Design and Evaluation of a Multisensory Tangible Game Device for Inclusive Pre-Braille Literacy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer Feedback

This article addresses a critical gap in inclusive education by developing a device aimed at promoting pre-Braille literacy. The study provides first-hand insights into the device’s design and user experience, offering practical implications for educators, therapists, and developers working on inclusive tools for improving pre-Braille literacy.

However, the following issues should be addressed prior to publication.

 

1. Research Gap and Research Objectivities

Issue: This study provides a solid literature review to justify the design of the multisensory device and highlights its significance by saying “this study contributes to the field of assistive technologies by…” (P.2). However, it fails to explicitly address the research gap and define clear research objectives, which weakens its focus and scholarly impact.

Recommendation:  Add a paragraph or several sentences discussing the research gap and research objectives in an appropriate part of the study. 

 

 2. Research Questions

Issue: The study does not include any research questions.

Recommendation: Research questions should be clearly articulated in the paper.

 

3. Missing Citation

 Issue: In paragraph one, the author mentioned “research indicates that 70%...., and several report difficulties with ….”  However, the lack of citation in this section compromises the study’s credibility.

Recommendation: provide citations.

 

4. Unclear Research Context

Issue: The author mentions 'this study examines…' and then refers to 'another study examines…,' (in the first paragraph), which creates confusion. Why are two studies mentioned?

Recommendation: Clarification is needed. Provide more details and explain why two studies were mentioned in this section.

  

5. Participants

Issue: the study discusses participants in Section 4.2. and again, in Section 4.4, where it briefly mentioned two evaluation periods. However, the explanation lacks clarity.  Are the same group of participants involved in both evaluations? How long does each evaluation last? And what is the evaluation process?

Recommendation: More details should be provided.

 

6. Game-based activities

Issue: The study offers minimal details about the game-based activities. The authors only briefly mentioned the activities such as “letter identification, word construction, and Braille Code recognition” (section 4.2)

Recommendation: Provide more detailed descriptions of the game-based activities.

 

7. Data analysis

Issue: In the data analysis section, the author state that thematic analysis was used. However, they also write “these themes might include areas like…”. The use of the word "might" introduce ambiguity, suggesting that the themes listed are speculative rather than definitively derived from the data. This raises concerns.

Recommendation: provide more details.

 

8. Limitation section

Issue: The study lacks a limitation section. It only discusses future work without acknowledging its limitations.

Recommendation: A limitation section should be added.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study combines multi-sensory feedback and serious games to design and evaluate a specific operating device that can support visually impaired students in learning Braille. It has high educational practical value and social contribution, especially in the application of "inclusive education" and "multi-sensory learning". This study particularly emphasizes that the device can be operated by students with normal vision, low vision and total blindness, which is in line with the spirit of Universal Design for Learning  and has obvious originality and application potential.
Suggestions:
1. The situation of the 12 educators participating in the experiment needs to be explained clearly. From "5.Result", it seems that the expert group of teachers includes totally blind, low vision and normal vision. These will affect the experimental results.
2. How to collect the four key questions? Is it to collect qualitative opinions of the subjects through questionnaires? Or interviews?
3. How to analyze the feedback of users? From 5.1, it seems that the vast majority of participants provided positive feedback. Where did this conclusion come from? Is there any data to support it?
4. According to the content of the article, it seems that no experiments were conducted on children with visual impairments. Therefore, are the results of this study limited to the feedback of 12 educators? If so, some research results need further empirical evidence rather than confirmed facts. For example, at the beginning of "6.Discussion", it is stated that the games in this study can improve children with different degrees of visual impairment, but if the experiment was not actually conducted on children, this argument is an over-extension. It can only be regarded as the idea of educators. If this study is conducted on children, please attach relevant certificates such as IRB, and explain whether informed consent has been obtained. And the background of the children must be informed.
5. 6.2 It is mentioned that this study is consistent with similar studies, but the source of the relevant studies is not included.
6. Although the conclusion is described, the feedback from the focus group shows that the device has significant educational value. However, as mentioned above, it is necessary to understand the test background first, otherwise the discussion and conclusion about children can only be regarded as the ideas of educators, rather than empirical results.
7. When citing data, it is necessary to avoid using percentages directly as absolute criteria. For example, "92% think it is attractive" needs to explain what scale or classification results are based on.
8. It is recommended to present the discussion in a more systematic way, for example: for each result, specific application implications, similarities and differences with previous studies, and feasible suggestions for future improvements.
9. More details about qualitative data analysis can be added, such as how to conduct thematic analysis and whether there are more than two researchers to code to ensure reliability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The updated version addressed the previously noted issues by identifying the research gap, clarifying the research objectives and questions, providing participant information, explaining the thematic analysis method, and acknowledging the study’s limitations.

These revisions have enhanced the overall coherence of the paper.

Author Response

No more comments from the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made clear and substantive revisions that effectively address the review comments, thereby improving the transparency of the study and the accuracy of its conclusions. 

1. More information on the qualitative data analysis is recommended, such as a detailed description of how thematic analysis was conducted and whether coding was performed by two or more researchers to ensure inter-coder reliability.
2. In the discussion and future research directions, it is suggested to reiterate the position that “this study represents a preliminary evaluation” and explicitly outline concrete plans for subsequent empirical validation with children.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx