Diffraction Testbed for Use in Remote Teaching

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript 'Diffraction testbed for use in remote teaching' the authors present a detail description of a software for simulating diffraction. Although the paper is well written I can't see any significant or relevant research in this manuscript. In my opinion, the work is more a useful guide for the student than a research paper. For this reason, I recommend to reject it.

Author Response

Point 1: In the manuscript 'Diffraction testbed for use in remote teaching' the authors present a detail description of a software for simulating diffraction. Although the paper is well written I can't see any significant or relevant research in this manuscript. In my opinion, the work is more a useful guide for the student than a research paper. For this reason, I recommend to reject it.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. Thanks for your comments. In my humble opinion, the paper is more than just a useful guide for the students. Section 5 is devoted to provide quantitative analysis about the effectiveness of the tool, comparing the results obtained between 2 on-site and 2 virtual-based labs (one of them based in OPTILAB) in a Physics III course (biomedical engineering) during Fall 2021.

 

Following your comments and those from other reviewers, I have just submitted a new version of the paper, improving the research and other aspects of the paper.

Hope this new version is acceptable now.

Many thanks in advance, and kind regards.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In this work, a software called OPTILAB was proposed as the basic tool for diffraction experiments for the teaching of engineering students.

 

Comments

The work subject is interesting and relevant for virtual laboratories, and the manuscript can be considered for publication in Optics after modifications. The suggested changes for the final version are presented below:

• A short review of diffraction should be complemented for better understanding and historical context.
• The uncertainties of the quantities presented in Table 2 must be presented properly (eg 8.65 +/- 1.55 should be 9 +/- 2).
• A figure should be presented with the results obtained with the proposed program comparing some variables, such as slit opening, wavelength and others.

Author Response

Point 1: The work subject is interesting and relevant for virtual laboratories, and the manuscript can be considered for publication in Optics after modifications. The suggested changes for the final version are presented below:

 

Response 1: Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for considering the paper acceptable for publication in Optics after modifications.

Point 2:  A short review of diffraction should be complemented for better understanding and historical context.

Response 2: I fully agree. Section 2 “A short review of diffraction” has been expanding with further details about the different types of diffraction, including some historical background.

 

Point 3: The uncertainties of the quantities presented in Table 2 must be presented properly (eg 8.65 +/- 1.55 should be 9 +/- 2).

Response 3: All uncertainties are now properly rounded.

 

Point 4: A figure should be presented with the results obtained with the proposed program comparing some variables, such as slit opening, wavelength and others.

Response 4: Figure 4 has been extended, now including 4 simulations screenshots: (a)   single slit, blue laser (b) double slit, red laser (c) circular aperture, red laser (d) diffraction grating, green laser

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents itself as a pedagogical article, however it seems more like it is showcasing OPTILAB instead and I think the author needs to decide which it is and focus on that. For a pedagogical paper, I would expect to see some analysis of students' performance in previous years' labs and comparing it to the virtual replacement. As it stands, the author makes statements from the data that don't reflect what the data actually shows (or in some case what the data does not show).

More specific comments are:

• Line 38, it would be good to explain how virtual and remote laboratories can be combined into a virtual remote lab.
• Line 68, would it be particularly difficult to include Fresnel diffraction into the software?
• Lines 85-89 and table 1, does OPTILAB actually "model" diffraction or simply output the analytical solution to some simple cases? Why not include N-slit diffraction as that is still easy to solve.
• Lines 115-116, Fall 2021 hasn't happened yet (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere), so are you sure about this date?
• Lines 130 - 141, I have quite a few issues with:
  • The data shows that while the male average is lower than the female, it is not statistically significant.
  • You say that the lower male average agrees with the outcome of the Fall 2016 exam question on diffraction. What about every other exam paper for the past 20 years? What about other universities/countries/courses... this statement looks to be hand-picked just because it supports your statement. Furthermore, as the difference is not statistically significant, it is a meaningless (and damaging) statement to make.
  • The fact that the virtual labs had higher results that the in-person labs tells us nothing. The in-person labs might be harder, the students didn't know what to expect etc.
  • I don't think that the data you present means that "OPTILAB has proved to be a successful tool..." as all you have really shown is that OPTILAB was used and students obtained an average mark of about 92.4%. It may well be that the optics lab did not properly assess the intended learning outcomes or the labs was too easy. The point is that we need more information to say for certain that OPTILAB is an effective learning tool.
• Table 2, I think it's very dangerous to do a comparison of males/females as the results can be misinterpreted (which I feel has happened in the text). What would be more useful would be to compare the marks in the optics labs for previous years, so we can see how the students performed in-person in the past and online now.

While my comments may seem quite damning, I do think this could be a good paper with some more work, but I think the author needs to do more the show evidence of the impact on students, whereas at the moment, the data does not really provide solid conclusions. If you can't provide the data to make these statements conclusively, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of the data, rather than making invalid claims.

Author Response

Point 1: This paper presents itself as a pedagogical article, however it seems more like it is showcasing OPTILAB instead and I think the author needs to decide which it is and focus on that. For a pedagogical paper, I would expect to see some analysis of students' performance in previous years' labs and comparing it to the virtual replacement. As it stands, the author makes statements from the data that don't reflect what the data actually shows (or in some case what the data does not show).

Response 1: Dear reviewer. Thanks for your comments. I will address each specific comment below.

More specific comments are:

• Point 2: Line 38, it would be good to explain how virtual and remote laboratories can be combined into a virtual remote lab.

Response 2: I have added additional information on this.

 

• Point 3: Line 68, would it be particularly difficult to include Fresnel diffraction into the software?

Response 3: It would be just a question of time, but honestly speaking, the study of Fresnel diffraction is not very common in a real, on-site lab. For that reason, it was not included in the software.

 

• Point 4: Lines 85-89 and table 1, does OPTILAB actually "model" diffraction or simply output the analytical solution to some simple cases? Why not include N-slit diffraction as that is still easy to solve.

Response 4: The software models diffraction, but at this moment, the interface is adapted to common experiments performed in the on-site lab.

 

• Point 5: Lines 115-116, Fall 2021 hasn't happened yet (if you're in the Northern Hemisphere), so are you sure about this date?

Response 5: You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I meant Fall 2020 ;) Now amended.

 

• Point 6: Lines 130 - 141, I have quite a few issues with:
  • The data shows that while the male average is lower than the female, it is not statistically significant.
  • You say that the lower male average agrees with the outcome of the Fall 2016 exam question on diffraction. What about every other exam paper for the past 20 years? What about other universities/countries/courses... this statement looks to be hand-picked just because it supports your statement. Furthermore, as the difference is not statistically significant, it is a meaningless (and damaging) statement to make.
  • The fact that the virtual labs had higher results that the in-person labs tells us nothing. The in-person labs might be harder, the students didn't know what to expect etc.
  • I don't think that the data you present means that "OPTILAB has proved to be a successful tool..." as all you have really shown is that OPTILAB was used and students obtained an average mark of about 92.4%. It may well be that the optics lab did not properly assess the intended learning outcomes or the labs was too easy. The point is that we need more information to say for certain that OPTILAB is an effective learning tool.
• Table 2, I think it's very dangerous to do a comparison of males/females as the results can be misinterpreted (which I feel has happened in the text). What would be more useful would be to compare the marks in the optics labs for previous years, so we can see how the students performed in-person in the past and online now.

While my comments may seem quite damning, I do think this could be a good paper with some more work, but I think the author needs to do more the show evidence of the impact on students, whereas at the moment, the data does not really provide solid conclusions. If you can't provide the data to make these statements conclusively, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of the data, rather than making invalid claims.

Response 6: I fully agree with these comments. I have grouped the data, now including both male and female students together. I also made a comparison with previous years, and changed the conclusions, now discussing the implication of data.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for modifying the paper in a more scientific way.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be considered for publication, as most of the requested modifications have been carried out.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for responding to me comments, I am pleased to see you have addressed every comment and I am happy to recommend the article for publication in its current state.