How Multiple Representations Using Cyber–Physical System to Teach Rectilinear Motion Improves Learning and Creativity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that the research presented has all the necessary characteristics to be published, because it makes a great contribution to the task of daily reinvention of physics teachers towards providing students with the best tools towards not only conceptualization, but also the generation of skills in the area of physics. On the other hand, I would like to obtain answers to the following concerns:
1. This type of research must be framed in a type of pedagogical methodology. Did you use any?
2. The qualitative results are few, compared to the number of qualitative results presented, it is possible to go beyond the grades and show other qualitative aspects in this paper. For example: Define the different types of competencies achieved by students through the implementation of rubrics constructed using some taxonomy i.e. Bloom or Solo
3. What do you think would be the difference between your proposal for carrying out this experience and the use of the tools offered by a laboratory to carry out the same experience?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript titled “Multiple representations using a Cyber-Physical System to teach kinematics improves learning and creativity” proposes an implementation of multiple representations using a Cyber-Physical System that enables interaction between the physical model and the real world to overcome some concepts in teaching kinematics.
The proposed manuscript is in of the scope of the Education Sciences Journal.
The following points can summarize the opinion of the reviewer about the proposed paper:
- Some relevant references in this field should be added to help the lectures in the Introduction paragraph and define the difference between the proposed .
The authors should define the role of the Students in the figure 1, similar to “Teacher” indication.
The sample or number of student selected for this experimental design would be higher to extract consolidate conclusions.
The Quality of the Figure 10 should be improve.
The rest of figure are clear and summarize correctly the experimentation.
The authors could change the title of the proposed paerp, because the application is not so large and not cover all the Kinematics field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe contribution is on using computer-based experiments in teaching physics.
It is a very interesting application of an original, micro-processor based system to reveal kinematics of objects. Authors choose a ball, as one of the most popular sports in Chile.
The motivation is very well documented and the introduction is reach in references. The description of the measurement system - exhaustive. Didactical results - well studied (even if the testing group was rather small). The test questions - well described in the Supplement.
However, it would be nice to have two details more:
1. From table 3 it results that the originality was low - both before and after the lessons. Can authors quote 1-2 original answers given by students?
2. Authors state that the classes chosen had problems with the discipline. Did it improve during lessons with the ball?
Finally, is this system commercially available?
Minor questions:
1. How the system measures the (linear) acceleration if the ball rotates?
2. line 335 it should read: 16g (G means gauss)
3. line 418 ' what does it mean "the universe"?
Resuming, the experiment is well thought, the teaching scenario - detailed, the analysis very well documented.
What is somewhat lacking - is an appropriate underlining of the originality of the technical solution and of the didactical potentiality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
