Didactic Use of Virtual Reality in Colombian Universities: Professors’ Perspective
, Diego Vergara 2,*, Pablo Fernández-Arias 2 and Edwan Anderson Ariza-Echeverri 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The purpose of this study was the examination of the perceptions of 204 university professors from various fields regarding the use of Virtual Reality In Columbia. Bellow I will explain further every detail based on each section.
Abstract: The abstract contains sufficient information; however, the methodological aspect and instrument is fairly vague. I will return to this on problem in section 2.
Introduction: The authors introduction seems to be divided in three sub-subjects; 1) Colombia's digital literacy and global innovation index, 2) Prensky's categorization of digital natives and digital immigrants, 3) COVID. This amount of information and detail and especially the Table 1 and Figure 1 are not needed. One would expect that the introduction was going to provide the reader of some sort of a context due to why the authors are investigating the use of VR in Colombian universities. Answers to questions such as, why investigate VR now in Colombia? What problems does VR solves? How is VR used in university education? What's the current state in digital adoption in Colombia? After these questions are answered the authors should emphasize the need for this study. This is not evident from the introduction, and it should be answered. Lastly, as mentioned above, the authors should consider deleting table one and figure one, as they explained the concept in such detail in text, they do not seem to provide any added value to the work.
Materials and Methods: At this point the authors move directly to the study details. One thing missing from this work is a review of the literature. A reader would expect some comparison to previous studies so a gap within the research is identified and therefore the need for this research becomes evident. The authors should include a seperate section for a literature review. The issue that was identified in the abstract becomes apparent in the "Instrument" subs-section. The authors do not explain in detail how they created/selected 17 closed-ended questions. There is no report about a specific instrument or a previous study that they used in order to adapt their questions. There is no justification on the selected variables as well. This sub-section lacks the rationale for selecting the instrument they did. Is there a reason the authors decided to do an Exploratory Factor Analysis? Is there a scale in the literature that they decided not to use? What is the rationale for this?
Results: The results section seems sufficient.
Discussion: The authors should compare their findings to previous studies.
Results: Even though this study started as a university professor perception towards VR study, the authors shifted the attention to the gender gap. A more balanced approach would be preferable.
Overall major revisions are needed.
Author Response
Please, find enclosed a detailed response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article was prepared in a very careful way, with a broad description of the included research results. In my opinion it is suitable for publication without changes.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
The authors are very grateful for the reviewer's comments. We are also pleased that you found the work interesting, which fills us with satisfaction.
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper discusses the relevance of VR as perceived by non-technical Colombian educators. It seems that, in par with the reality of other countries, there is a general feeling of high relevance amongst the subjects. These conclusions were expectable, therefore, despite the moderate scientific novelty, I am in favor of the publication of this paper. I would only suggest the authors to revise the formatting of Table 3 and the beginning of Section 4.
Author Response
Please, find enclosed a detailed response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
After reviewing the revised study, it seems that everything that was mentioned has been addressed. I therefore accept the current study.
