Factors Influencing Game-Based Learning in the Colombian Context: A Mixed Methods Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript: "Investigating the Factors Influencing Game-Based Learning in the Colombian Context: A Mixed Methods Study"

This mixed methods study was conducted in a state secondary school in the Amazon region of Colombia to identify the factors affecting game-based learning (GBL) outcomes among 64 tenth-grade students learning English as a foreign language. The study used quantitative and qualitative data collected through surveys, interviews, and pre-and post-tests. The results indicated that commitment and prior knowledge could positively predict GBL results, while contextual factors and family status harmed GBL results. Moreover, the study found that male students with higher levels of prior knowledge were more likely to score well on GBL. The implications of incorporating serious games for vocabulary learning in less developed regions are discussed.

To improve the manuscript, the following suggestions are proposed:

1.     Change the title to "Factors Influencing Game-Based Learning in the Colombian Context: A Mixed Methods Study" for greater clarity.

2.     The abstract should provide a brief overview of the research and highlight the most important results, limitations, and areas for future work.

3.     Check the English grammar and spelling of the entire paper to ensure clarity and precision.

4.     Ensure that the resolution and quality of figures are high enough for readers to understand the information presented clearly.

5.     Improve Figures 1, 2, and 3 to understand the research findings better.

6.     Tables should contain only essential information, with additional data and analysis in a dataset.

7.     Sharing data and analysis in a dataset can help make research more transparent, reproducible, and impactful.

8.     To increase the impact of the research, place the study data and analysis in a dataset, which can be created at https://data.mendeley.com/

9.     Separate the discussion and conclusions section into two sections, one for discussion and one for conclusions, limitations, and future work.

10.  Improve the discussion section by comparing the contributions with those of other authors. Comparing the contributions of your research with those of other authors can help provide context and strengthen the discussion section.

11.  The conclusions section should summarize the main findings and their implications for future research.

12.  Update the references, as many of the 37 references are over five years old. Updating the references with current and relevant sources can demonstrate the currency and relevance of the research.

Author Response

We must say we felt glad when reading all the comments made by you. We really appreciate the time you took to thoroughly read our article. We have carefully read your feedback and comments to our article. We made all the changes suggested and improved our article. The changes and improvements are marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as suggested. You can download the attached content to view our reply

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting this manuscript. It is an excellent piece of work, and the only think I really have to mention is to ask you to add a little comment to explain the values of the statistics... i.e. what value on the tests means that there is a significant result. This will help readers who do not know statistics to understand the research

Author Response

We must say we felt glad when reading all the comments made by you. We really appreciate the time you took to thoroughly read our article. We have carefully read your feedback and comments to our article. We made all the changes suggested and improved our article. The changes and improvements are marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as suggested. You can download the attached content to view our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors, I first and foremost congratulate you on the quality of your work, as well as its novelty. 

The paper has indeed several merits:

1. abstract is relevant and illustrative for the content of the paper;

2. the approach is innovative for GBL study and the context of language learning in Colombia;

3. the research rationale has been thoroughly outlined in the introduction and literature review;

4. the methodology and context have been clearly described, as the latter is of the utmost relevance to understanding and interpreting the qualitative findings of this study;

5. the results and discussions are succinctly and clearly listed and described;

However, there are certain matters that I would kindly ask the authors of this study to possibly address should they find it necessary:

There is little detail on the findings of the pre and post-tests and as such, it seems to be anticipatory to issue the observations and interpretations of a qualitative nature (for instance, the fact that GBL was more effective for males rather than females, lines 311-313). There seem to be assumptions in terms of efficacy, but they should be more clearly linked to test scores.

The interesting and surprising nature of the findings in correlation to gender and family condition warrants further exploration and could add depth to the study (e.g. propensity of males to be more engaged in games, more technology-oriented in connection with their family condition, more behaviourally stimulated by such approaches). Even finding additional studies in this respect could add legitimacy to this sectorial approach.

The limitations of this study are clearly stated, but it might be worth adding areas of future research to add comprehensiveness to the study (either in terms of sample size, level of English, regional or national range of the study). 

Best regards and best of luck with your work, 

Author Response

We must say we felt glad when reading all the comments made by you. We really appreciate the time you took to thoroughly read our article. We have carefully read your feedback and comments to our article. We made all the changes suggested and improved our article. The changes and improvements are marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as suggested. You can download the attached content to view our reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

First, I appreciate the authors developing this study on game-based learning in the Colombian context. However, this manuscript needs some careful modifications. Specifically, I have the following remarks. 

Abstract: 

- The abstract section needs to be catchy. What is the contribution or significance of this study? Mention in a single sentence. 

Introduction: 

- The authors should mention some overall statistical shreds of evidence on game-based learning to depict its importance in the research domain. 

- Please add the structure/organization of this study in the last paragraph of the introduction section. 

Literature Review: 

- Source references for Figures (1 and 2) should be mentioned in the captions of respective figures. 

Methodology: 

- Why were only 64 high school students taken as a sample? How come the sample is enough to depict the population? Please clarify and provide justifications. 

- Fourteen five-point Likert scale items were adapted for this research. However, I am afraid the source details have not been shown. Please make a separate table for this. 

- Why did you choose hierarchical linear regression for analyzing the collected data? Please offer your rationalization(s). 

Findings  & Discussion: 

- In section 4.1.2, Model 1 has an Adjusted R square of only 0.197, which depicts low model explanation power. Authors need to provide the appropriate arguments in favor of such a low value. 

- Please rename the section as Findings. 

Discussion and Conclusions: 

- This section looks good. However, the authors should review and cite the following related and applicable article on learning technology to strengthen the findings further. 

Paper link: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1470 

Paper title: Blockchain in Online Learning: A Systematic Review and Bibliographic Visualization 

Author Response

We must say we felt glad when reading all the comments made by you. We really appreciate the time you took to thoroughly read our article. We have carefully read your feedback and comments to our article. We made all the changes suggested and improved our article. The changes and improvements are marked up using the “Track Changes” function, as suggested. You can download the attached content to view our reply

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has improved significantly, I suggest it be published.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 1 for their approval of our paper. We are grateful for the time and efforts spent by Reviewer 1 in reviewing our manuscript. 

Reviewer 4 Report

- In the introduction section, please check the grammar of the sentence, "Our paper is organized in the following way: First,.............." 

- 14 five-point Likert scale items were adapted for this research. However, I am afraid the source details have not been shown yet. The sources of items don't mean the questionnaire. That's why I suggested making a separate table to show the sources of items. However, it's okay, provided the handling editor has no issues concerning this matter. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. We have changed the expression in the introduction section, to make it clearer and error-free. 

Regarding your suggestion on making a separate table indicating the sources details of questionnaire items, we decided to present such information in the appendix rather than in a new table. There are two reasons for this decision: First, the questionnaire was used to measure learning engagement in GBL and was adapted from a single source, the Motivation, Attitude, Knowledge, and Engagement (MAKE) framework developed by Haruna, et al. [29]. So we believe a citation in text and a detailed list in Appendix would be enough. Second, there are already five tables and three figures in the manuscript. It is usually recommended to keep the total number of tables and figures under eight, so we are a bit reluctant to include another long table in the manuscript. Instead, an Appendix should be more suitable. 

But thank you very much for your suggestion. We sincerely hope you could understand our decision. We are very grateful for your time and efforts in reviewing our manuscript.