Enhancing Physical Education Through Gamification and Ergonomics: A Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “Enhancing Physical Education Through Gamification and Ergonomics: A Literature Review”

The article aims to evaluate the ergonomic principles, but these are not very clear in the review, evaluating other aspects that may be important in this topic. In general, the manuscript is too fragmented and unnecessarily subdivided.

The aim was to evaluate how ergonomic principles are applied in gamified PE platforms,  assess their impact on motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes, and propose recommendations for designing user-centered, inclusive gamified platforms.

Line 83. There is no need to repeat this information. (Studies were published between 2013 and 2024.)

Line 94. This criterion is the negation of the other inclusion criterion. It should not appear.

Lina 97-103: This information is already in lines 66-67.

The discussion should start with whether or not the results have been achieved.

Most of the studies in this review focused on higher education. This should be discussed.

I believe factors such as visual fatigue, posture, and the physical impact of prolonged use of gamified platforms need to be examined more deeply.

The limitations should focus on the study's objectives and research design, but it generally refers to gamification.

The conclusions do not reflect a summary of the study but a statement of the benefits of gamification. It should be reworded.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article aims to evaluate the ergonomic principles, but these are not very clear in the review. The manuscript is too fragmented and unnecessarily subdivided.

Response 1: We acknowledge this issue and have restructured the manuscript to provide a more cohesive discussion of ergonomic principles. Specifically, Section 4.4 (Lines 267-285) has been expanded to include a clearer theoretical framework linking gamification and ergonomics.

Comment 2: Line 83. There is no need to repeat this information. (Studies were published between 2013 and 2024.)

Response 2: We agree and have removed the redundancy from Line 83.

Comment 3: Line 94. This criterion is the negation of the other inclusion criterion. It should not appear.

Response 3: We have removed the criterion in Line 94 to avoid redundancy.

Comment 4: Lines 97-103: This information is already in lines 66-67.

Response 4: We agree. The duplicated content has been removed.

Comment 5: The discussion should start with whether or not the results have been achieved.

Response 5: We have revised the first paragraph of the Discussion section (Lines 226-229) to explicitly state whether the study objectives were met.

Comment 6: Most of the studies in this review focused on higher education. This should be discussed.

Response 6: We have added a paragraph in the Discussion (Lines 250-255) addressing the overrepresentation of higher education studies and its implications.

Comment 7: Factors such as visual fatigue, posture, and the physical impact of prolonged use of gamified platforms need deeper examination.

Response 7: We have expanded Section 4.4 (Lines 267-285) to include these factors.

Comment 8: The limitations section should focus on the study's objectives and research design.

Response 8: The limitations section (Lines 346-351) has been refined to focus more specifically on study objectives and research design.

Comment 9: The conclusions do not reflect a summary of the study but rather a statement of the benefits of gamification.

Response 9: We have rewritten the Conclusion (Lines 338-356) to summarize key findings rather than restate the benefits of gamification.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

My comments are:

 

ABSTRACT:

• Authors must explain in the introduction of the abstract what the Gamification is.
• The verb tense must be in the past.
• The conclusion of the study should be clearer and more precise.

INTRODUCTION

The last paragraph of the introduction should be deleted.

For a review, the number of references is small. Should the number be increased or should the novelty of the topic justify why it is so limited?

The introduction should be more extensive

 

 

• MATERIAL AND METHODS

Inclusion criteria should be written in one paragraph, not in separate sentences.

 

 

• DISCUSSION
• The discussion should start with the main finding of their study.
• The authors should add a section on practical applications.
• Authors should list limitations

 

• CONCLUSION

The conclusion should be concise, focused the main finding of the study

The style of the references is constant, correct

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality is correct

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract should define gamification.

Response 1: We have added a definition in the first sentence of the Abstract.

Comment 2: The verb tense must be in the past.

Response 2: The verb tense in the Abstract has been revised accordingly.

Comment 3: The introduction should be more extensive and the last paragraph should be deleted.

Response 3: We have expanded the Introduction (Lines 54-59) and removed the last paragraph.

Comment 4: The number of references is small. Should it be increased?

Response 4: We have reviewed and increased the number of references to enhance comprehensiveness.

Comment 5: Inclusion criteria should be written in one paragraph.

Response 5: We have consolidated the inclusion criteria into one paragraph (Lines 88-93).

Comment 6: The discussion should start with the main finding.

Response 6: The first paragraph of the Discussion has been modified to highlight the main finding.

Comment 7: A section on practical applications should be added.

Response 7: A new subsection (4.6 Practical Applications) has been added (Lines 296-305).

Comment 8: Limitations should be explicitly listed.

Response 8: A dedicated limitations section has been included (Lines 305-313).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is interesting and has the potential to contribute to the existing literature; however, the author needs to address the following comments to enhance the manuscript.

In lines 38-39, the author mentioned proper ergonomic design, yet further elaboration is necessary to ensure the manuscript's clarity. References should be provided to support the assertion regarding proper ergonomic design.

In lines 44-47, the contents are repetitive and require editing.

The author should review previous studies based on motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes, explaining why these three stages (components) are important to study, with references, theories, or principles (if applicable) in the Introduction.

In line 56, the author discusses the impact of ergonomics principles, but without full explanations of the various ergonomics principles, the need and the importance of the study cannot be highlighted.

The incorporation of recognized ergonomic models, such as Human Factors Design, Cognitive Load Theory, and Usability Heuristics, etc. could serve to reinforce the introductory section.

Addressing potential selection bias, particularly the overrepresentation of higher education studies (75%), is crucial.

The study touches upon cognitive load, accessibility, and user-centered design, yet it lacks a comprehensive analysis of their impact on PE outcomes.

Additionally, the study does not address how policy-makers or curriculum designers can integrate ergonomic gamification.

Overall, the study's practical implications are too general to be of much use.

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript needs a clearer elaboration on ergonomic design.

Response 1: We have added explanations and references.

Comment 2: Repetitive content in Lines 44-47.

Response 2: The content has been edited for conciseness.

Comment 3: The introduction should discuss motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes with supporting references.

Response 3: Additional references and explanations have been added in the Introduction (Lines 48-55).

Comment 4: Ergonomic models should be incorporated.

Response 4: We have integrated Human Factors Design, Cognitive Load Theory, and Usability Heuristics in the Introduction

Comment 5: Address selection bias regarding higher education studies.

Response 5: This has been discussed in the Discussion section (Lines 250-255).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

GENERAL COMMENTS

This paper addresses an important topic, the integration of gamification in physical education with a focus on ergonomic principles. The subject is timely and relevant, but the manuscript presents some critical issues that should be addressed before publication:
1) Weak Connection Between Gamification and Ergonomics (the link between these two concepts is only briefly mentioned and lacks depth. A clearer theoretical framework is needed to explain how ergonomic principles can enhance gamified learning environments).
2) Methodological Weaknesses (the study follows PRISMA guidelines, yet the selection process for the final eight studies is not well justified. Given that 1980 studies were initially identified, a more transparent explanation of exclusion criteria is necessary)
3) Analysis of Results (the results are mainly descriptive, lacking a critical comparison of the effectiveness of different gamification approaches concerning variables such as student age, type of physical activity, and technology used.
4) Limited Practical Applications (the paper highlights gaps in the literature but does not propose concrete solutions or frameworks for integrating ergonomic principles into gamification effectively).

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Introduction (Lines 28-63)
The connection between gamification and ergonomics is weakly established. Add a paragraph explicitly explaining why ergonomic principles are critical in gamified PE environments.

Methods (Lines 64-144)
The inclusion and exclusion criteria lack clarity. It is unclear if certain study types (RCTs, longitudinal studies) were prioritized. Provide a clearer explanation of the study selection process and include a risk-of-bias assessment.

Results (Lines 145-225)
The PRISMA flow diagram (line 153) does not sufficiently explain the drastic reduction in studies. Provide more details about the exclusion process.
The summary table (lines 185-224) lacks a comparative discussion of gamification effectiveness across different interventions. Highlight which gamification elements were most effective and in what contexts.

Discussion (Lines 226-337)
Section 4.4 Ergonomic Considerations (lines 267-285) is too general and lacks concrete examples. Include specific ergonomic solutions, such as adaptive interfaces, cognitive load management, and wearable technology design.
In 4.5 Implications (lines 286-295), you could discuss about the important impact and potential that gamification may have in sport science degreeas for performing practice-oriented teaching in distance learning modality (the COVID pandemic spinned this applications) (reference: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11100600)

Conclusion (Lines 338-356)
The section restates previous points without adding new insights. Offer concrete research directions, such as developing standardized metrics to evaluate ergonomic impacts on gamified platforms.

Author Response

Comment 1: The link between gamification and ergonomics needs better explanation.

Response 1: A paragraph explicitly linking these concepts has been added in the Introduction (Lines 54-59).

Comment 2: The selection process lacks transparency.

Response 2: We have expanded the Methods section (Lines 101-108) to clarify selection criteria and exclusion process.

Comment 3: The results section is mainly descriptive.

Response 3: We have added a comparative discussion of gamification effectiveness (Lines 218-227).

Comment 4: Practical applications are limited.

Response 4: A new section on practical applications has been added (Lines 305-313).

Comment 5: The PRISMA diagram needs more detail.

Response 5: Additional details on study exclusion have been added (Lines 88-93).

Comment 6: The implications section should discuss sport science degrees.

Response 6: This has been incorporated in Section 4.5.

Comment 7: The conclusion lacks new insights.

Response 7: The Conclusion has been revised to propose concrete research directions.

We appreciate your time and consideration.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have answered all my questions and made appropriate changes to the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has addressed the comments, and the manuscript has been improved sufficiently for its publication. Thanks for the author's efforts on this manuscript.