the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 10 Mar 2025
Finding Gaia: Exploring Climate Change Through Gamification
Abstract. Effective science communication is a vital tool in bridging the divide between scientific progress and the well-being of society, ensuring that the fruits of research are not only accessible but also comprehensible to the broader public. By tailoring communication strategies to different audiences, we can foster greater engagement and facilitate a deeper understanding of complex topics. In particular, involving young people in science communication is crucial, as it not only promotes innovation but also empowers them to tackle pressing global challenges.
Gamification has emerged as an innovative approach in this context, incorporating game-like elements to captivate and educate audiences. Platforms such as Kahoot! and Quizizz are widely recognised for enhancing learning motivation, while crowd-based games like Foldit are revolutionising scientific research by harnessing the power of collective intelligence. When applied to climate change education, gamification proves particularly effective, creating a platform for both deepening understanding and driving proactive behavioural change.
In response to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual platforms became indispensable in maintaining science communication efforts. A prime example of this adaptation is the creation of "Finding Gaia" – an immersive educational experience focused on climate change. This initiative, informed by established evaluation protocols, was designed to assess its impact on participants. Statistical analysis revealed significant knowledge gains, underscoring the effectiveness of the gamified approach in achieving its educational objectives.
- Preprint
(1299 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-577', Pimnutcha Promduangsri & David Crookall (co-review team), 16 May 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-577/egusphere-2025-577-RC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
Reviewer 1
We thank the reviewers for the thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us significantly improve the clarity, focus, and scientific value of our manuscript. Below we provide a point-by-point response to each major comment. Given that the manuscript has undergone substantial revision and reorganisation for clarity and alignment with the journal’s aims, the comments have been carefully considered and integrated throughout the revised text where applicable. In many cases, the original passages referenced were rephrased, expanded, or relocated, thereby incorporating the reviewer’s suggestions in an updated form. In the following sections, we respond point by point to the reviewer’s major comments.
Comment 1 – Clarify the Research Aim and Objectives
Response:
We fully agree with the reviewer that the research aim required clarification. As stated in the revised Introduction, our study has two primary goals:(1) To present the design and delivery of Finding Gaia, a gamified virtual science communication activity focused on climate change and seismic risk;
(2) To evaluate the educational impact of this activity through a mixed-methods approach combining pre/post questionnaires and facilitator insight.
We have now made this explicit at the end of the Introduction to help guide the reader.
Comment 2 – Provide More Detail on the Activity Content and Learning Mechanisms
Response:
We appreciate this suggestion and have now added specific examples of the puzzles and challenges used in the game. Each challenge was designed around a specific scientific concept (e.g., the greenhouse effect, mitigation vs adaptation, the difference between weather and climate). Correct answers unlocked short explanatory segments delivered by the facilitator, reinforcing key concepts in climate science and risk awareness.Comment 3 – Strengthen the Link Between the Activity and Climate Change
Response:
We thank the reviewer for highlighting this gap. The revised manuscript now provides a more detailed explanation of how climate change was thematically integrated into the game narrative and structure. Each room or stage of the game corresponded to a key theme in climate science, and progression through the game was dependent on solving challenges directly tied to those themes.Comment 4 – Explain What Is (and Isn’t) Replicable
Response:
Thank you for this important observation. We have clarified that the game design itself is replicable and can be adapted to various contexts. What is unique and less replicable is the specific implementation context, shaped by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., school closures, online-only delivery, limited student interaction). We now explain that while the structure and learning objectives can be reused or adapted, the specific conditions of the case study (including logistical and pedagogical constraints) contributed to its uniqueness.Comment 5 – Critically Reflect on Limitations and Generalisability
Response:
We agree and have revised the Discussion to include a more detailed analysis of the study’s limitations. These include the restricted evaluation format (due to screen-time constraints), the lack of long-term outcome assessment, and the limited generalisability due to the unique pandemic context. We have also acknowledged the absence of a control group and potential self-reporting bias in the student responses.Comment 6 – Expand the Discussion on Short vs. Long-Term Engagement
Response:
We appreciate this comment and have expanded the relevant section to reference previous literature (e.g., Dichev & Dicheva 2017; Wouters et al. 2013) demonstrating that the impact of educational games increases with repetition and reflection. We also position our intervention as an entry point within a broader communication or learning strategy, rather than a stand-alone solution.Comment 7 – Improve the Abstract
Response:
We have rewritten the abstract to better reflect the purpose, methods (including data collection), and outcomes of the study, while highlighting its relevance as a contribution to science communication practice during constrained conditions.Comment 8 – Define Key Terms
Response:
We agree and have now included a concise definition of “gamification” early in the Introduction, drawing from Deterding et al. (2011), and explaining the difference between gamified learning and full-scale games. We also briefly define other terms like “escape room” and “serious games” where they appear.Minor In-Text Comments
Response:
We thank the reviewer for these detailed suggestions. As the manuscript has been substantially revised, we carefully reviewed all minor comments and incorporated or addressed them wherever possible in the restructured version.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-577-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-577', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Jul 2025
Dear Authors, Thanks a lot for your commitment to science communication! SciComm and education are truly essential, and it’s so valuable that there is research being done in this area, alongside other important fields. I’m really glad this work is being shared and, at some stage, published.
I read the paper carefully and see real potential in it, even as I offer some critical feedback. Please do stay engaged with this topic - it has genuine promise.
I did not understand what your research focus was about: the game, the evaluation, the impact, gamification during Covid-19? In the conclusion, you state the limits of your research (short survey, non replicable, etc.) and the potential of further research plans (gender, impact of covid, long-term effect, effect of awarding factors, collective efforts, leadership). The latter is necessary to potentially create novel results which might be worth publishing. I do not see the novelty of your research. More research needs to be carried out.
Title
The title does not implicate what the paper is about (e.g., introduction of your game, research on the evaluation/methods, of climate change).Abstract
The abstract should inform about what the paper is about. It does not. Two thirds of our abstract are not about your own research.L5 To what extend does Finding Gaia include any scientific progress or rather, in the meanwhile, common knowledge (e.g., in general, how global warming works)
L5 No direct relation between scientific progress and “well-being”, must be explained
LL5-9 Review order of thinking, shorten
L7 I do not see “different audiences” being part of the conducted research.
L15 Your research was conducted during the pandemic, but you do not analyse this impact further, thus, not relevant for the abstract.
L16 Define immersive or leave our
L17 Which aspects of climate change?
LL15-19 Add numbers and give more info on what “Finding Gaia” is.1 Introduction
L25 Define societal progress, particularly, what is “progress” (this might be rather a philosophical, historical or social question)
LL30-32 Shorten because this is evident. What is the context for your game?
LL34-38 Most of this is evident, so summarise to shorten paragraph.
LL46-53 Interesting examples, but what’s the relevance to your paper, e.g., points and levels, collaborative efforts - you did not mention them in your research results.
L54 Find intro to this paragraph. What is it meant to be about?
L59 You didn’t look into interdisciplinary aspects in your evaluation. If you mention this, put into your research/game’s context.
L60 Do you mean gamification by “this method”?
L62 What do you mean by “these experiments”? Participants = gamers?
L64 Academic year might depend on where you are on the world
L65 “our research” - you might want to explain who you are at this stage
L74 Add a paragraph on how/why/since when games like this are evaluated2 Methods
2.1 Nice summary
L97 To make informed choices within the game or in reality?
L101 “In addition to..” Delete as the complete abstract is supposed to in the context of climate change gamification anyways, as fas as I understood it
L109 Add date to reference? - After reading this section, I asked myself, why it would be important to develop yet another game. Also, what kind of climate change is Finding Gaia about, e.g., the political aspects?
L114 including mitigation and adaptation strategies - too broad. What is the game about?
L115 You did not mention energy transition at all yet, neither In the abstract.
L116 (Science) enthusiasts is not scientific language
LL 112 ff. What makes Finding Gaia novel?
LL127-137 Review order of relevance
L139 Was the evaluation shared with the participants? Was this important? Could it have been because this would be a novel approach, to engage kids to become science communicators?
L142 Does every reader know what an escape room is? Otherwise, explain.
L164 Research should be replicable. Why is yours not?
L164 Due to the pandemic? Do you have suggestions how to level this out, or compare it no times without any pandemic?
L 165 Survey improvements: Is it about the evaluations, or the game itself?3 Results
L170 - abbreviation INGV
L175 Delete quotation marks
LL185ff Does this express the level of interest? To what extend was participation voluntary or proposed/suggested?
L189 Would future research benefit from different gaming levels, compared to different ages?
L192 What is the correlation coefficient in the table? (Value between -1 and 1)
L222 Where to find those supplementary questions4 Conclusion and discussion
LL232ff Write not only based on references but in context of your research
L245, L250 Give evidence, what do you see as novel and newfound
L247 If commented on your survey, this should go in section Results
L253 What do you mean by typical? Give reference
L256 Is this your main hypothesis, about single-sessions - if so, this should be tested vs multiple-sessions
L257 About memory (memorable) you can give only evidence if you experiment over a longer time, i.e., short-time vs long-time
LL257-258 When these are complemented… this is a general thought which applies to almost everything. Leave out
L265 What do you mean by longitudinal studies?
L276 Gender studies could have been conducted using your survey
L276ff These are nice plans for completion of a publication.Tables
L286 Table 1 does not need a table as it consists only of two numbers.
Table 2, Table 3 Further description needed.Figures - Link to the pandemic ?
L300 Figure 1 No need for figures as table should serve here. What does the figure of previous experience should reveal?
L305 Think about “transfer” (Abwanderung/migration) diagrams showing who changed their opinion (e.g., 20% of those voted 2, now voted 4). - This could be supported by having “tracked” the participants.
L309 Think about a different type of diagram
L314 Figure 4 - What do we learn from this? This does depend on the regions themselves (Alps, close to the sea, island, …)
L316 Express in percentage
L320 Were participants aware of the difference between geophysics and env science?
L325 206 participants or more?
L333 Figure 8 - Add questions within the diagram and percentages; add y-axis name; consider different order (e.g., high to low). Q4 does not make sense if the participants were told that participation was voluntary. A table would be sufficient.7 Ethical statement
L393 Define highest ethical standards
L340 “meticulously planned and executed” - no added value in this expression
L340 What is voluntary participation
L344 Delete duplication about voluntaryCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-577-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the insightful and constructive feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity, focus, and scientific value of the manuscript. Below we respond point by point to each of the reviewer’s comments.
Comment 1“The manuscript is written well and is overall interesting and clear. The topic is important, especially in our time when students need tools to relate to climate change issues. However, the manuscript is too descriptive in its current form, particularly the methods and results sections, which need more clarity and depth.”
Response from the Authors:
We appreciate this overall positive assessment. We agree that the original methods and results sections required greater clarity and depth. We have now significantly revised both sections to improve readability and provide a clearer explanation of the research process and outcomes.
In the Methods, we have clarified how the activity works in practice, including:
- A detailed description of the game structure (series of puzzles and challenges)
- The thematic focus of each stage (all related to climate change)
- The role of the facilitator, who introduces short scientific insights after each stage is completed
In the Results, we expanded the quantitative summary of pre-/post-survey data and substantially elaborated on the qualitative thematic analysis. We described the analytic procedure (coding, theme development, etc.) and presented five dominant themes that emerged from student responses.
Comment 2
“The research questions should be clearly presented and discussed. As it stands, the reader does not know whether the study focuses on the creation of the game, its evaluation, or the effectiveness of gamification more broadly.”
Response from the Authors:
We fully agree. To clarify the aim of the study, we have now explicitly stated at the end of the Introduction that the paper aims to (1) present a case study in science communication using gamification during a specific context (the COVID-19 pandemic) and (2) report on its evaluation through a mixed-methods approach.
We also clarified that our intent is not to test or validate gamification as a pedagogical method in general, but to document and assess one specific experience.
Comment 3
“There are only limited details about the activity itself, its learning mechanisms, and how the puzzles actually engage students in climate learning. Please expand on this.”
Response from the Authors:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In the revised version, we added a clearer explanation of how the activity works and how learning is integrated into each phase. Specifically, we now explain that:
- Each stage of the game consists of a climate-related puzzle (e.g., weather vs climate, prediction vs projection).
- Every correct answer unlocks a facilitator-led insight that expands on the scientific topic of that challenge.
- The activity was conducted entirely in Italian, to ensure accessibility for students.
These clarifications provide a more precise understanding of the game’s pedagogical design and the learning mechanisms behind it.
Comment 4
“The discussion section could be more critical. For example, the authors state that short activities are impactful when complemented by longer ones. This deserves elaboration.”
Response from the Authors:
We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion and have addressed it in the revised Discussion. We now cite relevant literature (e.g. Dichev & Dicheva, 2017; Wouters et al., 2013) to support the claim that single-session activities are most effective when embedded in a broader pedagogical framework. We also emphasise that while Finding Gaia is a one-off experience, it can serve as a valuable entry point for more sustained engagement.
Comment 5
“The authors mention the study is not replicable due to its unique COVID context, but this needs further explanation. What prevents replication? Could it be adapted to other settings?”
Response from the Authors:
Thank you for this important comment. We clarified that while the protocol itself is replicable—i.e., the game can be reused and adapted—the context in which it was developed and deployed (i.e., fully online during a pandemic, with restrictions on interaction, specific digital tools, and student stress levels) is not easily replicable. These constraints have likely shaped student reception. We also note that the game could be adapted for in-person, hybrid, or different curricular contexts with appropriate adjustments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-577-AC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
We would also like to thank the reviewer for the detailed in-text suggestions. Given that the manuscript has undergone substantial revision and reorganisation for clarity and alignment with the journal’s aims, the comments have been carefully considered and integrated throughout the revised text where applicable. In many cases, the original passages referenced were rephrased, expanded, or relocated, thereby incorporating the reviewer’s suggestions in an updated form. For this reason, in the previous reply, we responded to the condensed reviewer’s major comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-577-AC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-577', Iain Stewart, 04 Aug 2025
Additional referee comment on the manuscript
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
We thank the reviewer for their careful reading and thoughtful suggestions. We are encouraged by the recognition of the manuscript’s clarity and relevance and appreciate the opportunity to improve the paper further. Below, we address each specific comment.
- Clarify the Aim and Objectives of the Study
Reviewer Comment:
“The manuscript does not clearly define the research aim and objectives; is it to create the game, to evaluate its impact or to highlight the contribution of gamification in geosciences communication? The authors should clearly point out the aim of the study early in the manuscript, ideally at the end of the introduction…”
Response from the Authors:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently distinguish the scope and purpose of the study. We have now clarified that our aims are twofold:
(1) to present the gamified activity Finding Gaia as a science communication initiative developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (2) to evaluate its impact using a mixed-methods approach involving pre/post surveys and facilitator insights. The goal is not to validate gamification as a pedagogical method, nor to generalise its superiority, but rather to illustrate an innovative science communication experience shaped by unique pandemic conditions.- Add Detail on the Content and Learning Mechanisms
Reviewer Comment:
“While the authors provide some information on the features of the activity, they do not include details on the content and learning mechanisms… Including examples of puzzles or challenges and how they were used to address specific climate topics…”
Response from the Authors:
We appreciate this valuable suggestion. We have now expanded the Methods section to explain how the puzzles functioned as learning tools. Each stage of the virtual escape room presented a science-based riddle or logic task rooted in climate-related topics—such as the distinction between weather and climate, the greenhouse effect, or mitigation versus adaptation. When a team solved a challenge, they received a keyword or code that unlocked a short narrative segment or facilitation moment explaining a key concept. This interplay between game and instruction was intended to reinforce learning through engagement.
- Strengthen the Connection Between the Activity and Climate Change
Reviewer Comment:
“Although the reader can make a connection when examining the outcomes, the activity's approach to addressing climate change is not clearly presented. Strengthening this connection between the thematic context and the activity design would enhance clarity and value for the reader.”
Response from the Authors:
We have revised both the Introduction and Methods sections to emphasise the central role of climate change in the activity’s design. The educational content was structured around key dimensions of climate literacy—adaptation, mitigation, human–environment interactions, and the role of science in risk prediction. This content was embedded in each puzzle and in the accompanying facilitation segments, creating an explicit and continuous link between gameplay and thematic learning.
- Clarify the Issue of Replicability and Uniqueness
Reviewer Comment:
“The authors describe the experience as not replicable, stating this as a limitation and at the same time as a unique characteristic… Why is it not replicable?... Could the approach be adapted?”
Response from the Authors:
We acknowledge that our original statement may have caused confusion. To clarify: the game design and structure are replicable, and we believe they can be adapted to different learning contexts. What is not replicable are the specific boundary conditions of this pilot experience—such as the remote delivery format due to school closures, the digital platforms approved by schools, and the constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. We have made this distinction explicit and discussed how the protocol could be transferred to other settings with suitable adjustments.
- Provide a More Critical Discussion of Limitations
Reviewer Comment:
“The paper could benefit from a more critical discussion of the limitations, such as generalisability.”
Response from the Authors:
We agree with this recommendation and have significantly expanded our discussion of limitations. We now address the following points: the limited generalisability due to the pandemic context; the simplified evaluation survey (designed to reduce screen fatigue); the reliance on self-reported data; the absence of long-term outcome measures; and the lack of standardised benchmarks in the literature.
- Improve the Abstract
Reviewer Comment:
“While the abstract of the manuscript provides valuable details on the context of the study, it only presents limited information on the study itself. I recommend the authors revise this to communicate the study’s scope, methods better and highlight the key findings.”
Response from the Authors:
We revised the abstract to ensure it includes a clearer statement of the study’s purpose, the evaluation method (pre/post surveys and qualitative analysis), the number of participants, and the main outcomes. The revised version more accurately reflects the content and structure of the manuscript.
- Define Key Terms
Reviewer Comment:
“The manuscript uses different terms (for example, “gamification”) that may be unfamiliar to the typical readers. I recommend defining these terms early in the manuscript to eliminate any confusion.”
Response from the Authors:
We agree. We have now defined “gamification” early in the Introduction using a concise, peer-reviewed definition. Additional clarification has been provided for related terms such as “escape room”, “serious game”, and “facilitator”.
- Expand the Discussion on Short vs Long-Term Engagement
Reviewer Comment:
“In the discussion section, the authors note that when single-session activities are complemented by sustained engagement over a longer period, they can support retention of complex topics. This is a valuable point that deserves further elaboration.”
Response from the Authors:
We have expanded our discussion of this topic. Drawing on prior literature (e.g., Wouters et al., 2013; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017), we now explain that single-session activities like Finding Gaia can serve as entry points to science engagement. Their impact is amplified when followed by classroom discussion, supplementary lessons, or reflective writing. This supports the broader pedagogical value of integrating gamified communication into sustained science education strategies.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-577-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on EC1', Maria Vittoria Gargiulo, 05 Aug 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 429 | 155 | 20 | 604 | 13 | 28 |
- HTML: 429
- PDF: 155
- XML: 20
- Total: 604
- BibTeX: 13
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1