Quasi-experimental trial investigates gamified physical education's impact on motor skills and emotional skills in disadvantaged children, suggesting promising outcomes.
Disadvantaged children are at risk of low motor competence (MC) and emotional intelligence (EI), which are both important for holistic development. Gamification offers a promising approach in physical education (PE), but evidence of effectiveness remains limited. This study investigated the effectiveness and acceptability of a gamified PE intervention on MC, EI, perceived MC, and self-determined motivation in 9–10-year-old children from deprived areas in England. A quasi-experimental trial was conducted with 76 children (44 boys; 32 girls; M age = 9.53 years) from four primary schools (intervention, n = 2; control, n = 2). Intervention schools taught weekly gamified PE lessons for 10 weeks; control schools followed usual routines. MC was assessed using the MC assessment (MCA) and Körperkoordinationtest für Kinder (KTK3+), with psychological outcomes measured via self-report. Acceptability data were collected through teacher interviews and child focus groups. Adjusted between-group estimates (controlling for baseline score, age, and sex) indicated a positive difference in the intervention group relative to the control group for MCA z -score, with no clear difference for KTK3+ z -score. No clear differences were found for EI. External regulation was lower in the intervention group for both physical activity and PE, and relatedness satisfaction was higher, while other psychological outcomes showed little clear difference. Teachers described the lessons as developmentally appropriate, feasible and engaging, and children perceived the lessons as enjoyable and beneficial for movement skills and teamwork. These findings suggest gamification may be a promising pedagogical approach in PE, supporting MC and selected motivational outcomes. Further research is needed to examine longer-term effectiveness and scalability in larger, more diverse samples.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rice et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: