Reviewer 1 Comments

• Contextualization (remove the majors part, contextualize within video games and education)
  • I’ve removed the paragraph on the recent decline in History majors and contextualized the paper around research more closely related to the topic. I do think that mentioning the potential this has to increase enrollments and majors is an important thing to note in a time when large public universities are cutting humanities programs, but it is no longer the focus of the intro.
  • New intro paragraph. In recent years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of research focused on the use of video games as a pedagogical tool for the instruction of history, archaeology, and classics (Brown 2008; Clark et a;. 2016; McCall 2013; Mitchell and Savill-Smith 2004; Squire and Jenkins 2011; Young et al. 2017). This trend reflects a growing recognition of the potential of video games to engage and educate students in a way that transcends traditional teaching methods by making students a more active part of the learning process (Squire et al. 2008). The intersection of history, archaeology, and classics in this context is particularly promising, as these disciplines provide a rich reservoir of content that can be effectively conveyed through interactive and immersive gaming experiences (McCall 2013, 2016, 2019; Mol et al., eds. 2017; Politopoulos et al. 2019b; Reinhard 2012). This burgeoning area of research not only underscores the evolving landscape of educational paradigms but also signifies a substantial shift in the way educators and institutions are adapting to the dynamic needs and preferences of modern learners.

• Explain why student’s did not have to do both assignment sequences
  • Paragraph in Methodology section revised and added.
  • New methodology paragraph. By running parallel assignment sequences within a single course, and by constructing similar assignment deliverables, the aim was to better isolate the impact of video games on student perceptions of the teaching and learning process. The secondary goal, however, was more pedagogically focused than research-based ; that is, I sought to provide students the opportunity with an educational experience tailored to their personal learning styles (Ambrose et al. 2010). Future studies may improve upon this by having all students complete both assignment sequences. However, because there was significant overlap in the topics that students were asked to investigate within each assignment sequence, and due to the time constraints of the course, students in this class only pursued one sequence or the other.

• Check in-text citations and references
  • Fixed citations by removing comma between name and year.
  • Fixed bibliographic entries for Brown 2008 Mol et al. 2017; McCall 2013; McCall 2014 

Reviewer 2 Comments

• Clarify what exactly is being measured (e.g., student perceptions of learning vs learning outcomes)
  • Topic sentence of paragraph 2 changed to removed focus on “learning outcomes.” The claim in paragraph 3 that beter understanding student perspectives may lead to an improvement in achieving learning outcomes has become contextualized within educational research (see response to the next critique below).
  • New topic sentence. This project seeks to better understand students’ perspectives regarding the use of video games as a teaching tool in the classics classroom. In particular, it seeks to highlight the impact of video games on student satisfaction and on student perceptions of learning.

• Cite the claim that appeal of learning mode increases effectiveness
  • Citations added to last paragraph of introduction within the discussion of why this type of study is important.
  • New paragraph. While the impact of learning modality on effective learning has been debated (Aslaksen and Loras 2018), several studies suggest that tailoring teaching modalities to students’ preferred modes of learning can have a substantial impact on the achievement of outcomes (Dekker et al. 2012) As a result, developing a better sense for the way in which students perceive the use of video games as a teaching tool, both its strengths and weaknesses, provides the potential to impact the achievement of learning outcomes in archaeology, history, and classics courses.

• More details about specifics (was Discovery Tour used, which readings were used, how similar were the two assignment tracks)
  • Discovery Tour Mode sentence Added. While it was not mandated that students in this study use the Discovery Tour mode or modules, they were made aware of the feature and its ability to open the complete map and remove the element of violence from the gaming experience.
  • Readings and Assignments. While there wasn’t room to cover each assignment for each sequence within the constraints of this article, I added a paragraph that discussed the difficulties in aligning the topic of each module’s assignments across the two sequences. See bullet point below.
  • New paragraph on assignment topics and readings. While the course was designed to produce identical deliverables (i.e., 300+ word written essays) for each assignment sequence, the topics of each module’s written assignment often differed between the two sequences. This was, in large part, because the game did not have content adjacent to the topics that had been previously developed for the traditional assignment sequence. For example, in Module 2, the traditional assignment sequence that’s been in use for the past several years has students read an excerpt from the Iliad and then reflect on what makes it "epic" in nature. This does not translate particularly well to the content within Assassin’s Creed : Odyssey, which is focused on the Peloponnesian War rather than the Trojan War. Thus, the Module 2 topic within the video game sequence focused on religious practice at the site of Delphi with students reading excerpts from Pausanias’ Description of Greece. Standardizing the content of these assignment sequences would be a productive goal for future studies since it could help reduce variance due to content topic and better isolate the impact of video games as a pedagogical tool for teaching archaeology.

• Reassess the claim of “significance” in line 211
  • Term Replaced. Statistical term “significance” removed, replaced with “substantial.”

• I am unconvinced the findings show anything new or unexpected or even reinforcing. Video game playing students opted for a video game lesson and thought it more enjoyable is a big conclusion and that just does not seem enough to publish.
  • Difference of opinion. I can understand the reviewer’s perspective here, but honestly, I just disagree. There are a plethora of reasons why people who enjoy video games might not like using them for assignments in a course: they lack the freedom of exploration normally present in the game, it’s not about completing objectives, they have no experience with the specific game or don’t like that sort of game, they find it confusing, etc. And there’s no evidence that I could find that would suggest it’s obvious that they would like that more than students who opt for another modality of learning (e.g., some people like reading, why wouldn’t those scores be as high as the scores from the video game assignment sequence?). I’m not trying to claim that this is the last word on using video games as a teaching tool for archaeology, but there is some real data here that is useful to present, interpret, and publish.