Next Article in Journal
Automatic Registration Algorithm for the Point Clouds Based on the Optimized RANSAC and IWOA Algorithms for Robotic Manufacturing
Next Article in Special Issue
Gamified Digital Game-Based Learning as a Pedagogical Strategy: Student Academic Performance and Motivation
Previous Article in Journal
Transmission Angle Analysis of a Type of Parallel Manipulators
Previous Article in Special Issue
Combining Gamification and Augmented Reality to Raise Interest in Logistics Careers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 19
10.3390/app12199459
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games: Effect of Gamification on Future Physical Education Teachers

by
Salvador Pérez-Muñoz
*,
Antonio Sánchez Muñoz
,
José Manuel De Mena Ramos
and
Alberto Rodríguez-Cayetano
EGIIOFID Research Team, Faculty of Education, Pontific al University of Salamanca, Henry Collet 52-70, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(19), 9459; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199459
Submission received: 1 August 2022 / Revised: 13 September 2022 / Accepted: 16 September 2022 / Published: 21 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gamification and Data-Driven Approaches in Education)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Gamification is a new methodological tool in the field of physical education and sports sciences, which seeks to generate a formative change in educational centers and in the training of future teachers. The aim of the research was to analyze the effect of gamification on motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning of prospective physical education teachers. The sample consisted of 102 future teachers in the specific area of physical education and sport. Three measuring instruments were used: Motivational Situation Scale, Cooperative Learning Questionnaire and Basic Psychological Needs in Physical Education Scale. The significance level (p < 0.05) was determined according to the variables described. The results were analyzed with the Kruskal–Wallis test for the variables age and study group and the Mann–Whitney U-test for gender. The results show high values for basic psychological needs, motivation and cooperative learning. In the case of cooperative learning, gamification has a different behavior according to gender. By degree, gamification does not affect the degree of study in the same way. In conclusion, the results of the present study support the use of gamification in the training of future physical education teachers, as it is associated with increased levels of students’ intrinsic and self-determined motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning.

1. Introduction

Play is part of the person from birth and is considered an essential part of his development, such is the importance that the term “homo ludens” was proposed as the man who plays [1], being an important element from a double social and cultural vision for the person.
In this current social and cultural context, the teacher plays a key role in generating a new educational environment, which involves organizing and adapting the didactic process for students [2]. In the field of physical education (PE) and physical activity and sport, these teaching innovations are evolving from traditional models, based on direct instruction, with organizations in rows and columns as the basis of teaching, to alternative models, encouraging a change in the way of teaching and learning on the part of the teacher [3,4]. These contributions come not only from science but also, and directly, from higher education derived from the indications set by the European Higher Education Area (EEES) where they state that the didactic process has to change to a learner-centered methodological approach [5]. This means generating a change in the didactic model, where the teacher and the student modify their roles: the teacher becomes a guide of the didactic process, and, in turn, the student is the one who becomes the real center around which the process revolves, being the active protagonist of it [6], with the aim of achieving the greatest amount possible of significant learning on the part of the students [7].
In the present digitally connected society with continuous access to information, new opportunities have arisen for the application of games in the field of education [8]. This movement has led to a continuous trend towards the incorporation of technology in education, causing a continuous reflection on educational models and the emergence of different educational methodologies [9]. In this sense, the implementation of technology in physical education classes has initiated a positive change in student participation, as well as an improvement in motivation towards it and an enriching way of looking at physical education [10]. However, its application should not only be reduced to the first educational stages, as it is convenient and advisable to implement its use up to the university level in order to improve the training of future teachers so that they are able to experience, feel and value the game together with the use of new information technologies (ICTs) and learning and knowledge technologies (LKTs) [11]. In this way, it will help them in their training and in being able to better adapt to the current educational context and to the new training needs that will influence the personal, social and physical development of the pupils [12]. This will improve motivation, participation and collaborative learning [5,13] under the idea of learning-by-doing [14].
It is in this context where the possibility of using a new methodological proposal aimed at improving training emerges, such as gamification, which uses games and video games as the axis on which the teaching–learning process is built [15]. It is a pedagogical approach based on introducing the dynamics and characteristics of video games in the classroom [16,17], generating benefits, not only in the acquisition of skills, but also in greater motivation and interaction, as well as better levels of satisfaction through the resolution of problems [5,15,18]. It is considered a novel methodological strategy in the physical education area [15,19], where, by not rewarding the result but rather the effort and teamwork, the student is involved in the process and is evaluated, independently of the results obtained, so that he or she is motivated and makes an effort to solve the challenges posed [18]. It also facilitates the relationship between the learner and the environment, generating an attitudinal change and making learning rewarding [20,21]. However, not everything that is done by playing games is gamified; gamification demands some minimum requirements, such as telling a story in which students have to overcome different tests or challenges, the teacher giving them a reward or badge for overcoming each challenge and showing the rankings, all of this using ICTs and LKTs [22], and some teachers add a high workload to this methodology [15]. Several studies with university students show that they enjoyed the experience and had higher engagement and higher student motivation [5,23,24]. Others, on the other hand, show less motivation and worse final scores [25], so more studies with valid tools are needed to know the effect [15].
This innovative learning context is influenced by several factors that affect learners, including motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning. The first of these, motivation, is considered to be the direction and the intensity of a person’s effort to achieve a specific goal or objective [26]. It also comprises a continuum in the actions a person takes, from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation [27]. Intrinsic motivation has been related to students who are more adaptable and have better experiences in PE, as well as having positive outcomes such as enjoyment, engagement or competence [28]. Reference should also be made to demotivation, i.e., the total lack of motivation or rather the intention to do a certain activity, and all of this within the self-determination theory (SDT), a theoretical framework used to understand people’s behavior [27,29,30].
As the second factor, basic psychological needs affect motivation and are related to the context of each person; basic psychological needs are autonomy, competence and relatedness [29], which are necessary for general health: physical, psychological and social well-being [16]. Autonomy is understood as the desire to feel that one is the originator and regulator of one’s own behavior, competence is the person’s perception of being able to show effectiveness within a particular context and relatedness refers to the feeling of belonging to a social environment [29,31]. It has been shown that any element that can satisfy basic psychological needs will lead to improvements in intrinsic and self-determined motivation of the individual, as well as to greater enjoyment of physical education classes [32]. Finally, cooperative learning has gained great importance in recent years, especially in the field of education, and is considered as a methodological tool that can help to meet the needs of 21st-century students [33]. It is considered a methodology that uses small groups for students to work together in order to improve their own learning and that of the other students in the group, through common objectives and with benefits for achieving various positive results such as motivation, social skills and performance in subjects such as physical education [34,35,36].
In this way, the gamified work environment aims to promote the interconnection of students for group work, helping them to improve their competences and to work autonomously, as the teacher’s help is limited. Therefore, it considers that there can be a connection between it, psychological needs, self-determined motivation [16] and, of course, the cooperative learning of the students who participate in it.
Hence, to the best of our knowledge, empirical studies on gamification in PE for future teachers are scarce, and it is therefore necessary to analyze the effects of gamification on different psychological variables and, also, on cooperative learning. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze the effect of gamification on motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning of prospective PE teachers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of 102 students from the Pontifical University of Salamanca. The study design is cross-sectional descriptive. The type of sampling was non-probabilistic by convenience, i.e., the selection of participants was based on the presence of characteristics that respond to the needs of the research. All of them were of legal age and with a mean age of 23.28 (±5.442) years. By gender, 50 were male and 52 were female. Females had a mean age of 22.44 (±4.582) years, and males had a mean age of 24.16 (±6.136) years. Of these, 28 were students of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences (27.5%) (PASS), 47 were students of Physical Education (46.1%) (PE) and 27 were students of the Professional Master’s Degree in Teacher Training (26.5%), all of them future teachers in the specific area of physical education and sport. The sample size was as follows: 93.3% in the case of students of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences (PAAS); 94% were students of Physical Education (PE) and 90% were students of the Professional Master’s Degree in Teacher Training.

2.2. Procedure

The study was consistent with the Helsinki Declaration of 2013. Participants were treated ethically under the American Psychological Association code of ethics regarding consent, anonymity, and responses; the Oviedo Agreement; the recommendations of Good Clinical Practice of the EEC (document 111/3976/88 of July 1990); and the current Spanish legal regulations governing clinical research on humans (RD 561/1993 on clinical trials) in a pre-experimental study (no control group), similar to other studies [15].
First of all, contact was made with authorities for the degree program, the Faculty of Education, with the teachers responsible for the subjects Fundamentals of Sport and Physical Education and with all the students, all of whom were of legal age. Consent was requested from all students. Once everyone’s approval was obtained, the experimental phase was started.
Afterward, a meeting was held with the students to inform them about the study, the tool to be used and the process that would be carried out in the practical session. In this session, the students were informed about the use of different ICT tools necessary to carry out the session, such as Prezi, a QR code reader. Finally, students were asked to form groups, with an avatar to serve as an identifier, with a minimum of five and a maximum of six students per group.
The sessions were adjusted to the three levels of gamification [22]: first, the dynamic on which the session is structured; second, the mechanics carried out in the session with the different challenges to overcome cooperatively; and finally, the components that form part of the dynamic, such as the points to be obtained in each challenge overcome. Moreover, no public scoreboards existed (they tend to promote comparison, which leads naturally to competition). The choice of the narrative was attractive for the students, such as the Olympic Games based on the video game Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games, as this is the year in which the last Olympic Games were celebrated (2021). The narrative is the most significant feature of gamification, as everything else is structured around it [25,37]. All study groups had the same teacher. He had previous training and experience in various pedagogical approaches, including gamification and new educational methodologies in the area of physical education and sport, with more than 10 years of experience in university teaching. In addition, the use of the same teacher was based on other studies on gamification [15,38].
Four 90 min sessions were organized. All sessions had the same structure: warm-up with stretching and articular mobility exercises and a final game of displacements; a second, central part, aimed at overcoming the physical challenges oriented to the Olympic Games; and a final part of cooling down with stretching exercises to relax the students and get them ready for the next session, similar to other research [15,38]. In each of the sessions, four cooperative challenges had to be completed. In all the challenges, the process was the same; first, they had to scan a QR code containing the explanation of the cooperative mission, with an explanatory presentation Prezi, which was used as a portfolio, being a fundamental element and including all the important information of the project, being used as a guide for the students by including the following: clear instructions, challenges to overcome and the rewards of each one of them [15]. Then, each mission was carried out by adding up everyone’s points in order to pass the mission [38]. Finally, once the sessions were over, and just at the end of all the cooperative motor challenges, the students completed the questionnaires.

2.3. Instrument

Several instruments were used to carry out the research. The first of these was the Motivational Situation Scale (MSS), scientifically validated [39]. It consists of 16 items and four motivational factors: intrinsic motivation (IM), identified regulation (IR), external regulation (ER) and amotivation (AMO). The results showed high values of Cronbach’s alpha, above 0.78, with values by factors of: 0.84 in the amotivation subscale, 0.80 in the external regulation subscale, 0.78 in the identified regulation subscale and 0.91 in the intrinsic motivation subscale.
The second was the Cooperative Learning Questionnaire, scientifically validated [34], which is made up of five factors: Promoting Interaction (PI), Positive Interdependence (PoI), Individual Responsibility (INRE), Group Processing (GP) and Social Skills (SS), suitable for studies in the educational field. Cronbach’s alphas are also above 0.70, values by factors of: Social Skills (SS) 0.74, Group Processing (GP) 0.75, Positive Interdependence (PoI) 0.72, Promoting Interaction (PI) 0.76 and Individual Responsibility (INRE) 0.79.
The third was the Spanish version of the Basic Psychological Needs in Physical Education Scale (BPN-PE), scientifically validated [32], consisting of 12 items and three factors: autonomy (AU), competence (COM) and relationship (RS). In this case, the authors tested the reliability of the measures by means of the composite reliability coefficient (CRC), with the following reliability values [32]: autonomy (AU) 0.85, competence (COM) 0.93 and relationship (RS) 0.84.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS version 23.0. In descriptive analysis, the statistical tests used were non-parametric, due to the fact that the sample does not have normality values in the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Therefore, Kruskal–Wallis tests were performed for the variables age group and study group, and in the case of gender, the Mann–Whitney U test was used. The significance level (p < 0.05) was determined according to the variables described. Finally, Spearman’s rho bivariate correlations were carried out to determine the relationships between the different variables analyzed.

3. Results

The main results show high values for the basic psychological needs, with autonomy having the highest values, intrinsic motivation being quite high and very low levels of amotivation. The values for cooperative learning are also high in all factors. By gender, females obtain higher results than men in psychological needs, cooperative learning and amotivation and external regulation after the application of gamification (Table 1).
By gender, there are no differences in psychological needs, meaning that gender is not affected by gamified practice. In the case of cooperative learning, gamification has a different behavior according to gender, specifically with significant differences (p < 0.05) in the factors Social Skills, Positive Interdependence and Individual Responsibility, with a greater influence on females than on males. Finally, females have higher levels of external motivation than males and with significant differences, meaning that they do it for external reasons (Table 2).
By degree, in all cases in the psychological needs, it is the competence factor that has a different behavior, with significant differences (p < 0.05), with physical education students showing the highest rank. As for cooperative learning, the behavior is different depending on the degree; therefore, gamification does not affect the degree of study in the same way, with significant differences in SS, GP and PI, in all cases with a higher rank for Master’s students. Finally, gamification does not affect motivation according to the type of studies, although in MI and IR the highest rank is presented by PASS students, in the same way as in the case of AMO (Table 3).
The results by gender and type of studies show that, in the case of males, gamification affects psychological needs differently; in the specific case of competence, physical education students obtain higher ranks than PASS and Master’s students. In cooperative learning again, Master’s students show higher values than the rest of the degrees in the SS and GP factors. In motivation, the effect of gamification is similar in all areas of study. In the case of females, gamification does not affect psychological needs differently; however, the effect is different in cooperative learning, specifically in the SS factors, where females in the Master’s degree obtain higher ranks, and PI, where females studying PE show higher values. Finally, again as in the case of males, gamification does not affect female motivation, although female PASS students show higher motivation values (Table 4).
In the case of age, gamification does not have a significant effect on psychological needs, although it is true that students aged 21–25 years obtain higher values in all the factors. In cooperative learning, the effect of gamification is not homogeneous, since in the case of the SS, GP and PI factors, the highest ranges correspond to students over 25 years of age; i.e., gamification has a greater effect on cooperative learning as the age of the subjects increases. Finally, in motivation, gamification does not affect the age of the subjects; however, it is much more motivating for the younger ones, and they also present higher ranges of motivation (Table 5).
The bivariate correlations show the following (Table 6):
  • Basic psychological needs:
    ○
    The autonomy factor correlates positively with the two factors of the basic psychological needs, in addition to all learning factors.
    ○
    The competence factor is positively correlated with the psychological need factors and with the SS, GP and INRE factors.
    ○
    The RS factor correlates positively with the psychological need factors and with the cooperative learning factors.
  • Cooperative learning:
    ○
    All factors of cooperative learning are positively correlated with each other, as well as with the AU and RS factors of basic psychological needs.
  • Motivation:
    ○
    IM is positively correlated with IR and negatively correlated with the AMO factor.
    ○
    IR correlates positively with IR and negatively with the AMO factor.
    ○
    ER correlates positively with AMO.

4. Discussion

The general hypothesis of the study was that gamification is a methodological tool that affects future teachers by improving psychological aspects differently according to age, gender and degree, with the general objective of analyzing the effect of gamification on motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning of future physical education teachers.
We agree with other research in considering that gamification is a novel methodological strategy, a suitable and enriching pedagogical framework for education and physical education [8,10,19], which presents significant experiences even when applied to different contexts, including the university stage, as is the case in our study [11,16,34]. In this sense, it is demonstrated that gamification affects and improves the psychological aspects of students, as in other research [16,34].
In addition, Spanish legislation and the EEES require teachers to apply innovative pedagogical approaches to improve the training of future teachers [11] and, in this way, create training contexts that enable the development of competences, as well as autonomy and the creation of healthy habits, aspects that are helped by gamified sessions with students through active learning, as indicated by other research [5,15,16,40]. However, this aspect needs to be analyzed and corroborated with more research to further verify this effect.
The study hypothesis is demonstrated by presenting good results in the basic psychological needs, with high values in all of them, as shown in other studies [16], although the age of the sample is not similar. In this way, we agree with other research that considers that the improvement of basic psychological needs is essential for the health of students in all aspects, not only physical, but also social and psychological aspects [16,41]. These results are related to other studies indicating that the improvement of psychological needs benefits adaptive and cooperative behaviors, as in our research correlating psychological needs with cooperative learning [28,42]. The students also show satisfaction with their basic psychological needs [43]. Along the same lines, the element with the highest rating in psychological needs was autonomy, which is also positively related to the other two factors, competence and relationship, aspects that may be due to the fact that the gamification process with the different phases leads students, both male and female, to nurture their basic psychological needs, linking this circumstance to greater autonomous motivation and better psychological growth [16,44]. These results found in our research can be interpreted as a sample of high values of intrinsic and self-determined motivation [32,45]. This aspect has resulted in students creating a positive environment for the psychological needs of future teachers since the gamified environment created generates positive relationships, competition and autonomy among students through cooperative challenges. Therefore, this methodological tool presents the necessary elements to develop the basic psychological needs [16] of future teachers in the area of physical education.
A key element in education is motivation, and in this case, the results show that after the implementation of gamification, through motor problem solving and active participation, the values of intrinsic and self-determined motivation are quite high [5,15,16,18,23,24,46,47,48,49,50], both in general and by gender, coinciding, moreover, with the framework of the self-determination theory [27,29]. In this way, gamification is shown to be an attractive methodological tool for learners [16], where pleasant experiences motivate learners [51]. However, they do not comply with the previously corroborated idea that rewards provoke a higher level of external motivation [25,27], since group work is valued and not individual performance [16], through problem solving [52]. It is also true that studies do not show clear results, as there are studies that show a positive effect on motivation through gamification [15,23,24,37,53], while others do not [25,43,54,55,56]. However, in our case, motivation was related neither to psychological needs nor to cooperative learning, so these data have to be taken with caution and more interventions are needed to concretize these results in the future. What is true, however, is that intrinsic motivation and self-determined motivation are negatively correlated with motivation; i.e., high levels of motivation lead to a decrease in motivation, a key aspect in the training of future teachers, which is a paramount element in the successful training of students in schools [29].
Another of the most relevant elements in the 21st century is cooperative learning, which is why we consider it to be a methodological tool that helps future teachers in the 21st century [33,38], with a proven value in the field of physical education [49,57,58]. The use of ICT stimulates cooperative learning, thanks to the contribution of each of the participants in the groups, and following the guidelines of the gamified methodology [50,59]. In addition to helping to improve aspects such as motivation and basic psychological needs, grouping pupils into groups has improved group cohesion, commitment and social relations, as the absence of rankings meant that pupils were not competing for the best place [15,57,60,61,62,63,64]. In this sense, the results show high values of cooperative learning [20,21,49,60,65,66,67], although it is higher in the case of females, with significant differences in SS, POI and INRE, and with better results for Master’s students than for the other grades analyzed; that is, as the students advance in their training and age, cooperative learning is valued as more important. This needs to be analyzed with more research to further test this effect. It also correlates with other research in that interpersonal skills and motivation are improved [57]. Furthermore, it correlates positively with basic psychological needs and among all factors of cooperative learning; i.e., improved cooperative learning implies improved basic psychological needs in future teachers [16].
Therefore, the implementation of gamification in the area of physical education, with the improvement of motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning, can be used to return to the area its educational value and not only focus on fitness, obesity prevention or the promotion of physical activity [15,68], since it demonstrates a high impact on the teaching process at all levels, including university [6,49]. In this way, physical education can establish itself as an educational and formative subject.
Finally, this research has several limitations such as the small number of participants as the sample is not very large, and more studies with larger samples are needed for the results to be generalized. It is necessary to apply an analysis prior to the implementation of the proposal or even to measure in the middle of the intervention and analyze the effect at different points in time. Application in other countries would help to see if the results are similar regardless of cultural and contextual variables. In addition, the duration of the program should be increased to see if the effect is different depending on the time of implementation. In addition, it would be desirable to have different teachers in the implementation of the study, as some researchers may see the use of a single teacher as biased. The study within the university setting of prospective teachers is limited, and the data should be corroborated in different settings and contexts.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the results of the present study support the use of gamification in the teaching of future physical education teachers, as it is associated with increased levels of students’ intrinsic and self-determined motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning. Therefore, gamification could be considered a positive pedagogical tool for physical education and teacher education.
This study helps to further deepen the knowledge offered by the use of gamification in the university and training context of future teachers in the area of physical education, with an improvement in motivation, basic psychological needs and cooperative learning, as a training basis for a better adaptation to the teaching labor market. However, more studies with greater variability of contexts, participants and contents are needed to confirm or reject the results obtained in this study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.P.-M. and A.R.-C.; methodology, S.P.-M. and A.R.-C.; formal analysis, S.P.-M. and A.R.-C.; investigation, S.P.-M. and A.S.M.; resources, A.S.M. and J.M.D.M.R.; data curation, S.P.-M. and A.R.-C.; writing original draft preparation, S.P.-M. and A.R.-C.; writing—review and editing, S.P.-M., A.R.-C., A.S.M. and J.M.D.M.R.; visualization, A.S.M. and J.M.D.M.R.; supervision, S.P.-M. This paper was reviewed by all authors and all of them were responsible for its contents and the final version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was consistent with the Helsinki Declaration of 2013. Participants were treated ethically under the American Psychological Association code of ethics regarding consent, anonymity, and responses; the Oviedo Agreement; the recommendations of Good Clinical Practice of the EEC (document 111/3976/88 of July 1990); and the current Spanish legal regulations governing clinical research on humans (RD 561/1993 on clinical trials).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the participants of this study for their cooperation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens; Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  2. Rodríguez, A.; Vicente, E.; De Mena, J.M.; Pérez, S. Effect of gamified physical activity practice on the mood of female basketball players in confinement stage. Retos 2022, 43, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Díaz, J. Challenges and opportunities of mobile technology in physical education. Retos 2020, 37, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gutiérrez, D.; García-López, L.M. Assessment of primary school students’ decision-making related to tactical contexts. J. New Approaches Educ. Res. 2012, 1, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pérez-López, I.J.; Rivera, E.; Trigueros, C. The Prophecy of the Chosen Ones”: An Example of Gamification Applied to University Teaching. Rev. Int. De Med. Y Cienc. De La Act. Física Y El Deporte 2017, 17, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pérez, A.; Gértrudix-Barrio, F. Ventajas de la gamificación en el ámbito educativo formal en España. Una revisión bibliográfica en el periodo de 2015–2020. Contextos Educ. 2021, 28, 203–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Muntaner, J.J.; Pinya, C.; Mut, B. The impact of active methodologies inacademic results: A case study. Rev. De Curric. Y Form. Del Profr. 2020, 24, 9–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martí, J.; Méndez, E.; Queiro, C.; Sánchez, A.; Galbis, A.; Seguí, D. Gamificación en el Ámbito Universitario; Ingénesis Books: Valencia, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  9. Marqués-Molías, L.; Palau-Martín, R.; Usart, M.; Morilla, F. The Flipped Classroom in the learning of korfball in fifth and sixth grade. Aloma 2019, 37, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Aznar, I.; Cáceres, M.P.; Trujillo, J.M.; Romero, J.M. Impact of mobile apps on physical activity: A meta-analysis. Retos 2019, 36, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Campos-Mesa, M.; González-campos, G.; Castañeda-Vázquez, C. Analysis of the motivation of higher education students participating in a formative assessment experience. SPORT TK-Rev. EuroAmericana De Cienc. Del Deporte 2019, 8, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Calatayud, M.L.; Morales, J.M. Gamificación en el Entorno Universitario: Ejemplos Prácticos; Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. Piñeiro-Otero, T.; Costa-Sánchez, C. ARG (Alternate Reality Games). Contributions, Limitations, and Potentialities to the Service of the Teaching at the University Leve. Comunicar 2015, 44, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Villasol, I. 4.0 Toolkit for teachers in the era of competency evaluations. Innovación Educ. 2019, 19, 93–112. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fernández-Rio, J.; las Heras, E.; González, T.; Trillo, V.; Palomares, J. Gamification and Physical Education: Viability and preliminary views from students and teachers. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2020, 25, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fernandez-Rio, J.; Zumajo-Flores, M.; Flores-Aguilar, G. Motivation, basic psychologicalneeds and intention to bephysically active after a gamifiedintervention programme. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2022, 28, 432–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Teixes, F. Gamificación: Fundamentos y Aplicaciones; UOC: Barcelona, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Alsawaier, R.S. The effect of gamification on motivation and engagement. Int. J. Inf. Learn. Technol. 2018, 35, 56–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Escaravajal, J.C.; Martín-Acosta, F. Análisis bibliográfico de la gamificación en Educación Física. Rev. Iberoam. De Cienc. De La Act. Física Y El Deporte 2019, 8, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hernández-Horta, I.A.; Monroy-Reza, A.; Jiménez-García, M. Learning through Games based on Principles of Gamification in Higher Education Institutions. Form. Univ. 2018, 11, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rodríguez, C.; Ramos, M.; Santos, M.J.; Fernández, J.M. The use of gamification for the promotion of the inclusive education. Int. J. New Educ. 2019, 3, 40–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Werbach, K.; Hunter, D. The Gamification Toolkit: Dynamics, Mechanics, and Components for the Win; Wharton Digital Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Charles, D.; Charles, T.; McNeill, M.; Bustard, D.; Black, M. Game-based Feedback for Educational Multi-User Virtual Environments. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2011, 42, 638–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Domínguez, A.; Saenz-de-Navarrete, J.; de-Marcos, L.; Fernández-Sanz, L.; Pagés, C.; Martínez-Herráiz, J.J. Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and Outcomes. Comput. Educ. 2013, 63, 380–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hanus, M.D.; Fox, J. Assessing the Effects of Gamification in the Classroom: A Longitudinal Study on Intrinsic Motivation, Social Comparison, Satisfaction, Effort, and Academic Performance. Comput. Educ. 2015, 80, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dosil, J. Psicología de la Actividad Física y Del Deporte; McGraw-Hill: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  27. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour; Plenum: New York, NJ, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  28. Vasconcellos, D.; Parker, P.D.; Hilland, T.; Cinelli, R.; Owen, K.B.; Kapsal, N.; Lee, J.; Antczak, D.; Ntoumanis, N.; Ryan, R.M.; et al. Self-determination theory applied to physical education: Asystematic review and meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 112, 1444–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development and Wellness; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Trigueros, R.; Aguilar-Parra, J.M.; Álvarez, J.F.; Cangas, A.J.; López-Liria, R. The effect ofmotivation on the resilience and anxiety of the athlete. Rev. Int. De Med. Y Cienc. De La Act. Física Y Del Deporte 2020, 20, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Niemec, C.P.; Ryan, R.M. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying Self-Determination Theory to educational practice. Theory Res. Educ. 2009, 7, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Menéndez, J.I.; Fernández-Río, J. Spanish Version of the Basic Psychological Needs in Physical Education Scale. Rev. Int. De Med. Y Cienc. De La Act. Física Y El Deporte 2018, 18, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Cooperative Learning in 21st Century. An. De Psicol. 2014, 30, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fernandez-Rio, J.; Sanz, N.; Fernandez-Cando, J.; Santos, L. Assessing the long-term effects of cooperative learning on students’ motivation. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2017, 22, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. López, R.G.; Taveras, J. Use of cooperative learning in physical education and its relationship with individual responsibility in high school. Retos 2022, 43, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sharan, Y. Learning to cooperate for cooperative learning. An. De Psicol. 2014, 30, 802–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dichev, C.; Dicheva, D. Gamifying Education: What is Known, what is Believed and What Remains Uncertain: A Critical Review. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2017, 14, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pérez-Muñoz, S.; Jimenez, A.; Sánchez, A.; De Mena, J.M.; Rodríguez, A. The effect of gamification on university students mood and satisfaction level. SYLWAN 2021, 165, 184–197. [Google Scholar]
  39. Martín-Albo, J.; Núñez, J.L.; Navarro, J.G. Validation of the Spanish version of the Situational Motivation Scale (EMSI) in the educational context. Span. J. Psychol. 2009, 12, 799–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lim, M.; Carpio, G.A.C.; Ong, C.M. Evaluation of Engagement in Learning Within Active Learning Classrooms: Does Novelty Make a Difference? J. Learn. Spaces 2019, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  41. Vansteenkiste, M.; Niemiec, C.P.; Soenens, B. The development of the five mini-theories of selfdetermination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement Advances in Motivation and Achievement; Urdan, T.C., Karabenick, S.A., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2010; pp. 105–165. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kinnafick, F.E.; Thogersen-Ntoumani, C.; Duda, J. The effect of need supportive text messages on motivation and physical activity behaviour. J. Behav. Med. 2016, 39, 574–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Van-Roy, R.; Zaman, B. Unravelling the ambivalent motivational power of gamification: A basic psychological needs perspective. Int. J. Hum. -Comput. Stud. 2017, 127, 38–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Smith, A. The Theory of Moral Sentiments; Penguin: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  45. Warburton, V.E.; Wang, J.C.K.; Bartholomew, K.J.; Tuff, R.L.; Bishop, K.C.M. Need satisfaction and need frustration as distinct and potentially co-occurring constructs: Need profiles examined in physical education and sport. Motiv. Emot. 2020, 44, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Aşıksoy, G. The effects of the gamified flipped classroom environment (GFCE) on students’ motivation, learning achievements and perception in a physics course. Qual. Quant. 2017, 52, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bicen, H.; Kocakoyun, S. Perceptions of students for gamification approach: Kahoot as a case study. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 2018, 13, 72–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Vázquez, F.J. A proposal to gamify step by step without forgetting the curriculum: Edu-Game model. Retos 2020, 39, 811–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Prieto, J.M. A systematic review about gamification, motivation and learning in high school. Teoría De La Educación. Rev. Interuniv. 2020, 32, 73–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pozo, S.; López, J.; Fuentes, A.; López, J.A. Gamification as a Methodological Complement to Flipped Learning—An Incident Factor in Learning Improvement. Multimodal Technol. Interact. 2020, 4, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jaakkola, T.; Yli-Piipari, S.; Barkoukis, V.; Liukkonen, J. Relationships among Perceived Motivational Climate, Motivational Regulations, Enjoyment, and PA Participation among Finnish Physical Education Students. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2017, 15, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Torres-Toukoumidis, A.; Romero-Rodríguez, L.M.; Pérez-Rodríguez, M.A. Gamification and its possibilities in the blended learning environment: Literature review. RIED-Rev. Iberoam. De Educ. A Distancia 2018, 21, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Segura-Robles, A.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A.; Parra-González, M.E.; López-Belmonte, J. Effects on personal factors through flipped learning and gamification as combined methodologies in secondary education. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Quintas, A.; Bustamante, J.C.; Pradas, F.; Castellar, C. Psychological effects of gamified didactics with exergames in physical education at primary schools: Results from a natural experiment. Comput. Educ. 2020, 152, 103874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hazan, B.; Zhang, W.; Olcum, E.; Bergdoll, R.; Grandoit, E.; Mandelbaum, F.; Wilson-Doenges, G.; Rabin, L. Gamification of an undergraduate psychology statistics lab: Benefits to perceived competence. Stat. Educ. Res. J. 2018, 17, 255–265. Available online: https://bit.ly/2JMUcKn. (accessed on 10 June 2022). [CrossRef]
  56. Kyewski, E.; Krämer, N. To gamify or not to gamify? An experimental field study of the influence of badges on motivation, activity, and performance in an online learning course. Comput. Educ. 2017, 118, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Casey, A.; Goodyear, V.A. Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education?A review of literature. Quest 2015, 67, 56–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fernández-Río, J. Another step in models-based practice: Hybridizing cooperative learning and teaching for personaland social responsibility. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc. 2014, 85, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vergara, D.; Mezquita, J.M.; Gómez, A.I. Innovative methodology based on educational gamification: Multiple-choice test evaluation with Quizizz tool. Profr. Rev. De Currículum Y Form. Del Profr. 2019, 23, 363–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Legrain, P.; Escalié, G.; Lafont, L.; Chaliès, S. Cooperative learning: A relevantinstructional model for physical education preservice teacher training? Phys. Educ. Pedagog. 2019, 24, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Fernández-Argüelles, D.; González, C. Physical education and cooperative learning: A practical experience. J. Sport Health Res. 2018, 10, 43–64. [Google Scholar]
  62. García, S.; Sánchez, P.; Ferriz, A. Cooperative versus competitive methodologies: Effects on motivation in PE students. Retos 2020, 39, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. López, D.; Colonge, A.; Rodríguez, T.; Ros, G.; Lebron, J.A. Using Gamification in a teaching innovation proyect at the university of Alcalá: A New Approach to Experimental Science Practices. Electron. J. E-Learn. 2019, 17, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. López-Belmonte, J.; Segura-Robles, A.; Fuentes-Cabrera, A.; Parra-González, M.E. Evaluating Activation and Absence of Negative Effect: Gamification and Escape Rooms for Learning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Lamoneda, J.; González-Víllora, S.; Fernández-Río, J. Hybridizing Cooperative Learning, Adventure Education, and Gamification through orienteering races. Retos 2020, 38, 754–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ferriz-Valero, A.; García-Martínez, S.; Arroyo-Botella, J. Cooperative methodologies for the decreasedisruptive attitudes in physical education. Rev. Int. De Med. Y Cienc. De La Act. Física Y Del Deporte 2019, 19, 599–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Subhash, S.; Cudney, E.A. Gamified learning in higher education: A systematic review of the literature. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 87, 192–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Quennerstedt, M. Physical Education and the Art of Teaching: Transformative Learning and Teaching in Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy. Sport Educ. Soc. 2019, 24, 611–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. General descriptive statistics: mean and standard variation by gender.
Table 1. General descriptive statistics: mean and standard variation by gender.
FactorsTotalMaleFemale
M (SD)M (SD)M (SD)
AU5.75 (±0.898)5.57 (±0.973)5.59 (±0.789)
COM5.18 (±1.05)5.11 (±1.08)5.26 (±1.02)
RS5.54 (±1.29)5.60 (±1.20)5.51 (±1.38)
SS4.51 (±0.513)4.41 (±0.520)4.61 (±0.491)
GP4.53 (±0.494)4.51 (±0.487)4.55 (±0.505)
POI4.57 (±0.486)4.47 (±0.464)4.66 (±0.492)
PI4.63 (±0.483)4.63 (±0.417)4.62 (±0.543)
INRE4.70 (±0.388)4.61 (±0.411)4.78 (±0.348)
IM5.82 (±0.978)5.81 (±1.01)5.84 (±0.956)
IR5.30 (±1.064)5.51 (±0.873)5.09 (±1.19)
ER3.73 (±1.35)3.44 (±1.384)4.01 (±1.26)
AMO1.9 (±1.122)1.85 (±1.06)1.96 (±1.19)
AU: autonomy; COM: competence; RS: relationship; SS: Social Skills; GP: Group Processing; POI: Positive Interdependence; PI: Promoting Interaction; INRE: Individual Responsibility; IM: intrinsic motivation; IR: identified regulation; ER: external regulation; AMO: amotivation.
Table
Table 2. Mann–Whitney U-ranks: gender differences.
Table 2. Mann–Whitney U-ranks: gender differences.
FactorsMaleFemaleSig.
RanksRanks
AU46.5256.290.094
COM49.4653.460.493
RS50.9052.080.840
SS45.1357.630.030 *
GP49.8053.130.560
POI44.0758.640.010 *
PI49.8553.090.563
INRE44.2358.490.010 *
IM51.1851.810.914
IR56.6846.520.082
ER44.9557.800.028 *
AMO50.9951.990.861
* p < 0.05; AU: autonomy; COM: competence; RS: relationship; SS: Social Skills; GP: Group Processing; POI: Positive Interdependence; PI: Promoting Interaction; INRE: Individual Responsibility; IM: intrinsic motivation; IR: identified regulation; ER: external regulation; AMO: amotivation.
Table
Table 3. Ranks and Kruskal–Wallis significant difference by qualification.
Table 3. Ranks and Kruskal–Wallis significant difference by qualification.
FactorsPASSPEMasterSig.
RanksRanksRanks
AU48.5756.5945.690.255
COM44.1860.5443.350.017
RS52.7952.7647.980.770
SS38.5949.8167.830.001 *
GP39.8051.1064.330.007 *
POI47.5054.0751.170.628
PI40.5951.7462.390.017 *
INRE51.0557.3941.700.065
IM61.048.6946.540.128
IR59.7348.5948.040.222
ER47.5952.5353.760.702
AMO57.0949.2649.610.486
* p < 0.05; AU: autonomy; COM: competence; RS: relationship; SS: Social Skills; GP: Group Processing; POI: Positive Interdependence; PI: Promoting Interaction; INRE: Individual Responsibility; IM: intrinsic motivation; IR: identified regulation; ER: external regulation; AMO: amotivation.
Table
Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis significant ranges and significant difference: degree and gender.
Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis significant ranges and significant difference: degree and gender.
FactorsMaleFemale
PASSPEMasterSig.PASSPEMasterSig.
AU26.5427.3322.860.61822.7128.6925.330.462
COM24.5733.5818.140.006 *20.028.4830.220.161
RS29.1826.7221.420.29324.0727.0328.560.754
SS20.9619.9434.580.004 *18.027.6636.00.014 *
GP21.0421.5832.890.023 *19.5428.2631.670.098
POI26.1422.4728.030.49821.6129.5524.280.200
PI24.6120.3631.330.06116.6829.5524.280.010 *
INRE29.025.3922.890.47922.5030.2820.560.070
IM31.4624.3122.060.17329.8224.8326.720.594
IRE28.7125.1123.390.58231.7925.1422.670.283
ER20.0427.028.250.24528.8225.027.720.714
AMO24.9325.6425.810.98432.6124.6622.940.188
* p < 0.05; AU: autonomy; COM: competence; RS: relationship; SS: Social Skills; GP: Group Processing; POI: Positive Interdependence; PI: Promoting Interaction; INRE: Individual Responsibility; IM: intrinsic motivation; IR: identified regulation; ER: external regulation; AMO: amotivation.
Table
Table 5. Significant differences by age: Kruskal–Wallis ranges.
Table 5. Significant differences by age: Kruskal–Wallis ranges.
Factors18–20 Years21–25 YearsMore than 25 YearsSig.
RanksRanksRanks
AU49.6356.0842.120.169
COM44.1557.0746.620.124
RS51.5754.0644.810.475
SS38.3154.9459.600.019 *
GP39.0755.6456.830.033 *
POI47.2654.7248.670.476
PI39.0954.3360.170.021 *
INRE50.0456.4740.600.081
IM62.5748.1145.980.072
IRE60.0748.2448.860.211
ER47.4853.3648.860.698
AMO56.4649.4850.310.579
* p < 0.05; AU: autonomy; COM: competence; RS: relationship; SS: Social Skills; GP: Group Processing; POI: Positive Interdependence; PI: Promoting Interaction; INRE: Individual Responsibility; IM: intrinsic motivation; IR: identified regulation; ER: external regulation; AMO: amotivation.
Table
Table 6. Bivariate correlations.
Table 6. Bivariate correlations.
AUCOMRSSSGPPOIPIINREIMIRERAMO
AUCorr1
Sig.
COMCorr0.406 **1
Sig.0.000
RSCorr0.362 **0.292 **1
Sig.0.0000.000
SSCorr0.326 **0.146 **0.234 **1
Sig.0.0000.0490.002
GPCorr0.352 **0.153 *0.256 **0.705 **1
Sig.0.0000.0410.0010.000
POICorr0.386 **0.1460.295 **0.474 **0.500 **1
Sig.0.0000.0520.0000.0000.000
PICorr0.248 **0.0040.200 **0.560 **0.557 **0.491 **1
Sig.0.0000.9560.0090.0000.0000.000
INRECorr0.342 **0.162 *0.257 **0.417 **0.425 **0.554 **0.474 **1
Sig.0.0000.0360.0010.0000.0000.0000.000
IMCorr0.1360.0560.0920.0280.022−0.0630.0220.0531
Sig.0.0610.4400.2030.7030.7700.4110.7720.498
IRCorr0.045−0.1180.0600.0230.039−0.0270.0250.0770.531 **1
Sig.0.5340.0970.4000.7590.6010.7250.7450.3140.000
ERCorr0.0360.0560.0620.057−0.0300.043−0.0300.0150.1010.0821
Sig.0.6100.4070.3830.4400.6840.5660.6950.8410.1570.249
AMOCorr−0.033−0.1070.016−0.140−0.107−0.055−0.093−0.075−0.360 **−0.266 **0.191 **1
Sig.0.6600.1470.8260.0680.1670.4830.2360.3480.0000.0000.009
* p < 0.05: significant correlation at 0.05 level (bilateral); ** p < 0.01: significant correlation at 0.01 level (bilateral); AU: autonomy; COM: competence; RS: relationship; SS: Social Skills; GP: Group Processing; POI: Positive Interdependence; PI: Promoting Interaction; INRE: Individual Responsibility; IM: intrinsic motivation; IR: identified regulation; ER: external regulation; AMO: amotivation.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pérez-Muñoz, S.; Sánchez Muñoz, A.; De Mena Ramos, J.M.; Rodríguez-Cayetano, A. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games: Effect of Gamification on Future Physical Education Teachers. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199459

AMA Style

Pérez-Muñoz S, Sánchez Muñoz A, De Mena Ramos JM, Rodríguez-Cayetano A. Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games: Effect of Gamification on Future Physical Education Teachers. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(19):9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199459

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pérez-Muñoz, Salvador, Antonio Sánchez Muñoz, José Manuel De Mena Ramos, and Alberto Rodríguez-Cayetano. 2022. "Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games: Effect of Gamification on Future Physical Education Teachers" Applied Sciences 12, no. 19: 9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199459

APA Style

Pérez-Muñoz, S., Sánchez Muñoz, A., De Mena Ramos, J. M., & Rodríguez-Cayetano, A. (2022). Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games: Effect of Gamification on Future Physical Education Teachers. Applied Sciences, 12(19), 9459. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12199459

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop