Promoting Conceptual Learning Using Scaffolded Activities That Incorporate Interactive Simulations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title;
- The title should be adjusted to reflect the dependent variable and the target group being studied.

Abstract;
- It should be further adjusted to cover the research methodology (data sources, instruments, data collection).
- Keywords should be adjusted to cover methods + independent variables.

Introduction;
- There is a clear research question.
- There is no clear connection between the independent variable (the teaching model developed by the researcher) and the dependent variables to be tested.

Theoretical framework;
- The research hypothesis should be further defined in this section.

Materials and Methods;
- The researcher did not clearly specify the scope of the population used for this research (who? Where? When? [year?] How many?) The sample was obtained (random or non-random).
- The researcher should summarize the research method (experimental process) in a diagram, both to provide readers with a clear picture and to easily understand the experimental process.
- It seems that the researcher did not mention the details of the dependent variable measurement instrument, both in terms of its characteristics and quality (what are its characteristics? What quality of the instrument is being looked for?)
- “To address any potential family-wise error that may have arisen due to the use of multiple tests, a Bonferroni correction was applied (p = 0.05/2=0.025)” Should researchers cite academics on this issue? How?

Results;
- In presenting numerical results, researchers should standardize decimals (should all have 3 decimal places?)
- In Table 1, the experimental group + control group should be moved to the rows and the Mean + SD. values ​​should be moved to the columns instead.
- Check line 266 to see if the statement “(Table S2, p = 0.606)” is correct or not. How?
- For the conciseness/clearness of the results The presentation method should be adjusted to follow the sequence of the research questions/hypotheses (if any).

Discussion and conclusion;
- The researcher should therefore emphasize the conclusion of the research results for each research question/hypotheses (if any).
- The discussion of the results should be classified into issues according to the research questions/hypotheses (if any) that are specified (Does it correspond to the hypothesis? How? Does it correspond to the concept/theory/whose research is it?).

References;
- The references are in accordance with academic standards. However, the editorial board should check them again carefully.

Others;
- The editorial board should consider checking whether this research project has been approved by research ethics.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be checked by a native speaker and/or a language checking program.

Author Response

1. Title
   The title should be adjusted to reflect the dependent variable and the target group being studied.

We appreciate the suggestion. We prefer to keep the title more general to highlight both the objective and the teaching strategy employed.

2. Abstract
   It should be further adjusted to cover the research methodology (data sources, instruments, data collection).

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the abstract to include additional details about the research methodology.

3. 
   Keywords should be adjusted to cover methods + independent variables.

We appreciate the suggestion. We would like to highlight the objective, the teaching strategy and its scope.

4. Introduction

-There is a clear research question.

-There is no clear connection between the independent variable (the teaching model developed by the researcher) and the dependent variables to be tested.

Thank you for the feedback. A major source of faculty hesitation in transitioning to active learning curricula is the perception that such approaches are time-consuming and challenging to implement in large-enrollment courses. To address concerns related to limited class time, simulation-based activities have often been used in out-of-class environments to promote active learning. However, this approach may limit opportunities for collaboration and peer learning. To overcome this limitation and facilitate active collaboration even in large class settings, we implemented simulation-based activities during discussion sections. In the introduction section, we emphasize the importance of active learning environments and the role of flipped classrooms in addressing time constraints. We also discuss the benefits of pre-class learning and simulation-based instruction, along with the limitations of using simulations outside the classroom. These considerations form the motivation for the present study, and we have refined the introduction to include more detailed context about the study’s objectives, design, teaching model developed, and the dependent variables examined.

5. Theoretical framework
   - The research hypothesis should be further defined in this section.

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the section to clearly define the research hypothesis and strengthen its connection to the theoretical framework.

6. Materials and Methods;
   - The researcher did not clearly specify the scope of the population used for this research (who? Where? When? [year?] How many?) The sample was obtained (random or non-random).

We have revised the manuscript to clearly specify the scope of the study population.

- The researcher should summarize the research method (experimental process) in a diagram, both to provide readers with a clear picture and to easily understand the experimental process.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have summarized the research methodology in Figure R1 and incorporated it into the manuscript.

Figure R1. Overview of the experimental design and structure of the discussion sections

- It seems that the researcher did not mention the details of the dependent variable measurement instrument, both in terms of its characteristics and quality (what are its characteristics? What quality of the instrument is being looked for?)

Thank you for the feedback. We have mentioned in the manuscript that open-ended assessment questions were administered in treatment groups immediately following the activity/instruction and again at the end of the term. Scores from these assessments were analyzed and compared between the two treatment groups to evaluate the impact of the activities on student learning and to measure immediate and intermediate-term retention. The assessment questions are provided in the Supporting Information.

- “To address any potential family-wise error that may have arisen due to the use of multiple tests, a Bonferroni correction was applied (p = 0.05/2=0.025)” Should researchers cite academics on this issue? How?

We appreciate the feedback. We have included a citation to a relevant article (Bender & Lange, 2001) that explains the Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction is a method used to address the problem of multiple comparisons by controlling the familywise error rate. It adjusts the significance threshold by dividing the desired overall alpha level (e.g., 0.05) by the number of tests performed.

7. Results
   - In presenting numerical results, researchers should standardize decimals (should all have 3 decimal places?)

We appreciate the feedback. In accordance with standard reporting practices, we have rounded all numerical values to three significant figures.

- In Table 1, the experimental group + control group should be moved to the rows and the Mean + SD. values ​​should be moved to the columns instead.

We appreciate the feedback. We have revised the table by placing the experimental and control groups in the rows, and the mean and standard deviation values in the columns.

- Check line 266 to see if the statement “(Table S2, p = 0.606)” is correct or not. How?

Thank you for the suggestion. This is correct—we found no statistically significant difference between the concept inventory scores of the two treatment groups, as determined by an independent samples t-test. Please refer to Table S2 for details.

- For the conciseness/clearness of the results The presentation method should be adjusted to follow the sequence of the research questions/hypotheses (if any).

Thank you for the feedback. We have refined the results section in the revised manuscript.

8. Discussion and conclusion;
   - The researcher should therefore emphasize the conclusion of the research results for each research question/hypotheses (if any).

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript to more clearly emphasize the conclusions drawn from the research findings for each research question.

- The discussion of the results should be classified into issues according to the research questions/hypotheses (if any) that are specified (Does it correspond to the hypothesis? How? Does it correspond to the concept/theory/whose research is it?).

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the discussion section to explicitly address and elaborate on the research questions.

9. References;
   - The references are in accordance with academic standards. However, the editorial board should check them again carefully.
10. Others;
    - The editorial board should consider checking whether this research project has been approved by research ethics.

 

11. Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be checked by a native speaker and/or a language checking program.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Section 2.2 Analysis: The manuscript notes that assumptions for ANCOVA were met (lines 245–247). However, for transparency, it would be beneficial to briefly describe how these assumptions were evaluated, e.g., through plots, statistical tests?

 

Final paragraph in Results Section:

If any statistical interaction was tested between treatment condition and incoming knowledge levels (as defined by the CCI tertiles), this should be explicitly stated here. 

The term “module” here is used to describe grouping students may confuse readers as “module” typically refers to course units or content. Consider replacing this with other terms, like “group”?

 

Grammar and Formatting

There are several grammatical issues that should be carefully proofread. For instance, on line 339 "the assessment score across the treatment groups, The students were divided into three groups"
The manuscript inconsistently switches between “sim-based” and “simulation-based”, please choose one term and apply it consistently throughout the text.

Some references appear incomplete or not aligned with the journal's recommended citation style. Please revise and format all references according to the required guidelines.

Author Response

1. Analysis

The manuscript notes that assumptions for ANCOVA were met (lines 245–247). However, for transparency, it would be beneficial to briefly describe how these assumptions were evaluated, e.g., through plots, statistical tests?

 Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript to include a brief description of how the assumptions were evaluated.

2. Final paragraph in Results Section

If any statistical interaction was tested between treatment condition and incoming knowledge levels (as defined by the CCI tertiles), this should be explicitly stated here. 

Thank you for the feedback. We have used an independent sample t-test to compare the incoming academic preparation between the two groups based on the Chemical Concept Inventory scores, which revealed no-significant difference between the two groups. This is mentioned in the methods and results sections

3. The term “module” here is used to describe grouping students may confuse readers as “module” typically refers to course units or content. Consider replacing this with other terms, like “group”?

Thank you for the feedback. We have replaced the term “module” with “score group” in the manuscript.

4. Grammar and Formatting

There are several grammatical issues that should be carefully proofread. For instance, on line 339 "the assessment score across the treatment groups, The students were divided into three groups"
The manuscript inconsistently switches between “sim-based” and “simulation-based”, please choose one term and apply it consistently throughout the text.

Thank you for the feedback. We have carefully proofread the manuscript and revised to ensure consistent use of the term “simulation-based” throughout.

5. Some references appear incomplete or not aligned with the journal's recommended citation style. Please revise and format all references according to the required guidelines.

Thank you for the feedback. We have revised the manuscript to format all the references.

 

References

 

1. Bender, R., & Lange, S. (2001). Adjusting for multiple testing--when and how?. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 54(4), 343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00314-0

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments on the revised version.