Innovative Virtual Reality Teaching for the Sustainable Development of Vocational High School Students: A Case Study of Hair Braiding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is whether practical subjects can use technology to both improve learning for their students and improve sustainability by reducing waste as the students master certain skills. In particular the paper considers teaching students particular hair braiding techniques. As such it is original and relevant to the field and adds to our knowledge about sustainable pedagogies,. The students felt the use of virtual technologies enabled them to master these skills, which is important as was the authors' cautionary notes that traditional face-to-face teaching was needed as well. Interestingly the students felt that the virtual environment encouraged more creativity in their thinking and ideas, whilst the face-to-face teaching allowed them to master more technical details. I was pleased to see that the authors used both qualitative and quantitative methods in their exploration allowing them a depth of understanding of the students’ reactions. The conclusions they present are consistent with the evidence presented and answer the main question posed. They use appropriate references. Overall, this is a useful paper and will add to knowledge in the field of sustainable pedagogies.

Author Response

Please go ahead and paste 

1.Thanks to the reviewer’s affirmation and encouragement.  LL-754-759

2.Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. The revision for this item can be found in Section 3.3, which is noted as “The one-shot case study.” LL-286-307

3.Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. Table 2 has been updated to include relevant data on the variables ATU and BI. LL--412

4.Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. This recommendation has been revised in Section 5.1. LL-406-408

5.Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. The  reviewer’s  recommendations have revised the entire document.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Innovative Virtual Reality Teaching for the Sustainable Development of Vocational High School Students: A Case Study of Hair Braiding" aims to examine the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) immersive learning in vocational hairdressing education. In line with the research objective, ten hypotheses were formulated, and data were collected using a questionnaire consisting of 7-point Likert scale questions. The questions covered five variables: perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PE), usage attitude (ATU), flow theory (FT), and behavioral intention (BI). The questionnaire was administered to a purposive sample of 1,190 students from three vocational high schools in central Taiwan. The students participated in a 120-minute experiment.

For data analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was employed, revealing that all seven paths between the five "latent variables" reached statistical significance. Additionally, partial mediation effects were identified in the following relationships:

1. PE → FT → ATU
2. PU → FT → ATU
3. FT → ATU → BI

In addition to the questionnaire, qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 randomly selected students. Based on the qualitative analysis of students' responses, it was found that VR teaching stimulates creative thinking and sustainable learning.

Comments and Suggestions for Improvement:

• Student participation in the experiment was limited to 120 minutes. Such a short intervention period might result in a novelty effect, which implies that the positive impact of new experiences on students' learning outcomes could be temporary (Chwo et al., 2018). It would be beneficial to discuss this in the Research Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research section.
• The study mentions that an experiment was conducted, but it does not specify the type of experimental research design. Providing further clarification on the experimental methodology would improve transparency.
• Table 2 lists questions related to PE, PU, and FT, but questions concerning ATU and BI are not included. These should be added for completeness.
• The quantitative results are presented, but there is a lack of discussion. It would be helpful to explain the significance of the findings for teaching practices and connect them to results from other studies, which should be added to the reference list.
• The text refers several times to the effectiveness of Virtual Reality Teaching. However, it is questionable to what extent effectiveness can be determined based solely on a Likert-scale questionnaire. A more accurate term would be "perceived usefulness" rather than "effectiveness".
• The qualitative findings provide valuable complementary insights to the quantitative analysis. Including examples of students’ interview responses would strengthen the discussion.

With appropriate revisions based on these suggestions, the paper is acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Please go ahead and paste 

Thanks to the reviewer’s affirmation and encouragement.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a case study of virtual reality teaching adopted for a hair-braiding course and introduces the VR Impact Assessment method, based on Flow Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model. The authors combine variables from both models and apply Confirmatory Factor Analysis to examine the relationships between the variables. The study is conducted at a high level. However, there are some comments regarding the content and the accuracy of the text.

1) The article does not adequately address the topic of qualitative research analysis. On one hand, the authors state that "interviews were also conducted to understand the opinions and suggestions of students after participating in this research course." On the other hand, the article does not provide the interview questions, sample responses, or any classification of the answers. The conclusions presented by the authors in section 5.2, based on the interview results, are not supported by any evidence in the article.

2) In section 4.5, several conclusions are drawn, such as "This means that the immersion of VR learning is more important than 'perceived usefulness (PU)'." It is necessary to clarify the basis on which such conclusions are made. From the calculations presented immediately above, it is evident only that there is a moderate mediation effect of FLOW in the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, with the highest identified VAF being below 50%.

3) It is necessary to clearly and accurately present conclusions regarding the validity of research hypotheses H1–H10. The results of testing hypotheses H8–H10 are not explicitly stated, while for hypotheses H1–H7, it is mentioned in line 444 that they are "supported." It appears that the authors intended to say that the hypotheses were rejected.

4) In the article, synonymous terms are used for the same latent variables—for example, the variable "Attitude to use" is also referred to as "Usage attitude." It is important to use consistent terminology for each variable to avoid confusing the reader.

5) From the perspective of logical structure, it would be better to move section 2.6 after section 2.2.

6) In section 6.1, the phrases "The influence of 'perceived ease of use' and 'perceived usefulness' is clear" and "The impact of the 'flow' experience is quite significant" are not entirely appropriate from a linguistic standpoint. It is necessary to specify what these factors are influencing.

7) I suggest renaming Table 1 because it includes descriptions of the variable but does not include information about their significance.

8) In section 4.2, the abbreviation "CR" is used for both "composite reliability" and "comprehensive reliability." It is necessary to clarify what is meant by "comprehensive reliability." If it refers to the same metric as "composite reliability," only one term should be used—preferably the established term "composite reliability"—to avoid confusion.

9) Table 2 needs to be reformatted to make it more compact.

10) The authors need to carefully proofread the text for typos and incorrect formulations. For example, in section 4.5, PU and PE are clearly confused in several places; in lines 418–428, two sentences are duplicated; and in line 372, it is stated that the study includes seven latent variables, which appears to be inconsistent.

Author Response

Please go ahead and paste 

Thanks to the reviewer’s affirmation and encouragement.

1)Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. This item has been revised, as detailed in Section 5.2. LL-639-707

2)Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. This item has been revised, as detailed in Section 4.5. LL-515-543

3)Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. This item has been corrected. LL-442-489

4)Thank you for the reviewer's suggestions. This item has been corrected as "Attitude to use".

5)Thank you for the review committee's suggestions. Section 2.2 and Section 2.6 have been swapped. LL-97；LL-178

6)Thank you for your suggestions. According to the revised paragraphs requested, we have revised the sentences in Section 6.1 to clarify them: "The influence of 'perceived ease of use' and 'perceived usefulness' is clear" and "The impact of the 'flow' experience is quite significant". LL-711-739

7)Thank you for the review committee's suggestions. After careful consideration and comparison, the content of this section has been simplified, and the content of Table 1 has been deleted.

8)Thank you for the review committee's suggestions. According to the PLS statistics textbook (Chang, 2021), CR refers to Composite Reliability. Therefore, the CR values ​​in this paper are all Composite Reliability values.

9)Thank you for the suggestions from the review committee. After thorough consideration, Table 2 has been deleted. LL-412

10)Thank you for your comments and suggestions. The revisions we have done are as follows. LL-372; LL-381

i) The manuscript has been carefully proofread, and all typos have been cleared. The format has been corrected as the Sustainability journal is required. ii) Section 4.5, PU, and PE were confused in several places but have now been corrected. iii) In Lines 418–428, two sentences are duplicated: That error has been cleared.

iv) Line 372 states that the study includes seven latent variables. That wrong statement has been corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors thoroughly addressed all my comments. Additionally I can only recommend to use the more common phrase "reject the hypothesis " instead of "overturn the hypothesis".