Augmented Reality-Based English Language Learning: Importance and State of the Art

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript excels in that it not only provides a concise, personalized, first-person account of data collection during the time of COVID, it also provides a succinct comparison of different modes of language data collection. Both are things that I believe many researchers, especially graduate students, would highly appreciate! 

There are a couple of things, however, that I hope you can address:

·      The data collection and testing tools Wenjuanwang and Super Star Learning are primarily in Chinese, which makes them difficult for non-Chinese-speaking journal article readers to adopt or at least, relate with. This, in itself, is not a problem. However, more work needs to be done with respect to the framing of the paper. In a nutshell, the goals and the scope need to be more explicit. For example, is the goal of the paper only to describe the procedure and tools to a niche Chinese-speaking audience? Or did you also want to show the ways in which they can be adapted to non-Chinese-speaking readers, which seems to be what the title suggests? Are you talking about assessment in general (as the title suggests) or are you talking about the e-collection of vocabulary as used by EFL learners in China? You should make the scope of your paper clearer and make the necessary adjustments throughout the paper. For example, if you decided to only go for a highly contextualized, descriptive approach (i.e., “I am only going to show you my account of using these two vocabulary assessment tools in Chinese speakers”), you should perhaps change the title to include key words such as “Chinese”, “preliminary case study”, “EFL”, “vocabulary”, “individual reflections”, “language assessment”, etc. As it is, the title could be a bit misleading. The introduction and conclusion could also use some revision along those lines. I know you mention this in research project, but it should be foregrounded earlier. The scope and goals should be clear right from the start and perhaps restated in the conclusion. (I noticed that you compared modes, so this should also be part of your goals in the introduction!) If you opt for a more general approach, you will need to include a section discussing how readers can use the tools or follow the procedure you detailed. The latter seems to be more challenging, so I recommend the first.

·      What are the criteria for deciding whether the tool during pilot testing was successful and didn’t need to be pilot-tested again? Quantitative measures might help you with this. Perhaps if more than half did not report problems, then you could consider the piloting successful? Also, do you have data showing which system most participants preferred? This could also be part of the criteria.

·      Throughout the paper, raw counts are used. They are useful but can be hard to interpret in this context. Reporting percentages is recommended.

·      “The scores of these recordings from the two raters showed no statistical difference.” Based on what statistical test? You need to spend more time talking about how you went about this.

Here are some recommendations:

·      I recommend that some of the wording be changed or removed, as they can come across as non-academic. Some examples include “bumpy” (Introduction), “seemingly long-lasting hardship” (abstract).

·      A diagram showing the steps of the procedure(s) will be very helpful for readers. I recommend placing it before you discuss the procedure. 

·      The meat of the paper, in my opinion, is the comparison of methods/modes. A summary table showing the pros and cons of each mode might be useful.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewers Comments Responses

Electronics,

Title: Augmented Reality based Learning English Language: Im-portance and State of the Art.

July 29, 2022

Dear Editor

Many thanks for your time and efforts in handling our paper submission. We also would like to thank you for the opportunity you have given us for revision of the paper and response to the reviewers’ comments.

We truly appreciate the time and efforts of the reviewers in reviewing our submitted paper. We have carefully revised and updated our paper to address all received comments. Please refer to the subsequent pages for our detailed responses to the reviewers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript excels in that it not only provides a concise, personalized, first-person account of data collection during the time of COVID, it also provides a succinct comparison of different modes of language data collection. Both are things that I believe many researchers, especially graduate students, would highly appreciate! 

Thank you for this comment and compliment, and thank you for all your valuable comments and suggestions

There are a couple of things, however, that I hope you can address:

2. The data collection and testing tools Wenjuanwangand Super Star Learning are primarily in Chinese, which makes them difficult for non-Chinese-speaking journal article readers to adopt or at least, relate with. This, in itself, is not a problem. However, more work needs to be done with respect to the framing of the paper. In a nutshell, the goals and the scope need to be more explicit. For example, is the goal of the paper only to describe the procedure and tools to a niche Chinese-speaking audience? Or did you also want to show the ways in which they can be adapted to non-Chinese-speaking readers, which seems to be what the title suggests? Are you talking about assessment in general (as the title suggests) or are you talking about the e-collection of vocabulary as used by EFL learners in China? You should make the scope of your paper clearer and make the necessary adjustments throughout the paper. For example, if you decided to only go for a highly contextualized, descriptive approach (i.e., “I am only going to show you my account of using these two vocabulary assessment tools in Chinese speakers”), you should perhaps change the title to include key words such as “Chinese”, “preliminary case study”, “EFL”, “vocabulary”, “individual reflections”, “language assessment”, etc. As it is, the title could be a bit misleading. The introduction and conclusion could also use some revision along those lines. I know you mention this in research project, but it should be foregrounded earlier. The scope and goals should be clear right from the start and perhaps restated in the conclusion. (I noticed that you compared modes, so this should also be part of your goals in the introduction!) If you opt for a more general approach, you will need to include a section discussing how readers can use the tools or follow the procedure you detailed. The latter seems to be more challenging, so I recommend the first.

This paper aims to study the role of virtual reality application in learning English for non-native speakers (Arabic) from the point of view of teachers. Note: The study was conducted in Jordan, where its citizens speak Arabic, in addition to learning English as a foreign language in its schools. This was explained in line 193-198

3. What are the criteria for deciding whether the tool during pilot testing was successful and didn’t need to be pilot-tested again? Quantitative measures might help you with this. Perhaps if more than half did not report problems, then you could consider the piloting successful? Also, do you have data showing which system most participants preferred? This could also be part of the criteria.

Thanks for this valuable comment. Yes, we agree with you, quantitative information gives an accurate effect, but in our study, this was descriptive information that takes into account the opinion of teachers, which depends on the observed effect, which is difficult to measure.  based on your comment, teachers were asked to evaluate the impact of scores as shown in Table No 6. Page No 11.

4. Throughout the paper, raw counts are used. They are useful but can be hard to interpret in this context. Reporting percentages is recommended.

This is explained by setting the maximum rating as shown in Table No 6. Page No 11.

5. “The scores of these recordings from the two raters showed no statistical difference.” Based on what statistical test? You need to spend more time talking about how you went about this.

Again, in this paper the difference that teachers noticed when introducing augmented reality into English language teaching was discussed, but an attempt was made to monitor this effect in as numerical ways as possible based on your important comments.

Here are some recommendations:

1. I recommend that some of the wording be changed or removed, as they can come across as non-academic. Some examples include “bumpy” (Introduction), “seemingly long-lasting hardship” (abstract).

Done, thank you.

2. A diagram showing the steps of the procedure(s) will be very helpful for readers. I recommend placing it before you discuss the procedure. 

Done, thank you.

3. The meat of the paper, in my opinion, is the comparison of methods/modes. A summary table showing the pros and cons of each mode might be useful.

Thank you for this comment. Yes, the differences were put in the form of points, as you can see 6.1.1 to 6.1.3

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article aims to explore the impact of AR in English learning in a classroom setting. While this is an interesting starting point that can have real-life applications in the classrooms and in lecture-design, the article does not provide enough information for implementing AR with positive effects.

The research is two-fold: it consists of a qualitative interview of 12 English teacher, and of a systematic literature review of 5 papers.

Regarding the qualitative research, the background about the teaching situation provided by the authors is not detailed enough to appreciate in which kinds of situation AR has been found helpful. This is necessary so that other English teachers reading this paper would know if the type of changes in the lecture and AR sues are applicable to their classroom setting. Crucially: we are missing information about the overall school system in Jordan and the specific classroom designs that the interviewed teachers were teaching in. We also do not have information on how long the teachers have been using AR for, and which types of applications. Ultimately, when they are talking about improvement we do not know if they are comparing within-subjects or across-subjects. This is all crucial information for the application of the design by others. The responses from the interviews should be quantified and not anecdotal reports. How many of the interviewed teacher say X.

The systematic review is quite weak: only 5 papers were chosen from an abundant literature; too little to call it a systematic review. The cited papers are also not adequately explained: which methods did they use, how many participants, what was statistically significant in their results. This is all information that is crucial for drawing wider conclusions, and for interpreting the results. The systematic review reported in the paper consist of gathering a few key points regarding the applications and pros and cons regarding their usage.

The discussion is also weak and does not in fact include any of the data obtained by the qualitative interviews.

Overall, form the conclusions we can see that AR has positive effects on learning English, but a teacher reding this would have very little applicability of how to implement these findings. The interviews, literature review and the discussion are very vague and do not provide generalizable results.

Indeed, more research is needed in the area, but the qualitative research needs to be complemented with some qualitative data: a study design with two groups te4sted at point 0, one undergoes lecture with AR and one without and they are then compared at different times to measure progress.

Author Response

Electronics,

Title: Augmented Reality based Learning English Language: Im-portance and State of the Art.

July 29, 2022

Dear Editor

Many thanks for your time and efforts in handling our paper submission. We also would like to thank you for the opportunity you have given us for revision of the paper and response to the reviewers’ comments.

We truly appreciate the time and efforts of the reviewers in reviewing our submitted paper. We have carefully revised and updated our paper to address all received comments. Please refer to the subsequent pages for our detailed responses to the reviewers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This article aims to explore the impact of AR in English learning in a classroom setting. While this is an interesting starting point that can have real-life applications in the classrooms and in lecture-design, the article does not provide enough information for implementing AR with positive effects. The research is two-fold: it consists of a qualitative interview of 12 English teacher, and of a systematic literature review of 5 papers.

Yes, it is true, the number of teachers is the number of teachers present in the schools mentioned in the research, for which approval was obtained to conduct research, and we do not have time to increase the number of schools, and this requires procedures that may be lengthy. As for studies, the number of studies has been increased to nine.

2. Regarding the qualitative research, the background about the teaching situation provided by the authors is not detailed enough to appreciate in which kinds of situation AR has been found helpful. This is necessary so that other English teachers reading this paper would know if the type of changes in the lecture and AR sues are applicable to their classroom setting. Crucially: we are missing information about the overall school system in Jordan and the specific classroom designs that the interviewed teachers were teaching in.

Teaching in most schools in Jordan in general and the schools mentioned in this research in particular depend on the traditional methods that use the board and the pen in teaching the English language and do not use modern technological means.

3. We also do not have information on how long the teachers have been using AR for, and which types of applications. Ultimately, when they are talking about improvement we do not know if they are comparing within-subjects or across-subjects. This is all crucial information for the application of the design by others. The responses from the interviews should be quantified and not anecdotal reports. How many of the interviewed teacher say X.

The use of augmented reality in these schools for almost a whole month, and these applications consisted of learning English vocabulary, for example, assistance in English grammar, and we put a picture of it for one of these applications that was used in this research.

4. The systematic review is quite weak: only 5 papers were chosen from an abundant literature; too little to call it a systematic review. The cited papers are also not adequately explained: which methods did they use, how many participants, what was statistically significant in their results. This is all information that is crucial for drawing wider conclusions, and for interpreting the results. The systematic review reported in the paper consist of gathering a few key points regarding the applications and pros and cons regarding their usage.

They are 7 studies and 2 studies were added. Regarding the, what was statistically significant in their results, and pros and cons of the studies, they are existed in Table 8 (line 411). Similarly, the rest of the comments are existed on Table (8).

5. The discussion is also weak and does not in fact include any of the data obtained by the qualitative interviews

The findings of the qualitative interviews are existed line (424-464). also, The discussion has been expanded.

6. Overall, form the conclusions we can see that AR has positive effects on learning English, but a teacher reding this would have very little applicability of how to implement these findings. The interviews, literature review and the discussion are very vague and do not provide generalizable results.

To generalize these findings, the teachers should be trained enough concerning the use of AR to be able to take advantage of it. See lines (482-526). Also, several lines have been added to clarify and reinforce the conclusions

7. Indeed, more research is needed in the area, but the qualitative research needs to be complemented with some qualitative data: a study design with two groups te4sted at point 0, one undergoes lecture with AR and one without and they are then compared at different times to measure progress.

Both methods were used to bridge the gap in literature. A table and a graphic showing the procedures to be followed have been added (Figure 1 page 4)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study explores the importance of Augmented Reality (AR) for learning English skills from the perspectives of English language teachers and educators. Mixed qualitative methods were used and interviews were conducted with English teachers concerning the topic under investigation. The study concludes that AR improves vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension, and academic achievements. Overall, the manuscript is well written and interesting; however, the following issues should be addressed before the final publication.

1.       There are many typos in the paper; kindly proofread the paper carefully.

2.       Why did the authors not consider the students' perspectives about AR in their study?

3.       Appendix A is missing.

4.       How is the sample size selected? Why only 12 participents? Is this number enough to make valid inferences? Justify your answer.

5.       Provide Table title for table 2.

6.       It would be better to include a table of descriptive statistics about the study's findings.

7.       Section 5 heading should be discussion only.

8.       The references are not in a uniform style.

Author Response

Electronics,

Title: Augmented Reality based Learning English Language: Im-portance and State of the Art.

July 29, 2022

Dear Editor

Many thanks for your time and efforts in handling our paper submission. We also would like to thank you for the opportunity you have given us for revision of the paper and response to the reviewers’ comments.

We truly appreciate the time and efforts of the reviewers in reviewing our submitted paper. We have carefully revised and updated our paper to address all received comments. Please refer to the subsequent pages for our detailed responses to the reviewers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores the importance of Augmented Reality (AR) for learning English skills from the perspectives of English language teachers and educators. Mixed qualitative methods were used and interviews were conducted with English teachers concerning the topic under investigation. The study concludes that AR improves vocabulary knowledge, reading comprehension, and academic achievements. Overall, the manuscript is well written and interesting; however, the following issues should be addressed before the final publication.

 We thank you for your comment, and we also thank you for your valuable comments that make our paper look better.

1. There are many typos in the paper; kindly proofread the paper carefully.

Thank you for noticing, The paper has been revised and errors have been corrected.

2. Why did the authors not consider the students' perspectives about AR in their study?

Thanks for the valuable note, we mentioned that in line (5, 62,…) that we took it from the perspective of the teacher only because he is best able to identify the differences between traditional education and education using augmented reality.

3. Appendix A is missing.

Done, the appendix was added, page 16.

4. How is the sample size selected? Why only 12 participents? Is this number enough to make valid inferences? Justify your answer.

Yes, the sample is sufficient because it does not compare two different groups, but rather is an opinion poll. All English teachers were selected in these schools (12 teachers). Also, the number of teachers is the number of teachers present in the schools mentioned in the research, for which approval was obtained to conduct research, and we do not have time to increase the number of schools, and this requires procedures that may be lengthy.

5. Provide Table title for table 2.

 Done, title for table 2 has been added. Page 6.

5. It would be better to include a table of descriptive statistics about the study's findings.

 Done, Table 6. Page 11.  

7. Section 5 heading should be discussion only.

 Done, line 424.

8. The references are not in a uniform style.

   Done.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Augmented Reality is a technology that is wide spread used in different spheres in our life. It is successful adopted and imlemented in education. Many researchers study and describe its advantages and dissadvantages. Augmented Reality is considered an effective tool that facilitates the process of learning English and improves students’ motivation.

AR educational use has been examined in which various researchers concluded that AR applications might improve learning effectiveness, motivation, and promote the learning process

Some applicaions are used in this research paper - such as 3DBearAR, catchy words AR, Jigspace, Google Translate.

It is not very clear if all the students and teachers used these applications, how these applications were selected.

On the line 211, 212 there are some descriptive statistics about the respondents that took part in the intervew. The fact "The total experiences years were 129 years" is not meaningful, it should  be the average years of experience. 

Also, I think that the sample of 12 participants is not enought statisticaly significant. 

It is noted that a total of 62,700 studies were found in Google Scholar, but in fact how many papers were used in this analysis. Please, specify it!

Citation in the text should follow the same style  and requirement of this journal. In the first part of the article they are like (Name, year) and then they are in the style of [number]. You should correct it!

List of bibliography also should be according to the requirements of the journal, for example:

• Journal Articles:
  1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
• Books and Book Chapters:
  2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196.

On line 573 the text "It promotes the learning effectiveness of students’ compound verbs, increases students’ knowledge retention [39]" is the same as above. Try to avoid repetition! 

In the abstract there is one very long sentence - from line 26 to line 34. Can you make it shorter or split in two sentences?

Author Response

Electronics,

Title: Augmented Reality based Learning English Language: Im-portance and State of the Art.

July 29, 2022

Dear Editor

Many thanks for your time and efforts in handling our paper submission. We also would like to thank you for the opportunity you have given us for revision of the paper and response to the reviewers’ comments.

We truly appreciate the time and efforts of the reviewers in reviewing our submitted paper. We have carefully revised and updated our paper to address all received comments. Please refer to the subsequent pages for our detailed responses to the reviewers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Augmented Reality is a technology that is wide spread used in different spheres in our life. It is successful adopted and imlemented in education. Many researchers study and describe its advantages and dissadvantages. Augmented Reality is considered an effective tool that facilitates the process of learning English and improves students’ motivation. AR educational use has been examined in which various researchers concluded that AR applications might improve learning effectiveness, motivation, and promote the learning process.

Thank you, we agree with you on these facts.

2. Some applicaions are used in this research paper - such as 3DBearAR, catchy words AR, Jigspace, Google Translate.

They are used in previous studies in the model in Table 8 not in this paper.

3. It is not very clear if all the students and teachers used these applications, how these applications were selected.

Such applications as mentioned above were not used in the current study, but rather in the previous studies. The augmented reality application was referred to on page no 7.

4. On the line 211, 212 there are some descriptive statistics about the respondents that took part in the intervew. The fact "The total experiences years were 129 years" is not meaningful, it should  be the average years of experience.

It was written by mistake. It has been deleted..

5. Also, I think that the sample of 12 participants is not enought statisticaly significant.

Yes, the sample is sufficient because it does not compare two different groups, but rather is an opinion poll. All English teachers were selected in these schools (12 teachers). Also, the number of teachers is the number of teachers present in the schools mentioned in the research, for which approval was obtained to conduct research, and we do not have time to increase the number of schools, and this requires procedures that may be lengthy.

6. It is noted that a total of 62,700 studies were found in Google Scholar, but in fact how many papers were used in this analysis. Please, specify it!

Seven papers were used in this analysis, line (252). Also, two papers were added.

7. Citation in the text should follow the same style  and requirement of this journal. In the first part of the article they are like (Name, year) and then they are in the style of [number]. You should correct it!

Done, we corrected it.

8. List of bibliography also should be according to the requirements of the journal, for example:

• Journal Articles:
  1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

• Books and Book Chapters:
  2. Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196.

Done, Thank you for your comments.

9. On line 573 the text "It promotes the learning effectiveness of students’ compound verbs, increases students’ knowledge retention [39]" is the same as above. Try to avoid repetition! 

To avoid repetition, we have deleted it increases students’ knowledge retention .

10. In the abstract there is one very long sentence - from line 26 to line 34. Can you make it shorter or split in two sentences?

Ok, it becomes as follows:

Thus, the study concluded that AR improves language skills and academic achievements.  It also reduces students’ anxiety level, improves students’ creativity, increases students’ collaboration and engagement.  Besides, the students have positive attitudes towards using AR for learning the English language.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.