Game-Based Physical Education: A Pathway to Increased Student Motivation and Greater Learning Outcomes

Ghaith Ezeddine¹Nafaa Souissi¹Rihab Alabaidia¹Liwa Masmoudi¹Khaled Trabelsi¹Achraf Ammar^2*Haitham Jahrami³Waqar Husain⁴Amayra Tannoubi⁵Mert Kurnaz^6*Mustafa ALTINKÖK⁷Maher Mrayah⁸

• ¹High Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Sfax, University of Sfax, Tunisia, Sfax, Tunisia
• ²Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
• ³Government Hospitals, Manama, Bahrain, Manama, Bahrain
• ⁴Department of Humanities, COMSATS University Islamabad, IslamabadCampus, Park Road, Islamabad, Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan
• ⁵High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Gafsa, University of Gafsa, Gafsa, Tunisia
• ⁶Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Haliç University, Istanbul, Türkiye, Istanbul, Türkiye
• ⁷Department of Physical Education and Sports Teaching, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye, Antalya, Türkiye
• ⁸High Institute of Sport and Physical Education, Ksar Saîd, Tunisia, University Manouba, UMA, Tunisia, Tunisia., Tunis, Türkiye

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of game-based learning (GBL) on students' motivation and academic performance in physical education. Methods: Over a five-week period, a total of 51 first-year secondary school students in Tunisia (mean age = 15.0±0.1 years, 50% female) were randomly assigned to an experimental group (EG) or a control group (CG). The EG received physical education instruction through a GBL approach, while the CG followed conventional, teacher-centered instruction. Learning outcomes were evaluated through Learning Time Analysis System video analysis at T0 (pre-intervention), T1 (mid-intervention), and T2 (post-intervention). Motivation was assessed pre-and post-intervention using the Situational Motivation Scale. Results: Compared to the CG, the EG had significantly higher levels of identified regulation (5.42±1.68 at T0 and 5.7±0.92 at T2 for the EG vs. 4.4±1.12 at T0 and 4.23±1.85 at T2 for CG; p<0.001; ηp2=0.26) and intrinsic motivation (5.52±1.61 at T0 and 5.32±1.37 at T2 for EG vs 3.29±1.34 at T0 and 4.37±2.13 at T2 for CG; p<0.001; ηp2=0.28). The EG also improved academic performance through improved motor engagement (50.7±42.3 at T0 to 81.3±20.2 at T1, to 131.4±2.7 at T2; p<0.001; ηp2=0.346) and reduced waiting time (82.9±2.9 at T0 to 57.5±3.5 at T1 and 50.3±2.1 at T2; p<0.001; ηp2=0.90) at both middle and post-intervention which was not always the case in the CG. Conclusion: GBL significantly improved students' motivation and engagement in physical education relative to conventional instruction. While these findings support the use of GBL as an effective pedagogical approach, the relatively small sample size suggests the need to replicate the study with larger and more diverse student populations, while also examining the long-term impact of GBL on skill retention and academic outcomes across different educational environments. Keywords: Play, Academic performance, Secondary school, Motor engagement, Active learning, Motivation