The Practice of Augmented Reality in Islamic Education and the Level of Motivation Among UAE Secondary School Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the document provides a solid initial framework but requires significant adjustments in terms of updating references, methodological specificity, and accuracy in the use of APA style. Reviewing the aforementioned aspects is recommended to enhance the academic rigour and validity of the study.

Abstract

The abstract is well-written and adequately covers the main aspects of the research. It provides a clear and concise summary that allows the reader to understand the key points of the study.

Keywords

From my perspective, some of the keywords are too general. For instance, the term "motivation" is broad and could be replaced or complemented with more specific terms that accurately reflect the thematic focus of the research.

Introduction

The introduction is appropriately developed, contextualising the topic of augmented reality and its relationship with motivation. However, it is noticeable that the initial references used to support the theoretical framework are studies over ten years old (Nawfal, 2010; Catenazzi and Sommaruga, 2013). Considering that the field of augmented reality has seen significant advancements in recent years, it would be advisable to include more recent studies that reflect the current state of knowledge.

Similarly, regarding motivation, one of the cited works is nearly 15 years old (Al Sanea, 2008). Updating the references with contemporary research addressing this concept in current contexts is recommended.

Methodology

The methodology section contains certain omissions that should be addressed to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the research process:

Sample selection criteria: The criteria used to determine the sample are not explained. It would be helpful to provide details on what is meant by "purposive sampling".

Questionnaire validation: There is no mention of whether the questionnaire underwent a validation process or if a pilot study was conducted to ensure its reliability and validity.

Variables: The selected variables for the study are not defined, nor is a clear description provided. This is essential for understanding the structure of the analysis performed.

Questionnaire: Including information about the main characteristics and questions of the questionnaire would be useful to evaluate its relevance and appropriateness in relation to the research objectives.

Literature Review

The literature review is presented as an important section but lacks certain essential methodological elements:

Inclusion and exclusion criteria: The criteria used to select the reviewed documents are not specified.

Review protocol: The type of review conducted (systematic review, scoping review, among others) should be stated, and the protocol followed should be described.

Sources: The consulted databases and search criteria are not mentioned. This detail is crucial to ensure the transparency and reproducibility of the analysis.

Conceptualisation of Augmented Reality

Although concepts of augmented reality are presented, most of the references cited are more than a decade old. This field has developed significantly, so it would be advisable to include more recent studies reflecting technological advancements and new applications of this technology.

Concept of Motivation

Similarly, the concept of motivation is mainly based on older studies. Since this topic has also been consistently studied in recent years, it would be beneficial to update the references with more recent research.

Results

The assessment of the results is limited by the methodological shortcomings highlighted earlier. Nevertheless, it is noted that of the 38 documents analysed, 23 are over ten years old, indicating the need to strengthen the study with more current research. Only seven documents are less than five years old, which may compromise the relevance of the analysis conducted.

APA Style

Errors in the application of APA style were identified. It is necessary to review all in-text citations and references to ensure full compliance with established standards. For example, the citation "Alwan, A. & Khaled A. (2010)" should be written as "Alwan & Khaled (2010)" in accordance with APA guidelines. A thorough review is recommended to correct these issues.

 

Author Response

Thank you for sharing the feedback of the reviewers. We have revised and rephrased many statements to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Arguments: The author argues that using AR in Islamic education improves rates of engagement among students. The effectiveness of AR varies according to the students ages and genders and the teacher's knowledge of how to use AR in the classroom.

While the general argument is fine, I finished reading the article without ever understanding how AR is being used specifically in Islamic education. The article's conclusions would be stronger if the authors could explain what activities in Islamic education incorporate AR. Is AR being used constantly or only in specific activities. What subjects within Islamic education were augmented through the use of AR? In what kinds of AR activities were the students being interviewed taking part?

Methodology and Approach: The authors use sample groups of students to assess how effectively AR engages students. The methodology is explained clearly and makes sense for the questions that the authors are trying to answer. The methodology is comparable to methodologies used with other research projects addressing the same and similar issues.

Scholarly literature: The literature that the authors' cite is appropriate to the topic they are researching. The authors succeed in showing how their own research engages with previous research on AR in the classroom and how their research is covering new ground.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the text is mostly fine. There are some stray words and odd turns of phrase, especially in the abstract. The paper would benefit from being read over and copyedited.

Author Response

Thank you for sharing the feedback of the reviewers. We have revised and rephrased many statements to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf