Chilean Student Teachers’ Willingness to Learn with Gamified Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents a study on the willingness of student teachers to learn with gamified systems in Chile. The authors use three variables to measure this willingness: 1) student perception of gamification; 2) player profile; and 3) screen time. The authors use validated scales to collect data from 569 student teachers and perform statistical tests to analyse the results.
The topic covered is certainly of interest even if it has been addressed several times in recent years in the academic community. It is now clear that learning through play is a dynamic that is particularly appreciated by users and effective in terms of learning.
The research design is clear and appropriate, with a quantitative and ex post facto approach, using observational and cross-sectional methods. The instruments are reliable and valid, as they are based on previous studies and have been tested for psychometric properties. The results are interesting and informative, showing that student teachers prefer gamified classes over traditional ones, but their willingness varies depending on their gamer profile and screen time habits.
Some of the weaknesses of the article are:
I suggest to expand the literature review with similar studies in the sustainability sector (for example: 10.1109/IEEECONF53624.2021.9667982) The sample is not representative of the population of student/teachers in Chile, as it is based on convenience sampling through social media. This may limit the generalizability and external validity of the findings. The data analysis is descriptive and correlational, but does not explore causal relationships or explanatory factors for the willingness to learn with gamified systems. For example, the authors do not control for confounding variables or test for moderating or mediating effects. The discussion and conclusion are brief and superficial, without providing a critical reflection on the implications, limitations, and future directions of the research. The authors do not compare their results with previous literature or suggest practical applications or recommendations for educators or policymakers.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I express my gratitude to you for the very good suggestions you have provided to make our work better.
-in: "I suggest to expand the literature review with similar studies in the sustainability sector (for example: 10.1109 / IEEECONF53624.2021.9667982)"
R. this quote has been added in lines 38 and 116
- in: "The sample is not representative of the population of student/teachers in Chile, as it is based on convenience sampling through social media. This may limit the generalizability and external validity of the findings."
R. This statement is correct, therefore, this has been declared a limitation of the study in the last paragraph of the discussion in the Limitations of the study subsection.
- In: "The data analysis is descriptive and correlational, but does not explore causal relationships or explanatory factors for the willingness to learn with gamified systems. For example, the authors do not control for confounding variables or test for moderating or mediating effects."
R. I agree that it is a descriptive and correlation study, but also comparative. I also share with the reviewer that it would be interesting to calculate the causal relationship or explanatory factors. But descriptive and correlational calculations were carried out, as he very well points out, in coherence with the objective of the project, which consists of exploring the willingness of pedagogy students to have gamified classes within the framework of a project to create gamified systems in consideration of the preferences and profiles of the students. However, when carrying out the study we realized that there are several relevant data for the objective that were not addressed in this study and that are presented as limitations and also suggestions for future research, such as qualitative and quantitative data in relation to the actions or events that trigger the intrinsic motivation of students.
- in: "The discussion and conclusion are brief and superficial, without providing a critical reflection on the implications, limitations, and future directions of the research. The authors do not compare their results with previous literature or suggest practical applications or recommendations for educators or policymakers."
R. The section on limitations and future research was added with the help of your accurate comments. Likewise, the discussion was strengthened with the incorporation of more authors and reformulation of ideas about our results in relation to the existing empirical theoretical base.
I reiterate my thanks.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a very interesting topic which is "Chilean student teachers' willingness to learn with gamified 2 systems"
However, there are some comments and recommendations for the author to address.
please use the citation style of the journal
Introduction
Please break down the introduction
Use a subheading to show the following:
1- introduction
2- objectives
3- Problem statement gap of the study.
the introduction is very confusing I feel like the paragraphs are not connected to each other, please be more relevant
The introduction section needs a lot of improvements; you need to follow a strategy to address all variables of the study in the introduction; I always advise researchers to follow the "reverse triangle approach", where you can start with the general idea and go deeper ll you address the fundamental gap of the research.
where is the Literature review section?
based on the studies you will be able to discuss your results! this is a major flaw.
The discussion is very poor you must be integrated with the literature and the findings. It’s too broad and confusing. You must align it with the literature review. Please argue and support your argument with past research or else this is not a discussion anymore this is an explanation of your results again! Support any strong claim or conclusion with past research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I express my gratitude to you for the very good suggestions you have provided to make our work better.
- In "please use the citation style of the journal"
R. The citation style of the journal was fixed, a process helped and guided by the MDPI Sustainability Editorial Office.
- In "Introduction
Please break down the introduction
Use a subheading to show the following:
1- introduction
2- objectives
3- Problem statement gap of the study."
R. We consider that the way of presenting the introduction suggested by you is very correct. Therefore, the changes were made as you suggested.
- in :"where is the Literature review section?"
R. In the introduction, the State of art section was added.
- in: "The discussion is very poor you must be integrated with the literature and the findings"
R. The subtitle state of the art and the section "Problem statement gap of the study" were introduced at the suggestion of another reviewer. And, relevant articles were included for the basis and discussion of the results. With this, the discussion with the authors included in the state of the art was strengthened.
I reiterate my thanks.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 3 Report
The study explores student teachers' willingness to learn with gamified systems in higher education, finding that they prefer gamified learning methods over traditional ones, with a significant difference, and that their disposition towards gamified systems varies based on the amount of time spent playing video games.
The field of gamification has been extensively studied for many years; however, the authors should emphasize the research gap and clearly state their contributions. The research questions should be explicitly stated to guide the study. The instructional design should be clarified with additional efforts to explain the game mechanism employed. The discussion section should be strengthened by aligning it with recent studies and formulating a framework to highlight the contributions of the study. Finally, the limitations of the research should be mentioned in the conclusion to provide a comprehensive overview.
N/A
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I express my gratitude to you for the very good suggestions you have provided to make our work better.
In: "The field of gamification has been extensively studied for many years; however, the authors should emphasize the research gap and clearly state their contributions."
A. In consideration of this recommendation, the section “1.2. Problem statement gap of the study” in the framework of the Introduction section.
- in: "The research questions should be explicitly stated to guide the study. The instructional design should be clarified with additional efforts to explain the game mechanism employed."
A. 2 research questions were incorporated to guide the investigation. these are found on lines 40-42
- in: "The discussion section should be strengthened by aligning it with recent studies and formulating a framework to highlight the contributions of the study. Finally, the limitations of the research should be mentioned in the conclusion to provide a comprehensive overview."
A. In consideration of your recommendation plus the review of previous Sustainability journal articles, the subheading “limitations of the Study” has been added to the end of the discussion, and the conclusion has also been retitled “Conclusion and future Works”. Consequently, the limitations of the study have been described.
I reiterate my thanks.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Author,
Thanks for this research initiative. It has high level merit of scholarly contribution to the field. However, the following points may be considered for further improvement.
1) Line 223 (Table 4): English meanings are required.
2) Lines 239-241: Typo. Perhaps it was supposed to be about 'television'.
3) Lines 266-269: The sentence with 'therefore, a possible explanation ... ...' part needs to be rephrased for better understanding and clarity of the finding.
All the best for continuous academic research activities.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I express my gratitude to you for the very good suggestions you have provided to make our work better.
In: "1) Line 223 (Table 4): English meanings are required."
A. Fixed the English meaning of those words and other detected ones.
In: "2) Lines 239-241: Typo. Perhaps it was supposed to be about 'television'. "
R. It has been fixed, now it is on line 252 and 254.
In: "3) Lines 266-269: The sentence with 'therefore, a possible explanation ... ...' part needs to be rephrased for better understanding and clarity of the finding."
A. It has been replaced by “an explanation”.
I reiterate my thanks.
Kind regards
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors addressed all the concerns.
I think that the paper could be considered for publication.
I suggest a proofreading to let the reading smoother.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your acceptance, suggestions that were a great contribution to the research.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the author of this piece.
the work is relatively better now with all the comments being addressed accordingly, I would accept the paper for publication in its present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your acceptance, suggestions that were a great contribution to the research.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.
N/A
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your acceptance, suggestions that were a great contribution to the research.
