Exploring Opportunities for More Effective Acquisition and Interpretation of New Knowledge by Students in the Field of Architectural Visualization Through Multimedia Learning

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The paper needs a clearer manuscript organization, especially in methods and results sections.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have restructured the Methods and Results sections to improve clarity and logical flow. This change can be found: page 7, line 278; page 14, paragraph 3, and lines 590÷596.

Comments 2: The experimental evaluation relies on subjective expert assessments. Objective metrics could improve validity

Response 2: Agree. We acknowledge this limitation. A clarification has been added to the Methods section indicating that expert assessments were complemented by student self-evaluations and survey data, which enhances objectivity. Future studies will consider additional quantitative indicators.

Comments 3: The results show a trend rather than definitive significance. Further validation would strengthen the argument.

Response 3: We agree with this point. The Results and Conclusion sections have been updated to reflect the preliminary nature of the findings and to emphasize the need for future research with larger sample sizes. This change can be found: page 13, paragraph 2, and line 535÷537; page 21, paragraph 5, and lines 838÷840.

Comments 4: The paper could better connect theoretical frameworks to experimental design and practical recommendations.

Response 4: We have expanded the Literature Review and Discussion sections to more explicitly link theoretical principles (e.g., multimedia learning theory, constructivism) to the experimental approach and the derived pedagogical implications. This change can be found: page 6, paragraph 2÷4, and line 258÷270; page 20, paragraph 3, and lines 787÷790.

Comments 5: Although the paper offers practical guidance, it lacks specific curricular models.

Response 5: We appreciate this insight. While specific curricular models are beyond the scope of this study, we have added a paragraph in the Discussion section to suggest how microlearning elements could be integrated into curriculum structures. A training model specific to architectural visualizations is under development and is expected to be introduced and tested within a year. In it will be included in addition to video tutorials and other elements characteristic of microlearning.

Comments 6: The conclusion highlights potential, but should stress the need for longitudinal studies more and actionable curriculum strategies.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. The Conclusion section has been revised to more clearly state the need for longitudinal validation and to outline future directions for curriculum development strategies.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 4: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response 1: To improve the English language, the services of MDPI's Author English Language Editing Services were used - Author service ID 985227.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript accordingly. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract should include more conclusive information.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the abstract to better reflect the study's main findings and implications, including a clearer summary of the key results. This change can be found: page 1, paragraph 3, and lines 25÷30.  

Comments 2: The method section is too short and should be more detailed

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have expanded the Methods section to include detailed information on participant profiles, data collection instruments, and analysis procedures – pages 7÷8.

Comments 3: A visual flowchart should be included in the method section.

Response 3: A new flowchart figure has been added to illustrate the research process and sequence of activities within the experimental setup – page 9.

Comments 4: The theoretical guidance is weak.

Response 4: We appreciate this insight. The Literature Review and Theoretical Background sections have been enhanced with a clearer explanation of relevant educational theories and how they support the research design. This change can be found: page 6, paragraphs 1÷4, and lines 249÷270.

Comments 5: The meanings of specialized terms such as microlearning and architectural visualization should be explained in more detail.

Response 5: Definitions of the term "microlearning" can be seen on page 2, paragraphs 2÷5, and lines 59-85. Definitions and context for architectural visualization' have been added early in the manuscript to improve reader understanding – page 6, paragraph 1, and lines 249÷257.

Comments 6: The findings should be discussed in terms of educator-student interaction within a pedagogical context.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have expanded the Discussion section to relate findings more explicitly to educator-student dynamics and pedagogical practice. This change can be found: page 20, paragraph 4, and lines 791÷795.

Comments 7: Student perceptions were well-collected but the analysis can be more holistic.

Response 7: The analysis section now includes additional interpretation and synthesis to explore patterns and alignments in student self-perceptions - page 20, paragraph 4, and lines 791÷795.

Comments 8: The lack of visuals in some sections should be more clearly separated from statistical significance and interpretations.

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. Subsubsection 3.2.3. Conclusions from the Student Survey Conducted During the Experiment Clarifications have been added to distinguish between visual illustrative content and statistical findings throughout the Results section. This change can be found: page 19 and line 768.

Comments 9: Qualitative results should be better linked to pedagogical concepts.

Response 9: We appreciate this insight. We have enhanced the interpretation of qualitative data by explicitly referencing educational principles and theoretical insights. This change can be found: page 20, paragraphs 5÷9, and lines 796÷816.

Comments 10: The discussion section is too short and should be further developed using literature review.

Response 10: We appreciate this insight. The Discussion section has been significantly expanded to integrate supporting literature and frame the findings within broader academic discourse. This change can be found: page 20, paragraphs 5÷9, and lines 796÷816.

Comments 11: The conclusion section should be more conservative rather than definitive and general statements.

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. The Conclusion section has been revised to adopt a more balanced tone and to acknowledge study limitations and contextual boundaries - page 21.

Comments 12: The conclusion section does not address the study's limitations.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. A new paragraph has been added to the Conclusion section to outline key limitations such as sample size and generalizability- page 21.

Comments 13: Recommendations for future research should be summarized in a single sentence and should be more detailed.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. The Conclusion now includes a concise, specific recommendation for future research directions- page 21.

Comments 14: Pedagogical depth should be included in the conclusion section at a semantic level.

Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. Pedagogical implications have been strengthened in the final part of the Conclusion, highlighting practical applications for design educators- page 21.

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you!

5. Additional clarifications

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive feedback.