Hand-Controlled User Interfacing for Head-Mounted Augmented Reality Learning Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript investigates the impact of AR technology on education for adult audiences. The authors propose a method for bridging the gap between HMDs and natural interactions to allow for a truly mobile learning experience. The novel idea is to allow users to interact with AR objects entirely with their hands. The paper contributes to the field by exploring the use of Leap Motion-based hand-controlled user interfacing for head-mounted augmented reality learning environments.

The manuscript is well-organized and comprehensively described. The reference list and discussion of related work are adequate. The information provided allows forming an overview on the proposed research. The manuscript also acknowledges the limitations and drawbacks of conducted user study. Some aspects of the paper must be improved:

- Specify the participants’ previous experience of using AR applications. Discuss how this aspect influenced the user study results.

- Discuss in the limitations section the adverse effect of the weight of the devices (Power Bank, Mini PC) on the experience.

Specific comment:

- Line 226 : “The Microsoft Kinect for windows [28]wasconsidered,..”

Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words regarding our paper!

We have responded to your points and adjusted the paper as requested. In response to your points, these are the changes made:

- Specify the participants’ previous experience of using AR applications. Discuss how this aspect influenced the user study results.

Response: As we did not inquire regarding participants prior experiences of using AR applications, we are unable to determine how this may have influenced the results of the study. As such, we have added a new paragraph to the Limitations section to acknowledge this point.

- Discuss in the limitations section the adverse effect of the weight of the devices (Power Bank, Mini PC) on the experience.

Response: As you have recommended, we have added a new paragraph to the Limitations section to discuss this. The devices were actually quite lightweight, but our method of attaching them to participants via a backpack was bulky and affected their spatial mobility, and so we have discussed this in the Limitations section.

• Line 226 : “The Microsoft Kinect for windows [28]wasconsidered,..”

Thank you for pointing out this typo, we have now fixed the spacing issue.

 

The new draft has been written with Tracked Changes enabled, we hope that the revisions are to your satisfaction. Thank you for reviewing our paper!

 

Reviewer 2 Report

I was really glad to read this paper. To my opinion it holds a very interesting and up-to-date topic which is presented and tested very clearly and precisely delivering important results.

I do not have any negative comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words and thank you for reviewing our paper! We hope it was of interest to you and can be of benefit to to the academic community!

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author, 

Dear editor,

 

Thanks for the opportunity to review your paper with the title “Hand-Controlled User Interfacing for Head-Mounted Augmented Reality Learning Environments“. The paper describes interesting aspects in learning with HMDs that could be very valuable for readers. Therefore, the paper should generally be published. However, I have a few points that should be addressed before publication:

 

-        The authors only mention Aliprantis et al. in their analysis (background section). This source is good for explaining the technical operation of AR in more detail (which is fine for RQ2). However, I would recommend delving a bit more into the educational context (e.G. for the first purpose of the study). aThere have been many studies recently that investigate augmented reality (AR) in educational contexts. To facilitate better comparison, the evaluation criteria proposed by Krug et al (Krug, M., Czok, V., Huwer, J., Weitzel, H., & Müller, W. (2021). Challenges for the design of augmented reality applications for science teacher education. INTED2021 Proceedings(6), 2484-2491. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2021.0532) are often used, for example here: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065175). Therefore, I suggest evaluating the developed learning environment according to these criteria, so that the presented AR application and its results can be compared with other studies.

 

• The paper has some gaps in the area of instruments/methods: What test instruments were used? Where did the questions on page 11 come from? Were standardized questionnaires used? If not, how was validity and reliability assessed? 

 

• Presentation of the results: However, for a better understanding of the paper, it would certainly be helpful if the data analysis did not come detached from the research questions, but rather followed the same structure as the RQs.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kind words regarding our paper!

We have responded to your points and adjusted the paper as requested. In response to your points, these are the changes made:

-        The authors only mention Aliprantis et al. in their analysis (background section). This source is good for explaining the technical operation of AR in more detail (which is fine for RQ2). However, I would recommend delving a bit more into the educational context (e.G. for the first purpose of the study). aThere have been many studies recently that investigate augmented reality (AR) in educational contexts. To facilitate better comparison, the evaluation criteria proposed by Krug et al (Krug, M., Czok, V., Huwer, J., Weitzel, H., & Müller, W. (2021). Challenges for the design of augmented reality applications for science teacher education. INTED2021 Proceedings(6), 2484-2491. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2021.0532) are often used, for example here: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065175). Therefore, I suggest evaluating the developed learning environment according to these criteria, so that the presented AR application and its results can be compared with other studies.

Response: This study was not available to us through our University library, however we did have access to an alternate publication from the same authors that also documented the Evaluation Criteria (https://doi.org/10.1002/ckon.202200016). We have now evaluated our applications against this criteria and added a section for it on Pages 10 & 11.

The paper has some gaps in the area of instruments/methods: What test instruments were used? Where did the questions on page 11 come from? Were standardized questionnaires used? If not, how was validity and reliability assessed? 

Response: The primary test instrument used was Microsoft Forms, as discussed on Page 14 along with the data collection methodology. The questions from Page 11 have been expanded on to include their origin, as all of our questionnaire questions came from the contents of the exhibits at the National Holocaust Centre & Museum. The questionnaire used was standardised for all tests, which has now been noted in the paper.

Presentation of the results: However, for a better understanding of the paper, it would certainly be helpful if the data analysis did not come detached from the research questions, but rather followed the same structure as the RQs.

Response: As per your suggestion, we have now re-titled the headings of the data analysis to keep it coherent with the structure of the Research Questions. We have also expanded on the data analysis to include a brief summary of findings at the end of each analysis that should make for a better reading experience.

 

Thank you for reviewing our paper! The new draft has been uploaded with Tracked Changes enabled, we hope that these revisions are to your satisfaction!

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you very much for the revision of the paper. The paper greatly benefits from the classification and categorization according to Krug et al., as it now allows for a comparison of AR with other AR apps.

Regarding the testing instruments, I see a few minor areas that could be improved: By "instruments," I did not mean the program (MS-Forms), but rather where the questions posed originate from 

Author Response

Hello again!

Regarding your comments:

Regarding the testing instruments, I see a few minor areas that could be improved: By "instruments," I did not mean the program (MS-Forms), but rather where the questions posed originate from 

Response: The origin of the questions is specified on Page 12, however we have now expanded on this to include the context of how the questions were chosen by collaborating with the National Holocaust Centre & Museum to decide upon the contents of both the AR learning experiences and the subsequent questionnaire. 

 

Thank you again!