Augmented Reality and Inferential Comprehension in Advanced EFL Learners: Disfluency, Metacognitive Reflection, and Productive Struggle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely topic: the impact of Augmented Reality (AR) on inferential comprehension in advanced learners of English as a foreign language. The study engages with current discussions on educational innovation and meaningful learning, and proposes an interesting framework by integrating constructs such as cognitive disfluency, metacognitive reflection, and productive struggle.

However, the manuscript displays several weaknesses that should be addressed before it can be considered for publication:

- Quality of AR Materials: The design and implementation of the AR resources are not sufficiently validated. The authors themselves acknowledge limitations in the quality of the AR elements used, which significantly undermines the validity of the study’s conclusions. The educational effectiveness attributed to AR may be confounded by technical deficiencies in the materials themselves.

- Theoretical Background: Although the manuscript references a wide range of relevant sources, the theoretical framework remains uneven. Some constructs are only briefly mentioned without operational clarity (e.g., the link between disfluency and AR), and several theoretical assumptions would benefit from more structured development and explicit connection to the research design.

- Results and Analysis: Quantitative results are clearly presented and statistically sound. However, the qualitative dimension is underdeveloped: the analysis of open reflections is illustrated with a single excerpt, which does not allow readers to assess thematic saturation, recurrence, or validity of interpretation.

- APA and Referencing Issues: Several citation inconsistencies need attention:

• In-text citations incorrectly include initials in multiple cases (e.g., L. W. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), which violates APA 7 style guidelines. Initials should only be used in cases of ambiguity.

• One in-text citation (Anderson & Pearson, 1984) does not appear in the final reference list.

• Conversely, one source listed in the references (Zhang et al., 2022) is never cited in the main text.

- Mistake in structure: There is a misnumbered section reference in the manuscript. In line 458, the text refers to section “3.6”, but this section does not exist. The correct reference should be “2.6”.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments. Please, find our responses and changes below:

Comments 1:
Quality of AR Materials: The design and implementation of the AR resources are not sufficiently validated. The authors themselves acknowledge limitations in the quality of the AR elements used, which significantly undermines the validity of the study’s conclusions. The educational effectiveness attributed to AR may be confounded by technical deficiencies in the materials themselves.

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that the quality and validation of the AR materials are essential for the validity of our findings. Therefore, we have added a clarification about the design process and its limitations, explicitly stating that the AR resources were pilot-tested on a small group of students prior to the main study and that technical instability was a confounding factor in interpreting the results. This revision appears in Section 2.4 (Materials), page 9, paragraph 2, lines 272–278.

Updated text (changes in bold):

The AR scenes were designed as interpretive adaptations of “The Tell-Tale Heart” and incorporated intentional elements not present in the original text to emphasize thematic and symbolic dimensions. Prior to the main study, the AR resources were pilot-tested with a small group of students (n = 6) to ensure usability and content relevance. While these tests confirmed the potential of the materials, they also revealed occasional technical instability and synchronization delays between audio and visual elements. These issues were acknowledged as limitations that could affect participants’ experiences and interpretation of the AR scenes.

 

Comments 2:
Theoretical Background: Although the manuscript references a wide range of relevant sources, the theoretical framework remains uneven. Some constructs are only briefly mentioned without operational clarity (e.g., the link between disfluency and AR), and several theoretical assumptions would benefit from more structured development and explicit connection to the research design.

Response 2:
Thank you for this valuable feedback. We agree that our theoretical framework needed clearer articulation, particularly regarding the connection between cognitive disfluency and AR. Therefore, we have expanded the introduction to provide a more structured explanation of how disfluency relates to AR experiences and how it connects to our research design. This revision appears in Section 1 (Introduction), page 4, paragraph 3, lines 138–146.

Updated text (changes in bold):

From a cognitivist perspective, reading comprehension develops as learners actively encode, integrate, and reorganize information to construct coherent mental models of a text (Kintsch, 1998). More specifically, inferential comprehension places high demands on working memory because it requires bridging gaps between explicit text and prior knowledge while processing multiple semantic and contextual cues (Graesser et al., 1994). Cognitive disfluency occurs when learners encounter information that is difficult to process, often slowing comprehension but potentially fostering deeper reflection and problem-solving (Bjork & Bjork, 2011). In the context of AR, disfluency may arise when visual and auditory cues challenge learners’ expectations or interpretations, prompting metacognitive monitoring and productive struggle. Several complementary frameworks illuminate how AR might influence these processes. Dual Coding Theory (Paivio, 1986) and Mayer’s (2009) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning suggest that pairing verbal and visual information can enhance comprehension when modalities are well-aligned, while Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988) cautions that poorly integrated multimodal cues may overload working memory and fragment schema construction.

 

Comments 3:
Results and Analysis: Quantitative results are clearly presented and statistically sound. However, the qualitative dimension is underdeveloped: the analysis of open reflections is illustrated with a single excerpt, which does not allow readers to assess thematic saturation, recurrence, or validity of interpretation.

Response 3:
Thank you for highlighting this important point. We agree that our qualitative analysis needed further elaboration. Therefore, we have expanded Section 3.2 by adding additional representative excerpts from participants’ open-ended reflections to illustrate thematic recurrence and provide evidence of validity in our interpretations. These revisions appear in Section 3.2 (Qualitative Results: Thematic Analysis of Open-Ended Responses), page 13, paragraph 2, lines 392–405.

Updated text (changes in bold):

Continuing with the multiple-choice justifications, Narrator_Reliability reflected increased attention to the narrator's subjectivity and psychological instability. This code rose from 53.33% to 65.56% in the EG and from 33% to 52.94% in the CG across pre- and post-tests. A representative EG response observed: “The narrator insists on his sanity despite exhibiting irrational behavior... his obsession and distorted perception reveal his paranoia and guilt.” Such responses signal a deepening sensitivity to narrative perspective and internal inconsistency, both of which are essential components of higher-order inferencing. For instance, another participant commented, “At first, I believed the narrator was trustworthy, but after the AR experience I realized how unreliable he was because his vision and hearing were distorted.” Similarly, a CG participant reflected, “Discussing the text with my group helped me understand that the narrator’s words could not be taken at face value.” These examples illustrate recurring patterns of critical interpretation across both groups, demonstrating saturation in the themes identified.

 

Comments 4:
APA and Referencing Issues: Several citation inconsistencies need attention: In-text citations incorrectly include initials in multiple cases (e.g., L. W. Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), which violates APA 7 style guidelines. Initials should only be used in cases of ambiguity.

Response 4:
Thank you for noting this issue. We have revised all in-text citations to remove author initials, following APA 7 guidelines. Initials are now only included where needed to resolve ambiguity between authors with the same last name. These corrections appear throughout the manuscript, for example in Section 1 (Introduction), page 4, paragraph 4, line 148, where the citation has been updated.

Updated text (changes in bold):

These perspectives imply that AR’s visual and auditory scaffolds could facilitate inference-making by enriching textual representation—yet they also highlight the risk that misaligned or extraneous elements might distract attention from core interpretive tasks (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Mayer, 2009; Sweller, 1988).

 

Comments 5:
One in-text citation (Anderson & Pearson, 1984) does not appear in the final reference list.

Response 5:
Thank you for identifying this omission. We have added the missing reference for Anderson & Pearson (1984) to the reference list. The complete reference now appears on page 22, line 187.

Updated text (changes in bold):

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Center for the Study of Reading Technical Report; no. 306.

 

Comments 6:
Conversely, one source listed in the references (Zhang et al., 2022) is never cited in the main text.

Response 6:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. After reviewing the manuscript, we confirmed that Zhang et al. (2025) appears in the reference list but was not cited in the main text. To address this, we have added an appropriate in-text citation in Section 1 (Introduction), page 3, paragraph 4, line 122, where other systematic reviews on AR are discussed.

Updated text (changes in bold):

A systematic review by Akçayır and Akçayır (2017) identifies several core benefits of using AR in education: improving learning achievement, increasing student motivation, and supporting multimodal learning. These benefits are generally accomplished through dynamic AR environments that help learners process abstract or complex material through multiple sensory channels. Similarly, Zhang et al. (2025) compared AR and VR in vocabulary learning contexts, highlighting how multimodal features can influence engagement and comprehension.

 

Comments 7:
Mistake in structure: There is a misnumbered section reference in the manuscript. In line 458, the text refers to section “3.6”, but this section does not exist. The correct reference should be “2.6”.

Response 7:
Thank you for noting this. On review, we found three related cross-reference issues. We have corrected: (a) the section header from “3.6. Procedure” to “2.6. Procedure,” and (b) two internal cross-references in the Procedure text so they point to Section 2.4 (Materials), where the AR/control materials are actually described. These edits appear in Section 2 (Materials and Methods), subsection 2.6 (Procedure).

Updated text (changes in bold):

1. Section header

2.6. Procedure

1. Control-group paragraph (change the cross-reference)

Students in the control group worked in small groups (3–4 members) on two close-reading tasks centered on the same narrative passages adapted for the AR condition (see Section 2.4).

1. Experimental-group paragraph (change the cross-reference)

In the experimental group, students also worked in small groups (3–4 members) with the AR experience described in Section 2.4, which adapted the same two narrative passages used in the control tasks.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their valuable and constructive feedback, which has greatly helped us improve the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript. It is an interesting study, but needs some work with presentation before it can be published.

In particular the research background ought to be expanded, especially with research on digital reading comprehension (not just AI).

I would like to see more written about the qualitative results... how many students had their interpretations changed, and how many were not? In general, what sort of individual variation is there in the data set?

What sort of discussion did the control group get on ths story? How did this affect their interpretations?

It seems in particular that there is little effect of AR... what do you think this means for AR pedagogy?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments. Please, find our responses and changes below:

Comments 1:
In particular the research background ought to be expanded, especially with research on digital reading comprehension (not just AI).

Response 1:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have expanded the background to include additional references on digital reading comprehension, highlighting studies that examine how digital environments impact cognitive and inferential processes in reading. This provides a stronger context for our study by situating AR within broader research on digital literacy. The new material has been added to Section 1 (Introduction), page 3, paragraph 2, lines 98–105.

Updated text (changes in bold):

Reading comprehension constitutes a complex construct that encompasses literal, inferential, and evaluative skills (Israel, 2017). Among these, inferential comprehension—the integration of textual information with prior knowledge—poses particular challenges for EFL learners, especially due to linguistic and cultural barriers that hinder access to implicit meanings and contribute to gaps in reading proficiency (Koda, 2007). Research on digital reading comprehension has highlighted how online texts and multimodal environments alter the ways readers process and integrate information, often increasing cognitive demands while providing opportunities for interactive scaffolding (Li et al., 2022; Timotheou et al., 2023). These findings suggest that instructional designs involving digital texts must carefully balance engagement with support for higher-order comprehension.

 

Comments 2:
I would like to see more written about the qualitative results... how many students had their interpretations changed, and how many were not? In general, what sort of individual variation is there in the data set?

Response 2:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have expanded Section 3.2 (Qualitative Results) to specify how many students changed their interpretations versus those who did not, and to describe the variation in their responses. This provides a clearer picture of the distribution of interpretive changes and highlights individual differences within the experimental group. These details were added to page 13, paragraph 4, lines 420–428.

Updated text (changes in bold):

Among the 30 participants in the experimental group, 11 shifted from a correct to an incorrect interpretation of the heartbeat’s symbolic meaning after the AR experience, while 14 maintained consistent correct interpretations across both tests. The remaining 5 participants either remained incorrect on both occasions or provided mixed responses. This variation indicates that the AR intervention did not have a uniform effect: while some students demonstrated deeper symbolic understanding, others experienced interpretive misalignment prompted by the multimodal cues. These differences reflect the complexity of individual cognitive processing in multimodal reading environments and underscore the need for scaffolding strategies that can support diverse learner responses.

 

Comments 3:
What sort of discussion did the control group get on the story? How did this affect their interpretations?

Response 3:
Thank you for this comment. We have added a clarification in Section 2.6 (Procedure) to describe the type of discussion that the control group engaged in and to explain how this may have influenced their interpretations. This helps clarify the instructional differences between the two groups. The revision appears on page 11, paragraph 2, lines 350–356.

Updated text (changes in bold):

Students in the control group worked in small groups (3–4 members) on two close-reading tasks centered on the same narrative passages adapted for the AR condition (see Section 2.4). These discussions focused on identifying textual evidence, comparing different interpretations, and debating the narrator’s reliability, guided by prompts provided by the instructor. This collaborative exchange likely supported more stable interpretations by encouraging students to justify their reasoning and resolve ambiguities collectively.

 

Comments 4:
It seems in particular that there is little effect of AR... what do you think this means for AR pedagogy?

Response 4:
Thank you for raising this point. We have added a short reflection in the Discussion section to address the limited effect observed in this study and its implications for AR pedagogy. This addition appears at the end of Section 4.3 (Integrative Insights and Implications), page 18, paragraph 3, lines 610–616.

Updated text (changes in bold):

The limited effect of AR observed in this study suggests that the pedagogical value of immersive tools depends not only on their novelty but also on their alignment with instructional goals and cognitive processes. AR should not be assumed to enhance comprehension automatically; rather, it requires careful integration with traditional strategies, explicit scaffolding, and sufficient time for learners to adapt to multimodal cues. When these conditions are not met, AR may function as an engaging supplement but fail to produce measurable comprehension gains.

 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Tha authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the suggested changes. The revised version incorporates the necessary clarifications in the theoretical framework, improves the qualitative analysis, and corrects the referencing and structural issues. The manuscript is now clearer and more coherent overall.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for the revisions. Everything is fine now and I can recommend this for publication