of course, important when conducting a detailed study). However, in your conclusion you mention “3D virtual representation” (see number 1 and 3, beginning with l. 418). If I understood your study correctly, your results refer to a specific augmented reality approach.

27.

A methodologically question: How did you make sure that the 2D representations used (and represented in several figures) are well comparable to the 3D condition? Is the additional dimension the only difference when comparing the media empirically? Or are there other factors that could have had an impact on your results?

The explanations have been added at lines 117-129 in relevant to characteristics of chemistry concepts, especially in geometry molecule, the 3D provides more benefits for develop students’ understanding and skills.

28.

Your discussion section lacks the connection between your and existing studies (state-of-the art research). In how far do your results and conclusions underline, contradict, extend etc. results reported in the ongoing debates?

We have added information throughout the introduction regarding the research gaps and previous research at lines 58-83

1.

I don't understand the overall design of the study. The research questions seem to be missing, but based on the aim of the study, the methodology doesn't seem to fit. The stated aim was to analyze the "spatial ability of students using a 3D virtual representation on the topic of molecular geometry." Later in the paper, there were claims of students learning chemistry and also improving spatial skills. Without a pre-post design, I do not see how you can assess whether students learned chemistry and/or improved spatial skills. If you are simply trying to measure the spatial skills and/or chemistry knowledge at a fixed point in time, then this methodology may work provided additional description is included.

Research question has been added at lines 84-86

Molecular Geometry is a topic in the chemistry curriculum. An explanation has been added at lines 117-129

How spatial ability is measured and observed is explained at lines 170-188 in the methodology section. Observation, interviews, reflective journals, teacher notes, student worksheets, and spatial tests were used to collect data. Spatial tests were divided into the Purdue Spatial Visualization of Rotations Test and spatial tests on molecular geometry. Spatial abilities categories are presented in Table 2

The research question is fine, but it still suggests the need for a pre-post design, which was not used in this study. You need to be able to discuss a change over time to claim improvement – without at least two time points of measurement, there is no way to have a change over time.

OK

Spatial Ability was observed using the PSVT:R and a researcher-designed quiz. Measuring spatial ability and collecting data are not interchangeable terms. Unless there is additional information added that explains how spatial ability was a focus of the other data collection instruments (e.g. observation, interviews, reflective journals, teacher notes, student worksheets) then it is not clear how spatial ability was actually measured. Also, While you say you used a qualitative approach, saying “spatial abilities were measured” really asks for a quantitative (or mixed methods) approach. 

2.

The data collection instruments need additional description. What do the interview questions look like? What topics do they include? What is the PSVT:R (I know this, but not all readers do)? What is the molecular geometry spatial test? etc.

A description of the interviews conducted with students has been added at lines 249-255

A description of the PSVR: T test and molecular geometry spatial test is included at lines 283-287

While additional information about the interviews in general terms was added, there is still little information about interview questions.

The description of the PSVT:R is 1) not really much of a description of the test or what it measures and 2) inaccurate. Also, which version did you use? There are different versions with different number of items. Did you use it as a timed test?

3.

The data collection/methodology could benefit from a flow chart and/or better description of when each type of data were collected and why.

We have revised

Data collection has been revised and an explanation of each type is included at lines 244-288

The flowchart is helpful, but the descriptions of the data collection is still pretty vague in spots. For instance, the student worksheet doesn’t say much of value to let the reader know what they were doing on the worksheet.

Interview – you say the students were chosen based on their spatial ability. What about their spatial ability? Were they all high spatial? Low spatial? A mix? How did you choose? Based on the PSVT:R alone? Or that with the other spatial quiz? What if the two assessments didn’t agree?

4.

What is your theoretical framework? In a qualitative study, the theoretical framework is important for understanding your study.

A more detailed theoretical framework, based on the literature review related to chemistry learning and spatial ability, has been added.

I still don’t see a theoretical framework to guide the study. I see a review of related literature.

5.

As a qualitative study, I would like to know more about how you coded your data, triangulated data sources, identified themes in the data, etc. What approach did you take to data analysis? How does this fit with your study and your theoretical framework?

Additional information on research methodology, including the data analysis process, has been added.

Most of what was added seems to be addressing the data collection instruments, rather than the analysis of that data. How did you code? Did you use an a priori code list? Use Inductuve Coding? Deductive Coding? Grounded Theory?

6.

The literature could better support the study, but as written, I don't know what to suggest for literature exactly as I am still unclear on many parts of the methodology of the study.

The processes of understanding students’ spatial ability during chemistry learning using 3D Virtual Representation is added.

A theoretical framework in the literature review would improve the manuscript greatly. So would additional information about spatial ability in general. Why did you choose the one definition from 1979 and not any others?

7.

The abstract describes the research as qualitative, though later quantitative spatial ability tests are mentioned. It does appear that they were all treated as qualitative, potentially, but the manuscript does not describe how the PSVT:R was analyzed.

Further explanation has been added in methodology. Multiple data collections were employed to understand students’ spatial ability development. We employed different types of questions open questions and multiple choices of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test to explore students understanding with three categories of high spatial ability, moderate spatial ability, and low spatial ability.

Student understanding of chemistry and spatial ability are correlated but not the same thing. Also, as I’ve said previously, measuring the spatial ability through the scoring of a multiple choice assessment is inherently quantitative in nature.

8.

The phases Engage, Explore, and Explain sound like the first three parts of a 5E lesson. Was this intentional? If so, why not include Elaborate or Evaluate as well?

No, we didn’t intentional use 5E, we chose these three stages as relevant to the learning objective as students need to engage and explore the geometry molecule then explain their understanding.

ok

9.

Lines 65-67 seem to be claiming that little or no research has been done about spatial thinking in chemistry. Yet, there is abundant research, particularly at the college level.

The research is related to spatial ability at the secondary school level. At the college level, there have been many studies on spatial abilities in the field of chemistry. We focused on secondary school as the fundamental ability in chemistry learning is started in our curricula

“However, the impact on the spatial abilities and processes of high school students solving chemical problems using their spatially has not been carried out in previous studies [55].” Studies about spatial ability and understanding chemistry prior to the college level have been done. A few examples: Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High-school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 257-271.

Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter. Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954.

Cole, M., Wilhelm, J., Vaught, B. M. M., Fish, C., & Fish, H. (2021). The Relationship between Spatial Ability and the Conservation of Matter in Middle School. Education Sciences, 11(1), 4.

10.

Lines 80-81 – while geology students do need to learn how geologic structures change over time, that is hardly spatial skills in practice. The spatial skills come into play more when the geology students (and experts) are considering underlying structures of geomorphologic features of the earth, visualizing the internal structures of the Earth, understanding the chemical composition of rocks and minerals, interpreting the spatial arrangement of topical features, understanding the geometries of buried tectonic plates and faults, and the like.

An additional explanation has been added regarding spatial capabilities in understanding the chemical composition of rocks and minerals, interpreting the spatial arrangement of topical features, under-standing the geometries of buried tectonic plates and faults, etc.

ok

11.

The spatial skills section of the literature review could be better arranged around relevant chemistry content. Make a case for why spatial skills are needed for this particular chemistry concept rather than about chemistry (or STEM) more generally.

Further explanation has been included at lines 103-106 by providing several relevant topics and the importance of spatial ability.

Lines 128-129 you seem to equate “spatial ability” and “imagination” suggesting they are the same thing. This is not the connection that is needed in this paper. One thing that would help would be to be more specific about what aspect of spatial thinking is needed. For instance, the PSVT:R that you used measures mental rotation. How is that related to the chemistry content you’re studying? Also, when making reference to the macroscopic and microscopic and the difficulty students have in moving between the two, you may want to reference work by Johnstone (or the many papers that have since referenced him).

12.

In 4.1, it appears to be described as predicting the shape of molecular geometry. To me, this isn’t molecular geometry. I would think of the names of shapes – tetrahedral, bent, trigonal planar, etc. – for molecular geometry or the bond angles or something like that. Instead, to me, this looks like an exercise in interpreting a 2D drawing of a 3D molecule combined with drawing skills. I would doubt these students have learned about the conventions for drawing 3D molecules on a 2D paper, so their drawings may actually be correct but they are struggling with representing it. Asking for a written or verbal explanation may help. Without it, you’re not sure if it’s a spatial skills issue or a drawing skills issue.

We have added the information of chemistry curricula topics in our context at lines 117-128 .

That didn’t really address my issue. My concern is that it appears more to be an exercise in translating between 2D and 3D representations than as a prediction of molecular geometry. Or it’s a test of how well students can draw.

13.

Line 272 lists the spatial test as PSVT:R. Earlier it was called the PSVT:T-test. Is this the same test? If so, please fix the inaccurately named spots in the paper. Also, on the PSVT:R, the authors claim that students are low/medium/or high-spatial categories. What level of spatial ability is required for each of these categories? Where did the score cutoffs come from?

We have revised and added the information by revising The PSVRT: R, followed by explanation of each category.

The score cutoffs from the original Bodner and Guay (1997) work are helpful. How did your students score? Were they evening distributed? What scores on the test earned them which label?

14.

When was each assessment given? Was there a pre-post testing component? If not, how can you tell if the intervention improved spatial ability or understanding of molecular geometries?

Our research design did not use pretest and posttest. As qualitative research, we focus on the process by using different multiple research methods which we have added more information on data collections. We have explained the tests that were conducted such as the diagnostic assessment we conducted at the beginning using the PSVR: T aims to determine students' skills and knowledge about spatial in general. At the end of the study, we provide an assessment in the form of a spatial test integrated with molecular geometry content aimed at monitoring student learning on the topic of molecular geometry while using 3D virtual representation.

You cannot make any claims about learning or improvement without a pre-post design.

15.

There seems to be a lot of things being measured and considered in this research – spatial ability, molecular shape, bond angle, problem solving, rotation/reflection of molecules, bond shape, etc. There either needs to be more clear explanation of what was tested when and why or these concepts need to be either removed from this paper or split into multiple papers. As is it is way too confusing for the reader.

We have revised our explanations in introduction and methodology sections

The revisions help some, but there still seems to be a lot going on that doesn’t necessarily fit the described intent of the study or the methodology used.

16.

What is the molecular geometry spatial test? This test is mentioned but not described.

A description of the molecular geometry spatial test has been added.

It’s still not clear.

1.

I don't understand the overall design of the study. The research questions seem to be missing, but based on the aim of the study, the methodology doesn't seem to fit. The stated aim was to analyze the "spatial ability of students using a 3D virtual representation on the topic of molecular geometry." Later in the paper, there were claims of students learning chemistry and also improving spatial skills. Without a pre-post design, I do not see how you can assess whether students learned chemistry and/or improved spatial skills. If you are simply trying to measure the spatial skills and/or chemistry knowledge at a fixed point in time, then this methodology may work provided additional description is included.

Research question has been added at lines 84-86

Molecular Geometry is a topic in the chemistry curriculum. An explanation has been added at lines 117-129

How spatial ability is measured and observed is explained at lines 170-188 in the methodology section. Observation, interviews, reflective journals, teacher notes, student worksheets, and spatial tests were used to collect data. Spatial tests were divided into the Purdue Spatial Visualization of Rotations Test and spatial tests on molecular geometry. Spatial abilities categories are presented in Table 2

The research question is fine, but it still suggests the need for a pre-post design, which was not used in this study. You need to be able to discuss a change over time to claim improvement – without at least two time points of measurement, there is no way to have a change over time.

OK

Spatial Ability was observed using the PSVT:R and a researcher-designed quiz. Measuring spatial ability and collecting data are not interchangeable terms. Unless there is additional information added that explains how spatial ability was a focus of the other data collection instruments (e.g. observation, interviews, reflective journals, teacher notes, student worksheets) then it is not clear how spatial ability was actually measured. Also, While you say you used a qualitative approach, saying “spatial abilities were measured” really asks for a quantitative (or mixed methods) approach. 

We have revised the title to focus on analysing students’ spatial ability. We have done measurement of spatial ability from beginning with PSVT-R, during process with students’ worksheet, and at the end with molecule geometry test. We didn’t do comparation pre and post as in quantitative research. We focus on helping students In developing their spatial ability. In article, we revised by explaining each stage and consistency along the paper.

We add regarding chemistry characteristics representation to help understand the importance of spatial ability in chemistry learning (Johnstone, et.al)

Research question is revised to how are students’ spatial abilities in learning chemistry using 3D Virtual Representation?

Thank you

We have revised the language of measurement and improvement for avoiding misinterpretation

we revised abstract on the data collection of spatial tests, chemistry concepts test through quiz of prior knowledge and geometry molecular test,  student worksheets, interviews, observation sheets, and reflective journals

We revised the methodology with flow by research stages, consisted of activities and descriptions. We have explain how each process integrated of data collection for analysis students’ spatial ability then it is detailed explain on data collection. We put examples of each data collection

 Title on line 2-3

Abstract on line 7,4-15

Introduction 22-26

Research question on line 98-99

Line 11-13

Line 180-244

2.

The data collection instruments need additional description. What do the interview questions look like? What topics do they include? What is the PSVT:R (I know this, but not all readers do)? What is the molecular geometry spatial test? etc.

A description of the interviews conducted with students has been added at lines 249-255

A description of the PSVR: T test and molecular geometry spatial test is included at lines 283-287

While additional information about the interviews in general terms was added, there is still little information about interview questions.

The description of the PSVT:R is 1) not really much of a description of the test or what it measures and 2) inaccurate. Also, which version did you use? There are different versions with different number of items. Did you use it as a timed test?

We have added information of it in the sections

A semi-structured interview was used in this study to elicit students’ ideas and views. Interviews were conducted for 15 minutes with a total of 9 students who were chosen based on data from the spatial ability test, worksheet, observations, reflective journal analysis, the molecule geometry test, and their level of engagement. All interviews were recorded and fully transcribed by the researcher with a focus on learning activities and the student’s spatial ability. Semi-structured interview questions are aimed at the effectiveness of 3D virtual representations for the students' learning and perspectives as they reasoned with spatial information and performed tasks requiring spatial knowledge. Students were asked to identify the benefits of using 3D virtual representations in chemistry lessons and whether it improved their ability to see molecular shapes and reflect and rotate objects.

During the interview process, students were asked to visually describe the reflection, rotation, and determination of the molecular shape observed at various positions by using writing-drawing techniques.  The writing-drawing techniques were used to obtain visual data on a student’s ability to reflect, rotate and determine the shape of molecules in various positions. The following is an example of a question posed in the interview, "What would the molecule PCl5 look like if it was reflected on the XY plane, YZ plane, and XZ plane?".

We have added information

The diagnostic assessment set at the beginning of the research project used the PSVT: R to determine the students' spatial skills and knowledge generally. The PSVT: R used is the original version consisting of 20 questions designed to measure the visualization of 3D object rotation [55]. The test instructions require students to learn how the object on the top row of the question is rotated, the image in mind such as the object displayed in the middle row of the question looks as if it was correctly rotated the same way and select one of the five pictures given in the bottom line of a question that looks like the object has been rotated in the correct position.

Line 292-307

Line 263-269

3.

The data collection/methodology could benefit from a flow chart and/or better description of when each type of data were collected and why.

We have revised

Data collection has been revised and an explanation of each type is included at lines 244-288

The flowchart is helpful, but the descriptions of the data collection is still pretty vague in spots. For instance, the student worksheet doesn’t say much of value to let the reader know what they were doing on the worksheet.

Interview – you say the students were chosen based on their spatial ability. What about their spatial ability? Were they all high spatial? Low spatial? A mix? How did you choose? Based on the PSVT:R alone? Or that with the other spatial quiz? What if the two assessments didn’t agree?

We have added information on each data collection

The student worksheet was completed during each of the learning stages. It consisted of activities and questions to help students develop their spatial ability and to understand the concepts. The worksheet consisted of activities relevant to aspects of spatial ability and molecular geometry concepts. The following is an example of the observation sheet used in this study in Figure 5.

We have added information on interview data collection. We combined all criteria of students’ spatial ability and engagement

Students who were chosen based on data from the spatial ability test, worksheet, observations, reflective journal analysis, the molecule geometry test, and their level of en-gagement.

Line 319-323

Line 392-394

4.

What is your theoretical framework? In a qualitative study, the theoretical framework is important for understanding your study.

A more detailed theoretical framework, based on the literature review related to chemistry learning and spatial ability, has been added.

I still don’t see a theoretical framework to guide the study. I see a review of related literature.

We have added more references on students’ spatial ability and chemistry learning in introduction and the literature review

-

Line 22-26; 91-96; 126-129; 143-145; 186-193

5.

As a qualitative study, I would like to know more about how you coded your data, triangulated data sources, identified themes in the data, etc. What approach did you take to data analysis? How does this fit with your study and your theoretical framework?

Additional information on research methodology, including the data analysis process, has been added.

Most of what was added seems to be addressing the data collection instruments, rather than the analysis of that data. How did you code? Did you use an a priori code list? Use Inductuve Coding? Deductive Coding? Grounded Theory?

Data analysis was divided into two stages. PSVT: R was used at the beginning of the research project to identify the students' levels of spatial ability rated as high spatial ability, medium spatial ability, and low spatial ability. A quiz was then used to test students’ prior knowledge in concepts relevant to molecular Geometry. The test was analyzed based on curricula content and learning outcomes.

The data from student worksheets, interviews, observation sheets, reflective journals, and geometry molecules were analyzed based on spatial ability aspects of visualization, spatial orientation, and spatial relationships. Student engagement during the imple-mentation of the project was also analyzed

Line 346-355

6.

The literature could better support the study, but as written, I don't know what to suggest for literature exactly as I am still unclear on many parts of the methodology of the study.

The processes of understanding students’ spatial ability during chemistry learning using 3D Virtual Representation is added.

A theoretical framework in the literature review would improve the manuscript greatly. So would additional information about spatial ability in general. Why did you choose the one definition from 1979 and not any others?

We have added information

[38] spatial abilities are divided into spatial visualization, spatial orientation, and spatial relation. The aspects of this spatial abilities help to understand the molecule geometry in chemistry learning.

In practice, students should be able to imagine how a structure would appear from different perspectives, mentally manipulate objects, and visualize the effects of operations such as rotation and reflection. This is greatly influenced by the students' own cognitive ability. 

Line 105-107; 124-130

7.

The abstract describes the research as qualitative, though later quantitative spatial ability tests are mentioned. It does appear that they were all treated as qualitative, potentially, but the manuscript does not describe how the PSVT:R was analyzed.

Further explanation has been added in methodology. Multiple data collections were employed to understand students’ spatial ability development. We employed different types of questions open questions and multiple choices of the Purdue Spatial Visualization Test to explore students understanding with three categories of high spatial ability, moderate spatial ability, and low spatial ability.

Student understanding of chemistry and spatial ability are correlated but not the same thing. Also, as I’ve said previously, measuring the spatial ability through the scoring of a multiple choice assessment is inherently quantitative in nature.

We have added information how all data related each other, not only assessment at the end.

Multiple data collection strategies were employed to explore students’ spatial ability in relation to chemistry learning including a spatial ability assessment, a quiz to assess prior knowledge, student worksheets, interviews, observation sheets, reflective journals, and a geometry molecule test.

Line 201-204; 231-257

8.

The phases Engage, Explore, and Explain sound like the first three parts of a 5E lesson. Was this intentional? If so, why not include Elaborate or Evaluate as well?

No, we didn’t intentional use 5E, we chose these three stages as relevant to the learning objective as students need to engage and explore the geometry molecule then explain their understanding.

ok

9.

Lines 65-67 seem to be claiming that little or no research has been done about spatial thinking in chemistry. Yet, there is abundant research, particularly at the college level.

The research is related to spatial ability at the secondary school level. At the college level, there have been many studies on spatial abilities in the field of chemistry. We focused on secondary school as the fundamental ability in chemistry learning is started in our curricula

“However, the impact on the spatial abilities and processes of high school students solving chemical problems using their spatially has not been carried out in previous studies [55].” Studies about spatial ability and understanding chemistry prior to the college level have been done. A few examples:

Barnea, N., & Dori, Y. J. (1999). High-school chemistry students' performance and gender differences in a computerized molecular modeling learning environment. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 8(4), 257-271.

Yezierski, E. J., & Birk, J. P. (2006). Misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter. Using animations to close the gender gap. Journal of Chemical Education, 83(6), 954.

Cole, M., Wilhelm, J., Vaught, B. M. M., Fish, C., & Fish, H. (2021). The Relationship between Spatial Ability and the Conservation of Matter in Middle School. Education Sciences, 11(1), 4.

 We added the references number 36-37, thank you

Studies about spatial ability and understanding chemistry prior to the college level have been conducted [35,36,37] which show that computerized molecular modeling in learning can improve spatial abilities so that students achieve better learning outcomes in tests about structure and bonds. Students also gain a better insight into the concept of models and can explain more phenomena with the help of various models

Line 91-95

10.

Lines 80-81 – while geology students do need to learn how geologic structures change over time, that is hardly spatial skills in practice. The spatial skills come into play more when the geology students (and experts) are considering underlying structures of geomorphologic features of the earth, visualizing the internal structures of the Earth, understanding the chemical composition of rocks and minerals, interpreting the spatial arrangement of topical features, understanding the geometries of buried tectonic plates and faults, and the like.

An additional explanation has been added regarding spatial capabilities in understanding the chemical composition of rocks and minerals, interpreting the spatial arrangement of topical features, under-standing the geometries of buried tectonic plates and faults, etc.

ok

Thank you

11.

The spatial skills section of the literature review could be better arranged around relevant chemistry content. Make a case for why spatial skills are needed for this particular chemistry concept rather than about chemistry (or STEM) more generally.

Further explanation has been included at lines 103-106 by providing several relevant topics and the importance of spatial ability.

Lines 128-129 you seem to equate “spatial ability” and “imagination” suggesting they are the same thing. This is not the connection that is needed in this paper. One thing that would help would be to be more specific about what aspect of spatial thinking is needed. For instance, the PSVT:R that you used measures mental rotation. How is that related to the chemistry content you’re studying? Also, when making reference to the macroscopic and microscopic and the difficulty students have in moving between the two, you may want to reference work by Johnstone (or the many papers that have since referenced him).

Thank you, we have added the chemistry characteristics in introduction from different references as stated below

In addition to the characteristic of chemistry learning is intact and meaningful if it is associated with the three levels of macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic (Johnstone, 1991; Gabel et al., 1992; Garnet et al., 1995). However the research shows that generally, students experience difficulties with chemistry because of their inability to visualize the structure and process at the submicroscopic level and connect it with the other chemical representative levels (Chittleborough & Treagust, 2007).

Line 22-27

12.

In 4.1, it appears to be described as predicting the shape of molecular geometry. To me, this isn’t molecular geometry. I would think of the names of shapes – tetrahedral, bent, trigonal planar, etc. – for molecular geometry or the bond angles or something like that. Instead, to me, this looks like an exercise in interpreting a 2D drawing of a 3D molecule combined with drawing skills. I would doubt these students have learned about the conventions for drawing 3D molecules on a 2D paper, so their drawings may actually be correct but they are struggling with representing it. Asking for a written or verbal explanation may help. Without it, you’re not sure if it’s a spatial skills issue or a drawing skills issue.

We have added the information of chemistry curricula topics in our context at lines 117-128 .

That didn’t really address my issue. My concern is that it appears more to be an exercise in translating between 2D and 3D representations than as a prediction of molecular geometry. Or it’s a test of how well students can draw.

We have added information by explaining each stages. In addition to provide example of questions and activities in each data collection

Line 231-257; 262-343

13.

Line 272 lists the spatial test as PSVT:R. Earlier it was called the PSVT:T-test. Is this the same test? If so, please fix the inaccurately named spots in the paper. Also, on the PSVT:R, the authors claim that students are low/medium/or high-spatial categories. What level of spatial ability is required for each of these categories? Where did the score cutoffs come from?

We have revised and added the information by revising The PSVRT: R, followed by explanation of each category.

The score cutoffs from the original Bodner and Guay (1997) work are helpful. How did your students score? Were they evening distributed? What scores on the test earned them which label?

The scoring is given from PSVT: R which has been explained in table

The students’ spatial ability scoring guidelines were adapted from scoring proposed by Bodner and Guay (1997), where students were given one point for each question they answered correctly. As a result of the spatial test, students were divided into 3 groups representing low, medium or high spatial abilities as presented in Table 2.

Then for geometry molecule test related spatial ability aspects to chemistry concepts, using rubric for the correct answers

Line 275-280

Line 335-343

14.

When was each assessment given? Was there a pre-post testing component? If not, how can you tell if the intervention improved spatial ability or understanding of molecular geometries?

Our research design did not use pretest and posttest. As qualitative research, we focus on the process by using different multiple research methods which we have added more information on data collections. We have explained the tests that were conducted such as the diagnostic assessment we conducted at the beginning using the PSVR: T aims to determine students' skills and knowledge about spatial in general. At the end of the study, we provide an assessment in the form of a spatial test integrated with molecular geometry content aimed at monitoring student learning on the topic of molecular geometry while using 3D virtual representation.

You cannot make any claims about learning or improvement without a pre-post design.

We have revised it that has been explained on title, introduction, research questions and methodology

Line 2-3; 98-99;196-370

15.

There seems to be a lot of things being measured and considered in this research – spatial ability, molecular shape, bond angle, problem solving, rotation/reflection of molecules, bond shape, etc. There either needs to be more clear explanation of what was tested when and why or these concepts need to be either removed from this paper or split into multiple papers. As is it is way too confusing for the reader.

We have revised our explanations in introduction and methodology sections

The revisions help some, but there still seems to be a lot going on that doesn’t necessarily fit the described intent of the study or the methodology used.

We have explained in more detailed

Line 196-370

16.

What is the molecular geometry spatial test? This test is mentioned but not described.

A description of the molecular geometry spatial test has been added.

It’s still not clear.

We have added information of Geometry molecules test with the example

In the final stage of the lesson, students were given a spatial test of molecular ge-ometry to assess their understanding and spatial ability. The spatial ability test related to chemistry curricula concepts and was validated by four chemistry lecturers. The criteria for the spatial test of molecular geometry was based on the spatial abilities referred to by Lohman (1979) who identified spatial visualization, spatial orientation, and spatial rela-tion [38].

Line 252-257; 258-343

1.

In the introduction and related work section, citations of the claim and details about the gap in the research have been added. This looks good and structured

Thank you, we have added more information on introduction in relation to chemistry learning

In addition, the characteristic of chemistry learning is meaningful if it is associated with understanding at the macroscopic, microscopic and symbolic levels [1,2,3]. However, research shows that many, students experience difficulties with chemistry because they are unable to visualize the structure and process at the submicroscopic level and connect it with the other levels of chemical representative [4].

Studies about spatial ability and understanding chemistry prior to the college level have been conducted [35,36,37] which show that computerized molecular modeling in learning can improve spatial abilities so that students achieve better learning outcomes in tests about structure and bonds. Students also gain a better insight into the concept of models and can explain more phenomena with the help of various models.

Line 22-26; 81-84; 91-95

2.

Also, in the methodology section, details of the research design have added. I would recommend using some small titles in the methodology section as well (e.g. research design).

We have put resign design

We have revised research methodology in more detail, in research stage and data collections

Multiple data collection strategies were employed to explore students’ spatial ability in relation to chemistry learning including a spatial ability assessment, a quiz to assess prior knowledge, student worksheets, interviews, observation sheets, reflective journals, and a geometry molecule test. An ethics clearance was obtained that included a participant consent form, sought permission to undertake the research, and provided details as to how the privacy of the participants would be maintained.

The research was conducted in three stages: a preliminary stage, a research implementation stage, and a final stage. The research flow is shown in Figure 2.

Line 197

Line 197-372

3.

From lines 171-173, the authors added information about the demographic and basic process of recruitment. I am wondering how do the authors recruit participants (e.g. class announcement, email, social media)?

We have added the information

The study was conducted with a group of 36 students made up of 13 male and 23 female year 10 chemistry students learning molecular geometry. The participants were selected based on the year level and their willingness to participate in the research. We announced through email for our school partners The molecular geometry curriculum aims to develop students’ understanding of molecule models, which requires them to have sound spatial abilities.

Line 198-203

4.

For the research question, it is added at the end of the introduction section, which is very nice. I would recommend placing this question into a separate paragraph or bolded. This may help readers to better locate the question.

We have revised the research question and put in bold

how are students’ spatial abilities in learning chemistry using 3D Virtual Representation?

Line 97-99

The authors submitted a revised version of the manuscript which considers the important changes. The response letter is very short and does not explain the changes made. In the letter, it is indicated that changes werde made. However, it is not a detailed letter to a reviewer and editor. This is an unusual way of dealing with reviews.

We revised our responses below

1.

The discussion (Virtual Reality vs. Augmented Reality) appears a bit too simple (beginning in line 55). It does not consider the aspect that there a AR media and hardware systems which require a lot of effort to make spatial ability training available for non-expert users. For example, Keil et al. showed that, before using the Microsoft HoloLens in distance estimation tasks, interface programming is required to measure reliable data. I would suggest that authors indicate that there is ongoing debate on the usability of AR systems and that sometimes a lot of technical preparation is required to train spatial ability.

We have explained more detailed in relation to implement in classroom

A variation of 3D virtual representations uses augmented reality technology [14] to virtually represent the 3D objects allowing users to interact directly with virtual objects in real environments [15]. This method does not require students to translate 2D objects into 3D models [16]. However, much technical preparation is required for students to be able to practice spatial skills using augmented reality. [17] suggests several toolkits that can be used to fast-track capability, including Vuforia, Unity 3D, and Blender. Vuforia is a framework that provides functionality for developing Augmented Reality applications on mobile phones using targets or patterns, images, or objects. Vuforia tracks the image that will be used as a marker. It aims to make nodes in the image so that 3D objects can appear after being detected by a scanner, such as through a camera device, by recognizing the position and orientation of the marker [18]. Unity 3D is a set of tools that can be used to create games or mobile applications with various technologies including graphics, audio, physics, and networking technologies. Unity 3D can be used to create animation con-trollers on 3D model objects that have been made or markers that have been tracked using Vuforia imported to Unity 3D for positioning the animation to be displayed [19]. Blender is free, open-source software that is used to create multimedia content, especially 3D objects [20]. Users design the visualization of molecular shapes that will be used in training spatial abilities so that teachers can make planned instructions.

Regardless of the utility of the media, it is still difficult to convince students to use 3D molecular models to learn concepts unless the model is provided by the teacher and directions given for its use in the lesson [52]. Therefore, 3D media can be a way to bridge this gap. [53,54] concluded that AR is considered helpful for developing students' spatial abilities because it helps them to visualize molecules thereby providing a deeper understanding of chemistry. The realistic view of the 3D molecular shape better describes the imaginary object and reduces the student's cognitive load in integrating information from the macroscopic, microscopic, and symbolic chemical domains.

Line 47-61

Line 187-195

2.

Your empirical results are presented in descriptive statistics which do not allow to report and discuss robust effects. Therefore, I would suggest to add a sentence toward the beginning of the discussion section stating that your results are a first empirical approach pointing to trends. These trends should be taken up and verified in future investigations.

We realise this limitation, so we change the research question to

how are students’ spatial abilities in learning chemistry using 3D Virtual Representation?

Then it is presented through results from different data collections

We also explained more on data analysis

Data analysis was divided into two stages. PSVT: R was used at the beginning of the research project to identify the students' levels of spatial ability rated as high spatial ability, medium spatial ability, and low spatial ability. A quiz was then used to test students’ prior knowledge in concepts relevant to molecular Geometry. The test was analyzed based on curricula content and learning outcomes.

The data from student worksheets, interviews, observation sheets, reflective journals, and geometry molecules were analyzed based on spatial ability aspects of visualization, spatial orientation, and spatial relationships. Student engagement during the implementation of the project was also analyzed

Line 98-99

Line 260-344

Line 348-358

3.

As indicated in my first comment, you discriminate between virtual and augmented reality (which is, of course, important when conducting a detailed study). However, in your conclusion you mention “3D virtual representation” (see number 1 and 3, beginning with l. 418). If I understood your study correctly, your results refer to a specific augmented reality approach.

We have explained more in introduction

[21, 23] report that augmented reality, as a learning medium in chemistry, has already been developed and implemented. Areas of implementation include molecular geometry [22], hybridizations [23], chemical bonds [24], redox and electrochemistry [25], introductions of chemical laboratory equipment [26] and elemental chemistry [27]. These applications demonstrate that the development of virtual representation in 3D using augmented reality technology and its implications for chemistry learning is growing rapidly in Indonesia. However, studies on students 'ability to translate and analyze 2D and 3D representations of molecular shapes are limited.

Augmented reality as a learning medium in chemistry has already been used in Indonesia, including in molecular geometry [22], hybridization [23], chemical bonding [24], redox and electrochemistry [25], introduction to chemistry laboratory equipment [26], and chemical elements [27]. At the tertiary level, there have been many studies on spatial abilities in the field of chemistry [32,33]. However, the impact on the spatial abilities and processes of high school students solving chemical problems using their spatially has not been carried out in previous studies [34]. Studies about spatial ability and understanding chemistry prior to the college level have been conducted [35,36,37] which show that computerized molecular modeling in learning can improve spatial abilities so that stu-dents achieve better learning outcomes in tests about structure and bonds. Students also gain a better insight into the concept of models and can explain more phenomena with the help of various models.

Line 62-69

Line 85-95

4.

A methodologically question: How did you make sure that the 2D representations used (and represented in several figures) are well comparable to the 3D condition? Is the additional dimension the only difference when comparing the media empirically? Or are there other factors that could have had an impact on your results?

We related it with chemistry learning

Students learn to predict and describe molecular shapes with different thought patterns from one student to another; spatial ability is the key to understanding those shapes [31]. Therefore, the study focused on the geometry molecular topic in the chemistry curricu-lum.

Augmented reality as a learning medium in chemistry has already been used in Indonesia, including in molecular geometry [22], hybridization [23], chemical bonding [24], redox and electrochemistry [25], introduction to chemistry laboratory equipment [26], and chemical elements [27]. At the tertiary level, there have been many studies on spatial abilities in the field of chemistry [32,33]. However, the impact on the spatial abilities and processes of high school students solving chemical problems using their spatially has not been carried out in previous studies [34]. Studies about spatial ability and understanding chemistry prior to the college level have been conducted [35,36,37] which show that computerized molecular modeling in learning can improve spatial abilities so that stu-dents achieve better learning outcomes in tests about structure and bonds. Students also gain a better insight into the concept of models and can explain more phenomena with the help of various models.

Line 81-95

1.

The manuscript was reframed a bit to soften the claims of learning. Even so, it seems like the methodology is flawed in that claims of improvement are still being made even though there is no way to compare prior to and after instruction.

We have been described the process of develop students’ spatial ability in learning process. As qualitative research, we didn’t do pre and post-test, but we have explained  the process descriptions to explore and analysis students’ spatial ability. We have shown through analysis of different data collections’ results

For example:

The worksheets were aimed at training and developing students' spatial abilities by providing a stimulus in the form of a 3D molecular shape displayed by 3D virtual representation media. This approach is supported by [13] who states that the development of spatial capabilities can be done using 3D virtual representations based on augmented reality

They were observed trying to imagine and analyze each atom contained in a molecule before carrying out the reflection process, an indication that the students have developed their spatial visualization skills as a result of interpreting representations of molecular shapes.

Examples in Line 447-450; 513-515

2.

It is also clear that the authors either do not understand or are willfully ignoring my previous comments about a theoretical framework. The reviewed literature provides information about prior research on spatial ability and also computer-aided instruction on relevant topics. However, a theoretical framework is important in qualitative studies to provide a lens or perspective through/from which the data is viewed. This continues to be lacking in this manuscript.

Thanks for the feedback. We have improved the theoretical framework in first and second round. In the third around we add more literature review,

especially in the qualitative study, stated below

Both quantitative and qualitative studies explore different perspectives of spatial abilities in relations to strategies and training. [17] high spatial ability subjects benefited from practicing and receiving feedback; meanwhile low spatial ability person benefited from training with visualization strategy. Therefore, in this study focusing on training with 3D virtual representation.

According to [6], debate of spatial ability improvement originated from the quan-titative methodologies researchers historically used which researchers assumed and measured that participants used the same strategy to solve spatial ability tasks. Then qualitative researchers began to explore strategies and its effect on spatial ability which participants used different strategies on a specific test item [6]. Several researchers em-ployed an information-processing perspective to understand the development and use of spatial cognition [48]. In addition to [15] portrayed the improvement of spatial abilities through training with persistent rotation tasks. Therefore, the study analyzed spatial abilities through exploring students’ strategies to solving tasks related to spatial abilities.

Line 50-54; 143-153

3.

Furthermore, the definition of spatial ability combined with the choice of tests is odd. Where does mental rotation fit into your 1979 definition of spatial ability? It is well-accepted that the PSVT-R measures mental rotation specifically. This is only one aspect of spatial ability  - and not one specifically in the 1979 definition the authors have chosen to use – and NOT a measure of spatial ability in general. Better explaining where/how/why this aspect fits into the framework (which is again missing) would improve the paper.

We have added more explanations

regarding the use of instrument.

Work of spatial ability test has been developed since 1930 which in this study employ Purdue Spatial Visualization Test (PSVT). According to [6], in chemistry work by the [62] Purdue Visualization of Rotation Test (PVROT) is frequently used. Even though the work is critics because subjects could solve them by simply rotating the object, [62] has address this issue in the PSVT consisting of development (visualization), rotation, and view (orientation) sections, which required participants to imagine viewing an object from a different perspective. In addition to spatial visualization tests are more complex than rotation or orientation tasks and related to the use of 3D objects [6]. Study by [46] found that participants used imagery techniques to solve easy task and analytical techniques to face the complex task. Visuospatial skills as the component of cognitive functions play the role in chemistry learning to interpret visual information for molecular models within different visuospatial features [12, 47, 14]

Line 154-166

4.

“Therefore, the research question of this study is; how are students’ spatial abilities in learning chemistry using 3D Virtual Representation?” should be rephrased, as it does not make sense as written. Are you trying to ask how spatial abilities are used? What levels of spatial ability do students have? Something else?

We have revised the research question which is focusing on spatial ability aspects as stated below.

What aspects of spatial abilities do students have in learning chemistry using 3D Virtual Representation?

Line 98-99

5.

“Previous studies have shown that students' spatial and understanding skills, especially in chemistry learning, are key to acquiring the necessary cognitive skills when identifying the best strategies for solving spatial problems while studying chemistry. [42] concludes that learning aimed at developing spatial abilities in first-year engineering students has a positive impact on student academic achievement.”

How does the second sentence relate to the first? You’re trying to use a study on improving engineering students’ spatial ability to support your claim that improving spatial understanding will help understand chemistry? How are the two related? Then the next sentence talks about a study that trains spatial ability using AR. Is that study context specific? Does it show transfer to other contexts?

We have added more explanations in how it is a relation to chemistry learning.

According to [14], teaching and learning chemistry requires spatial abilities in molecular representations, reactions, and theoretical concepts. Therefore, chemistry students must be able to visualize 3D molecules from 2D visualization from the chemical formula [14]. In addition to chemistry, students are required for mentally manipulating 3D molecular shapes to consider bond angles between atoms, molecular structures, and molecular interactions within molecules, which are related to spatial relation factors [14].

Line 184-193

6.

Is Table 1 your work? If it’s not, it needs a citation.

We have put the reference.

….representing low, medium or high spatial abilities as presented in Table 1 [55]

Line 263

7.

Please check your figures, as some could benefit from an English translation, since this journal is published in English.

We have revised the figured in English

Line 308-310, 324-326