Influence of Virtual Reality and Gamification Combined with Practice Teaching Style in Physical Education on Motor Skills and Students’ Perceived Effort: A Mixed-Method Intervention Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examined the impact of combiningvirtual reality (VR) and gamification (GAM) with practical teaching style (PTS) on students' motor skills and perceived exertionin physical education, and the authorsconclude that GAM techniques are effective in reducing perceived exertion in physicaleducation programs, and combining GAM with VR improves motor skills.

The subject matter is original in that it usesmixed methods, i.e. it brings together virtual reality (which generates positive learningoutcomes in a variety of domains), game elements in non-game contexts and physicaleducation. 

The hypothesis formulated by the authors isthat the use of VR and gamification woulddecrease students' perceived effort duringphysical education lessons and improve theirmotor skills, which is confirmed.

The conclusions formulated by the authors are in line with the evidence and argumentspresented and take into account the issuesaddressed in the hypothesis formulated. 

The bibliography is comprehensive andappropriate to the topic addressed. In addition, almost 60% of the papers mentioned are articles published in the last five years.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1.

This study examined the impact of combining virtual reality (VR) and gamification (GAM)

with practical teaching style (PTS) on students' motor skills and perceived exertion in physical 

education, and the authorsconclude that GAM techniques are effective in reducing perceived exertion in physicaleducation programs, and combining GAM with VR improves motor skills.

The subject matter is original in that it uses mixed methods, i.e. it brings together virtual reality

(which generates positive learning outcomes in a variety of domains), game elements in non-game contexts and physical education. The hypothesis formulated by the authors is that the use of VR and gamification would decrease students' perceived effort during physical education lessons and improve their motor skills, which is confirmed.

The conclusions formulated by the authors are in line with the evidence and arguments presented and take into account the issuesaddressed in the hypothesis formulated. 

The bibliography is comprehensive andappropriate to the topic addressed. In addition, almost 60% of the papers mentioned are articles published in the last five years.

 

Response: Thank you very much for all your comments and feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The current paper is quite intriguing, investigating the impact of combining virtual reality (VR) and gamification (GAM) with a practical teaching style (PTS) on motor skills and perceived effort in physical education classes. The study adopts a mixed-method approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Tests were employed to assess students' motor skills and perceived effort. The study suggests that techniques like gamification are effective in reducing perceived effort in physical education programs, and the combination of gamification with virtual reality can enhance students' motor skills.

However, I believe the paper has some shortcomings that I would like to address:

• Lines 75-80 – Please provide sources for each statement.
• Line 87 – "...generating positive learning outcomes in a variety of domains" – Please specify some sources supporting these positive results.
• Did the three groups of participants have the same teacher for physical education classes, or were they taught by different teachers? Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria for the sample? For instance, consistent attendance in physical education classes could be a factor influencing the obtained results, as well as the participants' age, medical criteria, etc.

I find the paper somewhat confusing, especially regarding the programmed contents for the experimental groups, specifically, the game groupings in GAM and the time/proportion of work in relation to PTS. Similarly, for PTS-GAM-VR, what are the time ratios per lesson and per 6 weeks? Additionally, I believe there is insufficient tabular data presented to support the results and subsequent claims in the discussions.

Overall, while the study presents valuable insights, addressing these concerns could enhance the clarity and credibility of the research.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 2.

Dear authors,

The current paper is quite intriguing, investigating the impact of combining virtual reality (VR) and gamification (GAM) with a practical teaching style (PTS) on motor skills and perceived effort in physical education classes. The study adopts a mixed-method approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Tests were employed to assess students' motor skills and perceived effort. The study suggests that techniques like gamification are effective in reducing perceived effort in physical education programs, and the combination of gamification with virtual reality can enhance students' motor skills.

Response: Thank you very much for all your comments.

However, I believe the paper has some shortcomings that I would like to address:

Lines 75-80 – Please provide sources for each statement.

 

Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have added sources for each statement.

Line 87 – "...generating positive learning outcomes in a variety of domains" – Please specify some sources supporting these positive results.

 

Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have included sources supporting these positive results.

Did the three groups of participants have the same teacher for physical education classes, or were they taught by different teachers? Were there any inclusion or exclusion criteria for the sample? For instance, consistent attendance in physical education classes could be a factor influencing the obtained results, as well as the participants' age, medical criteria, etc.

I find the paper somewhat confusing, especially regarding the programmed contents for the experimental groups, specifically, the game groupings in GAM and the time/proportion of work in relation to PTS. Similarly, for PTS-GAM-VR, what are the time ratios per lesson and per 6 weeks?

 

 

Response: Thank you very much for your comments, since we agree with you in including the information suggested to provide more clarity to the manuscript, and including a explanation below that we hope you find reasonable.

Regarding the first concern, the same two people, both researchers and physical education teachers were in charge of the sessions. One of these teachers was indeed the regular teacher of all study groups in their High School. These two researchers were supported by 3 researchers who were also experts in the VR field, in the study group were students use this technology. This information has been included in the manuscript (lines 221-226).

In terms of inclusion and exclusion criteria, this study design (quasi-experimental) does not contemplate the possibility to exclude participants for any reasons except being unwilling to participate. This study design is the most used in educational contexts and it has been suggested that keeping class configuration warrants the external validity and thus the extrapolation of results since some aspects that otherwise may affect negatively to results generalization is controlled (Hérnandez & Maquillón, 2012). We tried hence to keep the educational contexts as real as possible and this means different class groups, previously established and very heterogeneous in number and/or in characteristics (Bores-Calle, Escudero & Bores-García, 2020) Nonetheless, it has been better explained in the methods (lines 123-125 and 145-147) and included in the limitations section (lines 453-456).

Finally, regarding last concerns, we are aware of the short time per PE session, but this is something unfortunately determined by educational institutions, but we were concerned about programmed contents, and we did plan the same for the three groups in terms of curricular content (physical capacities, coordinative abilities...). Accordingly, this information has been included in the description of the intervention (line 190).

Some of the information about intervention was already included in the previous version of the manuscript, but please let us know if it is still unclear: the three groups performed the same number of sessions per week, with the same duration and the same system which was PTS (line 153). This teaching style is based on rotating activities in different stations (lines 188-193). The difference between just PTS group and the other groups was the theme or context and the awards system which was explained in lines 194 – 202. Finally, we have insisted on highlighting that the difference between PTS + gamification and PTS + gamification + VR is just that one of the stations was performed with this technology (lines 203-204) and that VR activities were adjusted to meet curricular contents (lines 216-217).

Additionally, I believe there is insufficient tabular data presented to support the results and subsequent claims in the discussions.

Response: The authors consider that the content of the tables reflects the results of the study, as they were the outcome measures used, without exception. We could not add more information in the tables, as these are the outcome measures selected a priori, and used in the study. However, the Discussion has been carried out based on the results obtained, without extrapolating the data to functional/other variables that were not evaluated. Please, if this does not answer your concern, let us know what specific information could be added in the table. Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Overall, while the study presents valuable insights, addressing these concerns could enhance the clarity and credibility of the research.

Response: Thank you very much. We have addressed concerns as well as possible and we hope you find them suitable to improve clarity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The number of respondents in the control group is significantly different from the number of respondents in the other groups

In the second chapter of the work, a special sub-chapter under the title "aim of the work"

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

The number of respondents in the control group is significantly different from the number of respondents in the other groups.

Response: Thanks for this comment. We are aware of these differences in study groups this is the real situation in educational contexts. In fact, the quasi-experimental study design was selected on purpose since in educational contexts is not usually possible to randomly and equally assign participants to study groups since class groups are previously established. In addition, it is a very common research design in Education since, and according to some authors (Hérnandez & Maquillón, 2012), keeping the regular class configuration helps to warrant external validity of these socioeducative investigations by controlling aspects that otherwise may affect negatively to results generalization. Nonetheless, it has been mentioned in the method (lines 123-125 and 145-147) and in the limitations section (lines 453-456).

In the second chapter of the work, a special sub-chapter under the title "aim of the work"

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The inclusion of this sub-chapter would depend on journal guidelines so we will refer this comment to the editor in charge to clarify this possibility.  The objective has been detailed at the end of the introduction: Therefore, this study aimed to analyse the effect of using VR and GAM in combination with the PTS on motor skills and students’ perceived effort.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting study that examines the impact of combining virtual reality (VR) and gamification (GAM) with the practice teaching style (PTS) on students' motor skills and perceived effort in physical education. This study has several strengths, but certain areas have been identified where the authors could make additions to further enrich the content of the article.

Firstly, it is recommended to expand the main hypothesis by adding specific sub-hypotheses or, even better, formulating specific research questions that the researchers aim to answer within the conducted research. Clearly stating research questions would help the reader better understand which specific aspects of the study are being investigated and what results are expected.

Secondly, although the article refers to the Helsinki Declaration, which is a positive aspect in terms of research ethics, I suggest that the authors also address the principles outlined in the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics. Including information about the application of these principles in the research would enrich the discussion on the ethical aspects of conducting the research.

Thirdly, in the "Limitations" section, I suggest adding a "Strengths" section. Presenting the strengths of the study would help balance the discussion, showing readers why it was worth conducting this research, what it contributes to the field, and what benefits may arise from the results.

In conclusion, the article is a valuable contribution to the literature on the impact of virtual reality and gamification on physical education. The proposed additions can increase the clarity, precision, and completeness of the presented study, contributing to its even greater value for the scientific community.

 

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

The authors present an interesting study that examines the impact of combining virtual reality (VR) and gamification (GAM) with the practice teaching style (PTS) on students' motor skills and perceived effort in physical education. This study has several strengths, but certain areas have been identified where the authors could make additions to further enrich the content of the article.

Response: According to your comments, we will try to work on these additions as well as possible to improve and enrich the article content.

Firstly, it is recommended to expand the main hypothesis by adding specific sub-hypotheses or, even better, formulating specific research questions that the researchers aim to answer within the conducted research. Clearly stating research questions would help the reader better understand which specific aspects of the study are being investigated and what results are expected

Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion to improve comprehension of our hypothesis and expected results. Accordingly, we have added some research questions about the specific aspects of the study and we have clearly exposed the hypotheses of the authors (lines 110 – 115).

Secondly, although the article refers to the Helsinki Declaration, which is a positive aspect in terms of research ethics, I suggest that the authors also address the principles outlined in the American Psychological Association Code of Ethics. Including information about the application of these principles in the research would enrich the discussion on the ethical aspects of conducting the research.

Response: Thank you very much for this comment. We have included this information in the Ethic´s section within “Methods´ section” (lines 266-268), and in the strengths and limitations section (lines 445-449).

Thirdly, in the "Limitations" section, I suggest adding a "Strengths" section. Presenting the strengths of the study would help balance the discussion, showing readers why it was worth conducting this research, what it contributes to the field, and what benefits may arise from the results.

Response: Thank you very much to believe in the strengths of our study. According to your suggestion we have included strengths section (lines 440-449). Please, let us know further strengths we may be forgetting just in case you consider any.

In conclusion, the article is a valuable contribution to the literature on the impact of virtual reality and gamification on physical education. The proposed additions can increase the clarity, precision, and completeness of the presented study, contributing to its even greater value for the scientific community.

Response: Thank you very much. We have addressed concerns as well as possible and we hope you find them suitable to improve clarity.