Mixed Reality Laboratory for Teaching Control Concepts: Design, Validation, and Implementation
, Ricardo Corona-Echauri 2, Ramón A. Meza-Flores 3, Carlos R. Vázquez 1, Alberto Rodríguez-Arreola 1 and Manuel Navarro-Gutiérrez 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery interesting topic.
Increase the font size in Figures 1, 6, 7, and 9.
The YouTube videos are very good; consider adding more images in the text and including links.
Figure 8 is too small; consider adding a different type of graph for a more visual representation.
It would be advisable to expand the discussion of the results with the results found for the questions. Furthermore, among virtual laboratories used in teaching and learning processes, several studies highlight their effectiveness in promoting retention and the acquisition of meaningful learning. The design of these applications plays a crucial role in their success (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214625). Therefore, it is recommended to include a contribution to the discussion on design considerations to improve the scientific quality of the study.
Another important aspect related to virtual reality learning environments is the problem of technological obsolescence. Over time, this can diminish the initial enthusiasm observed during the early stages of using these platforms. This is a relevant point that should be addressed in the discussion section, and it is advisable to include relevant references to support it.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. Please find below detailed responses to the comments you raised, which have been addressed in the revised version we are re-submitting.
Point-by-point response to comments and suggestions
Comment 1: Very interesting topic.
Response 1: Thank you, we appreciate it.
Comment 2: Increase the font size in Figures 1, 6, 7, and 9.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out, the font size of those figures was small. In the revised version the font size of Figures 1 and 9 is larger. Figures 6 and 7 were merged, and we increased the font size of both figures.
Comment 3: Figure 8 is too small; consider adding a different type of graph for a more visual representation. It would be advisable to expand the discussion of the results with the results found for the questions.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. We replaced the six bar charts of the previous version with a single box-and-whisker plot in the new version. This improves clarity and allows for a more concise comparison of the survey results.
Comment 4: Furthermore, among virtual laboratories used in teaching and learning processes, several studies highlight their effectiveness in promoting retention and the acquisition of meaningful learning. The design of these applications plays a crucial role in their success (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214625). Therefore, it is recommended to include a contribution to the discussion on design considerations to improve the scientific quality of the study.
Response 4: Thanks for the recommendation. As described in the suggested reference by Vergara et al. (2019), the virtual environment must be designed focusing on a step-by-step protocol to help the students to improve knowledge building. In our case, we actually drafted a practice guide before developing our platform. This guide helped us to decide the features that were desirable or required by the platform for performing the practices (e.g., we required some variables measurements in real-time in our platform, so the student can visualize the system position and the variables value at the same time, on the other hand, having the possibility to plot these variables was desirable but not mandatory, since these plots can be obtained from the control microcontroller IDE). We have added a comment on this in subsection 2.1.
It is important to remark that the final practice guide, described in subsection 4.2 of the revised version, implements the Kolb’s experiential learning cycle.
Comment 5: Another important aspect related to virtual reality learning environments is the problem of technological obsolescence. Over time, this can diminish the initial enthusiasm observed during the early stages of using these platforms. This is a relevant point that should be addressed in the discussion section, and it is advisable to include relevant references to support it.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised version, we include a discussion about the risk points of technological obsolescence in virtual environments, based on the works of Grévisse (2022) and Vergara et al. (2020). We discuss how our MR laboratories prevent technological obsolescence risk points in the software and hardware. We explain how the design of our MR laboratory is compatible with different visualization platforms such as desktops, Meta Quest 2, and Meta Quest 3 headsets.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is very interesting to read and with some important additions would be worthy of publication. The authors clearly are deeply involved in important lab work.
The article is very rich in referencing research in education and then in great details describes the lab and its projects. The argument is that the lab has adapted some very important educational methods.
But, as much as the lab technical details are described in great length, the educational approach is only generally described, sometimes only hinted at. The article looks like it is more suited for a technical journal then for educational one.
The article will be much more useful and appropriate for publication in a journal whose topic is education if the authors will add a detailed description of their educational method, what exactly they have added to the lab from educational point of view, and how other educators in other labs could use it. This presentation should go beyond mere principles to become a useful educational technology.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review the work we are submitting, we appreciate your thoughtful feedback. Below we include detailed responses to the comments you raised, which were taken into consideration in the revised version that we are resubmitting.
Point-by-point response to comments and suggestions
Comment 1: The article is very interesting to read and with some important additions would be worthy of publication. The authors clearly are deeply involved in important lab work.
Response 1: We appreciate your recognition of our work.
Comment 2: The article is very rich in referencing research in education and then in great details describes the lab and its projects. The argument is that the lab has adapted some very important educational methods.
Response 2: Thanks for noticing the efforts we made in describing our MR lab.
Comment 3: But, as much as the lab technical details are described in great length, the educational approach is only generally described, sometimes only hinted at. The article looks like it is more suited for a technical journal then for educational one.
Response 3: You are right, in the previous version we did not describe in detail the educational approach we are using when implementing the MR laboratories with students. We realize about the importance of describing the educational approach that can be applied with our proposal. For this reason, in the revised version, we have added a detailed description of the practice design, which is based on the Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Regarding this, the practice guide requires the student to design and implement three control algorithms (P, PI, PID). In each case, the student must perform a cycle of four tasks in order to tune the control algorithms for achieving required performance metrics. These tasks correspond with the stages of the Kolb cycle: concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective observation and active experimentation. This is described in detail in Subsection 4.2.
Comment 4: The article will be much more useful and appropriate for publication in a journal whose topic is education if the authors will add a detailed description of their educational method, what exactly they have added to the lab from educational point of view, and how other educators in other labs could use it. This presentation should go beyond mere principles to become a useful educational technology.
Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. In the revised version we are adding the Subsection 4.2 Practice design based on Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle. There we describe how the design of the laboratory practice was based on the Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. We added a flow diagram in Figure 7 to explain the steps that students go through during the practice, explaining how the activities are related to the four stages of the Kolb’s cycle: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA brief summary
This article presents the experience of control engineering students in the design and implementation of control algorithms using microcontrollers to stabilize electromechanical systems within a mixed reality laboratory.
Specific comments
This review is more of a practitioner-based manuscript than a research study. The manuscript does an excellent job of reviewing the student experience and the processes used.
The manuscript is thorough and provides extensive documentation and images that work to convey the details of your research and project development.
The article is clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field. The topic is relevant as it demonstrates the laboratory application of the concepts being learned in the classroom. Experiential learning at its core.
Although the article does not identify a gap in knowledge, it is not necessary.
The references are appropriately used and are mostly recent (within the last 5 years). The article does not appear to include an excessive number of self-citations.
The statements and conclusions drawn are coherent and supported.
The figures/tables/images are all appropriate and properly show the data. They are generally easy to interpret and understand. However, figures 6,7,8 are a bit on the small end and make it a bit more challenging to read.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our article. Please find below detailed responses to the comments you raised, which have been addressed in the revised version we are re-submitting.
Point-by-point response to comments and suggestions
Comment 1:
A brief summary
This article presents the experience of control engineering students in the design and implementation of control algorithms using microcontrollers to stabilize electromechanical systems within a mixed reality laboratory.
Response 1: We appreciate your time reviewing the manuscript.
Comment 2:
Specific comments
This review is more of a practitioner-based manuscript than a research study. The manuscript does an excellent job of reviewing the student experience and the processes used.
The manuscript is thorough and provides extensive documentation and images that work to convey the details of your research and project development.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We added a new subsection describing the experiential learning to explain the education methodology even in more detail.
Comment 3: The article is clear, comprehensive and of relevance to the field. The topic is relevant as it demonstrates the laboratory application of the concepts being learned in the classroom. Experiential learning at its core.
Response 3: Thanks for your comments. To be more specific, in the revised version we are describing how the Kolb’s cycle is related to the laboratory practice that students carried out.
Comment 4: Although the article does not identify a gap in knowledge, it is not necessary. The references are appropriately used and are mostly recent (within the last 5 years). The article does not appear to include an excessive number of self-citations. The statements and conclusions drawn are coherent and supported.
Response 4: Thanks for your positive comments. For the conclusion section we added a discussion about our technology and about the educational method used during the implementation with the students.
Comment 5: The figures/tables/images are all appropriate and properly show the data. They are generally easy to interpret and understand. However, figures 6,7,8 are a bit on the small end and make it a bit more challenging to read.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing out this. Figures 6 and 7 were merged, and we increased the font size of both figures. We replaced the six bar charts of Figure 8 of the previous version with a single box-and-whisker plot in the new version. This improves clarity in the explanation of the survey.
