Logistics.

The gamified exergaming intervention was used in four schools with very different characteristics (students, teachers, materials, installations, etc.). This means that despite making logistical and organizational decisions and changes, the same learning sessions were held at all the schools, educational objectives were met and an equivalent evaluation was made. Of the main intervention facilitators, the realistic design for the school context as an open changing setting stood out, as did its adaptability to be applied to differing contexts without it losing its didactic essence. This result was acquired thanks to the 9-month researcher-teacher experience, which was triangulated with the views perceived by the teachers participating in the four schools: “We have a block and some objectives, and the exergame helped to work by facilitating a context, because you had quite a specific context and a place where you knew what you were going to do” (1B5-t).

The main barrier to apply the intervention was the logistics of materials and spaces: “I think that its main problem is that it involves a number of minimum technical elements” (1B11-t). One of the problems that most arises is when space is hard to find and must be shared by many teachers: “I´m not sure if it is our problem or the school’s problem but perhaps before beginning the unit, who is in charge of managing spaces, this must be made quite clear. […] Because I found that this was a problem” (07G17-t). This female teacher also stressed the problem of spaces not being coordinated, which was specifically due to her school (School 3) that was smaller and more modest, although the same problem arose sporadically at School 4. The research experience in this study, along with field notes, indicates that, quite often, it was never really a coordination problem, but was due to a real problem caused by lack of space. One reason for this is because PE is normally practiced in places that differ from where other subjects are taught (pavilion, playground, swimming pool, the natural environment). Nonetheless for this intervention, classes had to be given in each school’s Assembly Room (to set up a projector and the Wi-fi network). These places tend to be frequently requested by more teachers to perform different activities in distinct courses.

The logistics problem of spaces and installations cannot be completely solved by applying more coordination at school given its daily open dynamic character. At any time, spontaneous activities may arise at school that change its planning: “some events at schools are unavoidable, like the International Day of Peace […] then class starts 30 minutes later. […] if possible, [it is necessary] to control such events. […] by the required logistics, organization, especially for materials and spaces. As for the rest, […] it all worked well for us and, fortunately, the means you have when you have brought mobiles and the rest; the spaces we have used; projectors; Wi-fi…” (12B23-t). Contextual problems of this kind are mentioned in similar studies [28]. The field notes more frequently indicated at School 4 (the school with more people) that the bookings previously made for this intervention were spontaneously amended by other activities that were considered more preferential by the school. This is because the Assembly Room is used for those events that are particularly important for the school (meeting with parents, presentations, etc.). It can be stated that each school’s Assembly Room allowed the intervention classes to be carried out, but it is necessary to seek alternatives for the project to be consistent over time. Moreover at most schools in Spain, this intervention is applicable only by coordinating and managing spaces and materials well. Equipping the usual places where PE is taught with digital technology (projectors, Wi-fi) would solve the high demands to coordinate and plan spaces: “Now we have this, and we have performed it in the Assembly Room, we can change and try it somewhere else. Or we can move it. But then again, if you don’t try doing that, you can’t see the failures or benefits” (12B17-t).

A similar study detected general lack due to the chosen exergame barely being used [28] as it was destined for recess time or for out-of-school activities. However in the present study, the official curricular time was used and activities took place in the Assembly Room.

The school’s dynamic nature strongly influences an intervention like that herein applied because it requires being set up and adapted before holding classes that involve using another type of school contents: “when it is necessary to prepare things for PE, I always arrive much earlier, and I try to leave the gym ready before a class precisely to play with that motivation. […] When they see everything set up, it´s a plus. So I would go further as to whether you can calibrate [spaces] in centres, which I know is difficult, or even impossible, in many aspects” (12B23-t). This proposal to improve the logistics of materials was hard to plan well in advance and in much detail; more often than not, previously adapting the classroom was not possible because another teacher was giving a class in another course. However, as the cited reflections suggest, having installations previously prepared at the start of class, whenever possible, is believed necessary to create more student motivation and to optimize time. Having the necessary time beforehand to adapt to this gamified exergame session would be a limit to apply it, which is not unusual with other PE contents.

Another logistic problem indicated by teachers was related to materials (smartphones): “the limitation of having to rely on mobile phones; the limitation of the material, I believe that we at schools are not ready for all this, as we do not even have proper networks” (6B5-t). Despite considering the intervention to be applicable in this way (teachers are used to not having material for all their students), they mentioned the need for good group organization capacity: “It can be done in groups with everyone dancing, and this week we have this song; then on such and such a day, you haven’t got exergame, so you have the time to practice and it’s your turn first next week [with exergame] and you have to make so much effort. I mean, there are different ways of using it, but it involves that planning” (01B11-t). The intervention increases its applicability if help is sought to plan it with students: “Then you need previous preparation work, knowing well what we want to do, how we want to do it, students who are more used to dealing with exergame, video games…, students can perhaps help you during this session” (06B16-t). Apart from better organization, three teachers from different schools considered a feasible solution to collect old mobile phones for schools, exactly as done before with another recycled material for PE: “When I suggest obtaining second-hand [smartphones], I mean they can be borrowed from people, or donated. […] It would just be a matter of organizing a small campaign with teachers, parents …” (11B10-t).

This alternative to obtaining the material would be a minor advantage over other studies that have used exergames and required materials such as dance mats [28, 59], which are more expensive and more difficult to manage. However, smartphones have presented similar problems to dance mats, such as run down batteries, outdated models or technological failures [28, 60].

In this sense, the public or semi-private character of the schools in this study did not seem to affect the logistic variables of the spaces and materials differently from the teaching staff’s perspective. That is, some comments were made about difficulty in the variables of space and materials by teachers from different schools. In any case, it may be convenient to consider such aspects when determining the applicability of this type of resources by taking into account that applying an exergaming program may depend on the center’s available resources [61], and some studies have already considered the type educational center to be a covariable [62]. Thus, this main logistics barrier coincides which what other studies have indicated [28], which involves not only the applicability of the intervention, but is also one of the limitations of such research because exergames are not used so much in scientific-didactic interventions as expected.

Novelty and tradition.

The first response with which the male researcher-teacher came across when considering the experiment in all the participating schools was teachers’ skepticism, along with their doubts about the intervention’s applicability: “It is true that when you presented the project to us, at first I thought it would be impossible because I did not understand it. I mean, I did not understand its dynamics, how it could be organized” (6B22-t). When the process ended however, teachers’ overall attitude was positive: “I quite liked it because we began with simple things that were related. I mean nothing isolated was included, nothing that did not work toward meeting the ultimate objective, rather everything worked toward that objective” (17B3-t); “My first impressions were positive because I noticed that students were really motivated” (18B3-t).

Teachers considered the intervention applicable as they thought it was compatible with conventional didactic methods: “I believe that virtue lies in mixing things. Not just one thing, not all exergames…. precisely what we have done. It might be better doing half a unit as always and then adding strokes of exergames, why not? Or alternating” (12B17-t). The compatible nature of exergames and gamification came over by it presenting PA and allowing students’ curricular knowledge to develop: “I think that any advantages that we embrace for students’ knowledge are positive. […] So, is this any different? Yes. Is it considered a form of physical activity? Yes. […] I´d propose anything that matches our contents and objectives” (18B17-t). This coincides with another qualitative study that detects that PA is a benefit and a reason for teachers to include exergames [28].

Despite the initial doubts raised, teachers welcomed the novelty and considered the intervention to be applicable because it is compatible with the school curriculum, and also with the PE area for both its didactic methods and contents: “[exergame and gamification] are technical elements to develop the curriculum” (15B-t). These considerations were formed throughout the intervention, and were positive halfway through and at the end of the process, when teachers could see and understand the class dynamics. Students’ changed attitude was also a determining factor: “Especially with what I see when having to work, which is motivating. When using an element, but not just having a phone in my hand, but also what is visual. Then there is the feedback given when scoring: you finish and you have points. Then you think, well that’s it, and you know if you have done it well, or badly. Then you think I´m going to dance again and see if I can get a better score … I think that this feedback is very important too” (1B7-t).

Novelty is one of the reasons mentioned in a discussion group of the E group to show a positive attitude: “we like it because it is something we have never done before. We have never tried doing things like this, dancing in PE” (23B26-s); “And with video games” (23G27-s); “Then they scored us, and I really liked it” (23B28-s). Three different novel elements stemmed from this conversation: dancing as content, exergame and gamification. However, the C group also referred to a novel aspect: “I personally liked it a lot because I had never done anything like this. We have always done sport games in playtime, and this year has been the first time we have used dance. It has been great fun” (20B6-s). Salsa was also included as novel content in the C group so that it matched the E group: “I really liked salsa because I was having fun with my friends and because it is a dance we´d never practiced before” (20B5-s).

Expectations of its use for teaching.

The attitude shown toward the possible future application of such these interventions was not always the same for all the teachers who participated in this study. A positive attitude was shown toward the study intervention as it was shown to be feasible: “I have seen that linking technology and education, PE in this case, is possible” (18B7-t); “Yes, [I would apply this intervention again]. And in exactly the same way as we have already done […] Moreover given the experience, which has been positive, we have the space and resources to use it, so there would be no problem” (12B17-t). Likewise, a generalized positive attitude was shown toward gamification and exergame as general educational resources: “Oh yes, [I would use exergames as a resource]” (17B31-t); “considering gamification and using technologies to develop units [dance lessons] should not be a problem” (01B15-t). Some teachers had good expectations of its use for teaching, even depending on the required logistics: “If I had the materials, yes [I would use exergames and gamification again]. I really enjoyed it, honestly” (18B19-t).

However, a more skeptical attitude was shown by other teachers, who found it hard to acknowledge their priorities, perhaps due to the social desirability effect [63]. Given this suspected bias, the interviewers asked the same questions, but they were expressed differently and they spent longer on this theme. A previous condition for teachers to apply the intervention in the next academic courses was for them to have sufficient training and knowledge: “I will try it, but my knowledge of technology is limited. So I would use it if I was sure about the content I´m teaching” (6B15-t). Some teachers indicated not having such training: “You see in my case, I don’t control the themes, it’s not a content I handle. I have never played and I don’t know how to play. So my knowledge is very poor” (6B16-t). This lack of specific competence has been found in similar studies [61]. Therefore, this intervention would be more applicable if teachers had more specific training in exergames and gamification. However, the required training was not placed as a priority because teachers carry a heavy training load in other new trends: “I don’t think that exergames is a priority line for the PE department, simply for priority reasons, and because PE can be done well, and it can be made motivating and creative without having to work with exergames. I don’t believe it is an immediate priority” (12B27-t). Exergame was perceived by some teachers as being interesting for PE, but not essential, which falls in line with [28] as it is not the only resource that allows certain objectives to be fulfilled, like motivation. Another male teacher stated something similar: “now there are many options open as regards new methodologies. […] There are many things available. Well, of course, it can be included, but it won’t be easy. It’s not a priority right now” (11B24-t). This might lead us to think that teacher expectations were low because, despite lacking training, they felt it was not a priority to train in exergames and gamification. This skepticism coincided with the views that the teachers in [27] indicated.

Digital technology in class.

When the intervention ended, a positive attitude was shown by some teachers for using the video game in PE, if it was like exergame, because it was associated with PA and health: “I believe that video games are not well considered socially speaking, […] so, [it is necessary] to give a point of view, which also favours healthy life styles. We are talking about dancing, performing physical activity, sport. […] It is like combining two things they like, changing the negative parameter, let’s say the game. Because, at the end of the day, they use it to practice physical activity. Which is exactly the opposite to what other video games achieve” (12B5-t). Therefore, some teachers did not perceive exergame as being linked to PE, but as another instrument available for educational interests: “for me exergame is an instrument you can use to fulfill the objectives you set out, your educational purposes” (1B5-s). One male teacher even postulated an artificial theoretical barrier between video games and sport: “Perhaps we adults spot a difference between sport and video games. And if we did not find this difference, they might play something else” (17B21-t).

Other teachers, however, mentioned the technological nature of exergame as something negative. In the first case because (digital) technology means losing something essential of PE, and perhaps interactions could occur in the “natural” environment: “I prefer nature myself, playing with sticks, stones, etc., which we are missing out on. With the few hours we spend on PE, I think we should focus on forgetting to use mobile phones, technologies, and we should act as a group that only interacts” (7G7-t). In the second case, students’ early age was mentioned as the main motivation to oppose including the use of mobile phones as an educational resource: “I don’t agree with them having mobile phones and being able to play with their phones, not in year 5, year 6, nor even in Secondary Education, especially in years 1 and 2” (11B8-t). Another male teacher believed that technology could lead to dependency and teachers not being able to control: “Disadvantages, apart from practical ones, include us depending on technology that is, therefore, a resource we cannot control. When you are teaching, you manage your class, you manage times. As soon as you depend on networks, spaces and a technology, times differ” (6B10-t). These teaching considerations were preceded by an initial reluctance shown by the schools’ different Management Teams to introduce smartphones into class as an educational tool. They finally accepted to participate when they explained that their use was designed for purely educational purposes and in a controlled manner. This attitude, which was one of the main barriers to apply the intervention, also comes over in several studies conducted in other countries [27, 28, 64, 65].

The various conceptions of exergames have implications for how teachers use them, which more determine the use of exergame than the nature of exergame [61]. In this study the instrumental conception dominated, which did not coincide with the teachers who participated in another qualitative study, in which exergame was not considered by them as being essential in PE; that is, in what is sport [61].

Students generally showed a very positive attitude toward exergame. However, they indicated that they found systematic technological failures frustrating: “What I didn’t like was that my phone switched off when I held it in my hand” (5B48-s), which has been previously reported [28, 32], perhaps because it leads to boredom [28]. At all four schools, the Wi-fi signal was interrupted, which did not allow the exergame activity to continue and led to students feeling frustrated. This is a major barrier for the Just Dance Now exergame, as is also indicated in other studies with different exergames, like FitQuest [27] or XaviX Bowling [33]. Although no mention was made about a smartphone being a strange element to dance with, comments were made about the inconvenience of having to hold them in a certain way to avoid them switching off: “My arm ached holding the phone” (5G45-s). This intervention was done with children aged 10–11 years and with smartphones that were the standard size for adults. One of the negative aspects mentioned was that technology was a limitation as regards the number of available devices; despite the theme being centered as a change to share and manage materials in groups, one female student mentioned that “what I did not like much was that while others were dancing with mobile phones, some others had to dance with no phone. This was no good because you didn’t score points” (10B3-s). To overcome this limitation, an equal distribution system was created that would not affect either the individual or the group in terms of absolute points, and the order was set by students themselves voluntarily, who were awarded another type of points to those they shared and gave. Notwithstanding lack of material may have led to some frustration.

The male researcher-teacher indicated other technology-related technical failures in the field notes, and was able to solve some at the time, but had to seek alternatives with others for exergame. The most frequent failures were: the Wi-fi signal not reaching the classroom, the smartphone not recognizing the Wi-fi network (and not collecting dancing points), and the smartphone not running exergame.

Another failure associated with technology was the Class Dojo application. Students were delighted with the chance to see their own results for the application at any time: “I liked the idea that an application is used in which we can see for ourselves if we want to see our points, rather than having to ask about them” (23B134-s). However, the field notes reflected that the application was not used much outside the classroom. Many students indicated in class that they had unsuccessfully attempted to consult their report: “I tried, but couldn’t see it” (23G135). This was because parents are required to participate (they have to consent their children using the application) and many participants did not obtain this beforehand. Technical problems also arose with the application because the procedure was not known to authorize this permission to their children. An alternative was to show the personal reports to those students who requested them at the end of each class.

Students’ affinity.

Elementary school children’s possible affinity to video games and gamification today could make an intervention like that studied herein more applicable. Some teachers showed a positive attitude to technology as their students are used to such habits: “I liked it, especially children’s reactions when working in PE with a means like technology. You can really see that they live in the technology era, and their interest and motivation quickly grow when using this small … [technological component]” (07G3-t). Another male teacher also considered exergame to be motivating thanks to students’ affinity to technology: “with benefits firstly in motivation because our students get their hooks into anything technological. They’re used to working with new technologies” (6B9-t). This affinity has already been recognised in other qualitative studies, and by parents [29, 31] and teachers [27, 28].

Students generally reflected on liking the intervention: “I generally liked everything” (5B5-s) and mentioned their different reasons, like it being fun, presence of music, which coincides with that reported in [32], or showing an interest in something new. This positive attitude is also found quantitatively in students of the same age [25, 30]. Most student contributions to improve the intervention’s affinity to them, and to make it more applicable, are summarized as: choosing more modern songs (in both the C and E groups) [61], making fewer corporal expressions, which are uncomfortable (more dancing in the C group, or more exergame in the E group) and being able to select more songs. These student requests are coherent with the Self-Determination Theory [66] and coincide with what another similar study indicated [67], which proposed generating activities desired by students to enhance intrinsic motivation.

In short, the gamified intervention with exergame came over as being partly applicable. The facilitators were the realism of the didactic design and its adaptability to different educational contexts. The obstacles that hindered its applicability were not minor, and stemmed mainly from lack of materials (smartphones), the need for spaces in conditions that are not often requested (room with Wi-fi and a projector), and a powerful Wi-fi network signal, which means that this intervention strongly depends on material. The solution proposals included better coordinating spaces in schools and acquiring smartphones by voluntary collections. The teaching predisposition toward the intervention was not conclusive as a positive attitude was shown toward it, but future expectations of training in the subject were low, and the expectation of future use was questioned by one male participant: negative use expectation given its technological nature or not being considered essential; a positive expectation of its use was denoted by students’ affinity to it, its novelty and its psychological effects. Initially, the Schools’ Management Teams were quite reluctant about including mobile phones. The intervention appeared highly applicable given students’ positive attitudes and the good affinity they showed to its technological and video game nature. The intervention was feasible with time and strongly dependent due to previous aspects, especially in terms of logistics and teaching expectations. In curricular terms [68], the intervention proved compatible as regards both contents and usual PE methods, and came over as being even more efficient than the C intervention for variables like being fun, motivation, autonomy or lack of corporal inhibition.

Being fun and motivation.

Being fun was the feeling that the students most frequently mentioned about the intervention in general. No many references were made to negative aspects. The fact that the students thought the intervention was fun was associated with exergame’s game character [25, 68], the presence of music, or certain gamified elements like scoring: “I thought it was great and really fun because you play as if it was a video game at school, moving about, it was cool” (24B3-s). This finding coincides with similar studies that had qualitatively found that fun was one of the main strong points of exergame [27, 29, 31, 61]. It also coincides with what was collected by the OQQs and by the team’s field experience. The most frequent descriptions made of this intervention were “fun” and “cool”. Most teachers mentioned that motivation was the main benefit of the intervention, and it was even mentioned by those teachers who were negatively predisposed to video games: “My view about technologies and video games is very radical. So in line with my view, its benefit is that you have motivation and interest” (7G5-t). This finding coincides with that reported by the teachers in study [27], who explained the fun of using the exergame PBL system.

Shame.

The main difficultly for both groups (C and E) lay in the corporal expression activities given their lack of previous experience and them not being used to them: “I felt a bit ashamed, even though no-one was watching. I felt ashamed just thinking about it. I didn’t feel at ease” (14G14-s); “I found it a bit hard because when it was your turn to perform corporal expression, you think «I don’t know what to do»” (15B3-s). One female student in the E group indicated feeling less shame with Just Dance Now: “Sometimes, I mean before I felt ashamed to dance with people around me. But when we worked with Just Dance Now, I no longer felt ashamed because I danced casually” (5G22-s). One male teacher indicated that “They find this lack of inhibition part hard. Then they later have to teach others. That is where the barrier appears, which they find a bit hard to overcome. With exergame, this shame barrier is quickly overcome” (11B6-t). The C group improved throughout the intervention. Therefore, the potential of exergame to overcome shame is not altogether clear: “I, [have greatly ovecome] feeling ashamed. I mean, before I focused more on what people would think, but not anymore. I don’t really mind what they think now” (14G20-s). One male teacher stated that a material advantage of exergame for lack of inhibition was the presence of a screen, not focusing on other classmates, and perceived competence increased: “they no longer feel so ashamed because they are not being watched while their classmates dance, rather everyone is watching the screen and they feel more capable because they are immediately recognized by scoring points” (17B5-t). These remarks about shame coincide with what the OQQs found, where shame was the second most experienced feeling. Likewise, these remarks coincide with having more difficulty expressing corporal expression, which was one of the activities that the students least liked. Exergame came over as an alternative for those youths who felt ashamed in not only corporal expression, but also when practicing PEx in public [28, 67].

Learning.

The intervention was considered to benefit student learning in three ways. The first was direct motor learning: “Just Dance Now helped us to learn new dance steps” (16G32-s); “I have worked my coordination very well by dancing in parallel to the screen” (11B8-t). The second was significant learning; that is, conscious: “It helps me see how I had improved” (16G67-s). Thirdly, it improved the motor competence perceived in the subject that derived from perceived learning: “I think my dancing has improved, and I have learned new steps. I have improved a bit in PE in general because we move differently, and we can move parts of your body in another way” (3B7-s). Such learning was also a benefit reported in other qualitative studies [27–29, 67], and other studies with different methodology [62, 67, 68].

Exergame was not didactically included only as a repetitive learning activity, but was framed within a creative process to build a choreography, which was perceived by the students. Despite both groups stating that they had learned, only the E group acknowledged that the preparation activities of an invented choreography acted as a source of inspiration: “in Just Dance Now, if you don’t know how to dance and you don’t know the movements to create a song […] then you have ideas about what you can do next” (24G6-s); “I think that dancing was fun because we got ideas from Just Dance Now” (15G6-s). The male researcher-teacher was able to see how the E group was generally more autonomous in creating the new choreography, perhaps because it obtained more sources of inspiration with exergame. Different teachers made this observation about autonomy: “I think the year-6 students [E group] wanted more and were more autonomous and you did not need to tell them off or be on top of them as much by saying «this must be done, that must be done». The year-5 students [C group] did not find it so easy” (17B25-t); “it is true that no-one sat down with Just Dance Now. I don’t like admitting this […], but when we danced, some sat down and I had to make some of them get up off the floor and ask «what are you doing?»” (18B33-t). It seems that exergame enabled students to better focus on the task by allowing them more autonomy as they required less continuous teaching intervention. This facet can become an organizational advantage because it allows teachers to center on other didactic aspects in class.

Promoting physical exercise.

The students related exergame with PEx and health: “apart from enjoying dancing a lot, and a lot of people like it […], you are also practicing sport for your health” (24B4-s). Many students indicated that they liked exergame and they had downloaded it at home: “Yes, [I would play exergame in my free time]. I played it the second week after we did in class. I have started playing Just Dance Now at home. I didn’t know it before. I didn’t know this application and I like it. At home, I sometimes play with my cousin, and alone on other occasions” (3B15-s). However when given the chance to choose, it would seem that those students who liked and were used to PEx traditionally preferred to continue that way “I think that both things are good. If I had to choose, I prefer to go outside” (23B142-s); “When I feel like doing exercise, I always dance. I have no video games, but if I did, I´d prefer to dance with no game” (25G64-s). For those who initially came over as leading sedentary lifestyles, exergame was not such a great discovery to help them change their habits: “this I did at school, but in my free time, I want to do what I feel like, and I´d actually prefer to keep still” (23G147-s). In particular, those students more used to the world of video games appeared to be more receptive to this intervention: “I like playing Just Dance Now more because it’s like a video game. I´m used to playing video games, and I more or less know how it works” (3B16-s). These remarks coincide with [28, 69], which report how exergame acts as a strategy to promote PEx only in those students used to playing video games. They are also coherent with another study, in which the students of the same age were willing to use exergame, while adolescent students preferred outdoor activities [29].

Other studies have reported failure to promote PEx through exergames because the participants consider they are boring [70]. This reason did not appear in our study. The ability of exergame and gamification to perform PEx is not yet clear, and more studies must be done.

Some teachers in a qualitative study [28] conceived exergames as a useful resource, especially for those students who had sedentary lifestyles. Similarly, teachers believed that exergame was a good alternative, but only as a passive digital entertainment formula, and not for traditional PEx: “If there was some way of performing physical activity in the natural environment, with other classmates, don’t let technology be involved, then I’d firmly go for that option. However for those students who spend many hours at home, it’s an excellent way for them to spend their free time” (7B14-t). Another male teacher from a different school thought along the same lines: “I think that it is much better to perform physical activity outdoors, but I believe that your work is an alternative for those kids who, for whatever reason, do not spend much time outdoors” (18B9-t); “I think that we have plenty of very interesting resources apart from [digital] technology to make movements and to perform physical activity” (18B29-t). Exergame allowed people to recognize its benefits, which make it a valid option to perform PEx, but it was less preferred for PEx done traditionally by sports. This view voiced by teachers coincided with what a similar study found [28], where one male teacher believed that “no computer games would ever take the place of sport […], but at least it is some form of physical activity”.