{"id":58538,"date":"2023-03-31T15:13:49","date_gmt":"2023-03-31T15:13:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revista-apunts.com\/?p=58538"},"modified":"2023-07-05T09:42:56","modified_gmt":"2023-07-05T09:42:56","slug":"benefits-of-gamified-learning-in-physical-education-students-a-systematic-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/revista-apunts.com\/en\/benefits-of-gamified-learning-in-physical-education-students-a-systematic-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Benefits of Gamified Learning in Physical Education Students: A Systematic Review"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The application of gamification in Education is becoming increasingly popular. However, empirical studies on gamification and physical education are very heterogeneous. What do we know about the impact of gamification in PE so far? The purpose was to provide a current overview on the benefits of gamification in PE belonging to the different educational levels. Additionally, this review aims to analyse the features that these interventions have in common. Studies were identified in seven databases: Dialnet, ERIC, Redalyc, EBSCOhost, ProQuest: ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science. Twenty-two studies were included: seven qualitative, seven quantitative and eight of mixed method, enrolling 2,095 students and 12 teachers. The analysis carried out showed significant increase in intrinsic motivation, and the satisfaction of all basic psychological needs and, consequently, commitment to the physical education subject, improving in learning and academic performance. Benefits were also highlighted regarding promotion of cooperative work and a positive atmosphere within physical education class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The subject of Physical Education (PE) taught at school should be based on a curriculum adapted to the needs of the youngest and in accordance with social transformations. For example, PE aims to help pupils to optimally develop the motor, cognitive, social and emotional skills they need to lead a physically active life (McLennan & Thompson, 2015<\/a>). To achieve this, unlike other subjects, PE already makes an extensive use of game as a didactic resource, being the cornerstone of this discipline (Normand & Burji, 2019<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Games have traditionally been considered as a form of entertainment (Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m & \u015een, 2019<\/a>). In recent years, however, they have been at the heart of a growing trend in more formal environments such as industry and education (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017<\/a>). The adoption of some mechanics, dynamics and components proper to games (Hanus & Fox, 2015<\/a>; Werbach & Hunter, 2012<\/a>) across a range of environments and\/or contexts makes more formal, tedious and\/or boring tasks more attractive. The inclusion of these new elements in the education system has brought about a relatively recent concept: gamification. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gamification<\/em> can be understood as the application of elements of game and video game principles and design to a learning environment so as to raise students’ compromise, engagement and motivation levels (Buckley & Doyle, 2016<\/a>; Dichev & Dicheva, 2017<\/a>; Dicheva et al., 2015). In terms of its definition, gamification should not be confused with other similar terms, such as serious games<\/em> or game-based learning<\/em> (Sailer & Homner, 2020<\/a>; Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m & \u015een, 2019<\/a>). For example, serious games<\/em> have serious aims about education before fun. Specifically, gamification transfers the mechanics and dynamics of games or video games to different contexts, such as the educational field, intended to augment or alter an existing learning process to create a version that users experience as game-like (Landers et al., 2018<\/a>). While dynamics refer to restrictions, progression structure and narration technique, mechanics can be cooperation, challenge and competition. Generally, components (or aesthetics) within game design can be listed as point, badge, level, experience point, and leaderboards (Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m & \u015een, 2019<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gamification<\/em> or gamified learning<\/em> (Armstrong & Landers, 2017<\/a>) is becoming increasingly popular in educational contexts and its use has become more extensive across all subjects and levels. Nevertheless, a notable body of research has produced a variety of results and there is thus insufficient support to make substantiated claims about the effectiveness of gamification in education (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017<\/a>). In line with this, empirical studies on gamification in PE are limited (Fernandez-Rio et al., 2020<\/a>) varying greatly in their methodology (sample size, educational stage, intervention duration, quantitative or qualitative results, etc.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some systematic reviews and meta-analyses on gamification in the educational context currently exist (Dichev & Dicheva, 2017<\/a>; Kim & Castelli, 2021<\/a>; Mora et al., 2017<\/a>; Prieto-Andreu, 2020<\/a>; Sailer & Homner, 2020<\/a>; Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m & \u015een, 2019<\/a>), but no review has specifically addressed the effects of gamified didactics on PE. In this regard, collecting the results of the experimental research carried out on the effects of gamified PE has relevance to the evolution of the subject and the future design of the gamified proposals in PE. In this context, the present review aims to answer the following research questions: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. What benefits do PE students gain from a gamified learning? 
    <\/li>
  2. What main features should gamified learning have to achieve these benefits in PE?<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Method<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA declaration, which includes a series of evidence-based criteria to report on systematic and meta-analysis reviews (Page et al., 2021<\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Selection Criteria and\/or Eligibility<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Regarding the selection criteria, only articles written in English or Spanish were included, and no publication date restrictions were applied. To establish the rest of the inclusion criteria, we considered the PICOS acronym (Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, Study Design). Firstly, the study participants were students of any age, belonging to any educational stage. Secondly, studies directly related to a PE gamified teaching-learning technique were selected, since gamification should not be confused with game-based learning<\/em> or serious games<\/em> or exergames<\/em>, despite some common characteristics. Studies on hybrid methodologies in gamification (e.g., Valero-Valenzuela et al., 2020), thesis and books’ chapters were excluded. Thirdly, both the single-group studies and the ones with dual comparison groups were included. Fourthly, studies that demonstrated the advantages of gamification whether quantitatively or qualitatively, were considered. Finally, regarding the study design, pre-experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental (descriptive) and qualitative (narrative and research-action) studies were selected while studies understood to be reflections, proposals and didactical applications and\/or educational experiences with no evaluation of processes or results were excluded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sources of Information and Search Strategy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The search was performed during the months of May and June 2022 in the following databases: open access databases (Dialnet, ERIC and Redalyc) and databases with restricted access (EBSCOhost, ProQuest: ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science). The keywords used in both languages (English and Spanish) were: gamification<\/em>, gamified<\/em> and physical education<\/em>. These descriptors were deemed the most pertinent. Finally, two search strategies were selected, composed of the above terms, compound concepts (“”), truncators (*) and Boolean operators (AND\/OR): gamifi<\/em>* AND “physical education<\/em>“; gamifica* AND “Educacion Fisica”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Data Extraction and Quality Assessment Process<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    After having sorted the studies included in the review by means of the RefWorks<\/em> bibliographic manager, the following data were extracted: design type, participants and characteristics, variables, measuring instruments and results obtained (Table 1, 2 and 3).  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Table 1<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Characteristics of qualitative studies included.<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    See Table<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Table 2<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Characteristics and results of quantitative studies non-randomised included.<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    See Table<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    \n
    \n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Table 3<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Characteristics and results of the mixed method studies included.<\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    See Table<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    Results<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Study Selection Process<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    The search in all databases produced a total of 646 documents. After having verified and discarded 569 duplicates, 77 were left. The full text of the remaining 76 documents underwent a more detailed analysis (authors read the title and abstract, and discussed it to agree on the characteristics of the papers to be included in the review). A total of 54 studies did not meet the inclusion criteria described above. Finally, a total of 22 studies ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review: seven articles were based on a qualitative methodology, seven were quantitative studies and eight were mixed methods (Figure 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Fluxograma de la selecci\u00f3 d\u2019estudis PRISMA.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Characteristics of the Studies<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    We describe the characteristics of the qualitative (Table 1), quantitative (Table 2), and mixed methods studies (Table 3) included in this review, following the PICOS acronym.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Participants<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The total sample consisted of 2,123 participants (2,095 students and 12 teachers) divided into: 481 participants (477 students and four teachers) from selected qualitative studies; 686 students from selected quantitative studies and 940 participants (938 students and eight teachers) from selected mixed methods studies. They included university students enrolled in the Teacher Education degree with a specialisation in PE (n<\/em> = 240) and in the Physical Activity and Sport Sciences Degree (n<\/em> = 421), high school students (n<\/em> = 1,031), and Primary Education students (n<\/em> = 403).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Interventions<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    Just one investigation was conducted in Sweden (Rutberg & Lindqvist, 2018<\/a>). The remaining studies were conducted in different parts of Spain (A Coru\u00f1a, Alicante, Barcelona, Ceuta, Granada, Madrid, Murcia, Seville and Tenerife). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The educational objectives of the included interventions were varied: <\/p>\n\n\n\n