Evidence Without Hype, Gamified Quizzing in EFL and ESL Classrooms in Low-Input Contexts, a Critical Review and Minimum Reporting Standards

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

(1) I recognize the relevance and timeliness of your manuscript, “Evidence without Hype, Gamified Quizzing in EFL and ESL Classrooms in Low-Input Contexts,” which addresses an important and growing area in technology-mediated language education. The review synthesizes recent evidence on gamification in EFL/ESL settings and proposes minimum reporting standards that could meaningfully guide future empirical work and practitioner decision-making. 
(1.1) In the Introduction, the manuscript clearly justifies the importance of the topic by identifying key gaps in the literature, such as limited durability evidence, novelty and wear-out effects, and infrastructural barriers in low-input contexts. However, the conceptual foundation could be further strengthened by engaging more deeply with theoretical perspectives linking gamification to cognitive and socioemotional processes central to L2 learning. A clearer distinction between gamification and rapid-response quizzing would also help avoid reducing the reviewed interventions to surface-level engagement rather than deeper learning design.
(2) The Method section is adequately described for a narrative review, particularly in outlining database searches, the temporal scope, and inclusion criteria focused on empirical studies involving classroom-based gamification in EFL/ESL environments. That said, to meet Q1 expectations for transparency and reproducibility, the review would benefit from a PRISMA-style flow diagram showing study selection decisions, additional description of data extraction procedures, and clarification of whether the methodological quality of included studies was assessed. A more explicit justification of the narrative review approach over more systematic alternatives would further strengthen methodological clarity.
(3) The Results effectively address each of the four research questions by identifying consistent patterns related to performance, classroom dynamics, learner perceptions, and teacher practices. The organization by RQ supports a clear line of argument, and the detailed tables offer strong comparative visibility into design features, instruments, social formats, assessment windows, and outcomes. To further enhance the evidentiary strength, the synthesis could include a more explicit critical evaluation of study robustness, particularly concerning the predominance of immediate post-tests and quasi-experimental designs that limit durable learning claims.
(4) The Discussion and Conclusions sections offer well-grounded insights into how specific design and contextual factors shape learning and participation benefits, and provide practical implications for teacher orchestration. The manuscript also acknowledges the methodological challenges present within the reviewed literature and calls for future research addressing issues such as delayed testing, equity, and classroom-based behavioral observation. Nevertheless, the integration of theoretical implications could be expanded to include areas such as cognitive load, data privacy, and digital equity, which are increasingly important in gamified learning interventions. Moreover, the novelty of proposing minimum reporting standards, which is a major contribution of this review, could be highlighted earlier and more prominently to enhance the sense of innovation.
(5) this manuscript is well organized, timely, and aligned with emerging priorities in EFL/ESL research. A stronger theoretical grounding in the Introduction, greater transparency in review methodology, and deeper attention to the ethical and socio-educational dimensions of gamification will further reinforce its suitability for Q1 publication. More prominent positioning of the manuscript’s original contribution would additionally improve its scholarly impact.

Sincerely,
Anonymous Reviewer

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall English writing is clear, academically appropriate, and generally well structured. The manuscript reads fluently and uses field-specific terminology accurately. Therefore, extensive language revision does not appear necessary. However, targeted editing would improve precision and clarity in several longer and dense sentences, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, where complex ideas are occasionally compressed into multi-clause structures. Streamlining those passages would help emphasize the critical arguments of the review and improve readability without changing the scientific content.

In summary, minor language polishing is recommended, with attention to sentence length variation, transitions between conceptual components, and consistency in terminology (e.g., differentiating “gamified quizzing” from broader “gamification”). This will enhance the clarity and communicative strength of the manuscript.

Author Response

I am grateful that you took your time and effort to read this manuscript and offer critical insights that have helped to improve the quality of the publication. I further appreciate that you found the manuscript relevant and timely. I have taken a keen look at each of your specific comments and have addressed them as highlighted below.

Comments 1: In the Introduction, the manuscript clearly justifies the importance of the topic by identifying key gaps in the literature, such as limited durability evidence, novelty and wear-out effects, and infrastructural barriers in low-input contexts. However, the conceptual foundation could be further strengthened by engaging more deeply with theoretical perspectives linking gamification to cognitive and socioemotional processes central to L2 learning. A clearer distinction between gamification and rapid-response quizzing would also help avoid reducing the reviewed interventions to surface-level engagement rather than deeper learning design.

Response 1 Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree on the need to locate our study theoretically. To this end, I have included a new paragraph that discusses the theoretical foundations through the lens of the SDT. I have also explained the difference between gamification and rapid quizzing in the first paragraph.   Comments 2: The Method section is adequately described for a narrative review, particularly in outlining database searches, the temporal scope, and inclusion criteria focused on empirical studies involving classroom-based gamification in EFL/ESL environments. That said, to meet Q1 expectations for transparency and reproducibility, the review would benefit from a PRISMA-style flow diagram showing study selection decisions, additional description of data extraction procedures, and clarification of whether the methodological quality of included studies was assessed. A more explicit justification of the narrative review approach over more systematic alternatives would further strengthen methodological clarity. Response 2: We agree with your valid suggestion. The process of article selection and associated decisions have now been shown in a PRISMA flow diagram. We have also provided justification for the choice of narrative review approach, noting that the articles lacked uniform study designs that could have allowed quantitative analysis.   Comments 3: The Results effectively address each of the four research questions by identifying consistent patterns related to performance, classroom dynamics, learner perceptions, and teacher practices. The organization by RQ supports a clear line of argument, and the detailed tables offer strong comparative visibility into design features, instruments, social formats, assessment windows, and outcomes. To further enhance the evidentiary strength, the synthesis could include a more explicit critical evaluation of study robustness, particularly concerning the predominance of immediate post-tests and quasi-experimental designs that limit durable learning claims Response 3: We appreciate the helpful suggestion regarding study robustness. We agree that a more explicit critical evaluation strengthens the evidentiary base of the synthesis. In the revised manuscript, we have added discussions after the end of each RQ noting how the various methodological issues could constrain claims about durable learning. We now clearly identify where delayed post-tests were included, where findings converged with or diverged from immediate outcomes, and how methodological limitations temper interpretability   Comments 4: The Discussion and Conclusions sections offer well-grounded insights into how specific design and contextual factors shape learning and participation benefits, and provide practical implications for teacher orchestration. The manuscript also acknowledges the methodological challenges present within the reviewed literature and calls for future research addressing issues such as delayed testing, equity, and classroom-based behavioral observation. Nevertheless, the integration of theoretical implications could be expanded to include areas such as cognitive load, data privacy, and digital equity, which are increasingly important in gamified learning interventions. Moreover, the novelty of proposing minimum reporting standards, which is a major contribution of this review, could be highlighted earlier and more prominently to enhance the sense of innovation Response 4: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that integrating theoretical discussions will enhance the contribution of the review. In the revised manuscript, we have now expanded the analysis to incorporate perspectives from cognitive load theory and SDT. As you suggested, we have highlighted issues of data privacy and digital equity. We have also revised the discussion section to highlight the proposed minimum reporting standards as a novelty direction as you suggested.   Comments 5: this manuscript is well organized, timely, and aligned with emerging priorities in EFL/ESL research. A stronger theoretical grounding in the Introduction, greater transparency in review methodology, and deeper attention to the ethical and socio-educational dimensions of gamification will further reinforce its suitability for Q1 publication. More prominent positioning of the manuscript’s original contribution would additionally improve its scholarly impact.

Response 5: Thank you for the overall feedback and your positive evaluation. As highlighted above, we have revised the manuscript as follows:

• Introduction: We have included a theoretical discussion that connects gamification to cognitive, affective, and socio-interactional processes central to L2 learning
• Methodology: We have followed the PRISMA style of reporting as you rightly suggested.
• Ethical and socio-educational dimension: We have addressed the issues in the expanded discussion section.

Manuscript’s contribution: We highlight the proposal of minimum reporting standards in gamified ESL/EFL settings as a novel dimension of this study.   4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language The overall English writing is clear, academically appropriate, and generally well structured. The manuscript reads fluently and uses field-specific terminology accurately. Therefore, extensive language revision does not appear necessary. However, targeted editing would improve precision and clarity in several longer and dense sentences, especially in the Introduction and Discussion, where complex ideas are occasionally compressed into multi-clause structures. Streamlining those passages would help emphasize the critical arguments of the review and improve readability without changing the scientific content. Response :  We appreciate your positive assessment of the manuscript’s overall clarity and academic language. We have also taken your suggestion into consideration through a thorough proofreading of the manuscript. Specifically, we have revised several longer and densely structured sentences in the to improve precision and readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed review paper examines contemporary evidence on digital gamification in EFL and ESL classrooms with a focus on vocabulary and other course-integrated skills.

The tasks solved in the manuscript are relevant. At the same time, there are comments and suggestions.

1. Clearly state at the beginning of the article the problem being investigated in the manuscript.
2. What is the practical application of the research results? At the end of the study, it is worth formulating suggestions and recommendations, both for direct training and for further research directions on this problem.
3. The journal "Education Sciences" is intended for a wide range of readers, therefore, please spell out the abbreviations "EFL" and "ESL" when first mentioned in the Abstract (line 6). The same is true for other abbreviations, for example: "CI" (line 38), "L2" (line 43).
4. Make a title the list of abbreviations.
5. The limitations of this review study should be described. For example, when selecting articles for your research, did the authors include only the services "Kahoot" and "Quizizz" in their search queries, or others, such as "Socrative" and "Mentimeter"?
6. All variables used in the manuscript must be described, for example: "g" and "k".
7. In my opinion, a diagram, screenshot, or scheme could clearly demonstrate the results of this study.
8. Listing references to sources in square brackets, out of order (for example: lines 188, 197, 201). A reference consisting of 17 sources (line 201) and 11 (line 307) looks unusual, even for a review article. References 42 and 41 are after 43, and 45 is after 46.
9. Scientific papers of the MDPI publishing house contain the following sections (after Conclusion): Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Data Availability Statement, Conflicts of Interest.
10. There is not a single reference to the Tables in the text.
11. Supplement the Conclusions section with directions possible future research, if any, to expand on the research topic.

Author Response

1. Summary:

Thank you for taking the insightful review remarks. We are confident that your input has helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. Here, we provide detailed responses and corresponding corrections to each of your comments. The original manuscript has been revised accordingly and the changes are highlighted in red.

 

Comments 1: Clearly state at the beginning of the article the problem being investigated in the manuscript. Response 1: We agree on the need to explicitly state the research problem. We have revised the manuscript and the last paragraph before the statement of research objectives now state the problem addressed by the review.  

Comments 2: What is the practical application of the research results? At the end of the study, it is worth formulating suggestions and recommendations, both for direct training and for further research directions on this problem.

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion. We have now have a new subheading on recommendations where we highlight several clear, actionable recommendations for classroom practice as well as directions for future research. Specifically, we propose practical implications for lesson planning, pacing, grouping strategies, formative use of gamified tools, management of equity and device constraints, and considerations for privacy and data handling.  

Comments 3: The journal "Education Sciences" is intended for a wide range of readers, therefore, please spell out the abbreviations "EFL" and "ESL" when first mentioned in the Abstract (line 6). The same is true for other abbreviations, for example: "CI" (line 38), "L2" (line 43).

Response 3: Thank you for noting this. We have now spelled out all abbreviations at their first occurrence in the Abstract, including English as a Foreign Language (EFL), English as a Second Language (ESL), confidence interval (CI), and second language (L2).   Comments 4: Make a title the list of abbreviations Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion. We have now added a title, “List of Abbreviations,” just before references list that defines all abbreviations used in the manuscript to improve readability   Comments 5: The limitations of this review study should be described. For example, when selecting articles for your research, did the authors include only the services "Kahoot" and "Quizizz" in their search queries, or others, such as "Socrative" and "Mentimeter"? Response 5: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a "Limitations" subsection that clarifies the scope of our search and selection decisions. The section also highlights other limitations of the study.   Comments 6: All variables used in the manuscript must be described, for example: "g" and "k". Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added descriptions for all statistical symbols and variables at their first occurrence. For example, we clarify that k refers to the number of studies included in the analysis (e.g., k = 38 studies) and g refers to Hedges’ g, the standardized mean difference used as the effect size metric. These definitions are now provided in the tables as notes to ensure clarity for all readers.   Comment 7: In my opinion, a diagram, screenshot, or scheme could clearly demonstrate the results of this study. Response 7: We thank you for the suggestion. We have added Figure 1 in the manuscript. However, as this manuscript is a narrative review rather, we synthesized the findings across multiple studies rather than. Because of this, there is no single dataset or outcome suitable for a conventional diagram or screenshot. However, we have used tables and structured RQ-based organization to visually summarise study characteristics, design features, social formats, and outcomes, which we believe effectively communicates patterns and comparisons. We believe that Tables represent the findings better.   Comment 8: Listing references to sources in square brackets, out of order (for example: lines 188, 197, 201). A reference consisting of 17 sources (line 201) and 11 (line 307) looks unusual, even for a review article. References 42 and 41 are after 43, and 45 is after 46. Response 8: We appreciate your insight. We agree that the citation style we used is a mismatch to the journal requirements. So, we have revised the referencing style accordingly. In addition, all references have been counterchecked for accuracy and correctness.     Comment 9: Scientific papers of the MDPI publishing house contain the following sections (after Conclusion): Author Contributions, Funding, Institutional Review Board Statement, Data Availability Statement, Conflicts of Interest. Response 9: We have reviewed all the journal requirements and inserted any missing sub-sections after conclusion. We appreciate you noting the anomaly and helping us to correct it.   Comment 10:There is not a single reference to the Tables in the text. Response 10: Thank you for noting this hindsight on our part. All tables have now been referenced inside the text where they appear.   Comment 11:Supplement the Conclusions section with directions possible future research, if any, to expand on the research topic. Response 11: We appreciate this suggestion and fully agree with it. As guided, we have added a new sub-section that highlights the directions for future studies.    

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows substantial improvement in structure, conceptual clarity, and integration of evidence. The authors have addressed the previous comments effectively, and the manuscript is now coherent, balanced, and suitable for publication. Only minor refinements remain, particularly the clarification of specific methodological aspects and the revision of a few long or dense sentences to improve clarity and readability. These adjustments are minimal and do not affect the overall contribution. I recommend minor revisions and look forward to the finalized version.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language is generally good. The manuscript is clear and readable, with accurate academic terminology. Only a few sentences remain overly long or syntactically dense, and these would benefit from minor revision to improve flow and clarity. No major language issues are present.

Author Response

1. Summary

I appreciate your overall feedback during the two rounds of revision. In this specific revision, I focused on language editing and proofreading. I also improved the methodology as guided. The specific comments are highlighted below.

Comments 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The revised manuscript shows substantial improvement in structure, conceptual clarity, and integration of evidence. The authors have addressed the previous comments effectively, and the manuscript is now coherent, balanced, and suitable for publication. Only minor refinements remain, particularly the clarification of specific methodological aspects and the revision of a few long or dense sentences to improve clarity and readability. These adjustments are minimal and do not affect the overall contribution. I recommend minor revisions and look forward to the finalized version. Response 1:  We sincerely thank you for the positive evaluation of the revised manuscript and for recognizing the improvements made. Still, I think that the manuscript can be improved, particularly regarding the language and structure. Specifically, we added further explanation of our data extraction procedures and clearly stated that the methodological quality of included studies was not formally assessed due to the heterogeneity and descriptive nature of the reviewed evidence. Instead, a critical narrative was integrated in the results section. We have also highlighted the assessment of quality in the methodology. Also, I have provided an explanation of the rationale for the adoption of a narrative review approach. With regard to language and style, I have conducted a sentence-level review of the entire manuscript. During the review, I simplified complex constructions to enhance clarity and readability without altering the original meaning. These revisions are now incorporated in the manuscript and highlighted in red.   Comment 2:Comments on the Quality of English Language  The quality of the English language is generally good. The manuscript is clear and readable, with accurate academic terminology. Only a few sentences remain overly long or syntactically dense, and these would benefit from minor revision to improve flow and clarity. No major language issues are present.   Response 2: We thank you for the positive assessment of the manuscript’s language quality. I carefully reviewed the manuscript and all the long sentences have been revised them to improve flow, clarity, and readability. The minor language issues identified were also corrected during the proofreading process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is markedly improved. The authors have made corrections and provided explanations in accordance with my comments.

Author Response

1. Summary: We sincerely thank you for the constructive and encouraging feedback. As you have indicated, major improvements were made in the revised manuscript. The remaining comments have now been carefully addressed. Specifically, we revised the paper to enhance methodological transparency, language clarity, and structural refinements. Below I have provide detailed, point-by-point responses to each comment (highlighted in red).   Comments 1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript is markedly improved. The authors have made corrections and provided explanations in accordance with my comments.   Response 1: Thank you once again for this positive evaluation. We are grateful for your earlier suggestions that we used to strengthen the manuscript. In this second revision, I reviewed the full text once again to ensure consistency and clarity across all sections.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf