A Gamified Teaching Proposal Using an Escape Box to Explore Marine Plastic Pollution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a well-conceptualised and relevant intervention using a gamified escape box to teach about marine plastics through the lenses of transformative environmental education. I have attached my comments in a Word document. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments, which have helped us improve our work.

C1: In the abstract, there is a need to indicate the methodology, sample size and mention of key findings; A1: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the recommendation, the abstract has been expanded to briefly include the methodological approach (mixed-methods), the sample size (79 students from 1º ESO), and key findings from the final questionnaire, highlighting high levels of student motivation and a solid understanding of the connection between marine plastic pollution and human and animal health. We believe this addition improves the clarity and completeness of the abstract from the outset.

C2: Research Design. This is not clearly stated and justified in the manuscript. Only in the discussion is there a mention of qualitative and quantitative data, line 657; A2: A brief text has been introduced in the Methodology section, specifying that the approach is close to design-based research and justifying this choice with support from a bibliographic reference.

C3: It will assist the reader if the authors shared more context as to why this particular school orage group was selected to participate in this study. Were there any unique characteristics of this group of students? ; A3: Subsection 4.1 has been completed with information regarding the school context and the type of sampling used to select the study participants.

C4: What are the main research questions that the objectives aim to address? ; A4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, the general objectives have been reformulated into explicit research questions, which are now presented immediately after the objectives section. This change makes the research focus clearer and ensures that the questions are directly addressed in the results section.

C5; Provide some details on how the qualitative data was analysed? For quantitative data, specify what statistical tools were used; A5: This information has been completed as suggested by the reviewer in the description of the instrument used for data collection. It is specified that both a qualitative analysis, based on an emergent categorization of students’ responses, and a descriptive analysis of percentages and frequencies were conducted. The software used is also indicated.

C6: The terminology, the use of words like escape box," "breakout box," and "escape room", is used somewhat interchangeably. A6: We thank the reviewer for this observation. At the beginning of section 3.2, we have included a clarification distinguishing between the terms escape room, escape box, and breakout box, specifying that in this study the term escape box is used as the main format, considering it equivalent to breakout box but different from escape room. Additionally, one sentence in the article that could be confusing was revised to ensure consistent use of terminology throughout the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This interesting article presents a gamified educational intervention focused on marine plastic pollution for middle school students, using an escape room experience. The intervention is designed following the principles of Transformative Environmental Education, the One Health approach, and Ocean Literacy, aiming to promote a systemic understanding and civic action.
The paper outlines the teaching-learning methodology structured into three sessions, Sequence of Educational Activities (SEA), built around a constructivist learning cycle. These sessions include exploring students’ prior conceptions, an immersive puzzle-solving experience, and culminate in reflection and application activities that link scientific concepts to real-world impacts.
While some literature suggests that escape rooms are more suitable for reviewing prior knowledge, this study notably aims to, and to some extent succeeds in, introducing new concepts and even shifting students’ worldviews. However, it also acknowledges the persistent challenges that arise when addressing abstract topics.

The evaluation involving 79 students (aged 12–13) demonstrated high engagement and perceived learning gains, particularly regarding the interconnectedness between environmental and human health.

Despite its significant strengths, the paper currently shows several weaknesses:

• The inclusion of a detailed profile of the student sample would provide clearer contextualization for the research.
• The research objectives should not be presented in a separate paragraph, as they are an integral part and a consequence of the conceptual framework. Moreover, since this is a methodological and teaching experimental activity, specific learning objectives should be specified to support the evaluation of outcomes at the end of the experience.
• The methodological research procedure should be more rigorous: a pre-test should be administered before the activity, followed by a post-test. The pre-test would help establish a baseline understanding of the student groups and highlight any differences between them. Without this, the comparative data lack scientific validity.
• The use of three groups is commendable, but including an additional control group would allow for deeper analysis of the intervention’s impact by distinguishing outcomes that result specifically from the methodological framework from those that could occur independently of the escape room experience.
• The heavy reliance on self-perception Likert scale items for evaluation introduces potential social desirability bias. This limitation underscores the need to integrate more objective assessment tasks for more robust validation.
• Although the persistent difficulty students experienced with abstract concepts such as bioaccumulation and ocean acidification is acknowledged, this remains a critical challenge. It suggests the need for more targeted and complementary pedagogical strategies, such as dynamic visual aids or kinesthetic models, to support deeper conceptual understanding. In this context, the didactic role of the escape room activity should be more clearly emphasised, particularly explaining how gamification within the escape room is relevant to enhancing and facilitating learning.
• Practical issues such as material deterioration and suboptimal group organisation, though noted and partially addressed, require more robust solutions to ensure consistency and equity in implementation across different settings.
• Finally, for greater clarity and immediate understanding of the results, percentages should be included directly in the graphs.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments, which have helped us improve our work.

C1: The inclusion of a detailed profile of the student sample would provide clearer contextualization for the research.; A1: Although the participants are considered to be adequately described, additional information has been included regarding the context of the educational institution where the study was conducted. It is an urban and coastal school.

C2: The research objectives should not be presented in a separate paragraph, as they are an integral part and a consequence of the conceptual framework. Moreover, since this is a methodological and teaching experimental activity, specific learning objectives should be specified to support the evaluation of outcomes at the end of the experience. A2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, specific learning objectives have been added, derived from the competencies listed in Table 1, to strengthen the connection between the conceptual framework and the evaluative results. These have been presented alongside the general objectives, which have also been reformulated as explicit research questions, ensuring alignment with the comment made by Reviewer 1 and guaranteeing that they are addressed in the results section.

C3:The methodological research procedure should be more rigorous: a pre-test should be administered before the activity, followed by a post-test. The pre-test would help establish a baseline understanding of the student groups and highlight any differences between them. Without this, the comparative data lack scientific validity. A3: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of a pretest. We acknowledge that the absence of this measurement represents a limitation in the methodological rigor of the study. The conclusions have been revised to adopt a more cautious tone, indicating that the post-test results suggest a potential positive impact on students’ knowledge, and explicitly noting the need to incorporate a pretest in future implementations of the teaching sequence to strengthen the evaluation of conceptual change.

C4: The use of three groups is commendable, but including an additional control group would allow for deeper analysis of the intervention’s impact by distinguishing outcomes that result specifically from the methodological framework from those that could occur independently of the escape room experience. A4: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, including a control group was not feasible in this case. From an ethical standpoint, it would have meant depriving part of the students of a meaningful educational experience. Moreover, this approach was not part of the research design. We consider that the data collected from the three participating class groups provide valuable information to draw conclusions, mitigating the absence of a control group. Additionally, justifying such a methodological choice to both students and their tutors would have been complex in this educational context.

C5: The heavy reliance on self-perception Likert scale items for evaluation introduces potential social desirability bias. This limitation underscores the need to integrate more objective assessment tasks for more robust validation. A5: We thank the reviewer for this observation. While the present study focused on students’ self-reported perceptions, which may be influenced by social desirability bias, additional data sources, such as the researcher’s field diary and the class tutor’s observation notes, were also collected. Due to space constraints, these have not been included in the current article, but they will be analyzed in future studies to allow for a more comprehensive triangulation of results and to provide further evidence on the educational impact of the SEA.

C6: Although the persistent difficulty students experienced with abstract concepts such as bioaccumulation and ocean acidification is acknowledged, this remains a critical challenge. It suggests the need for more targeted and complementary pedagogical strategies, such as dynamic visual aids or kinesthetic models, to support deeper conceptual understanding. In this context, the didactic role of the escape room activity should be more clearly emphasised. A6: This improvement has been supported by two studies that provide information on resources used to address the concept of ocean acidification, highlighting those that enable a more visual and hands-on treatment of abstract concepts.

C7: particularly explaining how gamification within the escape room is relevant to enhancing and facilitating learning. A7: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The end of section 3.2 has been expanded to explain more explicitly how gamification supports learning. The new text describes how playful elements, such as challenges, narrative structure, and hands-on materials, enhance student motivation, promote cooperative work, and facilitate the integration of complex curricular concepts. Relevant literature has been cited to support these claims.

C8: Practical issues such as material deterioration and suboptimal group organisation, though noted and partially addressed, require more robust solutions to ensure consistency and equity in implementation across different settings. A8: Some alternatives are included, based on other studies, both for the materials and for promoting teamwork and organization.

C9: for greater clarity and immediate understanding of the results, percentages should be included directly in the graphs. A9: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The percentages have been added in the figure captions, as this format improves clarity without overloading the visual presentation of the figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and well written account of a specific intervention to develop understanding of environmental issues as a holistic issue, in which students could potentially have agency to change. it is well structured, with a clear development of the justification and thorough explanation of the intervention and its outcomes. However, we learn as late as line 288 that this study is conducted in Spain. It would have been helpful to know this from the outset (perhaps in the abstract), and also to understand how much of section 3 is universally accepted around the globe, and how much (if any) is localised understanding. The paper would be made stronger by acknowledging the global issues and the potential for this approach to be used in jurisdictions other than Spain. Likewise, further developments of the concluding remarks, to set the learning from this project in an international context, would be beneficial.

Essentially this is a description of a pragmatic approach to one aspect of environmental education. I say this simply as a statement of fact; it is not a criticism and this approach is not a weakness. but it does mean that section 3 is less of a theoretical framework, and more of a literature review that sets out the current imperative and state of play for environmental education, along with some justification for using a gamified approach (the issue for me here is just with the title of the section, not the content, which is appropriate and useful).

Overall this is an enjoyable paper to read, and it should prompt some thinking about both environmental education and also if and how the notion of escape boxes could be used elsewhere in the curriculum. thank you for your submission.

 

Grammar and syntax are generally excellent; I did note the following and would recommend a thorough proof read:

• typo line 276 - methodology.
• change of tense from para ending line 334 to that starting line 336.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their comments, which have helped us improve our work.

C1: This is an interesting and well written account of a specific intervention to develop understanding of environmental issues as a holistic issue, in which students could potentially have agency to change. it is well structured, with a clear development of the justification and thorough explanation of the intervention and its outcomes. However, we learn as late as line 288 that this study is conducted in Spain. A1: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The location of the study has now been specified earlier in the abstract by indicating that it was implemented in a secondary school in Cádiz, Spain. This information was already included in the Methodology section under “Participants”, but has now been made explicit in the abstract for greater clarity and consistency.

C2: It would have been helpful to know this from the outset (perhaps in the abstract), and also to understand how much of section 3 is universally accepted around the globe, and how much (if any) is localised understanding. The paper would be made stronger by acknowledging the global issues and the potential for this approach to be used in jurisdictions other than Spain. A2: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. A paragraph has been added at the end of section 3 clarifying which elements of the proposal are based on universal frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the One Health approach, and Ocean Literacy, and which aspects are adapted to the Spanish national curriculum and the specific socio-environmental context of Cádiz. This addition also highlights the importance of contextualization for fostering meaningful learning, while recognizing the potential applicability of the proposal to other contexts beyond Spain.

C3: Likewise, further developments of the concluding remarks, to set the learning from this project in an international context, would be beneficial. A3: We thank the reviewer for this observation. The final paragraph of the Conclusions section has been expanded to emphasize the transferability of the proposal to other coastal areas around the world facing similar challenges. While the teaching sequence was adapted to the local context of Cádiz, it addresses global environmental issues, such as marine pollution and the interconnections between ocean and human health, making it applicable to other educational settings that share these concerns.

C4: Essentially this is a description of a pragmatic approach to one aspect of environmental education. I say this simply as a statement of fact; it is not a criticism and this approach is not a weakness. but it does mean that section 3 is less of a theoretical framework, and more of a literature review that sets out the current imperative and state of play for environmental education, along with some justification for using a gamified approach (the issue for me here is just with the title of the section, not the content, which is appropriate and useful). A4: We are grateful for  this suggestion. The title of section 3 has been changed from Literature Review to better reflect its content, which combines key conceptual underpinnings with a review of relevant literature, aligning with the idea of presenting the background and state of the art.

C5: Grammar and syntax are generally excellent; I did note the following and would recommend a thorough proof read: typo line 276 - methodology change of tense from para ending line 334 to that starting line 336. A5: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The typographical error and verbal inconsistency  identified have been corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for revising the article in response to the feedback received.