Systematic Review of the Literature on Interventions to Improve Self-Regulation of Learning in First-Year University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript does well to contextualize its active learning (AL) framework within both theoretical and empirical backgrounds. However, while foundational concepts such as constructivism, social learning, and gamification are addressed in-depth, integration with recent empirical studies could be enhanced for stronger alignment with current trends in STEM education research.

2. The course design methodology is thoroughly outlined, with clear connections between activities and learning outcomes. The objectives and constraints (e.g., zero-cost, student heterogeneity) are well-articulated. Minor clarifications on the specifics of the assessment tools or how student feedback was integrated during the design process could add clarity.

3. While the manuscript presents a compelling discussion linking activities to learning outcomes and theoretical dimensions, balancing the description of positive outcomes with potential challenges or limitations (e.g., student resistance or scalability issues) would make the argument more balanced.

4. The manuscript is well-cited with relevant sources, though expanding on more recent studies post-2022 could provide additional insights and strengthen the connection with contemporary scholarship.

5. This manuscript primarily focuses on the proposal and initial implementation phases of the gamified course rather than empirical data presentation.

6. The manuscript is well-cited with relevant sources, though expanding on more recent studies post-2022 could provide additional insights and strengthen the connection with contemporary scholarship.

7. The conclusions are supported by the course design and assessment strategies outlined. However, specifying limitations or lessons learned during the implementation phase would enhance the conclusion's robustness.

The manuscript is understandable, but some sentences could be more concise for clarity. Technical jargon is sometimes used without sufficient explanation, which may limit accessibility for broader audiences.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and editor, see all comments and solutions developed in our proposal in the file attached.

Thank you so much for your time and efforts in the review of our manuscript.

Best regards.

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

In Table 4, you listed Taiwan as a country. Please make sure to modify it to "Taiwan, China," or change the header from "Country" to "Country or Region."

Table 3 needs to be simplified. Please avoid long sentences and instead use key terms, similar to how you did in Table 4.

There are some non-English references in the text, such as the 49th reference. I do not recommend citing non-English papers.

In Table 4, every word has its first letter capitalized, such as "University Advisor." However, in some places, the first letter is lowercase, such as "Virtual tools." Please make the necessary corrections.

You have used the PICO strategy, but the last "O" has not been included. Please add it.

I personally recommend presenting the inclusion and exclusion criteria in a table format.

Please note that parentheses indicate supplementary information that can be omitted. You need to ensure that the meaning you want to convey remains intact after removing the information in parentheses. For example, in line 338, you wrote "Article (16) implements...," which should be "Article 16 implements...". Similarly, in line 349, you wrote "in case (4) and (5)," but it should be "in Article 4 and Article 5."

The numbering of the in-text citations and article numbers are confusing. In the in-text citation, you use brackets like “[69],” but when referring to specific articles, you use parentheses like “(4).” I suggest using the abbreviation “A4” to refer to Article 4.

You mentioned that self-regulated learning is a "field" with multiple definitions. I suggest confirming whether "field" is the best term. Would "concept" or something similar be better?

You have many bullet points in the text. While this format can be used, you list them as "1." "2." which is the same format as the main headings. I recommend changing this to a table or text format, or using "(1)" to reflect the hierarchy.

You have not removed part of the template. From line 291 to line 293, there is a template sentence: “This section may be divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.” Please revise.

Some of the references in the bibliography are incorrectly formatted. For example, in reference 66, the author's name is in all caps, reference 74 starts with "73," and reference 76 is improperly cited. Please correct these.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and editor, see all comments and solutions developed in our proposal in the file attached.

Thank you so much for your time and efforts in the review of our manuscript.

Best regards.

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

After a detailed reading of your manuscript, first of all, I would like to thank you for submitting your work to this journal. Your study is of great interest, however, I consider that there are certain aspects that require substantial improvements, especially from a methodological perspective, to ensure the quality and soundness of the manuscript.

1. Introduction

- The section is clearly structured, however, I feel that the rationale for the importance of the study needs to be strengthened. It would be useful to provide a stronger context for its relevance to the research area.

- In addition, I suggest the inclusion of a clearly defined research question using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) format, contributing to the precise delineation of the focus of this study.

2. Methodology

The methodological section requires a more structured and clearer wording. I recommend organising it into the following subsections:

- Design of the review: Describe the approach of the study and mention the methodological guide followed (PRISMA, JBI, Cochrane).

- Sources of information: Specify the databases used and extend the search to include grey literature (theses) and contact with experts in the field.

- Search strategy: Include keywords used, Boolean operators and detailed search terms for each database.

- Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Detail criteria such as language, time range, type of study and target population.

- Study selection process: Clarify who conducted the screening process and what strategy was used (peer review, use of software such as Rayyan, etc.).

- Quality assessment/risk of bias: Indicate which tool was used (Briggs, CASP, RoB 2.0) and how risk of bias was managed in the included studies.

3. Results

- The inclusion of the PRISMA flow chart is recommended, as it is an essential result in a systematic review.

- A more detailed descriptive table summarising: authors, year of publication, sample, study design, interventions, results and main conclusions is needed.

- Although the main results are clearly presented, a more in-depth and structured description would significantly improve their presentation.

4. Discussion and conclusion

- The interpretation of the results is correct. However, there is a lack of comparison with existing literature. I suggest a critical comparative analysis to contextualise the findings of the study.

In addition, it would be important to make a stronger case for the impact of the study in the field of education, highlighting its relevance and specific contributions.

- I recommend a more precise delineation of the practical implications, offering clear and concise conclusions to guide readers.

5. References

References are correct and follow the guidelines of the journal.

6. Appendices

- It is requested to include the excluded studies with an explicit justification of the reasons for exclusion. And incorporate, if possible, the protocol of variables extracted in a transparency platform such as PROSPERO or similar.

Given the detailed analysis of the manuscript, I consider that the article has potential for publication. However, substantial revisions are needed, mainly in the methodology and presentation of results, to meet the quality standards of the journal.

I look forward to receiving the revised version and thank you again for your contribution.

Yours sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer and editor, see all comments and solutions developed in our proposal in the file attached.

Thank you so much for your time and efforts in the review of our manuscript.

Best regards.

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved as required.

Author Response

Thanks for your time reviewing our corrections. The new version follow all suggestions done by all reviewers. 

Best.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for resubmitting the document with the requested modifications.

Regarding the introduction, I find it well elaborated and significantly enriched by the inclusion of updated references, which increases its scientific quality. However, it is essential to explicitly incorporate the research question in PICO format to better align the study to methodological standards.

Regarding the methodological section, I propose a restructuring to improve clarity and avoid redundancies. I recommend the following:

1. Search strategy: Create a sub-section detailing the sources of information and the search strategy employed.

2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Incorporate as a subsection with clearly listed criteria, keeping the existing table (Table 1).

3. Study selection process: specify the number of reviewers involved and describe how the review process was carried out. It would be useful to clarify whether the selection was made solely on the basis of titles and abstracts or whether a full text review was conducted. This section requires more precision and detail to ensure the reader's understanding.

In section 2.6 Quality assessment and risk of bias, I would appreciate receiving a document or Excel file reflecting the methodological assessment carried out by CASP. Additionally, it would be relevant to explain whether the review was conducted independently and peer-reviewed, providing details of the procedure followed.

In general, I have observed certain deficiencies in the methodological description. Systematic reviews require a level of detail that ensures replicability and comprehensibility. It is essential to promote transparency by registering the study on platforms such as PROSPERO or, if the topic is related to education, on OSF. The nature of this type of study requires clarity and thoroughness in the methodology.

In the results section, although the flow chart is included, I consider that its presentation could be improved. I recommend revising the text to ensure that the explanation is more precise and structured, accurately reflecting the flow of information characteristic of a systematic review. The rest of the results are clear and facilitate the reader's understanding.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that a systematic review should not offer straightforward practical conclusions. This type of study aims to delimit the scope and amount of existing research on a specific topic. Practical solutions require complementary field studies or empirical research.

I hope you find these observations useful.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Regarding the introduction, I find it well elaborated and significantly enriched by the inclusion of updated references, which increases its scientific quality. However, it is essential to explicitly incorporate the research question in PICO format to better align the study to methodological standards.

Response 1: We appreciate your insightful comment regarding the explicit incorporation of the research question in the PICO format to align the study with methodological standards. As suggested, we have now structured the research question using the PICO framework and incorporated it at the end of the introduction, just before the statement of specific objectives.

This review aims at answering the following research questions: What are the most effective interventions in academic tutoring and mentoring that enhance self-regulated learning (SRL) among first-year undergraduate students? Therefore, this research question requires the following PICO framework:

• P (Population): First-year undergraduate students.
• I (Intervention): Interventions and guidance from tutorial activities and mentoring.
• C (Comparison): No specific comparison group was applied in this review.
• (Outcome): Improvement in self-regulated learning (SRL) processes.

After this review, we will obtain primarily the following two outcomes:

• O1: Identify interventions aimed at improving SRL in first-year undergraduate students through tutoring, guidance, and/or academic support.
• O2: Identify successful interventions, as well as their agents, procedures, and intervention tools.

Comments 2: Regarding the methodological section, I propose a restructuring to improve clarity and avoid redundancies. I recommend the following:

1. Search strategy: Create a sub-section detailing the sources of information and the search strategy employed.
2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Incorporate as a subsection with clearly listed criteria, keeping the existing table (Table 1).
3. Study selection process: specify the number of reviewers involved and describe how the review process was carried out. It would be useful to clarify whether the selection was made solely on the basis of titles and abstracts or whether a full text review was conducted. This section requires more precision and detail to ensure the reader's understanding.

Response 2: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestions to improve the clarity and structure of the methodological section. In response, we have made the following modifications:

Search Strategy: We have created a dedicated subsection providing a detailed description of the information sources and the search strategy employed. This now ensures greater transparency and replicability of the study.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: We have reorganized this section as a separate subsection, explicitly listing the criteria in a structured format while maintaining Table 1 for clarity and reference.

Study Selection Process: We have specified the number of reviewers involved and described the step-by-step review process. Additionally, we have clarified that the selection process included an initial screening based on titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review for final inclusion. This revision enhances the precision and detail of the methodology, ensuring a clearer understanding for the reader.

These revisions align the methodological section more closely with systematic review standards, enhancing both clarity and consistency. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful feedback, which has helped strengthen our manuscript.

Comments 3: In section 2.6 Quality assessment and risk of bias, I would appreciate receiving a document or Excel file reflecting the methodological assessment carried out by CASP. Additionally, it would be relevant to explain whether the review was conducted independently and peer-reviewed, providing details of the procedure followed.

Response 3: The CASP criteria represent the general standards of indexed scientific publications. Since, not meeting these criteria would in general cause a rejection of the paper. Furthermore, for each source, we have ensured that the instruments utilised to measure the gain in the expected outcomes has been appropriately validated in previous scientific literature, see Table 4. Further details of the procedure followed have been added to the newly rewritten Methodology section.

Comments 4: In general, I have observed certain deficiencies in the methodological description. Systematic reviews require a level of detail that ensures replicability and comprehensibility. It is essential to promote transparency by registering the study on platforms such as PROSPERO or, if the topic is related to education, on OSF. The nature of this type of study requires clarity and thoroughness in the methodology.

Response 4: First, we have added detailed 2.1 Search Strategy section where we have carefully detailed the search question, and the keywords involved. Second, we have improved the section 2.2 Inclusion - Exclusion by clarifying the inclusion-exclusion criteria with rigor. Third, in subsection 2.3. we included a comprehensive explanation of the procedure of the systematic review carried out by the research team.

After enhancing the Methodology section and incorporating the corrections to the peer-review comments provided, we have now uploaded the review to the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform as suggested. See link: osf.io/azxyt

Citation: Grábalos, D. S. (2025, February 18). Systematic Review of the Literature on Interventions to Improve Self-Regulation of Learning in First-Year University Students. Retrieved from osf.io/azxyt

Comments 5: In the results section, although the flow chart is included, I consider that its presentation could be improved. I recommend revising the text to ensure that the explanation is more precise and structured, accurately reflecting the flow of information characteristic of a systematic review. The rest of the results are clear and facilitate the reader's understanding.

Response 5: We have carefully taken your comment into consideration and thus, we have incorporated the following paragraph detailing the procedure of the review in the results section:

Following the previously mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2), the following results were obtained in relation to the process described in Section 2.3:

1)          Identification: A total of 462 studies were identified across four databases; SCOPUS®: 252 documents based on title, abstract, and keywords; WOS®: 100 documents in Topic (title, abstract, keywords); ERIC®: 102 documents from full text; SCIELO®: 8 documents in Topic (title, abstract, keywords).

2)          Screening: 126 records were excluded for being conference papers, reports, dissertations, book chapters, books, or other document types. After removing duplicates and limiting the review period, 336 studies remained. All references were downloaded into a spreadsheet, enabling the elimination of 67 duplicates and 152 studies published before 2019. Consequently, the pool of studies for review comprised 117 articles.

3)          Eligibility: 94 articles were excluded, leaving 23 articles for the systematic review presented here, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Comments 6: Furthermore, I would like to remind you that a systematic review should not offer straightforward practical conclusions. This type of study aims to delimit the scope and amount of existing research on a specific topic. Practical solutions require complementary field studies or empirical research.

Response 6: Indeed, we agree. Our purpose is identifying which interventions lead to a proved gain on self-regulated learning as well as identifying which of these practices is more frequent. It was not our purpose recommending any of these practices in particular but we see that this message could be understood from the conclusions section. Therefore, we have reviewed the Conclusions to clarify this issue.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

I am grateful for the corrections made. In light of the suggestions provided and the revisions made, I believe that the article demonstrates the necessary rigour of a systematic review, including the formulation of the research question in PICO format, the explicit delineation of the search strategy and the corresponding flow chart, among other elements. Furthermore, it represents a topic of considerable interest to the scientific community.

Regards