Augmented Reality in English Language Acquisition Among Gifted Learners: A Systematic Scoping Review (2020–2025)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is well written, and I did not identify any significant issues. The research questions are clearly stated. This systematic review on the use of AR in ESL/EFL learning among gifted learners was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, which is appropriate. The Results and Discussion and conclusions sections are also appropriate. However, there are several technical issues:
- The use of the abbreviation “AR” is not consistent.
- Please delete the first two sentences (page 6, lines 206-208) in the Results section (“This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”).
- The Patents section (page 11, line 451) is unnecessary.
The research questions (three in total) are clearly stated on page 3 of the manuscript.
The topic is relevant. Although there are already similar published systematic reviews, this one approaches the subject from the perspective of gifted learners.
It contributes by focusing specifically on gifted learners, a perspective rarely addressed in previous studies.
The methodology is appropriate, as the systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.
The Discussion and Conclusions sections are appropriate and consistent with the results of the systematic review.
The references are appropriate.
I have no additional comments.
Author Response
Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all the comments and suggestions, which have undoubtedly improved the clarity and quality of the study. Detailed responses to each point are provided below, and the corresponding revisions are highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: The manuscript is well written, and I did not identify any significant issues. The research questions are clearly stated. This systematic review on the use of AR in ESL/EFL learning among gifted learners was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, which is appropriate. The Results and Discussion and conclusions sections are also appropriate. However, there are several technical issues.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your positive feedback on the overall quality, clarity, and structure of the manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the research questions and methodology. We have carefully addressed the technical issues you mentioned in the subsequent comments, and all necessary corrections have been implemented in the revised version.
Comment 2: The use of the abbreviation “AR” is not consistent.
Response 2: Done. The use of the abbreviation “AR” has been carefully revised throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency. Exceptions have been made in specific instances where mentioning the full term was considered important to emphasise the concept, such as the first time it appears in the abstract and in the body of the manuscript, and in the search strategies (see page 4).
Comment 3: Please delete the first two sentences (page 6, lines 206-208) in the Results section (“This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.”).
Response 3: This was a mistake when transferring the manuscript to the template. It has now been corrected (see page 6). Thank you for pointing it out.
Comment 4: The Patents section (page 11, line 451) is unnecessary.
Response 4: It has been removed (see page 12). Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Comment 5: The research questions (three in total) are clearly stated on page 3 of the manuscript.
Response 5: Thank you very much. Likewise, we have clarified on page 3 what the main research question guiding the study was, from which the three sub-questions were developed.
Comment 6: The topic is relevant. Although there are already similar published systematic reviews, this one approaches the subject from the perspective of gifted learners. It contributes by focusing specifically on gifted learners, a perspective rarely addressed in previous studies.
Response 6: Thank you for your reflection. As you mention, there is nothing similar, since we initially attempted to conduct the review using a single search strategy combining all three terms, but we did not find any results, neither in terms of reviews nor experimental studies (see explanation on page 4 of the manuscript).
Comment 7: The methodology is appropriate, as the systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines.
Response 7: Thank you.
Comment 8: The Discussion and Conclusions sections are appropriate and consistent with the results of the systematic review.
Response 8: Thank you.
Comment 9: The references are appropriate.
Response 9: Thank you.
Comment 10: I have no additional comments.
Response 10: As you can see, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that our proposed modifications will be received positively.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The synthesis of your review raises several points that should be addressed for clarity and alignment with the paper’s stated objectives.
While the review aims to focus on AR, only a small number of the 38 included studies actually implemented AR interventions, and even fewer examined its use among gifted learners. Most AR-related studies have focused on general ESL populations and have not isolated giftedness as a variable or conducted subgroup analyses.
As a result, the review is more deeply centered on the traits, needs, and learning strategies of gifted students, with AR appearing more as a supportive element than a central theme. Although its benefits, such as increased motivation, vocabulary retention, and learner autonomy, are acknowledged, these are presented as broadly applicable rather than specifically tailored to gifted learners.
The review does not offer strong empirical evidence that AR is uniquely effective for this population. Although a theoretical alignment is proposed, the reviewed studies do not establish a direct, evidence-based link between AR use and improved outcomes for gifted students.
This highlights a clear gap in the literature: few studies directly explore the intersection of AR and giftedness in second-language acquisition.
Addressing these points more explicitly in the discussion or limitations section would enhance the coherence of the review and bring it more in line with its intended focus.
Author Response
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The synthesis of your review raises several points that should be addressed for clarity and alignment with the paper’s stated objectives.
Response 1: Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your constructive feedback and have carefully considered your suggestions to improve clarity and ensure alignment with the stated objectives of the paper. Detailed responses to each point are provided below.
Comment 2: While the review aims to focus on augmented reality (AR), only a small number of the 38 included studies actually implemented AR interventions, and even fewer examined its use among gifted learners. Most AR-related studies have focused on general ESL populations and have not isolated giftedness as a variable or conducted subgroup analyses.
Response 2: This is due to the use of three distinct search strategies. When attempting a single search strategy combining all three terms, no results were retrieved (see explanatory note on page 4). Consequently, some studies addressed both giftedness and ESL, others focused on ESL and AR, and others examined giftedness and AR. After the screening process, no articles combined giftedness and AR. This represents one of the main limitations of the current literature, yet it also highlights the relevance of this review and points to promising avenues for future research and implementation. These limitations are further discussed in the Discussion section (see page 11).
Comment 3: As a result, the review is more deeply centered on the traits, needs, and learning strategies of gifted students, with AR appearing more as a supportive element than a central theme. Although its benefits, such as increased motivation, vocabulary retention, and learner autonomy, are acknowledged, these are presented as broadly applicable rather than specifically tailored to gifted learners.
Response 3: We partially agree with this comment. As mentioned in the previous response, no articles remained from the third search strategy (giftedness and AR) after screening, which prevents drawing evidence-based conclusions regarding the specific benefits of AR for gifted learners (see Discussion, Response to Q2, page 11). Nevertheless, through an interpretative process based on previous literature, the discussion section explores the potential implications that the use of AR may have for gifted students, particularly in terms of motivation, vocabulary retention, and learner autonomy. This limitation has also been explicitly addressed in the “Limitations” section of the study.
Comment 4: The review does not offer strong empirical evidence that AR is uniquely effective for this population. Although a theoretical alignment is proposed, the reviewed studies do not establish a direct, evidence-based link between AR use and improved outcomes for gifted students.This highlights a clear gap in the literature: few studies directly explore the intersection of AR and giftedness in second-language acquisition. Addressing these points more explicitly in the discussion or limitations section would enhance the coherence of the review and bring it more in line with its intended focus.
Response 4: We fully agree, and thank you for highlighting this point. It has been addressed in the Discussion section (page 11).
As you can see, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that our proposed modifications will be received positively.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is a very interesting overview of research on the use of Augmented Reality in English language learning by gifted learners. On the one hand, this is a valuable contribution to the study of applying Augmented Reality to language learning, but on the other hand, some corrections would be advisable, in particular, to clarify those elements to the reader.
First of all, the summary of the studies analysed in the article and their main findings are not included in the article, but in the supplementary file. Unless the limit on the number of characters prevents this, it would be better to include a summary of those studies (like the one in the supplementary file, or slightly shortened) in an appendix at the end of the article, so that the reader does not have to look for them on their own (some readers may not have access to them). Similarly, describing the study by Wen et al. (2022), the Authors write: ‘Becoming a polyglot results from a combination of cognitive, affective, and contextual factors rather than innate talent.’ This begs the question of what they mean by ‘a polyglot.’ As their study focuses on English language learning, one might wonder whether Wen et al. also mean learning English, or perhaps learning multiple languages; regarding a polyglot (not a bilingual), the latter would be the case. In the bibliography, indeed, the title of the article refers to polyglots, but in would be interesting to elaborate a little more on that. It is also mentioned on page 6 as reference number [22], but, again, as the study mostly focuses on learning English as a foreign or second language, ‘becoming a polyglot’ might require an explanation.
As for the article itself, I have the following remarks:
1. The Authors state they analyse the acquisition of English by gifted learners, as defined by Renzulli’s Three-Ring Model, analysed by Tourón. However, the description indicates that they mean gifted learners in general (gifted for any subject, not just English or another foreign language). I would suggest including the notion of language aptitude because it refers to a specific talent for languages, as learners gifted for other subjects may not necessarily be linguistically gifted. In fact, it would be good to specify whether the Authors mean linguistically gifted learners (and thus possessing a high level of language aptitude) or else, ones gifted for any subject.
2. On page 1, the Authors say: ‘First, students with a high level of intelligence are capable of abstract thinking (…).’ In fact, abstract thinking develops with age and young children, even gifted ones, are less capable of abstract thinking than teenagers and adults. It should be specified at what age those learners should be. Do the Authors mean ‘university students’ by ‘students’? Or at least secondary-school students?
3. (Page 2) ‘Finally, high-performing students often demonstrate a high level of creativity, (…).’ Do the Authors use ‘gifted’ and ‘high-performing’ interchangeably? Do these terms mean the same?
4. Further on page 2, the Authors say: ‘A study [2] compared the performance of gifted children with that of typically developing children, showing that gifted children stand out not only for their intelligence but also for differences in brain physiology, motivation, and their approach to learning.’ In the context of Tourón’s article cited in the previous paragraph, the reader may think it is another study, but, surprisingly, in the bibliography, [2] stands for the same article by Tourón and one might wonder whether Tourón’s study is presented as ‘a study’ (possibly a different one), or whether it is a study cited by Tourón which does not appear in the references. Moreover, the sentence cited above should be integrated with the whole paragraph, as a paragraph should not consist of a single sentence.
5. The following paragraph seems a little self-contradictory: ‘When it comes to social and emotional characteristics, they may experience asynchronous development, meaning their emotional and social development might not align with their intellectual development, which can make it harder for them to form friendships [11]. Socio-emotional development is not a separate or parallel phenomenon but an integral component of giftedness. Rather than viewing cognitive and socio-emotional dimensions in isolation, Sternberg argues that giftedness emerges from the dynamic interplay between the individual, the tasks they engage in, and the surrounding context [12].’ On the one hand, socio-emotional development may not align with intellectual development, and on the other hand, socio-emotional development is an integral component of giftedness. In what way? Is it a component of giftedness that is separate from intelligence? Or is it confused with, for example, different interests (for example, gifted children may prefer reading to playing with classmates who are only interested in e.g. watching TV, which might be confused with introversion or even low socio-emotional development?)
6. (Page 2) ‘In this regard, some authors [16] stated (…)’ Even though reference [16] is given in full in the bibliography, I would suggest including those authors’ names, e.g.: In this regard, Al-Khasawneh and Al-Omari [16] stated...
7. In the description of the aim of the review, the Authors state that the research question is based on the SPICE components, but they do not explain clearly enough what the acronym SPICE refers to. The order seems different: I (augmented reality), S (in English acquisition environments), P (influence gifted students), etc. If this is an acronym in a language other than English, it should be stated.
8. Following the main research question, which the Authors seem to define as the only research question (‘Thus, the research question, based on the SPICE components, that guides this study is as follows’), there are three more specific questions, Q1, Q2 and Q3. I would suggest adding the sentence: Specifically, it is attempted to answer the following research questions: (and then give Q1, Q2 and Q3).
In fact, in the Discussion and conclusions section, the Authors mention three research questions, which proves that there was not one research question, but three, and the first one (described as ‘the research question’) was only a general one (that is why I suggest calling it the main research question.)
9. On page 4, the Authors say: ‘or if they were part of the grey literature, such as conference abstracts, proceedings, dissertations, training materials, book chapters, or other non-peer-reviewed sources.’ Are book chapters not reviewed? What about edited volumes? In fact, dissertations are also reviewed, but they are different from articles (much longer and more detailed, as in the case of e.g. doctoral dissertations).
10. On page 5, the Authors present the PRISMA flow diagram, but they do not indicate whether it is their own diagram, taken from Tricco et al. (2018), or perhaps adapted from Tricco et al. (2018).
11. The results begin with the following sentence: ‘This section may be divided by subheadings.’ This does not have to be written, and the reader will see the subheadings anyway. A better option would be: ‘This section aims to provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the conclusions that can be drawn.’ I would not say ‘the experimental conclusions’ here, as the Authors conduct no experiment, they only review existing studies.
12. On page 6, the Authors observe: ‘Therefore, learners’ L2 Willingness to Communicate (WTC) fluctuates according to a combination of personal and contextual factors (…)’ There is nothing about Willingness to Communicate in the previous paragraph, and, in fact, Willingness to Communicate is introduced here as a new concept. It is not the same as motivation (which is indeed mentioned in the previous paragraph), even though it is connected with it.
13. ‘When it comes to oral expression, learners with higher proficiency tend to employ more advanced communicative strategies, including metacognitive and socio-affective approaches [28].’
This is quite inconsistent, as ‘learners with higher proficiency’ are not necessarily the same as ‘gifted learners.’ Of course, gifted learners may achieve higher proficiency more easily, but they do not necessarily have it yet (think of gifted beginners), and, on the other hand, less gifted learners may also achieve higher proficiency. (Again, one might ask what they are gifted for. Languages? Mathematics? All subjects more or less equally…?) The same problem appears on page 7: ‘When writing, advanced EFL students frequently relied on mental and partial translation (L1 to L2) as scaffolding to express complex ideas (…)’ Are they advanced or gifted? Or both?
14. (Page 7). ‘When talking about the different oral performance tasks, personal tasks boosted flu-
ency and accuracy (…)’ It is not very clear what the Authors mean by ‘personal tasks.’ They should be defined.
15. Regarding gifted learners, on page 7, the Authors say: ‘However, the implicit acquisition of advanced morphosyntactic structures continues to be a challenge, particularly when grammatical features have no equivalent in the learners’ first language [35, 36].’ What about learners with high language aptitude? After all, language aptitude includes the aptitude for learning grammar.
16. ‘The application of AR environments to translation and writing tasks enhanced textual comprehension and written expression [42]. Besides, this technology supported the development of literacy through storytelling and books [40, 43, 45].’ Are books also part of Augmented Reality?
17. On page 10, the Authors conclude: ‘In sum, gifted learners tend to attain higher L2 proficiency, particularly in oral communication and phraseological development, when exposed to interactive and authentic learning contexts. To build on these strengths, curricula should also incorporate targeted support for complex grammatical structures, ensuring that advanced learners are challenged while fostering progress in all students.’
Since the study officially focused on the use of Augmented Reality in English language learning, one might wonder whether curricula should also incorporate Augmented Reality (if so, in what way?). Moreover, the Authors earlier remark: ‘Gifted students reported prioritising oral communication skills, particularly speaking and listening, as essential for their language development [26]. However, they perceived that classroom instruction was mainly oriented towards exam preparation, with an emphasis on grammar and reading tasks’ (p. 7). In this case, incorporating complex grammar structures might seem challenging if gifted learners perceive them as less useful. Should Augmented Reality involve the use of complex grammar structures, so that learners can use them in communication without realising that they are learning grammar?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The Authors' English is generally good, but certain elements are either unclear or stylistically awkward, that is why I have suggested some corrections, which are included in the attached file.
Author Response
Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript in such a detailed and thoughtful way. We sincerely appreciate all the comments and constructive feedback, which not only improved the clarity and quality of the study but also prompted deep reflection on several key aspects of our work. Your insights added significant value to the manuscript and helped us refine both its structure and content. Detailed responses to each point are provided below, and the corresponding revisions are highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: The article is a very interesting overview of research on the use of Augmented Reality in English language learning by gifted learners. On the one hand, this is a valuable contribution to the study of applying Augmented Reality to language learning, but on the other hand, some corrections would be advisable, in particular, to clarify those elements to the reader.
Response 1: Thank you very much.
Comment 2: First of all, the summary of the studies analysed in the article and their main findings are not included in the article, but in the supplementary file. Unless the limit on the number of characters prevents this, it would be better to include a summary of those studies (like the one in the supplementary file, or slightly shortened) in an appendix at the end of the article, so that the reader does not have to look for them on their own (some readers may not have access to them).
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. A slightly condensed version has been incorporated into Appendix A at the end of the manuscript.
Comment 3: Similarly, describing the study by Wen et al. (2022), the Authors write: ‘Becoming a polyglot results from a combination of cognitive, affective, and contextual factors rather than innate talent.’ This begs the question of what they mean by ‘a polyglot.’ As their study focuses on English language learning, one might wonder whether Wen et al. also mean learning English, or perhaps learning multiple languages; regarding a polyglot (not a bilingual), the latter would be the case. In the bibliography, indeed, the title of the article refers to polyglots, but it would be interesting to elaborate a little more on that. It is also mentioned on page 6 as reference number [22], but, again, as the study mostly focuses on learning English as a foreign or second language, ‘becoming a polyglot’ might require an explanation.
Response 3: This aspect has been revised (see page 6, section 3.2.1).
Comment 4: The Authors state they analyse the acquisition of English by gifted learners, as defined by Renzulli’s Three-Ring Model, analysed by Tourón. However, the description indicates that they mean gifted learners in general (gifted for any subject, not just English or another foreign language). I would suggest including the notion of language aptitude because it refers to a specific talent for languages, as learners gifted for other subjects may not necessarily be linguistically gifted. In fact, it would be good to specify whether the Authors mean linguistically gifted learners (and thus possessing a high level of language aptitude) or else, ones gifted for any subject.
Response 4: Our focus is on gifted learners in general, rather than specifically on verbal or linguistic talent. In our theoretical framework, when discussing linguistic characteristics (reference [13]/Md Yunus, 2013), we refer broadly to “gifted” learners. The keyword “talented” was used to represent subtypes within the gifted population (Castelló & Batlle, 1998; also seen in Hornstra, 2023) and to allow inclusion of studies addressing complex talent when relevant. Additionally, “advanced learners” was used to capture students with advanced cognitive development, creativity, and related characteristics (as mentioned in Vaivre-Douret, 2011). Although learners with simple verbal talent were not originally the focus, many included studies refer to “advanced EFL learners,” which can be interpreted as linguistically gifted, and their inclusion was considered necessary.
Comment 5: On page 1, the Authors say: ‘First, students with a high level of intelligence are capable of abstract thinking (…).’ In fact, abstract thinking develops with age and young children, even gifted ones, are less capable of abstract thinking than teenagers and adults. It should be specified at what age those learners should be. Do the Authors mean ‘university students’ by ‘students’? Or at least secondary-school students?
Response 5: This has been revised (see page 2, line 49).
Comment 6: (Page 2) ‘Finally, high-performing students often demonstrate a high level of creativity, (…).’ Do the Authors use ‘gifted’ and ‘high-performing’ interchangeably? Do these terms mean the same?
Response 6: We agree that there was some confusion. Two synonyms were used in the text that were not equivalent in meaning. This has now been corrected (see page 2, line 53).
Comment 7: Further on page 2, the Authors say: ‘A study [2] compared the performance of gifted children with that of typically developing children, showing that gifted children stand out not only for their intelligence but also for differences in brain physiology, motivation, and their approach to learning.’ In the context of Tourón’s article cited in the previous paragraph, the reader may think it is another study, but, surprisingly, in the bibliography, [2] stands for the same article by Tourón and one might wonder whether Tourón’s study is presented as ‘a study’ (possibly a different one), or whether it is a study cited by Tourón which does not appear in the references. Moreover, the sentence cited above should be integrated with the whole paragraph, as a paragraph should not consist of a single sentence. Response 7: There was an error in this reference, which has now been corrected (see page 2, line 58).
Comment 8: The following paragraph seems a little self-contradictory: ‘When it comes to social and emotional characteristics, they may experience asynchronous development, meaning their emotional and social development might not align with their intellectual development, which can make it harder for them to form friendships [11]. Socio-emotional development is not a separate or parallel phenomenon but an integral component of giftedness. Rather than viewing cognitive and socio-emotional dimensions in isolation, Sternberg argues that giftedness emerges from the dynamic interplay between the individual, the tasks they engage in, and the surrounding context [12].’ On the one hand, socio-emotional development may not align with intellectual development, and on the other hand, socio-emotional development is an integral component of giftedness. In what way? Is it a component of giftedness that is separate from intelligence? Or is it confused with, for example, different interests (for example, gifted children may prefer reading to playing with classmates who are only interested in e.g. watching TV, which might be confused with introversion or even low socio-emotional development?)
Response 8: It has been clarified (see page 2, line 83).
Comment 9: (Page 2) ‘In this regard, some authors [16] stated (…)’ Even though reference [16] is given in full in the bibliography, I would suggest including those authors’ names, e.g.: In this regard, Al-Khasawneh and Al-Omari [16] stated…
Response 9: Thank you for the suggestion. We were unsure whether this was correct. It has now been modified accordingly (see page 3, line 107).
Comment 10: In the description of the aim of the review, the Authors state that the research question is based on the SPICE components, but they do not explain clearly enough what the acronym SPICE refers to. The order seems different: I (augmented reality), S (in English acquisition environments), P (influence gifted students), etc. If this is an acronym in a language other than English, it should be stated.
Response 10: This has been modified and clarified for better understanding. However, we are not sure whether the change in formulation order affects its compliance with the SPICE framework (see page 3, line 130).
Comment 11: Following the main research question, which the Authors seem to define as the only research question (‘Thus, the research question, based on the SPICE components, that guides this study is as follows’), there are three more specific questions, Q1, Q2 and Q3. I would suggest adding the sentence: Specifically, it is attempted to answer the following research questions: (and then give Q1, Q2 and Q3).
In fact, in the Discussion and conclusions section, the Authors mention three research questions, which proves that there was not one research question, but three, and the first one (described as ‘the research question’) was only a general one (that is why I suggest calling it the main research question.)
Response 11: We agree with this point. Thank you for highlighting it. It has been clarified (see page 3).
Comment 12: On page 4, the Authors say: ‘or if they were part of the grey literature, such as conference abstracts, proceedings, dissertations, training materials, book chapters, or other non-peer-reviewed sources.’ Are book chapters not reviewed? What about edited volumes? In fact, dissertations are also reviewed, but they are different from articles (much longer and more detailed, as in the case of e.g. doctoral dissertations).
Response 12: Only peer-reviewed articles were considered. We refered to any other type of source as “grey literature.” It has now been modified (see page 5, chart and explanations).
Comment 13: On page 5, the Authors present the PRISMA flow diagram, but they do not indicate whether it is their own diagram, taken from Tricco et al. (2018), or perhaps adapted from Tricco et al. (2018).
Response 13: Done, thank you.
Comment 14: The results begin with the following sentence: ‘This section may be divided by subheadings’. This does not have to be written, and the reader will see the subheadings anyway. A better option would be: ‘This section aims to provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the conclusions that can be drawn.’ I would not say ‘the experimental conclusions’ here, as the Authors conduct no experiment, they only review existing studies.
Response 14: This was a mistake. It had not been deleted. Thank you for mentioning it. It has now been removed (see Results-page 6).
Comment 15: On page 6, the Authors observe: ‘Therefore, learners’ L2 Willingness to Communicate (WTC) fluctuates according to a combination of personal and contextual factors (…)’ There is nothing about Willingness to Communicate in the previous paragraph, and, in fact, Willingness to Communicate is introduced here as a new concept. It is not the same as motivation (which is indeed mentioned in the previous paragraph), even though it is connected with it.
Response 15: It has been clarified and the cohesion between paragraphs has been improved (see page 6).
Comment 16: ‘When it comes to oral expression, learners with higher proficiency tend to employ more advanced communicative strategies, including metacognitive and socio-affective approaches [28].’ This is quite inconsistent, as ‘learners with higher proficiency’ are not necessarily the same as ‘gifted learners.’ Of course, gifted learners may achieve higher proficiency more easily, but they do not necessarily have it yet (think of gifted beginners), and, on the other hand, less gifted learners may also achieve higher proficiency. (Again, one might ask what they are gifted for. Languages? Mathematics? All subjects more or less equally…?) The same problem appears on page 7: ‘When writing, advanced EFL students frequently relied on mental and partial translation (L1 to L2) as scaffolding to express complex ideas (…)’ Are they advanced or gifted? Or both?
Response 16: As mentioned in Response 4, in the search strategy we used the term “advanced learners,” which also captured “advanced EFL learners,” a term that appears in most of the included studies. This is a broad topic, and our aim was to map it through a systematic scoping review. We proposed to systematically map and synthesise the existing literature on a broad topic. Thus, this study is useful for emerging or complex topics and can serve as a precursor to future research in the field.
Comment 17: (Page 7). ‘When talking about the different oral performance tasks, personal tasks boosted fluency and accuracy (…)’ It is not very clear what the Authors mean by ‘personal tasks.’ They should be defined.
Response 17: Clarified by adding an example (see page 7).
Comment 18: Regarding gifted learners, on page 7, the Authors say: ‘However, the implicit acquisition of advanced morphosyntactic structures continues to be a challenge, particularly when grammatical features have no equivalent in the learners’ first language [35, 36].’ What about learners with high language aptitude? After all, language aptitude includes the aptitude for learning grammar.
Response 18: We refer to gifted learners in general, not to any specific type of talent. As this is a scoping review, our primary aim was to map the existing scientific evidence regarding AR in gifted learners rather than to provide a detailed analysis of particular subgroups, such as learners with high language aptitude. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that language aptitude may influence the acquisition of morphosyntactic structures, and this aspect could be explored in future studies.
Comment 19: ‘The application of AR environments to translation and writing tasks enhanced textual comprehension and written expression [42]. Besides, this technology supported the development of literacy through storytelling and books [40, 43, 45].’ Are books also part of Augmented Reality?
Response 19: It has been clarified (page 8).
Comment 20: On page 10, the Authors conclude: ‘In sum, gifted learners tend to attain higher L2 proficiency, particularly in oral communication and phraseological development, when exposed to interactive and authentic learning contexts. To build on these strengths, curricula should also incorporate targeted support for complex grammatical structures, ensuring that advanced learners are challenged while fostering progress in all students.’
Since the study officially focused on the use of Augmented Reality in English language learning, one might wonder whether curricula should also incorporate Augmented Reality (if so, in what way?).
Response 20: This has been further elaborated in the Discussion section.
Comment 21: Moreover, the Authors earlier remark: ‘Gifted students reported prioritising oral communication skills, particularly speaking and listening, as essential for their language development [26]. However, they perceived that classroom instruction was mainly oriented towards exam preparation, with an emphasis on grammar and reading tasks’ (p. 7). In this case, incorporating complex grammar structures might seem challenging if gifted learners perceive them as less useful. Should Augmented Reality involve the use of complex grammar structures, so that learners can use them in communication without realising that they are learning grammar?
Response 21 : This has been further elaborated in the Discussion section.
Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
Thank you for the careful attention given to the manuscript and for providing such a comprehensive set of improvement suggestions through a detailed table. All corrections and enhancements have been implemented, except for the following.
- The phrase “particularly strongly impacted” was considered redundant due to the use of two intensifying adverbs. Therefore, we opted to retain only one for clarity and stylistic precision.
- The concepts included in the search strategy cannot be modified once the search has been conducted.
- A modification was suggested, replacing “contextual sentence use” with “the use of vocabulary in sentence context.” After careful consideration, we concluded that the original phrasing offered greater clarity and therefore chose to keep it unchanged.
As you can see, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that our proposed modifications will be received positively.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Reference
Castelló Tarrida, A., & de Batlle Estapé, C. (1998). Aspectos teóricos e instrumentales en la identificación del alumno superdotado y talentoso: Propuesta de un protocolo. Faisca: Revista de Altas Capacidades, (6), 26–66. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2476205
Hornstra, L., Mathijssen, A. C. S., Denissen, J. J. A., & Bakx, A. (2023). Academic motivation of intellectually gifted students and their classmates in regular primary school classes: A multidimensional, longitudinal, person- and variable-centered approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 107(102345), 102345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102345
Md Yunus, M., Ainil Sulaiman, N., & Amin Embi, M. (2013). Malaysian gifted students’ use of English language learning strategies. English Language Teaching, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n4p97
Vaivre-Douret L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of "high-level potentialities" (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 420297. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all the comments and suggestions, which have undoubtedly improved the clarity and quality of the study. Detailed responses to each point are provided below, and the corresponding revisions are highlighted in the re-submitted files.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comment 1: TITLE AND ABSTRACT: One of the missing information in the abstract is possible implications for the EFL/ESL class. Also the necessity for the scoping review needs to be underlined.
Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this point. It has been included in the abstract.
Comment 2: INTRODUCTION. The introduction is too long and seems to integrate info + studies on the use of AR by gifted students in other academic areas that should be separately reviewed in another section.
Response 2: The structure of the introduction, although not divided into explicit subsections, progresses from gifted learners in general, to their characteristics (with an emphasis on linguistic aspects) and finally to how these students behave in language classes. Only one AR study (focused on language learning) is mentioned, which serves as the starting point for this review. No other studies on the impact of AR in other academic areas are discussed. Therefore, we believe that mentioning this study in a separate section is not necessary, as it is already appropriately integrated within the preceding paragraphs and contributes meaningfully to the rationale of the review, also ensuring a reasonable extension of the introduction.
Comment 3: METHOD. I disagree - AR is part of XR but AR is different from MR and VR which also components of XR – you need to focus on all XR technologies, which means include more studies or stick with the use of AR in relation to its use by gifted EFL/ESL learners - please be specific.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We focused the review primarily on AR, while also including studies on MR and XR insofar as they incorporate AR, but we had not included studies solely on VR. When MR or XR studies were included, we specifically focused on the results or impact related to AR. Out of the 38 included articles, 4 did not focus exclusively on AR, but we concentrated on the aspects of these studies that pertain directly to AR. However, we have decided to focus on AR and we have excluded 4 articles that did not focus exclusively on AR, but rather on VR, MR, and/or XR. The final inclusion comprises 34 articles. The results and references have been adjusted to reflect the new context.
Comment 4: Also there is no table with all studies included in the study.
Response 4: Regarding the table of included studies, the table with the studies and their results (previously included as supplementary material) has been added to the manuscript in Appendix A.
Comment 5: RESULTS. The general description of the results’ section should be complemented with a figure or a table depicting all this information.
Response 5: As mentioned, the table with the results of the studies has been included in Appendix 4 of the manuscript.
Comment 6: Results could be presented and discussed per research question. Please be specific.
Response 6: Regarding the narrative synthesis of the results, they have been organised according to the different research questions proposed in the study and can be found at the beginning of each corresponding section. In some way, we have labeled them to clarify and facilitate reading.
Comment 7: DISCUSSION. ‘Moreover, only a small number of studies explicitly focused on gifted learners, and many did not clearly report the criteria used to identify giftedness, which constrains the applicability and generalizability of the findings’ – that is a grave limitation, so we cannot be sure how giftedness is defined in the reviewed studies – what is YOUR definition of giftedness?
Response 7: The identification of giftedness varies depending on the country, regulations, and/or the model used. Indeed, it is not a universal concept with a single, unified understanding. In most of the articles, the criteria for detecting or identifying gifted learners are not specified. In our case, we began by explaining the model on which we based our work (Renzulli's Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness), while also acknowledging other contemporary models that broaden the perspective on giftedness. For example, from Castelló and Batlle’s model, we are familiar with terms such as “linguistically gifted,” which subsequently appear in some of the studies included in this review.
Comment 8: Suggestions for future research should also be included in more detail.
Response 8: Thank you for your comment regarding the reflection in the suggestions for future research. We have expanded and further developed this perspective. Please see page 12.
Comment 9: A greater level of accuracy in the definitions of key words (e.g. giftedness) should be employed and therefore in the way authors select the empirical studies they want to focus.
Response 9: More emphasis has been placed on the terminology used, with a deeper discussion of theoretical models of giftedness and their main characteristics, particularly regarding linguistic development and second language acquisition.
Comment 10: The level of detail used in the reporting of results is minimal (e.g. give examples on the differences between gifted children and typically developing children in terms of L2 vocab acquisition, vocab retention rate etc).
Response 10: Thank you for your input. All possible data and comparisons have been added, particularly in the section comparing English teaching through AR versus traditional methods. However, among the studies included in the review, there are no comparisons of vocabulary outcomes between gifted and typically developing learners, so it was not possible to make the modification you suggested.
As you can see, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions provided. We hope that our proposed modifications will be received positively.
Yours faithfully,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
