Autolycus’ Game: Game-Based Learning in Natural Environments for Meaningful Physical Education

Abstract

Within the context of pedagogical renewal in Physical Education, Game-Based Learning (GBL) has emerged as a pedagogical model that can foster students’ motivation and engagement. This study explored university learners’ perceptions of a playful activity in a natural environment, entitled Autolycus’ Game, and its perceived contributions to their holistic development. A total of 114 undergraduate students enrolled in Early Childhood and Primary Education degrees participated in a two-hour session designed as a Breakout EDU in a university park. After the experience, their perceptions were collected through an online semi-structured questionnaire and analysed using qualitative coding techniques in Atlas.ti. Findings indicated that participants perceived Autolycus’ Game as motivating, creativity-enhancing, and supportive of social interaction and cooperative work. Most participants highlighted that this methodology helped them strengthen social and communication skills, while also valuing the use of the natural environment as a didactic resource. At the same time, participants identified areas for improvement—such as repetitive tasks, uneven difficulty across challenges, and limited supervision—that may reduce engagement if not carefully planned. Overall, participants described Autolycus’ Game as a valuable pedagogical strategy that may enrich learning experiences in Physical Education and support socio-emotional and motor competences, although the findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s limitations (single-institution sample, self-reported data, intact class groups taught by the researchers). Future work could examine outdoor Breakout EDU with mixed-methods and longitudinal designs to assess motivational processes and learning outcomes over time.

1. Introduction

Throughout history, play has been recognised as an effective means of instruction and knowledge transmission. A well-known example is the use of chess in military training, where it was employed to develop decision-making skills and logical thinking (Chacoma & Billoni, 2025). Authors such as Huizinga, in his seminal work Homo Ludens (Huizinga, 1938/1949), already emphasised the role of play as a fundamental human need.

In today’s era of digitalisation and technological advancement, education is undergoing constant transformation. Consequently, it has become necessary to design teaching approaches suited to contemporary students. Although the notion of “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001) has become widespread, subsequent scholarship has challenged this perspective, arguing that such generational labels oversimplify the diversity of students’ digital competences and learning needs (Bennett et al., 2008; Kirschner & De Bruyckere, 2017). Against this background, new pedagogical models have emerged, including Game-Based Learning (GBL) and gamification, both of which create engaging learning environments and provide opportunities for meaningful knowledge construction (Dimitra et al., 2020).

While gamification is defined as “the use of game attributes outside the context of a game, with the purpose of influencing behaviours or attitudes related to learning” (Landers, 2014), GBL has been described as “using the game itself as the vehicle for learning or for addressing a specific concept” (Cornellà-Canals et al., 2020, p. 9). Although both approaches share certain elements, their main difference lies in the nature of the activity: GBL relies on the game environment itself as the learning activity, whereas gamification involves adding game elements to tasks that may otherwise lack intrinsic appeal (Cartagena-Ceballos et al., 2021; Torres-Toukoumidis & Romero-Rodríguez, 2018; Solas-Martínez et al., 2023; Greipl et al., 2020). Although distinctions are often made between gamification and GBL, these approaches need not be understood as mutually exclusive. Rather, they can operate independently or be understood as complementary pedagogical strategies within the broader landscape of playful learning, with overlapping features and limitations depending on instructional aims (Greipl et al., 2020; Dabbous et al., 2022).

Among the various GBL approaches, Breakout EDU has gained increasing attention. According to Poyatos-Dorado (2018), it offers “immersive and playful learning experiences in which students solve different challenges linked to the curriculum in order to obtain the secret codes that open a mysterious box.” Evidence suggests that Breakout EDU can support the teaching of diverse curricular content while simultaneously promoting physical activity inherent to the gameplay (Solas-Martínez et al., 2023). Its implementation has been associated with improvements in problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, and motor skills, particularly when activities are carefully structured and combined with other teaching strategies (Bayer & Sorenson, 2020; Greipl et al., 2020).

These benefits may be further enhanced when GBL is implemented in outdoor environments. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies (Wicks et al., 2022) suggests that engaging in physical activity in natural settings—an approach also recognized as a core component of the Spanish Physical Education curriculum (Law 3/2020, 29 December—LOMLOE)—can significantly reduce anxiety and fatigue, while improving positive affect and vigour compared with urban contexts. Moreover, this practice has also been linked to higher levels of positive emotions, increased energy, and overall wellbeing (Ballester-Martínez et al., 2022; Ibarra & Sablón, 2019). Furthermore, research indicates that outdoor experiential activities can foster the satisfaction of Basic Psychological Needs (BPN)—a central tenet of Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020)—which, in turn, contributes to students’ motivation and academic achievement (Doménech-Betoret & Gómez-Artiga, 2011; Reggiani, 2013; Moreno-Delgado & Solaguren-Beascoa-Fernández, 2021; Cerrada-Nogales et al., 2022).

Despite the growing body of research on GBL and gamification, most studies have focused on digital or classroom-based applications (Fotaris & Mastoras, 2019; Hernández-Rubio et al., 2023), while considerably less attention has been given to the potential of GBL in outdoor educational settings (Down et al., 2024). In particular, research examining Breakout EDU has largely addressed its cognitive and motivational effects in indoor or virtual contexts (Gómez-Urquiza et al., 2019), while empirical evidence on its implementation in natural environments remains scarce. Moreover, few studies have explored how university students perceive such experiences within Physical Education, where physical activity, cooperation, and environmental engagement converge (Fernández-Río et al., 2020). Addressing this gap, the present study examines university students’ subjective perceptions of participating in an outdoor Breakout EDU activity in higher-education Physical Education. Specifically, the following questions were posed to participants: (1) how students perceive their experience; (2) which aspects they consider most and least valuable for learning and engagement; and (3) in what ways the methodology may foster motivation, social interaction, and meaningful learning. By focusing on outdoor implementation in a university context—an area underrepresented in the literature—this work extends current knowledge on GBL and Breakout EDU beyond indoor applications and contributes international relevance to the field (Fotaris & Mastoras, 2019; Down et al., 2024).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants were 114 undergraduate participants (69 women and 45 men) with a mean age of 24.67 years (SD = 4.15), all enrolled in the subject Physical Activity in Natural Environments within the Early Childhood and Primary Education degrees. They were recruited through purposive sampling, as all were members of one of the two groups in which the intervention was implemented. Inclusion criteria were enrolment in the course and attendance on the day of the intervention; no additional exclusion criteria were applied. As the activity formed part of regular coursework, all students present were invited to participate voluntarily in the study. This context may imply selection biases, as the sample corresponds to intact class groups taught by members of the research team, which may have influenced students’ willingness to participate or the way they perceived the experience. Nevertheless, efforts were made by the instructors to remain as objective as possible and to minimize their influence on both the conduct of the activity and the collection of students’ responses.

2.2. Procedure

The study adopted a qualitative descriptive design aimed at exploring students’ perceptions of their participation in a Breakout EDU activity conducted in outdoor environments. The intervention was structured as a Breakout EDU experience (Bayer & Sorenson, 2020), a methodology that combines narrative, problem-solving, and collaboration to create immersive and meaningful learning opportunities. Implemented in an open outdoor setting, the activity benefited from the dynamism of the environment, which many participants described as reinforcing its motivational and social value. Data were examined using qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014), following an inductive-deductive approach. Consistent with a qualitative descriptive orientation, the aim of the study was to capture students’ subjective perceptions of the outdoor Breakout EDU experience rather than to test hypotheses or establish causal relationships. Within this analytic framework, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) was used as a sensitising and organising concept to group categories around autonomy, competence and relatedness, rather than as a predictive or experimental model. An initial coding frame was informed by SDT, operationalised through the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, while new categories emerged inductively from the participants’ responses. Two trained coders independently coded 25% of the corpus using Atlas.ti software (version 23), compared results and reached consensus on the codebook definitions. Cohen’s kappa was calculated (>0.70 considered acceptable). After adjusting the coding scheme, one coder completed the remaining corpus with periodic reliability checks by the second. Categories were iteratively refined to ensure internal coherence and credibility. To complement the thematic interpretation, the relative frequency of codes was calculated, representing a form of “quantitizing” of qualitative data (Sandelowski et al., 2009). This approach provided both a nuanced understanding of participants’ perceptions and an overview of the prevalence of specific themes across the sample.

The session lasted two hours and took place in a park within the University of Alicante campus. During this time, students participated in the Breakout EDU activity, which involved dynamics and problem-solving tasks combining physical and cognitive elements, allowing them to interact collaboratively and autonomously.

The Breakout EDU activity, called “The Autolycus Game,” began by organizing the class into 10 groups, each composed of four to five students, ensuring that no team had fewer than two members to guarantee active participation. Once the groups were formed, each team chose a leader, who was taken to a separate space where the instructor provided a detailed explanation of the rules and dynamics of the project. Meanwhile, the remaining members carried out physical and cognitive warm-up activities consisting of traditional games such as tag (“pilla-pilla”) or the handkerchief game (“el pañuelo”), adapted to the educational context.

The instructor then selected a quiet and separate space to meet with all ten leaders—referred to as the “Grand Masters of the Temple Order”—creating an environment conducive to trust and concentration. Seated in a semicircle, the instructor introduced a historical narrative that marked the beginning of the educational proposal. Once the initial narrative captured the students’ attention and sparked their curiosity, the instructor distributed a map to each group of templars (Figure 1).

This map, which depicts a walled city, served as the central scenario contextualizing the fictional game. Subsequently, each of the ten templar teams received a set of five different clues (for example, clue 4: “The city gate only opens at 10:00 and 17:00, and it is dark green,” or clue 7: “The blacksmith’s house has no roof”). Each team received five unique clues. As part of the challenge, the instructor assigned each group leader the task of designing a motor challenge associated with each clue. For instance, if Templars Team 9 wanted to obtain clue 4, which was held by Templars Team 4, they had to complete the motor challenge designed by Team 4—such as collecting 10 pieces of paper and throwing them into the trash. Team 9 performed the challenge and was evaluated by Team 4; if successful, they received the clue for their record, otherwise they had to attempt it again or obtain another clue through a different challenge. In this way, to obtain all clues, each team had to overcome the motor challenges proposed by the other teams (excluding their own), promoting interaction, collaboration, and physical activity in a participatory and immersive dynamic.

For the development of the game, each team selected a specific location within the natural environment to carry out the motor challenges associated with their clues. It was essential that at least one member remained at the “Garrison” at all times, ensuring that other teams could access the challenges. This inclusive role allowed participants who were injured or needed rest to take it, ensuring active participation for all. Additionally, each group could define the strategy that best suited their objectives while maintaining their base, fostering continuous physical activity, autonomy, and collaboration in a dynamic environment.

Once a team had gathered all the required clues—that is, the 45 from the other nine teams plus their five original clues—they reached the key moment of the game: answering a central question for success: What has Autolycus stolen from the King and Queen that has made them so angry?

This phase of the challenge encouraged reflection and collaborative work, as the team analyzed and connected the information from the clues (which also helped lower their heart rate). After deliberation, the group made a final decision and submitted their answer discreetly to the instructor. To increase the strategic and exciting component, the instructor could limit teams to two attempts to answer correctly, testing their analysis and decision-making skills.

Furthermore, for teams that had already answered the first question (“What has Autolycus stolen from the King and Queen that has made them so angry?”), a second extension phase was introduced, posing a new challenge: answering the second success question: Where does Autolycus live?

Teams that had completed the first question could randomly select five out of ten additional clues, which the instructor read aloud without allowing note-taking or repetition. This added a challenge of attention and memory. Using these clues, teams had to analyze and discuss the information to deduce Autolycus’ location, identifying it on the map as the exact place of capture. This dynamic not only kept advanced teams engaged but also reinforced memory, collaboration, and deductive reasoning, enriching the overall educational experience.

Further details on the narrative structure, clue design and organisational aspects of the Autolycus’ Game can be found in Appendix A.

2.3. Instruments and Data Collection

Ethical approval was obtained from the university’s ethics committee (UA-2025-07-17), and the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation was entirely voluntary and was not linked to students’ academic evaluation, thereby minimizing any risk of coercion. Informed consent was secured from all participants, and anonymity was ensured by assigning numerical codes. In line with institutional and European data protection regulations (GDPR), all data will be securely stored for five years after publication of the study, after which they will be permanently deleted. Data were collected through an online semi-structured questionnaire administered immediately after the intervention via Google Forms. Content validity was supported by expert review (two specialists in Physical Education pedagogy) and a small pilot with students from a prior cohort to ensure clarity and relevance of items. The instrument included three open-ended questions:

• With regard to the Autolycus activity, please describe the three aspects you liked the most about its development.
• With regard to the Autolycus activity, please describe the three aspects you liked the least (or that could be improved).
• Do you think that Autolycus’ Game (or similar activities) is an effective strategy to achieve the objectives set by the teacher in Physical Education?

Participants completed the questionnaire in an average of 10 min.

2.4. Data Analysis

Responses were analysed using Atlas.ti through an inductive–deductive coding process. A pre-defined category tree included dimensions such as “Motivation”, “Learning”, and “Challenge”. Co-occurrence analyses and query tools were applied to identify relationships between categories and subcategories, enriching interpretation and providing a deeper understanding of students’ experiences and perceptions. The unit of analysis was the idea/phrase, and frequencies reported (see

Table 1. Most valued aspects of the Autolycus activity.

Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Social development	82	71.93%
Methodological strategy and game	76	66.67%
Creativity and dynamism	75	65.79%
Motivational	35	30.70%
Personal development	24	21.05%
Space and environment	18	15.79%
Adaptability and inclusion	17	14.91%

,

Table 2. Least valued aspects of the Autolycus activity.

Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Activities (duration and repetition)	43	37.7%
Unequal difficulty of challenges	35	30.7%
Groups and roles	21	18.4%
Quality of materials (map)	19	16.7%
Lack of teacher supervision	17	14.9%
Unstructured creativity and low motivation	15	13.2%
Insufficient space	12	10.5%
Disorganisation	10	8.8%
Adaptation and integration	10	8.8%

and

Table 3. Autolycus is an effective strategy for achieving the teacher’s objectives in Physical Education.

Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Achievement of educational objectives	50	43.9%
Teamwork and socialisation	48	42.1%
Motivation and enjoyment	36	31.6%
Creativity and innovation	34	29.8%
Natural environment	30	26.3%
Meaningful learning	28	24.6%
Physical and motor skills	26	22.8%
Autonomy and decision-making	22	19.3%
Assessment and flexibility	18	15.8%

) refer to the percentage of students who mentioned a given category at least one, rather than the number of coded fragments. This approach ensured consistency across categories and maintained the same denominator (n = 114) when calculating percentages. Inter-coder reliability was established through independent double coding of a subsample, with subsequent consensus discussions to enhance dependability. Cohen’s κ exceeded 0.70, indicating acceptable agreement; any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and refinement of code definitions. During data collection and analysis, the researchers aimed to maintain reflexive awareness of their position, discussing potential biases within the team to strengthen transparency and dependability.

2.5. Reporting Standards

The manuscript has been prepared in accordance with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR; O’Brien et al., 2014). Following these guidelines, we provide a clear justification of the qualitative descriptive design, describe the study context and participants, detail data collection and analysis procedures, and illustrate findings with verbatim participant quotations to enhance transparency and trustworthiness.

3. Results

The analysis of the participants’ responses is presented according to the three questions of the questionnaire. Within each section, findings are interpreted through the lens of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2020), grouping categories around the psychological needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy. This approach provides a pedagogical reading that highlights how the Breakout EDU activity (Autolycus’ Game) in outdoor environments addressed the key dimensions of motivation and meaningful learning in Physical Education.

3.1. Question #1: …Describe the Three Aspects You Liked the Most About Its Development

Based on students’ responses regarding their satisfaction with the activity, their evaluations were classified into seven pre-defined categories. These categories emerged after a detailed review and the grouping of recurrent key concepts in the participants’ answers and were related with SDT categories. The frequency of references to each category was quantified in order to identify the most appreciated (Table 1) and least appreciated (Table 2) aspects of the activity.

Overall, findings show that the most valued aspects related to the motivational and creative nature of the activity, together with group interaction and social development.

3.1.1. Relatedness: Social Development (82 Coded Excerpts)

A total of 71.93% of students valued opportunities to develop social skills, work in teams, and collaborate with classmates with whom they did not usually interact. Example statements included: “Teamwork was fundamental to the development of the activity. Thanks to cooperation among group members, we were able to overcome challenges and obtain the necessary clues. We also strengthened ties with classmates we do not usually interact with” (student #75); “We worked on a concept called team building” (student #74); “It encourages us to work as a team and get to know other people” (student #104); “The activity fostered cooperation among classmates. We had to communicate and work together to solve the tasks, which improved group dynamics and helped us get to know each other better” (student #68). These excerpts underscore the importance of collaboration, group work and communication within the BreakEDU experience.

3.1.2. Competence: Methodological Strategy and Game (76 Coded Excerpts)

The methodology used in the activity was widely appreciated, with 66,67% of students highlighting the BreakEDU dynamics. Participant comments included: “It was interesting to think about the best strategy to progress through the activity” (student #68); “I really liked how the activity was designed. It wasn’t just a simple series of tasks; we had to gather information and use it strategically to solve the final puzzle” (student #8); “One of the things I liked most was the teaching style used—participatory, specifically micro-teaching—as our group captain assumed the role of teacher. In this way, we became part of the teaching–learning process and took on a more prominent role” (student #11); “It is an innovative methodology, where you learn concepts while playing” (student #53).

3.1.3. Competence: Creativity and Dynamism (75 Coded Excerpts)

A total of 65,79% of students positively emphasised the creativity and dynamism of the activity, for example: “I liked the creativity it involved” (student #113); “It helped foster and motivate our own creativity as future teachers” (student #36); “It helped us build trust among ourselves, as well as being a creative and novel activity” (student #46); “The different challenges created a dynamic classroom atmosphere” (student #87); “The use of materials and the creativity of the activity make it very appealing for pupils and easy to take into a classroom” (student #80); “It was a very dynamic way to learn… a highly recommended activity to use in the future as teachers because it fosters pupils’ socialisation and creativity.”

3.1.4. Competence: Motivation (35 Coded Excerpts)

Some 30.70% of students highlighted the motivational nature of the activity, noting its capacity to spark interest and commitment. The combination of playful and pedagogical elements generated an enriching experience that promoted active participation and enthusiasm to tackle the challenges, for example: “From the very beginning, the story guiding the activity captured my attention. It was great fun gradually discovering the clues and working with my classmates to solve the puzzle. I was completely immersed” (student #102); “It pushed us to work as a team, since each member contributed ideas and strategies to solve the challenges. This motivated us to participate actively and improve our communication” (student #29); “From the outset, with the introduction of the story, I wanted to know what would happen next and how we could discover the stolen object” (student #110); “Friendly competition between groups made us try harder… it generated a constant sense of motivation” (student #91); “The combination of physical and mental activity kept us constantly engaged. It wasn’t just running from one place to another; we had to think, collaborate and plan” (student #92); “Using the map and searching for clues made us feel part of a real story” (student #86).

3.1.5. Competence/Autonomy: Personal Development (24 Coded Excerpts)

In addition, 21.05% of participants valued the personal development the activity afforded them: “It really puts us in the shoes of future teachers, as it makes us think about strategies to capture pupils’ attention and maintain their motivation” (student #93); “It helped us to strive and take the activities seriously, as we all wanted to finish first” (student #92); “We also had to think about the storyline, which meant pupils worked both physically and intellectually” (student #93); “Doing this activity contributed to my personal development and helped me to push my capacity to design activities that I will use in the future” (student #4).

3.1.6. Relatedness: Space and Environment (18 Coded Excerpts)

Some 15.79% of participants emphasised the importance of the natural setting. Learning outdoors and connecting with the environment were decisive factors: “Running the activity in a natural environment was a great decision. It’s not the same as doing an escape room in a closed classroom; in an open space you can explore and move freely” (student #35); “Nature added extra dynamism and helped us feel more connected to our surroundings” (student #90); “Holding it outdoors enriched the activity; in a confined indoor space the activities and enjoyment would have been more limited” (student #4).

3.1.7. Relatedness: Adaptability and Inclusion (17 Coded Excerpts)

A total of 14.91% of students valued the activity’s capacity to adapt to different ability levels and promote inclusion—an essential element in alignment with the LOMLOE. They especially appreciated being able to adjust task difficulty and distribute roles so that everyone could contribute equitably: “I liked that there were different difficulty levels, so the most complex tasks could be taken by more experienced classmates and the simpler ones by those who found them harder. This enabled more individualised learning” (student #10); “The activity could be adapted to all levels, which meant nobody was left out” (student #26); “It is very versatile and can therefore be used with different ages” (student #16); “Designing our own challenges helped us think about accessibility so that everyone could take part” (student #19); “It was evident there was an intention to adapt the activity so that nobody felt excluded” (student #21); “A very flexible activity that could be adapted to any educational context, promoting equity in learning” (student #53); “The video on bullying helped raise awareness” (student #104).

3.2. Question #2: … Describe the Three Aspects You Liked the Least (Or That Could Be Improved)

While the Autolycus activity was widely valued, students also identified aspects that could be improved in future implementations. To obtain a comprehensive view, participants were asked to list the three aspects they liked least or considered improvable. Their responses highlighted key areas for optimisation to ensure a more enriching and equitable experience.

The quantitative analysis of responses revealed the main least valued aspects, organised into ten categories, relating them with SDT dimensions. For each category, we include representative excerpts to illustrate participants’ perceptions.

3.2.1. Competence: Activities (Duration and Repetition) (43 Coded Excerpts)

37.7% of participants reported repetition as a factor that negatively affected their experience. The lack of diversity generated monotony and reduced the dynamism expected in a game-based learning proposal: “Many tasks were similar, so we lost interest after doing them so many times” (student #15); “There were too many repeated push-ups, burpees and squats, which made the activity a bit boring” (student #79); “It would have been better to set a wider variety of exercises to avoid repetition” (student #76).

3.2.2. Competence: Unequal Difficulty of Challenges (35 Coded Excerpts)

Reported by 30.7% of students. Some groups proposed more demanding activities than others, creating imbalances: “Some tests were too easy, while others required a lot of physical effort” (student #75); “In some groups you could get the clue quickly; in others you had to do several difficult activities” (student #92); “A common difficulty criterion for all teams would have helped” (student #85).

3.2.3. Autonomy/Relatedness: Groups and Roles (21 Coded Excerpts)

Reported by 18.4% of students. Some participants assumed more active roles than others, limiting equitable participation: “There was always someone in the group who stayed in the same place and did not take part in all the activities” (student #5); “It would be better if all members rotated roles” (student #108); “In each group, one member had to remain at base to receive other groups, so that person did not carry out activities proposed elsewhere” (student #64); “The person in charge of explaining exercises to arriving groups got bored—we should have rotated” (student #79).

3.2.4. Competence: Quality of Materials and Maps (19 Coded Excerpts)

Mentioned by 16.7% of students. The black-and-white print made orientation and identification of colour-based clues difficult: “The map should have been in colour, as some clues depended on colours” (student #34); “It was hard to distinguish the houses and roofs on the black-and-white map” (student #8); “Colour would have made orientation easier” (student #9); “The map quality hindered clue solving, making some tasks more confusing than necessary” (student #40).

3.2.5. Competence/Relatedness: Lack of Teacher Supervision (17 Coded Excerpts)

Noted by 14.9% of students. Insufficient control over task execution allowed some teams to bend rules: “In some tests, classmates gave out clues without the activity being completed correctly” (student #92); “Supervision should have ensured that all groups respected the rules equally” (student #24); “Some students did not participate yet still obtained the clue, which was frustrating for teams that did complete all activities” (student #112).

3.2.6. Competence: Unstructured Creativity and Low Motivation (15 Coded Excerpts)

Reported by 13.2% of students, pointing to limited guidance in task design: “We lacked creativity when designing the tests because many were the same” (student #15); “With a few prior ideas we could have created more varied and motivating activities” (student #43); “In that case, students’ creativity would disappear” (student #9); “We went for the most common and basic ideas” (student #15); “We were short on imagination; most activities were physical—providing a sheet with possible alternatives would help” (student #43).

3.2.7. Relatedness: Insufficient Space (12 Coded Excerpts)

Reported by 10.5% of students, who noted congestion at certain times: “Some groups had to move to distant areas while others stayed in one place” (student #2); “At times there were too many groups at the same station” (student #102); “It should be done in a larger space” (student #48); “We could have made better use of the available space” (student #65); “With the space we have, we could have run a wider variety of activities” (student #72).

3.2.8. Autonomy: Disorganisation (10 Coded Excerpts)

Reported by 8.8% of students, referring to task distribution and time management: “Too many groups converged at the same station and we didn’t know when to move on” (student #70); “The activity time was poorly distributed—some parts too long, others too short” (student #76); “We often found two or three groups at the same station and had to alter our route or wait” (student #103); “When we went to complete activities proposed by classmates, another group arrived and we lost time” (student #109); “We were often waiting for the group’s ‘teacher’ to indicate the activities to be done” (student #71).

3.2.9. Relatedness: Adaptation and Integration (10 Coded Excerpts)

Reported by 8.8% of students, who felt the activity could have been better adjusted to all needs: “Some activities were difficult for classmates with lower physical capacity” (student #19); “Alternative tasks would have been useful so everyone could participate equally” (student #93); “Better adaptation of clues could have ensured equal opportunities” (student #24).

In brief, while the Autolycus activity was highly valued, these results highlight key areas for improvement: repetition of activities, material quality (map), unequal difficulty, and insufficient supervision. In addition, group organisation, space and time distribution were flagged as aspects to refine. These findings stress the importance of detailed planning in game-based learning to ensure an equitable, motivating and well-structured experience. Taken together, students’ least valued aspects underscore that design quality is pivotal for sustaining engagement in GBL: repetitive tasks may reduce novelty, imbalances in difficulty can affect perceived fairness, and limited supervision may weaken adherence to collaborative rules. These observations are consistent with prior work showing that insufficiently calibrated game elements can undermine motivation (Dabbous et al., 2022). Future iterations should therefore include clearer guidance for task design (to diversify challenges), explicit difficulty criteria shared across teams, role rotation schedules, and teacher checkpoints to support equitable participation.

3.3. Question #3: … Is an Effective Strategy to Achieve the Objectives Set by the Teacher in PE?

As shown in Table 3, the results indicate whether students consider the Autolycus Game to be an effective strategy for achieving the objectives set by the Physical Education teacher. The students suggested that, with certain adjustments in planning and implementation, the experience for future learners could be further optimised, ensuring greater equity, fluency and diversity in the challenges, while retaining the key elements that made the activity motivating and enriching for teacher education.

The main aspects highlighted by students as evidence of the activity’s effectiveness in meeting the objectives of Physical Education have been organised into nine key categories, relating them with SDT dimensions. Through an analysis of their responses, the elements considered most relevant for positively evaluating this didactic strategy were identified. Representative excerpts from students’ testimonies are provided for each category to illustrate their perceptions and to capture the strengths of the activity.

3.3.1. Competence: Achievement of Educational Objectives (50 Coded Excerpts)

A total of 43.9% of participants identified the achievement of educational objectives as one of the most prominent aspects, as reflected in comments such as: “Autolycus is a good strategy for meeting proposed objectives, as the tests required to obtain clues can be varied and aligned with those objectives” (student #97); “Many PE objectives can be achieved, such as improving speed, physical condition, creativity and spatial reasoning” (student #92); “Not only are different competences addressed, but prior knowledge is also reinforced; it’s a dynamic and innovative way to teach orienteering” (student #94); “The game allows assessment of many aspects—from sport practice to cooperation, effort, creativity and critical reflection to solve the enigma” (student #102); “It is an effective resource for learning content, as it fosters strong intrinsic motivation when the session theme is engaging” (student #31).

3.3.2. Relatedness: Teamwork and Socialization (48 Coded Excerpts)

Another highly valued aspect was teamwork and socialisation, mentioned by 16.4% of students, with remarks such as: “This game develops primary abilities such as strength, endurance, speed and coordination while working on roles and problem solving” (student #86); “We worked both in groups and individually, developing motor and cognitive competences, strengthening cooperative work and role distribution” (student #111); “It is a good strategy because we can work on socialisation and cooperation” (student #41); “Ideal for boosting collaboration and building positive classroom bonds” (student #42); “This kind of game promotes active listening, debate and cooperation to achieve a common goal” (student #64); “To reach the goal, we must collaborate” (student #75).

3.3.3. Competence: Motivation and Enjoyment (36 Coded Excerpts)

Motivation and enjoyment emerged as another key element, mentioned by 31.6% of participants, as illustrated by: “This strategy makes learners feel more involved and motivated to carry out the activity themselves, moving away from a traditional teaching style” (student #77); “The activity was fun and engaging—even for us as adults—which guarantees interest among younger pupils” (student #31); “These ways of teaching greatly motivate our pupils” (student #29); “Combining different methodologies—such as gamification and socialising styles—is motivating and useful for achieving teaching objectives in an original way” (student #14); “An escape room is highly motivating” (student #36); “It keeps pupils active, which leads to greater attention, participation and interest” (student #41); “Gamifying the class outdoors clearly motivates learners more than sitting at a desk listening to explanations” (student #47).

3.3.4. Competence/Autonomy: Creativity and Innovation (34 Coded Excerpts)

Regarding creativity and innovation, highlighted by 29.8% of students, they emphasised how this pedagogical approach supports the teaching–learning process: “With a single game, creative, social and cognitive capacities are developed” (student #52); “This allows us to move through teaching styles up to the creative level” (student #67); “It helps create original physical activities and exercises” (student #74); “A more innovative and creative methodology” (student #77); “A way to implement problem solving, guided discovery and creativity” (student #86).

3.3.5. Relatedness/Autonomy: Natural Environment (30 Coded Excerpts)

The natural environment was highlighted by 26.3% of students, as expressed in comments such as: “The game promotes orienteering in open spaces, improving basic skills such as endurance and coordination while enjoying nature” (student #40); “Working outdoors rather than in the classroom is far more enriching and allows greater connection with nature” (student #30); “Its link to the natural environment provides multiple benefits” (student #25); “It nurtures social relations among pupils and with the environment” (student #90); “Doing activities outdoors is attractive to pupils… it can foster interest in physical activity and respect for the natural environment” (student #91); “It fosters teamwork, social bonds and environmental awareness alongside physical exercise” (student #105).

3.3.6. Competence: Meaningful Learning (28 Coded Excerpts)

Meaningful learning was identified by 9.6% of students as one of the key aspects of the Autolycus Game, with comments such as: “It’s not only physical but also cognitive, which is essential in Physical Education” (student #1); “It is very comprehensive for what the teacher wants to teach, with a meaningful learning component related to orienteering” (student #3); “More than a physical game, it makes you think and reason; it teaches logic, which I consider fundamental today” (student #6); “It sparks pupils’ curiosity, guiding discovery while engaging in physical challenges” (student #6).

3.3.7. Competence: Physical and Motor Skills (26 Coded Excerpts)

The development of physical and motor skills was noted by 22.8% of participants as a key competence addressed through the activity, with observations such as: “A good activity for working on endurance; variants could target speed, coordination and strength” (student #81); “Many PE objectives are addressed because physical effort is directly involved” (student #75); “You acquire strength, endurance and speed while improving coordination in each task” (student #86); “You practise orienteering with the map and engage in physical activity to obtain clues, which improves fitness while having fun” (student #40).

3.3.8. Autonomy: Autonomy and Decision-Making (22 Coded Excerpts)

Although mentioned to a lesser extent, autonomy and decision-making was valued by 19.3% of participants, as demonstrated by: “These activities allow pupils to make decisions, manage tasks and work autonomously to achieve the final goal” (student #63); “We participated constantly in decision-making, which allowed us to observe our autonomy and group management” (student #101); “Students set the challenges themselves, which forces them to organise, make decisions and orient themselves autonomously” (student #16).

3.3.9. Competence/Autonomy: Assessment and Flexibility (18 Coded Excerpts)

Assessment and flexibility were valued by 15.8% of participants, as reflected in comments such as: “Learners can be assessed in varied and precise ways, taking into account autonomy, cooperation and participation” (student #53); “You can monitor each group and adjust the activity according to results to ensure objectives are met” (student #28); “Different teaching strategies can be applied and assessment conducted based on motivation, attention and participation during the game” (student #41); “Greater learner autonomy facilitates continuous assessment” (student #53).

4. Discussion

Game-Based Learning (GBL) has become widely recognised as a pedagogical model for creating motivating and meaningful learning experiences. Within this framework, Breakout EDU represents an opportunity to implement this model in educational spaces through a methodology inspired by escape rooms (Bayer & Sorenson, 2020). Previous research shows that interactive escape games can enhance soft skills such as communication, collaboration and problem solving (Manojlovic, 2021), and that combining learning-oriented or “serious games” with physical activity can boost engagement and encourage healthy habits (Solas-Martínez et al., 2023). Likewise, physical activity in natural settings has been associated with positive psychological and emotional outcomes (Wicks et al., 2022).

Beyond confirming these previous findings, the present study contributes to an emerging but still limited body of research on outdoor Breakout EDU in higher-education Physical Education. Most published work has focused on digital or indoor escape-room experiences, with far fewer studies examining how university students perceive game-based activities implemented in natural environments and how they connect them with motivation, social interaction and meaningful learning in PE. By documenting students’ subjective perceptions in this specific context, our results help to expand and nuance existing evidence on Game-Based Learning in outdoor settings.

Considering all these factors, the objective of the present study was to analyze the aspects involved in implementing an educational escape room experience in Physical Education within a natural setting, aiming to promote an active and effective learning process that strengthens students’ motivation, collaboration and social interaction. The results align with current literature, suggesting that Breakout EDU in natural settings can serve as an inclusive and dynamic strategy, integrating problem solving and peer collaboration to develop social skills and engagement with the subject.

In line with SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2020), students indicated that the experience promoted cooperation and strengthened social bonds (relatedness), fostered competence through creative and challenging tasks, and enhanced autonomy by allowing decision-making and role management. These findings reinforce prior evidence on the educational value of play for engagement and intrinsic motivation (Greipl et al., 2020) and echo previous studies highlighting the development of physical and cognitive skills in similar interventions (Martín-Rodríguez et al., 2024; Pérez-López et al., 2023). In this analysis, SDT functioned as a sensitising framework that guided the organisation and interpretation of themes, rather than as a formal model to be empirically tested. The categories of autonomy, competence and relatedness structured students’ perceptions and linked them to broader motivational theory. Accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as descriptive insights rather than evidence of causal mechanisms or comparative effects across conditions.

On the other hand, certain areas for improvement were observed through the questionnaires analyzed, which could have limited the implementation of the “Autolycus game” and introduced bias for some participants, such as the duration and repetition of certain challenges and the variability in their difficulty. Evidence emphasizes the importance of proper game design, as inadequate planning could produce negative effects on students (Dabbous et al., 2022). From a practical perspective, several implications emerge. These include balancing the level of difficulty across challenges, providing guidelines to stimulate more varied and creative task design, rotating roles within groups to maximise participation, offering colour maps to improve orientation, and organising space and timing to avoid congestion. We acknowledge important limitations. First, data derive from students’ self-reported perceptions collected at a single time point in one university programme, which constrains causal inference and limits the temporal scope of the findings. Second, the activity was implemented in intact class groups taught by members of the research team; despite efforts to minimise influence, this instructional relationship may have affected both students’ willingness to participate and the tone of their responses. This potential sampling and relational bias is important when interpreting the results and reduces the extent to which they can be generalised to other contexts or populations. Moreover, the study relied exclusively on short written open-ended responses as its sole data source. This choice is coherent with the descriptive and exploratory nature of the design, but it limits methodological triangulation and the depth of analysis that could be achieved. Future research should therefore combine questionnaires with complementary sources such as systematic observations, interviews or performance-based measures, in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of students’ experiences and learning processes in outdoor Breakout EDU.

Regarding transferability, the present results align with international evidence on GBL and outdoor learning (e.g., Bayer & Sorenson, 2020; Manojlovic, 2021; Wicks et al., 2022), yet contextual differences (curricular aims, institutional culture, physical spaces) may shape implementation and outcomes. Future research should examine outdoor Breakout EDU in varied cultural and curricular settings (primary, secondary, and other university contexts), using comparable measures, to assess generalisability and boundary conditions.

Further research should address the less valued aspects identified by students to enhance the intervention’s effectiveness. Longitudinal or mixed-method designs would help examine how Breakout EDU in natural settings supports autonomy, competence, relatedness, and meaningful learning over time.

5. Conclusions

Play has long been considered as a catalyst for developing physical, cognitive, and social skills in humans. This study explored university students’ perceptions of a Game-Based Learning (GBL) through an educational escape room (Breakout EDU) in an outdoor environment. Findings suggest that participants perceived the activity as motivating and engaging, particularly in relation to social interaction, group cohesion, and opportunities for meaningful learning in Physical Education. Students frequently described how the combination of narrative, problem-solving, and physical activity not only promoted the development of social competencies such as teamwork and communication but also enhanced cognitive and motor skills, reinforcing students’ interest in content that is often perceived as abstract. At the same time, reports of repetitive tasks and uneven challenge difficulty indicate that the game elements require careful calibration to sustain engagement and perceived fairness.

Analysis of participants’ perceptions highlighted three elements as especially valued: group interaction, the creativity of the challenges, and the sense of belonging generated through cooperative roles and dynamics. Likewise, the outdoor setting was identified as an important factor for enhancing student well-being and motivation. These perceptions align with recent literature highlighting the emotional and cognitive benefits of playful experiences and physical activity in natural environments.

In summary, Autolycus’ Game illustrates the potential of integrating Breakout EDU with outdoor learning in higher-education Physical Education, extending previous GBL research beyond indoor and digital settings. Future studies should examine this approach across different educational levels and contexts, and use mixed-methods and longitudinal designs, including validated instruments (such as the Basic Psychological Needs Satisfaction scale), to assess how autonomy, competence and relatedness develop over time.