Serious Games for Seismic Risk Education: The Case of the ENP-CP Project

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Paper is interesting, well organized and clear, but minor changes and explanations will improve the overall quality.

On page 3 line 117 authors inform that the games were implemented in Italian and French, however, in Figures 1, 2 and 3 the snapshots show English. Please clarify the issue of game language(s).

A check on editing and formatting is welcome: there is no space after Tables 1 and 4, on line 193 it is written "Table 2. xxx.", on lines 333, 334, 342 ad 343 there is the famous "Error! Reference source not found" that needs to be corrected, the  alignment of figures is changing (1, 2, 3, 4 have a certain alignment, 5, 6, 7, 8 a different one), in the title of Figure 3 there is also Figure 2, in Figure 5 there is a reference to another game ("Find the difference") that is not the subject of the paper. Sometimes the titles of the games are with italics, other times no, maybe an uniform approach would be good.

It seems that some confusion or error appears when introducing and discussing Figure 8, because authors initially refer to Figure 7 with a text that have nothing to do with Figure 7 (lines 374 and 375), and later there is a reference to student's view that is probably shown in Figure 5 and not in Figure 8, please carefully read and make the proper references to figures.

In what concerns Figures 5 and 8: there is no explanation in the figure for the vertical axis. In the title of Figure 8 authors are mentioning Likert scale, maybe it would be good to have some details about Likert scale in the text, before Figure 5, and also to indicate that the scale is also used in the legend of Figure 5. Also before Figure 8 at lines 368-373 authors are talking about 7 attributes, but on lines 374-375 and in the title of Figure 8 they are talking about 7 attributes. If Figures 5 and 8 are referring to the same "average score on games" then in both figures the titles should be similar. If the reviewer observations on these figures are not all correct, it is also a sign that authors should carefully review the text and make clear for the reader the content of the figures, their background, the way to compute the average score, nu number of attributes considered, etc.

In Conclusions authors mention a number of 650 students that tested the games. The feedback analysis in the paper is based only on 108 students. No evaluation was done for the other 542 students? Was it any difference between the feedback of the students when looking at their nationalities?

Since the games were developed with European Union funds, it is surprising that the project does not have a website (only a Facebook page is indicated on line 78). Also there is no information about the authorship of the games and it would be interesting for the readers to find out elements related to the intended future use of the games in Italy, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. Since the games have an educational purpose, within the ENP-CP project were developed guidelines for teachers? The games, the mentioned videos and short introductions, the accompanying user guidelines (for teachers and students) are they forming an educational package that is delivered to schools?

Also it would be of interest to integrate some time references like: what is the time frame of the project (reader can't know if it is finished or not, etc.), when happened the activities with the students?

It would also be interesting for readers to have information about the availability of the games for other countries, teachers, students. Are the games free, where to find them, when was the ScienzaAperta, etc.?

English is very good, but a final review would be useful for minor things like comas, like "on the thirds days" (line 288), "be ready can make the difference" or being ready, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

in the following you will find my comments and suggestions for the paper in question.

The paper under scrutiny presents a commendable exploration into the realm of gamification within seismic risk management education, an area of increasing significance even in singular and localized contexts. While the topic introduction is well-executed, there exists an opportunity to further enrich the discussion with a more expansive and diversified set of references. The document, in fact, provides valuable insights; however, it presents a few typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies. Instances such as misreferenced tables and figures detract from the overall readability of the paper, necessitating rectification.

Recommendations for Improvement and Enhancement:

1)    Enriched Referential Framework: The paper would benefit from a broader array of references to fortify its introduction, contextualization, and rationale. Consideration of additional literature would enhance the scholarly foundation of the discussion. A few suggestions could be:

a.     Appleby-Arnold, S.; Brockdorff, N., and Callus, C. (2021). Developing a “culture of disaster preparedness”: The citizens’ view, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.,Vol. 56,102133,ISSN 2212-4209. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102133

b.     Coombs, W.T., Holladay, S.J.. (2012) The Handbook of Crisis Communication, Wiley- Blackwell, 2012. https://liverpool.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nla bk&AN=309421.

c.     Fernandez, G., and Shaw, R. (2013). Youth Council Participation in Disaster Risk Reduction in Infanta and Makati, Philippines: A Policy Review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci., 4 (3): 126–136. doi:10.1007/s13753-013-0014-x

d.     Lathwesen, C., and Belova, N. (2021). Escape Rooms in STEM Teaching and Learning - Prospective Field or Declining Trend? A Literature Review. Educ. Sci., 11, 308. doi:10.3390/educsci11060308

e.     López-Belmonte, J., Segura-Robles, A., Fuentes-Cabrera, A., and Parra-González, M.E. (2020). Evaluating Activation and Absence of Negative Effect: Gamification and Escape Rooms for Learning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 17, 2224. doi:10.3390/ijerph17072224

f.      Mitchell, T., Haynes, K., Hall, N., Choong, W., and Oven. K. (2008). The Roles of Children and Youth in Communicating Disaster Risk. Child. Youth Environ., 18 (1): 254–279.

g.     Veldkamp, A., van de Grint, L., Knippels, M.C.P.J., and van Joolingen, W.R. (2020). Escape education: A systematic review on escape rooms in education, Educ. Res. Rev., Vol. 31,2020,100364, ISSN 1747-938X. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100364.

h.     Veldkamp, A., Knippels, M.C.P.J., and van Joolingen W.R. (2021). Beyond the Early Adopters: Escape Rooms in Science Education. Front. Educ. 6:622860. doi:10.3389/feduc.2021.622860

2)    Rectification of Errors & Typos: Addressing typographical errors and formatting inconsistencies is essential to uphold the paper's quality and enhance clarity. (e.g. line 193 "Table 2. xxx"; line 333 "Error!Reference source not found" when referencing what I guess is figure 5; line 375 referencing what seems to be the wrong figure, the right one seems to be missing)

3)    Inclusion of Supplementary Material: The addition of the complete set of questions posed to both teachers and students as supplementary material is recommended. This inclusion would facilitate better comprehension, particularly concerning the short list of game objectives and attributes referenced in the paper.

4)    Focus on the single games: While the comparative analysis of the three games is commendable, providing a more detailed breakdown of each game's attributes and outcomes would enhance clarity. Offering individual game descriptions, possibly through word clouds or histograms, would enable a more nuanced and insightful comparison. For example, when discussing the question "What did you learn?" I would suggest showing what were the answers for the three single games and then comparing the three games via the most recurrent answers. 

5)    Cross-Cultural Insights: The paper touches upon the cross-cultural dimension of the project, presenting an opportunity for further exploration of diverse feedback from different countries. Delving deeper into varied responses and cultural considerations would enrich the analysis and broaden its applicability.

Conclusion:

The manuscript offers valuable contributions to the field. Implementing the outlined recommendations would not only strengthen the coherence and comprehensiveness of the paper but also elevate its significance and impact.

Once the typos are corrected, I don't have any further comment.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a commendable study that adeptly ties the power of severe games with seismic risk education. However, to fully harness its potential, the following refinements are suggested:

Methodology: Enhance clarity by integrating a unified flowchart encapsulating the game dynamics and progression. The gameplay snapshots are insightful, yet a singular visual representation could succinctly convey the educational journey within the games. Additionally, an elucidation of the technological aspects of the games (platforms used for the games, their accessibility, and adaptability to different technological infrastructures/devices) would offer readers a clear perspective on the practicalities and scalability of the educational tools developed.

Interactivity & Pedagogical Framework: A dedicated section that delves into the educational strategies employed would greatly benefit the manuscript. Detailing the interactivity's role in the learning process would provide a tangible illustration of the theoretical frameworks applied.

Discussion Section: The Discussion Section of the report needs to provide a more comprehensive explanation of quantitative and qualitative assessment methodologies. It should also cover the accessibility and inclusivity aspects while using games to demonstrate their applicability to a diverse student population. Additionally, it is essential to discuss how these games can bring about lasting behavioural change regarding seismic risks. The paper also needs a more thorough analysis of how these games can be incorporated into existing educational curricula to prove their usefulness in formal education settings. This section should also clearly state the study's limitations and suggest future research directions. A roadmap for subsequent inquiries in the field can serve as a foresight.

Participant Feedback: Incorporating direct participant feedback would offer a nuanced understanding of the user experience and the games' educational impact, providing a richer narrative of the study's findings.

Submitting the article to a geoscience education journal will enhance its practical significance in geosciences education and disaster risk preparedness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx