An Exploratory Study on the Impact of Collective Immersion on Learning and Learning Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The current study is remarkable and adds to the corpus of knowledge; however, it needs several modifications. These are the following:

1. The authors need to consider previous studies which have investigated students’ engagement and factors, such as cognitive, emotional, and behavioral using 3D virtual worlds. Are there any contradictory results in contrast to the authors’ results? Maybe a short discussion would become informative.
2. “Discussion and concluding comments” should be provided as “Discussion and Conclusion”.
3. Maybe some implications for research hand practice would be useful to readers.
4. Limits and Future work should be in 2-3 paragraphs in the end of this manuscript.
5. I would recommend being updated also the reference list with newer studies.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research topic is well justified from educational psychology, although we could consider other field research to accept the hypothesis.

The design of the experiment is well defined. The use of different tools to pick up information is one improvement for the research. The relationship between psychological data and questionary, I suppose the time o these physiological data will be considered together with the content and the group interaction. 

The research results are coherent with the design and with the literature review consulted.

The discussion presented is grateful and honest.

Thank You for letting me evaluate this paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a really interesting study and I really enjoyed this paper. The literature review is sound, the research design is good, the experimental design is well explained and the results are fascinating. My only small comment would be that the authors should perhaps look at their literature review and make sure all seminal references are listed, I note particularly that the virtuality continuum is used but Milgram is not cited. But apart from this, a great paper and a good contribution to the space.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

In this research paper, the authors try to determine the impact of the use of collective immersive technologies for learning, both in cognitive and emotional aspects (engagement). To do this, they carry out a pilot test with four groups differentiated by two variables: the degree of immersion (high or low) and the number of people participating (collective or individual).

The literature review of the impact of immersion on learning outcome and engagement is correct.

The design of the experiment seems adequate; although I am surprised that viewing a screen is considered a low-immersion environment. It is not clear what the authors consider as low- and high-immersion technologies. Is viewing a picture book a low-immersion environment? Are the virtual reality glasses, oculus quest or similar, considered as immersion greater than or equal to the dome used in the experiment? In my opinion a small classification of the available technologies should have been made according to their degree of immersion. In this way, the context of the experiment can be better located and the results of the investigation evaluated with more criteria.

No research hypothesis is established on the comparison of results between collective and non-collective immersion. Maybe it should be added

I don´t understand this sentence: “Out of all the participants, 28 had no experience with immersive technologies, and 3 had several experiences with immersive technologies” If there are 93 participants and 28 have no experience with immersive technologies, how come only 3 have experience with them? On the other hand, if the article considers watching television or cinema as low-immersion experiences, are there any participants who have no experience with cinema or television?

The same problem with the interviews in the next paragraph (line 224). If there are three groups of 12 participants and two of them are randomly selected from each group to conduct an interview, how could it be that twelve interviews were conducted?

It is said “A camera was used to film where the participant is looking during the experiment “. Is it a normal camera or an eye-tracking device? That aspect should be clarified.

In the test it is said: “the physiological reaction of participants during the experiment measured with physiologic devices (see measure).” I think the text (in addition to the tables) should indicate what measurements were used to determine the physiological reaction of participants during the experiment. It should also be clarified in the text, which devices have been used and not leave an indeterminate "physiologic devices"

Again in line 266 there is a mismatch in the number of people interviewed from the collective groups (Condition 1 and 2). How can there be only 4 in total when several paragraphs before a larger number is implied? Maybe they meant 14 participants?

The results are clear and well explained. However, there are many results and variables and it is tiring to understand them and get a clear picture of the results. Perhaps the use of some graphic element could simplify its interpretation

In line 486 says ·Many participants in all conditions have mentioned the quality of the visuals that were below their expectations.” I believe that this is a key element that perhaps has not been given much attention in the study. Perhaps for future experiences that aspect should be improved. It is indicated that previous experience in the use of audiovisual elements makes the participants perceive the experience as having low visual quality. Isn't this sentence against the one that said that 28 of the participants did not have immersion experience and that only 3 did? Those paragraphs would have to be reviewed again.

In general the article is correct, but I think it should be considered as an approach to the research topic and should improve its definition in future tests.

Some minor details should be modified:

Line 45: I think there is a misspelling. Should be “Immersive domes are more and more popular…”

Line 185: I think the description of the figure is wrong. It says “The projection in the individual and low-immersion setting with 12 participants”. I think is not individual but collective.

Line 206: There is a sentence repeated. “The stimulus adapted to all experimental conditions of this experiment (i.e. high immersive and low immersive technologies)”

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in the current form.