Enhancing Calculus Learning through Interactive VR and AR Technologies: A Study on Immersive Educational Tools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled "Enhancing Calculus Learning through Interactive VR and AR Technologies: A Study on Immersive Educational Tools" I consider that it can be relevant to the mission of the journal, as it contributes to increase the field of knowledge regarding mathematics learning and the support of immersive tools such as augmented reality and virtual reality.

The abstract of the article is adequate and briefly explains the content of the study conducted. 

The keywords are also adequate.

Likewise, the structure of the article is in line with the structure of a scientific paper.

The title of the article corresponds to the content of the document and its main objective is none other than the presentation of a tool generated using the Unity 3D engine for learning mathematics.

The document is well structured, facilitating the understanding of the study carried out. The theoretical foundation is based on the study of previous research in the same direction (Pinter, Izquierdo & Siddiqui, 2023; Kaufmann & Schmalstieg, 2008, etc.).

Method: the methodological design explains the creation process of the developed tool, using explanatory videos, data on interface implementation, generation of procedural maya, visualisations (Riemann), etc. 

The research phases are presented in a clear and structured way. 

The figures and tables used contribute to the reader's understanding.

In the subject engagement section it is stated that an initial survey with 208 questions was administered to a different subgroup of students in order to assess their perspectives on AR and 3D applications. We know that in order to collect accurate and real information we must have valid and reliable assessment instruments. Therefore, this evaluator asks himself the following questions:

Who developed the questionnaire, how was it developed, which experts were involved in the design of the instrument, which experts were involved in the design of the instrument, which experts were involved in the design of the instrument, and which experts were involved in the design of the instrument. The authors should provide data on the validation of the instrument.

Results: This evaluator considers that the results shown in terms of the study problem are adequately presented, as well as the discussion of these results. Likewise, I consider that the authors should make explicit possible lines of research, as well as an exclusive section called "contributions to educational practice". 

In short, I consider that this is a very good work in which a virtual reality graphics tool presented to support the learning and teaching of mathematical calculus in a 3D context is developed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the authors introduce a relatively new software tool designed to support Vector Calculus and Geometry learning through 3D visualization. The second part of the manuscript investigates students' attitudes toward this visualization tool.

My remarks are divided into three aspects as follows:

I. Terminology aspect:

1. There is a terminology discrepancy between the actual features of the proposed tool and its description. The authors' tool serves as a visualization instrument and does not possess the properties to be accurately labeled as an AR or VR tool/studio. Therefore, the authors should edit the entire manuscript content to avoid inaccuracies, for example:

Lines 10-11: "The positive response suggests the tool’s immediate usefulness and its promising future in educational settings, prompting further exploration and consideration for adaptation into an Augmented Reality (AR) environment."

Line 55: "The VR-based graphing tool developed in this research … introduces a new level of interactivity to mathematics."

Line 205: "the VR application described in section..."

2. The authors' statements regarding the interactivity of their tool should be substantiated. According to Figure 1, interactivity appears to be lacking.

3. The connection between using the UI panel from Figure 1 and the results presented in Figure 2 needs clarification. How is the data obtained from Figure 2 influenced or derived from the utilization of the UI panel shown in Figure 1?

II. Students’ attitude aspect:

1. To assess student satisfaction with your software tool, it is recommended to employ a systematic approach such as TAM, UTAUT, or a similar theoretical framework.

2. In the "Discussion" section, consider including a comparison with results obtained from similar previous studies on VR software in higher education.

3. Please, provide links to the two collected datasets containing students’ responses.

III. Methodological aspect:

1. A methodological section (Materials and Methods) is missing.

2. Please, add a "Conclusion" section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Link for our dataset: 

https://wtamu0-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/msiddiqui_wtamu_edu/EsZOYyhfaj9LpdLM456LYX4B4FIsMkZFL7RSPfjA9YXJEg?e=1Ojpb0

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This article is interesting and suitable for the journal Multimodal Technologies and Interaction. Although it appears to be a well-organised paper, there are some aspects that need to be improved before it can be accepted for publication:

· Pg. 2. “Enhanced Visualization Abilities: As previously mentioned, AR/VR significantly improves students’ ability to visualize complex concepts….” This represents the main concept of what is sought in this article. In this sense, I believe that more references should be added to support this statement (e.g. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040153 ; https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3398-0.ch008 ; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13060890). Furthermore, related  references should be used again to expand the Discussion section by comparing the results with previous work.

· The Discussion and Conclusions sections should be separated. The Discussion lacks a comparison of the results with previous work. This is essential in order to give value to the work and, in addition, to provide an adequate discussion for a quality article. On the other hand, the Conclusions section should emphasize the original contributions of this work, something that is not clear in the current version.

Minor revision

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The literature review on using VR and AR as immersive educational tools is inadequately addressed, with pertinent references with a high number of citations being ignored. Given the high ranking of the "Multimodal Technologies and Interaction", a more comprehensive literature review, encompassing a broader array of relevant references, is imperative.

Furthermore, the authors have not clarified whether the research instrument employed to assess the efficacy of the instructional tool in facilitating Calculus I/II was entirely developed by them or adapted from previously validated instruments. If the instrument has not been utilized in prior studies, the authors should provide substantial justifications by elucidating the reasons for eschewing a previously validated tool. Clarity on the origin and validation status of the research instrument is crucial for establishing the study's methodological rigor and contributing to the scholarly discourse in the field.

The collection of only 21 questionnaires also raises concerns about the study's relevance. Typically, with such a low number of respondents, it is unnecessary to express the results in percentages. Therefore, stating, for instance, that 12 out of 21 students expressed a desire for more direct interactivity is a more appropriate formulation than indicating that 57.14% expressed such a desire.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of mti-2827420-peer-review-v2 “Enhancing Calculus Learning through Interactive VR and AR Technologies: A Study on Immersive Educational Tools” has been improved substantially.

My recommendation is “Accept as is”.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the article is much improved, I encourage the authors to select more references and further improve both the Introduction and Discussion sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors addressed most of the comments and suggestions from the first round of the reviewing process. The authors still have to extend the discussion about the limitation of their study. And they should clearly mention that their study have only an exploratory value as the number of respondents is low.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors managed to address the observations from the first round of the review. Even I still maintain the observation that ”the collection of only 21 questionnaires also raises concerns about the study's relevance”, the acknowledgment of this limitation at the conclusion of the article does partially mitigate this concern.