The Impact of Adaptive Learning Technologies, Personalized Feedback, and Interactive AI Tools on Student Engagement: The Moderating Role of Digital Literacy

Reviewer Comment

Response and Action Taken

Literature Review: "The literature review section on pages 2–4 is inferior and incomplete. Include at least four related studies as shown in Table 1, discussing the antecedents of student engagement constructs, including learning style as an essential factor."

The literature review section has been expanded to include the four studies highlighted by the reviewer. For example, El-Sabagh's (2021) work on adaptive learning systems and their impact on engagement has been integrated to demonstrate the significance of learning styles. These additions reinforce the discussion on the selected antecedents of student engagement. (Updated in Literature Review, pages 3–5.)

Research Model: "Why did you choose only three antecedents? Differentiate between engagement and interaction. Explain why digital literacy was treated as a moderating variable rather than a mediating variable."

A new subsection has been added to justify the selection of the three antecedents, supported by prior research. Additionally, engagement and interaction have been clearly defined to avoid ambiguity. The decision to treat digital literacy as a moderating variable is explained, emphasizing its role in influencing the relationship between antecedents and engagement. (Updated in Research Model, pages 6–8.)

System's View of E-Learning Systems: "Your research model lacks a systems view. Discuss how learning outcomes or satisfaction could serve as dependent variables in future studies."

A new paragraph in the Future Research Directions section outlines how learning outcomes and student satisfaction could be integrated as dependent variables in future models, emphasizing their alignment with the broader goals of e-learning systems. (Added in Future Research Directions, page 15.)

Survey Questions: "Survey questions must be included as an appendix."

A detailed appendix has been created to include all survey questions. The questions are organized by constructs, such as adaptive learning technologies, interactive AI tools, and personalized feedback. This ensures transparency and replicability. (Included in Appendix A, at the end of the document.)

References: "Include the studies listed, such as El-Sabagh (2021) and others."

All the suggested references, including El-Sabagh (2021), have been incorporated into the literature review and reference list. These citations strengthen the theoretical foundation and support the research model. (Integrated in References and Literature Review, pages 3–5.)

Reviewer Comment

Response and Action Taken 

Language and readability: "The paper needs careful proofreading and rewording for better readability."

The entire text has been thoroughly proofread and reworded for improved readability. Informal expressions, such as "what's," have been replaced with "what is" for a more professional tone.

Introduction lacks clarity: "The assertion about a tremendous change is contentious, and the introduction does not flow well."

The introduction was rewritten to clarify whether the focus is on the emergence of AI or a gradual evolution in educational technology. The text was improved for logical flow and better alignment with the research question. (Page 2, Introduction)

Research question framing: "The research question needs clearer framing to show how the study fills a gap in understanding."

The research question was rephrased to highlight the study's relevance in addressing a gap in understanding the role of digital learning tools in student engagement. (Page 2, Introduction)

Sampling details: "Provide more details about the sample population and its limitations."

Details about the sample (500 students from various disciplines) were expanded, and the limitations of using convenience sampling were explicitly discussed. (Page 5, Materials and Methods)

Survey questions and construct evaluation: "More information is needed about the survey questions and how constructs were evaluated."

A detailed explanation of the survey design and evaluation of constructs (e.g., adaptive learning tools, personalized feedback, digital literacy) was added, with examples of the specific survey questions. (Page 6, Materials and Methods)

Digital literacy assessment: "Explain how digital literacy was assessed and include specific survey questions."

The assessment of digital literacy was elaborated, including examples of questions used in the survey, such as, "I feel confident using digital tools for academic purposes." (Page 6, Materials and Methods)

Application of Vygotsky's theory: "Make it clearer how Vygotsky's ideas, particularly ZPD, are applied to this study."

The application of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) was clarified, explaining how adaptive tools support students in bridging gaps between their current knowledge and learning goals. (Page 8, Discussion)

Empirical foundation: "Findings are only useful if empirical work is based on sound foundations."

The discussion was strengthened to emphasize the study's robust methodology and the alignment of empirical data with the theoretical framework, ensuring sound foundations. (Page 8, Discussion)

References: "The set of references is useful and relevant."

All references were carefully checked, updated, and integrated into the text, ensuring their alignment with the study's theoretical and empirical components. (Throughout the paper, References section updated)

a) Lack of focus on contextual elements: "Expand the data analysis to differentiate results by subject area to understand how the tools impact disciplines differently."

The data analysis has been expanded to include a breakdown of results by subject area. Differences in the impact of adaptive learning technologies and AI tools across disciplines such as sciences and humanities have been analyzed. (Added to Results, Page 12)

b) Lack of clarity regarding tools and questionnaires: "Provide more detailed descriptions of adaptive learning technologies, AI tools, and questionnaires."

A detailed description of the tools, including adaptive learning technologies, AI tools, and the questionnaires, has been added. Examples of specific questions and their alignment with constructs are now included for better reproducibility. (Added to Materials and Methods, Page 10)

c) Fit of the journal: "Consider a journal focused on digital learning or improve the fit with 'Sustainability' by linking engagement to equal opportunities in learning."

A clearer connection has been established between engagement and equal opportunities in learning. This includes emphasizing how digital tools contribute to sustainable educational practices and inclusive learning environments. (Enhanced in Introduction and Discussion, Pages 3 and 17)

d) More detailed data resolution: "Break down results by students' digital skills or prior technical experience."

Subgroup analyses have been added to the results, examining how students' digital skills and prior technical experience influence their engagement and interaction with the tools. (Added to Results, Page 12)

e) Discussion and limitations: "Expand the discussion to address methodological limitations, context dependencies, and potential biases."

The discussion section has been expanded to address specific limitations, such as the use of convenience sampling, self-reporting biases, and generalizability issues. Methodological dependencies and context-specific limitations are now clearly outlined. (Expanded in Discussion, Page 17and 18)

Thank you for addressing the points in the previous review.  You should regard the remaining points as very minor.  But it would be useful to have slightly more information about the sample beyond the inclusion criteria which you have usefully stated.  Are they all from one country?  Are they mostly from any particular type of institution.

The manuscript still needs careful proof-reading although again you have done a lot to improve clarity.  For instance in the introduction 'According to [1] the needs of an individual student' does not parse as a sentence on its own.

Overall it is much improved but as stated above it still needs careful proofreading

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Below is our response to the specific points you raised:

1. Additional Information About the Sample: We have added further details about the study sample to provide more context, as suggested. Specifically, we clarified that the participants were all recruited from universities and institutions located in Jordan, including both public and private universities. Additionally, we highlighted that the sample includes students from comprehensive universities and specialized institutions with a focus on technical and engineering programs. These revisions can be found in the following lines:
• Lines 478–502
2. Language Improvements: We have carefully reviewed and proofread the manuscript to improve clarity and readability. For instance, we revised the incomplete sentence in the introduction ("According to [1] the needs of an individual student") and rephrased it as follows:
• "According to [1], the needs of an individual student should be carefully addressed to enhance the learning experience."

We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work and hope that these revisions address your concerns. Should there be any further recommendations, we are more than happy to incorporate them.

Thanks to the authors for incorporating the aspects noted. Two aspects would improve the understanding and clarity of the article: 

a) The article now has eleven sections. It would be desirable if the authors could minimize the number for a better overview in order to show a common thread along the content and not along the headings. 

b) Supportive information should be included, in which the original questionnaires and further material and information are offered to the reader. Some content from the article could also be outsourced here. 

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we address the points you raised:

1. Minimizing the Number of Sections:
   As per your suggestion, we have consolidated the content and reduced the number of sections from 11 to 9. This reorganization was done to streamline the structure and create a more cohesive narrative, making it easier for readers to follow the common thread throughout the article.
2. Including Supportive Information:
   We have added detailed information about the study’s questionnaire and relevant materials in Appendix A. Additionally, the revised manuscript now refers to these materials in the text for the readers' convenience. Specifically:
• The added information is referenced in lines 478–486, where we describe the development of the variables and the inclusion of the original questionnaire.

We hope these revisions address your concerns and improve the overall clarity and structure of the manuscript. Please let us know if there are any additional recommendations or adjustments needed.

Best regards,