Nurturing Body Literacy: Transforming Education in the Virtual Reality Era to Shape Children’s Identities and Redefine Educator Roles

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study with 9-year-old pupils on the impact of mobile phone use on body image. The paper is appropriate to the scope of the journal.

The paper presents research that is of interest to the field of study. It has an appropriate structure and the language is accessible.

The abstract provides an adequate summary of the paper. Keywords are frequently used both in the abstract and throughout the text. The abstract is of appropriate length according to the instructions for authors.

Presents a clear introduction, as it follows the usual structure: presentation of the topic, main theoretical principles, origin of the problem, and last paragraph presenting how the article is organised.

The theoretical background is presented in detail. It presents relevant authors in the field, but the references are somewhat outdated. The references are presented incorrectly, they should be in straight brackets: [1,2]. Not as a number above the line.

The methodology used is clearly presented. This is important because it allows a colleague to reproduce the experiments and compare the results. 

The results show significant facts for this field of study. A discussion and analysis are provided in relation to other studies in the field. An appropriate discussion and analysis of the issues under investigation is provided, with an overview of other studies in the field.

Figures and tables do not follow the formatting rules and show errors in the legends, e.g. bold is used for all legends, but in the template only figure 1 or table 1 should be used.  As mentioned in the template "All figures and tables should be cited in the main text as Figure 1, Table 1", the authors should add this information in the text in the paragraph before the figure or table.

Conclusions show the main points of the presented research and inform future work.

We recommend that authors analyse the template available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions and check the formatting of the document.

 

List of suggested changes

Keywords - should be bold

Line 205 - check if it is normal text or a title

Between lines 294 and 318, a bulleted list should be used, not the bold.

Line 527 - "ca be tackled" should be "can be tackled"?

Some information is missing at the end of the paper, such as:

·        Supplementary Materials

·        Author Contributions

·        Funding

·        Informed Consent Statement

·        Data Availability Statement

·        Acknowledgments

 

·        Conflicts of Interest

Author Response

Rev: The paper presents a study with 9-year-old pupils on the impact of mobile phone use on body image. The paper is appropriate to the scope of the journal.

 

Auth: thank you for your comments

 

Rev: The paper presents research that is of interest to the field of study. It has an appropriate structure and the language is accessible.

 

Auth: thank you for your comments

 

 

Rev: The abstract provides an adequate summary of the paper. Keywords are frequently used both in the abstract and throughout the text. The abstract is of appropriate length according to the instructions for authors.

 

Auth: thank you for your comments

 

 

Rev: Presents a clear introduction, as it follows the usual structure: presentation of the topic, main theoretical principles, origin of the problem, and last paragraph presenting how the article is organised.

 

Auth: thank you for your comments

 

 

Rev: The theoretical background is presented in detail. It presents relevant authors in the field, but the references are somewhat outdated. The references are presented incorrectly, they should be in straight brackets: [1,2]. Not as a number above the line.

 

Auth: the format concerning the reference has been changed; the references have been updated where possible

 

 

Rev: The methodology used is clearly presented. This is important because it allows a colleague to reproduce the experiments and compare the results. 

 

Auth: thank you for your comments

 

Rev: The results show significant facts for this field of study. A discussion and analysis are provided in relation to other studies in the field. An appropriate discussion and analysis of the issues under investigation is provided, with an overview of other studies in the field.

 

Auth: thank you for your comments

 

 

Rev: Figures and tables do not follow the formatting rules and show errors in the legends, e.g. bold is used for all legends, but in the template only figure 1 or table 1 should be used.  As mentioned in the template "All figures and tables should be cited in the main text as Figure 1, Table 1", the authors should add this information in the text in the paragraph before the figure or table.

 

Auth: we have changed the format of the legend; tables and figures are now indicated in the text.

 

Conclusions show the main points of the presented research and inform future work.

We recommend that authors analyse the template available at https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education/instructions and check the formatting of the document.

 

List of suggested changes

Keywords - should be bold

Line 205 - check if it is normal text or a title

Between lines 294 and 318, a bulleted list should be used, not the bold.

Line 527 - "ca be tackled" should be "can be tackled"?

 

 

Some information is missing at the end of the paper, such as:

• Supplementary Materials
• Author Contributions
• Funding
• Informed Consent Statement
• Data Availability Statement
• Acknowledgments

 

• Conflicts of Interest

 

Auth: all the issues have been addressed

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Writing a review on the submitted article was not easy for me. As the topic seems very new and interesting, unfortunately I find a number of aspects that seem problematic and submit them to the authors below for consideration for possible incorporation. I honestly believe that the article is not ready for publication in this form. 

First of all, I have a fairly fundamental problem with the use of the term virtual reality - the article lacks a concept in which this phrase will be used, which is a fundamental error, as there are many definitions and approaches. In studying the article then, I believe that the topic is more about social networking or online environments rather than virtual reality and the term is used in a misleading way. It is not even explained how the authors perceive the VR era, what it is for them and what concept they are working with to define it. I would have expected this especially in the research part of the text. 

Indeed, it is the presentation of current knowledge and research on the topic that deserves to be reworked. The theoretical foundations strike me as very inconsistent, perhaps as if they were put together in the text without finding a direct link to the research itself. I would have much more appreciated a review of studies with a similar aim, which I recommend to define more clearly, as well as to present the basic hypotheses on which the authors build. 

Some of the statements that appear to be specific, I would recommend to cite more consistently and to find support in the available literature (for example, lines 76-78, 83 - 84 etc.).

For a number of claims, a single source is not sufficient support, as these are claims that are defined quite differently by different authors, lines 96-99 being an example - here I certainly recommend stronger support from established studies. 

The authors work with the concept of social influences, would it not be more appropriate to work with the concept of socio-cultural influences, or to include cultural influences? 

I disagree with some of the statements outright, an example is the statement in lines 182-184. The fact that I disagree with the assertion is not, of course, dispositive, but the problematic point is that these assertions are again not disarmed. 

I recommend that Figure 1 be redrawn, the font changed, and better commented on, otherwise it appears redundant. 

Furthermore, I really recommend clarifying and working more systematically with the terms virtual reality x space, online space, social media. If the authors are writing about social media, then it is necessary to define what social media, because social media targets different groups and individuals profile themselves within it in different ways, so it is not possible to apply the conclusions to "social media" in general if these differences were not perceived and distinguished within the study. 

In terms of ethical standards - how were the pupils' legal guardians included in the research? For example, was their consent secured? 

I would recommend adjusting the thematic analysis which is opaque - what are direct quotes and what is secondary interpretation? I recommend quantifying the term "most of the students". For some categories, statements from other categories are repeated. This form is very opaque to the point of being unfortunate. It is also not clear to me how some categories are related to body-image.

In general, I have to say that, although the topic is interesting, it is handled very inconsistently and the conclusions come across as first-rate and unconvincing in terms of novelty and enrichment of the field. I don't find the research design problematic, it is the grasp of the data and the inconsistency in the terms used that is problematic. I recommend that the authors start with a clear definition of the goal, go back to the hypotheses at the beginning, to the concept of body image, and from there proceed through the questions they will ask - what body image influences to how it is modified by the movement of individuals on social media. 

 

Author Response

Rev: Writing a review on the submitted article was not easy for me. As the topic seems very new and interesting, unfortunately I find a number of aspects that seem problematic and submit them to the authors below for consideration for possible incorporation. I honestly believe that the article is not ready for publication in this form.

Auth: We appreciate your thorough review of our submitted article. Your insights have been invaluable in refining the content. We acknowledge the novelty and complexity of the topic, and we believe that the revisions we have made address the issues you raised. The modifications aim to enhance the overall quality and coherence of the article.

We understand your perspective on the readiness for publication, but we assert that the final version now meets the minimum standards required. We have strived to ensure the credibility and integrity of our work and are confident that the improvements made have brought the article to a publishable standard.

 

Rev: First of all, I have a fairly fundamental problem with the use of the term virtual reality - the article lacks a concept in which this phrase will be used, which is a fundamental error, as there are many definitions and approaches.

Auth: in the introduction, we have further stressed our perspective; In the context of this study, virtual reality can be understood as the contemporary manifestation of technology and the internet in all their forms, providing individuals with a novel form of existence that blurs the boundaries between the physical and digital realms. Thus, it refers to all the forms of technology today available that offer individuals different ways and “reality” where to communicate, socialize, etc.

Rev: In studying the article then, the topic is more about social networking or online environments rather than virtual reality and the term is used in a misleading way. It is not even explained how the authors perceive the VR era, what it is for them and what concept they are working with to define it. I would have expected this, especially in the research part of the text. 

Auth: VR is a complex area of existence; it was not possible, from our perspective, to address all the possible opportunities offered by technology and digitalization. Thus, it was taken the decision to focus our attention on one of the most significant representations of virtual reality: social media.  We are perfectly aware that social media represents only a part of virtual reality. Nonetheless, from our point of view, corroborated by the literature reviews, for our target group – children of 9/10 years – they represent an entry door in the virtual reality.

Indeed, it is the presentation of current knowledge and research on the topic that deserves to be reworked. The theoretical foundations strike me as very inconsistent, perhaps as if they were put together in the text without finding a direct link to the research itself. I would have much more appreciated a review of studies with a similar aim, which I recommend to define more clearly, as well as to present the basic hypotheses on which the authors build. 

Auth: thank you for your advice. From our understanding, there is a lack of research focusing on children. In fact, the most relevant studies address pre-teens and adolescents. In addition, considering the fact that the use of social media is forbidden for children under 14, the scientific community lacks specific attention in this area. However, we have tried to refer to all the available studies in this area.

Some of the statements that appear to be specific, I would recommend to cite more consistently and to find support in the available literature (for example, lines 76-78, 83 - 84 etc.).

Auth:It is not possible to support the statements concerning the concept of body literacy as it is a concept that, to our knowledge, is not investigated in scientific literature.  

 

Rev: For a number of claims, a single source is not sufficient support, as these are claims that are defined quite differently by different authors, lines 96-99 being an example - here I certainly recommend stronger support from established studies. 

Auth: where possible, we have tried to strengthen the support from the scientific literature.

Rev: The authors work with the concept of social influences, would it not be more appropriate to work with the concept of socio-cultural influences, or to include cultural influences? 

Auth: Thank you for the advice. Considering the fact that we have investigated the social influence of the social media without taking into consideration the cultural aspect we think is more appropriate to refer to the concept of social influences. In addition, the sample that it has been analysed presents a cultural homogeneity, as it is composed by a group of pupils that – with the due proportion – are inserted in a shared and common cultural context.

Rev: I disagree with some of the statements outright, an example is the statement in lines 182-184. The fact that I disagree with the assertion is not, of course, dispositive, but the problematic point is that these assertions are again not disarmed. 

Auth: The lines 182-184 are linked with the results that the authors have drawn from the study. In any case, we have inserted to reference that may offer support to the statements.

Rev: I recommend that Figure 1 be redrawn, the font changed, and better commented on, otherwise it appears redundant. 

Auth: the overall scope of the figure is to provide a visual representation of what is presented and explained from line 173 to line 217.  

Rev:: Furthermore, I really recommend clarifying and working more systematically with the terms virtual reality x space, online space, social media. If the authors are writing about social media, then it is necessary to define what social media, because social media targets different groups and individuals profile themselves within it in different ways, so it is not possible to apply the conclusions to "social media" in general if these differences were not perceived and distinguished within the study. 

Auth: We take the poin but if we refer to the cultural framework proposed by, among the other, Floridi or Han we should consider nline platforms and technologies that enable individuals and groups to create, share, and exchange information, ideas, and multimedia content in virtual communities. Clearly, there are huge difference from one social media to another, but in the research study we have focused on the social media that are most use among the students (Instagram, Twitter, etc.). In addition, in the scientific literature, social media is the term adopted.

Rev: In terms of ethical standards - how were the pupils' legal guardians included in the research? For example, was their consent secured? 

Auth: this information is reported both in the form used for the submission and in the final statements reported at the end of the article.

Rev: I would recommend adjusting the thematic analysis which is opaque - what are direct quotes and what is secondary interpretation? I recommend quantifying the term "most of the students". For some categories, statements from other categories are repeated. This form is very opaque to the point of being unfortunate. It is also not clear to me how some categories are related to body-image.

Auth: further explanation are provided from line 306 to line 330 and  from line 365 to line 381. For what concerns the relation with body-image, if we refer to the Tripartite Model (Thomposon line 110) categories such as photo and video sharing, parental involvement, perceived consequences, self-perception, and technology usage have a strong influence for the formation of the body image.

In general, I have to say that, although the topic is interesting, it is handled very inconsistently and the conclusions come across as first-rate and unconvincing in terms of novelty and enrichment of the field. I don't find the research design problematic, it is the grasp of the data and the inconsistency in the terms used that is problematic. I recommend that the authors start with a clear definition of the goal, go back to the hypotheses at the beginning, to the concept of body image, and from there proceed through the questions they will ask - what body image influences to how it is modified by the movement of individuals on social media. 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article will benefit from two major actions: 1) Make two different papers. One on the pre-research done with children, and the second paper to discuss the design of the intervention and results from the intervention. Currently you are trying to put too much into one article, and consequently there is not enough space to explain the methodology (how many respondents, which genders and ages in the data collection, sites and size of intervention etc). 2) Consider re-working your definition of body literacy to show how it is actually informed by the data from the child focus groups. For example, it seems from the data that they note the social influences on body image, but there is no reference to the socially constructed nature of body image pressures in your model. Aim to encompass more research articles that deal with this phenomenon.

Author Response

Rev: The article will benefit from two major actions: 1) Make two different papers. One on the pre-research done with children, and the second paper to discuss the design of the intervention and results from the intervention.

 

Auth: The proposed concept of Body literacy was considered a protective factor to reduce the negative effects of social media use. It also represented the conceptual framework of the educational intervention. Thus, we have tried to present the main pillars of the study – body image, body literacy and social media – in a concise way. We believe that considering the nature of the article, all the proposed concepts needs to be presented. In order to facilitate the overall comprehension of the framework, changes have been made in all the parts of the article.

 

 

 

Rev: Currently you are trying to put too much into one article, and consequently there is not enough space to explain the methodology (how many respondents, which genders and ages in the data collection, sites and size of intervention etc). 2)

 

Auth: we have further expand the explanation concerning the methodology

 

 

Rev: Consider re-working your definition of body literacy to show how it is actually informed by the data from the child focus groups. For example, it seems from the data that they note the social influences on body image, but there is no reference to the socially constructed nature of body image pressures in your model. Aim to encompass more research articles that deal with this phenomenon.

 

Auth: Consistent change have been made in the paragraphs 3,4,5

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated some of the comments, others have not, but this does not undermine the interest of the topic, the article and the potential for further development, so I agree with the publication of the article. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I suggest that one set of actions needs to be taken which will then leave the paper ready for publication. The actions entail removing the section which briefly describes the education intervention and findings from it. Quite simply this does not fit in the article, as there is no space to adequately describe the intervention, or the methods used to collect post intervention data, or the analysis of this data. The rest of the paper is rich enough to make a strong contribution on its own. The authors are recommended to make an separate additional article to discuss the education intervention and its findings. This too promises to make a very useful contribution.

Author Response

REV: I suggest that one set of actions needs to be taken which will then leave the paper ready for publication. The actions entail removing the section which briefly describes the education intervention and findings from it. Quite simply this does not fit in the article, as there is no space to adequately describe the intervention, or the methods used to collect post intervention data, or the analysis of this data. The rest of the paper is rich enough to make a strong contribution on its own. The authors are recommended to make an separate additional article to discuss the education intervention and its findings. This too promises to make a very useful contribution.

Auth: We appreciate the suggestion. After trying to eliminate the part describing the intervention and the elaboration of the data, we have realised that it was difficult to justify several of the assertions that have been proposed in the part of the discussion and conclusion. In fact, considering the ideographic nature of the paper, there is the need to nest the reflections in the specific data collection and data analysis that have been implemented. 

In this light, we've tried to add more depth to the description of the activities with the scope to provide a better understanding of the approach that was used.

We are contemplating the development of a subsequent paper with a specific emphasis on detailing the intervention procedures and presenting a comprehensive analysis and elaboration of the gathered data. This forthcoming paper is envisioned to serve as a companion piece to the currently submitted article, providing complementary insights and a more in-depth exploration of the intervention and its empirical outcomes.