Educational Escape Rooms as a Tool for Horizontal Mathematization: Learning Process Evidence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
After reading your work I have some suggestions:
ABSTRACT
Very well written, but, please introduce the sample information in the abstract. Please answer this questions:
1)What was the objective of your paper?
2)What is the population and sample?
3) What is the methodology?
4) What is the scientific contribution?
Please write more better.
Note: You have this information in your point 2.4;
- INTRODUCTION:
1.1. Well organized, with the most important literature in the area. But, it will be possible to find studies from the year 2020 please introduce to give an impact.
1.2 I don´t like tables in the introduction. For me don´t make sense. Please, use points 1.1 and 1.2 in a section with the name "Literature Review". Will be better to understand the literature background. Please create a section 2-Literature Review and change numbers of other sections.
- EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY: DESIGNING AN EDUCATIONAL ESCAPE ROOM
- For me this section is very confused because authors don´t identify: who, how, where, and when the study was made. Please make more clarity in this section.
- This section is like a Literature Review? Please, make a better organization in all papers.
- Move the contents of this section to Literature Review and write a real methodology where you need to explain the investigation steps.
- Figure 1 and its description and point 2.4 will be used in the methodology, but explain better.
- RESULTS: TRANSCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIENCE
- I like this kind of results presentation, but I ask: Will not better use a software to make a better treatment of data? Why you don´t show other results? It´s only an idea.
- DISCUSSION: ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSCRIBED EXPERIENCE
- I like this discussion but is too long. Please go directly to the real discussion point and cut some parts of the text like a bullets list and other literature topics outside discussion.
- CONCLUSIONS
- Weel present, direct, and understanding.
Layout/format/design issues:
- Make the structure of paper more uniform;
- Rename some sections;
- Change some text to more correct sections;
- See citations like journal rules;
- Format the paper with journal guidelines.
All the best in this paper and your academic career.
Author Response
Reviewer#1 provides accurate and valuable feedback to improve the manuscript. His notes are quite detailed, the author would like to thank reviewer#1 for his report. Attached you can find review notes for reviewer#1.
ABSTRACT
Very well written, but, please introduce the sample information in the abstract. Please answer this questions:
R: Abstract has been edited following reviewer#1 instructions. Highlighted changes are shown:
Abstract: The curricular perspective based on teaching processes which takes formal mathematical knowledge as starting point has been severely criticized. This traditional perspective considers that the formal mathematical knowledge has to be teached prior to the application so, once teached, it can be used to solve problems. Along with this criticism, curricular alternative proposals that have focused the attention in the learning process (rather than in the teaching one) have been developed. Recently, game-based learning has been developed as a problem-based learning methodology, able to achieve a deeper implication of the students. In line with this approach, the main scope of this paper is to provide evidences of learning process in game-based learning environments. To do this, student teachers have designed an educational escape room that fits curricular learning outcomes. This manuscript reports on an educational escape room experience that was implemented in three different Primary Education Schools (total student population of ≈100). In order to evaluate the development of certain knowledges, a transcribed fragment is presented and analyzed. In the reported experience, evidences of learning processes and horizontal mathematization are reported in the frame of an educational escape room. This constitutes an evidence of learning processes in gamified environments.
1) What was the objective of your paper?
R: In line with the game-based-learning approach, the scope of this manuscript is to provide learning evidences in a particular GBL environment: an educational escape room
2) What is the population and sample?
R: The experience was implemented in three different Primary Education Schools (covering a hundred students, approximately). However, the manuscript is limited to the analysis of a specific/transcribed experience in which 5 students cooperates for solving a problem that was presented in the educational escape room.
3) What is the methodology?
R: Designing an educational escape room implies (for student teachers) the mobilization of professional knowledge and skills in terms of planning, fitting the curricula, designing tools, managing groups…
That’s why the methodology, itself, is so complex and softly described in this manuscript. I hope the referee would understand the situation so that this study can be published in two manuscripts: (i) this one, focusing on the learning process achieved on the educational escape room and (ii) a second, focusing on the teaching process as well as the analysis of the professional knowledge mobilized by the student-teachers during the process.
Following Reviewer#1 indications, experimental methodology section has been widely modified.
4) What is the scientific contribution?
R: Unfortunately, there are no so much evidences of learning processes in educational escape rooms (this is discussed along the manuscript). It might be because educational escape rooms are a bad approach… or maybe because they are bad designed: becoming pure games with no educational purposes or not fitting the curriculum.
When it concerns to evidences published in relevant journals, there is a clear lack of information.
So, this paper would like to provide learning evidences in educational escape rooms… emphasizing that a good design, scheduling, organization, etc; can lead to learning process in this kind of environments. However, educational escape rooms have to be carried out by
teachers with specific formation in order to not be reduced to mere ludic games with no educational purposes.
The scientific meaning of this contribution has been highlighted in the conclusions.
Please write more better.
R: Abstract has been modified as follows:
The curricular perspective based on teaching processes which takes formal mathematical knowledge as starting point has been severely criticized. This traditional perspective considers that the formal mathematical knowledge has to be teached prior to the application so, once teached, it can be used to solve problems. Along with this criticism, curricular alternative proposals that have focused the attention in the learning process (rather than in the teaching one) have been developed. Recently, game-based learning has been developed as a problem-based learning methodology, able to achieve a deeper implication of the students. In line with this approach, the main scope of this paper is to provide evidences of learning process in game-based learning environments. To do this, student teachers have designed an educational escape room that fits curricular learning outcomes. This manuscript reports on an educational escape room experience that was implemented in three different Primary Education Schools (total student population of ≈100). In order to evaluate the development of certain knowledges, a transcribed fragment is presented and analyzed. In the reported experience, evidences of learning processes and horizontal mathematization are reported in the frame of an educational escape room. This constitutes an evidence of learning processes in gamified environments.
Note: You have this information in your point 2.4;
- INTRODUCTION:
1.1. Well organized, with the most important literature in the area. But, it will be possible to find studies from the year 2020 please introduce to give an impact.
R: Following referee’s instructions, references [8] and [10] have been included. Reference [15] is already a 2020 study. The related text has changed as follows:
Some authors have reported a successful use of educational escape rooms in a variety of topics such as nursery [7]-[8], pharmacy [9], psychology [10] telecommunications [11] and STEM courses [12]–[14] or climate change education [15].
1.2 I don´t like tables in the introduction. For me don´t make sense. Please, use points 1.1 and 1.2 in a section with the name "Literature Review". Will be better to understand the literature background. Please create a section 2-Literature Review and change numbers of other sections.
R: Following referee´s instructions, “section 2: literature review” has been included, thus numbering the next sections. As a consequence, Table 1 is no longer located in the introduction (but in section 2.1). The following text has been included:
2. Literature review
As above mentioned, literature lacks on evidences of learning processes in educational escape rooms [16]. In most of the available literature, cited in this manuscript, there are no analysis of the behavior, answers and discussions of the students living the experience. Sometimes this information is deliberately omitted, so it is quite difficult -for the reader- to have a clear picture of what is really happening in the escape room; or even to verify that students have, in fact, learn something related to the curriculum. It might be because escape rooms are, indeed, a bad approach… or maybe because escape rooms are bad designed (becoming pure leisure games with no educational purposes or not fitting the curriculum).
Moreover, the new section 2 includes many aspects that were spreaded on the document (difficulting the reading process). Some sections have been moved to the new section 2, in agreement with Reviewer#1 appreciation.
2. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY: DESIGNING AN EDUCATIONAL ESCAPE ROOM
- For me this section is very confused because authors don´t identify: who, how, where, and when the study was made. Please make more clarity in this section.
R: Experimental methodology section has been widely edited to clarify who/how/where/when the study was made. Furthermore, additional details have been included in this section.
- This section is like a Literature Review? Please, make a better organization in all papers.
R: Some aspects of the methodology could better fit into the new section “literature review”. Attending to Reviewer#1 indications, this section has been edited and some discussions have been displaced to the specific “literature review” section. Paper has been reorganized.
- Move the contents of this section to Literature Review and write a real methodology where you need to explain the investigation steps.
R: Most of the contents have been displaced to “literature review” section. Methodology has been clarified.
- Figure 1 and its description and point 2.4 will be used in the methodology, but explain better.
R: Methodology has been widely edited to include further details.
3. RESULTS: TRANSCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIENCE
- I like this kind of results presentation, but I ask: Will not better use a software to make a better treatment of data? Why you don´t show other results? It´s only an idea.
R: In this regard, I don’t know optimum software for treating this data (additional orientation would be valuable and greatly appreciated). Our procedure was video-recording the experiences and transcribing the discussions in a very similar way to that here presented. We will probably subtitle some experiences and make it accessible on a future website, if valuable scientific meaning is considered for this research.
On the other hand, concerning “showing other results”… It is quite difficult to provide additional transcriptions and analysis of additional problem-solving processes (due to limited space in a manuscript). It is evident that this limitation exists, however I tried to induce the reasonable conclusion by carefully analyzing the fragment. I consider the learning evidences are confident enough, while the statement of reviewer#1 is completely right. Your kindly understanding of this situation would be appreciated.
4. DISCUSSION: ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSCRIBED EXPERIENCE
- I like this discussion but is too long. Please go directly to the real discussion point and cut some parts of the text like a bullets list and other literature topics outside discussion.
R: Unfortunately, this commentary is not in line with that of reviewers#2 and #3… which requires some additional discussions on specific parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
- Well present, direct, and understanding.
R: Thank you very much for your kind words.
Layout/format/design issues:
- Make the structure of paper more uniform;
- Rename some sections;
- Change some text to more correct sections;
- See citations like journal rules;
- Format the paper with journal guidelines.
R: Following reviewer#1 instructions, some sections have been displaced or re-named. Some citations errors have been detected and edited. Some typos have been detected and edited.
All the best in this paper and your academic career.
R: Again, thank you very much for your kind words, your guidance and your careful reading of the manuscript. Your point-by-point analysis of the manuscript helps so much.
Submission Date
24 June 2020
Date of this review
06 Jul 2020 20:16:15
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reported on an experience in which student-teachers have designed situation-problems in the context of an escape room. This paper evaluated the didactic suitability of the gamified environments by implementing the designed proposals in various Primary Education Schools.
Overall, this paper identified an interesting topic of learning processes in game-based learning and educational escape room for horizontal mathematization. It also included a clear definition of gamified environment, EER as gamified environment, and why we should apply learning through gaming.
However, I have some concerns about the paper and some clarifications should be made to help understand the paper.
- Section 1:
The authors stated that EER-related literature lacks on: transcriptions of learning experience, didactic analysis of learning process, and analysis of the didactic suitability of the EER. Where did these three aspects come from? Please provide references here.
In line 45, the authors stated that the aim of this contribution was to provide evidences of a learning process in EER by “collecting data”. How did you collect the data? Why did you choose certain validated model?
Section 1.2 also lacks of references. If this section introduced the design considerations proposed by the authors then it should be moved to Section 2.
In line 91, the authors claimed that “the author considers that an escape room-based activity might be a powerful educational resource to create learning opportunities for middle-school students”. Where did this consideration come from? Why it was middle-school instead of primary school since the experiment was conducted with primary school students?
- Section 2:
Starting from line 108, the authors stated that some additional parameters had to be considered in order to create an EER. Based on what references?
Later in this section, the authors proposed seven design criteria for EER. The criteria seemed to be proposed based on problem-based learning guidelines. In what regard should EER fit to a problem-based learning approach? Why these seven criteria? Can you provide any evidence or clue? Besides, I couldn’t map these design criteria to the final EER designed in this paper. During the design process of the final EER with the 68 student-teachers, were they following these criteria?
In line 137, “most of these criteria are coincident with traditional parameters used for designing and scheduling conventional educational situations”. So what are the special aspects for EER?
Figure 1 should be moved done near to its description.
- Section 3.
The results only presented the transcription of the experience of one problem-solving process. The rest of the problems were missing.
Besides, as the authors mentioned earlier in line 83, “obtaining the final code should not be the end of the activity: once finished the escape experience, students/players have to be interviewed in order to discuss and to think about the problems solved (which should be connected to the story)”. While in the interviews in the final EER game, students were asked about the degree of joy, main difficulties and concepts learned. The questions were not connected to the story, how about the teacher who has been kidnapped? Did students have any reflection to the game story? The results only presented answers from student 3, and I couldn’t find the answer relating the degree of joy.
In line 236, who are scholar 1, scholar 2, scholar 3?
- Section 4.
In the discussion section, it presented six implications for a good didactic suitability based on the “experience” of authors. Were these implications all based on the one transcribed experience? Why used Font’s model to analyze the transcribed experience?
The analysis was only based on a transcribed experience of one problem-solving process instead of the whole EER experience, it feels more like a mathematics problem-solving game, but not an EER experience.
After reading this paper, I could see the positive impact of game-based problem-solving on students’ math learning process, but I’m missing the evidence supporting the effects of EER.
Author Response
Reviewer#2 provides accurate and valuable feedback to improve the manuscript. His notes are quite detailed, the author would like to thank reviewer#2 for his report. Attached you can find review notes for reviewer#2.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A good piece of scholarship presented in a very bad manner. The Introduction and Results sections are weak. A thorough background of the used approach is required. The results are presented in a rough manner. They look like a discussion. Most part of the paper is full of mistakes, like the inconsistency of the words used, grammatical mistakes, punctuation, and spelling mistakes. A thorough review by the English speaking person who is an expert in this field is highly demanded. The study's recommendations and its future prospects are missing.
Author Response
Reviewer#3 provides general and valuable feedback to improve the manuscript. His notes are quite brief and straightforward, the author would like to thank reviewer#3 for his report.
R: Thank you very much for your time and your report.
The manuscript has been extensively edited so that: additional references are provided, methodology section has been severely improved, some sections have been re-named and some discussions have been displaced. The aim with this major modification is to make the manuscript comprehensible enough. English language has been revised by the author. Conclusions and future prospects have been also improved.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Very good job in paper changes.
Well done.
In my personal opinion, now, the paper is better fit to publish.
One final note: in future papers try to have a more representative sample and use some new tools in data analysis to improve the quality of your research. In science the objective is do new steps always.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for the response from the author, I believe that the revised version is improved.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved significantly.
