Constructive Alignment in Game Design for Learning Activities in Higher Education
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall Assessment
The paper is properly structured and addresses a pertinent topic. The conclusions seem to be consistently aligned with the results. The paper is easy to read but I suggest a final revision of the text by a native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do feel that the paper can be improved. Please take into account the following specific comments and suggestions.
Abstract
- Please consider the following structure (1 sentence each): Introduction, Research Goals, Research Method, Results and Discussion, Conclusions, Implications.
Keywords
- ok.
Introduction
- Line 24: Please avoid the adoption of "we".
- Please define the abreviation "HE" the first time is used in the text.
- Figure 1: The figure is a little bit confusing and misleading. Please improve.
- Line 78: Please use "do not" instead of "don't".
- Concerning the skills and competences of students that should be developed please consider the studies focusing the needs and expectations of companies such as (solely for indicative purposes):
- Domingues, J.P.T; Correia, F.D; Uzdurum, I.; Sampaio, P. (2019). The Profile of Forthcoming Quality Leaders: An Exploratory Factor Analysis. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, Macao, 2019, pp. 1606-1610.
Game Design for learning in Higher Education
- Ok!
Frameworks for game design in educational settings
- Ok!
Constructive alignment under the lens of game design
- Ok!
Method
- Line 248: "The analysis happened..."- Please rephrase.
- The data was supported solely on the assessment from 2 reviewers. It seems a scarce amount of data. This should be considered as a shortcoming of the paper.
Results
- Please check the previous comment regarding the number of reviewers.
- Figure 3: Please clarify if the figure presents the average results.
Conclusions
- Authors should point out and emphasize the implications of this study.
- Authors should discuss the shortcomings of the research method and the extent to which the conclusions are valid.
- The conclusions are in line with the results reported.
References
- Please consider the previous comments regarding some missing references.
- A great deal of the references were published throughout the last 5 years- Ok!
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for providing your valuable and insightful comments. We have worked to address all your suggestions and improve the paper “Constructive alignment in game design for learning activities in Higher Education”.
With kindest regards,
Margarida and Georges
|
Editor comments |
Revision |
|
The paper is properly structured and addresses a pertinent topic. The conclusions seem to be consistently aligned with the results. The paper is easy to read but I suggest a final revision of the text by a native English speaker. Nevertheless, I do feel that the paper can be improved. Please take into account the following specific comments and suggestions. |
Many thanks for all the comments. A thorough review of the English language has been conducted |
|
Abstract
Please consider the following structure (1 sentence each): Introduction, Research Goals, Research Method, Results and Discussion, Conclusions, Implications.
|
The abstract was restructured based on reviewers’ comments |
|
Keywords
ok.
|
|
|
Introduction
Line 24: Please avoid the adoption of "we". Please define the abreviation "HE" the first time is used in the text. Figure 1: The figure is a little bit confusing and misleading. Please improve. Line 78: Please use "do not" instead of "don't". Concerning the skills and competences of students that should be developed please consider the studies focusing the needs and expectations of companies such as (solely for indicative purposes): Domingues, J.P.T; Correia, F.D; Uzdurum, I.; Sampaio, P. (2019). The Profile of Forthcoming Quality Leaders: An Exploratory Factor Analysis. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), Macao, Macao, 2019, pp. 1606-1610.
|
The first-person plural has been substituted with third-person neuter singular HE has been defined during first use Don’t has been replaced by Do not Added citations based on reviewers’ comments |
|
Game Design for learning in Higher Education
Ok!
|
|
|
Frameworks for game design in educational settings
Ok!
|
|
|
Constructive alignment under the lens of game design
Ok!
|
|
|
Method
Line 248: "The analysis happened..."- Please rephrase. The data was supported solely on the assessment from 2 reviewers. It seems a scarce amount of data. This should be considered as a shortcoming of the paper.
|
Phrase was corrected A limitations section has been added at the discussions section |
|
Results
Please check the previous comment regarding the number of reviewers. Figure 3: Please clarify if the figure presents the average results.
Conclusions
Authors should point out and emphasize the implications of this study. Authors should discuss the shortcomings of the research method and the extent to which the conclusions are valid. The conclusions are in line with the results reported.
References
Please consider the previous comments regarding some missing references. A great deal of the references were published throughout the last 5 years- Ok! |
It’s now clarified that these are average results
A limitations section has been added at the discussions section
We revised the missing references. |
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper entitled “Constructive alignment in game design for learning activities in Higher Educationoology”, the authors analyze the game design process in the Game Based Learning course of the MSc SmartEdTech program in which the international students, in online learning context, engage in a design thinking and game design process.
Overall the paper seems interesting, but some concerns should be addressed before publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for providing your valuable and insightful comments. We have worked to address all your suggestions and improve the paper “Constructive alignment in game design for learning activities in Higher Education”.
With kindest regards,
Margarida and Georges
|
Editor comments |
Revision |
|
Regarding the methodology section (5.Method) it would be convenient to begin by clearly describing the work activities developed by students individually or in groups showing some example of a Game Design Document based on some topic. |
Additional clarifications have been added to address R2’s concerns |
|
In the metodology section is said that it was conducted a qualitative analysis of students’ final deliverables but little information is given about it, it should be expanded (line 239). |
Further expansion of the paragraph has been made in order to clarify better this section |
|
The results shown in section 6 (line 250) are few and not well developed, it would also be useful to expand the information. |
We provided further information on the results |
|
Figure 1 is of very poor quality, it should be improved. |
Improved Figure based on R2’s suggestions |
|
Although it is obvious, it would be useful to put the meaning of HE the first time it appears in the text. (line 50): "High Education (HE)". |
This has been corrected |
|
Idem for STEM (line96). |
This has been corrected |
|
Correct the quotations that appear in brackets, are somewhat confusing, it is not well known what each appointment corresponds to. For instance on line 113, quotes 34 and 35 should be together or should quotation 35 be at the end of the sentence? On line104 quotation 23 and 24 should be together [23,24]; on line 108 it should be [27-30] and so on. |
The quotations in brackets has been all corrected in the manuscript. |
|
The paragraph between lines 146 and 151 is not well understood. |
This paragraph has been reviewed to address R2’s remarks |
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
The abstract does not contain any results. It only says we analyse, we discuss, etc.
Define the primary purpose of the paper in the abstract.
Change the active form of WE into something more academic.
Introduction
Can you properly define the connection of quality assurance of higher education and game design?
Why game design? What is its relevance in higher education?
Is there any theory and research behind how can games which are implemented in learning to improve the learning process?
What are the negative aspects of this methodology?
Methods
Can you add some research limitations?
Describe the participants in more detail and the course itself as well.
Discussion
What are the drawbacks of the used learning methodology?
Can you discuss this with some relevant literature?
Show what is new in your paper compared to the current literature.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for providing your valuable and insightful comments. We have worked to address all your suggestions and improve the paper “Constructive alignment in game design for learning activities in Higher Education”.
With kindest regards,
Margarida and Georges
|
Editor comments |
Revision |
|
The abstract does not contain any results. It only says we analyse, we discuss, etc. |
We have re-edited the abstract considering the suggestions of R3 |
|
Define the primary purpose of the paper in the abstract. |
We have re-edited the abstract considering the suggestions of R3 |
|
Change the active form of WE into something more academic. |
The first-person plural has been substituted with third-person neuter singular |
|
Can you properly define the connection of quality assurance of higher education and game design? |
Some parts of the paper have been reframed to address this remark. Our main objective is to introduce constructive alignment as an assessment tool for the game-based learning course. |
|
Why game design? What is its relevance in higher education? |
We have better defined game design and its relevance for HE. |
|
Is there any theory and research behind how can games which are implemented in learning to improve the learning process? |
We reframed part of the presentation of the course’s courses structure and theory used in sections 4 and 5 based on this remark |
|
What are the negative aspects of this methodology? |
We re-edited part of the Discussion and Limitation sections to address this remark as an outcome of this study. |
|
Can you add some research limitations? |
Relevant section added based on R3’s remarks |
|
Describe the participants in more detail and the course itself as well. |
Additional information has been added in the Methodology section |
|
What are the drawbacks of the used learning methodology? |
Further elaboration has been provided in the Discussion section |
|
Can you discuss this with some relevant literature? |
We discussed game design in relation to the cognitive load framework. |
|
Show what is new in your paper compared to the current literature. |
We better described how considering constructive alignment contributes to game design in HE, by reducing the extraneous cognitive load. |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed properly the issues raised in the previous review. I congratulate the authors for disseminating their research. I suggest a final revision of the text. Authors should make sure that the paper complies with the formatting guidelines of the "Information" Journal.
