Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this work, the authors address the problem of developing an m-learning application using the platform-independent technique.

Authors are advised to address the following comments and suggestions when preparing the revised version:

1. Abstract: It is well-written
2. Keywords: Authors suggested updating the keywords by selecting more relevant terms. Keywords play important role in the appearance of the manuscript in scholars' search which will give it more hits and more citations.
3. Introduction: section is well organized, showing motivation, research gap, and research questions
4. Authors need to confirm that all acronyms are defined before being used for the first time.
5. Authors need to confirm that all mathematical notations are defined when being used for the first time.
6. The title of section 2 should be "Related Works" instead of "Related Work".
7. It is important to cite recent works here. That is to say, just works from the last three years should be incorporated.

Author Response

Reviwer#1

In this work, the authors address the problem of developing an m-learning application using the platform-independent technique.

Authors are advised to address the following comments and suggestions when preparing the revised version:

• Abstract: It is well-written

Response: N/A

• Keywords: Authors suggested updating the keywords by selecting more relevant terms. Keywords play important role in the appearance of the manuscript in scholars' search which will give it more hits and more citations.

Response: Keyword list is updated [visible in track changes version].

• Introduction: section is well organized, showing motivation, research gap, and research questions

Response:  N/A

• Authors need to confirm that all acronyms are defined before being used for the first time.

Response:  All acronyms are defined before being used for the first time.

• Authors need to confirm that all mathematical notations are defined when being used for the first time.

Response: It is confirmed that all mathematical notations are defined when being used for the first time.

• The title of section 2 should be "Related Works" instead of "Related Work".

Response:  Section 2 is renamed as proposed.

• It is important to cite recent works here. That is to say, just works from the last three years should be incorporated.

Response: Most of the old references are eliminated, whereas base references from early years were not removed, so as to acknowledge the originators of core concepts.

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the topic covered by the authors is important to study. The importance and quality of the proposed solution is assessed not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, proposing evaluation not only for the proposed solution only but also in the context with other existing solutions. Although in general the study is worth to be published and would be of interest for readers, it has a list of aspects to be improved.

The authors are invited to review the formatting and writing style. It is also recommended to reread the text because at this point a lot of sentences are incomplete or not sufficiently clear. In some cases "track changes" signs are present, i.e. changes made by one of the authors have not been processed completely.

Section 1.4. should be renamed, i.e. "Our contribution" is not the best title for the Section requiring something more neutral. In addition, I would not recommend to separate this Section from previous where research question with motivation are presented. Research questions provided together with motivation, in turn, is a very good idea.

Section 2: subsection "Forms of Assisted Information" reduces the value of the section since it is less detailed and motivated compared to other subsections. I would recommend to incorporate it in one of other subsections. Following subsections also seem to be less detailed compared to the first subsections mainly referring to one source (in case it is a common view on the point, please, state it clearly or supply these statements with a list of references).

Section 3.1.: a model presented in this section requires a comparison with those commonly accepted in the literature and / or practice. At least its relative similarity and main principles coming from PCDA should be provided. This will allow to support the model and its validity for the given purpose. Otherwise, another type of explanation why this model is complete and accurate enough is needed.

Section 3.2: "The pretest and posttest questions and answers were also produced under the direction of a IT professor" - it would be beneficial to cover them at least in appendix.

"Usability qualities such as effectiveness, performance, timeliness, satisfaction, learnability, recognizability, malfunction, and perceived stress were considered during the design process of the mobile application to create a more functional mobile application." - how does it looks like in respect to the developed solution? Mapping between these "qualities" and respective components and features of your solution would be beneficial for the paper.

Figure 2 should be redesigned to improve readibility of the components and the text inside elements.

Figure 4: resolution should be improved since at this point elements at the lowest level are not readable. Resolution of Figure 5 should also be improved.

Language requires significant improvements. It is recommended to involve a native speaker.

Author Response

Reviwer#2

In general, the topic covered by the authors is important to study. The importance and quality of the proposed solution are assessed not only qualitatively but also quantitatively, proposing evaluation not only for the proposed solution only but also in the context with other existing solutions. Although in general the study is worth to be published and would be of interest for readers, it has a list of aspects to be improved.

2.1 The authors are invited to review the formatting and writing style. It is also recommended to reread the text because at this point a lot of sentences are incomplete or not sufficiently clear. In some cases "track changes" signs are present, i.e. changes made by one of the authors have not been processed completely.

Response:  The revised manuscript is proofread by a native speaker.

2.2 Section 1.4. should be renamed, i.e. "Our contribution" is not the best title for the Section requiring something more neutral. In addition, I would not recommend separating this Section from the previous one where the research question with motivation is presented. Research questions provided together with motivation, in turn, is a very good idea.

Response:  Correction made, visible in track changes.

2.3 Section 2: subsection "Forms of Assisted Information" reduces the value of the section since it is less detailed and motivated compared to other subsections. I would recommend incorporating it in one of the other subsections. Following subsections also seem to be less detailed compared to the first subsections mainly referring to one source (in case it is a common view on the point, please, state it clearly or supply these statements with a list of references).

Response:  correction is incorporated as suggested by the reviewer.

2.4 Section 3.1.: a model presented in this section requires a comparison with those commonly accepted in the literature and/or practice. At least its relative similarity and main principles coming from PCDA should be provided. This will allow supporting the model and its validity for the given purpose. Otherwise, another type of explanation why this model is complete and accurate enough is needed.

Response:  Following paragraphs are added in section 2.

The ADDIE instructional model describes the process of instruction analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation [26]. Analysis establishes the subject of learning, Design establishes the method of learning, Development chooses and creates instructional materials, Implement implements materials and activities, and Evaluation establishes the impact of instruction [26].

In addition, Heinich R., et al. [31] developed the ASSURE teaching paradigm, which consists of the following steps: (1) Consider students' learning styles, prior knowledge or skills, as well as geographical, regional, and economic considerations. (2) Declare aims: this refers to a more complete statement of the learning aim. (3) Choose instructional media: this refers to the process of putting together a solid teaching technique. (4) Employ appropriate materials: this pertains to strategies to use educational technology and media. (5) Facilitate classroom interaction: this refers to allowing students to practice skills and learn via hands-on activities; and (6) Assess and reconsider: this refers to evaluating and updating the overall instructional design in preparation for future training.

Successive Approximation Model(SAM): It employs a continuously iterative design approach instead of a sequential one throughout the entirety of the development life cycle [32]. SAM begins with a quick prototype, in which analysis and design are carried out simultaneously at a breakneck speed. Because, unlike ADDIE, SAM does not require buy-in at each level, the initial iteration of a SAM-developed eLearning may require an overhaul. SAM, on the other hand, relies on rapid fixes, testing, and pivoting along the route. If you're already pressed on time and need to get something done quickly, SAM comes in handy.

The following subsection is added in section 3.1

Why this model is complete and accurate enough

In this paper, we show how the ADDIE paradigm may be used to create an m-learning application. Other instructional design methods, such as those proposed by [26, 31, 32] might aid software developers in developing an m-learning application in a methodical manner. The ADDIE approach has the benefit of being simple to implement and may be used to create both platform-specific and platform-independent m-learning apps. This paradigm offers a disciplined, all-encompassing approach to developing m-learning applications that suit the demands of their users.

2.5 Section 3.2: "The pretest and posttest questions and answers were also produced under the direction of an IT professor" - it would be beneficial to cover them at least in the appendix.

Response:  Appendix A and Appendix B are included

2.6 "Usability qualities such as effectiveness, performance, timeliness, satisfaction, learnability, recognizability, malfunction, and perceived stress were considered during the design process of the mobile application to create a more functional mobile application." - how does it look like in respect to the developed solution? Mapping between these "qualities" and respective components and features of your solution would be beneficial for the paper.

Response:  To address this issue, Table 6 is revised to address usability qualities such as effectiveness, performance, timeliness, satisfaction, learnability, recognizability, malfunction, and perceived stress

2.7 Figure 2 should be redesigned to improve the readability of the components and the text inside elements.

Response:  Figure 2 is redesigned.

2.8 Figure 4: resolution should be improved since at this point elements at the lowest level are not readable. The resolution of Figure 5 should also be improved.

Response: The resolution of Figure 4 and Figure 5 is improved.

2.9 Language requires significant improvements. It is recommended to involve a native speaker.

Response: The revised manuscript is proofread by a native speaker.