SeisTutor: A Custom-Tailored Intelligent Tutoring System and Sustainable Education
and Nishad Nawaz 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations to the authors of the experimental research and new results.
SeisTutor personalized intelligent tutoring system prototype endorses effective learning.
I have reservations that the research sample is too small.
I wonder why the research sample is so diverse? What was the selection of the research sample?
In line 304 the authors write , "Seis Tutor determines six emotions, i.e., Smile, Sad, Neutral, Surprise, and Angry". There are 5 emotions listed.
The conclusions are too general, there was no indication of the weaknesses of the research and no recommendations for further research.
Author Response
The author made the necessary amendments as prescribed by the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In summary, after general references, the conclusion contains only modest specifics about the educational effectiveness of SeisTutor. Furthermore, there is a complete lack of analytical evaluation of the Sustainable Education impacts and contexts still highlighted in the title. As the reviewer did not know the antecedents of the educational implementation of SeisTutor, he gained further knowledge by reviewing items 65 and 66 of the literature. These two publications, published in 2019, undoubtedly contain actual new results, but compared to publications containing relevant information on Web-Based Learning and Innovative Technologies, this manuscript does not contain any new scientific results. Another problem is that the manuscript is superficially related to sustainability only in the context of the Introduction.
Given all this, I do not recommend the publication of the manuscript.
Author Response
The author has been given the justification.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very interesting paper which goal is to evaluate SeisTutor, an Intelligent Tutor system based on AI providing appropriate learning materials to different learners. This paper is appropriately structured with an Introduction summarizing overall context, Background and Preliminaries appropriately documented. The contributions are presented in 3 sections: Proposed Prototype, Evaluation of SeisTutor and Result and Discussions. Short conclusion summarizes the study.
If I have not any comment of sections 1 & 2, I have a lot of suggestions concerning sections 3, 4 & 5.
In section 3, I suggest to provide a schema indicating clearly main components (models and their relations) of the prototype and its architecture. It seems also important to move Figure 7 and Table 1 from page 12 to page 8 at an appropriate place (near § 3.1.3). Could you explain what means I2A2 learning style prototype (Page 8 lines 306-315).
During all the paper you use denominations study 1 and study 2 which are not easy to remember all the time. Could you choose a more mnemonic expression as Study with customized learning for study 1 and Study without customized learning for study 2.
Could you indicate starting point to the flow in Figure 7 and reformulate the content of Table 1?
Figures 4,5 & 6 could be integrated in the schema summarizing main components and their relations as asked previously.
Concerning Learning Style Test (Page 11, lines 365-369) you mentioned 3 learning styles with 4 cases: Imagistic, Acoustic, Intuitive and Active. Could you modify or explain?
(End of Page 11 lines 380-385) The difference between Study 2 et Study 1 is not clearly described?
Could you explain the figure 9, its content and associated explanations, please (Page 13, lines 408-416)?
Concerning Figure 10, could you explain why the total of emotions is greater than 100%? Could you also explain what you do with these emotions in the adaptation (customization) process?
Figure 11, replace Study 1 and Study 2 by more semantic identification in order to facilitate interpretation / understanding as mentioned previously.
Could you comment semantically the figure 12?
Could you comment semantically the figure 13 and the big dispersion observed?
Could you comment the figure 14 and explain the reasons to have for 2 values of 5 the score around 93-85%? Why 3 remaining values are limited to 7-15%?
Could you move your tables 4 – 8 from appendix to the location where they are commented?
Could you add to these tables 4-8 a last column giving the number of learners answering? It seems be interesting to know if all learners answered this questionnaire or only ones from Study 1 or Study 2.
Could you express and later explain more deeply your hypothesis and their validations or not on Page 19, lines 571-576 & Page20 lines 577-601.
Could you improve the presentation of your tables and replace Study 1 and Study 2 by more meaningful statements? I know I repeat me, but it’s insupportable to reach these no semantically meaningful statements all the time and go back to the definition all the time. I am sure you reached same problem.
Author Response
The author made the necessary amendments as prescribed by the reviewer.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and providing the valuable suggestion on my article.
Reviewer 2 Report
My response to the short authorial reflection: I accept the rational position that was only learning gain performance metrics have been considered in the current analysis. After reviewing the updated manuscript, I found that the content did not change. Only the simplification of the tables was realized. I maintain that there is no connection with the context of Sustainable Education. Only general references can be found in the introduction of the manuscript. Therefore, I do not recommend publishing the manuscript within the given framework. Presumably, the authors' intention can be more easily realized in IT newspapers related to their publication history.
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and providing the valuable suggestion on my article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I give you initial list of my observations with indications describing my satisfaction (OK or complement of information asked). I observe that structural changes are simpler to do then more semantic explanations. They need to be more present in the final version of the paper.
This is a very interesting paper which goal is to evaluate SeisTutor, an Intelligent Tutor system based on AI providing appropriate learning materials to different learners. This paper is appropriately structured with an Introduction summarizing overall context, Background and Preliminaries appropriately documented. The contributions are presented in 3 sections: Proposed Prototype, Evaluation of SeisTutor and Result and Discussions. Short conclusion summarizes the study.
- If I have not any comment of sections 1 & 2, I have a lot of suggestions concerning sections 3, 4 & 5. In section 3, I suggest to provide a schema indicating clearly main components (models and their relations) of the prototype and its architecture. It seems also important to move Figure 7 and Table 1 from page 12 to page 8 at an appropriate place (near § 3.1.3). Could you explain what means I2A2 learning style prototype (Page 8 lines 306-315). OK
- During all the paper you use denominations study 1 and study 2 which are not easy to remember all the time. Could you choose a more mnemonic expression as Study with customized learning for study 1 and Study without customized learning for study 2. OK
- Could you indicate starting point to the flow in Figure 7 and reformulate the content of Table 1? OK
- Figures 4,5 & 6 could be integrated in the schema summarizing main components and their relations as asked previously. Why you don’t propose a synthesis schema?
- Concerning Learning Style Test (Page 11, lines 365-369) you mentioned 3 learning styles with 4 cases: Imagistic, Acoustic, Intuitive and Active. Could you modify or explain? OK
- (End of Page 11 lines 380-385) The difference between Study 2 et Study 1 is not clearly described? OK
- Could you explain the figure 9, its content and associated explanations, please (Page 13, lines 408-416)? What is the interest of this figure, its reason and meaning for all aspects mentioned (Gender, Age, Qualifications, occupation: what is on axis X?)
- Concerning Figure 10, could you explain why the total of emotions is greater than 100%? Could you also explain what you do with these emotions in the adaptation (customization) process?
- Figure 11, replace Study 1 and Study 2 by more semantic identification in order to facilitate interpretation / understanding as mentioned previously. OK
- Could you comment semantically the figure 12? ? More explanation needed!
Could you comment semantically the figure 13 and the big dispersion observed? More explanation needed!
- Could you comment the figure 14 and explain the reasons to have for 2 values of 5 the score around 93-85%? Why 3 remaining values are limited to 7-15%? OK but could you explain the reasons to have for 2 values of 5 the score around 93-85%? Why 3 remaining values are limited to 7-15%? Questionnaire with high positivity of questions?
- Could you move your tables 4 – 8 from appendix to the location where they are commented?
- Could you add to these tables 4-8 a last column giving the number of learners answering? It seems be interesting to know if all learners answered this questionnaire or only ones from Study 1 or Study 2. Why you mix answers of two studies instead of observe the differences issued from these approaches: Tables 4, 5 (partly), 6, 7, 8. What could you find as information if you separate the answers of these 2 studies and compare them?
- Could you express and later explain more deeply your hypothesis and their validations or not on Page 19, lines 571-576 & Page20 lines 577-601. OK
- Could you improve the presentation of your tables and replace Study 1 and Study 2 by more meaningful statements? I know I repeat me, but it’s insupportable to reach these no semantically meaningful statements all the time and go back to the definition all the time. I am sure you reached same problem. OK
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing and providing the valuable suggestion on my article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
