Development of Sustainable Education Environments in Higher Education with Metaverse Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to explore the integration of Metaverse technologies into sustainable education for undergraduate students in the Faculty of Education. Using a mixed-methods research design, the study involved 39 participants and evaluated the effectiveness of a curriculum designed around Metaverse applications. The results indicated that incorporating Metaverse technologies significantly enhanced students' perceptions and attitudes toward sustainable education, showing a positive shift between pre- and post-tests. The findings emphasized the potential of Metaverse in creating innovative, engaging, and future-oriented learning environments. Teacher candidates demonstrated improved technological competence and expressed a need for further digital integration into classical educational methods, underscoring the role of Metaverse in the future of sustainable education.

The study is well written, however, I have few comments that might improve the study:

1. My major concern that the study is completely missing the literature review section, please include a summary of the previous results highlighting the research gaps and how your study resolve it.

2. In the literature review, please provide synthesis of the recent studies such as the following resources:

- Chua, H.W. and Yu, Z., 2024. A systematic literature review of the acceptability of the use of Metaverse in education over 16 years. Journal of Computers in Education, 11(2), pp.615-665.

- Al-Kfairy, M., Alzaabi, M., Snoh, B., Almarzooqi, H. and Alnaqbi, W., 2024, May. Metaverse-Based Classroom: The Good and the Bad. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

and many others.

3. Please introduce your conceptual model early on in the methodology.

4. In the discussion section, please include the practical and theoretical implications of the study.

5. Where is the study conclusion? research limitations.

6. Please work harder on the research structure to improve its readability, I have some problems following it.

Good Luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I have attached the corrections in the file below.
Please see the attachment.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. While the idea of the study itself may be attention-grabbing, I have to admit that its execution is very shallow. First of all, the study is not grounded in theory (first section of the paper). Secondly, the methodology section is written in a confusing way, repeating information, e.g. on p. 5, lines 198-213 or in Table 1 (I Wrote a Thesis, Professor repeated 2 times) and so on. Thirdly, the analysis of the results is minimal and the conclusions are not focused. The technical organisation of the article is also insufficient.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It should be noted that the article is difficult to read. I am not an English speaker, but I find the language of the text confusing. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I have attached the corrections in the file below.
Please see the attachment.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Development of Sustainable Education Environments in 2 Higher Education with Metaverse Applications

The aim of this study was to develop a sustainable education curriculum based on metaverse applications and to evaluate its effectiveness.

For the development of this research, a 14-week program was designed for pre-service teachers. Qualitative and quantitative techniques were applied to evaluate the different objectives of the study. The data collected and analyzed led to the conclusion that the program was effective in terms of the perceptions and attitudes developed in relation to the metaverse applications in the sustainable education course.

The contextualization of the study is clearly stated, as well as the main purpose of the study and the secondary objectives that were addressed. The methodological aspects are correctly described and are relevant to the research objectives.

The text shows problems in terms of its writing. A paragraph is already cut off at the beginning of the introduction. 

It is also observed that information is repeated unnecessarily, which may be evidence of a lack of a more rigorous revision of the text. This affects the reading of the text.

It is suggested to review the location of the tables in the text, for example, table 1 is not located appropriately.

Although the study is interesting, it is suggested to include more explicitly the potential contribution of this proposal for pedagogical innovation in terms of the quality of learning. Since this is the main objective of higher education, it is important to use modern tools and those used by young students, but without losing sight of the fact that these serve as a vehicle to promote better learning.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Errors are observed in terms of grammatical tenses in several sections, for example, compare the two paragraphs included between lines 444 and 450. In the first, the present tense is used and in the second, the past tense.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
I have attached the corrections in the file below.
Please see the attachment.
Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for revising the manuscript.

The authors improved the paper, however, I think they should enhance the paper more specifically the literature review part, with references such as:

- Al-Kfairy, M., Alzaabi, M., Snoh, B., Almarzooqi, H. and Alnaqbi, W., 2024, May. Metaverse-based classroom: the good and the bad. In 2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

And many others

Also, work a bit on the language. 

Good Luck

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Requires proofreading

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

The revised file incorporating your suggestions has been attached.

Please see the attachment

Thank you for your attention. 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your corrections, which make a big difference to the quality of the article. I would also like to suggest that the theoretical part of the paper and the discussion be supplemented by the work of other scholars. The layout of the tables also needs to be tidied up, as they are currently not up to scratch.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The revised file incorporating your suggestions has been attached.

Please see the attachment

Thank you for your attention. 

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors had worked very well on the aspects observed and collected the suggestions with great care. The result is a notable increase in the clarity and quality of the article. Very good.

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors had worked very well on the aspects observed and collected the suggestions with great care. The result is a notable increase in the clarity and quality of the article. Very good.
Responds 1: 
Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your suggestions and for taking the time to review the paper.
In the most recent version of the file, the number of references in the literature has been increased, and a new section has been added to the discussion. Additionally, formatting adjustments have been made to all tables, not content-wise.

Best regards.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Happy to accept