Can Learners’ Use of GenAI Enhance Learning Engagement?—A Meta-Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript demonstrates a strong contribution to the field and provides a meta-analysis on the impact of generative AI in education. While the methodology and analysis are the manuscript’s strong points, there are some parts that should be improved:
• The theoretical part is somewhat weaker compared to the empirical section and could benefit
from some developments and more contextualization. For example, introduction could benefit
from a short section discussing how GenAI tools differ from previous technologies used by
students for blended learning, assignments, or academic dishonesty. This would help to better
contextualize the need for the present study.
• Research question Q1 is currently too complex. Please consider rewording or splitting it into
two questions. I also recommend specifying which cognitive, behavioural, and affective
dimensions are examined in the RQs and clarify whether these dimensions were defined prior
to or after the review.
• The description of meta-analysis method would be better suited within the Materials and
Methods section, where it can provide an explanation of study procedure.
• Some statements are overly repeated, such as those describing systematic analysis and how
findings will be used. Please revise to reduce unnecessary repetition.
• The categories for education stages appear oversimplified. Please clarify why only three
categories were used and provide explanation for each.
• Similarly, explain how duration categories were determined.
• Please specify how the coding consistency coefficient was calculated.
• The terms “independent” and “self-regulated” learning are used interchangeably. Select one
term and use it consistently.
• The discussion and conclusion sections are excessively long compared to the results.
Consider moving the detailed discussion of each research question (currently in the
conclusion) into the discussion section and reducing the conclusion to a concise summary.
Also, transfer the implications and limitations to the discussion.
• Minor grammatical corrections are needed (e.g., lines 61, 70, 326, 434).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsabstract is quite detailed but OK.
keywords: consider adding the single word "engagement"
It seems that your intro lit review AND section 2 overlap your meta-analysis. (cart before the horse?)
2.3 should go in section 3
what is CMA3.7?
How did you do the coding? Did you use a tool or just do it manually?
4.1 and 4.2 useful
When you say basic education do you mean children or adult learners?
Duration: do you mean the USE of AI or the length of the entire course?
When you say text-based interactions do you mean the AI tool was text only (and multimodal meaning visuals and sounds) - or do you mean that the ACTIVITY or the INSTRUCTION were text-only or MM? (you explain this and the following question in the discussion, but you need to explain them in the findings part.
What was the nature of teacher intervention: helping to use AI, task clarification, subject matter understanding, tech issue (access, making an account)?
Table 5: what is K (number of studies?
l. 396-9: are these reasons explicitly mentioned in the studies or are you making a conjecture? Same question for the rest of the discussion (i.e., drawing from the studies' conclusions, I hope?)
Conclusion and implications are sound.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- The research area in this manuscript is generative AI and learning engagement, which is relevant, timely, and academically valuable given the ongoing transformation in educational technology. However, the sentence “The Preferred Reporting Items for the Systematic Review of the Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement were used to follow literature review guidelines…” should be revised. I can suggest, 'The study followed PRISMA guidelines to ensure methodological transparency in the review process.' And. Authors need to mention the aim/objective of the research before moving to the results in the abstract. The final line could be more impactful if the authors could rewrite it to emphasise the academic contribution before its practical significance.
- In the introduction, there is no proper transition from the first paragraph to the second paragraph
- Literiture reviwe section is porperly structured
- The literature review section is properly structured. I would like if authors can discuss traditional learning engagement vs digital learning engagement briefly.
- In the methods section, include a table with the exclusion/inclusion criteria of the literature.
- Which software did you use to identify publication bias?
- The discussion is somewhat focused on the research question (RQ); it would be beneficial to align it more closely with the RQ and connect it to the findings.
- Please shorten the conclusion to 200-250 words and position it as the final section of the paper. This indicates that the limitation section should be placed before the conclusion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript can be accepted
