Research on 3D Painting in Virtual Reality to Improve Students’ Motivation of 3D Animation Learning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors concentrate on VR-based experiment (VR painting) which was to improve 3D animation teaching effectiveness. Although the experiments were interesting, their scientific contribution is at least questionable as “literature reviews already indicate that generally VR-based teaching effectively improves learning outcome” (line 21). In consequence authors’ contribution should be clarified and formulated more precisely.
The rationale behind improving 3D animation skills, by means of interacting (painting) within 3D environment (activation of spatial imagination) was presented as an example of blended based learning and is rather convincing. Consistently, in the state-of-art section, related and up-to-date literature was thoroughly studied and discussed. Unfortunately there were no decent emphasis put on experiments supporting educational outcome or spatial imagination stimulation – in my opinion it is very closely related to the research problem.
Unfortunately some additional doubts elicit in the research method section, which was described quite professionally, besides “predetermined VR scenario” (line 314) details. Experiments scenario was not explained precisely and should be completed.
Inappropriately (imprecisely) described experiment scenario aroused questions concerning stated research hypothesis, which suggests that 3D VR painting “increase student interest and confidence in learning 3D animation” (line 394) or 3D animation learning outcomes. Alleviation of hypothesis, which suggests that it “could increase” (line 393) examined output, weakens the contribution of the manuscript.
As a result, initial authors’ announcements were not supported by experiments results. Authors partly admit research limitations (line 442-445), but formally initially declared research hypotheses were not scientifically proved, or were simply incomplete, and should be supplemented before publication.
Some minor editorial corrections are required, i.e.: caption under Figure 7 was probably mistakenly copied from Figure 6 caption; “each group … were” (line 416);
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on 3D Painting in Virtual Reality to Improve Students' Motivation of 3D Animation Learning” (sustainability-435335). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in blue in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
Authors concentrate on VR-based experiment (VR painting) which was to improve 3D animation teaching effectiveness. Although the experiments were interesting, their scientific contribution is at least questionable as “literature reviews already indicate that generally VR-based teaching effectively improves learning outcome” (line 21). In consequence authors’ contribution should be clarified and formulated more precisely.
We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, Line 22, “desktop” was added.
6 DOF VR provides a higher sense of spatial sensibility and immersion. This study assumes that the 6 DOF VR approach can enhance the motivation of college students by improving spatial cognition.
The rationale behind improving 3D animation skills, by means of interacting (painting) within 3D environment (activation of spatial imagination) was presented as an example of blended based learning and is rather convincing. Consistently, in the state-of-art section, related and up-to-date literature was thoroughly studied and discussed. Unfortunately there were no decent emphasis put on experiments supporting educational outcome or spatial imagination stimulation – in my opinion it is very closely related to the research problem.
At this stage, Tile Brush is used as the research tool for the experience space. In the future, I hope to design the VR space capability practice software for the project proposed by Reviewer.
Unfortunately some additional doubts elicit in the research method section, which was described quite professionally, besides “predetermined VR scenario” (line 314) details. Experiments scenario was not explained precisely and should be completed.
We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments:
1. Added virtual reality experimental environment diagram.
2. Explain why the preset VR scene is used: All participants use the same preset VR scene to ensure that they have the same benchmark as a basis for VR painting to avoid users being confused in an empty VR environment. (line 319-321)
Inappropriately (imprecisely) described experiment scenario aroused questions concerning stated research hypothesis, which suggests that 3D VR painting “increase student interest and confidence in learning 3D animation” (line 394) or 3D animation learning outcomes. Alleviation of hypothesis, which suggests that it “could increase” (line 393) examined output, weakens the contribution of the manuscript.
Thanks to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have modified the sentence and are currently located at line 400.
As a result, initial authors’ announcements were not supported by experiments results. Authors partly admit research limitations (line 442-445), but formally initially declared research hypotheses were not scientifically proved, or were simply incomplete, and should be supplemented before publication.
Considering the reviewer's recommendations, we corrected the description of the study limitations (line 448-453)
Some minor editorial corrections are required, i.e.: caption under Figure 7 was probably mistakenly copied from Figure 6 caption; “each group … were” (line 416);
We are very sorry for our negligence of textual, correcting the title of Figure 7, and the description of line 416 (now 420).
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study concerns a study were VR is used to improve the presentation of 3D animations of complex features contributing to attract student interest and to achieve a better understanding of the subjects taught.
A deep historic immersion in VR technology, from the very begging to the actuality, is done and well supported, followed by the interesting item “Virtual reality and learning motivation”, where the virtual learning environment (VLE) concept is introduced. 6pgs were generic and suddenly the methodology applied in the study appears in the text, beginning with the “equipment assessment”, without introduction to what is proposed with the study. An introduction to the study must be done in item “Research Method” and after the equipment to be used, presented. The class of students should be also contextualized.
The experiment was presented, a survey concerning the student’s achievements, interest and motivation was implemented, the results were analyzed and some interesting conclusions were carried out.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Research on 3D Painting in Virtual Reality to Improve Students' Motivation of 3D Animation Learning” (sustainability-435335). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
The study concerns a study were VR is used to improve the presentation of 3D animations of complex features contributing to attract student interest and to achieve a better understanding of the subjects taught.
As Reviewer said, this study assumes that the 6 DOF VR approach can enhance the learning motivation of college students by improving spatial cognition.
A deep historic immersion in VR technology, from the very begging to the actuality, is done and well supported, followed by the interesting item “Virtual reality and learning motivation”, where the virtual learning environment (VLE) concept is introduced. 6pgs were generic and suddenly the methodology applied in the study appears in the text, beginning with the “equipment assessment”, without introduction to what is proposed with the study. An introduction to the study must be done in item “Research Method” and after the equipment to be used, presented. The class of students should be also contextualized.
We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.
1. Add a research hypothesis description (line 270):
a. This study is expected to allow users to perform activities in a highly immersive VR environment, and users can sense their spatial ability through spatial immersion, thereby enhancing their motivation.
b. Added virtual reality experimental environment diagram. ( Figure 2, page 7)
2. Explain why the preset VR scene is used: All participants use the same preset VR scene to ensure that they have the same benchmark as a basis for VR painting to avoid users being confused in an empty VR environment. (line 319-321)
3. Curriculum contextualization, There are about 300 students in 6 classes in grades 2 to 4 of the Digital Media Department. During the 3D course, students are asked to participate in the experiment during their free time.
The experiment was presented, a survey concerning the student’s achievements, interest and motivation were implemented, the results were analyzed and some interesting conclusions were carried out.
Special thanks to you for your good comments, we have re-written some part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Even though revised manuscript solved some ambiguities it still reveals certain contribution and methodology flaws.
As according to literature “desktop VR-based teaching effectively improves learning outcomes”, more immersive VR installations should support teaching as well. Thus strength of manuscript contribution is moderate.
Recalled desktop VR systems limitations (i.e. controlling system with a mouse – line 444) do not reflect popular VR systems interaction modes. There are several desktop VR systems controlled with game pads, Wii remote, Kinect controllers, etc., which provide much more immersion than simple mouse. These are still desktop VR systems with alternative controlling modes.
Moreover literature review, though nice written, still misses adequate literature positions referring to experiments supporting educational outcome or spatial imagination stimulation. There are many crucial virtual learning environments supporting spatial imagination and perception, not referred in the manuscript. Presenting just an experiment with some research tool (Tile Brush) seems to be insufficient background for the studied research problem. In result novelty of the manuscript is doubtful.
Summing up, without adequate background of VR learning systems, the experiment, though nicely designed, does not seem to be interesting for publication.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter dated (2/25). We are very grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions. We carefully review and respond to the comments made by the reviewers.
Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. As you notice, we agreed with all the comments raised by the reviewers. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers who identified areas of our manuscript that needed corrections or modification. We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.
I hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely Yours,
Corresponding author:
Sun Hung
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Even though revised manuscript solved some ambiguities it still reveals certain contribution and methodology flaws.
Based on the suggestions of the Reviewer, we continued to modify the manuscript, including abstract rewriting, adding literature review and other adjustments. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.
As according to literature “desktop VR-based teaching effectively improves learning outcomes”, more immersive VR installations should support teaching as well. Thus strength of manuscript contribution is moderate.
We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript.
Recalled desktop VR systems limitations (i.e. controlling system with a mouse – line 444) do not reflect popular VR systems interaction modes. There are several desktop VR systems controlled with game pads, Wii remote, Kinect controllers, etc., which provide much more immersion than simple mouse. These are still desktop VR systems with alternative controlling modes.
Thank you very much for the reminders and suggestions of Reviewer. We have added descriptions of input devices such as Kinect, Wii and Leap Motion.
Moreover literature review, though nice written, still misses adequate literature positions referring to experiments supporting educational outcome or spatial imagination stimulation. There are many crucial virtual learning environments supporting spatial imagination and perception, not referred in the manuscript. Presenting just an experiment with some research tool (Tile Brush) seems to be insufficient background for the studied research problem. In result novelty of the manuscript is doubtful.
1. According to the Reviewer pointed out that the need to strengthen, the new manuscript increased the literature on Visual Spatial Ability for 3D learning. (Line 247-250, Line 262-265, Line 277-280)
2. VR tool can measure the power of space in the future development goals, at this stage Tilt Brush has been widely used in digital arts, but also have therapeutic applications of psychology, experimental design considerations, the most suitable for connecting visual-spatial and spatial ability. Oculus Quill is another VR painting software that can be selected. Users can create VR 3D animations with more complex functions. They are limited to Oculus Touch controllers, which makes the application more limited.
Summing up, without adequate background of VR learning systems, the experiment, though nicely designed, does not seem to be interesting for publication.
As the reviewer's suggestion, in the latest news, a new generation of VR equipment was introduced. The experimental design experience of this study can provide a reference for subsequent researchers to design similar experiments. For example, the digital media students in this study have become accustomed to 3D games with excellent image quality, they have higher psychological expectations, so the best VR immersion experience should be applied. Considering that the data collection process is difficult and time-consuming, sufficient equipment and space should be provided in advance to have the possibility of combining courses.
We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
No additional suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter dated (2/25). We are very grateful to the reviewers for their suggestions. We carefully review and respond to the comments made by the reviewers.
Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. As you notice, we agreed with all the comments raised by the reviewers. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers who identified areas of our manuscript that needed corrections or modification. We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.
I hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in Sustainability.
Sincerely Yours,
Corresponding author:
Sun Hung
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
No additional suggestions.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Here we have listed the changes and marked them in red in the revised paper.
The main change is：
· Rewrite the abstract to provide a clearer narrative.(Line 17-32)
· Again, the literature on spatial capabilities has been added.. (Line 247-250, Line 262-265, Line 277-280)
· Revise the description of the research restrictions. (Line 473-482)
As the reviewer's suggestion, in the latest news, a new generation of VR equipment was introduced. The experimental design experience of this study can provide a reference for subsequent researchers to design similar experiments. For example, the digital media students in this study have become accustomed to 3D games with excellent image quality, they have higher psychological expectations, so the best VR immersion experience should be applied. Considering that the data collection process is difficult and time-consuming, sufficient equipment and space should be provided in advance to have the possibility of combining courses.
We appreciate for Reviewers’ warm work earnestly and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
