Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education

Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812" }, "headline": "Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education", "datePublished": "2024-07-18T14:25:52", "dateModified": "2025-01-20T15:27:38", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Mario De La Puente" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jose Torres" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Heidy Rico" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hernán Javier Guzmán Murillo" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Jenny Xiomara Marquez Carrascal" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Purpose This study evaluated the effectiveness of integrating Chinese checkers into Comparative Politics courses across Asia-Pacific universities during 2021-2022, examining its impact on students’ strategic thinking, negotiation skills, and academic performance. Methods The research employed paired and independent-samples t-tests to assess academic outcomes among 93 students who played Chinese checkers versus 86 control participants. Assessment metrics included strategic thinking capabilities and overall course performance. Findings Students who participated in Chinese checkers demonstrated statistically significant improvements in strategic thinking (p < 0.05) and achieved higher academic scores (M = 4.38, SD = 0.18) compared to the control group (M = 3.87, SD = 0.13). Significance This study establishes Chinese checkers as an effective pedagogical tool for developing strategic thinking in undergraduate political science education. The findings support incorporating game-based learning approaches to enhance critical thinking and negotiation skills for understanding Asia-Pacific politics. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2", "name": "Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific..." } } ] } Home Browse Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article De La Puente M, Torres J, Rico H et al. Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Mario De La Puente https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0783-1267 1 , Jose Torres https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8107-8763 2 , Heidy Rico 3 , Hernán Javier Guzmán Murillo 4 , Jenny Xiomara Marquez Carrascal 4 Mario De La Puente https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0783-1267 1 , Jose Torres https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8107-8763 2 , [...] Heidy Rico 3 , Hernán Javier Guzmán Murillo 4 , Jenny Xiomara Marquez Carrascal 4 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2025 Author details Author details 1 Associated Professor, Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Valle del Cauca, 08001, Colombia 2 Associated professor, Universidad de Sucre, Sincelejo, Sucre, Colombia 3 Assistant Professor, Business Administration Program, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Bolívar, Colombia 4 Assistant Professor, Universidad de Sucre, Sincelejo, Sucre, Colombia Mario De La Puente Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jose Torres Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Heidy Rico Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Hernán Javier Guzmán Murillo Roles: Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Jenny Xiomara Marquez Carrascal Roles: Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Purpose This study evaluated the effectiveness of integrating Chinese checkers into Comparative Politics courses across Asia-Pacific universities during 2021-2022, examining its impact on students’ strategic thinking, negotiation skills, and academic performance. Methods The research employed paired and independent-samples t-tests to assess academic outcomes among 93 students who played Chinese checkers versus 86 control participants. Assessment metrics included strategic thinking capabilities and overall course performance. Findings Students who participated in Chinese checkers demonstrated statistically significant improvements in strategic thinking (p < 0.05) and achieved higher academic scores (M = 4.38, SD = 0.18) compared to the control group (M = 3.87, SD = 0.13). Significance This study establishes Chinese checkers as an effective pedagogical tool for developing strategic thinking in undergraduate political science education. The findings support incorporating game-based learning approaches to enhance critical thinking and negotiation skills for understanding Asia-Pacific politics. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Chinese Checkers, Strategic Thinking, Negotiation Skills, Comparative Politics, Higher Education Corresponding Author(s) Mario De La Puente ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Mario De La Puente Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Financial support for this study was provided by Education For All Online under Grant Number 2023-334-12. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2025 De La Puente M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: De La Puente M, Torres J, Rico H et al. Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.2 ) First published: 18 Jul 2024, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.1 ) Latest published: 20 Jan 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This revised version incorporates enhancements. The title has been amended. Key modifications include a clearer interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding effect sizes and their practical implications in educational settings. The manuscript now shows a clearer context for understanding the modest yet significant impact (F = 3.78, p = 0.026) of the intervention, supplemented by detailed operational definitions of engagement metrics and standardized assessment protocols. The theoretical framework has been strengthened through the integration of contemporary sources, notably Newton (2014) and Ho (2020), giving more evidence for the influence of Confucian values on strategic thinking development. The methodology section now includes comprehensive measurement protocols with specific behavioral indicators and standardized observation procedures, enhancing the study's reproducibility. The discussion has been revised to offer a more balanced analysis of the intervention's impact, acknowledging both its strengths and limitations. Particular attention has been given to contextualizing the effect sizes within educational research standards and providing practical implications for implementation. The manuscript now includes expanded comparisons with alternative pedagogical approaches, offering readers a more comprehensive understanding of Chinese checkers' effectiveness as a teaching tool. These revisions maintain the study's original findings while providing a more measured, evidence-based perspective on the intervention's educational impact and practical applications in political science education. Special attention has been given to clarifying the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm through detailed operational definitions and standardized assessment protocols that enhance the study's methodological rigor. This revised version incorporates enhancements. The title has been amended. Key modifications include a clearer interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding effect sizes and their practical implications in educational settings. The manuscript now shows a clearer context for understanding the modest yet significant impact (F = 3.78, p = 0.026) of the intervention, supplemented by detailed operational definitions of engagement metrics and standardized assessment protocols. The theoretical framework has been strengthened through the integration of contemporary sources, notably Newton (2014) and Ho (2020), giving more evidence for the influence of Confucian values on strategic thinking development. The methodology section now includes comprehensive measurement protocols with specific behavioral indicators and standardized observation procedures, enhancing the study's reproducibility. The discussion has been revised to offer a more balanced analysis of the intervention's impact, acknowledging both its strengths and limitations. Particular attention has been given to contextualizing the effect sizes within educational research standards and providing practical implications for implementation. The manuscript now includes expanded comparisons with alternative pedagogical approaches, offering readers a more comprehensive understanding of Chinese checkers' effectiveness as a teaching tool. These revisions maintain the study's original findings while providing a more measured, evidence-based perspective on the intervention's educational impact and practical applications in political science education. Special attention has been given to clarifying the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm through detailed operational definitions and standardized assessment protocols that enhance the study's methodological rigor. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Noble Po Kan Lo See the authors' detailed response to the review by Tomislav Ivanjko READ REVIEWER RESPONSES Introduction Strategic thinking represents a fundamental competency in higher education, enabling analysis of complex scenarios and informed decision-making. In political science education, students develop strategic thinking abilities during their undergraduate studies. This research examines whether structured interventions can enhance this development. This study investigates the effects of integrating Chinese checkers into undergraduate Comparative Politics courses. The implementation involves physical board game sessions during regular classroom meetings over a six to eleven-week period. Two hypotheses guide this research: the engagement with Chinese checkers may improve strategic thinking and negotiation skills, and this integration may increase student engagement in Comparative Politics courses. The research implications extend to several areas of higher education. Teachers may gain insights into game-based learning implementation. Policymakers could use the evidence to inform curriculum development decisions. Students might develop strategic thinking skills applicable to academic and professional contexts. Educational institutions could adopt new approaches to active learning. This investigation aims to advance understanding of strategic game integration in higher education, with specific attention to political science education. The implementation occurs in standard classroom settings, where students engage with physical game boards under instructor supervision during scheduled course hours. The integration of game-based learning in political science education remains relatively unexplored, particularly in the Asia-Pacific context. This study addresses this gap by examining how traditional board games may enhance strategic thinking in undergraduate education. The research design emphasizes practical classroom implementation, focusing on measurable outcomes in student performance and engagement. The experimental approach explores both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of learning outcomes. While previous studies have examined various pedagogical tools, this research specifically investigates the role of Chinese checkers in developing strategic thinking skills within a structured academic environment. The findings may contribute to the broader discussion of innovative teaching methods in political science education. Literature review Strategic thinking in political science education shapes global governance and international relations outcomes. de la Puente Pacheco et al. (2019 , 2021 , 2024) define strategic thinking as a multidimensional cognitive framework integrating analytical reasoning, pattern recognition, and anticipatory decision-making within political environments. Their research documents how strategic thinking capabilities influence policy implementation, diplomatic outcomes, and crisis resolution in the Asia-Pacific context, where multilateral relations continue to evolve. The development of strategic thinking capabilities responds to emerging global challenges. Contemporary geopolitical events demonstrate that policy makers with advanced strategic thinking skills navigate international crises with improved outcomes. de la Puente Pacheco’s research documents measurable improvements in policy analysis, crisis simulation performance, and multilateral negotiation scenarios among students who develop strategic thinking capabilities through structured interventions. Game-based learning functions as a mechanism for developing these capabilities. Guan et al. (2024) demonstrate how gaming mechanisms enhance negotiation abilities and strategic patience in diplomatic contexts. López-Hernández et al. (2023) document how board games create opportunities for developing resource management skills in international relations. The cited literature documents specific mechanisms through which games develop strategic thinking capabilities. Guan et al. (2024) identified four key development pathways: iterative decision-making processes, pattern recognition enhancement, consequence analysis, and adaptive strategy formulation. Their systematic review of 127 game-based learning implementations demonstrated that students who engaged in regular gameplay showed a 42% improvement in strategic decision-making assessments compared to control groups. López-Hernández et al. (2023) documented how board games specifically enhanced resource allocation decision-making through repeated practice cycles, with participants demonstrating a 35% increase in successful negotiation outcomes after structured gaming interventions. McLaren and Nguyen’s (2023) analysis of digital learning environments established three primary components of strategic thinking development through games: scenario analysis capabilities, stakeholder position mapping, and response strategy formulation. Their longitudinal study of 450 students across eight universities demonstrated that game-based learning improved complex problem-solving abilities by 28% compared to traditional teaching methods. Lu and Zhang (2023) quantified how different learning environments affect strategic skill acquisition, finding that hybrid approaches combining traditional games with digital elements resulted in a 31% higher retention rate of strategic concepts. Learning environment design affects strategic capability development in political science education. Lu and Zhang’s (2023) analysis of hybrid learning environments documents how interaction mediums influence negotiation strategy development. Peterson’s (2023) framework mapped the progression of strategic thinking development through structured gaming interventions across five stages: basic strategy recognition, pattern identification, response formulation, multi-stakeholder analysis, and complex scenario management. Cai et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis of 89 studies established that scaffolded gaming approaches improved strategic thinking capabilities with an effect size of 0.72 (Cohen’s d), particularly when games incorporated increasing levels of complexity and stakeholder interactions. The influence of Confucian values on strategic thinking in educational contexts builds upon established research frameworks. Newton (2014) demonstrates how cultural values shape cognitive processes, emphasizing that effective thinking emerges from cultural and emotional contexts. The research shows how Confucian heritage learners exhibit patterns of reflective prudence in decision-making, characterized by relationship consideration and long-term thinking. This foundation explains the observation that students in the experimental group preferred strategic moves balancing individual advancement with group harmony during Chinese checkers gameplay, with 78% of participants demonstrating culturally-mediated strategic thinking patterns. Ho (2020) advances this understanding through an analysis of Confucian heritage learners in higher education, identifying social-oriented achievement motivation as a distinctive characteristic. The research shows that Confucian heritage learners approach strategic challenges through a collective lens, even in competitive situations. This aligns with the findings, where experimental group participants exhibited similar patterns in their Chinese checkers strategy. Specifically, 72% of participants demonstrated the social-oriented achievement patterns Ho describes, particularly in alliance formation and resource management during gameplay. The current study extends these frameworks by providing empirical evidence of how cultural influences manifest in strategic thinking development through game-based learning. Where Ho identified social-oriented achievement motivation conceptually, this study demonstrates its practical manifestation in strategic choices, with participants showing a 43% higher tendency to form collaborative alliances compared to competitive strategies. These findings suggest that Confucian cultural values significantly influence not only learning approaches but also concrete strategic decision-making processes in educational settings. However, the research gap this study addresses extends beyond the general effectiveness of game-based learning to examine specific mechanisms through which Chinese checkers develops strategic thinking in political science education. While previous studies documented broad improvements in strategic capabilities, they did not analyze how traditional board games develop specific diplomatic competencies in the Asia-Pacific context. This study investigates three unexplored dimensions: 1. The development of culturally-specific negotiation strategies through Chinese checkers in Asia-Pacific political science education 2. The quantifiable impact of structured board game interventions on students’ ability to analyze multilateral political scenarios 3. The relationship between game-based strategic thinking development and performance in real-world diplomatic simulations These dimensions address limitations in existing research, where Guan et al. (2024) focused primarily on digital implementations, López-Hernández et al. (2023) examined resource management without cultural context, and McLaren and Nguyen (2023) analyzed general problem-solving without specific application to diplomatic scenarios. The study’s examination of Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool in comparative politics courses fills a methodological gap in understanding how traditional games can be systematically integrated into political science curricula while accounting for regional cultural factors and diplomatic skill requirements. Traditional and digital approach integration advances comprehensive strategic capabilities. Nurwidodo et al. (2023) , Luo et al. (2024) , and Wang et al. (2024) document how hybrid learning environments prepare students for diplomatic challenges across physical and virtual spaces. These findings support the use of traditional board games to develop strategic skills in diplomatic contexts. Power dynamics and equity considerations shape strategic skill development in political science education. Lan et al. (2023) document how game mechanics teach students to navigate power asymmetries in international relations. Wang et al. (2024) identify how perceived usefulness drives strategic learning tool adoption. Pozo-García et al.’s (2020) analysis of gender biases guides the implementation of Chinese checkers as an inclusive tool for strategic skill development. Game-based learning in political science education creates practical competencies. Students engaging with strategic games develop skills in scenario analysis, stakeholder action anticipation, and strategy formulation - competencies applicable to diplomatic challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. This approach develops analytical and diplomatic skills for modern international relations practice. Strategic games develop negotiation skills by replicating diplomatic complexities in controlled environments. Through gameplay, students practice balancing competing interests, forming strategic alliances, and navigating diplomatic scenarios, preparing them for roles in international relations and policy making. Chinese checkers advances strategic thinking and negotiation skills in political science education through its structural requirements. Players must attend to individual objectives while analyzing opponent strategies, developing both competitive and collaborative problem-solving approaches that align with modern international relations dynamics. The literature indicates a research gap in understanding the systematic integration of traditional board games in political science education for developing strategic thinking and negotiation skills in the Asia-Pacific context. While research establishes game-based learning effectiveness, the application of Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool in comparative politics courses remains unexplored. This gap holds significance given the Asia-Pacific region’s position in global politics and the need for culturally appropriate educational interventions that develop strategic capabilities for diplomatic challenges. Methods The study involved two groups of undergraduate students enrolled in the Asia Pacific Comparative Politics course. The experimental group (n=93) and control group (n=86) shared similar demographic characteristics: age range 21-22 years and predominantly female composition. Both groups demonstrated comparable academic performance with GPAs ranging from 3.7 to 4.3. The experimental group participated in Chinese checkers gameplay as part of their coursework, while the control group completed the course without this intervention. All participants were pursuing degrees in International Relations with a specialization in Asia Pacific Comparative Politics, ensuring homogeneity in academic background and course objectives. The study implemented a standardized protocol for measuring subjective components through behavioral anchors and detailed rubrics. For strategic thinking assessment, observers used a structured evaluation matrix with five distinct levels (1-5) where each level had specific, observable indicators. For example, Level 1 strategic thinking was characterized by single-move decisions without consideration of opponent responses, while Level 5 demonstrated multi-step planning with clear anticipation of opponent strategies and contingency planning. Each level included three mandatory observable behaviors that must be present for that rating to be assigned, reducing subjectivity in the assessment process. Inter-rater reliability was established through parallel coding sessions where multiple observers rated the same gameplay interactions, achieving a minimum Cohen’s kappa coefficient of 0.85 before proceeding with independent observations. Student enthusiasm and engagement were quantified using a behavioral frequency approach rather than subjective ratings. Observers recorded specific, predefined behaviors such as voluntary strategic move attempts, unprompted contributions to strategy discussions, and active participation in post-game analysis sessions. Each behavior was counted using a standardized tally system during 30-minute observation windows, with clear operational definitions for what constituted each behavior. For example, a strategic contribution was defined as any verbal statement that either (a) proposed a specific game move with supporting rationale, (b) analyzed an opponent’s potential responses, or (c) connected game strategy to course concepts. This systematic approach replaced subjective assessments of enthusiasm with concrete behavioral metrics. The measurement of negotiation skills utilized a competency-based assessment framework with explicit performance indicators. Each negotiation skill component (e.g., coalition building, conflict resolution, resource management) was evaluated using a standardized rubric with five performance levels, each containing specific behavioral descriptors. For instance, coalition-building proficiency was measured through observable actions such as the number of successful alliance formations, the duration of strategic partnerships, and the mutual benefit achieved through cooperative play. The similarity in demographic composition and academic performance between groups established a foundation for examining the specific effects of Chinese checkers implementation on strategic thinking and negotiation skills development. The Comparative Politics in Asia Pacific course structured learning around geographic and economic foundations, examining physical geography, resource distribution, and spatial economic organization. Students analyzed trade agreements, environmental negotiations, and resource allocation processes within the Asia-Pacific context. The course integrated philosophy and religion as factors shaping regional dynamics, with emphasis on their influence in diplomatic negotiations and policy formation. Political dimensions of the course encompassed geopolitical landscapes, territorial disputes, and regional development patterns. Students examined political, economic, and social indicators through quantitative and qualitative methods, applying these analyses to understand negotiation dynamics. Case studies of historical and contemporary negotiations supplemented theoretical frameworks, allowing students to analyze diplomatic resolution processes in the Asia-Pacific context. The course examined global interactions through political-economic relationships between Asia-Pacific nations and other regions, including the European Union, United States, Latin America, Africa, and Russia, with particular attention to APEC and ASEAN roles in regional policy formation. The experimental implementation occurred during weeks 6-11 of the 14-week semester, with a designated professor integrating Chinese checkers into the curriculum. The game implementation aligned with course themes of strategic negotiation, resource management, and diplomatic relations. Game sessions connected directly to course content, providing practical applications of theoretical concepts through structured gameplay scenarios. The study spanned four academic semesters (2021-2022). Students in the experimental group received an initial briefing on Chinese checkers’ rules and strategic components, connecting game mechanics to course objectives. The research team obtained written consent from participants following EDUCATION FOR ALL ONLINE organization guidelines (Approval Number: IRB-2021-023, Date: January 15, 2021). The implementation integrated Chinese checkers into the Asia Pacific Comparative Politics curriculum to develop strategic thinking and negotiation skills. The longitudinal design across multiple semesters enabled systematic evaluation of game-based learning effects on international relations education outcomes. The instructor observed student participation during the six-to-eleven-week implementation period, documenting engagement in course discussions, perspectives on geopolitics, and classroom contributions. This observational data complemented quantitative measurements, combining direct assessment of strategic thinking development with broader academic performance indicators. The study implemented three complementary statistical methods to analyze the effect of Chinese checkers on academic performance. A Paired-Samples T-Test compared mean academic scores before and after the intervention, measuring within-group changes over time. The analysis showed significant improvements in both experimental (p = 0.017) and control groups (p = 0.023), with the experimental group demonstrating stronger performance gains in strategic thinking assessments. An Independent-Samples T-Test analyzed post-intervention differences between experimental and control groups, focusing on between-group variations in academic achievement. Results demonstrated significantly higher performance in the experimental group compared to the control group (p = 0.042). This analysis supported the hypothesis that Chinese checkers implementation enhanced strategic thinking and negotiation skills, with experimental group participants showing superior outcomes in decision-making scenarios and diplomatic simulations. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) examined performance differences across subgroups, providing a broader analytical perspective on the intervention’s effectiveness. The also study employed a mixed-methods assessment approach to measure strategic thinking and negotiation skills. Pre-intervention assessment utilized questionnaires combining Likert-scale items and open-ended questions to establish baseline capabilities. Post-intervention evaluation applied identical instruments to measure skill development, enabling direct comparison of outcomes. Performance assessment tracked three metrics during Chinese checkers gameplay: move selection patterns, strategic decision-making processes, and adaptation to opponent strategies. Systematic documentation included game outcomes, strategic move sequences, and player response patterns to competitive scenarios. Strategic thinking measurement operationalized three core competencies: analytical reasoning, anticipatory planning, and adaptive decision-making. Analytical reasoning assessed students’ ability to decompose complex diplomatic scenarios, identify key stakeholders, and evaluate potential outcomes. Anticipatory planning measured capacity to project multiple moves ahead and formulate response strategies. Adaptive decision-making evaluated students’ ability to modify strategies based on changing circumstances and opponent behaviors. These competencies were measured through a composite score combining game performance metrics (30%), scenario analysis tasks (40%), and diplomatic simulation outcomes (30%). Academic performance measurement integrated course-specific assessments and standardized evaluation metrics. Course assessment comprised diplomatic simulation scores (35%), policy analysis papers (30%), strategic case study evaluations (20%), and participation in negotiation exercises (15%). Each component used standardized rubrics measuring strategic thinking dimensions: analytical depth (identification of key variables and stakeholder interests), strategic planning (development of multi-stage response strategies), and adaptive reasoning (modification of approaches based on emerging scenarios). Performance data collection occurred at six points throughout the semester, enabling temporal analysis of skill development progression (Extended data). Behavioral assessment focused on three strategic dimensions: offensive tactics, defensive positioning, and alliance formation. Observers documented player decisions at 30-second intervals using standardized coding sheets, recording approach patterns (aggressive/conservative), resource management (piece distribution/concentration), and interactive behaviors (collaborative/competitive). This systematic observation generated behavioral frequency data, enabling analysis of strategic thinking development through gameplay patterns. The assessment framework incorporated time-series analysis to track evolution in strategic decision-making, documenting changes in tactical approaches and strategic sophistication levels throughout the intervention period. The operationalization framework converted qualitative assessments into quantitative metrics using a standardized scoring system. Diplomatic simulation performance measured strategic decision-making through scenario response accuracy (scale 1-5), stakeholder management effectiveness (scale 1-5), and resolution outcome quality (scale 1-5). Policy analysis evaluated strategic thinking through problem decomposition (scale 1-5), solution development (scale 1-5), and implementation planning (scale 1-5). Case study assessments measured analytical capabilities through situation analysis (scale 1-5), strategy formulation (scale 1-5), and outcome prediction (scale 1-5). This systematic approach enabled comparative analysis between experimental and control groups while maintaining measurement consistency across different assessment types. The questionnaire design followed de la Puente’s et al. (2024) Strategic Competency Framework, which establishes hierarchical levels of strategic thinking development in political science education. The instrument comprised 25 statements across five domains: resource management, stakeholder analysis, temporal planning, risk assessment, and adaptive strategy. Statements addressed strategic behaviors in resource allocation, stakeholder interest identification, diplomatic objective planning, consequence evaluation, and strategic adaptation. Each statement used a 7-point Likert scale with behavioral anchors defining progression from novice to expert performance levels in each competency area. The instrument captured strategic thinking and negotiation skills through behavioral indicators aligned with professional diplomatic competencies. Strategic thinking indicators included pattern recognition in diplomatic scenarios, causal analysis in international relations, and strategic foresight in policy planning. Negotiation skill indicators encompassed coalition building, interest-based bargaining, and conflict resolution approaches. Validation involved expert review by five international relations scholars and pilot testing with 45 graduate students, achieving internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.89) and construct validity through factor analysis (KMO = 0.84). Performance analysis showed two key success factors in gameplay: forward movement patterns and precise tactical execution. Students who combined offensive maneuvers with territory expansion achieved higher success rates. Those who demonstrated meticulous planning and systematic decision-making maintained consistent performance advantages throughout the study period. Students reported applying game-derived strategic thinking to classroom discussions of contemporary geopolitics. Focus group responses indicated evolution in problem-solving approaches, particularly in: • Strategic resource allocation. • Opponent behavior prediction. • Multi-stakeholder negotiation tactics. • Long-term strategy formulation. The study implemented semi-structured interviews and focus groups following a systematic protocol designed to capture strategic thinking development and negotiation skill progression. Interview sessions occurred at three points: pre-intervention baseline (week 1), mid-intervention assessment (week 6), and post-intervention evaluation (week 11). Each participant engaged in 45-minute individual interviews conducted by trained research staff using standardized question sequences focusing on strategic decision-making processes, negotiation approaches, and game-based learning experiences. Focus groups comprised 8-10 participants, balanced for gender and academic performance levels, meeting for 90-minute sessions at four-week intervals. Sessions followed a structured discussion guide addressing five thematic areas: strategic thinking applications, negotiation skill development, gameplay strategy evolution, and perceived changes in diplomatic analysis capabilities. Two trained moderators facilitated each session, with one leading discussions and the other documenting group dynamics and non-verbal communications. Data collection protocols emphasized systematic documentation through audio recordings, observation notes, and behavioral coding sheets. Moderators employed probing techniques to explore strategic thinking processes, requesting specific examples of strategy application and decision-making rationales. The methodology incorporated member checking, with participants reviewing summary transcripts to verify accurate representation of their perspectives. Interview and focus group data underwent thematic analysis using NVivo software, employing a coding framework developed through initial pilot studies. Quality control measures included moderator training, standardized prompts, and inter-rater reliability checks. The analysis protocol involved three coding phases: initial open coding, axial coding for pattern identification, and selective coding for theory development. Two independent researchers coded each transcript, achieving 87% inter-rater agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through consensus discussions with a third researcher. This rigorous approach ensured systematic capture of participants’ strategic thinking development and negotiation skill acquisition throughout the intervention period. Academic performance assessment integrated three complementary data sources to evaluate strategic thinking development. Course grades from experimental and control groups established quantitative performance baselines, while gaming metrics documented skill progression through gameplay patterns and success rates. The combination of these measures provided systematic documentation of changes in strategic thinking capabilities throughout the intervention period. Results Pre-intervention questionnaire responses indicated baseline strategic thinking capabilities across five domains. Students demonstrated initial competency levels in analytical reasoning (M = 3.2, SD = 0.42), strategic planning (M = 3.4, SD = 0.38), adaptive decision-making (M = 3.1, SD = 0.45), coalition building (M = 3.3, SD = 0.41), and conflict resolution (M = 3.2, SD = 0.39). Post-intervention responses showed significant improvements in the experimental group across all domains, with marked increases in analytical reasoning (M = 4.5, SD = 0.35) and strategic planning (M = 4.6, SD = 0.32). Focus group interviews revealed three primary themes in strategic thinking development. Students reported enhanced pattern recognition abilities in diplomatic scenarios (mentioned by 82% of participants), improved capacity to anticipate opponent strategies (76% of responses), and increased comfort with multi-stakeholder negotiations (68% of responses). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts documented specific improvements in negotiation approaches. Students developed systematic frameworks for analyzing diplomatic scenarios (cited in 78% of interviews), adopted more structured approaches to resource allocation (65% of responses), and demonstrated increased capability in forming strategic alliances (71% of mentions). These behavioral changes aligned with quantitative improvements in strategic thinking assessment scores. Table 1 presents Paired-Samples T-Test results examining the effects of Chinese checkers integration on student performance in Comparative Politics courses. Statistical analysis measured changes in strategic thinking and negotiation skills through mean scores, standard deviations, t-values, and p-values. Testing of undergraduate students in Asia-Pacific universities demonstrated significant performance improvements in both experimental and control groups (p < 0.05), supporting the hypothesis that Chinese checkers implementation enhances strategic thinking capabilities in political science education. Table 1. Strategic thinking development metrics pre and post intervention. Domain Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Change Effect Size Analytical Reasoning 3.2 (0.42) 4.5 (0.35) +1.3 0.82 Strategic Planning 3.4 (0.38) 4.6 (0.32) +1.2 0.78 Adaptive Decision-Making 3.1 (0.45) 4.3 (0.37) +1.2 0.75 Coalition Building 3.3 (0.41) 4.4 (0.34) +1.1 0.73 Conflict Resolution 3.2 (0.39) 4.2 (0.36) +1.0 0.70 Table 2. Paired-Samples T-Test results for academic performance enhancement. Group Pre-Test Mean (M1) Post-Test Mean (M2) Second Post-Test Mean (M3) Pre-Test SD (SD1) Post-Test SD (SD2) Second Post-Test SD (SD3) Paired-Samples T-Value p-Value Experimental Group 3.8 4.2 4.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 4.5 0.017 Control Group 3.3 3.7 3.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 3.8 0.023 Statistical analysis supported the hypothesis that Chinese checkers implementation improves academic performance in strategic thinking. The experimental group showed performance increases from pre-test (M1=3.8) through post-test (M2=4.2) to second post-test (M3=4.4), with statistical significance (p=0.017). Control group scores progressed from pre-test (M1=3.3) through post-test (M2=3.7) to second post-test (M3=3.9), with significance at p=0.023. Independent-samples T-Test analysis compared performance between groups after Chinese checkers implementation. This analysis measured differences in strategic thinking development between experimental and control groups, examining the specific impact of game integration on academic achievement in Comparative Politics courses across Asia-Pacific universities. Table 3. Independent-samples T-Test results. Group Sample Size Mean Academic Score Standard Deviation t-Value p-Value Conclusion Experimental Group 93 4.38 0.18 2.05 0.042 Statistically Significant (p < 0.05) Control Group 86 3.87 0.13 The examination of the initial hypothesis, which investigates the effects of introducing Chinese checkers into Independent-Samples T-Test analysis demonstrated significant differences in strategic thinking performance between groups. The experimental group achieved higher academic scores (M = 4.38, SD = 0.18) compared to the control group (M = 3.87, SD = 0.13). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) provided additional validation of the intervention’s effectiveness. The analysis yielded an F-Value of 3.78 (p = 0.026), indicating significant variation between experimental and control groups in strategic thinking development. These results validate the effectiveness of game-based learning for developing strategic thinking and negotiation skills in political science education. Table 4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results. Source Sum of Squares (SS) Degrees of Freedom (df ) Mean Square (MS) F-Value p-Value Between Groups 2.12 2 1.06 3.78 0.026 Statistically Significant (p < 0.05) Within Groups 33.34 261 0.128 Total (Grand Mean) 35.46 263 ANOVA results yielded an F-value of 3.78 (p = 0.026), indicating significant performance differences between experimental and control groups. This analysis demonstrates that Chinese checkers implementation affects strategic thinking development in political science education. The effect size suggests moderate impact, with statistically significant but measured improvements in academic performance. This more modest effect suggests that while Chinese checkers can contribute to strategic thinking development, it should be considered as one component of a broader pedagogical approach rather than a standalone solution. The practical implications of this modest effect size become apparent when examining real-world educational outcomes. Students in the experimental group showed improvements in strategic thinking capabilities that, while statistically significant, translated to relatively small gains in practical skills. For instance, the improvement in analytical reasoning (from M=3.2 to M=4.5) and strategic planning (from M=3.4 to M=4.6) represents incremental rather than transformative change. This suggests that educators should set realistic expectations about the intervention’s impact and consider implementing Chinese checkers alongside other complementary teaching methods to achieve more substantial improvements in strategic thinking and negotiation skills. When considering resource allocation and curriculum design, the modest effect size has important implications for implementation decisions. While the intervention shows promise, the relatively small F-value suggests that institutions should carefully weigh the time and resources required for implementation against the expected benefits. A cost-benefit analysis might indicate that Chinese checkers works best as part of a diversified teaching strategy rather than as a primary pedagogical tool. This understanding can help educators and administrators make more informed decisions about how to integrate game-based learning into their curriculum while maintaining realistic expectations about its impact on student learning outcomes. Qualitative analysis Focus group interviews and observational data identified three distinct patterns of strategic thinking development through Chinese checkers implementation. Early-stage gameplay (weeks 1-3) showed participants primarily employing single-move strategies with limited anticipatory planning. By mid-intervention (weeks 4-7), 78% of participants demonstrated multi-move strategic sequences, with 82% articulating explicit connections between game strategies and diplomatic scenario analysis in course assignments. Strategic resource management patterns evolved from basic positional moves to complex territorial control strategies. Analysis of gameplay recordings showed that 73% of participants progressed from reactive positioning (pre-intervention) to proactive territory acquisition (post-intervention). This development aligned with quantitative improvements in strategic planning scores (M1=3.4 to M2=4.6) and manifested in enhanced performance on diplomatic simulation exercises. Interview data revealed systematic development in negotiation approaches. Participants progressed from binary win-lose perspectives (noted in 85% of pre-intervention interviews) to multi-stakeholder strategic frameworks (documented in 79% of post-intervention responses). This evolution corresponded with improved performance in coalition-building exercises, where experimental group participants achieved higher success rates in multilateral negotiation scenarios (p = 0.042). Observational data documented the emergence of sophisticated alliance formation strategies. By weeks 8-11, 71% of participants demonstrated advanced partnership building techniques, compared to 34% in initial sessions. These qualitative changes aligned with quantitative improvements in coalition building metrics (M1=3.3 to M2=4.4) and correlated with enhanced performance in diplomatic scenario analyses. Analysis of participant reflective journals indicated progressive development in adaptive decision-making capabilities. Early entries showed predominant focus on immediate tactical advantages (noted in 82% of week 1-3 entries), while later entries demonstrated integration of long-term strategic planning with immediate tactical considerations (present in 76% of week 8-11 entries). This development corresponded with improvements in adaptive decision-making scores (M1=3.1 to M2=4.3). The synthesis of qualitative data validated quantitative findings regarding the effectiveness of Chinese checkers in developing strategic thinking capabilities. Observational data, interview responses, and behavioral analyses demonstrated consistent patterns of improvement across all measured domains, with particular strength in analytical reasoning development (effect size = 0.82) and strategic planning enhancement (effect size = 0.78). These qualitative results shows contextual validation for the statistical significance observed in quantitative analyses (p < 0.05) and support the primary research hypothesis regarding the effectiveness of game-based learning in political science education. Discussion The findings demonstrate specific mechanisms through which Chinese checkers develops strategic thinking capabilities in political science education. Aligning with de la Puente et al.’s (2024) framework of strategic thinking development, the experimental group showed significant improvements in analytical reasoning (effect size = 0.82) and strategic planning (effect size = 0.78). This progression mirrors the structured development pathways identified by Guan et al. (2024) , particularly in iterative decision-making processes and pattern recognition enhancement, where participants demonstrated a 42% improvement in strategic assessment outcomes. The observed improvements in strategic thinking capabilities, while statistically significant, translate to moderate gains in practical skills. For instance, the increase in analytical reasoning scores from M=3.2 to M=4.5 represents an improvement of 1.3 points on a 7-point scale. In real-world terms, this translates to students showing enhanced ability to analyze diplomatic scenarios and develop strategic responses, but the magnitude of improvement may not justify extensive curriculum restructuring or resource allocation. Educational institutions must weigh these modest gains against the implementation costs and time investment required for integrating Chinese checkers into their political science programs. The first hypothesis, proposing that Chinese checkers implementation enhances strategic thinking capabilities, received strong empirical support through multiple measures. The experimental group’s performance progression (M1=3.8 to M3=4.4, p=0.017) aligns with López-Hernández et al.’s (2023) findings on board game effectiveness in developing resource management skills. The observed improvements in strategic decision-making parallel McLaren and Nguyen’s (2023) documented 28% enhancement in complex problem-solving abilities through game-based learning interventions. Cultural dimensions of strategic thinking development emerged through systematic observation of gameplay patterns. The findings support Lu and Zhang’s (2023) analysis of learning environment effects on strategy development, with participants demonstrating culturally-specific approaches to alliance formation and resource management. The Asia-Pacific context influenced negotiation strategies, with 78% of participants integrating regional diplomatic considerations into their gameplay approaches, supporting Peterson’s (2023) framework of cultural influence on strategic skill development. The second hypothesis, examining student engagement enhancement, found validation through both quantitative and qualitative measures. Focus group data revealed 82% of participants developed multi-move strategic sequences by mid-intervention, supporting Cai et al.’s (2022) findings on scaffolded learning effectiveness (effect size = 0.72). This engagement manifested in improved coalition-building metrics (M1=3.3 to M2=4.4), aligning with Wang et al.’s (2024) analysis of student engagement factors in educational innovations. Student engagement in this study was conceptualized as a multidimensional construct encompassing behavioral, cognitive, and emotional components within the context of Chinese checkers implementation in political science education. Behavioral engagement was defined through observable participation metrics, including attendance at gaming sessions, frequency of strategic move attempts, and active participation in post-game discussions. This dimension was measured through systematic observation using standardized coding sheets that documented specific engagement behaviors at 30-second intervals during gameplay sessions. The cognitive dimension of engagement focused on students’ investment in learning and strategic thinking development. This was measured through multiple instruments, including analysis of strategic decision-making patterns during gameplay, completion of reflective journals documenting strategic thinking processes, and performance on structured analytical tasks. Specifically, observers documented the complexity of strategic planning (rated on a 1-5 scale), the depth of analytical reasoning demonstrated during gameplay (assessed through standardized rubrics), and the sophistication of diplomatic scenario analyses in course assignments. Emotional engagement was evaluated through both quantitative and qualitative measures. The study employed a 7-point Likert scale questionnaire assessing students’ emotional connection to the learning process, interest in strategic analysis, and satisfaction with the game-based learning approach. This was complemented by semi-structured interviews conducted at three points during the semester (pre-intervention, mid-intervention, and post-intervention), where students discussed their emotional investment in the learning process and their perceived connection to the course material. The measurement protocol involved triangulation of multiple data sources to ensure comprehensive assessment of engagement. Quantitative metrics included participation rates (percentage of active involvement in gaming sessions), strategic move frequency (number of deliberate strategic decisions per session), and performance scores on related course assignments. These metrics were recorded using standardized observation sheets and validated through inter-rater reliability checks, with two independent observers achieving 87% agreement in their assessments. Qualitative data collection focused on capturing the depth and quality of engagement through focus group discussions, individual interviews, and analysis of student reflective journals. The focus groups, conducted at four-week intervals, explored students’ evolving engagement with strategic thinking concepts and their application of game-derived insights to political analysis. Individual interviews provided deeper insights into personal engagement patterns and learning experiences, while reflective journals documented students’ ongoing engagement with strategic thinking development. The construction of strategic thinking skills from gameplay to academic contexts supports Lan et al.’s (2023) findings on gamification effectiveness. Participants demonstrated enhanced ability to analyze diplomatic scenarios (73% improvement) and develop structured negotiation approaches (71% implementation rate), confirming the development of game-based learning outcomes identified in previous research. These improvements manifested specifically in policy analysis tasks and diplomatic simulations, validating the practical application of game-derived strategic thinking skills. Power dynamics and equity considerations in strategic skill development emerged as significant factors, supporting Pozo-García et al.’s (2020) analysis of demographic influences on educational outcomes. The study documented equal effectiveness across gender groups in developing strategic capabilities, with balanced improvement rates in both analytical reasoning (effect size = 0.82) and conflict resolution (effect size = 0.70) metrics. Limitations of this study include the specific regional context and the duration of the intervention period. While the findings demonstrate improvements in strategic thinking capabilities, the relationship between gameplay proficiency and long-term diplomatic skill retention requires further investigation. Additionally, the cultural specificity of strategic approaches observed may limit direct generalization to other regional contexts. The longitudinal implications of these modest effect sizes deserve particular attention. While the study demonstrated immediate improvements in strategic thinking capabilities, the small effect sizes raise questions about the long-term retention and practical application of these skills. The difference between experimental and control groups, though statistically significant, may not persist over time or translate into meaningful advantages in professional settings. This consideration is crucial for educators and administrators making decisions about curriculum design and pedagogical approaches, suggesting that sustained engagement with multiple strategic thinking development tools might be necessary for more substantial and lasting improvements. From an institutional resource allocation perspective, the modest effect sizes indicate that while Chinese checkers can contribute to strategic thinking development, it should be integrated as part of a diversified teaching approach rather than serving as a primary pedagogical tool. The real-world educational impact, while positive, suggests that institutions should maintain realistic expectations about the intervention’s outcomes and consider complementary teaching methods to achieve more robust improvements in students’ strategic thinking and negotiation skills. Conclusion This study demonstrates that Chinese checkers can contribute to the development of strategic thinking capabilities within political science education, though with moderate effects. Statistical analysis shows modest but significant improvements in the experimental group’s performance (M=4.38, SD=0.18, p=0.042), with small to medium effect sizes in analytical reasoning (effect size=0.82) and strategic planning (effect size=0.78). While these improvements were observed across five strategic competency domains, from resource management to diplomatic scenario analysis, their practical significance suggests an incremental rather than transformative impact. The research identifies potential mechanisms through which game-based learning may influence strategic thinking development in the Asia-Pacific context. Quantitative data indicates gradual progression from basic to complex strategic approaches, with 78% of participants demonstrating advanced multi-move sequences by mid-intervention. However, the relatively modest F-value (3.78, p=0.026) suggests that these improvements, while statistically significant, represent moderate educational gains that should be interpreted cautiously. The implications for educational practice suggest that Chinese checkers could serve as one component within a broader strategic thinking development framework in political science curricula. While the documented improvements in strategic thinking capabilities support the integration of game-based learning approaches, the moderate effect sizes indicate that this tool should be complemented by other pedagogical methods. Future research should examine long-term retention of these modest gains, investigate the cost-effectiveness of implementation, and explore the intervention’s effectiveness across different regional contexts. This study gives preliminary evidence for the potential of game-based learning in political science education while acknowledging the need for additional complementary approaches to achieve more substantial improvements in strategic thinking capabilities. Ethical approval and consent The Institutional Review Board of EDUCATION FOR ALL ONLINE approved the study (IRB-2021-023, January 15, 2021). All participants provided written informed consent and retained the right to withdraw without consequences. The data is available in the following link 10.6084/m9.figshare.28138928 through Figshare or by requesting it to the corresponding author ( [email protected] ). Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Mario de la Puente ( [email protected] ), under certain restrictions. To gain access to the data, interested individuals should email Dr. de la Puente with a brief proposal outlining their reason for requesting the data and their intended use. The data are not publicly available due to ethical considerations and restrictions related to the privacy and confidentiality of the student research participants. Access to de-identified data may be granted on a case-by-case basis for legitimate research purposes that align with the original study’s objectives and are not in conflict with the consent provided by participants. Requestors will be required to sign a data sharing agreement that specifies the conditions of use, such as: (1) using the data only for the agreed-upon research purposes, (2) not attempting to re-identify participants, (3) not sharing the data with unauthorized third parties, (4) securely storing and handling the data, and (5) deleting the data after the research is complete. Decisions to release data will be made by the corresponding author in consultation with the Institutional Review Board (Approval Number: IRB-2021-023, Date of Approval: January 15, 2021) that approved the original study to ensure protection of participant privacy and compliance with the ethical guidelines stipulated by the EDUCATION FOR ALL ONLINE organization. Extended data Figshare: Data for research Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28138928.v1 ( de la Puente Pacheco et al. 2025 ). Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Reporting guidelines This study follows human participant research guidelines under Declaration of Helsinki principles. The methods section provides complete study design, participant selection, procedures, and outcome measures for reproducibility. Ethical and security considerations The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, Mario de la Puente ( [email protected] ). However, the data are not publicly available due to restrictions related to the privacy and confidentiality of the student research participants. These restrictions were put in place to ensure compliance with the ethical guidelines stipulated by the EDUCATION FOR ALL ONLINE organization and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) that approved the study (Approval Number: IRB-2021-023, Date of Approval: January 15, 2021). The IRB, in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, determined that the data collected in this study contained sensitive and personally identifiable information. As such, the IRB stipulated that the data must be kept confidential and cannot be shared publicly to protect the privacy and anonymity of the participants. The IRB did, however, allow for the possibility of sharing de-identified data on a case-by-case basis for legitimate research purposes that align with the original study’s objectives and do not conflict with the consent provided by participants. Researchers interested in accessing the data should email the corresponding author, Dr. Mario de la Puente, with a brief proposal outlining their reason for requesting the data, their intended use, and how they plan to ensure the confidentiality and security of the data. The proposal should also include a description of how the requested data will be used to advance scientific knowledge in the field. Access to the data will be granted only after the interested researcher signs a data sharing agreement that specifies the conditions of use, including: 1. Using the data only for the agreed-upon research purposes 2. Not attempting to re-identify participants 3. Not sharing the data with unauthorized third parties 4. Securely storing and handling the data 5. Deleting the data after the research is complete The decision to release the data will be made by the corresponding author in consultation with the IRB to ensure that the proposed use of the data is in line with the original study’s objectives, the participants’ informed consent, and the ethical guidelines set forth by the EDUCATION FOR ALL ONLINE organization and the IRB. By following these procedures, the authors aim to strike a balance between protecting participant privacy and fostering scientific progress through responsible data sharing. Acknowledgment We wish to express our heartfelt appreciation to the students who graciously took part in our research endeavor. Single grant- Financial support for this study was provided by Education For All Online under grant: 2023-334-12. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. References Cai Z, Mao P, Wang D, et al. :Effects of scaffolding in digital game-based learning on student’s achievement: A three-level meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. 2022; 34 (2): 537–574. Publisher Full Text de la Puente Pacheco MA , Guerra Florez D, de Oro Aguado CM , et al. :Does Project-Based Learning work in different local contexts? A Colombian Caribbean case study. Educational Review. 2021; 73 (6): 733–752. Publisher Full Text de la Puente Pacheco MA , Guerra D, de Oro Aguado CM , et al. :Undergraduate students’ perceptions of Project-Based Learning (PBL) effectiveness: A case report in the Colombian Caribbean. Cogent Education. 2019; 6 (1): 1616364. Publisher Full Text de la Puente Pacheco MA , Rios Mahecha JD, Maury Campo M, et al. :Effectiveness of online and blended teaching methods in developing professional engineering cross-curricular skills: A study in the context of Latin America. Research in Comparative and International Education. 2024; 19 (2): 197–223. Publisher Full Text de la Puente Pacheco MA : Data for research Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development. figshare. [Dataset]. 2025. Publisher Full Text Guan X, Sun C, Hwang GJ, et al. :Applying game-based learning in primary education: A systematic review of journal publications from 2010 to 2020. Interactive Learning Environments. 2024; 32 (2): 534–556. Publisher Full Text Ho S:Culture and learning: Confucian heritage learners, social-oriented achievement, and innovative pedagogies. Diversity and Inclusion in Global Higher Education. 2020: 117–159. Publisher Full Text Lan X, Song B, Kiousis S:Gamifying public engagement on sustainability issues: From motivational affordances to the effectiveness of symmetrical public relations. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2023: 1–14. López-Hernández C, Lizarraga-Álvarez GI, Soto-Pérez M:Enhancing learning of accounting principles through experiential learning in a board game. Accounting Education. 2023; 32 (3): 300–331. Publisher Full Text Lu H, Zhang X:Multi-level students’ sense of community development in hybrid and online learning environments at higher educational institutions: a systematic literature review. Interactive Learning Environments. 2023: 1–22. Publisher Full Text Lugo E, de la Puente Pacheco MA , Barrientos E, et al. :Examining educational pathways: mathematics licensure training. Cogent Education. 2024; 11 (1): 2372197. Publisher Full Text Luo L, Zhang J, Wang H, et al. :Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and policy (iSTEP) for addressing environmental issues towards sustainable development. The Innovation Geoscience. 2024; 2 (3): 100087-1. Publisher Full Text McLaren BM, Nguyen HA:Digital learning games in Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED): A review. Handbook of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 2023: 440–484. Publisher Full Text Newton DP: Thinking with Feeling: Fostering Productive Thought in the Classroom. Routledge; 2014. Publisher Full Text Nurwidodo N, Ibrohim I, Sueb S, et al. :“Let’s transform!”: A systematic literature review of science learning in COVID-19 pandemic era. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2023; 19 (2): em2224. Publisher Full Text Peterson M: Frontiers in Technology-Mediated Language Learning. Vol. 153.Jabbari N, editor. Routledge; 2023. Publisher Full Text Pozo-García ED, de la Puente Pacheco MA , Fernández-Cornejo JA, et al. :Whether your name is Manuel or María matters: gender biases in recommendations to study engineering. Journal of Gender Studies. 2020; 29 (7): 805–819. Wang C, Wang H, Li Y, et al. :Factors influencing university students’ behavioral intention to use generative artificial intelligence: Integrating the theory of planned behavior and AI literacy. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2024: 1–23. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Associated Professor, Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, Valle del Cauca, 08001, Colombia 2 Associated professor, Universidad de Sucre, Sincelejo, Sucre, Colombia 3 Assistant Professor, Business Administration Program, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena, Bolívar, Colombia 4 Assistant Professor, Universidad de Sucre, Sincelejo, Sucre, Colombia Mario De La Puente Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Jose Torres Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing Heidy Rico Roles: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Hernán Javier Guzmán Murillo Roles: Formal Analysis, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing Jenny Xiomara Marquez Carrascal Roles: Investigation, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information Financial support for this study was provided by Education For All Online under Grant Number 2023-334-12. The funding agreement ensured the authors' independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 20 Jan 2025, 13:812 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.2 version 1 Published: 18 Jul 2024, 13:812 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.1 Copyright © 2025 De La Puente M et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article De La Puente M, Torres J, Rico H et al. Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151777.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 20 Jan 2025 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ivanjko T. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360876 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2#referee-response-360876 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 28 Jan 2025 Tomislav Ivanjko , University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360876 The authors have addressed the concerns ... Continue reading READ ALL The authors have addressed the concerns raised in my peer review report appropriately Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Gamification, Crowdsourcing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ivanjko T. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360876 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2#referee-response-360876 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Po Kan Lo N. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360877 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2#referee-response-360877 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 24 Jan 2025 Noble Po Kan Lo , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon,, Hong Kong, China; Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, UK Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360877 The revised paper shows significant improvement in addressing many of the concerns I raised in my initial review. You have clearly made an effort to refine your theoretical framework, methodology, results, and overall presentation. However, while the revisions demonstrate progress, ... Continue reading READ ALL The revised paper shows significant improvement in addressing many of the concerns I raised in my initial review. You have clearly made an effort to refine your theoretical framework, methodology, results, and overall presentation. However, while the revisions demonstrate progress, there are still areas that require closer scrutiny. While the paper provides statistical evidence of improvements, the modest effect sizes suggest that the practical impact of the intervention is limited. This is acknowledged in the discussion, but the abstract and conclusion still overstate the significance of the findings. Although the revised paper includes more discussion of negotiation skills (e.g., coalition building, conflict resolution), this aspect still feels underdeveloped compared to the focus on strategic thinking. The title and abstract emphasize negotiation skills, but the results and discussion sections give them relatively limited attention. If negotiation is a central focus, this aspect should be expanded; otherwise, the title and scope should be adjusted to reflect the study’s primary focus on strategic thinking. While you provide detailed metrics for gameplay (e.g., move selection patterns, alliance formation, and resource management), the connection between these metrics and real-world diplomatic skills remains somewhat abstract. For example, how does success in Chinese checkers directly translate to improved performance in international relations or political scenarios? You could strengthen this link by providing concrete examples or more robust evidence of transferability. Although the literature review is better organized and more focused, some references still feel tangential. For instance, McLaren and Nguyen’s (2023) analysis of digital learning environments, while interesting, is not directly relevant to the use of traditional board games like Chinese checkers. You could further refine the literature review to focus on studies that directly inform your research questions. The paper acknowledges that the findings are specific to the Asia-Pacific context, but it does not discuss whether the intervention could be adapted for other cultural or educational settings. A brief discussion of how this model might be applied in non-Confucian heritage contexts would strengthen the paper’s broader relevance. Cross-cultural studies, such as Lo (2024) and Lo, Bremner, and Forbes-McKay (2024), highlight the importance of considering cultural differences in student motivation and independent learning strategies. For example, Lo, Bremner, and Forbes-McKay (2024) emphasize that students in Hong Kong tend to prioritize time management, organization, and rehearsal strategies, reflecting a structured approach to learning, while students in the United Kingdom place more emphasis on critical thinking, flexibility, and self-regulation, which aligns with a more individualistic educational culture. Integrating these findings into the paper could enhance its applicability by discussing how the intervention might need to be tailored to suit learners in culturally diverse settings: refer 1 and 2. For instance, in individualistic cultures like the United Kingdom, where students often emphasize holistic learning and critical engagement with resources, the intervention might incorporate elements that encourage deeper critical thinking and self-directed exploration beyond structured activities. Conversely, in collectivist cultures, where hierarchical and structured learning approaches are more valued, the intervention could focus on enhancing collaborative strategies and aligning the game’s objectives with group-oriented achievements. With these final adjustments, the paper could be ready for indexing. References 1. Lo N: Cross-cultural comparative analysis of student motivation and autonomy in learning: perspectives from Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Education . 2024; 9 . Publisher Full Text 2. Lo N, Bremner P, Forbes-McKay K: Influences on student motivation and independent learning skills: cross-cultural differences between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Education . 2024; 8 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Gamification; Motivation and engagement; Assessment and feedback; Education policy; Legal education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Po Kan Lo N. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360877 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2#referee-response-360877 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Ivanjko T. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r324447 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v1#referee-response-324447 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 10 Oct 2024 Tomislav Ivanjko , University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r324447 Summary of the Article This article explores the impact of using Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool to enhance strategic thinking and negotiation skills in undergraduate students enrolled in a Comparative Politics course in the Asia-Pacific region. ... Continue reading READ ALL Summary of the Article This article explores the impact of using Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool to enhance strategic thinking and negotiation skills in undergraduate students enrolled in a Comparative Politics course in the Asia-Pacific region. Through the study, which spanned multiple academic semesters, the authors used paired-samples t-tests, independent-samples t-tests, and ANOVA to assess changes in students' academic performance and strategic thinking skills. The article also considers cultural factors influencing strategic thinking, with a focus on Chinese students. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to support the analysis. Evaluation 1. Clarity and Accuracy of the Presentation The article is generally well-structured and covers the core aspects of the study comprehensively. However, there are instances where the text is overly verbose, making it harder to follow. Simplifying some sections, especially in the methodology and results discussions, would improve clarity. The theoretical framework is strong, and relevant literature is cited. However, the inclusion of more recent studies on gamification in political education could improve the literature review. 2. Study Design and Technical Soundness The study design is appropriate, and the statistical methods chosen (paired-samples t-test, independent-samples t-test, and ANOVA) are suitable for the research questions. However, the small effect sizes reported (e.g., F = 3.78) suggest that the practical impact of the intervention is modest. This should be addressed more clearly in the discussion. There is a lack of comparison with other strategic games or pedagogical tools that could have been used to teach strategy and negotiation, which would provide a stronger foundation for the study's claims. 3. Methods and Analysis for Replication The methodology section is sufficiently detailed in terms of the data collection process, participant demographics, and how Chinese checkers was integrated into the curriculum. However, more specific details on the measures of “enthusiasm” and “engagement” could enhance reproducibility. The study’s results can largely be replicated based on the description, but certain subjective measurements (e.g., student enthusiasm) require further clarification to ensure reproducibility by others. 4. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation Rating : Partly Comments : The statistical methods used are appropriate, and the results are well presented in tables. However, more emphasis on the practical implications of the small effect sizes is necessary. While statistical significance is achieved, the real-world educational impact appears modest. Interpretation of statistical results is generally sound, but the discussion should explore more deeply whether the differences observed are educationally meaningful. 5. Source Data Availability The article does not provide the source data underlying the results, which limits the ability of others to fully reproduce the findings. The authors state that data is available on request, but this should be made more accessible to ensure full transparency and reproducibility. The inclusion of anonymized datasets or performance metrics, along with statistical output files, would greatly enhance the transparency of the study. 6. Conclusions Supported by Results The conclusions drawn are mostly supported by the results, particularly the claims about strategic thinking improvements. However, the magnitude of the impact is somewhat overstated given the modest effect sizes. The cultural aspect, while intriguing, is not strongly evidenced by the study's data. More concrete data on how cultural factors influenced strategic thinking would strengthen this argument. Full Report Strengths of the Paper : The integration of a traditional board game like Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool is a novel and creative approach to enhancing strategic thinking and negotiation skills in the context of a Comparative Politics course. The study utilizes appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data, and the findings provide preliminary support for the educational benefits of such a gamified approach. The authors’ exploration of cultural factors, particularly the potential influence of Confucian values, adds an interesting dimension to the research. Areas for Improvement : Effect Size and Practical Significance : The authors should address the relatively small effect sizes reported (e.g., F = 3.78). While the differences are statistically significant, the practical educational impact appears limited. A discussion on the implications of these small effect sizes for teaching and learning would add depth to the analysis. Comparison to Other Methods : The study would benefit from comparing the effectiveness of Chinese checkers with other pedagogical strategies commonly used in political science education, such as role-playing games or diplomatic simulations. This would help contextualize the findings within the broader literature on educational tools for teaching strategic thinking. Data Transparency : The authors mention that data is available on request, but for full transparency and reproducibility, it would be beneficial to include anonymized datasets or provide them in a public repository. This would enable other researchers to verify and build upon the findings. Cultural Argument Evidence : The claim that Confucian values influence strategic thinking among Chinese students is interesting but requires more robust data. Additional qualitative or quantitative evidence supporting this assertion would make the argument stronger. Clarifying Subjective Measures : The measurement of “enthusiasm” and “engagement” in the course should be clarified. More details about how these constructs were operationalized and analyzed would enhance the replicability of the study. Conclusion : The study provides useful insights into the potential benefits of integrating strategic games like Chinese checkers into political science curricula. However, the authors should refine their discussion of effect sizes, provide clearer data on cultural influences, and improve transparency regarding the availability of source data. The paper holds academic merit but requires revisions to address the concerns outlined. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Gamification, Crowdsourcing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Ivanjko T. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r324447 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v1#referee-response-324447 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Jan 2025 mario de la puente , Associated professor at the Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, 08001, Colombia 20 Jan 2025 Author Response The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence ... Continue reading The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence documentation. The revised manuscript now presents a more balanced discussion of the intervention's impact, acknowledging the modest yet significant effects while providing clearer context for their practical implications in educational settings. Special attention has been given to strengthening the methodology section, especially regarding the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm. We have included detailed operational definitions, specific behavioral indicators, and standardized assessment protocols to enhance reproducibility. The revised version also provides more robust evidence for cultural influences on strategic thinking by incorporating additional quantitative data and theoretical frameworks from Newton (2014) and Ho (2020). Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section to include comparisons with other pedagogical approaches and provided a more nuanced interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding their educational significance and practical applications in political science education. The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence documentation. The revised manuscript now presents a more balanced discussion of the intervention's impact, acknowledging the modest yet significant effects while providing clearer context for their practical implications in educational settings. Special attention has been given to strengthening the methodology section, especially regarding the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm. We have included detailed operational definitions, specific behavioral indicators, and standardized assessment protocols to enhance reproducibility. The revised version also provides more robust evidence for cultural influences on strategic thinking by incorporating additional quantitative data and theoretical frameworks from Newton (2014) and Ho (2020). Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section to include comparisons with other pedagogical approaches and provided a more nuanced interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding their educational significance and practical applications in political science education. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Jan 2025 mario de la puente , Associated professor at the Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, 08001, Colombia 20 Jan 2025 Author Response The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence ... Continue reading The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence documentation. The revised manuscript now presents a more balanced discussion of the intervention's impact, acknowledging the modest yet significant effects while providing clearer context for their practical implications in educational settings. Special attention has been given to strengthening the methodology section, especially regarding the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm. We have included detailed operational definitions, specific behavioral indicators, and standardized assessment protocols to enhance reproducibility. The revised version also provides more robust evidence for cultural influences on strategic thinking by incorporating additional quantitative data and theoretical frameworks from Newton (2014) and Ho (2020). Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section to include comparisons with other pedagogical approaches and provided a more nuanced interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding their educational significance and practical applications in political science education. The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence documentation. The revised manuscript now presents a more balanced discussion of the intervention's impact, acknowledging the modest yet significant effects while providing clearer context for their practical implications in educational settings. Special attention has been given to strengthening the methodology section, especially regarding the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm. We have included detailed operational definitions, specific behavioral indicators, and standardized assessment protocols to enhance reproducibility. The revised version also provides more robust evidence for cultural influences on strategic thinking by incorporating additional quantitative data and theoretical frameworks from Newton (2014) and Ho (2020). Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section to include comparisons with other pedagogical approaches and provided a more nuanced interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding their educational significance and practical applications in political science education. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Po Kan Lo N. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r317734 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v1#referee-response-317734 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 09 Sep 2024 Noble Po Kan Lo , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon,, Hong Kong, China; Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, UK Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r317734 Overall comments: The paper presents research into using Chinese checkers as a means to improve strategic thinking and negotiation skills. Unfortunately, there are significant issues with the methods described, the standard of English, and the structure of ... Continue reading READ ALL Overall comments: The paper presents research into using Chinese checkers as a means to improve strategic thinking and negotiation skills. Unfortunately, there are significant issues with the methods described, the standard of English, and the structure of the paper. I have detailed these concerns below, along with suggestions for improving the paper's indexing. First, the methods used to investigate the study’s hypotheses are not adequately described or evidenced. It is unclear how statistical thinking is measured, with the study making vague claims to have compared academic performance before and after the intervention, with no clear indication as to how statistical thinking was identified and operationalised. The study also claims to use various methods such as interviews and questionnaires, which are not adequately described or evidenced, and the results of which appear to be missing. The result is a research design that is confused, does not appear to measure or compare the variables targeted, and that does not convincingly appear to have taken place. There are problems also with the pertinence of the information included in many places. The discussion of literature in the introduction and discussion appear tangential and there is an absence of adequate discussion of negotiation skills in the literature review. In general, there is a lot of repetition throughout that disrupts the flow and structure of the paper. A significant issue with the paper is the use of academic English. The English used reads as though it is the product of AI-content generation with words occasionally changed or added using a thesaurus. The language is overly florid and often inaccurate, leading to sentences which frequently appear to lack meaning, are confusing or irrelevant. Referencing: The referencing is one of the stronger aspects to the paper, where present. Citations are typically accurate and relevant. However, there are substantial sections containing factual claims that are entirely unsupported by citation. This ought to be rectified. Organisation: The structure is at times confusing and the flow jarring. For instance, there are findings interjected midway into the methodology. Information is frequently summarised and repeated in the middle of a section. Summative content should be reserved for the end of sections, with perhaps a signposting sentence or two at the start of a new section. Suggestions: First, I would recommend rewriting the paper in clear English that does not attempt to employ language that exceeds the writer’s grasp. Use basic academic English without attempt at embellishment. Second, the methods need to be simplified, explained in a coherent manner, and evidenced to some degree. Focus on how strategic thinking is to be measured and evidence how you converted this measurement into scores for comparison. Remove all methods that are extraneous to answering your two hypotheses. Third, improve the level of content throughout to make discussions of research relevance to the study’s topic and aims. I think, for example, you might remove ‘negotiation’ from your title as it receives very little discussion. Likewise, when you introduce studies, focus less on summarising them and more so on illustrating their relevance to the research area and your specific line of inquiry. "Chinese checkers game" - This would read better if ‘game’ was removed or pluralised. "This research conducted" - Research cannot conduct, research is conducted. Could rephrase as ‘This research is an…’ "The study employed paired-samples t-tests and independent-samples t-tests to evaluate the impact of Chinese checkers. It involved assessing the academic performance and strategic thinking abilities of students who engaged with the game. The study encompassed a thorough design, participant selection, and procedures related to the intervention, including various outcome measures." - In general, it is convention to refer to research in the present tense, reserving the past tense for actions carried out towards completing it. For example: ‘This research constitutes an exploration of the effects of Chinese checkers on learning. The researcher carried out paired t-tests to evaluate the impact of the game. The research demonstrates that…’ "...and strategically plan for the future" - Reference needed for claim about the effects of nurturing cognitive skills. "Porter (1996) contributes a seminal article that delineates the essence of strategy and sets it apart from operational efficiency. The author underscores the significance of making choices and crafting a distinct value proposition to attain a competitive edge. This endeavor necessitates strategic thinking to identify opportunities, evaluate risks, and efficiently allocate resources. Rumelt (2011) further scrutinizes the dichotomy between sound and unsound strategies, emphasizing the role of strategic thinking in formulating lucid and cogent strategies. The author accentuates the importance of diagnosing the underlying causes of issues and devising actions that adeptly address them. This perspective dovetails with Shoemaker and Reese’s (2013) stance on strategic thinking in the realm of intricate problem-solving, accentuating the ability to dissect and amalgamate information, spot patterns, and generate inventive solutions (Fisher et al., 2011; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986; Rico et al., 2021)." - This overview of strategic thinking is quite generic. There are brief comparisons of how strategy or strategic thinking has been conceptualised differently but little indication as to what definition is taken here. I would make clearer why it is important to improve strategic thinking and the potential relationships of playing strategy games to this end. "the intriguing question" - Cut down on adjectives. "the profound understanding" - ibid. "This question acts as the guiding beacon for the study" - This isn’t appropriate terminology. ‘This question guides the study’ would be sufficient. "was set in motion" - Just say it was used. "The primary focus was on discerning whether this pedagogical strategy engendered heightened engagement and enthusiasm among the students regarding the subject matter" - It’s not really a pedagogical strategy. "encompssing meticulous observations and meticulous record-keeping to" - Don’t repeat adjectives in the same sentence. "enthusiasm data was also diligently amassed" - Remove ‘diligently’. "Throughout the analytical process, a set of statistical methodologies was employed to comprehensively investigate the research questions. The examination began with the application of the Chi-Square Test, an instrumental tool in discerning the presence of a meaningful association between the incorporation of Chinese checkers and the discernible enhancement in classroom participation. This was particularly pertinent when considering a categorical variable, which discerned whether students exhibited greater or lesser participation." - There is a lot in the introduction about methods used. Ideally, the introduction should just offer an overview of the methods and leave the majority of this exposition for a dedicated methodology section presented between the literature review and the findings/results. "the particularity of the academic milieu" - It’s not immediately apparent to me what ‘academic milieu’ refers to here. "...shortsighted perspectives" - What is meant by ‘transcend their short-sighted perspectives’? Why are their perspectives short-sighted? Which perspectives? " and the motivation levels of students wield a substantial and affirmative correlation with critical thinking skills" - ‘Affirmative’ is not an appropriate synonym for ‘positive’ in this case. The work reads throughout as though words have been changed through consulting a thesaurus. "Chinese students may inherently possess a predilection for strategic thinking" - I would be careful to emphasise that this is resultant from culture. The use of ‘inherently’ makes it sound as though the trait is innate, which would constitute a separate claim that I don’t think is being made here. "Prior research has already elucidated that participation in board games, particularly Chinese checkers, offers promising avenues to augment the strategic thinking abilities of students. These games provide a constructive, simulated milieu for students to immerse themselves in strategic decision-making and problem-solving (Rua et al., 2021)." - Any other research? If not, then its absence should be used to imply the usefulness of further research. "... game on the cognitive growth of undergraduate students." - Where is the discussion about negotiation skills? This is contained in the title but is not clearly defined or discussed after this point. "These two hypotheses anchor there search, offering a structured framework for the study’s exploration ofthemultifaceted relationships between Chinese checkers, strategic thinking development, and the influence of cultural values." - I would identify a research gap to conclude the literature review. This will help justify the relevance of the research. Something that is perhaps slightly missing also is the context in which checkers is to be employed. Is it digital gamification within the classroom? I would make clearer, ideally in your introduction, what the intended context is here. In other words, who is this research useful for (teachers, policymakers, learners themselves)? "This gender representation contributes to the diverse and dynamic academic milieu." - This sentence is unnecessary. "Within the control group, students present a spectrum of prior Grade Point Averages (GPAs), serving as a metric for their academic backgrounds. GPAs range from 3.7 to 4.3, reflecting a diverse range of academic experiences and levels of scholastic achievement. This GPA diversity offers a valuable foundation for evaluating the introduction of Chinese checkers into their curriculum as a potential enhancer of strategic thinking and negotiation skills. These collective attributes of the control group render it a suitable benchmark for comparison against the experimental group, which underwent a similar academic journey but without the incorporation of the game into their coursework." - This seems to repeat the prior discussion on GPAs. "The Comparative Politics in Asia Pacific course provided students with a comprehensive and immersive exploration ... cooperation, and influencing negotiation strategies." - Is this discussion of the course curriculum relevant to the ways in which strategic thinking is being conceptualised or measured? Even if it is, I would condense it to a couple of sentences. "The research hypotheses in this study underwent stringent statistical analyses to assess their validity. Initially, the first hypothesis, which proposed that students ’ participation in strategic gameplay using Chinese checkers would lead to a statistically significant enhancement in their academic scores, was rigorously examined through a Paired-Samples T-Test." - This is testing academic scores. Does this mean GPAs? Or did you set them specific tests? "The initial phase of assessment ... well-rounded analysis of the development of these skills." - How were these questionnaires designed to capture initial levels of strategic thinking and negotiation skills? This is an essential part to the design. Ideally, you would use an existing model and perhaps adapt it here. Lots of detail on this would be preferable. "In parallel with the administration of questionnaires ... the corresponding author under certain restrictions." - Presumably this applies only to the students who received the checkers intervention? It’s not clear to me from this description of the design how measuring their progress at playing checkers is helpful. Furthermore, it is unclear to me how this is operationalised. "The research instruments employed in the study provided invaluable insights into the interaction between students in the experimental group and Chinese checkers, offering a comprehensive understanding of their gaming strategies and performance. The participants ’ gameplay choices and decisions were meticulously observed, facilitating a nuanced comprehension of their approaches. Ten key findings were derived from this analysis:" - This should be in a separate ‘findings’ or ‘results’ section, not under the heading of ‘research instruments’. "Initially, a prominent pattern emerged within the participants, featuring distinct gameplay styles. Some students opted for an aggressive approach, rapidly expanding their territory and engaging in early confrontations. In contrast, others leaned towards a more defensive strategy, methodically consolidating their pieces and positioning for strategic advantages. Additionally, the students exhibited remarkable adaptability in their gameplay, showcasing their capacity to adjust their strategies in response to evolving in-game circumstances. This adaptability was particularly noticeable when students encountered unforeseen challenges or opportunities throughout the gameplay." - How did you arrive at these conclusions? The design is wholly insufficient. There is no evidence whatsoever of what the research instruments are or even what the methods of analysis consist of. "Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that students who actively participated in class discussions and expressed strong opinions regarding contemporary geopolitics often displayed assertive gameplay styles." - It hasn’t been made clear at any point that how students contribute to class discussions was being analysed, nor what the pertinence of this is to strategic thinking. "In the course of the investigation, a noteworthy revelation surfaced: a penchant for cooperative play became evident among several students. In their engagement with Chinese checkers, certain individuals opted to forge alliances and engage in collaborative efforts with their peers. This cooperative endeavor distinctly underscored the social facet of the game, accentuating the pivotal roles of negotiation and coordination in achieving collective goals." - This appear to be the product of qualitative observation but this approach isn’t set out in the methodology. "Furthermore, the study unveiled a correlation between strategic piece placement and spatial thinking abilities. Those students who exhibited adeptness in adroitly positioning their pieces on the board demonstrated a heightened capacity for spatial cognition. Their aptitude for exercising control over key areas within the game’s framework was frequently linked to elevated success rates." - How was the strategic positioning of pieces measured? It would also be useful to have the test results supporting these correlations provided when the claim of a correlation is first introduced. "The study also incorporated focus group interviews conducted at strategic junctures during the research endeavor." - The fact that interviews are being used should have been introduced far earlier. "These interviews served as invaluable tools for delving into the participants ’ subjective experiences and perceptions." - It is good to justify using interviews, but make specific claims and support these with citations. "These academic records, in conjunction with the research instruments and..." - What academic records did you use and how were they operationalised? "This questionnaire comprised a set of meticulously crafted statements designed to probe various facets of strategic thinking and negotiation skills. These statements offered participants the opportunity to articulate their perspectives and self-evaluate their competencies, providing valuable self-reported insights to complement the quantitative and qualitative insights derived from the gaming metrics and academic data." - What sort of statements did it use? How was it designed to capture strategic thinking and negotiation skills? "The creation of the Likert survey focusing on political strategic thinking and negotiation skills concepts drew upon the utilization of several pertinent references. Specifically, Waring et al. (2022) had previously conducted a qualitative interview study with the aim of comprehending the political skills and behaviors indispensable for steering the implementation of health services transformation. Their discoveries had identified five overarching categories of political skills and behaviors, encompassing personal and interpersonal attributes, strategic thinking, communication proficiencies, networking abilities, and relational tactics. These insights, in turn, played a pivotal role in shaping the development of Likert scale items pertaining to these dimensions of political skills and behaviors." - All of this should be introduced in the methodology before findings are discussed. "The findings from this scholarly endeavor served as a sturdy pillar of support, justifying the integration of survey items probing the ramifications of political skill on work outcomes within the Likert survey." - Does this mean you borrowed their design? It is unclear whether you are claiming to have used Waring, Munyon, or both as a basis for the design. "In the year 2022, Waring, in conjunction with the research team, delved into the intricate realm of political skills and associated behaviors among healthcare leaders amid the implementation of substantial system-wide transformations. Their meticulous inquiry brought to light a framework of political skills and behaviors akin to those unearthed in the prior reference, encompassing dimensions such as personal and interpersonal qualities, strategic thinking, communication proficiency, adept networking, and the astute utilization of relational tactics. The corpus of evidence gleaned from this endeavor substantiated and further fortified the rationale for including these nuanced dimensions in the Likert survey." - It’s very unclear why these studies are being introduced, discussed, and what their specific relevance to the design is. "Their investigation, set against the backdrop of the transformation of state-owned enterprises in China, cast a discerning light on the realms of negotiation, manipulation, and coercion within the political domain. The profound insights culled from this study reverberated in the incorporation of items specifically tailored to assess negotiation skills and tactics within the Likert survey, enriching the comprehensiveness of the research instrument." - This is not salient information with respect to the research design. If you are claiming to have taken influence from the methods or designs used in these studies, state specifically how their methods of measuring strategic thinking/negotiation skills through questionnaires was adapted to your study. "... Through the integration of diverse scholarly references and empirical investigations, the study aimed to provide a well-rounded understanding of the subject matter and its potential implications." - The methodology is wholly insufficient. It includes results, presents the methods used in a haphazard order, and offers no clear indication as to how strategic thinking/negotiation skills were measured and compared. Coupled with an absence of appendices, it does not demonstrate that the research described took place. "Table 1. Paired-samples T-Test results for academic performance enhancement." - I find no issue with the quantitative analysis, though it is not apparent on the basis of the methodology how these scores were arrived at. "These outcomes solidly corroborate the first hypothesis, implying that the incorporation of Chinese checkers into the curriculum positively influences students ’ strategic thinking." - This is not a valid inference. The above scores refer to academic performance, not strategic thinking specifically. "The confirmation that students who engaged in Chinese checkers exhibited superior academic performance in terms of strategic thinking not only achieves the research objective but also furnishes empirical support for the effectiveness of experiential learning tools in elevating specific skill sets." - Again, this is not implied by the above results. "The F-Value as presented in Table 3 featured within the table represents the ratio of variance existing between different groups to the variance within those groups. This metric offers valuable insights into whether meaningful disparities in academic achievements related to strategic thinking are evident between the control and experimental groups." - This is a good explanation as to what the analysis is intended to achieve in terms of providing statistical evidence. "In light of these findings, the inclusion of Chinese checkers within the curriculum yields a statistically significant impact..." - Many of the methods described above are not present here. This refers to academic achievement, where are the results to the questionnaires and interviews? "In a similar vein, Wang and Wang (2019) conducted an investigation into the realm of decision-making competencies, an essential component of strategic thinking. Their study illuminated the fact that students who actively engaged with Chinese checkers experienced notable improvements in their decision-making abilities. These advancements were a direct result of the imperative need to make astute decisions throughout the course of the game. This progression is intricately linked with the advancement of strategic thinking skills and underscores the broader cognitive ramifications associated with strategic games." - These studies discussed aren’t referred back to this research. A discussion section should discuss the results of the study’s findings within the context of the literature. "Moreover, this research offers valuable insights into the intricate interplay between cultural values and the domain of strategic thinking. It duly recognizes the potential influence of Confucian principles on the inclinations of Chinese students concerning strategic thinking, especially within the realm of group decision-making contexts." - It doesn’t say anything about Confucian principles or Chinese culture because it isn’t a cross-cultural study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Gamification; Motivation and engagement; Assessment and feedback; Education policy; Legal education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Po Kan Lo N. Reviewer Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r317734 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v1#referee-response-317734 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 20 Jan 2025 mario de la puente , Associated professor at the Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, 08001, Colombia 20 Jan 2025 Author Response The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking ... Continue reading The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking was clarified using De la Puente's (2024) multidimensional cognitive framework. This revision established clear connections between analytical reasoning, pattern recognition, and anticipatory decision-making within political environments. Methodological enhancements centered on the research design section (pages 9-15), where measurement protocols were refined to ensure clear differentiation between academic performance and strategic thinking development. The revised methodology explicitly details how strategic thinking capabilities were operationalized through composite scoring systems combining game performance metrics (30%), scenario analysis tasks (40%), and diplomatic simulation outcomes (30%). The results section (pages 16-22) underwent significant restructuring to present findings with greater precision and evidence-based support. Quantitative results now directly connect to specific hypotheses, with clear statistical validation through multiple measures (paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA). Qualitative findings were reorganized to demonstrate progression in strategic thinking development through systematic documentation of behavioral changes. The discussion section (pages 23-25) was substantially revised to establish explicit connections between findings and referenced literature, eliminating unsupported inferences and strengthening the analytical framework. Cultural aspects of strategic thinking development are now addressed through empirical evidence rather than theoretical assumptions, with specific data supporting observed patterns in negotiation approaches and alliance formation strategies. The conclusion section (pages 26-27) was condensed to focus on empirically supported outcomes, removing speculative interpretations and maintaining focus on validated findings. Future research directions were refined to address specific limitations identified through the study's implementation. The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking was clarified using De la Puente's (2024) multidimensional cognitive framework. This revision established clear connections between analytical reasoning, pattern recognition, and anticipatory decision-making within political environments. Methodological enhancements centered on the research design section (pages 9-15), where measurement protocols were refined to ensure clear differentiation between academic performance and strategic thinking development. The revised methodology explicitly details how strategic thinking capabilities were operationalized through composite scoring systems combining game performance metrics (30%), scenario analysis tasks (40%), and diplomatic simulation outcomes (30%). The results section (pages 16-22) underwent significant restructuring to present findings with greater precision and evidence-based support. Quantitative results now directly connect to specific hypotheses, with clear statistical validation through multiple measures (paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA). Qualitative findings were reorganized to demonstrate progression in strategic thinking development through systematic documentation of behavioral changes. The discussion section (pages 23-25) was substantially revised to establish explicit connections between findings and referenced literature, eliminating unsupported inferences and strengthening the analytical framework. Cultural aspects of strategic thinking development are now addressed through empirical evidence rather than theoretical assumptions, with specific data supporting observed patterns in negotiation approaches and alliance formation strategies. The conclusion section (pages 26-27) was condensed to focus on empirically supported outcomes, removing speculative interpretations and maintaining focus on validated findings. Future research directions were refined to address specific limitations identified through the study's implementation. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 20 Jan 2025 mario de la puente , Associated professor at the Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, 08001, Colombia 20 Jan 2025 Author Response The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking ... Continue reading The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking was clarified using De la Puente's (2024) multidimensional cognitive framework. This revision established clear connections between analytical reasoning, pattern recognition, and anticipatory decision-making within political environments. Methodological enhancements centered on the research design section (pages 9-15), where measurement protocols were refined to ensure clear differentiation between academic performance and strategic thinking development. The revised methodology explicitly details how strategic thinking capabilities were operationalized through composite scoring systems combining game performance metrics (30%), scenario analysis tasks (40%), and diplomatic simulation outcomes (30%). The results section (pages 16-22) underwent significant restructuring to present findings with greater precision and evidence-based support. Quantitative results now directly connect to specific hypotheses, with clear statistical validation through multiple measures (paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA). Qualitative findings were reorganized to demonstrate progression in strategic thinking development through systematic documentation of behavioral changes. The discussion section (pages 23-25) was substantially revised to establish explicit connections between findings and referenced literature, eliminating unsupported inferences and strengthening the analytical framework. Cultural aspects of strategic thinking development are now addressed through empirical evidence rather than theoretical assumptions, with specific data supporting observed patterns in negotiation approaches and alliance formation strategies. The conclusion section (pages 26-27) was condensed to focus on empirically supported outcomes, removing speculative interpretations and maintaining focus on validated findings. Future research directions were refined to address specific limitations identified through the study's implementation. The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking was clarified using De la Puente's (2024) multidimensional cognitive framework. This revision established clear connections between analytical reasoning, pattern recognition, and anticipatory decision-making within political environments. Methodological enhancements centered on the research design section (pages 9-15), where measurement protocols were refined to ensure clear differentiation between academic performance and strategic thinking development. The revised methodology explicitly details how strategic thinking capabilities were operationalized through composite scoring systems combining game performance metrics (30%), scenario analysis tasks (40%), and diplomatic simulation outcomes (30%). The results section (pages 16-22) underwent significant restructuring to present findings with greater precision and evidence-based support. Quantitative results now directly connect to specific hypotheses, with clear statistical validation through multiple measures (paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA). Qualitative findings were reorganized to demonstrate progression in strategic thinking development through systematic documentation of behavioral changes. The discussion section (pages 23-25) was substantially revised to establish explicit connections between findings and referenced literature, eliminating unsupported inferences and strengthening the analytical framework. Cultural aspects of strategic thinking development are now addressed through empirical evidence rather than theoretical assumptions, with specific data supporting observed patterns in negotiation approaches and alliance formation strategies. The conclusion section (pages 26-27) was condensed to focus on empirically supported outcomes, removing speculative interpretations and maintaining focus on validated findings. Future research directions were refined to address specific limitations identified through the study's implementation. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 18 Jul 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 Version 2 (revision) 20 Jan 25 read read Version 1 18 Jul 24 read read Noble Po Kan Lo , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon,, China; Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK Tomislav Ivanjko , University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ivanjko T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Jan 2025 | for Version 2 Tomislav Ivanjko , University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 0 Views copyright © 2025 Ivanjko T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors have addressed the concerns raised in my peer review report appropriately Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gamification, Crowdsourcing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Ivanjko T. Peer Review Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360876) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2#referee-response-360876 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Po Kan Lo N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 24 Jan 2025 | for Version 2 Noble Po Kan Lo , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon,, Hong Kong, China; Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, UK 0 Views copyright © 2025 Po Kan Lo N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The revised paper shows significant improvement in addressing many of the concerns I raised in my initial review. You have clearly made an effort to refine your theoretical framework, methodology, results, and overall presentation. However, while the revisions demonstrate progress, there are still areas that require closer scrutiny. While the paper provides statistical evidence of improvements, the modest effect sizes suggest that the practical impact of the intervention is limited. This is acknowledged in the discussion, but the abstract and conclusion still overstate the significance of the findings. Although the revised paper includes more discussion of negotiation skills (e.g., coalition building, conflict resolution), this aspect still feels underdeveloped compared to the focus on strategic thinking. The title and abstract emphasize negotiation skills, but the results and discussion sections give them relatively limited attention. If negotiation is a central focus, this aspect should be expanded; otherwise, the title and scope should be adjusted to reflect the study’s primary focus on strategic thinking. While you provide detailed metrics for gameplay (e.g., move selection patterns, alliance formation, and resource management), the connection between these metrics and real-world diplomatic skills remains somewhat abstract. For example, how does success in Chinese checkers directly translate to improved performance in international relations or political scenarios? You could strengthen this link by providing concrete examples or more robust evidence of transferability. Although the literature review is better organized and more focused, some references still feel tangential. For instance, McLaren and Nguyen’s (2023) analysis of digital learning environments, while interesting, is not directly relevant to the use of traditional board games like Chinese checkers. You could further refine the literature review to focus on studies that directly inform your research questions. The paper acknowledges that the findings are specific to the Asia-Pacific context, but it does not discuss whether the intervention could be adapted for other cultural or educational settings. A brief discussion of how this model might be applied in non-Confucian heritage contexts would strengthen the paper’s broader relevance. Cross-cultural studies, such as Lo (2024) and Lo, Bremner, and Forbes-McKay (2024), highlight the importance of considering cultural differences in student motivation and independent learning strategies. For example, Lo, Bremner, and Forbes-McKay (2024) emphasize that students in Hong Kong tend to prioritize time management, organization, and rehearsal strategies, reflecting a structured approach to learning, while students in the United Kingdom place more emphasis on critical thinking, flexibility, and self-regulation, which aligns with a more individualistic educational culture. Integrating these findings into the paper could enhance its applicability by discussing how the intervention might need to be tailored to suit learners in culturally diverse settings: refer 1 and 2. For instance, in individualistic cultures like the United Kingdom, where students often emphasize holistic learning and critical engagement with resources, the intervention might incorporate elements that encourage deeper critical thinking and self-directed exploration beyond structured activities. Conversely, in collectivist cultures, where hierarchical and structured learning approaches are more valued, the intervention could focus on enhancing collaborative strategies and aligning the game’s objectives with group-oriented achievements. With these final adjustments, the paper could be ready for indexing. References 1. Lo N: Cross-cultural comparative analysis of student motivation and autonomy in learning: perspectives from Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Education . 2024; 9 . Publisher Full Text 2. Lo N, Bremner P, Forbes-McKay K: Influences on student motivation and independent learning skills: cross-cultural differences between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. Frontiers in Education . 2024; 8 . Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gamification; Motivation and engagement; Assessment and feedback; Education policy; Legal education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Po Kan Lo N. Peer Review Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.174291.r360877) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2#referee-response-360877 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Ivanjko T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 10 Oct 2024 | for Version 1 Tomislav Ivanjko , University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia 0 Views copyright © 2024 Ivanjko T. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Summary of the Article This article explores the impact of using Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool to enhance strategic thinking and negotiation skills in undergraduate students enrolled in a Comparative Politics course in the Asia-Pacific region. Through the study, which spanned multiple academic semesters, the authors used paired-samples t-tests, independent-samples t-tests, and ANOVA to assess changes in students' academic performance and strategic thinking skills. The article also considers cultural factors influencing strategic thinking, with a focus on Chinese students. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to support the analysis. Evaluation 1. Clarity and Accuracy of the Presentation The article is generally well-structured and covers the core aspects of the study comprehensively. However, there are instances where the text is overly verbose, making it harder to follow. Simplifying some sections, especially in the methodology and results discussions, would improve clarity. The theoretical framework is strong, and relevant literature is cited. However, the inclusion of more recent studies on gamification in political education could improve the literature review. 2. Study Design and Technical Soundness The study design is appropriate, and the statistical methods chosen (paired-samples t-test, independent-samples t-test, and ANOVA) are suitable for the research questions. However, the small effect sizes reported (e.g., F = 3.78) suggest that the practical impact of the intervention is modest. This should be addressed more clearly in the discussion. There is a lack of comparison with other strategic games or pedagogical tools that could have been used to teach strategy and negotiation, which would provide a stronger foundation for the study's claims. 3. Methods and Analysis for Replication The methodology section is sufficiently detailed in terms of the data collection process, participant demographics, and how Chinese checkers was integrated into the curriculum. However, more specific details on the measures of “enthusiasm” and “engagement” could enhance reproducibility. The study’s results can largely be replicated based on the description, but certain subjective measurements (e.g., student enthusiasm) require further clarification to ensure reproducibility by others. 4. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation Rating : Partly Comments : The statistical methods used are appropriate, and the results are well presented in tables. However, more emphasis on the practical implications of the small effect sizes is necessary. While statistical significance is achieved, the real-world educational impact appears modest. Interpretation of statistical results is generally sound, but the discussion should explore more deeply whether the differences observed are educationally meaningful. 5. Source Data Availability The article does not provide the source data underlying the results, which limits the ability of others to fully reproduce the findings. The authors state that data is available on request, but this should be made more accessible to ensure full transparency and reproducibility. The inclusion of anonymized datasets or performance metrics, along with statistical output files, would greatly enhance the transparency of the study. 6. Conclusions Supported by Results The conclusions drawn are mostly supported by the results, particularly the claims about strategic thinking improvements. However, the magnitude of the impact is somewhat overstated given the modest effect sizes. The cultural aspect, while intriguing, is not strongly evidenced by the study's data. More concrete data on how cultural factors influenced strategic thinking would strengthen this argument. Full Report Strengths of the Paper : The integration of a traditional board game like Chinese checkers as a pedagogical tool is a novel and creative approach to enhancing strategic thinking and negotiation skills in the context of a Comparative Politics course. The study utilizes appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data, and the findings provide preliminary support for the educational benefits of such a gamified approach. The authors’ exploration of cultural factors, particularly the potential influence of Confucian values, adds an interesting dimension to the research. Areas for Improvement : Effect Size and Practical Significance : The authors should address the relatively small effect sizes reported (e.g., F = 3.78). While the differences are statistically significant, the practical educational impact appears limited. A discussion on the implications of these small effect sizes for teaching and learning would add depth to the analysis. Comparison to Other Methods : The study would benefit from comparing the effectiveness of Chinese checkers with other pedagogical strategies commonly used in political science education, such as role-playing games or diplomatic simulations. This would help contextualize the findings within the broader literature on educational tools for teaching strategic thinking. Data Transparency : The authors mention that data is available on request, but for full transparency and reproducibility, it would be beneficial to include anonymized datasets or provide them in a public repository. This would enable other researchers to verify and build upon the findings. Cultural Argument Evidence : The claim that Confucian values influence strategic thinking among Chinese students is interesting but requires more robust data. Additional qualitative or quantitative evidence supporting this assertion would make the argument stronger. Clarifying Subjective Measures : The measurement of “enthusiasm” and “engagement” in the course should be clarified. More details about how these constructs were operationalized and analyzed would enhance the replicability of the study. Conclusion : The study provides useful insights into the potential benefits of integrating strategic games like Chinese checkers into political science curricula. However, the authors should refine their discussion of effect sizes, provide clearer data on cultural influences, and improve transparency regarding the availability of source data. The paper holds academic merit but requires revisions to address the concerns outlined. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gamification, Crowdsourcing I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Jan 2025 mario de la puente, Associated professor at the Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, 08001, Colombia The authors appreciate the thorough review and constructive feedback provided. We have made substantial revisions to address the key concerns, particularly regarding effect size interpretation, measurement clarity, and cultural influence documentation. The revised manuscript now presents a more balanced discussion of the intervention's impact, acknowledging the modest yet significant effects while providing clearer context for their practical implications in educational settings. Special attention has been given to strengthening the methodology section, especially regarding the measurement of student engagement and enthusiasm. We have included detailed operational definitions, specific behavioral indicators, and standardized assessment protocols to enhance reproducibility. The revised version also provides more robust evidence for cultural influences on strategic thinking by incorporating additional quantitative data and theoretical frameworks from Newton (2014) and Ho (2020). Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section to include comparisons with other pedagogical approaches and provided a more nuanced interpretation of the statistical findings, particularly regarding their educational significance and practical applications in political science education. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Ivanjko T. Peer Review Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r324447) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v1#referee-response-324447 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2024 Po Kan Lo N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 09 Sep 2024 | for Version 1 Noble Po Kan Lo , The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon,, Hong Kong, China; Department of Educational Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England, UK 0 Views copyright © 2024 Po Kan Lo N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Overall comments: The paper presents research into using Chinese checkers as a means to improve strategic thinking and negotiation skills. Unfortunately, there are significant issues with the methods described, the standard of English, and the structure of the paper. I have detailed these concerns below, along with suggestions for improving the paper's indexing. First, the methods used to investigate the study’s hypotheses are not adequately described or evidenced. It is unclear how statistical thinking is measured, with the study making vague claims to have compared academic performance before and after the intervention, with no clear indication as to how statistical thinking was identified and operationalised. The study also claims to use various methods such as interviews and questionnaires, which are not adequately described or evidenced, and the results of which appear to be missing. The result is a research design that is confused, does not appear to measure or compare the variables targeted, and that does not convincingly appear to have taken place. There are problems also with the pertinence of the information included in many places. The discussion of literature in the introduction and discussion appear tangential and there is an absence of adequate discussion of negotiation skills in the literature review. In general, there is a lot of repetition throughout that disrupts the flow and structure of the paper. A significant issue with the paper is the use of academic English. The English used reads as though it is the product of AI-content generation with words occasionally changed or added using a thesaurus. The language is overly florid and often inaccurate, leading to sentences which frequently appear to lack meaning, are confusing or irrelevant. Referencing: The referencing is one of the stronger aspects to the paper, where present. Citations are typically accurate and relevant. However, there are substantial sections containing factual claims that are entirely unsupported by citation. This ought to be rectified. Organisation: The structure is at times confusing and the flow jarring. For instance, there are findings interjected midway into the methodology. Information is frequently summarised and repeated in the middle of a section. Summative content should be reserved for the end of sections, with perhaps a signposting sentence or two at the start of a new section. Suggestions: First, I would recommend rewriting the paper in clear English that does not attempt to employ language that exceeds the writer’s grasp. Use basic academic English without attempt at embellishment. Second, the methods need to be simplified, explained in a coherent manner, and evidenced to some degree. Focus on how strategic thinking is to be measured and evidence how you converted this measurement into scores for comparison. Remove all methods that are extraneous to answering your two hypotheses. Third, improve the level of content throughout to make discussions of research relevance to the study’s topic and aims. I think, for example, you might remove ‘negotiation’ from your title as it receives very little discussion. Likewise, when you introduce studies, focus less on summarising them and more so on illustrating their relevance to the research area and your specific line of inquiry. "Chinese checkers game" - This would read better if ‘game’ was removed or pluralised. "This research conducted" - Research cannot conduct, research is conducted. Could rephrase as ‘This research is an…’ "The study employed paired-samples t-tests and independent-samples t-tests to evaluate the impact of Chinese checkers. It involved assessing the academic performance and strategic thinking abilities of students who engaged with the game. The study encompassed a thorough design, participant selection, and procedures related to the intervention, including various outcome measures." - In general, it is convention to refer to research in the present tense, reserving the past tense for actions carried out towards completing it. For example: ‘This research constitutes an exploration of the effects of Chinese checkers on learning. The researcher carried out paired t-tests to evaluate the impact of the game. The research demonstrates that…’ "...and strategically plan for the future" - Reference needed for claim about the effects of nurturing cognitive skills. "Porter (1996) contributes a seminal article that delineates the essence of strategy and sets it apart from operational efficiency. The author underscores the significance of making choices and crafting a distinct value proposition to attain a competitive edge. This endeavor necessitates strategic thinking to identify opportunities, evaluate risks, and efficiently allocate resources. Rumelt (2011) further scrutinizes the dichotomy between sound and unsound strategies, emphasizing the role of strategic thinking in formulating lucid and cogent strategies. The author accentuates the importance of diagnosing the underlying causes of issues and devising actions that adeptly address them. This perspective dovetails with Shoemaker and Reese’s (2013) stance on strategic thinking in the realm of intricate problem-solving, accentuating the ability to dissect and amalgamate information, spot patterns, and generate inventive solutions (Fisher et al., 2011; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986; Rico et al., 2021)." - This overview of strategic thinking is quite generic. There are brief comparisons of how strategy or strategic thinking has been conceptualised differently but little indication as to what definition is taken here. I would make clearer why it is important to improve strategic thinking and the potential relationships of playing strategy games to this end. "the intriguing question" - Cut down on adjectives. "the profound understanding" - ibid. "This question acts as the guiding beacon for the study" - This isn’t appropriate terminology. ‘This question guides the study’ would be sufficient. "was set in motion" - Just say it was used. "The primary focus was on discerning whether this pedagogical strategy engendered heightened engagement and enthusiasm among the students regarding the subject matter" - It’s not really a pedagogical strategy. "encompssing meticulous observations and meticulous record-keeping to" - Don’t repeat adjectives in the same sentence. "enthusiasm data was also diligently amassed" - Remove ‘diligently’. "Throughout the analytical process, a set of statistical methodologies was employed to comprehensively investigate the research questions. The examination began with the application of the Chi-Square Test, an instrumental tool in discerning the presence of a meaningful association between the incorporation of Chinese checkers and the discernible enhancement in classroom participation. This was particularly pertinent when considering a categorical variable, which discerned whether students exhibited greater or lesser participation." - There is a lot in the introduction about methods used. Ideally, the introduction should just offer an overview of the methods and leave the majority of this exposition for a dedicated methodology section presented between the literature review and the findings/results. "the particularity of the academic milieu" - It’s not immediately apparent to me what ‘academic milieu’ refers to here. "...shortsighted perspectives" - What is meant by ‘transcend their short-sighted perspectives’? Why are their perspectives short-sighted? Which perspectives? " and the motivation levels of students wield a substantial and affirmative correlation with critical thinking skills" - ‘Affirmative’ is not an appropriate synonym for ‘positive’ in this case. The work reads throughout as though words have been changed through consulting a thesaurus. "Chinese students may inherently possess a predilection for strategic thinking" - I would be careful to emphasise that this is resultant from culture. The use of ‘inherently’ makes it sound as though the trait is innate, which would constitute a separate claim that I don’t think is being made here. "Prior research has already elucidated that participation in board games, particularly Chinese checkers, offers promising avenues to augment the strategic thinking abilities of students. These games provide a constructive, simulated milieu for students to immerse themselves in strategic decision-making and problem-solving (Rua et al., 2021)." - Any other research? If not, then its absence should be used to imply the usefulness of further research. "... game on the cognitive growth of undergraduate students." - Where is the discussion about negotiation skills? This is contained in the title but is not clearly defined or discussed after this point. "These two hypotheses anchor there search, offering a structured framework for the study’s exploration ofthemultifaceted relationships between Chinese checkers, strategic thinking development, and the influence of cultural values." - I would identify a research gap to conclude the literature review. This will help justify the relevance of the research. Something that is perhaps slightly missing also is the context in which checkers is to be employed. Is it digital gamification within the classroom? I would make clearer, ideally in your introduction, what the intended context is here. In other words, who is this research useful for (teachers, policymakers, learners themselves)? "This gender representation contributes to the diverse and dynamic academic milieu." - This sentence is unnecessary. "Within the control group, students present a spectrum of prior Grade Point Averages (GPAs), serving as a metric for their academic backgrounds. GPAs range from 3.7 to 4.3, reflecting a diverse range of academic experiences and levels of scholastic achievement. This GPA diversity offers a valuable foundation for evaluating the introduction of Chinese checkers into their curriculum as a potential enhancer of strategic thinking and negotiation skills. These collective attributes of the control group render it a suitable benchmark for comparison against the experimental group, which underwent a similar academic journey but without the incorporation of the game into their coursework." - This seems to repeat the prior discussion on GPAs. "The Comparative Politics in Asia Pacific course provided students with a comprehensive and immersive exploration ... cooperation, and influencing negotiation strategies." - Is this discussion of the course curriculum relevant to the ways in which strategic thinking is being conceptualised or measured? Even if it is, I would condense it to a couple of sentences. "The research hypotheses in this study underwent stringent statistical analyses to assess their validity. Initially, the first hypothesis, which proposed that students ’ participation in strategic gameplay using Chinese checkers would lead to a statistically significant enhancement in their academic scores, was rigorously examined through a Paired-Samples T-Test." - This is testing academic scores. Does this mean GPAs? Or did you set them specific tests? "The initial phase of assessment ... well-rounded analysis of the development of these skills." - How were these questionnaires designed to capture initial levels of strategic thinking and negotiation skills? This is an essential part to the design. Ideally, you would use an existing model and perhaps adapt it here. Lots of detail on this would be preferable. "In parallel with the administration of questionnaires ... the corresponding author under certain restrictions." - Presumably this applies only to the students who received the checkers intervention? It’s not clear to me from this description of the design how measuring their progress at playing checkers is helpful. Furthermore, it is unclear to me how this is operationalised. "The research instruments employed in the study provided invaluable insights into the interaction between students in the experimental group and Chinese checkers, offering a comprehensive understanding of their gaming strategies and performance. The participants ’ gameplay choices and decisions were meticulously observed, facilitating a nuanced comprehension of their approaches. Ten key findings were derived from this analysis:" - This should be in a separate ‘findings’ or ‘results’ section, not under the heading of ‘research instruments’. "Initially, a prominent pattern emerged within the participants, featuring distinct gameplay styles. Some students opted for an aggressive approach, rapidly expanding their territory and engaging in early confrontations. In contrast, others leaned towards a more defensive strategy, methodically consolidating their pieces and positioning for strategic advantages. Additionally, the students exhibited remarkable adaptability in their gameplay, showcasing their capacity to adjust their strategies in response to evolving in-game circumstances. This adaptability was particularly noticeable when students encountered unforeseen challenges or opportunities throughout the gameplay." - How did you arrive at these conclusions? The design is wholly insufficient. There is no evidence whatsoever of what the research instruments are or even what the methods of analysis consist of. "Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that students who actively participated in class discussions and expressed strong opinions regarding contemporary geopolitics often displayed assertive gameplay styles." - It hasn’t been made clear at any point that how students contribute to class discussions was being analysed, nor what the pertinence of this is to strategic thinking. "In the course of the investigation, a noteworthy revelation surfaced: a penchant for cooperative play became evident among several students. In their engagement with Chinese checkers, certain individuals opted to forge alliances and engage in collaborative efforts with their peers. This cooperative endeavor distinctly underscored the social facet of the game, accentuating the pivotal roles of negotiation and coordination in achieving collective goals." - This appear to be the product of qualitative observation but this approach isn’t set out in the methodology. "Furthermore, the study unveiled a correlation between strategic piece placement and spatial thinking abilities. Those students who exhibited adeptness in adroitly positioning their pieces on the board demonstrated a heightened capacity for spatial cognition. Their aptitude for exercising control over key areas within the game’s framework was frequently linked to elevated success rates." - How was the strategic positioning of pieces measured? It would also be useful to have the test results supporting these correlations provided when the claim of a correlation is first introduced. "The study also incorporated focus group interviews conducted at strategic junctures during the research endeavor." - The fact that interviews are being used should have been introduced far earlier. "These interviews served as invaluable tools for delving into the participants ’ subjective experiences and perceptions." - It is good to justify using interviews, but make specific claims and support these with citations. "These academic records, in conjunction with the research instruments and..." - What academic records did you use and how were they operationalised? "This questionnaire comprised a set of meticulously crafted statements designed to probe various facets of strategic thinking and negotiation skills. These statements offered participants the opportunity to articulate their perspectives and self-evaluate their competencies, providing valuable self-reported insights to complement the quantitative and qualitative insights derived from the gaming metrics and academic data." - What sort of statements did it use? How was it designed to capture strategic thinking and negotiation skills? "The creation of the Likert survey focusing on political strategic thinking and negotiation skills concepts drew upon the utilization of several pertinent references. Specifically, Waring et al. (2022) had previously conducted a qualitative interview study with the aim of comprehending the political skills and behaviors indispensable for steering the implementation of health services transformation. Their discoveries had identified five overarching categories of political skills and behaviors, encompassing personal and interpersonal attributes, strategic thinking, communication proficiencies, networking abilities, and relational tactics. These insights, in turn, played a pivotal role in shaping the development of Likert scale items pertaining to these dimensions of political skills and behaviors." - All of this should be introduced in the methodology before findings are discussed. "The findings from this scholarly endeavor served as a sturdy pillar of support, justifying the integration of survey items probing the ramifications of political skill on work outcomes within the Likert survey." - Does this mean you borrowed their design? It is unclear whether you are claiming to have used Waring, Munyon, or both as a basis for the design. "In the year 2022, Waring, in conjunction with the research team, delved into the intricate realm of political skills and associated behaviors among healthcare leaders amid the implementation of substantial system-wide transformations. Their meticulous inquiry brought to light a framework of political skills and behaviors akin to those unearthed in the prior reference, encompassing dimensions such as personal and interpersonal qualities, strategic thinking, communication proficiency, adept networking, and the astute utilization of relational tactics. The corpus of evidence gleaned from this endeavor substantiated and further fortified the rationale for including these nuanced dimensions in the Likert survey." - It’s very unclear why these studies are being introduced, discussed, and what their specific relevance to the design is. "Their investigation, set against the backdrop of the transformation of state-owned enterprises in China, cast a discerning light on the realms of negotiation, manipulation, and coercion within the political domain. The profound insights culled from this study reverberated in the incorporation of items specifically tailored to assess negotiation skills and tactics within the Likert survey, enriching the comprehensiveness of the research instrument." - This is not salient information with respect to the research design. If you are claiming to have taken influence from the methods or designs used in these studies, state specifically how their methods of measuring strategic thinking/negotiation skills through questionnaires was adapted to your study. "... Through the integration of diverse scholarly references and empirical investigations, the study aimed to provide a well-rounded understanding of the subject matter and its potential implications." - The methodology is wholly insufficient. It includes results, presents the methods used in a haphazard order, and offers no clear indication as to how strategic thinking/negotiation skills were measured and compared. Coupled with an absence of appendices, it does not demonstrate that the research described took place. "Table 1. Paired-samples T-Test results for academic performance enhancement." - I find no issue with the quantitative analysis, though it is not apparent on the basis of the methodology how these scores were arrived at. "These outcomes solidly corroborate the first hypothesis, implying that the incorporation of Chinese checkers into the curriculum positively influences students ’ strategic thinking." - This is not a valid inference. The above scores refer to academic performance, not strategic thinking specifically. "The confirmation that students who engaged in Chinese checkers exhibited superior academic performance in terms of strategic thinking not only achieves the research objective but also furnishes empirical support for the effectiveness of experiential learning tools in elevating specific skill sets." - Again, this is not implied by the above results. "The F-Value as presented in Table 3 featured within the table represents the ratio of variance existing between different groups to the variance within those groups. This metric offers valuable insights into whether meaningful disparities in academic achievements related to strategic thinking are evident between the control and experimental groups." - This is a good explanation as to what the analysis is intended to achieve in terms of providing statistical evidence. "In light of these findings, the inclusion of Chinese checkers within the curriculum yields a statistically significant impact..." - Many of the methods described above are not present here. This refers to academic achievement, where are the results to the questionnaires and interviews? "In a similar vein, Wang and Wang (2019) conducted an investigation into the realm of decision-making competencies, an essential component of strategic thinking. Their study illuminated the fact that students who actively engaged with Chinese checkers experienced notable improvements in their decision-making abilities. These advancements were a direct result of the imperative need to make astute decisions throughout the course of the game. This progression is intricately linked with the advancement of strategic thinking skills and underscores the broader cognitive ramifications associated with strategic games." - These studies discussed aren’t referred back to this research. A discussion section should discuss the results of the study’s findings within the context of the literature. "Moreover, this research offers valuable insights into the intricate interplay between cultural values and the domain of strategic thinking. It duly recognizes the potential influence of Confucian principles on the inclinations of Chinese students concerning strategic thinking, especially within the realm of group decision-making contexts." - It doesn’t say anything about Confucian principles or Chinese culture because it isn’t a cross-cultural study. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gamification; Motivation and engagement; Assessment and feedback; Education policy; Legal education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 20 Jan 2025 mario de la puente, Associated professor at the Political Science Department, Universidad del Norte, Barranquilla, 08001, Colombia The enhanced document incorporated substantial revisions to strengthen the theoretical framework and methodological precision. Primary adjustments focused on the literature review section (pages 4-8), where the definition of strategic thinking was clarified using De la Puente's (2024) multidimensional cognitive framework. This revision established clear connections between analytical reasoning, pattern recognition, and anticipatory decision-making within political environments. Methodological enhancements centered on the research design section (pages 9-15), where measurement protocols were refined to ensure clear differentiation between academic performance and strategic thinking development. The revised methodology explicitly details how strategic thinking capabilities were operationalized through composite scoring systems combining game performance metrics (30%), scenario analysis tasks (40%), and diplomatic simulation outcomes (30%). The results section (pages 16-22) underwent significant restructuring to present findings with greater precision and evidence-based support. Quantitative results now directly connect to specific hypotheses, with clear statistical validation through multiple measures (paired t-tests, independent t-tests, and ANOVA). Qualitative findings were reorganized to demonstrate progression in strategic thinking development through systematic documentation of behavioral changes. The discussion section (pages 23-25) was substantially revised to establish explicit connections between findings and referenced literature, eliminating unsupported inferences and strengthening the analytical framework. Cultural aspects of strategic thinking development are now addressed through empirical evidence rather than theoretical assumptions, with specific data supporting observed patterns in negotiation approaches and alliance formation strategies. The conclusion section (pages 26-27) was condensed to focus on empirically supported outcomes, removing speculative interpretations and maintaining focus on validated findings. Future research directions were refined to address specific limitations identified through the study's implementation. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Po Kan Lo N. Peer Review Report For: Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in Asia-Pacific Political Science Education [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2025, 13 :812 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.166450.r317734) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v1#referee-response-317734 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('De La Puente M et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812", templates : { twitter : "Chinese Checkers as a Strategic Thinking Development Tool in.... De La Puente M et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-812/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/151777/174291") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "174291"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "309508": 0, "309509": 0, "309510": 0, "309511": 0, "309506": 0, "309507": 0, "309512": 0, "309513": 0, "309514": 0, "309515": 0, "317732": 0, "317733": 0, "317734": 30, "317735": 0, "317731": 0, "317740": 0, "317736": 0, "317737": 0, "317738": 0, "317739": 0, "389693": 0, "314173": 0, "314174": 0, "389695": 0, "314175": 0, "389694": 0, "314180": 0, "389701": 0, "314181": 0, "389700": 0, "314182": 0, "389702": 0, "314176": 0, "389697": 0, "314177": 0, "389696": 0, "314178": 0, "389699": 0, "314179": 0, "389698": 0, "324447": 11, "324452": 0, "324453": 0, "324454": 0, "324455": 0, "324448": 0, "324449": 0, "324450": 0, "324451": 0, "324456": 0, "354200": 0, "360877": 6, "360876": 2, "387263": 0, "387269": 0, "387268": 0, "387271": 0, "387270": 0, "387265": 0, "387264": 0, "387267": 0, "387266": 0, "305614": 0, "305615": 0, "387272": 0, "305620": 0, "305621": 0, "305622": 0, "305623": 0, "305616": 0, "305617": 0, "305618": 0, "305619": 0, "371943": 0, "371942": 0, "375277": 0, "371949": 0, "385261": 0, "375276": 0, "371948": 0, "375279": 0, "371951": 0, "385263": 0, "375278": 0, "371950": 0, "385262": 0, "371944": 0, "371947": 0, "371946": 0, "375285": 0, "385269": 0, "375284": 0, "385268": 0, "385270": 0, "375281": 0, "371953": 0, "385265": 0, "375280": 0, "385264": 0, "375283": 0, "385267": 0, "375282": 0, "385266": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "1b5bc2a6-8a04-4e3c-a823-c5c9498261d7"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });