As I read through your paper, a question regarding the methodological alignment with your primary research question; Your study asks: “are future teachers capable of carrying out mathematics didactic proposals through GBL that are oriented according to neuroeducation guidelines?”
Your results and discussion effectively show that the students were capable of creating engaging games, with Group 7’s “Mario Bross” project serving as a clear standout example. However, I found myself wondering if we are evaluating the right evidence to answer the neuroeducation part of the question.
The evaluation rubric used by peers and teachers (Figure 1) excellently assesses the pedagogical and technical quality of the final game (interface quality, mathematical accuracy, challenge design, etc.). A great game is certainly the goal, but could a group create a fun, engaging game based on intuitive design or by mimicking commercial games without a deep application of neuroscientific principles?
My question is: beyond the game’s success, how did you directly assess the students’ conscious application of neuroeducation guidelines in their design process?
For instance, did their project documentation (the “Theoretical framework” section in Table 2) explicitly link their design choices to specific principles?
Did they articulate how a specific reward mechanism was designed to trigger dopamine release?
Did they explain how the pacing was intended to manage cognitive load or sustain attention based on known limits?
Was the elicitation of emotion (e.g., curiosity in the second phase, the joy of rescue) a deliberate strategy to enhance memory encoding?
In your analysis of the less successful groups, you provide brilliant neuroeducational explanations for their failures (e.g., the disjointed challenges in Group 5 disrupting the reward cycle). Was this understanding also a defined part of the assessment criteria for the students, or is it your expert retrospective analysis?