Design and Development of Interactive Software Models for Teaching Coding Theory: A Case Study on Hamming Codes—General Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the entire process of designing, developing, and evaluating an interactive software model for the general algorithm of Hamming codes. It reads more like a detailed record of the software development process, which is interesting to see transformed into a research paper.

Overall, the paper is well-written and provides a lot of detail. However, I have a few suggestions for improvement:

1. In the introduction, there is extensive background on Hamming codes, but I would like to see more discussion on the development of teaching software, particularly interactive software or even non-interactive teaching software.
2. In line 64, the notation (8,4) is unclear. Consider either clarifying its meaning or removing it if unnecessary.
3. In lines 60–61, references are needed for the mentioned applications.
4. In lines 49–50, are other models published? If so, please provide references. If not, this discussion might be more appropriate in the future work section of the conclusion or discussion.
5. Line 129: Should this line be listed as a bullet point after line 120, or should it be rewritten as a separate sentence?
6. The abbreviation (CC) in line 222 should be moved to line 221 where it first appears.
7. Why does equation (7) hold? A reference or explanation would be helpful.
8. In line 279, how is d_dim = 3 determined? Please provide additional details or a reference.
9. In Tables 5 and 6, would it be possible to align "Control" and "Experimental" as columns, with each row representing one statistical value? This would make comparisons easier.
10. In Figure 16, why do the frequencies of 5.25 and 5.75 appear as nonzero for the control group but zero for the experimental group? Is this due to differences in criteria?

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried to satisfy all your comments and recommendations and made appropriate corrections in the manuscript.

The relevant text in connection with the comments made by the reviewers is added to the article.

Dear Reviewer,  you can find your recommendations/comments and our responses to them in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents the design and development of interactive software models for teaching coding theory, using Hamming codes as a case study. It introduces a general methodology for creating educational tools, develops four software models suitable for both online and face-to-face classroom settings, and evaluates the system through pedagogical experiments, including ANCOVA analysis, task performance metrics, and student surveys. The results demonstrate improved student engagement and performance, suggesting potential applicability to a wider range of coding techniques and disciplines.
While the study provides a thorough technical account of the system's development and evaluation, supported by openly shared experimental data, the manuscript currently reads more like a technical report than an academic paper. A key limitation is the lack of a clear articulation of the study's contributions and innovations. Addressing these issues would significantly enhance the scholarly impact of the work. Although the study is educationally valuable, it requires a clearer presentation of its academic contributions and more rigorous experimental validation to meet the standards of a scholarly publication.
This reviewer recommends publication after addressing the following concerns:
1. The paper mentions UI design and task-solving guides but does not clarify whether these features underwent iterative refinement, such as user testing or A/B testing. While the current experiments evaluate the system holistically, additional data on the effectiveness of individual modules would strengthen the claims.
2. Figure 19 claims to demonstrate the system's effectiveness but lacks a comparison with traditional teaching methods or existing tools. To validate superiority, the authors should include a control group and contrast their performance metrics.
3. The experimental results in Figure 20 do not account for potential differences in task difficulty. Are the first three tasks comparable in complexity to the last three tasks? If not, the observed performance differences may reflect task difficulty rather than learning gains. 
4. The reference list contains redundant {#} tags.
5. The ANCOVA analysis section currently relies heavily on raw statistical outputs from the software. It is recommended that the authors interpret and summarize these results in their own words, emphasizing their practical significance and implications for teaching and learning.
6. The final chapter is titled "Discussion" but should be renamed "Conclusion." This section should be restructured to concisely summarize key findings, contributions, and limitations.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have tried to satisfy all your comments and recommendations and made appropriate corrections in the manuscript.

The relevant text in connection with the comments made by the reviewers is added to the article.

Dear Reviewer,  you can find your recommendations/comments and our responses to them in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for revising. It is good for me. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript has adequately addressed my previous comments and demonstrates significant quality improvements. However, I would like to note that in standard academic writing, the Conclusion section should typically appear as the final chapter of the paper, rather than placing the Discussion section last. Please adjust the section ordering accordingly.
The manuscript meets the publication standards of Applied Sciences.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for his constructive feedback and valuable recommendations, which significantly improved our manuscript.

On the last note, we have made the necessary repositioning so that the Conclusion section is the last point, in accordance with the standards of academic writing.