Impact of Virtual Reality Immersion in Biology Classes on Habits of Mind of East Jerusalem Municipality High School Students: Examining Mediating Roles of Self-Regulation, Flow Experience, and Motivation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- This study investigates the effects of Virtual Reality Immersion (VRI) on students’ habits of mind (HoM) in high school biology classes in East Jerusalem using a quantitative research design. The study is based on data collected through questionnaires from 347 participants selected via stratified random sampling. The hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Given its focus on assessing cognitive outcomes in digital learning environments, the study represents a relevant contribution within the scope of the journal.
- The study offers an original contribution to the literature by examining the effects of VR technology not only on academic performance but also on higher-order cognitive skills such as habits of mind. Although the use of VR in education has been frequently investigated in prior research, this study distinguishes itself by employing a sequential mediation model (via flow experience, motivation, and self-regulation) and grounding the analysis within the Cognitive-Affective Model of Immersive Learning (CAMIL). The application of the CAMIL framework significantly strengthens the theoretical basis of the research.
- However, certain aspects of the study can be improved. Most notably, the lack of consideration for individual differences—such as participants’ prior experience with VR or their level of digital literacy—presents a limitation in the interpretation of the results. Including such background variables as control factors in the analysis would enhance the reliability and clarity of the findings.
- The VR content used in the study appears to have been sourced from pre-existing platforms, rather than developed specifically for this research. While this does not diminish the study’s overall value, it does limit its originality. Providing links or access to the VR content would improve the study’s reproducibility and offer valuable resources for future researchers. Moreover, presenting a flowchart illustrating the VR implementation process (e.g., content delivery, duration, instructor roles) would enhance the transparency and readability of the methodology. A general workflow diagram outlining the research process would also be beneficial.
- Including a concise and systematic summary table of previous studies in the literature review section would help clarify the study’s unique position in the field.
- The study was conducted in only three schools in East Jerusalem and within a specific cultural context. This limitation may affect the generalizability of the findings. Replication studies in other regions and educational contexts are recommended to confirm and extend the results.
- The research was conducted using only quantitative methods. A mixed-methods approach, incorporating qualitative data such as student and teacher interviews, could have provided deeper insights and enhanced the study’s validity and reliability.
- Additionally, relying solely on self-reported questionnaire data limits the assessment of learning outcomes. Including performance-based assessments—such as tests or project evaluations—could have offered more concrete evidence of students’ learning gains. Furthermore, making the collected data publicly accessible in a usable format would greatly benefit future research.
- The findings are presented in a detailed and structured manner. The PLS-SEM analyses are comprehensive, and the statistical evidence supporting the hypotheses is clearly reported. The data presentation is supported by well-organized figures and tables, and both validity and reliability analyses are satisfactory. However, the rationale behind the sample size (n = 347) is not clearly explained. Clarifying this aspect in the methodology section would be helpful.
To enhance the clarity and flow of the manuscript, I suggest a light language editing or proofreading prior to publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic—using Virtual Reality Immersion (VRI) to enhance students' habits of mind (HoM) in high school biology education. The study is grounded in a solid theoretical framework (CAMIL), employs validated instruments, and uses robust statistical analyses (PLS-SEM) to explore direct and indirect effects.
Nevertheless, the manuscript requires revisions before it is suitable for publication.
Theoretical and Conceptual Clarity
The article provides a thorough theoretical background. That said, the explanation of the CAMIL model and how it informs the study design could be more concise and precise. While the conceptual model is detailed, the rationale for including multiple layers of mediation (primary, secondary, tertiary) needs clearer theoretical justification.
Methodological Rigor
The study utilises a large and well-defined sample. Even so, more information is needed regarding the randomisation process and the equivalence of the treatment groups across the three schools.
Interpretation of Results
The findings are statistically robust, particularly regarding the strong mediating role of self-regulation. That being said, the interpretation of effect sizes would benefit from a more pedagogically informed discussion. The educational significance of small or moderate indirect effects should be better articulated.
Recommendations and Implications
The practice-oriented recommendations are valid, yet they should be balanced against the realities of resource-constrained school environments. Proposals such as investing in VR technology should be adapted to reflect feasibility across different educational contexts.
Additionally, the authors are encouraged to broaden the discussion to include the potential applicability of their findings beyond the local setting, thereby enhancing the study’s international relevance.
Ethical and Practical Considerations
The research appears to have been conducted ethically, with no signs of plagiarism or misconduct. Still, the possibility of bias introduced by teacher involvement in data collection—especially via WhatsApp—should be transparently acknowledged as a limitation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript would benefit from language editing to enhance clarity and academic tone. There are sections with awkward phrasing and redundancy (e.g., the repeated emphasis on self-regulation without new insights). The transitions between sections, especially in the discussion, should be improved to enhance logical flow.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revisions made by the authors show a clear response to previous feedback. The manuscript is now more coherent and focused, and multiple elements have improved. Key strengths include:
- Theoretical Framework: The explanation of the CAMIL model and the justification for the sequential mediation are clearer and more logically presented.
- Methodology: The clarification of the sampling process and a detailed description of participant selection enhance the methodological rigor. Acknowledging the role of teachers in distributing the questionnaires via WhatsApp as a possible limitation is also appropriate.
- Discussion of Results: The interpretation of effect sizes is now more pedagogically grounded. The recognition that small or moderate effects can still be educationally meaningful is a strength.
This is a strong study with relevant contributions to immersive learning in science education. I recommend revisions, especially focusing on introduction conciseness and language refinement.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English has improved, but several long, complex sentences persist. A final proofreading would polish the text effectively.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
