Impact and Classification of Augmented Reality in Science Experiments in Teaching—A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This manuscript presents a review of research related to the use of augmented reality tools in STEAM context research. I see crucial drawbacks in the manuscript, mainly focused on the scope of the literature review made and o how the results (and the whole paper). This are described as follows:
1. The first lines of the abstract should describe methodological aspects of the article (beyond the PRISMA guidelines) rather than on its motivation. I miss issues such as the sample, the type of search carried out and the filtering criteria of the works analysed in the review.
2. I think that the research questions should be written in the introduction section, in order to motivate the Theoretical background.
3. In the theoretical background, it is not clear why the levels of the design parameters are explained in depth. In my opinion, these levels are no so relevant for the study, I recommend synthesising the subsections in 2.3., including the content of the tables 1-6 in the body of the text.
4. This is a (very) major concern, which must be imperatively addressed. Terms such as "Chemistry", "Biology" and "Physics" were used in the selection of the sample, but others such as "Geology" and the "TEAM" in STEAM ("Technology", "Engineering", "Art" and "Mathematics") are missing. This leads to an overly biased view of STEAM research (results in Figures 3 and 4, and discussion on section 5.1. are faith examples of this), which makes that this manuscript cannot be considered a review of the STEAM literature.
To overcome this crucial drawback, authors should (i) include in the initial search at least all the terms that make up the acronym "STEAM", or (ii) remove them all and leave only "STEM"/"STEAM", or (iii) place the work in the field of augmented reality and science education included in the search.
5. Table 7 seems to be a working record rather than a result of the analysis. In my opinion it is not appropriate for it to be shown in the research report, the authors have to make the effort to synthesise the relevant information within it, or distribute it in smaller tables that are commented on in the body of the text.
6. Comment on Table 7 also applies to Table 9 and Table 10. All these tables make it overly challenging to access the results obtained.
Wording issues:
WI1. Lines 119 y 121. I am not sure if "Learningenvironments" should be a one single word.
WI2. Please, rename section 3 as "Method" or "Methodology", and section 4 as "Results".
Likewise, due to the nature of this study (a literature review), I also recommend renaming section 3.1. as "Sampling" or "Selection of the papers".
Finally, I suggest that the title of sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- While the aim at the end of Section 1 is clear, I wonder if some form of research question would be useful - what specifically did the review aim to answer? This seems particularly pertinent since the second-to-last paragraph mentions existing reviews, which in turn leads to questioning the need for yet another review. Perhaps this could be clarified somehow (and adding a clear question that prior reviews have not answered would be immensely useful). It just seems a bit late in the methodology section.
- Check the use of abbreviations. Sometimes the full name is used again, as for AR (this happens multiple times; but once it has been used, use it consistently). For STE(A)M I also advise writing it out at first mention. Sometimes you also use the abbreviation STEAM without the brackets, and in the studies table you also just refer to STEM. This can get a bit confusing.
- I do not recommend having the subheadings in the Discussion Section just "RQ1" etc., as readers may no longer remember what the RQs were.
- Some spelling errors throughout, so do check carefully.
- The heading for Section 3 is presumably an error (should probably be methodology, not mythology!). The heading for Section 4 also seems off - did you mean "Analysis"?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
As indicated in my comments above, there are some spelling errors here and there. Please check the paper carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thanks for an interesting and complete review.
The authors demonstrate step-by-step work on a large-volume material.
There are some comments: I would like to pay more attention not only to positive effects, but also to possible negative effects, about which almost nothing is said. It should be noted that AR has an impact not only on motivation, but also on the psychological state, state of health (in these cases, the correlation can also be reversed).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article presents a literature review on the use of augmented reality in STE(A)M experiments. It follows the PRISMA methodology as is mandatory for this type of articles that wish to be published in this journal. From my point of view, the review article is of sufficient quality to be published despite the limitations on access to certain articles that the authors claim. Only a revision of the entire text is needed to avoid typing errors. I have spotted a few errors that list below.
Minor changes:
- Although the acronym STEAM is well known, it should be defined the first time it appears in both the abstract and the body of the article: science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM).
- Define the acronym AR in the abstract and use it.
- Define the acronym AR only once in the body. (It is defined in both lines 48 and 52; and also in 104)
- Line 62: It’s à It is
- Lines 100-102: improve paragraph writing
- Line 121: Learningenviroments –> Learning enviroments
- Line 181: Mithology ??? à Methodology
- Line 245 and 333: Analization à Analisys
- Table 9: improve the columns Quan and Qual
- Line 529: improve the writing of “Desirable would-be larger sample studies and an expansion of the research landscape when comparing various design parameters in AR enhancements for the same experiment.”
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Overall, the English Language Quality is adequate, but there are some errors to correct. It is necessary to accurately review the entire text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
