The Use of Augmented Reality to Strengthen Competence in Data Analysis and Problem Solving in Engineering Students at the Universidad del Valle de México
, Rossana Barros-Baertl 2,†, Belzabeth Tovar-Luna 3,†, Carlos Alberto González-Gutiérrez 1,†, Nestor Efren Mendez-Lozano 1,† and Miguel Ángel Cruz-Perez 1,*,†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The Abstract contains all the important information regarding the aim, the methodology, and the findings of the paper. However, the authors should further highlight the novelty of their study as well.
Going to the main part of the paper, the structure of the content is quite clear, to begin with. In both the “Introduction” and “Literature review” sections authors set the theoretical framework for Augmented Reality and its impact on students’ skills development. Although, some more references could be added and a few from the existing ones can be replaced by more recent ones. Regarding the methodology followed, the research question stated covers the purpose of the paper, and the 5-step method is clear as well. The content in the “Method” section is well divided into subsections, while results and discussion on them are both well presented too.
Last but not least, in terms of Quality of Communication, any reader can follow the flow of arguments expressed, but in any case, the paper could be revised by a language expert too.
Author Response
Reviewer No 1
some more references could be added and a few from the existing ones can be replaced by more recent ones.
Thank you for your comments. The references 1, 8, 11, 22, 23, 25 were updated.
the paper could be revised by a language expert too.
Thank you very much for your comments. The paper was revised by an English native and the language editing service was used: MDPI English-Edited 39680.
Reviewer 2 Report
P5/F1 OA not introduced
P7/F2 Q1 in the presented form is a question?
P7/287 84% -> 94% (87/always + 7/sometimes)
P8/316 94% -> 96%
P9/F3 45 respondents - how can it be 99% but not 100% (45) or 98% (44)
32 respondents - how can it be 80% but not 81% (26) or 78% (25)
P9/339 Selection of questions #5 and #7 for particular test should be explained
P10/347 "they were the questions that indicated that the user agreed to use the technologies for education and also used them" - in fact, it is applicable only for #3 an #4 - #7 is about other aspect - the whole paragraph about MCA analysis seems to be rather unclear and should be rewritten
P12/454 It is recommended to include only Annexes closely related to the topic of the paper
P16 Not sure if non-english language sources (11 from 26) are allowed in english language paper [1][5][8][12][13][17][18][22][23][25][26]
Author Response
Reviewer 2
P5/F1 OA not introduced
Thank you very much for your comment. Figure 1 was improved. See line 222.
P7/F2 Q1 in the presented form is a question?
P7/287 84% -> 94% (87/always + 7/sometimes)
P8/316 94% -> 96%
Thank you very much for your comment. Figure 2 was improved. See line 288.
P9/F3 45 respondents - how can it be 99% but not 100% (45) or 98% (44)
32 respondents - how can it be 80% but not 81% (26) or 78% (25)
Thank you very much for your comment. Figure 3. Line 349 was improved. Three activities were done and the average obtained by the all the students is the result presented in the figure. This is why the result is 99% . In Figure 3, line 349, the first activity, 42 out of 45 answered positively. This result gives a 93%; in activities 2 to 5, the 100% answered positively. The average of the 5 activities in the first aspect was 98.7% and we rounded it up to 99%. In each aspect assessed the average of the students who answered positively was included.
P9/339 Selection of questions #5 and #7 for particular test should be explained
Thank you very much for your comment. The necessary changes were done to specify the policies of the Insititution. For certain analysis related with the present work, the selection of questions 5 and 7 were required by them.
P10/347 "they were the questions that indicated that the user agreed to use the technologies for education and also used them" - in fact, it is applicable only for #3 an #4 - #7 is about other aspect - the whole paragraph about MCA analysis seems to be rather unclear and should be rewritten
Thank you very much for your recommendation. The paragraph was improved. See lines 358 to 365.
P12/454 It is recommended to include only Annexes closely related to the topic of the paper
Thank you very much for your recommendation. ANEX B was changed, leaving only figures 5 and 6, removing figures 7 and 8. See lines 486 a 495.
P16 Not sure if non-english language sources (11 from 26) are allowed in english language paper [1][5][8][12][13][17][18][22][23][25][26]
Thank you very much for your comment. There is no State of the Art support to limit the use of references in a non-English language. In its policies, MDPI does not contemplate the exclusive use of English referencing. To reference a source, no matter the language, citation and referencing should be on the publisher accepted format. For the development of this work, some published Latin American Spanish-speaking sources were used which were related to the subject who successfully applied AR in academic processes. We updated the references 1 (lines 498), 8(lines 509-510), 11(lines 515-516), 22(lines 634-638), 23, 25(lines 641-642) though.
