Enhancing Foreign Speakers’ Satisfaction in Learning Indonesian Language with a Gamified Multiplatform Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting exploration of gamification as a way to enhance foreign speakers' satisfaction when learning Bahasa Indonesia. The manuscript is in line with the demand for accessible and engaging language learning tools, particularly for languages like Bahasa Indonesia, which lack widespread learning resources compared to more globalized languages.

The introduction establishes the research context, highlighting the increasing international presence in Indonesia and the language barriers faced by non-native speakers. However, while the introduction sets the stage well, it could benefit from further elaboration on why gamification, as opposed to other pedagogical approaches, is more suited to address these challenges. Furthermore, one notable gap in the manuscript is the lack of a dedicated background theory section. A comprehensive theoretical framework discussing key concepts like gamification, user satisfaction, and language acquisition would enhance the reader's understanding of the study's foundation. This section could also situate the research more clearly within the existing literature, providing a stronger basis for the methodology and results. This would be particularly valuable given the interdisciplinary nature of the study, which intersects educational technology, linguistics, and human-computer interaction.

The methodology section describes the steps involved in developing the "Belajar Indo" application and evaluating its usability. The choice of a PWA platform demonstrates a thoughtful approach to ensuring accessibility across devices. The use of NPS and usability metrics to measure success provides a good evaluation framework. However, the sampling of participants is quite small and leans heavily towards users with a high level of education. The authors state that “We made sure that the participants involved in this assessment were between the ages of 25 and 54 years old, did not speak Indonesian well, and at least had a college degree” (lines 143 to 145), but were not clear about the reasons that led to these specifications, which is necessary.

The authors also state in the manuscript that “The participants were predominantly from the United Kingdom, comprising a substantial majority of 17 individuals, while the United States contributed six participants. Australia and the Netherlands accounted for five people. There was also a minimal representation from Malaysia and Singapore, with one participant each” (lines 171 to 174), which appears to account for a sample size of 30 individuals. However, the authors later mention in line 178 that “36 users participated,” creating some confusion regarding the number of participants involved. It is unclear whether Australia and the Netherlands each account for five participants or five collectively. Even under the assumption that they account for five each, the total would only reach 35 participants, leaving one individual unaccounted for. This inconsistency requires clarification to ensure an accurate representation of the study's participant pool.

The results section presents comprehensive data on usability testing and user feedback, including success rates, misclick rates, and user satisfaction scores. Thus, the study identifies key areas for improvement, such as reducing misclicks and simplifying the user interface, which are critical for refining the application.

The discussion contextualizes the findings within the broader landscape of language learning and gamification research. The authors are self-critical, acknowledging limitations in the prototype's design and outlining specific steps for future improvements. Nevertheless, the discussion could be enriched by comparing the study's outcomes with those of similar gamified language learning initiatives to provide a more robust assessment of its contribution to the field.

The conclusion summarizes the study's contributions, emphasizing the potential of gamification to improve satisfaction and usability in language learning applications. However, it stops short of addressing the broader implications of the study for the development of gamified educational technologies beyond language learning.

The manuscript has an interesting contribution to the field of educational technology and gamification, despite the reduced number of participants. However, there are areas where deeper analysis and broader contextualization are needed. Adding a background theory section would significantly enhance the soundness of the paper, providing a clearer theoretical grounding for the research and its methodologies, as well as a clarification about the number of participants. The study would also benefit from a more balanced discussion of its limitations and the scalability of its approach for different user demographics.

Finally, Appendix A should be included within the text of the manuscript.

References are also limited since the manuscript does not have a background theory section.

Other issues:

Line 133 to 135 – “After identifying problem and construct a research question, a supporting data collected from pre-survey and expert conversation. “ – correct the sentence

Line 137 – “weas based on BIPA” – correct to “was”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your detailed and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process.

Below we give our responses regarding your comments. The revised parts in the manuscript will be marked by brown color.

Comments 1:

"The introduction establishes the research context, highlighting the increasing international presence in Indonesia and the language barriers faced by non-native speakers. However, while the introduction sets the stage well, it could benefit from further elaboration on why gamification, as opposed to other pedagogical approaches, is more suited to address these challenges. Furthermore, one notable gap in the manuscript is the lack of a dedicated background theory section. A comprehensive theoretical framework discussing key concepts like gamification, user satisfaction, and language acquisition would enhance the reader's understanding of the study's foundation. This section could also situate the research more clearly within the existing literature, providing a stronger basis for the methodology and results. This would be particularly valuable given the interdisciplinary nature of the study, which intersects educational technology, linguistics, and human-computer interaction."

Response 1:

Thank you for the suggestion. We will expand our explanation on how gamification will work this time in both Introduction and Materials and Methods sections. The introduction should emphasizes the importance of gamification in language learning, while on the materials and method will explain theoretically about gamification. Also with the benefits of gamification, such as interactivity, engagement, and motivation, while contrasting with traditional methods will be explained more in the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 2:

"The methodology section describes the steps involved in developing the "Belajar Indo" application and evaluating its usability. The choice of a PWA platform demonstrates a thoughtful approach to ensuring accessibility across devices. The use of NPS and usability metrics to measure success provides a good evaluation framework. However, the sampling of participants is quite small and leans heavily towards users with a high level of education. The authors state that “We made sure that the participants involved in this assessment were between the ages of 25 and 54 years old, did not speak Indonesian well, and at least had a college degree” (lines 143 to 145), but were not clear about the reasons that led to these specifications, which is necessary."

Response 2:

Thank you so much. Intentionally, we made such barometer of both foreign workers and students in Indonesia. Therefore, we found an age range of 20 years above, and what we received from third party application to find those participants were about right to match our intention and we got participants between 25 and 54 years old. Truthfully speaking, we, personally had a financial constraint to expand the quantity of participants. Therefore, we only got about 36 participants with variety backgrounds and conditions.

 

Comments 3:

"The authors also state in the manuscript that “The participants were predominantly from the United Kingdom, comprising a substantial majority of 17 individuals, while the United States contributed six participants. Australia and the Netherlands accounted for five people. There was also a minimal representation from Malaysia and Singapore, with one participant each” (lines 171 to 174), which appears to account for a sample size of 30 individuals. However, the authors later mention in line 178 that “36 users participated,” creating some confusion regarding the number of participants involved. It is unclear whether Australia and the Netherlands each account for five participants or five collectively. Even under the assumption that they account for five each, the total would only reach 35 participants, leaving one individual unaccounted for. This inconsistency requires clarification to ensure an accurate representation of the study's participant pool."

Response 3: 

Yes, this is an error made by corresponding author who did not pay attention on the result description. It should Malaysia had two participants and Singapore with just one. So, the total respondents are exactly 36.

 

Comments 4: 

"The results section presents comprehensive data on usability testing and user feedback, including success rates, misclick rates, and user satisfaction scores. Thus, the study identifies key areas for improvement, such as reducing misclicks and simplifying the user interface, which are critical for refining the application."

Response 4:

Thank you. Yes, indeed, these comprise our primary focus for usability testing to evaluate the application's adequacy as a user-centered design. The objective is to achieve high user satifsfaction.

 

Comments 5: 

"The discussion contextualizes the findings within the broader landscape of language learning and gamification research. The authors are self-critical, acknowledging limitations in the prototype's design and outlining specific steps for future improvements. Nevertheless, the discussion could be enriched by comparing the study's outcomes with those of similar gamified language learning initiatives to provide a more robust assessment of its contribution to the field."

Response 5:

Thank you for your comment. We will consider adding more exploration about our findings and comparison with other researches of different methods or different use case.

 

Comments 6:

"The conclusion summarizes the study's contributions, emphasizing the potential of gamification to improve satisfaction and usability in language learning applications. However, it stops short of addressing the broader implications of the study for the development of gamified educational technologies beyond language learning."

Response 6:

Thank you for your response. In our opinion, lines 274–284 in the conclusion addressed how gamification could benefit other domains, drawing from findings in educational technology and user engagement.

 

Comments 7:

"The manuscript has an interesting contribution to the field of educational technology and gamification, despite the reduced number of participants. However, there are areas where deeper analysis and broader contextualization are needed. Adding a background theory section would significantly enhance the soundness of the paper, providing a clearer theoretical grounding for the research and its methodologies, as well as a clarification about the number of participants. The study would also benefit from a more balanced discussion of its limitations and the scalability of its approach for different user demographics."

Response 7:

Thank you for pointing this. We have added the discussion section and suggested several future works regarding this issue. We will clarify the same thing mentioned in comment 3 and expand the first section to make sense about the importance of this study. 

 

Comments 8: 

"Finally, Appendix A should be included within the text of the manuscript."

Response 8:

Thank you for your correction, the Appendix A has been added in lines 61-62.

 

Comments 9:

"References are also limited since the manuscript does not have a background theory section."

Response 9:

Thank you very much for your comment. We added more references to strengthen our background theory, as well as our findings on discussion section.

 

Comments 10:

Other issues:

Line 133 to 135 – “After identifying problem and construct a research question, a supporting data collected from pre-survey and expert conversation. “ – correct the sentence

Line 137 – “weas based on BIPA” – correct to “was”

Response 10:

Thank you for pointing this out. This issues have been solved and revised.

 

We truly appreciate your time, effort, and expertise in shaping this manuscript into its best possible form.

 

Warm regards,

Rifqi Imaduddin Irfan

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Include the definition of gamification as part of the introduction rather than the methods section.
• Ensure that all figures (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) are explicitly mentioned and integrated into the text.
• Clearly state the research questions of the study.
• Specify the instruments used for data collection.
• Provide a clear definition of what constitutes a success rate in the context of this study.
• Clarify whether the presented heat maps are part of the results section, and ensure they are properly interpreted, as this is currently unclear.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your detailed and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process.

Below we give our responses regarding your comments. The revised parts in the manuscript will be marked by brown color.

Comments 1:

Include the definition of gamification as part of the introduction rather than the methods section.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comment. We referred gamification in line 75-78 of introduction section. In order to clarify how gamification in education are proved to be the best method for educational learning, we added more lines afterwards. 

Comments 2:

Ensure that all figures (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) are explicitly mentioned and integrated into the text.

Response 2:

Thank you for reminding us. All figures in the manuscript now are mentioned into text paragraphs. 

Comments 3: 

Clearly state the research questions of the study.

Response 3:

Thank you for your suggestion. In lines 79-81, the research questions are implied to clarify this comment. We will add research questions in the end of introduction.

Comments 4:

Specify the instruments used for data collection.

Response 4:

Thank you very much. Some explanations on data collection, particularly in questionnaires, have been cited in lines 59-62.

Comments 5:

Provide a clear definition of what constitutes a success rate in the context of this study.

Response 5:

We agree with this comment. We will give the definition in the new paragraph, found in lines 164-168.

Comments 6:

Clarify whether the presented heat maps are part of the results section, and ensure they are properly interpreted, as this is currently unclear.

Response 6: 

Thank you for pointing this out. The heat maps aim to ensure what user click and it might become misclick when the goal was not achieved, and it was approved in the first task where several users got confused and it was counted as misclick. In the next revision, I will expand the analysis on other heat map to see the misclicks may contribute to the lower satisfaction score and other variable that may significantly relevant.

 

We truly appreciate your time, effort, and expertise in shaping this manuscript into its best possible form.

 

Warm regards,

Rifqi Imaduddin Irfan

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Although the Introduction explains the research background, it does not sufficiently address why gamification is used (line 74 merely states that gamification is a reasonable solution to enhance satisfaction in Bahasa Indonesia learning platforms). Learning a language should not solely rely on gamification, as not all learners prefer this approach. Additionally, gamification might fail to achieve learning goals and risk becoming mere entertainment or addiction. It is recommended to elaborate on the rationale for using gamification in this study. For example, consider discussing whether the Indonesian language has unique characteristics that can be effectively highlighted through gamification.

2. The last paragraph suggests presenting the research questions in a columnar format for clarity. Additionally, it would be helpful to explain the significance of these research questions and their relevance to both gamification and language learning.

3. It is recommended to include an introductory chapter describing multiple game systems used in the study. Currently, the lack of visual aids, such as screenshots or diagrams, makes it difficult to understand how the games function. This lack of context also hampers the interpretation of the data discussed later. For instance, lines 178 to 182 mention the proportion of task target pages and the number of clicks, but without visuals, it is unclear why multiple incorrect clicks occur. Furthermore, the three types of tasks are not clearly differentiated, making it difficult to understand the large variation in error clicks across tasks.

4. The participants range in age from 25 to 54. Does this large age gap affect learning outcomes? Why were subjects of varying ages chosen instead of a more homogenous group? If there were specific considerations behind this decision, they should be explained.

5. The system includes a ranking list to track progress. Can learners view others' progress in this ranking list? If so, could this lead to stress or negative effects? Alternatively, if learners can only see their own progress, does this ranking list function merely as a personal learning log?

6. The experimental subjects come from different countries. Could their varying cultural backgrounds influence the results? If so, how does the study account for this potential variable?

7. According to the description in lines 171 to 174, there are only 35 experimental subjects, yet Table 1 lists 36 participants. The subsequent text also refers to 36 subjects. Is this an error or discrepancy?

8. The absence of statistical analysis weakens the study’s ability to substantiate the claim that the research system is effective for learning Indonesian. Incorporating robust statistical analysis would enhance the credibility of the findings.

9. The Discussion chapter primarily focuses on describing users’ experiences with the system but lacks a detailed analysis of how the system benefits learners. Since this is a key research question, it should be discussed more thoroughly.

10. The Conclusion should include a comparison with previous studies to better emphasize this study’s contribution. Highlighting how this research advances the field or fills existing gaps would strengthen its overall impact.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your detailed and thoughtful feedback on my manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process.

Below we give our responses regarding your comments. The revised parts in the manuscript will be marked by brown color.

Comments 1:

"Although the Introduction explains the research background, it does not sufficiently address why gamification is used (line 74 merely states that gamification is a reasonable solution to enhance satisfaction in Bahasa Indonesia learning platforms). Learning a language should not solely rely on gamification, as not all learners prefer this approach. Additionally, gamification might fail to achieve learning goals and risk becoming mere entertainment or addiction. It is recommended to elaborate on the rationale for using gamification in this study. For example, consider discussing whether the Indonesian language has unique characteristics that can be effectively highlighted through gamification."

Response 1:

Thank you for your suggestion. We will try to add how Indonesian language features benefit from gamification in the introduction section.

 

Comments 2:

"The last paragraph suggests presenting the research questions in a columnar format for clarity. Additionally, it would be helpful to explain the significance of these research questions and their relevance to both gamification and language learning."

Response 2:

Thank you for this suggestion. We will format research questions in a numbering layout and make a connection with the discussion to explain the revelance of gamification to language learning.

 

Comments 3:

"It is recommended to include an introductory chapter describing multiple game systems used in the study. Currently, the lack of visual aids, such as screenshots or diagrams, makes it difficult to understand how the games function. This lack of context also hampers the interpretation of the data discussed later. For instance, lines 178 to 182 mention the proportion of task target pages and the number of clicks, but without visuals, it is unclear why multiple incorrect clicks occur. Furthermore, the three types of tasks are not clearly differentiated, making it difficult to understand the large variation in error clicks across tasks."

Response 3:

Thank you for the response. We would like to clarify that the application developed in this study is not a game application but rather a language learning platform where gamified elements are brought in order to improve certain aspects. The main focus of the present research study is therefore centered around ways through which gamification would enhance both user satisfaction and usability within the framework of learning Bahasa Indonesia and not developing a complete game.

 

Comments 4:

"The participants range in age from 25 to 54. Does this large age gap affect learning outcomes? Why were subjects of varying ages chosen instead of a more homogenous group? If there were specific considerations behind this decision, they should be explained."

Response 4:

Thank you very much. We are already tried to recruit more homogenous group, but we just got that amount shown in the result section. We made sure that the participants involved in this assessment were non-native Indonesian speakers, even though it is fine if they are lived in Indonesia and we did not ask that particularly. And also, this consideration comes from the fact in the European Union countries where people know at least one foreign language as Eurostat stated in their report.

 

Comments 5:

"The system includes a ranking list to track progress. Can learners view others' progress in this ranking list? If so, could this lead to stress or negative effects? Alternatively, if learners can only see their own progress, does this ranking list function merely as a personal learning log?"

Response 5:

Thank you. We should revised the statement that in the experiment we had only view their own report or progress without giving ranking list. This is another unfinished work that noted. Therefore, we revised the statement to become 'view own reports or progress'.

 

Comments 6:

"The experimental subjects come from different countries. Could their varying cultural backgrounds influence the results? If so, how does the study account for this potential variable?"

Response 6:

We agree with this comment. Yes, it could as it seen as an invalid result because the Indonesian native speakers or anyone who once learned Bahasa Indonesia may unqualified to the evaluation. And also, we are trying to broaden the user target by targeting several countries such as Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Vietnam, and Egypt. This is a recommendation from one Bahasa Indonesia teaching expert.

 

Comments 7:

"According to the description in lines 171 to 174, there are only 35 experimental subjects, yet Table 1 lists 36 participants. The subsequent text also refers to 36 subjects. Is this an error or discrepancy?"

Response 7:

Yes, this is an error made by corresponding author who did not pay attention on the result description. It should Malaysia had two participants and Singapore with just one. So, the total respondents are exactly 36.

Comments 8: 

"The absence of statistical analysis weakens the study’s ability to substantiate the claim that the research system is effective for learning Indonesian. Incorporating robust statistical analysis would enhance the credibility of the findings."

Response 8:

Thank you for the suggestion. We just added a nonparametric statistical analysis to show the significance of variables shown in the result with the user rating and response time during user rating.

Comments 9:

"The Discussion chapter primarily focuses on describing users’ experiences with the system but lacks a detailed analysis of how the system benefits learners. Since this is a key research question, it should be discussed more thoroughly."

Response 9:

Thank you very much. We will discuss more specific impacts on satisfaction using the data previously shown on the results section, as we mentioned some benefits based on learning outcomes.

 

Comments 10:

"The Conclusion should include a comparison with previous studies to better emphasize this study’s contribution. Highlighting how this research advances the field or fills existing gaps would strengthen its overall impact."

Response 10:

Thank you. We are trying our best to add some comparison with prior studies in the result section. One of the most critical components is that we assessed user satisfaction and simultaneously assessed the application's usability to ensure that the user experience is satisfying.

 

We truly appreciate your time, effort, and expertise in shaping this manuscript into its best possible form.

 

Warm regards,

Rifqi Imaduddin Irfan

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for addressing the suggested changes and incorporating the feedback. I would just like to make two observations:

1. While a ‘Background Theory’ section has not been explicitly added, I noticed that some theoretical aspects have been reinforced. This improvement does enhance the scientific grounding of the manuscript. Although I still believe the inclusion of a dedicated section would have been beneficial, I understand that at this stage, it is no longer a critical issue.

2. Regarding Appendix A, my suggestion was not to include the appendix itself but rather to integrate the table directly into the main body of the article. There is no need to refer to an appendix in this case.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your detailed and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process.

Below we give our responses regarding your comments.

Comments 1:

"While a ‘Background Theory’ section has not been explicitly added, I noticed that some theoretical aspects have been reinforced. This improvement does enhance the scientific grounding of the manuscript. Although I still believe the inclusion of a dedicated section would have been beneficial, I understand that at this stage, it is no longer a critical issue."

Response 1:

We recognize that including a dedicated background theory section would enhance the readability of the article. Even though this journal is free format submission, however, based on the journal limiting us to make required sections, including Introduction and Materials & Methods, it is difficult for us to arrange in this limited time. Nevertheless, we will consider this suggestion for our next research project.

 

Comments 2:

"Regarding Appendix A, my suggestion was not to include the appendix itself but rather to integrate the table directly into the main body of the article. There is no need to refer to an appendix in this case."

Response 2:

Thank you for the suggestion. We would remove the Appendix and integrate it into the table in the Introduction section that described the pre-survey data.

 

We appreciate your time and effort in revising this paper, and we hope that it will be approved.

 

Warm regards,

Rifqi Imaduddin Irfan

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments
After revision, the quality of the article has significantly improved in terms of language, structure, and presentation. However, several key issues remain unresolved, particularly in relation to the research questions raised. Below are specific observations and suggestions:

 

Specific Comments and Suggestions

1. Addressing Research Question 1: "How to use gamification methods to develop BIPA learning applications?"

Observation: The article does not clearly describe the process of learning a language through gamification, nor does it effectively illustrate how the gamification elements were implemented in the BIPA (Bahasa Indonesia for Non-Native Speakers) learning application.

Suggestion: To address this, include visual elements such as screenshots or diagrams of the learning interface. These visuals can demonstrate how learners interact with the system and clarify the gamified elements in action (e.g., badges, points, or challenges). A clear description of how these gamification features align with language learning goals will directly respond to the first research question.

2. Influence of Cultural Backgrounds on Study Validity

Observation: The article acknowledges that participants come from diverse countries and cultural backgrounds, which may influence the learning outcomes. However, the implications of this diversity on the validity of the study's results are not sufficiently explored.

Suggestion: If the study agrees that cultural differences might impact learning outcomes, it should explicitly state whether this factor could limit the generalizability of the findings. Discussing whether the study results remain debatable due to this variability will enhance the transparency and rigor of the analysis.

3. Proving System Effectiveness via Nonparametric Statistical Analysis

Observation: The article employs nonparametric statistical analysis but does not sufficiently explain how this analysis proves the system's effectiveness for learning Indonesian. Additionally, it fails to substantiate claims that "users who rated the system highly encountered usability problems but liked the gamification elements."

Suggestion:

Clearly explain how the statistical results support the effectiveness of the system in improving language learning outcomes. Use specific metrics (e.g., improved test scores or task completion rates) to provide evidence.

Analyze qualitative feedback from users to justify the claim about usability challenges and their appreciation for gamification. Highlight specific user comments and connect them to observed trends in the data.

4. Addressing Research Question 2: "How important is gamification as a method of learning a foreign language?"

Observation: The analysis results in the current revision do not confirm the importance of gamification as a method for language learning.

Suggestion: Provide a more detailed discussion of how gamification contributed (or failed to contribute) to learning outcomes. Use comparative examples, such as how gamified learning compares to traditional methods, to assess its importance. If data is insufficient to confirm this, explicitly state this limitation in the discussion.

5. Answering Research Question 3: "What are the usability challenges of gamified learning systems?"

Observation: The article does not directly address the usability challenges of the gamified learning system, despite this being one of the primary research questions.

Suggestion: Use both quantitative (e.g., system usability scale scores) and qualitative (e.g., user feedback) data to identify specific usability issues. For example, highlight problems like unclear navigation, interface complexity, or delayed system responses. This will provide a comprehensive answer to the third research question.

6. Enhancing the Conclusion with Comparisons to Previous Studies

Observation: The conclusion section still lacks a comparison with previous studies, which was a key suggestion in earlier feedback.

Suggestion: Include a brief comparison with related research to highlight this study's unique contributions. For instance, discuss how this study advances or contrasts with findings on gamification in language learning, particularly in terms of effectiveness and user engagement. This will better position the study within the broader academic context.

Final Remarks
The revised article demonstrates improvement, but it needs to fully address the research questions and respond to earlier feedback. Specifically, incorporating additional data analysis, addressing gaps in the discussion, and contextualizing the findings within existing literature will strengthen the study’s contributions and overall quality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your detailed and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions have been invaluable in improving the quality of the paper, and we truly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this process.

Below we give our responses regarding your comments. 

Comments 1:

"The article does not clearly describe the process of learning a language through gamification, nor does it effectively illustrate how the gamification elements were implemented in the BIPA (Bahasa Indonesia for Non-Native Speakers) learning application."

Response 1:

Thank you for pointing this out. We added one sample of gamification features in the Results section, particularly in point and badge element. This illustration can give some example of how the gamification works in Belajar Indo application. 

Comments 2:

"The article acknowledges that participants come from diverse countries and cultural backgrounds, which may influence the learning outcomes. However, the implications of this diversity on the validity of the study's results are not sufficiently explored."

Response 2:

Thank you. We modified the paragraph to certainly acknowledge that we could not determine the impact of diverse people from different culture in the learning outputs. Further research can categorize people not only from the targeted countries, but also from region or continent.

Comments 3:

"The article employs nonparametric statistical analysis but does not sufficiently explain how this analysis proves the system's effectiveness for learning Indonesian. Additionally, it fails to substantiate claims that 'users who rated the system highly encountered usability problems but liked the gamification elements.'"

Response 3:

In response to your suggestion, we have provided a detailed explanation of the nonparametric statistical analysis conducted in this study. The analysis supports the effectiveness of the gamified system by demonstrating significant correlations between user satisfaction and task completion efficiency.

Comments 4:

"The analysis results in the current revision do not confirm the importance of gamification as a method for language learning."

Response 4:

Thank your for your input. We have extended the discussion to the importance of gamification in language learning, comparing it with more traditional ways of learning. Unfortunately, we still cannot confirm the importance of gamification unless all important variables, for example age, education, and device type and platform are significant.

Comments 5:

"The article does not directly address the usability challenges of the gamified learning system, despite this being one of the primary research questions."

Response 5:

Thank you for your suggestion. We actually already pointed that in the first paragraph of discussion section as it referred to Table 3, 4, 5, and 6. To extend the usability challenges, we added one paragraph that showed one comment in the testing event, mentioned the same thing in the first paragraph that one task was lack of clear explanation that resulted in higher misclick. 

Comments 6:

"The conclusion section still lacks a comparison with previous studies, which was a key suggestion in earlier feedback."

Response 6:

Thank you for the comment. According to that point, we had one finding that can be aligned with our research. Therefore, we have included additional passages in the discussion and conclusion sections to ensure that this research has a significant impact on the earlier research.

We appreciate your time and effort in revising this paper, and we hope that it will be approved.

Warm regards,

Rifqi Imaduddin Irfan

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After revision, the quality of this study has been further improved, and the research questions raised can be fully responded to and explained.