Effective Professional Development and Gamification Enacting Curriculum Changes in Critical Mathematics Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Minor Suggestions:

Be consistent in capitalizing “Junior Cycle” (e.g., see Line 90, Line 136).

The listing of the eight key skills (Line 100) and the eight principles (Line 105) could be listed with a colon or parentheses to make it read more easily. For example, “In addition, eight key skills were identified as critical for students to develop throughout the curriculum, including the following: communicating, being literate, managing self, staying well, managing information and thinking, being numerate, being creative, and working with others.”

Line 173 (Continued Professional Development and Curriculum Reform) seems to be a subtitle but is not formatted correctly.

Main Suggestions:

The abstract could be shortened. Consider cutting from the second paragraph. However, not to contradict myself, but I also think it would help to know the context of the study (Ireland), since this is an international journal, in the abstract and the introduction.

At the end of 1. Introduction, the authors state that the analysis examines the effect of using game-based design tools on students’ mathematical resilience but does not mention the analysis of the teachers’ perspectives as another point of inquiry.

The five “aims” listed in Lines 96-97 are also the five mathematical proficiencies outlined in Adding It Up: Helping Children Learn Mathematics by the National Research Council. Consider citing that as a source of that recommendation for the aims.

It is not clear why you bring up mathematics anxiety in section 2.2. There seems to be an implicit relationship being made between anxiety and resilience, which is not necessarily related. It seems that self-efficacy, achievement, and motivation are more related to and more relevant to the construct and ways of analyzing resilience in your paper. Also, I do see later that you measured for anxiety, but you could lay this out as a different aspect of your literature review to explain why you wanted to study that in relation to gamification.

 In the section on Gamification in Mathematics Education,  you note that there are many definitions of gamification and that one defines it as the use of game design elements. It would help for you to explain what ‘game design elements’ you will be pulling from, because this is what is so contentious in the literature. In particular, ones that align with the skills and principles you noted before in the introduction and those used to gamify in your study.

In the Materials and Methods section, you cite a statistic about American gamers, but I don’t see how this is relevant to your context or mode of inquiry for your participants. Is there no statistic for Irish gamers? Also, those first two paragraphs are more about the motivation of the study than they are about the methods. Consider moving those paragraphs up.

Blooket should be described in the Materials before introducing it in the participant section. Plus, it would help to know more about the games since they were designed by the PI.

There seems to be two different studies: one of the quasi-experimental effects of Blooket on students’ motivation and mathematics anxiety, and a different, unrelated study on teachers’ perceptions and implementation of game-based learning (which did not necessarily have to do with Blooket). Additionally, Kahoot, Blooket, and Quizizz differ in terms of main goals and elements related to gamification. It may not make sense to have both reported in the same paper. It makes us go back and forth between two different sets of literature and framings. Plus, the teacher perceptions and implementations are not conceptually laid out in the introduction well, since there are no nods to teacher pedagogical knowledge or TPACK. Mainly, trying to report on both does not allow you a deep enough dive into the literature in either realm for one manuscript.

Throughout, it seems that mathematics anxiety is sometimes mentioned and other times not with mathematical resilience (e.g., Line 368 in Section 3.8).

Tables should be formatted in APA format, mainly to not having so many vertical and horizontal lines. Table 1 should be referenced in the paragraph in which it is being discussed: (see Table 1). I would suggest a smaller font size and less cell padding so tables fit better.

In 3.10, there is mention of student interviews, but they are not described in the findings.

In section 4.1, you report the scores of the MR, but it would help to remind the reader that 72 or above is considered.

It is not clear how the teacher focus group responses were analyzed, coded, and themes were determined.

The discussion could have more specific attention to the literature and how specific findings from the student results are contributing.

Overall, there could be more focus on the student findings. If you decide to still include the teacher responses, there needs to be more thematic/topical interpretation and examples or quotes to back up interpretations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview 

Existing approaches to conducting mathematics classes need modernization to consider the needs of students and the technical capabilities of educational institutions. The introduction of gamified content into mathematics lessons can not only diversify lesson content and enhance student motivation but also positively influence their overall attitude towards mathematics. The authors of the study focus on examining the impact of gamification on reducing anxiety and increasing mathematical resilience among students.

Comments 

1. The paper does not sufficiently describe the essence of the gamification used in the mentioned software Blooket. What elements, mechanics, or dynamics of gamification are applied in the specified games?
2. In describing the differences between the control and experimental groups, it seems that the main content of gamification was limited to implementing assessments in a game format. If the aim of the study is to determine the effect of gamification on mathematical resilience, both groups should undergo similar assessments, but in different formats: one group in a gamified form and the other in a traditional written or other form. As it stands, the comparison may be inaccurate.
3. The authors mention several times (lines 338-344, 366-371) that the current study is part of a larger doctoral study. However, it is unclear why this is relevant. What justifies analyzing only two cycles of intervention instead of four?
4. Was the homogeneity of students in the control and experimental groups with regard to their mathematics performance assessed? The absence of such information lowers the credibility of the conclusions, as differences in results could arise not only from gamification but also from the baseline capabilities of the participants. This relates to the teacher's remarks (lines 482-486).
5. Conducting multiple hypothesis tests on the same data increases the risk of Type I error. It is necessary to apply methods for correcting the significance level and to reassess the obtained results. 
6. Tables 2 and 3 are not formatted according to the journal's requirements, and there are no references or titles for them in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did an amazing job of attending to all the comments from the reviewers. The only question I have left is how the student interviews are reported. There is only one quote from a student in the results related to increased motivation. However, the authors claim that another theme from the interviews was a "desire for collaboration." Are there any quotes to support this claim? Also, how many students said this in the interviews? How does this "desire for collaboration" relate to the MR or MA findings? In the teacher focus group, there is one statistic from the teachers in terms of how many participants shared a common theme. This would be helpful to know throughout, since there are only a couple of themes from each result section. Other than that, the manuscript is much stronger.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions and clarifications made to the manuscript. The authors have introduced significant changes that allowed for a more accurate presentation of the theoretical foundations of gamification and its role in the study, as well as a more precise and coherent discussion of the obtained results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx