Impact of a Digital Growth Mindset on Enhancing the Motivation and Performance of Chemistry Students: A Non-Cognitive Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript aims to determine and develop the impact of a digital growth mindset on chemistry students' motivation and achievement. The ideas and the manuscript are interesting, however, after reading the manuscript carefully, I found that it requires revisions. Please, have a look at the following comments:

Line 41, you started talking about a digital growth mindset. Add a reference to the first paper that used the concept. It came immediately when I searched it on Google Scholar. Although you added a reference at line 57, you are required to add one on its first use.

Rewrite the first sentence of the literature review, from line 94 to line 96. This is a very long sentence that does not deliver an idea.

In lines 108-110, you are talking about a study, and I did not see any reference to this study.

Line 110, “Altikulaç et al. 110 (2024) state that”, always use past tense when you talk about previous studies.

In lines 113- 116, you mentioned, that the study will show….. which study? are you talking about in your research?

Why did you bring this here in the literature review? 

Then, you continued (lines 116-120): additionally, the study explores…..

Here, I understand that you are continuing your talk about the previous sentence, the study will show….

Lines 119-120 require to be rewritten.

To conclude, you need to rewrite the literature review section to increase its readability.

Can you illustrate your section 9 procedure with a diagram that makes the phases clearer? The reader becomes bored and unwilling to continue reading because of the section's wordiness.

You have unnecessary sub-sections such as 10.3.1, usually we don’t add one sub-section for a certain section. You add it when there is more than one sub-section.

Section 10.3 is wordy, and can be rewritten in a way that makes it less wordy without this amount of quotes.

Proofreading is a must.

A sub-section on the limitations of the study should be added.

Adding more previous studies would support your discussion.

 

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript aims to determine and develop the impact of a digital growth mindset on chemistry students' motivation and achievement. The ideas and the manuscript are interesting, however, after reading the manuscript carefully, I found that it requires revisions. Please, have a look at the following comments:

Line 41, you started talking about a digital growth mindset. Add a reference to the first paper that used the concept. It came immediately when I searched it on Google Scholar. Although you added a reference at line 57, you are required to add one on its first use.

Response: It has been added:

As the name suggests, a digital growth mindset relates the idea of a growth mindset to the use of new technologies (Meng et al., 2024).

 

Rewrite the first sentence of the literature review, from line 94 to line 96. This is a very long sentence that does not deliver an idea.

Response: It has been done:

A literature review will help us understand how combining a new concept like Digital with the old concept of Growth Mindset can enhance students' achievement and motivation.

 

In lines 108-110, you are talking about a study, and I did not see any reference to this study.

Response: It has been added:

The study explored specific interventions to cultivate growth mindset, explicitly influencing cultivation, classroom culture development, and technology usage, which are all such interventions transacted within a digital platform (Burnette et al., 2020).

 

Line 110, “Altikulaç et al. 110 (2024) state that”, always use past tense when you talk about previous studies.

Response: Suggestion has been implemented:

Altikulaç et al. (2024) stated that..

 

In lines 113- 116, you mentioned, that the study will show….. which study? are you talking about in your research? Why did you bring this here in the literature review? Then, you continued (lines 116-120): additionally, the study explores…..

Here, I understand that you are continuing your talk about the previous sentence, the study will show….

Response:  Thank you for the attention. Yes. We have continued our talk about our study.

 

Lines 119-120 require to be rewritten.

Response:  Lines 119-120 have been rewritten.

 

To conclude, you need to rewrite the literature review section to increase its readability.

Response: The literature review section has been proofread and rewritten.

 

Can you illustrate your section 9 procedure with a diagram that makes the phases clearer? The reader becomes bored and unwilling to continue reading because of the section's wordiness.

Response: The procedure section has now been explained with a diagram. The diagram has been developed with the help of AI tool.

 

You have unnecessary sub-sections such as 10.3.1, usually we don’t add one sub-section for a certain section. You add it when there is more than one sub-section.

Response: The unnecessary sub-sections has been removed.

 

Section 10.3 is wordy, and can be rewritten in a way that makes it less wordy without this amount of quotes.

Response: Section 10.3 has been rewritten without this amount of quotes.

 

Proofreading is a must.

Response: Proofreading has been done.

 

A sub-section on the limitations of the study should be added.

Response: A sub-section on the limitations of the study has been added after the research Aim.

 

Adding more previous studies would support your discussion.

Response: The following studies have been added to support the discussion (Fink et al., 2018); (Tirri, 2021).; (Fathi & Naderi, 2023); (Griffin, 2023) ; (Parada et al., 2022).; (Shamshirian et al., 2021);

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research seems current and interesting in terms of subject. Although the research title is not too long, it is suitable for the purpose.

It was also good that the abstract of this research was in structured summary form. In other words, it was good to write a summary that includes the purpose, method, data collection tool and summary of the results. However, the research findings should be briefly mentioned in the abstract.

 

The introduction of the research is appropriate in terms of literature.

The introduction part of the research is not sufficient in terms of subject area. What is a non-negative approach? Why is it important? Where was it used? I didn't even see it in the discussion section. The bibliographies used are up to date. Therefore, the use of new bibliography in the introduction and discussion sections of the research enriched the research.

 

The aim and sub-goals were not written in accordance with the findings. In the third question, the word predict is used in regression analysis. In t-test analyses, mean differences and significant differences are examined.

The research method is not well written. It should be stated that the experimental research method with a control group was used in the research. It was better to write the research design for quantitative studies in the research.

 

In line 375, effect size is given as 4.10. But to give an example, Cohen states this as a percentage.

Özden, C., & Tezer, M. (2018). The effect of coding teaching on students' self-efficacy perceptions of technology and design courses. Sustainability, 10(10), 3822.

If you examine this article, you will see how both the sub-goals and the effect are written.

Overall a successful work.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research seems current and interesting in terms of the subject. Although the research title is not too long, it is suitable for the purpose.

It was also good that the abstract of this research was in structured summary form. In other words, it was good to write a summary that includes the purpose, method, data collection tool and summary of the results. However, the research findings should be briefly mentioned in the abstract.

Response: The abstract has been rewritten with research findings.

 

The introduction of the research is appropriate in terms of literature.

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

The introduction part of the research is not sufficient in terms of subject area. What is a non-negative approach? Why is it important? Where was it used? I didn't even see it in the discussion section. The bibliographies used are up to date. Therefore, the use of new bibliography in the introduction and discussion sections of the research enriched the research.

Response:  According to (Kizilcec & Goldfarb, 2019; Myers et al., 2016; Schroder et al., 2014; (Wolcott et al., 2020), growth mindset is indeed a non-cognitive approach as it focuses on beliefs and attitudes towards learning and intelligence, rather than on cognitive skills and knowledge alone. It emphasizes psychological factors that can influence learning behaviors, motivation, and resilience, supporting its classification as a non-cognitive approach.

The aim and sub-goals were not written in accordance with the findings. In the third question, the word predict is used in regression analysis. In t-test analyses, mean differences and significant differences are examined.

Response: The research Aim and sub goals are now aligned with the study findings:

Aim of the Research

This research aimed to find out the impact of digital growth mindset on enhancing the motivation and academic achievement of undergraduate chemistry students of Public Sector University. In this context, answers were addressed for the following questions.

1. Is there a significant difference between the pre- and post-test motivation scores by the experimental and control groups?
2. Is there a significant difference between the pre- and post-test chemistry achievement scores by the experimental and control groups?
3. How do students, upon receiving teaching, feel about the effectiveness of a digital growth mindset?

 

 

The research method is not well written. It should be stated that the experimental research method with a control group was used in the research. It was better to write the research design for quantitative studies in the research.

Response: The research method has been rewritten and improved.

 

In line 375, effect size is given as 4.10. But to give an example, Cohen states this as a percentage.

Response: The Cohen’s d value was calculated as (d = 4.10). The 0.70 < 4.10 effect size can be assumed as a strong effect (Özden & Tezer, 2018).

 

Özden, C., & Tezer, M. (2018). The effect of coding teaching on students' self-efficacy perceptions of technology and design courses. Sustainability, 10(10), 3822.

If you examine this article, you will see how both the sub-goals and the effect are written.

Response: The aim, the sub-goals, and the effect are now written as per the guidance given in the article, and the article has also been cited in the manuscript.

 

Overall a successful work.

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After thanking you for giving me the opportunity to study and evaluate this really interesting text, I would like to point out the following:

1. there is a logical sequence and continuity

2. the structure is clear

3. the reason is clear and understandable

4. the distribution of modules is accurate and with logical continuity

5. the bibliography is up-to-date and appropriate

6. the analysis of the theoretical approach is sufficient, it could possibly be enriched bibliographically

7. linking the literature to the results and conclusions is consistent

8. methodologically, the text is even, as the methodological choices are appropriate for the subject under investigation

9. I suggest, however, the addition of a section dealing with research limitations

10. I also suggest adding a section on research extensions

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After thanking you for giving me the opportunity to study and evaluate this really interesting text, I would like to point out the following:

Response: Thank you very much for the evaluation of this study.

 

1. there is a logical sequence and continuity

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

2. the structure is clear

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

3. the reason is clear and understandable

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

4. the distribution of modules is accurate and with logical continuity

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

5. the bibliography is up-to-date and appropriate

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

6. the analysis of the theoretical approach is sufficient, it could possibly be enriched bibliographically

Response: More citations have been added.

 

7. linking the literature to the results and conclusions is consistent

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

8. methodologically, the text is even, as the methodological choices are appropriate for the subject under investigation

Response: Thank you very much for your appreciation.

 

9. I suggest, however, the addition of a section dealing with research limitations

Response: We are grateful to the Respected Reviewer for this valuable suggestion. A research limitation section has been added.

 

10. I also suggest adding a section on research extensions

Response: Research extensions have already been added in the conclusion/recommendation section.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that you considered my suggestions and responded to my comments. Just some writing advice: there were a few instances in the article when you utilized unusual phrases, like thereby to begin the chapter on the literature review: 

"A literature review will help us understand how combining a new concept like..." 

You can employ a more familiar style, as readers are always aware of the goal of a literary review.

In the abstract:

"The present research endeavors to investigate the consequences of cultivating a digital 5 growth mindset on students’ motivation and academic success in chemistry. The aforementioned 6 interventions, including the utilization of technology-based resources, foster a mindset characterized by the willingness to tackle obstacles and persevere through setbacks, with persistence ultimately leading to mastery."

This part, in my opinion, might be revised to make it more friendly and easier to understand. 

" This review synthesizes the findings of various studies that have sought to determine the involvement of a digital growth mindset in enhancing motivation and chemistry achievement among students"

You can also benefit from rewriting this section. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing for English language is required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

I appreciate that you considered my suggestions and responded to my comments. Just some writing advice: there were a few instances in the article when you utilized unusual phrases, like thereby to begin the chapter on the literature review:

 

"A literature review will help us understand how combining a new concept like..." You can employ a more familiar style, as readers are always aware of the goal of a literary review.

Response: Thank you very much for the appreciation. A more familiar style has been applied in the first sentence of the literature review section, as given below:

This review brings together the results of different studies that have looked at how a digital growth mindset can boost students' motivation and performance in chemistry.

 

In the abstract:

"The present research endeavors to investigate the consequences of cultivating a digital 5 growth mindset on students’ motivation and academic success in chemistry. The aforementioned 6 interventions, including the utilization of technology-based resources, foster a mindset characterized by the willingness to tackle obstacles and persevere through setbacks, with persistence ultimately leading to mastery."

This part, in my opinion, might be revised to make it more friendly and easier to understand.

Response: The mentioned part of the manuscript has been revised to make it more friendly and easier to understand, as given below:

The current study investigates the effects of digital growth mindset on the motivation and success of chemistry students. The approach involves the use of technological tools that encourage the students to face challenges and keep trying even when things get tough. The students can achieve milestones by following this fruitful methodology.

 

“This review synthesizes the findings of various studies that have sought to determine the involvement of a digital growth mindset in enhancing motivation and chemistry achievement among students"

Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have rewritten these lines in a more friendly and easy way for better understanding. Moreover, we have moved the modified sentence in start of the literature review section, as given below:

This review brings together the results of different studies that have looked at how a digital growth mindset can boost students' motivation and performance in chemistry.