Digitally Enhanced MICE Course—Interaction Observation with Student Feedback

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a conceptually and methodologically ambitious study. While this theoretical positioning is a clear strength, the paper would benefit from greater focus in its exposition. The authors are encouraged to streamline the theoretical background and to more clearly foreground the core research problem and contribution earlier in the paper, possibly by explicitly articulating one or two guiding research questions to anchor the analysis.

From a methodological perspective, the interaction-observation framework is innovative and well documented. However, the results section places heavy emphasis on descriptive system components and interaction typologies, sometimes at the expense of analytical synthesis. The authors could strengthen the paper by  clarifying which findings are more consequential for understanding digitally mediated student–teacher interaction.

The paper demonstrates that gamification and digital tools support situational engagement rather than sustained relational change, yet this insight is not fully leveraged to challenge or refine existing assumptions in the literature. Authors may wish to sharpen their contribution by more explicitly contrasting their findings with dominant claims about gamification and digital learning, and by offering clearer guidance on how interaction design might evolve across repeated course iterations to support longer-term systemic adaptation.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a conceptually and methodologically ambitious study. While this theoretical positioning is a clear strength, the paper would benefit from greater focus in its exposition. The authors are encouraged to streamline the theoretical background and to more clearly foreground the core research problem and contribution earlier in the paper, possibly by explicitly articulating one or two guiding research questions to anchor the analysis.

Answer 1: Thank you for this constructive comment. We agree that the theoretical positioning is ambitious and that the manuscript benefits from a clearer early focus on the core research problem and contribution. In response, we have streamlined the theoretical background and explicitly articulated a guiding research question in the Introduction to anchor the analysis.

We clarified the research question in the introduction:

“The study aims to identify how digital interaction can complement student–teacher interaction, focusing on student enhancing engagement, critical thinking, and systems understanding in a blended learning context.”

We also significantly strengthened the theoretical framework by adding a subsection 2.1.1. Interaction Observations backgrounds, there the theoretical backgrounds of the interaction observations are elaborated.

The revisions foreground the central contribution of the paper: examining how digitally mediated and gamified learning environments reconfigure student–teacher interaction over time, using a CyberSystemic interaction-observation framework. The theoretical background now more clearly serves this analytical purpose rather than functioning as a parallel exposition.¸

Answer 2 Thank you for this observation. We confirm that the revisions were undertaken with this objective in mind. The theoretical background was streamlined and repositioned to serve the analysis of student–teacher interaction dynamics rather than as a parallel theoretical exposition. Conceptual elements from cybernetics and systems thinking are now introduced selectively, only where they directly support the interaction-observation framework applied in the empirical sections.

As a result, the paper more clearly foregrounds its central contribution: examining how digitally mediated and gamified learning environments reconfigure student–teacher interaction over time, using a CyberSystemic interaction-observation approach. This alignment is reflected in the Introduction, the organisation of the theoretical section, and the structure of the Results and Discussion.

From a methodological perspective, the interaction-observation framework is innovative and well documented. However, the results section places heavy emphasis on descriptive system components and interaction typologies, sometimes at the expense of analytical synthesis. The authors could strengthen the paper by  clarifying which findings are more consequential for understanding digitally mediated student–teacher interaction.

Answer 3 Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the Results section places strong emphasis on descriptive system components and interaction typologies, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind this choice.

The level of elaboration in the Results section was intentionally increased. The interaction-observation framework is designed not primarily to synthesise a small set of outcome variables, but to provide a structurally rich, multi-dimensional representation of the observed interaction. This approach follows a requisite holism path, in which understanding emerges from examining how structures, interactions, and adaptations co-evolve over time rather than from reducing observations to a limited number of summary indicators.

In addition, the descriptive granularity serves a methodological purpose: it enables the observed interaction to be represented in a form that can be meaningfully interpreted, compared, and re-analysed by human researchers as well as by AI-supported analytical tools. Rather than privileging a small number of synthesised findings, the framework prioritises transparency of interactional detail in a semi-structured form, allowing different analytical lenses to be applied post hoc.

That said, we have strengthened the analytical synthesis by more explicitly identifying which observed patterns are most consequential for understanding digitally mediated student–teacher interaction. In particular, we now foreground (i) the temporal asymmetry between activation during execution and post-execution relational weakening, (ii) the conditional nature of student activation under structured interactional pressure, and (iii) the stabilising but non-adaptive role of institutional operational systems. These points are highlighted more clearly in the Discussion to guide interpretation without undermining the descriptive integrity of the observation.

We also clarified the proposed design of the paper in the methodology part:

“The level of descriptive detail in the Results section is intentional. The interac-tion-observation framework prioritises structural and interactional transparency over early synthesis, in order to preserve the observed complexity of the system. This ena-bles subsequent analytical interpretation, comparison across cases, and AI-supported reasoning, rather than constraining interpretation to a predefined set of outcome vari-ables.”

The paper demonstrates that gamification and digital tools support situational engagement rather than sustained relational change, yet this insight is not fully leveraged to challenge or refine existing assumptions in the literature. Authors may wish to sharpen their contribution by more explicitly contrasting their findings with dominant claims about gamification and digital learning, and by offering clearer guidance on how interaction design might evolve across repeated course iterations to support longer-term systemic adaptation.

Answer 4: Thank you for this valuable comment. We agree that the distinction between situational engagement and sustained relational change represents a key analytical insight that can be more explicitly leveraged to refine existing assumptions in the gamification and digital learning literature.

In response, we have strengthened the Discussion section by more directly contrasting our findings with dominant claims that associate gamification and digital tools with durable engagement or lasting relational transformation. While prior studies often infer sustainability from positive engagement metrics, our interaction-observation evidence suggests that digitally mediated engagement is frequently conditional on external structure, deadlines, and facilitation, and does not automatically translate into persistent student–teacher relational coupling.

We have also expanded the discussion to outline how interaction design might evolve across repeated course iterations. Rather than proposing fixed design solutions, we frame this guidance in systemic terms, emphasising the role of repeated interaction cycles, gradual recalibration of operational and managerial structures, and deliberate reinforcement of interactional continuity as prerequisites for longer-term adaptation.

We expanded the discussion with:

“Much of the existing literature on gamification and digital learning implicitly relates increased engagement with sustained pedagogical or relational improvement. The present findings challenge this assumption. While gamified and digitally supported activities demonstrably increased situational engagement during execution, interaction observation revealed that this activation was contingent on external structure, facilitation, and time pressure, and weakened rapidly once these conditions were removed. Engagement, in this sense, functioned as a transient operational state rather than as a self-sustaining relational property. The mission of internalising the currently external motivation is a goal to be reached in the future.”

Thanks again to the reviewer to help us raise the quality of the paper to fulfil its goal: raising the body of knowledge with new perspectives.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which explores an interesting and relevant research topic at the intersection of digital education, gamification, and systems thinking in higher education. The manuscript is generally well written and clearly structured, presenting a novel methodological approach to examining hybrid learning environments.

The following suggestions will help improve the paper:

1. The introduction adequately contextualizes digitalization, gamification, and systems thinking in education and tourism. However, the CyberSystemic interaction-observation framework requires stronger theoretical grounding. Although the methodology references second-order cybernetics and the Viable System Model, the manuscript should include a dedicated theoretical framework section explaining why these perspectives are better suited for examining hybrid learning than conventional educational research methods. The coordinate model (Z, T) presented in Figure 1 is central to the analysis but lacks justification. I suggest that the authors explain how this approach differs from or improves upon existing observation methods in educational research.

2. The manuscript contains significant methodological gaps. First, it does not explicitly state any research questions or hypotheses; while it mentions examining gamification's role in student-teacher interaction, this is presented as a general aim rather than a testable question. Second, the survey instrument is inadequately described – readers are told that a 5-point Likert scale was used and the topics covered, but the actual survey questions and response options are not provided. Third, essential sample information is missing: the manuscript does not report the number of student participants, the number who completed the survey, the response rate, or demographic details such as institutional affiliation or year of study. The semi-structured interviews are described only as "a small set," with no information on participant numbers or selection criteria. Fourth, the statistical analysis lacks transparency – Spearman correlations are mentioned without justification for their use, explanation of how missing data were handled, or specification of significance thresholds. Additionally, the selection of the four observation coordinates is not theoretically justified.

3. The discussion acknowledges the study's temporal limitations and appropriately distinguishes between observable changes and longer-term structural transformations., but it could be improved by engaging more critically with potential alternative interpretations. For instance, the observed decrease in interaction density after execution is interpreted as evidence of "situational rather than sustained relational coupling," but this pattern could also result from normal course completion or survey fatigue, rather than indicating a fundamental limitation of the pedagogical model.

4. The discussion would also  benefit from more explicit comparisons with previous gamification and hybrid learning studies to clarify what is genuinely novel versus what confirms earlier findings.

5.  The manuscript does not follow the journal's required citation style. Throughout the text, citations are formatted in a parenthetical author-year style (e.g., "Marx et al., 2021," "Beer, 1972"), but the journal Systems (MDPI) requires numbered citations in brackets according to its specific citation guidelines.

I hope these observations will help the authors as they revise their manuscript for publication.

Author Response

1. The introduction adequately contextualizes digitalization, gamification, and systems thinking in education and tourism. However, the CyberSystemic interaction-observation framework requires stronger theoretical grounding. Although the methodology references second-order cybernetics and the Viable System Model, the manuscript should include a dedicated theoretical framework section explaining why these perspectives are better suited for examining hybrid learning than conventional educational research methods. The coordinate model (Z, T) presented in Figure 1 is central to the analysis but lacks justification. I suggest that the authors explain how this approach differs from or improves upon existing observation methods in educational research.

Answer 1: Thank you for this valuable and constructive comment. We agree that the methodological foundations of the interaction-observation approach required clearer theoretical positioning and stronger grounding in established systems and cybernetics literature.

To address this concern, we have substantially expanded the methodology section by adding a new subsection 2.1.1 Interaction Observation Backgrounds. In this section, we now:

Explicitly ground the methodology in Second-Order Cybernetics, drawing on foundational work by von Foerster, Maturana & Varela, and Pask, and clarifying the role of the observer as an interacting participant rather than an external evaluator.

Integrate Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model (VSM) as a structural reference framework, explaining how management and operational subsystems (M₁, O₁, M₂, O₂), relations (R₁,₂), and environment (E) are identified and observed during interaction.

Introduce a formal representation of interaction–structure coupling, including explicit functional relations describing how structures condition interactions and how interactions, in turn, generate structural change over time.

Differentiate interaction observation from outcome-based evaluation, emphasising that the approach does not aim at synthesising a single performance metric but at producing a structured, multi-perspective description of interaction dynamics suitable for comparative analysis and AI-supported reasoning.

Situate the method in relation to prior work, referencing both a published book chapter and a peer-reviewed paper where the interaction-observation framework was originally introduced and applied.

Hopefully the elaboration clarifies the difference between interaction observation. And other types of examination.

“By joining the structures and interactions, we tried to provide a set of perspectives in which the observed instance can be examined well enough to form a sharable representation in its environment. Generating a requisitely holistic perspective of the observed inter-action can easily go beyond the human capacity. Therefore, strong, intelligent information support is needed to generate more sophisticated interaction models.”

2. The manuscript contains significant methodological gaps. First, it does not explicitly state any research questions or hypotheses; while it mentions examining gamification's role in student-teacher interaction, this is presented as a general aim rather than a testable question. Second, the survey instrument is inadequately described – readers are told that a 5-point Likert scale was used and the topics covered, but the actual survey questions and response options are not provided. Third, essential sample information is missing: the manuscript does not report the number of student participants, the number who completed the survey, the response rate, or demographic details such as institutional affiliation or year of study. The semi-structured interviews are described only as "a small set," with no information on participant numbers or selection criteria. Fourth, the statistical analysis lacks transparency – Spearman correlations are mentioned without justification for their use, explanation of how missing data were handled, or specification of significance thresholds. Additionally, the selection of the four observation coordinates is not theoretically justified.

Answer 2 Thank you for this detailed and highly actionable comment. We agree that the original manuscript did not provide methodological transparency, mostly due to the paper goal of the paper to provide a holistic overview of the interaction and not focus to narrowly on one of the observed phenomena. We have revised the manuscript to address each point explicitly, strengthening the replicability and interpretability of the study.

(1) Research questions and analytical focus

We added explicit research questions to the Introduction and aligned them with the observation design and outcome measures.

“The study aims to identify how digital interaction can complement student–teacher interaction, focusing on student enhancing engagement, critical thinking, and systems understanding in a blended learning context.”

The aim is followed by the brief methodological elaboration:

“A mixed-methods exploratory design is used to generate a requisite holistic picture: in the semi-structured interaction observations method [23], teachers observations are blended with survey-based feedback evaluation and interviews elaboration.”

(2) Survey instrument description

We expanded the survey description in the Results Immediate Feedback and Follow-Up. (Z=0.8, T=0.2).  and providing the full survey instrument as an Appendix/Supplementary material. Anonymous survey data is publisher in the related data repository.

(3) Sample reporting and interview details

We revised the 3.4.3. Proposed ΔO₁ and ΔM₁ (from the S₂ perspective) section to report:

“As part of the immediate feedback and follow-up phase (Z = 0.8, T = 0.2), three semi-structured interviews with students were conducted to surface prospective adaptations for future interaction cycles”

The surveys and interviews followed anonymization process and were accepted by the faculty ethical committee.

We also clarified the interview component by reporting the number of interview participants, the interview format (semi-structured), the timing (immediate follow-up), and the selection logic:

“As part of the immediate feedback and follow-up phase (Z = 0.8, T = 0.2), three semi-structured live interviews with students from UM were conducted a week after the course completion.”

 

(4) Statistical transparency and missing data handling

We expanded the statistical analysis description:

“Given the ordinal nature of the survey data collected using 5-point Likert scales, non-parametric statistical methods were applied . Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ) was selected to examine associations between thematic survey blocks, as it does not assume normal distribution and is appropriate for monotonic relationships between ordinal variables. This choice aligns with the exploratory and descriptive aim of the study, which seeks to identify interactional patterns and relational tendencies rather than to test causal hypotheses. Statistical significance was assessed using two-tailed tests with a threshold of p < .05. Missing responses were handled through pairwise deletion to preserve available information without imputing values.”

(5) Justification of the four observation coordinates

We clarified the rationale for selecting the four observation coordinates by linking them directly to the interaction-observation framework: the coordinates were chosen to capture the minimum set of temporally distinct observation points needed to document planning, preparation, execution, and immediate follow-up within the available project timeframe. This justification is now stated explicitly in the Methodology section, alongside the constraints that made longer-term observation (e.g., ΔM₁, ΔM₂, ΔE) temporally inaccessible and are thereby mentioned in the discussion.

3. The discussion acknowledges the study's temporal limitations and appropriately distinguishes between observable changes and longer-term structural transformations., but it could be improved by engaging more critically with potential alternative interpretations. For instance, the observed decrease in interaction density after execution is interpreted as evidence of "situational rather than sustained relational coupling," but this pattern could also result from normal course completion or survey fatigue, rather than indicating a fundamental limitation of the pedagogical model.

Answer 3
Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the observed decrease in interaction density after execution can be interpreted in multiple ways and does not, by itself, constitute definitive evidence of a structural limitation of the pedagogical model.

In response, we have strengthened the methodological framing to make the subjectivity and situated nature of the observation explicit, in line with second-order cybernetics. We now clarify that interaction observation is understood as a positioned, partial account produced by an observer embedded in the system, and that its analytical value lies not in singular causal attribution but in structural comparability across observations.

We have also expanded the discussion to explicitly acknowledge alternative interpretations, including normal course completion dynamics and post-course disengagement effects, and to position the reported interpretation as one plausible reading rather than a definitive explanation.

Finally, we emphasise that generalisation in this approach is not statistical but comparative and cumulative, achieved through alignment of structurally similar observation reports across cases and contexts. The structured observation framework is intended to support such comparison by enabling multiple observers to document interactions using a shared analytical ontologies, thereby supporting the construction of a multi-perspective understanding over time

We added two paragraphs:

In the Methodology, research design:

“Consistent with second-order cybernetics, the interaction observation presented in this study is explicitly situated and observer-dependent. The observer is not external to the system but participates in the interaction being observed, and the resulting account reflects this positionality. Accordingly, findings are not treated as objective representations of sys-tem behaviour, but as structured observations that make interactional patterns visible from a specific vantage point. Generalisation within this framework is not achieved through abstraction from context, but through comparison across multiple observations of similar interactions, conducted using a shared structural and interactional schema. The struc-tured format of the observation is intended to support such comparability, enabling the accumulation of multi-perspective insights into the structural and interactional conditions that support or constrain collective learning processes.”

In summary:

“The identified phenomena in the interaction, as for instance the reduction in interaction density were interpreted by the authors as an indication of situational rather than sustained relational coupling. To generate a more holistic perspective alternative explanations should be considered. This pattern may also reflect normal course completion dynamics, reduced task pressure, or survey-related disengagement, rather than a structural limitation of the pedagogical model itself. From an interaction-observation perspective, the finding therefore signals a change in observable interactional conditions rather than a definitive causal mechanism. Distinguishing between these interpretations requires comparative observation across repeated executions and contexts.”

4. The discussion would also benefit from more explicit comparisons with previous gamification and hybrid learning studies to clarify what is genuinely novel versus what confirms earlier findings.

Thank you for the observation. It is most important to argument the gap between exiting research and the proposed findings.

In the discussion we added:

Several findings of this study are consistent with prior research on gamification and hybrid learning [37], particularly the observation that task-oriented, interactive, and game-based activities can increase short-term student engagement [38] [39]and perceived learning value[40]. Previous studies have repeatedly reported similar effects, especially in digitally mediated and project-based learning environments. In this respect, the present results confirm rather than contradict established findings.

The novel contribution of this study lies not in demonstrating the effectiveness of gamification as a pedagogical tool, but in examining how digitally supported interaction reshapes student–teacher relations over time. By applying a CyberSystemic interac-tion-observation framework, the analysis examined the required existing structures, but more importantly, captures temporal and relational dynamics, such as shifts between pas-sive reception and active coordination, and the rapid weakening of interaction density af-ter execution, that are typically obscured in outcome-oriented or cross-sectional evalua-tions. This ontological, interactional and temporal perspective enables a more nuanced understanding of hybrid learning systems as adaptive but fragile configurations, carefully finding the balance with structural backgrounds and interactive communication.

5. The manuscript does not follow the journal's required citation style. Throughout the text, citations are formatted in a parenthetical author-year style (e.g., "Marx et al., 2021," "Beer, 1972"), but the journal Systems (MDPI) requires numbered citations in brackets according to its specific citation guidelines.

Thank you for the observation. In the text we used APA, based on you remark we switched to IEEE, which is closer to Systems referencing style.

I hope these observations will help the authors as they revise their manuscript for publication.

The observations were most helpful in better positioning the paper structure and content to add to the body of knowledge.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version (v3). The manuscript shows clear improvement and addresses several of my earlier concerns.  

However, I consider the revision not yet fully sufficient because key elements required for transparency and reproducibility remain under-specified. I recommend addressing the following items as mandatory before the manuscript can be considered ready:

1.  Please state clear, numbered RQs (or hypotheses) that map directly onto the quantitative and qualitative analyses and the reported results.

2. The manuscript reports 25 Likert items and thematic blocks, but the full item wording (and response anchors) is not provided. Please include the complete instrument (e.g., Appendix / Supplementary Material), and clarify any adaptations from prior validated scales (if applicable).

3. Please provide basic participant characteristics (at minimum: cohort/program level, relevant course context, and response rate). For interviews, please clarify how the three interviewees were selected (sampling strategy, inclusion criteria) and whether their profiles differ from non-respondents.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revised version (v3). The manuscript shows clear improvement and addresses several of my earlier concerns.  

However, I consider the revision not yet fully sufficient because key elements required for transparency and reproducibility remain under-specified. I recommend addressing the following items as mandatory before the manuscript can be considered ready:

1. Please state clear, numbered RQs (or hypotheses) that map directly onto the quantitative and qualitative analyses and the reported results.

Answer1: Thank you for the valuable comment. It made us rethink the relations between the relatively undeveloped RQ and a complex observations method. The implications of discovering this gap made us create a structured set of RQs, leading to the redefinition of the paper conclusions. THANK you again!
In introduction, we introduced a structured set of RQs:

“RQ1. How do system structures condition the execution of the observed student–teacher interaction in a digitally mediated, gamified learning environment? This includes the role of the environment, the teaching institutions’ management and operational systems, the student systems, and the pre-existing relations between the two systems in interaction.

RQ2. Which related interactions support or constrain the quality of the observed interaction, and were some related interactions missing, underdeveloped, or over-developed?

RQ3. What propositions for future interactions can be identified from observed structural adaptations, which interactions should be conducted differently, how sub-, super-, and other related interactions could be redesigned, and how the next interaction could be directed more effectively?

RQ4. How does the execution of the observed interaction modify the structures of the involved systems, what effects did it have on student operational and management systems, what effects on teaching institutions, did it affect relations between the two systems, and did it have effects on the environment, within the temporal limits of observation?”

Additionally, we reframed the Conclusion to align with the posted RQ. It fundamentally changes the paper story line.

 

2. The manuscript reports 25 Likert items and thematic blocks, but the full item wording (and response anchors) is not provided. Please include the complete instrument (e.g., Appendix / Supplementary Material), and clarify any adaptations from prior validated scales (if applicable).

Answer2

Thank you for this valuable and constructive comment.

In response, we have uploaded the complete survey instrument and interview questions as Supplementary Material, including the full wording of all Likert-scale items and the response anchors used (1 = Not at all, 5 = Completely).

We have also expanded the description of the survey methodology in the manuscript to clarify the number of respondents (N = 42), the thematic block structure, the response rate (approximately 52%), and the institutional and programme context of the participants.

The survey was purpose-developed for this study to align with the CyberSystemic interaction-observation framework and was not adapted from a single validated scale. Its primary role is to support contextual interpretation of observed interactional dynamics, particularly student activation, regulation, and reflection, rather than to function as a psychometric measurement instrument. This clarification has now been explicitly stated in the Methods section.

Because the dataset is relatively small and the project involved international student teams, participant anonymity was prioritised over detailed demographic profiling. We have nonetheless added basic contextual information (country, programme level, and disciplinary background) to support interpretability while preserving confidentiality.

We believe these additions improve methodological transparency while remaining consistent with the epistemological and observational orientation of the study.

 

3. Please provide basic participant characteristics (at minimum: cohort/program level, relevant course context, and response rate). For interviews, please clarify how the three interviewees were selected (sampling strategy, inclusion criteria) and whether their profiles differ from non-respondents.

Answer 3:
Thank you for this comment. We have now clarified participant characteristics and interview selection in the manuscript.

Regarding the survey, we report the cohort level (undergraduate and master’s students), disciplinary context (primarily business and economics-related programmes), institutional context (participants from four partner countries), and the response rate relative to total course enrolment. These additions are included in the Methods section.

Regarding the interviews, a purposive invitation was sent to all students who had participated in the pilot course and were available for in-person participation during the project timeframe. Three students responded within the available time window and were therefore interviewed. No additional inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied beyond course participation and availability.

The interviews were not intended to be representative but exploratory. Their role was to surface forward-looking reflections and proposed adaptations for future interaction cycles rather than to generalise student experience. Due to the anonymous nature of the survey and the small interview sample, systematic comparison between interviewees and non-respondents was not feasible and is acknowledged as a limitation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the revised manuscript (v4) submitted by the authors in response to my second-round comments. I am pleased to report that all mandatory revisions have been adequately addressed.

The authors have now provided clearly numbered research questions that align with the reported analyses, included the complete survey instrument with full item wording and response anchors, and supplied essential participant characteristics along with a transparent description of the interview sampling strategy. These additions significantly strengthen the manuscript's methodological transparency and reproducibility, and the revised version meets the standards for publication.

I recommend acceptance without further revisions.