Learning and Motivation When Using Multiple-Try in a Digital Game for Primary Students in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This manuscript contributes to explaining why the multiple-try feedback generates certain effects on learning from SDT + CET perspective, specially related to motivation and emotional processes in primary students. This work represents an important advance in the understanding of how the inclusion of multiple-try in computer-based learning affects students' engagement and motivation.

 

The manuscript is well structured, the methods used are appropriated and the results are clearly presented. My recommendation is to accept after minor revision.

My minor suggestions are as follow:

 

-The introduction does not show the objectives and research questions, rather the authors explain the main contributions of the paper. The authors say that research questions are present in 1.5.1. Section, but only hypotheses are stated. I suggest that the research question or objectives of the paper should be explained in the introduction section.

 

-Some references are omitted, for example in line 92. The authors say, "Autonomy and competence are necessary for a good learning environment with greater motivation and creativity". Does this idea come from others authors? Another example is from line to 93 to 98. The authors say, "CET theory complements the above, holding that high levels of pressure negatively affect motivation, while adequate levels of effort are indicators of a suitable level of challenge and the absence of controlling situations that may negatively affect motivation." I think a reference could be includes. However, in line 581, the authors say, "There was no evidence of less effort as a reaction to external control by students [54]. In this sentence, the authors refer to article 54, but they are talking about the students participating in their work. I believe that this reference, in this sentence, is not correct. Please I suggest the authors to revise the text.

 

 

- From line from 564 to 566, the authors say  "In this sense, it would be interesting to study what would happen to the levels of effort and pressure when combining MTF with KCR or hints such as those implemented in Atali [8]. I suggest that the authors explain very briefly the hints proposed by Attali (2015).

Author Response

-The introduction does not show the objectives and research questions, rather the authors explain the main contributions of the paper. The authors say that research questions are present in 1.5.1. Section, but only hypotheses are stated. I suggest that the research question or objectives of the paper should be explained in the introduction section.

RESPONSE: A paragraph (in yellow) with the study objectives was added by the end of the 2nd page. Also, the title of section 1.5.1 changed to Research Hypothesis only, as there were no research questions for this study.

-Some references are omitted, for example in line 92. The authors say, "Autonomy and competence are necessary for a good learning environment with greater motivation and creativity". Does this idea come from others authors? Another example is from line to 93 to 98. The authors say, "CET theory complements the above, holding that high levels of pressure negatively affect motivation, while adequate levels of effort are indicators of a suitable level of challenge and the absence of controlling situations that may negatively affect motivation." I think a reference could be includes. However, in line 581, the authors say, "There was no evidence of less effort as a reaction to external control by students [54]. In this sentence, the authors refer to article 54, but they are talking about the students participating in their work. I believe that this reference, in this sentence, is not correct. Please I suggest the authors to revise the text.

RESPONSE: References were incorporated in the mentioned sentences (highlighted in yellow).  Regarding the sentence in line 581, it was modified to express better that the results were different from the cited study. The corrected sentence is: "There was no evidence of less effort as a reaction to external control by students in contrast to what was reported by Ryan in his study [54]. "

- From line from 564 to 566, the authors say  "In this sense, it would be interesting to study what would happen to the levels of effort and pressure when combining MTF with KCR or hints such as those implemented in Atali [8]. I suggest that the authors explain very briefly the hints proposed by Attali (2015).

RESPONSE: A brief explanation of hints was incorporated after that sentence.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a study of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) in conjunction with the Cognitive Evaluation Subtheory (CET) to investigate the emotional factors that are affected by feedback and, in particular, by the use of multiple attempts.

The article has an appropriate structure for the proposed research.  However, I recommend that the authors consider the following:

1. In the paragraph starting on line 83, the objective of the research should be made explicit since, as it is, it only seems like a statement of intent.

2. Section 1.5.1 entitled "Research questions & Hypothesis" only describe hypotheses. Add research questions or change the name of the section.

3. The authors propose the web platform "MatematicaST" as a means to collect the evidence to accept or reject the hypotheses formulated. What characteristics does this platform have to consider it suitable for the research? What other platform did they evaluate to use? Has it been used in other research?

4. Although they have fairly good internal consistency indicators, what other external validation tests did you use?

5. Section 5, "Conclusions" seems to me to be very poor for the research carried out.  There are interesting aspects that should be addressed in this section, such as the web platform, instruments, and participants, among other aspects. I consider that as the objectives were not explicitly stated, this section was very limited. Likewise, the stated future work is obvious, so I ask the authors to improve this aspect.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The content is well-written, which makes the research easy to read and understand. 

Author Response

1. In the paragraph starting on line 83, the objective of the research should be made explicit since, as it is, it only seems like a statement of intent.

R:  A new paragraph was added with the study objectives at this point. 

2. Section 1.5.1 entitled "Research questions & Hypothesis" only describe hypotheses. Add research questions or change the name of the section.

R: The section name was corrected as there were no research questions.

3. The authors propose the web platform "MatematicaST" as a means to collect the evidence to accept or reject the hypotheses formulated. What characteristics does this platform have to consider it suitable for the research? What other platform did they evaluate to use? Has it been used in other research?

R: The platform was developed as part of an internal project together with some primary schools. It has been used last and this year in a couple of experiments regarding adaptable mechanisms and usability testing. The associated manuscripts are under elaboration. 

4. Although they have fairly good internal consistency indicators, what other external validation tests did you use?

R: No other external validation tests were considered. 

5. Section 5, "Conclusions" seems to me to be very poor for the research carried out.  There are interesting aspects that should be addressed in this section, such as the web platform, instruments, and participants, among other aspects. I consider that as the objectives were not explicitly stated, this section was very limited. Likewise, the stated future work is obvious, so I ask the authors to improve this aspect.

R: The conclusions section was rewritten to incorporate the reviewer's suggestions. Now the section concludes on main findings on MTF outcomes, the education platform, the instruments used, the students, and the study length, providing possible future research directions.