ICT Motivation in Sixth-Grade Students in Pandemic Times—The Influence of Gender and Age
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The present study examined the motivation generated by ICTs in 6 adolescents during the pandemic caused by COVID-19. An examination of the data was conducted using a questionnaire validated on an ICT Commitment scale that was used in PISA 2015, which was completed by 924 students in the 6th year of Primary Education, aged between 10 and 13. The results revealed that the motivation and commitment to ICT in these age groups is medium. Also, boys scored higher in all the variables analyzed.
- The paper is interesting and attempts to portray the issue under study with a certain discussion, relevant bibliography, and methodology as well as a portrayed analysis of data.
- The paper needs an extended and thorough grammar and syntax editing as well as proof reading revision to portray the issue under study effectively and comprehensively.
- A need for a wide, pluralized, and generative literature approach on the issue under study will strengthen the paper.
- All the relevant theories should be acknowledged and addressed with argumentative discussion on pros and cons, to clearly illustrate the subject.
- Further qualitative analysis of the specific subject in terms of reliability and generalizability is suggested.
- It would be also interesting to read in the paper, an extended analysis of participants’ profiles, followed by their specific representative statements on the issue under study.
- Page 11, line 382, repetition: whenever they want and whenever they want.
- The conclusion section is short and unbalanced to the other sections of the manuscript. It also should be more argumentative and associated to contemporary theories and relevant references from international academia.
Author Response
The present study examined the motivation generated by ICTs in 6th adolescents during the pandemic caused by COVID-19. An examination of the data was conducted using a questionnaire validated on an ICT Commitment scale that was used in PISA 2015, which was completed by 924 students in the 6th year of Primary Education, aged between 10 and 13. The results revealed that the motivation and commitment to ICT in these age groups is medium. Also, boys scored higher in all the variables analyzed.
Response: Dear Reviewer. Thank you for your feedback. Surely with your recommendations, the manuscript will improve in quality. We will respond to your suggestions below.
- The paper is interesting and attempts to portray the issue under study with a certain discussion, relevant bibliography, and methodology as well as a portrayed analysis of data.
Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your contributions.
- The paper needs an extended and thorough grammar and syntax editing as well as proofreading revision to portray the issue under study effectively and comprehensively.
Response: The manuscript has been submitted to the MDPI language review system. We attach the certificate.
- A need for a wide, pluralized, and generative literature approach on the issue under study wills treng then the paper.
Response: Thank you for your suggestions, we have expanded bibliographic references. We have marked the contributions in yellow.
- All the relevant theories should be acknowledged and addressed with argumentative discussion on pros and cons, to clearly illustrate the subject.
Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have rectified in the discussion the relevant theories and their recognition. They are marked in yellow.
- Further qualitative analysis of the specific subject in terms of reliability and generalizability is suggested.
Response: Dear reviewer, this study is based on a quantitative method, which is why a qualitative analysis does not appear.
- It would be also interesting to read in the paper, an extended analysis of participants’ profiles, followed by their specific representative statements on the issue under study.
Response: As in the previous comment, dear reviewer, the study is quantitative and carried out on 78% of the students in the 6th year of Primary Education in the city of Ceuta. As this is not a qualitative study, we provide, as a reviewer's suggestion, the general characteristics of the population of Ceuta (Spain) in 2019. Highlighted in yellow in the manuscript.
- Page 11, line 382, repetition: whenever they want and whenever they want.
Response: Fixed in line 400, thanks a lot.
- The conclusion section is short and unbalanced to the other sections of the manuscript. It also should be more argumentative and associated to contemporary theories and relevant references from international academia.
Response: Thank you very much for the interesting contribution of the reviewer. We have proceeded to add the suggestions and we have marked them in yellow.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, which presents the report of a study focused on a crucial topic in current times. The study may offer some relevant insights into a phenomenon which has highly characterized the life of students.
However, the analysis of the literature may be expanded, discussing more specifically the use of ICT among students, making a distinction between educational, recreational and social contexts of use. In addition, some statistical analyses seem to be not in line with what has been indicated in the research questions of the current study. Finally, some passages in the text are a bit unclear: it is highly recommended to have the English language checked by a native English speaker expert. In addition, please, check the article for typing and grammar mistakes (see, for example, line 4 “The information and communication technology (ICT) IS immersed”).
I have indicated here below ome suggestions, I hope they would be useful for improving the manuscript.
Abstract
The abstract is sometimes confounding in some passages, that should be rephrased in order to improve their clarity. It is not clear what it means “motivation generated by ICTs”. Motivation toward the use of multimedia technology? For which goals in and which contexts? The research question should be formulated more clearly, and also it should be specified what is intended with the term ICT (pc? The Net? Smartphone? Videogame console?)
Also, the sentence related to the results “…the motivation and commitment to ICT in these age groups is medium” is not very informative… may the term “medium” refer to the mean scores of the groups?
Introduction
It is fundamental to clarify some aspects, that are expressed in this paragraph too superficially. The first is what do the authors mean with “electronic tools and devices”. Also the TV or the radio is an electronic devices but the motivation and aims of their use is somewhat different from the use of the smartphone or PC with online access. It is really important to define how the authors means with ICT in the manuscript, in order to define the specific tools and activities they are considering in the research study.
In addition, if the focus is the use of ICTS tools and devices in education, the authors should describe and discuss more in detail how these instruments have brought some relevant changes in the educational activities and what are their main strong points and weaknesses when applied to school teaching and learning. The paragraph starting with the sentence “ICT has the potential to transform the teaching-learning process and effectively manage the acquisition of new knowledge” (lines 58-65) is too ambiguous for being informative on these topics.
It is not clear what kind of motivation is considered in the following sentence “The main research on the motivation generated by ICT in adolescents is related to education” (lines 85-86). Motivation to learn through the use of ICT devices? Motivation to attending school classes? Also this aspect should be clarified.
Justification and objectives of the study
It is not clear also what it is intended with “interest”: interest in involving in school activity or interest in using ICT devices? This should be clarified, because this ambiguity remains in all the report of the study.
Also the contexts of “ICT use” (only school? Other activities?) considered in the study should be described more in detail
Instrument
Please, specify what was the original language of the questionnaire used. Another aspect that should be mentioned is if the questionnaire has been developed for respondents in a particular age range. If so, has it had been applied to the same cohort of Spanish population, or have some changes be made in order to adapt it to younger/older participants?
Is it possible to add also the values of Cronbach alpha of the four sub-scales of the questionnaire?
Procedure
Some pieces of information should be explained more in detail. How was the research study presented to the participants? Has the informed consent been obtained and what about the ethical issue?
Results
It is not clear why the mean score for each item have been reported. It would be more informative to present the average score for each of the four sub-dimensions of the questionnaire. Also, the correlation analysis may use the mean scores of the dimensions: correlation among items may be useful just in case it would have been used in the validation of the instrument for the Spanish population.
I am wondering why the two linear stepwise regression analyses have been computed considering age and gender as dependent variables. According to the research questions reported on page 3 (see also sentence on page 5 “a multiple linear regression model was run to predict the effect of age and gender on students' motivation to use ICT”., the study aims to understand how gender and age affected motivation toward ICT: it is not clear why this sentence has been reversed, considering what aspects of motivation toward ICT can emerge as predictors of age and gender. These regression analyses should be adjusted (maybe considering each dimension of the questionnaire as dependent variable) or replaced by correlation analyses, or the research questions should be modified.
Author Response
I would like to thank for the opportunity to revise this manuscript, which presents the report of a study focused on a crucial topic in current times. The study may offer some relevant insights into a phenomenon which has highly characterized the life of students.
Response: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments. I am sure that the manuscript will improve in quality. We will respond to all your recommendations and comments.
Regarding language, please note that the manuscript has been submitted to MDPI's English review service.
In addition, we have updated the bibliography and, for example, in the discussion section, we have responded according to each of the objectives so that it is clear. We have also highlighted relevant authorship in the discussion.
I have indicated here below some suggestions, I hope they would be useful for improving the manuscript.
Abstract
The abstract is sometimes confounding in some passages, that should be rephrased in order to improve their clarity. It is not clear what it means “motivation generated by ICTs”. Motivation toward the use of multimedia technology? For which goals in and which contexts? The research question should be formulated more clearly, and also it should be specified what is intended with the term ICT (pc? The Net? Smartphone? Videogame console?)
Response:
Thank you very much, we have proceeded to rectify the summary with your indications.
Motivation is a state of people that activates their behavior to do something, in our case to use ICT. There are many factors that intervene in motivation, in our case, we refer to the fields of the questionnaire "interest, digital competence, autonomy and social interaction" and its variables of the questionnaire taken as reference.
The objective is to know the motivation, use and commitment generated by ICT in the daily life of students, in relation to gender and age, after their incorporation into the classroom caused by the confinement of the first wave. In addition, the context is determined in the variables and it is the children who respond at a general level, homes and the educational environment, which are the two environments where a student can use ICT at these ages.
When we talk about ICT, we are referring to any means or electronic device with Internet access.
We have also rectified and explained the medium-high term, it is true that it could cause confusion and we have added in reference to the results of the instrument used.
Introduction
Response:
Dear reviewer, we really liked your point of view to improve this section. We have incorporated the suggestions in yellow, to clarify which tools and electronic devices that we refer to are those that use the Internet.
In Lines 68-69 we explain that ICT has the potential to change the teaching-learning process because students with devices can expand or reinforce content.
Lines 85-86 appear on lines 104-105 and we add that the main investigations in the educational field aim to find out how the use of ICTs at home and at school influences the performance of oral comprehension, science and mathematics. in the students
Justification and objectives of the study
Response:
Dear reviewer, there is ambiguity because the questions in the questionnaire refer to the use of ICTs in adolescents at a general level, schools and homes. In these ages of 10-13 years, students are interested in using ICT to do homework, play, interact... we only analyze the answers to the test questions and comparing them with other research, it could be of interest in the school to know the results of this research because, sometimes, it influences the results in a positive way and others negatively, and in different subjects. We only provide the use of ICT after the pandemic in adolescents.
When we use interest, we refer to the first field of the questionnaire (INT) and the six variables offered by the instrument.
We have proceeded to change the beginning of objective 1, because after your suggestions it is true that we only analyze the interest that corresponds to field 1, but the 4 fields. Thank you very much.
Instrument
Response: Dear reviewer. We have indicated in the text the age and language of the instrument. Regarding what you indicate, we have previously located an instrument that matched our needs and what we wanted to investigate. We have followed the procedures for the validation and reliability of the instrument in the Spanish context, following what was done in the original instrument. As for the values requested, they are already included in the document. We did not consider it relevant to include the values of the subscales. These values already appear in the manuscript indicated in the text of the assessment instrument.
Procedure
Response: Dear Reviewer. The study is associated with an ethics committee. In addition, we have the pertinent permissions from the Spanish Ministry of Education, specifically from the city of Ceuta. This information is available in the journal itself. Regarding the procedure, we have explained in the section the actions to be taken. We do not consider going into more detail, since the most general and necessary aspects of this research process are explained.
Results
Response: Dear Reviewer. We appreciate your proposal. We explain why we have chosen variables and not subscales. In this case, the instrument presents relevant and very enriching information item by item. That is, variable by variable. We wanted to know in detail which aspects were well valued and which were not. In addition, we wanted to know the influence of age and gender for each of these items. In our case, in addition to being researchers, we worked in practice. This study allows us to give a concrete and specific response to the needs that we can observe. In this case, we have already indicated that we have adopted measures in our teaching practice to improve the deficiencies observed in this research. In relation to the regression analyses, we wanted to know the influence of these variables, in order to know their predictive character on the items studied. Regarding the sentences, we have tried to correct the comments, revising the English and giving a more appropriate meaning to the sentence. It should be noted that we have already carried out this type of study previously. An example of this is the following: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471595321000615
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper discuss about very important issue that is motivation of grade students in time of pandemic.
In abstract authors write that: "An examination of the data was conducted using a questionnaire validated in the ICT Commitment scale that was used in PISA 2015, which was completed by 924 students..." while in line 145 authors write that: "...sample taken in November 2020..." lack of accuracy between the data. The authors did not explain what the term PISA means, which was used but not explained in the manuscript. The literature review is quite poor in the latest studies, only a few studies refer to 2021 and there are no references to studies from 2022.
The work presents interesting research problems, but there is no reference to the next questions in the discussion.
I propose to refer to the analysis of the discussion in terms of specific questions that were then posed, the work will be more legible and substantive.
Author Response
The paper discuss about very important issue that is motivation of grade students in time of pandemic.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments, it is a motivation for us.
In abstract authors write that: "An examination of the data was conducted using a questionnaire validated in the ICT Commitment scale that was used in PISA 2015, which was completed by 924 students..." while in line 145 authors write that: "...sample taken in November 2020..."
Response: Dear reviewer. In November 2020 we passed the questionnaireto our sample. This reference questionnaire is based on the one developed by PISA (Program for International StudentAssessment) in 2015. Perhaps, we expressed ourselves wrong and we have corrected it.This manuscript began to be written in the year 2021, so we have not introduced references tothe year 2022. Despite this inconvenience, we have provided new references to the subject ofthe manuscript and have introduced it in yellow. With 1 appointment in 2022, 15 appointmentsin 2021 and 17 appointmentsin 2020, being the most outstanding and updated
The work presents interesting research problems, but there is no reference to the next questions in the discussion.
Response: Dear reviewer, we have incorporated the relevant authors in yellow in the discussion, in addition, we have incorporated how we discuss our results with other investigations, responding to each objective of the study.
I propose to refer to the analysis of the discussion in terms of specific questions that were then posed, the work will be more legible and substantive.
Response: Thank you very much for this contribution, we have incorporated these modifications in yellow in the discussion. We argue the discussion making reference in a general way, in addition to each objective.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept with minor revisions on theoretical and empirical background.
Author Response
Accept with minor revisions on theoretical and empirical background.
Response:
Dear reviewer. Thank you very much for the considerations and evaluations in the previous revision, we are very satisfied with the improvement of the manuscript due to your comments.
Regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have read the revised version of the manuscript and I have found it really improved. Some minor revisions are required, although I have only one concern remained, regarding the regression models. As I have mentioned in my previous comments ("According to the research questions reported on page 3 (see also sentence on page 5 “a multiple linear regression model was run to predict the effect of age and gender on students' motivation to use ICT”., the study aims to understand how gender and age affected motivation toward ICT: it is not clear why this sentence has been reversed, considering what aspects of motivation toward ICT can emerge as predictors of age and gender"), there is a gap between what is reported in the research questions and the structure of the analysis of the regression models. I higly recommend to clarify this aspect which is still a bit unclear in the report of the study.
Other minor revisions:
Table 2. Male (instead of “Masculino”). Mean score for gender (instead of “Gender average”)
Author Response
I have read the revised version of the manuscript and I have found it really improved. Some minor revisions are required, although I have only one concern remained, regarding the regression models. As I have mentioned in my previous comments ("According to the research questions reported on page 3 (see also sentence on page 5 “a multiple linear regression model was run to predict the effect of age and gender on students' motivation to use ICT”., the study aims to understand how gender and age affected motivation toward ICT: it is not clear why this sentence has been reversed, considering what aspects of motivation toward ICT can emerge as predictors of age and gender"), there is a gap between what is reported in the research questions and the structure of the analysis of the regression models. I higly recommend to clarify this aspect which is still a bit unclear in the report of the study.
Response:
Dear reviewer. Thank you for your evaluations. We have tried to respond to all the needs raised. In relation to what you indicate again, we refer to the study that we already indicated previously in the previous review. In this case, keep in mind that age and gender can influence motivation. An example of this are the studies that show that there are changes in student motivation. It goes from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation in adolescence. In this case, we want to know if the motivation to use ICT is affected in students after the pandemic. In addition, we want to know if age or gender can be predictors, in order to be able to establish measures for another confinement.
In relation to the minor revisions in table 2, we have corrected the contributions in green.
Thank you very much and regards
