What Characterises an Effective Mindset Intervention in Enhancing Students’ Learning? A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This revision work in its entirety is presented in an original way. Links strongly with educational needs to build growth goal. I highly value taking into account all the necessary options for a systematic review. However, it is advisable to incorporate references and processes of the PRISMA procedure into the methodology, which has a relevant list of important aspects to consider in a systematic review of the literature. Make this incorporation into your manuscript. I believe that the review is comprehensive and that the results of the selected contributions are relevant to build your arguments and answer your research questions. It is recommended to include an additional graph in which the relationships between the references are observed. The final conclusions are relevant and constitute an improvement to the educational sciences.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

Thanks a lot for your kind comments and informative suggestions which has improved the current manuscript.

Taking into accounts all suggestions from three reviewers and the editor, the revised manuscript has been uploaded. Most revisions were marked up with “changing tracks”, minor revisions were conducted directly in the text. Here are the specific points with revisions:

1. Abstract has been updated addressing the background, materials and methods, results, conclusions. Moreover, we mentioned the implication, limitations, and future direction.

2. All the references have been reorganized including being numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript, as well as being added the doi.

3. Suggested references have been added, such as

Dolmark T.; Sohaib O.; Beydoun G.; Wu K. The Effect of Individual’s Technological Belief and Usage on Their Absorptive Capacity towards Their Learning Behaviour in Learning Environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 718. doi:10.3390/su13020718

4. Following the PRISMA procedure (Moher, 2010), the structure has been reorganized. Particularly, original Section 3 and Section 4 were combined into new Section 3 (Result), original Section 5 to new Section 4 (Discussion). Moreover, a completely new Section 5 (Conclusion) was added.

For your need of checklist, details please see

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21.

5. The new paragraph of the Conclusion briefly summarises the main findings, implication, limitations, and future direction.

6. English spell has been checked throughout the whole text.

7. Other corrections have been done directly in the text.

8. Two notes to specify (If you have further suggestions accordingly, new-round of revision is fine)

• Reviewer 3 propose the definition of sustainable development in the introduction, then further elaborate on the result and discussion. In p. 4, we added that students’ learning in the manuscript refers to not only students’ academic achievement objective performances (e.g., academic grades, details see p.4) but also the reported learning-relevant behaviours aimed for sustainable development (e.g., challenge-seeking behaviour). Thus, learning is within the scale of sustainable development. If we add the new term “sustainable development” in the introduction, I am afraid most of the following sections needs to be changed. Thus, we preferred to keep the term “learning”.
• Reviewer 2 suggested adding the study of Sathe and Adamuthe (2021). Frankly, after reading several times, I am not confident that I have got the main points as it concerns the algorithm of computer science. Thus, this study is added yet.

Thanks again for your precious reviews. If further revision is needed, please feel free to contact me.

Happy New Year and best wishes,

The first author

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the effective mindset intervention in enhancing students’ learning.

This paper was well-written and presented a good quality as academic and practical research.

The paper should be divided into the following sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions

The paper needs to be better reorganized also in subsections, with better and easier differentiation.

The abstract of the paper should be improved. The aim of the paper should be better stated. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts but without headings:

1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study.

2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used.

3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings. 

4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Authors should take into account more previous works (e.g. theoretical, conceptual, and empirical reviews) published in the literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies.

I will continue for 10 years researching student learning tools. I strongly recommend adding the following works to the analysis of scientific resources and references:

• Divayana, D. ANEKA-based Asynchronous and Synchronous Learning Design and its Evaluation as Efforts for Improving Cognitive Ability and Positive Character of Students. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 2021, 13, 5, 14-22. DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2021.05.02
• Sathe, M.; Adamuthe, A. Comparative Study of Supervised Algorithms for Prediction of Students’ Performance. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 2021, 13, 1, 1-21. DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2021.01.01
• Fedushko, S.; Ustyianovych, T.  Predicting Pupil’s Successfulness Factors Using Machine Learning Algorithms and Mathematical Modelling Methods. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 2020, 938, 625-636. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-16621-2_58 

The authors should reorganize the conclusion section because the contents of the conclusion are not clear. The conclusion should include the following contents as background, research objective, experiment result, finding and future research, and limitations.

I suggest adding a concluding paragraph with that, how these main findings of the paper address the challenge of information science.

Thank you for a good job.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

Thanks a lot for your kind comments and informative suggestions which has improved the current manuscript.

Taking into accounts all suggestions from three reviewers and the editor, the revised manuscript has been uploaded. Most revisions were marked up with “changing tracks”, minor revisions were conducted directly in the text. Here are the specific points with revisions:

1. Abstract has been updated addressing the background, materials and methods, results, conclusions. Moreover, we mentioned the implication, limitations, and future direction.

2. All the references have been reorganized including being numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript, as well as being added the doi.

3. Suggested references have been added, such as

Dolmark T.; Sohaib O.; Beydoun G.; Wu K. The Effect of Individual’s Technological Belief and Usage on Their Absorptive Capacity towards Their Learning Behaviour in Learning Environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 718. doi:10.3390/su13020718

4. Following the PRISMA procedure (Moher, 2010), the structure has been reorganized. Particularly, original Section 3 and Section 4 were combined into new Section 3 (Result), original Section 5 to new Section 4 (Discussion). Moreover, a completely new Section 5 (Conclusion) was added.

For your need of checklist, details please see

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21.

5. The new paragraph of the Conclusion briefly summarises the main findings, implication, limitations, and future direction.

6. English spell has been checked throughout the whole text.

7. Other corrections have been done directly in the text.

8. Two notes to specify (If you have further suggestions accordingly, new-round of revision is fine):

• Reviewer 3 propose the definition of sustainable development in the introduction, then further elaborate on the result and discussion. In p. 4, we added that students’ learning in the manuscript refers to not only students’ academic achievement objective performances (e.g., academic grades, details see p.4) but also the reported learning-relevant behaviours aimed for sustainable development (e.g., challenge-seeking behaviour). Thus, learning is within the scale of sustainable development. If we add the new term “sustainable development” in the introduction, I am afraid most of the following sections needs to be changed. Thus, we preferred to keep the term “learning”.
• Reviewer 2 suggested adding the study of Sathe and Adamuthe (2021). Frankly, after reading several times, I am not confident that I have got the main points as it concerns the algorithm of computer science. Thus, this study is added yet.

Thanks again for your precious reviews. If further revision is needed, please feel free to contact me.

Happy New Year and best wishes,

The first author

Reviewer 3 Report

This study provides a systematic review on effective mindset intervention in enhancing students’ learning. However, the research question also includes sustainable development. 

The author should define sustainable development which is not clearly described. Also, the discussion and implication section should further elaborate in the context of sustainable development. 

In terms of the knowledge transfer and absorptive capacity in a learning environment for message generating for the target of intervention. The following article might be helpful to cite in the literature. 

Dolmark T, Sohaib O, Beydoun G, Wu K. The Effect of Individual’s Technological Belief and Usage on Their Absorptive Capacity towards Their Learning Behaviour in Learning Environment. Sustainability. 2021; 13(2):718. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13020718

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editors,

Thanks a lot for your kind comments and informative suggestions which has improved the current manuscript.

Taking into accounts all suggestions from three reviewers and the editor, the revised manuscript has been uploaded. Most revisions were marked up with “changing tracks”, minor revisions were conducted directly in the text. Here are the specific points with revisions:

1. Abstract has been updated addressing the background, materials and methods, results, conclusions. Moreover, we mentioned the implication, limitations, and future direction.

2. All the references have been reorganized including being numbered in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript, as well as being added the doi.

3. Suggested references have been added, such as

Dolmark T.; Sohaib O.; Beydoun G.; Wu K. The Effect of Individual’s Technological Belief and Usage on Their Absorptive Capacity towards Their Learning Behaviour in Learning Environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 718. doi:10.3390/su13020718

4. Following the PRISMA procedure (Moher, 2010), the structure has been reorganized. Particularly, original Section 3 and Section 4 were combined into new Section 3 (Result), original Section 5 to new Section 4 (Discussion). Moreover, a completely new Section 5 (Conclusion) was added.

For your need of checklist, details please see

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Epub 2009 Jul 21.

5. The new paragraph of the Conclusion briefly summarises the main findings, implication, limitations, and future direction.

6. English spell has been checked throughout the whole text.

7. Other corrections have been done directly in the text.

8. Two notes to specify (If you have further suggestions accordingly, new-round of revision is fine):

• Reviewer 3 propose the definition of sustainable development in the introduction, then further elaborate on the result and discussion. In p. 4, we added that students’ learning in the manuscript refers to not only students’ academic achievement objective performances (e.g., academic grades, details see p.4) but also the reported learning-relevant behaviours aimed for sustainable development (e.g., challenge-seeking behaviour). Thus, learning is within the scale of sustainable development. If we add the new term “sustainable development” in the introduction, I am afraid most of the following sections needs to be changed. Thus, we preferred to keep the term “learning”.
• Reviewer 2 suggested adding the study of Sathe and Adamuthe (2021). Frankly, after reading several times, I am not confident that I have got the main points as it concerns the algorithm of computer science. Thus, this study is added yet.

Thanks again for your precious reviews. If further revision is needed, please feel free to contact me.

Happy New Year and best wishes,

The first author

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors didn't provide detailed responses to my comments. 

Most of my comments are ignored by the authors.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your valuable feedback. The following are the responses to your Comments.

Best wishes

Point 1: The paper should be divided into the following sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions

Response 1: The manuscript has been divided into the following five sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions. Please see the structure of the text with track marking for the details.

Point 2: The paper needs to be better reorganized also in subsections, with better and easier differentiation.

Response 2: The results section has reorganized relevant subsections, for example, adding descriptive findings, main findings (including the precondition, message generating, message delivering, and message internalising). Please see the subsections with track marking for the details.

Point 3:

The abstract of the paper should be improved. The aim of the paper should be better stated. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts but without headings:

1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study.

2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used.

3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings.

4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations.

Response 3: The abstract has been re-written stating the background, aim, material and method, result, conclusion. Please see the “Abstract” with track marking for the details.

Point 4:

Authors should take into account more previous works (e.g. theoretical, conceptual, and empirical reviews) published in the literature. Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previously published studies.

I will continue for 10 years researching student learning tools. I strongly recommend adding the following works to the analysis of scientific resources and references:

• Divayana, D. ANEKA-based Asynchronous and Synchronous Learning Design and its Evaluation as Efforts for Improving Cognitive Ability and Positive Character of Students. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 2021, 13, 5, 14-22. DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2021.05.02
• Sathe, M.; Adamuthe, A. Comparative Study of Supervised Algorithms for Prediction of Students’ Performance. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 2021, 13, 1, 1-21. DOI: 10.5815/ijmecs.2021.01.01
• Fedushko, S.; Ustyianovych, T. Predicting Pupil’s Successfulness Factors Using Machine Learning Algorithms and Mathematical Modelling Methods. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 2020, 938, 625-636. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-16621-2_58

Response 4: The latest manuscript added the above-mentioned works as important scientific resources and references. Please see the “Introduction” with track marking for the details.

Point 5: The authors should reorganize the conclusion section because the contents of the conclusion are not clear. The conclusion should include the following contents as background, research objective, experiment result, finding and future research, and limitations.

I suggest adding a concluding paragraph with that, how these main findings of the paper address the challenge of information science.

Response 5: The latest manuscript added a new paragraph of conclusion at the end of the text. The conclusion includes the background, research objective, material and method, experimental result, findings, theoretical and practical implication, limitation and future research. Please see the “Conclusion” with track marking for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx