Reimagining Natural History Museums Through Gamification: Time, Engagement, and Learning in Teacher Education Contexts

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a valuable and timely contribution to the fields of gamification, museum education, and teacher training. The integration of a quasi-experimental design with bibliometric and altmetric analyses enriches the scope and rigor of the study. The focus on time perception as an emerging indicator in gamified heritage education is particularly innovative and helps fill a relevant research gap.

Your methodological clarity and pedagogical insight are commendable, especially in how you framed the Natural History Pavilion experience as both a learning scenario and a space for reflective professional development. The statistical analyses are well executed and the results are clearly communicated. The inclusion of participant voices through qualitative feedback strengthens the conclusions and provides practical value for educators.

Nonetheless, a few areas could benefit from refinement:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• On page 2, lines 54–70, you define gamification with strong pedagogical clarity. However, you might further clarify how your interpretation differs from "game-based learning" beyond mechanics—perhaps by integrating recent theoretical distinctions (e.g., Deterding et al., 2011) in relation to experiential immersion.

• On page 3, lines 107–113, you report the bibliometric rise of research on gamification. It would be helpful to explain the sharp increase in 2024 (98 publications)—was this due to broader institutional investment, curriculum reform, or a specific policy push? Providing context could reinforce the validity of the trend.

• In section 2.4, page 9, lines 270–284, the mechanics of the gamified experience (powers, challenges, symbolic rewards) are well described. However, consider specifying whether these dynamics were co-designed with students or piloted prior to the intervention, as this could clarify their alignment with learners’ profiles.

• On page 13, lines 433–447, the qualitative feedback is compelling. Consider including short verbatim quotes from Group 3 (Master students), as you did for Group 1, to illustrate their reflective thinking more explicitly—not just their satisfaction.

• Finally, on page 14, Table 7 includes Q4 ("How much do you think your future students would enjoy it?"). Since this anticipatory variable is crucial in teacher education, it might deserve more elaboration in the discussion, especially regarding its alignment with initial teacher beliefs or intentions to transfer the methodology.

Author Response

The feedback provided has been highly valuable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We are sincerely grateful for the time and the detailed comments, which we have addressed thoroughly in the revised version of the text. Below, we present our responses to each of the reviewers' remarks, clearly indicating the modifications made and specifying the sections and pages where these improvements have been incorporated.

In the revised manuscript, you will notice color-coded highlights corresponding to the changes made in response to each reviewer: green for Reviewer 1, yellow for Reviewer 2, and blue for Reviewer 3.

 

This manuscript offers a valuable and timely contribution... The inclusion of participant voices through qualitative feedback strengthens the conclusions and provides practical value for educators.

We are sincerely grateful for your thorough and generous evaluation of our manuscript. Your recognition of the study’s methodological integration and its contribution to emerging dimensions such as time perception is truly appreciated. We are particularly encouraged by your positive remarks on the pedagogical framing, statistical analysis, and integration of qualitative data. These affirmations have guided our effort to refine the manuscript further in response to your insightful suggestions.

 

On page 2, lines 54–70, you define gamification with strong pedagogical clarity. However, you might further clarify how your interpretation differs from "game-based learning" beyond mechanics—perhaps by integrating recent theoretical distinctions (e.g., Deterding et al., 2011) in relation to experiential immersion.

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. In response, we have expanded the distinction between gamification and game-based learning by integrating recent theoretical contributions, including Deterding et al. (2011), and emphasizing the experiential and immersion-related differences beyond mere mechanics. Specifically, we have underscored that gamification creates an overarching narrative and structure within an existing environment, whereas game-based learning relies on fully developed games with self-contained logic.

Change made: A new paragraph was added to incorporate these distinctions, referencing Deterding et al. and highlighting the implications for immersive educational design.

On page 3, lines 107–113, you report the bibliometric rise of research on gamification. It would be helpful to explain the sharp increase in 2024 (98 publications)—was this due to broader institutional investment, curriculum reform, or a specific policy push? Providing context could reinforce the validity of the trend.

We appreciate this observation and fully agree that contextualizing the publication peak enhances the interpretation of bibliometric trends. Accordingly, we have added a short explanatory paragraph discussing the convergence of factors likely contributing to the spike in 2024, including post-pandemic investment in educational innovation, the proliferation of immersive technologies, and increased funding for gamified heritage education.

Change made: Explanatory content was inserted, just after the bibliometric figure, offering plausible reasons for the 2024 increase and citing relevant policy reports and institutional trends.

In section 2.4, page 9, lines 270–284, the mechanics of the gamified experience (powers, challenges, symbolic rewards) are well described. However, consider specifying whether these dynamics were co-designed with students or piloted prior to the intervention, as this could clarify their alignment with learners’ profiles.

Thank you for raising this important methodological point. We have now clarified that the gamification elements implemented in this study were not co-designed with current participants, but were based on a sequence of piloted experiences conducted in previous academic years. These pilot activities allowed us to iteratively refine the narrative structure, challenge design, and duration based on feedback from similar student profiles.

Change made: This clarification has been added in Section 2.3, explicitly stating the piloting process and its relevance to the study’s validity and alignment with learners’ expectations.

On page 13, lines 433–447, the qualitative feedback is compelling. Consider including short verbatim quotes from Group 3 (Master students), as you did for Group 1, to illustrate their reflective thinking more explicitly—not just their satisfaction.

We fully agree that including voices from Group 3 would enrich the qualitative analysis and showcase their more reflective stance. In response, we have added several verbatim quotes from Master’s students that highlight both appreciation and critical engagement with the gamified experience. These excerpts reveal a nuanced perspective on the balance between game dynamics and content absorption.

Change made: We have inserted three representative quotes from Group 3 participants. Each quote is presented within the narrative and contributes to a more layered interpretation of the activity’s pedagogical impact.

Finally, on page 14, Table 7 includes Q4 ("How much do you think your future students would enjoy it?"). Since this anticipatory variable is crucial in teacher education, it might deserve more elaboration in the discussion, especially regarding its alignment with initial teacher beliefs or intentions to transfer the methodology.

This is an excellent suggestion, and we have expanded the discussion accordingly. Specifically, we have emphasized that high ratings on Q4 reflect an early-stage appropriation of pedagogical innovation, suggesting participants’ willingness to envision and replicate gamified strategies in their future classrooms. We have linked this insight to the literature on teacher beliefs and transfer intentions in professional development contexts.

Change made: A dedicated paragraph has been added to the Discussion section, elaborating on the anticipatory value of Q4 and situating it within the broader discourse on initial teacher identity and instructional transfer.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kia ora,

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read about your work. I have made some comments and suggestions to your article that I hope you find helpful.

Cheers,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The feedback provided has been highly valuable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We are sincerely grateful for the time and the detailed comments, which we have addressed thoroughly in the revised version of the text. Below, we present our responses to each of the reviewers' remarks, clearly indicating the modifications made and specifying the sections and pages where these improvements have been incorporated.

In the revised manuscript, you will notice color-coded highlights corresponding to the changes made in response to each reviewer: green for Reviewer 1, yellow for Reviewer 2, and blue for Reviewer 3.

 

Kia ora, I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read about your work. I have made some comments and suggestions to your article that I hope you find helpful.

We are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your detailed annotations and constructive feedback have been invaluable in improving both the structure and scholarly contribution of the article. We have addressed each of your concerns point by point and made substantial revisions throughout the manuscript, as explained below.

 

Reviewer’s comments:

“The biblio seems to be an add-on that is not needed.”

“If you skip 117–148, there is no loss in flow of the content.”

“Where is this used to contextualise this study?”

“This is the focus of the study, nothing to do with biblio or altmetric.”

 

Author Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this disconnection. We have restructured the manuscript to ensure that the bibliometric and altmetric components serve only a contextual purpose, without overshadowing the empirical research.

Changes made:

The bibliometric analysis has been moved to Appendix A, and the main text now only briefly refers to it in the Introduction (lines 112–120) and Discussion (lines 478–484) as a way to situate the study in current academic trends.

The abstract and keywords have been revised to downplay the emphasis on bibliometric analysis.

We explicitly clarify in Section 2.6 that this component is descriptive and not part of the core empirical findings, and we have avoided drawing direct inferences from it.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

“Can is a yes/no question, not really suitable for research studies: Do the authors mean How does gamification…?”

Author Response:

We fully agree and appreciate this suggestion. The research question has been reformulated for greater academic precision.

Change made:

The central research question now reads:

"How does gamification influence the perceived duration of an educational visit to a natural heritage site, and what are the pedagogical implications of this variation?"

 

Reviewer’s comments:

“This statement needs to be supported by a reference or two.”

“A broad array is one study?”

 

Author Response:

We have thoroughly revised the relevant sections of the introduction and theoretical framework, ensuring that all general claims are now supported by specific, up-to-date references.

Change made:

Additional citations have been added, referencing recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g., Sailer & Homner, 2020; Khaldi et al., 2023) to support claims about the efficacy of gamification across educational contexts.

 

Reviewer’s comments:

“Does an undergraduate and postgraduate population impact the results?”

“Why is gender a bias, but not academic level or subject?”

Author Response:

We appreciate these important questions regarding sampling. In response:

- We clarify that undergraduate and postgraduate students were analyzed separately in key comparisons to isolate academic-level effects (G1 vs. G2; G2 vs. G3).

- We now explain that gender was not treated as a source of bias per se, but as a descriptive characteristic to contextualize the sample.

- We acknowledge in the Discussion that while comparisons were stratified, future studies should involve more diverse specializations beyond Early Childhood and Arts Education.

Change made:

Section 2.2 (Participants) now includes clearer justification for group selection and a note on limitations (page 8).

Section 4 (Discussion) has been expanded to reflect on these sampling constraints.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

“4 point, 5 point scale? Table 7 implies a 5 point scale, true?”

Author Response:

Yes, we confirm that all Likert items used in the post-test employed a five-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).

Change made:

This has been clearly stated in Section 2.4 (Procedure and Instruments) and added as a footnote in Table 7.

 

Reviewer’s comment:

“The discussion does not provide insightful information on the analyzed topic, it’s very short and does not refer to previous studies.”

Author Response:

We acknowledge this shortcoming and have substantially expanded the Discussion section, ensuring it integrates our findings with the wider literature and addresses implications for teacher education, gamification design, and heritage didactics.

Change made:

The revised Discussion now includes six references and a thematic synthesis of key findings in light of current pedagogical debates.

 

Reviewer’s comments:

“How/Why is social impact relevant?”

“How do the authors support this argument?”

Author Response:

We appreciate this call for greater rigor. The discussion has been rewritten to ensure that all claims are directly supported by empirical results or contextualized by literature.

Change made:

Claims about the study’s relevance for social and academic impact are now qualified and linked to bibliometric data only in a contextual sense.

We emphasize that the proposed model is transferable but requires further validation.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper's topic is highly relevant in the current contexts of education beyond the traditional classroom setting. The article provides a glimpse into using gamification tools in teachers’ training, so the paper is a valuable resource in this thematic area.

The title reflects the content of the paper. The paper is of high value in terms of both scientific and practical perspectives. The paper provides a valuable contribution to the theoretical analysis regarding research on gamification in education and museums as a space for that education. From a practical standpoint, the project results are relevant as a useful resource for people and organizations creating modern educational solutions and for teachers, educators, and therapists who use them in their everyday practice.

The abstract is the accurate and precise summary of crucial elements of the paper - theoretical background, methodology, and results. The abstract is informative and well-structured.

The introduction is well written as it provides context for the more in-depth analysis described in the paper's following sections. However, I would suggest reorganizing this section to make the text easier to read and understand, as it is very long at the moment. Firstly, if the Authors provide a definition of gamification, this should be done before describing its use in education. Secondly, there should be one  subsection with presenting gamification tool (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963) and how it is variously used in education. Then not quantitative presentation (or in small share) but rather qualitative presentation of other studies results on gamification in museums. Then, last subsection about other research on gamification in museums in teacher education.  

There is a lack of detail on what the claim illustrated in Figures 1-5 is based.

The paper's objectives are clearly formulated. The author(s) explicitly and unambiguously defined the aims of the study. The aims are in line with the title, theoretical background, and methodology described in the paper.

The paper raises no ethical concerns. However, the author(s) could more in-depth describe the process of participants' recruitment as it would show all steps of research preparation, e.g., whether the forms were sent directly to the teachers or through universities, what detailed procedure and Instruments was used to assess visitors’ knowledge and so on.

The chosen mixed-method approach is appropriate and well-justified for the research goals. The methodology aligns with the research questions and provides a reliable background for the project's results and conclusions.

The results are interesting, valuable, and thought-provoking. The results are clearly presented and are consistent with methods, data, and analysis provided in other sections of the paper.

The discussion does not provide insightful information on the analyzed topic, it’s very short and does not refer to previous studies.  

Author Response

The feedback provided has been highly valuable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. We are sincerely grateful for the time and the detailed comments, which we have addressed thoroughly in the revised version of the text. Below, we present our responses to each of the reviewers' remarks, clearly indicating the modifications made and specifying the sections and pages where these improvements have been incorporated.

In the revised manuscript, you will notice color-coded highlights corresponding to the changes made in response to each reviewer: green for Reviewer 1, yellow for Reviewer 2, and blue for Reviewer 3.

 

The paper's topic is highly relevant... The abstract is informative and well-structured.

We are sincerely grateful for your thoughtful and generous evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of its relevance, practical utility, and scientific contribution. Your comments regarding the structure of the introduction, methodological clarifications, and the depth of the discussion have been especially helpful and have led to substantial improvements throughout the revised version.

 

The introduction is well written... I would suggest reorganizing this section to make the text easier to read and understand, as it is very long... First, provide a definition of gamification; then, dedicate one subsection to gamification tools (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106963), followed by qualitative studies on gamification in museums, and finally a section on its use in teacher education.

Thank you for this valuable recommendation. We agree that a clearer structure improves the readability and conceptual progression of the introduction. Accordingly, we have reorganized the section into four distinct subsections:

- Gamification as an Active Learning Strategy in Education – where we provide a conceptual definition and clarify its distinctions from related terms.

- Gamification Tools and Dynamics – incorporating references such as Krath et al. (2021) as you suggested, to illustrate key mechanisms.

- Gamification in Informal Learning Spaces – with emphasis on museum-based learning, mostly from qualitative perspectives.

- Gamification in Teacher Education through Heritage-Based Experiences – focusing on applications within initial teacher training.

Change made: The entire Section 1 (Introduction) has been restructured and relabeled with four titled subsections. Citations have been revised to align with the new structure.

 

There is a lack of detail on what the claim illustrated in Figures 1–5 is based.

Thank you for noting this omission. We have now clarified the data sources, methodological procedures, and query parameters used in the creation of Figures 1 through 5, which derive from our bibliometric and altmetric analysis.

Change made: A detailed explanation has been added to Section 2.6 (pages 11–12), and brief clarifications are now also embedded in the captions of Figures 1 and Appendix A. The revised captions specify the database used (Scopus and Altmetric), keywords, language filters, timeframes, and types of documents considered.

 

The authors could more in-depth describe the process of participants’ recruitment... and what detailed procedure and instruments were used to assess visitors’ knowledge.

 

We appreciate this observation and have expanded the methodological section to provide a more transparent and detailed account of participant recruitment. Specifically, we clarify that participants were recruited through scheduled university course activities, with prior communication coordinated between the research team and instructors. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

Regarding the instruments, we now describe the design of both the pretest and post-test questionnaires, including the types of questions used to assess prior knowledge, post-visit learning, and perception of time and activity value.

Change made: New content has been added to Section 2.2 and Section 2.4, elaborating on the recruitment process and the structure of the questionnaires used in the study.

 

The discussion does not provide insightful information on the analyzed topic, it’s very short and does not refer to previous studies.

 

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important weakness. In response, we have substantially expanded the Discussion section to connect our findings with existing literature on gamification in education, museum learning, and teacher training. We also reflect on the implications of anticipatory beliefs in teacher education, the role of time perception as an educational variable, and the limitations of interdisciplinary dissemination as identified in the bibliometric analysis.

Change made: The revised Discussion now occupies approximately one full page, referencing six studies and providing a more comprehensive interpretation of the results in relation to previous research.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kia ora,

Thank you for the opportunity to read this revised version, I have made a few comments and suggestions to this version, see attached.

Cheers,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and detailed feedback on my manuscript.

Your suggestions have been incredibly helpful in refining the clarity and rigor of the paper, and I truly appreciate the time and effort you invested in its review. Thanks to your insights, the manuscript has improved substantially since its original version.

I would also like to commend you on the depth of your analysis. Your careful reading and constructive comments demonstrate an admirable commitment to academic excellence. I strongly encourage you to continue contributing your expertise to future reviews—your work greatly enhances the quality of this journal and supports the development of solid, impactful research.

Please find below a point-by-point response all suggestions and colored in red.

Reviewer’s comment: Is this the paper’s research focus? The author raises a valid argument, but what are they going to do with it?

Author’s response:
I thank the reviewer for pointing this out. I have added a bridging sentence at the end of the paragraph to clarify that this line of inquiry constitutes the central empirical focus of the present study. 

Reviewer’s comment: Another valid argument, but what are they going to do with it?

Author’s response:
I have added a sentence linking the bibliometric observations to the aim of the study, showing that the empirical research responds to the theoretical and practical gaps identified.

Reviewer’s comment: Would it be better to say ‘first’ and ‘second’ as the research question below is both?

Author’s response:
We agree that this change improves clarity. We have revised the paragraph to avoid hierarchical wording.

Reviewer’s comment: How do they demonstrate this?

Author’s response:
The phrase referring to students’ orientation towards creative pedagogies has been removed to avoid unsubstantiated claims.

Reviewer’s comment: Maybe combine these two paragraphs…

Author’s response:
Following the removal of the initial sentence, the paragraph structure is now concise and unified, beginning directly with the description of participants and their academic context.

Reviewer’s comment: Has this been published?

Author’s response:
I have clarified that some of the preliminary experiences were published by the author in previous work, while the current intervention is specifically adapted to the present study

I have added the appropriate reference in the updated bibliography.

Reviewer’s comment: One author, so who was in the research team?

Author’s response:
All instances referring to “the research team” or “researchers” have been revised to accurately reflect sole authorship.

Reviewer’s comment: What is the dash for?

Author’s response:
The unnecessary dash was removed.

I trust that these changes fully address the requests and strengthen the overall clarity and consistency of the manuscript.

Sincerely,