Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is my pleasure to review this paper. During the review process, I found that there are a few problems in the paper. The following are my suggestions for the paper, which I hope will be helpful to the authors.

 

1. In the literature review section, the author should make more discussions on the research background and motivation to support the research framework, and put forward the purposes that have research value. It is recommended that the research hypothesis of lines 50-54 be rewritten tothe research methods section.

2. In the literature review section, As far as I know that scholars have different opinions on the classification of learning styles ( for example, the common VAK model and the extended VARK model, etc., you can refer to doi.org / 10.1016 / j.competitordu.2013.07.029 and doi.org / 10.1016 / j.sbspro.2010.10.088 ), they have not reached a consensus and there are some controversies. The author should explain in the paper the basis ofchoosing the study of Richar M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman to propose a learning style, so as to increase the rigor of the paper and enable readers to better understand the significance of the research. In addition, Lines 83-86 should be rewritten to the questionnaire section.

3. In the materials and methods section, it is recommended that the author supplement the questionnaire used by students to measure learning outcomes in the "Introduction to Business" course.

4. It is recommended that the author convert the text descriptions of lines 259-271 into tabular descriptions, so that readers can have a more intuitive understanding about the classifications of the 55 students ' learning styles.

5. The author has already mentioned "Note also, that there is only one student at level 5 which not allow us to test difference at that level" ( lines 315-317 ), then the tables and pictures in Active / Reflexive Factor and Sequential / Global Factor do not have to be presented.

6. The discussion deserves more attention. The author should elaborate and discuss more about the results related to this study, rather than just review the references.

7. In terms of the conclusion section, the authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work and its similarities and differences with their previous publications.

 

Finally, I wish the authors all the very best with this study.

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for this revision, which will undoubtedly improve our manuscript.

1. In the literature review section, the author should make more discussions on the research background and motivation to support the research framework,and put forward the purposes that have research value. It is recommended that the research hypothesis of lines 50-54 be rewritten to the research methods section.

Regarding the literature review section, indeed, academics have different opinions about the classification of learning styles. Following the recommendation of reviewer 1, we have introduced new references and have explained the reason for choosing the model used (Felder and Silverman Model) incorporating a study that validates the choice of our method when analyzing the different learning styles.

In addition, we have also wanted to include it in the discussion to give greater packaging to said section. We especially appreciate this remark, which has helped us explain the reason for the chosen method, which we believe increases the rigor of the article and allows readers a better understanding of the meaning of the Research.

Please note that Hypothesis 1 and 2 have been rewritten to the research methods section on lines 302 y 330 respectively.

2. In the literature review section, As far as I know that scholars have different opinions on the classification of learning styles ( for example, the common VAK model and the extended VARK model, etc., you can refer to doi.org / 10.1016 / j.competitordu.2013.07.029 and doi.org / 10.1016 / j.sbspro.2010.10.088 ), they have not reached a consensus and there are some controversies. The author should explain in the paperthe basis of choosing the study of Richar M. Felder and Linda K. Silverman to propose a learning style, so as to increase the rigor of the paper and enable readers to better understand the significance of the research.

 

We have incorporated the proposed references as well as justified our choice of the Felder and Sirverman model on discussion.

In addition, Lines 83-86 should be rewritten to the questionnaire section.

Please note that Hypothesis 1 and 2 have been rewritten to the research methods section on lines 302 y 330 respectively.

3. It is recommended that the author convert the text descriptionsof lines 259-271 into tabular descriptions, so that readers can have a more intuitive understanding about the classifications of the 55 students ' learning styles.

We have converted the text descriptions on lines 269-275 to tabular descriptions, to make it more intuitively, as the reviewer has recommended.

4. The author has already mentioned "Note also, that there is only one student at level 5 which not allow us to test difference at that level" ( lines 315-317 ), then the tables and pictures in Active / Reflexive Factor and Sequential / Global Factor do not have to be presented.

As mentioned by the reviewer, tables and graphs in Active/Reflexive and Sequential / Global Factors  are only of interest for comparing levels 3 and 4 and cases corresponding to level 5 do not need to be included, Graphs and tables have been now updated according to this.

5. The discussion deserves more attention. The author should elaborate and discuss more about the results related to this study, rather than just review the references.

Previous research had already revealed an increasingly growing interest in DEER as a teaching resource to increase motivation and learning, which analyzes the results of educational research related to this type of teaching experience, both at the level of motivation, so necessary today, as at the learning level, to measure to what extent this technique can be a useful tool associated with learning styles.

Once again, thank you very much for this contribution, which will undoubtedly be very useful, in order to improve our manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The use of escape rooms and digital escape rooms in education has a great potential. Consequently, I consider the paper to be of high significance to practitioners in education and I strongly suggest to accept it taking into account the need to elaborate more on the experimental results and methodology adopted. My suggestion is to pursue, if possible a wider group of participants in the controlled experiment so that results per learning style and how it affects the effectiveness of the escape room approach are more credible. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for the revision, which will undoubtedly improve our manuscript.

Indeed, we are aware that a larger group of participants will make results more reliable. Unfortunately, we currently cannot change the number of students who have participated in the experiment, but in future work that we are currently planning we will increase the number of participating classes and subjects, increasing thus the sample size remarkably.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review the statement in lines 281-282 (page no.7) and correct it so that it is statistically correct.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and we have analysed the lines you commented on and reviewed the statistics, and we have also incorporated some ideas proposed, along the same lines, by another reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made accordingly revisions as suggested. I believe that this study can be accepted for publication. Finally, I wish the authors all the very best with this study.