Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality in Experiential Learning: Transforming Educational Paradigms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for this - I hope you agree that the changes made have supported the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Much better.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive feedback. We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript and are glad that you accepted the updated changes. 

We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to improve the clarity and flow of the text. Grammar, sentence structure, and wording have been refined throughout the manuscript to ensure that the research is expressed clearly and concisely. Additionally, the text was proofread by a native English speaker (or professional editor) to enhance readability. Specific improvements include simplifying complex sentences, eliminating redundant phrases, and ensuring that terminology is consistently used.

If there are particular sections where further clarification is needed, we would be happy to address them.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the Manuscript on XR Technologies in Experiential Learning

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the integration of Extended Reality (XR) technologies—including Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR)—in experiential learning environments. By exploring the transformative potential of XR, the authors present a compelling case for its role in redefining educational paradigms through immersive, interactive, and interdisciplinary approaches.

The research is particularly relevant in the context of rapidly evolving educational technologies and the growing demand for innovative teaching methods that enhance engagement, comprehension, and retention. By addressing both the opportunities and challenges associated with XR, the paper makes a timely contribution to the discourse on the future of education.

While the paper demonstrates strengths, there are areas that require clarification and improvement, as outlined below.

Detailed Feedback

1. Clarity and Terminology
• In the abstract, the term "virtual" is notably missing from the first sentence. Including it would provide clarity and align with the overarching focus of the paper.
• In the third sentence of the abstract, the term "XP" is introduced without explanation. Providing a definition or expanding on its meaning would help readers unfamiliar with the abbreviation to better understand its relevance.
2. References and Repetition
• In line 48, one of the references requires correction to ensure accuracy and consistency.
• Lines 100–103 repeat content that appears again in lines 117–119. Consolidating this information would improve the manuscript's flow and avoid redundancy.
3. Undefined Terms and Inconsistencies
• In line 136, the term "PI" is used but is not defined. Clarifying its meaning within the context of the paper would be helpful.
• There are noticeable inconsistencies in the font style throughout the manuscript, particularly in lines 255–278 and 461–479. Standardizing the formatting would enhance readability and maintain a professional appearance.
4. Results and Ownership of Research
• The results presented in the paper lack clarity regarding the division between the authors' own contributions and findings derived from other researchers. For instance, in Section 3, "Results and Discussion", it is unclear which cases—such as "3.1.1. Creating VR Dynamic Object to Enhance Students’ Experiential Learning," or "3.1.6. Mixed Reality for Engineering Education"—are original contributions by the authors versus those sourced from external studies. Explicitly distinguishing these would improve transparency and academic rigor.
5. Relevance and Placement of Content
• The subsection "3.3. Extended Reality and Multisensory Stimuli" does not seem aligned with the core focus of this section. Relocating or reframing it may improve its contextual relevance.
• In this subsection, lines 686–689 discuss experiences involving planetary visuals and sounds in an XR-enhanced learning environment. Given that humans have only limited firsthand data from celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars, this claim warrants additional clarification or rephrasing to avoid speculative statements.
6. Lesson Comparisons and Challenges
• The paper would benefit from an explicit comparison of the duration of traditional lessons versus those incorporating XR technologies (e.g., VR or AR). Were these lessons of similar length, or did XR implementations require additional time?
• It is important to address any specific challenges identified during the lessons, such as technical difficulties, student adaptability, or resource constraints.
• Clarification is needed on who conducted the XR-based lessons. Were they delivered by the researchers themselves or by the students' regular instructors? This distinction is crucial to understanding the practical feasibility of XR in typical classroom settings.

Conclusion
Overall, this paper tackles a highly relevant topic and offers valuable insights into the potential of XR technologies to transform experiential learning. However, addressing the issues highlighted above would strengthen the manuscript by ensuring clarity, rigor, and practical applicability. By refining the presentation of results, resolving terminological ambiguities, and ensuring consistent formatting, the authors can enhance the paper’s impact and accessibility to a broader audience.

 

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the thoughtful and detailed feedback. Your comments have helped improve the clarity, structure, and academic rigor of our manuscript. Below, we provide responses to each of your concerns along with corresponding revisions in the manuscript. Please see our response below and major changes in according to review suggesting were in green writing in manuscript.

1. Clarity and Terminology
• In the abstract, the term "virtual" is notably missing from the first sentence. Including it would provide clarity and align with the overarching focus of the paper.
• In the third sentence of the abstract, the term "XP" is introduced without explanation. Providing a definition or expanding on its meaning would help readers unfamiliar with the abbreviation to better understand its relevance.

Response: The missing terms and identify the they term extended Reality (XR)

 

1. References and Repetition
• In line 48, one of the references requires correction to ensure accuracy and consistency.
• Lines 100–103 repeat content that appears again in lines 117–119. Consolidating this information would improve the manuscript's flow and avoid redundancy.

Response: References were fixed, and redundancies were removed.

 

1. Undefined Terms and Inconsistencies
• In line 136, the term "PI" is used but is not defined. Clarifying its meaning within the context of the paper would be helpful.
• There are noticeable inconsistencies in the font style throughout the manuscript, particularly in lines 255–278 and 461–479. Standardizing the formatting would enhance readability and maintain a professional appearance.

Response: In line 136 I change PI to PP which means physical presence. Font style was change

and check for consistencies throughout the manuscript

1. Results and Ownership of Research
• The results presented in the paper lack clarity regarding the division between the authors' own contributions and findings derived from other researchers. For instance, in Section 3, "Results and Discussion", it is unclear which cases—such as "3.1.1. Creating VR Dynamic Object to Enhance Students’ Experiential Learning," or "3.1.6. Mixed Reality for Engineering Education"—are original contributions by the authors versus those sourced from external studies. Explicitly distinguishing these would improve transparency and academic rigor.

Response: The following statement was added to section 3: In subsections 3.1.1 to 3.1.3,

the findings are based on the authors' original research, while subsections 3.1.4 to

3.1.6 present results sourced from external studies.

1. Relevance and Placement of Content
• The subsection "3.3. Extended Reality and Multisensory Stimuli" does not seem aligned with the core focus of this section. Relocating or reframing it may improve its contextual relevance.
• In this subsection, lines 686–689 discuss experiences involving planetary visuals and sounds in an XR-enhanced learning environment. Given that humans have only limited firsthand data from celestial bodies such as the Moon and Mars, this claim warrants additional clarification or rephrasing to avoid speculative statements.

Response:
Thank you for your insightful comment. We have clarified the statement to emphasize that the sensory experiences in XR are scientifically modeled rather than based on firsthand human experiences. We specified that visual representations are derived from space mission data and that simulated soundscapes are based on scientific interpretations (e.g., electromagnetic or atmospheric data). This adjustment ensures that the statement is accurate and grounded in scientific information.

The revised text now reads:

"For instance, in an XR-enhanced learning environment, a student learning about the solar system can virtually travel through space, exploring scientifically modeled representations of different planets. These representations are based on current data, including visual imagery from space missions and simulated soundscapes derived from scientific interpretations (e.g., electromagnetic or atmospheric data). By engaging both visual and auditory senses in this way, XR enhances learning experiences beyond what is possible with traditional textbooks or classroom settings. This approach aligns with Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, where concrete, immersive experiences serve as a foundation for reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation."

 

 

1. Lesson Comparisons and Challenges
• The paper would benefit from an explicit comparison of the duration of traditional lessons versus those incorporating XR technologies (e.g., VR or AR). Were these lessons of similar length, or did XR implementations require additional time?

Response:
Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a comparison between the duration of traditional lessons and those incorporating XR technologies. Specifically, the XR-based lessons were designed to match the length of traditional lessons, typically spanning a 60-90 minute class period. While XR activities required additional setup time for equipment and system checks, the actual instructional time remained comparable to traditional methods.

• It is important to address any specific challenges identified during the lessons, such as technical difficulties, student adaptability, or resource constraints.

Response:
We appreciate this comment. The manuscript has been updated to include a section discussing the challenges encountered during XR-based lessons. These challenges included:

1. Technical difficulties: Occasional hardware malfunctions and connectivity issues were experienced, which were mitigated through routine system checks and backups.
2. Student adaptability: While most students adapted well to the XR environment, some required additional guidance due to limited prior exposure to immersive technologies.
3. Resource constraints: The availability of XR headsets and devices limited the number of simultaneous participants, requiring lesson adjustments to accommodate all students effectively.

 

• Clarification is needed on who conducted the XR-based lessons. Were they delivered by the researchers themselves or by the students' regular instructors? This distinction is crucial to understanding the practical feasibility of XR in typical classroom settings.

Response:
The XR-based lessons were conducted by the corresponding author, Dr. H. T. Crogman, who also trained others in the use of XR technologies alongside Reza Boroon. The corresponding author led all lectures and hands-on activities during the study. Student collaborators and researchers assisted in the development and classroom testing of dynamic VR objects.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I appreciate your feedback on all my questions. This research opens various themes in the field of Education. These technologies are revolutionary for our pedagogical tools and merit further experimentation.
Best regards.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review. We appreciate your encouraging comments and are pleased that the manuscript met your expectations without any concerns.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, your corrections and explanations have clarified the article considerably. Now it is more understandable that your contribution to the topic you are presenting is yours.

A small correction: Rows 46-50 should be deleted because they are repeated. It's probably due to an oversight during editing.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and thoughtful review of the article. We appreciate you bringing to our attention the oversight regarding the repeated statements that were not removed.  We have now fixed the oversight.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for this.

The first thing to say is that you are too definitive and certain about everything. My first four comments on the attached all express surprise at your rigid belief in what you're saying. Aim for greater neutrality and uncertainty. "VR/AR/MR offers learners an enriched pedagogical environment, redefining traditional boundaries and promoting deeper engagement" - what, always? There are no drawbacks? Then you claim an "exhaustive" review. Really? You tell us what the future trajectory will be. Will your predictions be correct? How do you know? So my initial advice is pepper your writing with comments such as "we contend that" or "it is our belief that" etc.

I have read to p9 out of 17, and already made 42 comments. Please rewrite before resubmission. See the comments throughout and extrapolate for the remainder of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Mainly okay, but one section where it is definitely not - please check

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your article is quite interesting and certainly, the technologies mentioned in school/university education will be used in the future.

But I would also like some clarifications.

How many of the surveys presented were done by you? For example: "Creating VR Dynamic Object to Enhance Students' Experiential Learning" or "Virtual Reality in Medical Training"

Did you provide the training materials in the courses "Data for Pilot VR Class and Summer Program, Faculty Training and Implementation of VR as a Teaching Modality at CSUHD" courses?

In the surveys where there were pre-and post-tests, did you use any statistical tools to validate the results, and if so, which ones?

In general, I have not understood the courses you mention whether you had any participation as creators of the teaching material or simply collected the results from various applications of VR, AR, XR, and MR technologies.

In Materials and Methods, the first paragraph is repeated at the end lines: 308-312.

In the Introduction the numbering is confusing. It starts with 1.1 Background/Theoretical Framework and then goes to IV. Review of Literature

In row 379 you mention "The VR curriculum was integrated with traditional teaching methods" What methods are these?

In line 452 the numbering is wrong.

In rows 582, 595,597,601,603 references should be deleted.

In Table 2 under "Applications" there is a large gap "real-world scenarios."

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Please find the positive points of this study:

- I would like to highlight the comprehensive review of literature on the emergence of these technologies.

- The study effectively explores the implementation of various technological tools, providing valuable insights into their integration within an educational context.

- The impact analysis on students is a significant contribution, showcasing how these tools influence learning outcomes and engagement.

You can find my opinion on the limitations of this study here:

- The study is primarily centered on pedagogical technologies (Virtual Reality; Augmented Reality; Mixed Reality; Extended Reality) and their effects on students, overlooking the crucial perspective of trainers. It does not account for the trainers' efforts in preparing and implementing these innovations, which is essential for a comprehensive evaluation.

- Another limitation is the absence of cost analysis regarding the adoption of these technologies. Understanding the financial implications is important for evaluating the feasibility and sustainability of these innovations.

Note: Please change the section numbering from 3.1 to 3.2 on line 452.

Best regards.