The Impact of Technology Integration on Student-Designed Games 
 
by 
 
Mauro Henrique Andr? 
 
 
 
 
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 5, 2013 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: Student-designed games, technology integration,  
participatory action research 
 
Copyright 2013 by Mauro Henrique Andr? 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Peter Hastie, Chair, Wayne T. Smith Distinguished Professor of Kinesiology 
 Alice Buchanan, Associate Professor of Kinesiology 
Jared Russell, Associate Professor of Kinesiology 
Jung Won Hur, Professor of Education Foundation, Leadership and Technology 
 
  
  
 
  
ii 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Abstract 
 
Student-designed games (SDG) is the process in which students create, organize, practice 
and refine their own games within certain limits established by the teacher (Hastie, 2010). Recent 
research has proposed different methodologies to teach SDG, and among these, technology 
integration (TI) was proposed by Hastie, Casey and Tarter (2010) and by Casey, Hastie and 
Rovegno (2011) when using a wiki for game design. In spite of becoming an innovative 
methodology for teaching SDG, it is not clear how TI may improve or diminish students? 
experience and learning.   
The present research analyzed how TI has an impact on a SDG teaching unit, and it 
addressed five research questions: (1) How technology integration has an impact on a teacher?s 
pedagogy? (2) How technology integration has an impact on students? physical activity 
engagement? (3) How technology integration has an impact on students? enjoyment/ 
engagement? (4) How technology integration has an impact on students? communication? (5) 
How technology integration has an impact on students? game characteristics/ architecture?  
The researcher taught two SDG units in a Junior High School, one with TI and another 
without TI. Within a participatory action research methodology, these questions were answered 
following analysis of data collected with six different methods: observations (field notes), 
Edmodo discussions, interviews, survey, lesson plans and pedometer count.  
The executive answers to the five key questions were: (1) the TI group was taught with 
more autonomy, whereas the non-technology group needed more support to complete their tasks; 
iii 
 
(2) the non-technology group reported a higher physical activity engagement than the TI group; 
(3) the non-technology group reported higher levels of enjoyment when comparing to the TI 
group; (4) group members from the non-technology group were able to communicate better, 
while inter-group communication was better in the TI group; (5) boys reported to focus on 
designing strategic games whereas girls focused on designing ludic games. 
In conclusion, TI was considered a harder teaching methodology that required more 
experience with SDG and with TI. Moreover, there was also a higher appreciation for SDG 
among the students that were taught without TI. Nevertheless, TI provided more equality among 
students as they were given more opportunity to share their ideas in online discussions. Future 
research may consider a hybrid model that focuses on the major benefits that can be derived from 
each teaching condition.  
  
iv 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
My years in Auburn will be unforgettable. In the following paragraphs, I will try to 
express my gratitude for the many people that have been part of this experience. I must first 
acknowledge that I will fail, since words are not enough to express my true gratitude to ?y?all?. 
First and foremost, I would like to thank my adviser Dr. Peter Hastie, for all his constant 
support, attention and guidance. Within just a few years, he not only taught me about how to 
conduct research (which would be more than enough given his unbelievable knowledge), but he 
also taught me about his positive relationship with his students and collaborators. I will always 
look up to him as my mentor and of course my dear friend. 
I would also like to thank all the professors in which I had the opportunity to work in 
different courses and occasions: Dr. Brock, Dr. Love, Dr. Pascoe, Dr. Ross and Dr. Wadsworth. 
Special thanks to the professors in my committee who have helped me during the process of my 
dissertation: Dr. Russell and Dr. Buchanan. Special thanks to Dr. Hur who have changed my 
perception of technology integration. Special thanks to Dr. Shannon who have helped me learn 
about statistics and understand its usefulness in research (not an easy task!). Special thanks to Dr. 
Rudisill for all her support and kindness.  
I would like to thank all students from the school where I have conducted my research 
and the physical education teachers Coach Spencer and Coach Carter for all their support. 
A very special thanks to my lovely wife, Aline for all her love, patience and contagious 
happiness. I would like to thank ALL my family (in spite of the distance we are never far apart). 
v 
 
My parents, Jo?o and Elizabeth for all their love and constant support. My brothers, Carlos and 
Fernando for all the long talks over the internet (and few videogame matches). My in laws, Jos? 
Carlos and Ana Lu?sa for all their support and laughs over the phone.  
I would like to thank all the friends I have made here in Auburn. Between soccer games, 
barbeques, and chats between classes, they made my life here a little easier. 
I would like to thank all my students from different courses that I have taught in Auburn. 
I believe that I have learned a lot about the teaching practice and they have contributed in this 
learning. 
Last but not least, I would like to thank Auburn University and all the faculty and staff 
members for allowing me the opportunity to continue my studies. 
 
 
  
vi 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Table of Contents 
 
  
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii  
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv  
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii  
List of Figures  ............................................................................................................................. viii  
Chapter 1 - Introduction  ..................................................................................................................1  
Chapter 2 - Literature Review  .........................................................................................................6  
Chapter 3 - Study Design and Methodology .................................................................................45 
Chapter 4 - Results  ........................................................................................................................58  
Chapter 5 - Discussion and Conclusion  ........................................................................................99  
References  ...................................................................................................................................117  
Appendix A - Interview Guide ................................................................................................... 126  
Appendix B - Survey .................................................................................................................. 130  
Appendix C - Poster - Leading Questions for the Non-Technology Group ............................... 133  
Appendix D - Playbook Portfolio - Leading Questions for the Non-Technology Group ............137  
Appendix E - Leading Questions and Playbook Portfolio for the TI Group ...............................142  
Appendix F - IRB Forms and Letters ..........................................................................................149 
 
 
  
vii 
 
  
  
  
  
 
List of Tables 
 
 
Table 4.1. Game Summaries from Students of the Non-Technology Group.....................................58  
Table 4.2. Game Summaries from Students of the TI Group ............................................................60 
Table 4.3. Physical Activity Engagement Means by Group, Gender and Time ................................71 
Table 4.4. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Time ................................72 
Table 4.5. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Gender .............................73 
Table 4.6. Comparison of Students Overall Experience by Group, Gender and Group X Gender ...75 
Table 4.7. Comparison of Students Overall Experience in Each Group and Each Gender ...............75 
Table 4.8. TI Students? Technology Usage and Interest ....................................................................76 
Table 4.9. TI Students? Internet Access in Their Houses ..................................................................76 
Table 4.10. Non-Technology and TI Single-Sex Groups? Response to Game Design......................98 
 
 
  
viii 
 
  
  
  
  
 
List of Figures 
 
Figure 3.1. Lewin?s Cycle Model ..................................................................................................46  
Figure 2.2. Study Design Five Stages Using Lewin?s Cycle Model .............................................47  
Figure 4.1. Teacher?s Pedagogy Themes and Sub-Themes ...........................................................62  
Figure 4.2. SDG Stages in Each Class ...........................................................................................63 
Figure 4.3. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Time ...........................73 
Figure 4.4. Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Gender ........................74 
Figure 4.5. Student?s Enjoyment/ Engagement Themes and Sub-Themes ....................................74 
Figure 4.6. Students Enjoyment in Having Laptops in School? ....................................................77 
Figure 4.7. Students Enjoyment in Having Laptops in Physical Education? ................................77 
Figure 4.8. Students Enjoyment in Using Edmodo .......................................................................78 
Figure 4.9. Students Adherence to Edmodo ..................................................................................78 
Figure 4.10. Students Communication Themes and Sub-Themes .................................................87 
Figure 4.11. Game?s Characteristics/ Architecture Themes and Sub-Themes ..............................96 
 
1 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Chapter 1. Introduction 
 
A student-designed games (SDG) teaching unit could be described as the process in 
which students create and practice their own games, and in which the teacher as facilitator is able 
to guide and establish certain limits (Hastie, 2010). The concept of SDG emerged in the late 
1960s for the first time in the physical education literature where Mauldon and Redfern (1969) 
introduced the idea that children were experts in game playing and therefore, they should have 
more liberty to create their own games. From its initial idea until the late 1990s, most of the 
research on SDG did not present any empirical data. Rather the discussion was limited to various 
definitions that characterize what is, and what is not, SDG. 
Delimitating the understanding of SDG was the first step of the literature. Most research 
focused on discussing the different teaching methodologies that could be used. Given that 
students are empowered with the content that is developed in class, there were many papers 
advocating that SDG should not be confused with a ?ball rolling? concept. As a result, many 
teaching methodologies were created to approach this new physical education content. 
Nevertheless, not until recently, these methodologies were not applied as interventions to discuss 
their potentialities and limitations. 
In the past few years, there has being a growth of empirical research in SDG. Most of the 
current research has focused on the different possibilities of teaching SDG. Among these 
methodologies are: the jigsaw classroom (Hastie & Casey, 2010), multiple students roles 
(Gim?nez, 2011), and the usefulness of wikis to design games (Hastie, Casey & Tarter, 2010; 
2 
 
Casey, Hastie & Rovegno, 2011). The introduction of wikis to SDG has brought the concept of 
using technology integration when teaching SDG. 
Technology integration in physical education (TIPE) is the term used to describe the 
concept of using technological devices and software to support, facilitate and improve teachers? 
practice in order to enhance students? experience and learning. TIPE has a similar history to 
SDG. As an even newer area of research, publications describing TIPE still present most of their 
findings without any empirical data. Due to the enormous range of possibilities of different 
technologies, TIPE research presents the aggravating fact of always being behind the latest 
technological trends. As a result, most of TIPE?s research focuses on how to use new 
technologies as instructional guides that describe the features of a given device.  
Among the research that does present empirical data, there has been two foci, those being 
teacher education as well as professional development and application. Publications in the area 
of teacher education and professional development have presented research on how new teachers 
and established teachers acquire their knowledge of using TIPE in their classes. The TIPE 
application research focuses on the implementation of K-12 and higher education interventions, 
seeking to explore different possibilities of teaching physical education classes while using 
technological support.  
The application of TIPE in K-12 education has reported diverse possibilities in using 
technology in physical education. Studies have reported positive responses to the usefulness of 
internet websites to teach theoretical physical education content (Thornburg & Hill, 2003) as 
well as in motivating students to be more participative in physical education (Lazerte & Lathrop, 
2006). Moreover, videos have also been used to support students in their process of learning 
fundamental motor skills (Clarke, 2008). Each intervention has shown to propose different 
3 
 
teaching styles when applying different technologies for different purposes. Therefore, there has 
been a growing need to discuss how TIPE may affect teachers? didactics. Like SDG, TIPE has 
also show a growing need to understand how technology integration should be implemented, that 
is, how teacher practice is modified when teaching a physical education unit that involves 
technology integration.  
Although there are a growing number of studies that present positive outcomes while 
implementing TIPE, it is still not clear how these outcomes are optimized or diminished when 
comparing the use of technology integration with another teaching unit that does not use 
technology integration. In other words, the question remains as to: what are the benefits and 
issues from using technology integration? In addition, it is also important to understand how 
teaching styles are affected when using technology integration. One particular question that 
needs investigating is whether there is a need to make modifications on how students are taught 
when using TIPE? 
SDG presents similar problems given there is a growing need to compare how different 
teaching conditions affect students? experiences and learning. Given that there are SDG studies 
that have introduced technology integration in their teaching, it would be important to know how 
TIPE incorporation affects SDG teaching. In other words, the important question remains as to 
what are students? responses to each teaching condition. Other questions include: what are the 
characteristics from each teaching condition (with and without technology integration) that 
improve students? overall experience? In order to identify the most appreciated characteristics 
and understand why and how they affect students? experience in SDG, a comparison between 
technology integration and non-technology teaching conditions in SDG is needed.  
4 
 
 The present study has the purpose of analyzing the impact of technology integration in a 
SDG teaching unit. The study offset up to deliberately compare two SDG teaching units: one that 
used technology integration and another that did not use technology integration. The group that 
used technology integration was required to design their game outside of class while using 
Edmodo (a social media website). The group that did not use technology integration performed 
all their game design tasks within their regularly scheduled class time class. Both interventions 
were taught by the researcher himself, involving a methodology known as participatory action 
research (PAR). As a result, the researcher was able to experience the daily challenges that each 
teaching condition provided. In addition, PAR also enabled the researcher to provide a 
contextualized perspective in which the researcher was able to present enriched data that 
enhances the understanding of each given situation. 
 The study was conducted in a Junior High School in the southern region of the United 
States. 82 eighth and ninth grade students from two classes received five week interventions that 
were analyzed by six different methods: observations (field notes), Edmodo (group discussions), 
interviews, survey, pedometer count, and lesson plans. 
 Research Questions 
The purpose of this research was to analyze how technology integration has an impact on 
a student-designed games teaching unit in physical education. More specifically, the research 
addressed the following research objectives: 
i. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on a 
teacher?s pedagogy in a student-designed games teaching unit. 
ii. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on students? 
physical activity engagement in a student-designed games teaching unit. 
5 
 
iii. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on 
students? enjoyment/ engagement in a student-designed games teaching unit.  
iv. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on 
students? communication in a student-designed games teaching unit.  
v. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on students? 
game characteristics/ architecture in a student-designed games teaching unit. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
6 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Chapter 2. Literature Review 
 
The present research focuses on two topics: student-designed games and technology 
integration in physical education. Considering that both topics have limited empirical research, 
this literature review focuses on presenting an overview on how each topic was developed. First, 
student-designed games is presented in two sections: (1) Student-designed games: from the roots 
to the latest, (2) Student-designed games: what we claim to know, what we actually know, and 
what we need to know. The first section provides a chronological overview of the academic 
research that has been conducted in this subject matter. The second section presents what have 
been researched with empirical data and what have been claimed without evidence, clarifying 
what topics are more needed with further research. 
Secondly, technology integration in physical education is presented in three sections: (1) 
The physical education teacher education and professional development in technology 
integration, (2) The application of technology integration in physical education, (3) Developing 
technology integration in physical education literature: empirical research that may support this 
goal. Due to the lack of research, this topic is not presented chronologically but in sections 
according to the different themes that are examined. The first section provides research that 
focus on understanding how much technology has been used in schools and how teachers learn 
to use this technology. The second section focuses on research that investigates interventions that 
use technology integration in diverse educational settings. The third section provides a 
7 
 
discussion on how technology integration research has been developed and what needs further 
examination. 
Following these outlines, a brief discussion is made of how student-designed games and 
technology integration in physical education might relate to one another in academic research 
and practical interventions. Finally, the study?s research questions are presented. 
Student-Designed Games 
Student-designed games have been referred in many different ways in the literature, such 
as: games making (Almond, 1983; Cox & Ledingham, 1988), child-designed games (Rovegno & 
Bandhauer, 1994), games invention (Curtner-Smith, 1996), and inventing games (Butler & 
Hopper, 2011). Although there may be slight discriminations in each of these terms, they are all 
part of the same subject matter, that being, the development of the constitutive rules of a new 
game by a group of young people. Nevertheless, it is important to demarcate the understanding 
of the subject matter in order to ensure clarification of the object of study as well as to avoid 
misinterpretations. According to Hastie (2010, p. 3) ?by definition, games making in physical 
education is a process where students create, organize, implement, practice, and refine their own 
games within certain limits presented by the teacher?. Hastie (2010) choses to refer to this 
practice of teaching as student-designed games (SDG) which has been the term chosen to be 
referred throughout this study. In the following, a chronological review of SDG is presented in 
order to understand what has been research and what have been the major findings up to date. 
Student-Designed Games: From the Roots to the Latest 
The first major reference to influence SDG started in 1969 with the book entitled ?Games 
Teaching: a new approach for primary teaching?. Mauldon and Redfern (1969) presented the 
principles not only for SDG but for all new physical education models that arose to approach 
8 
 
games teaching. The book discusses major topics that would become part of SDG development, 
such as: the usefulness of games in education (and particularly in physical education); the 
complexity of games (how playing games involves the development of multiple domains: 
physical, cognitive, social and moral); the child?s developmental stages while relating to games 
playing (similarly to what Piaget (1971) showed while reporting how each child stage related to 
a different game form, from exploration and symbolic games to social and construction games); 
and even the first classification of games (that would be used by Thorpe, Bunker and Almond 
(1984) in their games classification and that would be essential for SDG didactics). 
In addition, Mauldon and Redfern (1969, p. 6) advocate how children should be 
considered the experts in this subject matter by stating ?courses for teachers appear to 
concentrate on ?up-to-date? methods of coaching specific techniques and organizing numbers so 
as to [sic] mould children in adult patters, rather than on fundamental educational issues or about 
children themselves (and who knows more about ?playing? or about ?games? than they?)?. More 
specifically, the authors recognize the importance of SDG as they value the idea of giving 
students the opportunity to make up their own games as they would be dealing with problem 
solving situations and understanding the relationship between the rules and successful game 
play.  
In the 1980?s the discussion concerning SDG focused upon their educational outcomes as 
well as how they should be taught. These first papers that focused on SDG did not present any 
empirical data. For example, Almond (1983) advocated how SDG were able to teach students to 
?find out for themselves? why rules were so important in a game. Other outcomes reported by the 
author focused on the social domain, once the unit promotes students working together as a 
group, having to cooperate and gaining communication skills as they would have to present their 
9 
 
game to others and even to the teacher. In addition, the author also acknowledged the importance 
of having ownership of a game as something to be meaningful to students. The paper provided 
the first strategies on how to teach SDG by teaching students what is part of a game (rules, 
scoring system, methods of restarting the game, skills, strategies and players specific roles and 
positioning). 
Cox and Ledingham (1988) presented the first paper strictly oriented to teach teachers on 
how to conduct a SDG unit. The authors presented three options of teaching: the structured 
approach, the limited choice and the open choice. The authors also reported that it is important to 
give freedom to students gradually, rather than have them make all game decisions in their early 
experiences. In the structured approach, students would only be able to choose to modify a few 
rules or equipment from a few options given by the teacher (similar to a multiple choice test); in 
the limited choice, students would be able to modify rules from games that they were familiar; at 
last, the open choice would give students the liberty to create their game from scratch.  
In the 1990?s there was an even bigger focus on how to teach SDG. Again however, most 
research was descriptive as authors sought to enlighten the process of teaching SDG. Like the 
1980?s, this decade would not present studies with empirical data. Rather, teachers and 
researchers would share their experience while implementing SDG but without rigorous 
academic methodology that could support their claims. Smith (1991) was one of the first authors 
to clearly relate the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model while using SDG. The 
author presented SDG as a possibility of teaching within the TGfU approach once students 
would gain understating of how rules impacted game play. The author presents a three step 
process when using SDG: selecting the games category, playing modified games presented by 
the teacher and inventing games. The idea of incorporating Thorpe, Bunker and Almond (1984) 
10 
 
games category1 and therefore delimitating the games that would be designed by the students 
would be largely used by many other authors later on. 
Rovegno and Bandhauer (1994) presented a summary of many findings that were 
observed in SDG while the authors and their undergraduate students were performing a series of 
SDG units in an elementary school. The purpose of their article was to enlighten teachers and 
researchers about a numerous of misconceptions that they have come across when teaching SDG. 
Like other constructivist models in which have been misinterpreted as ?ball roller? (Chandler & 
Mitchell, 1990), SDG had to overcome the idea that empowering students to create their own 
game did not mean an ?education anarchy? in which there is no educational objective or strategy 
of teaching and Rovegno and Bandhauer (1994) were able to enlighten readers about some of 
these misconceptions. 
Within the proximity that has been suggested between SDG and its capacity to promote 
an understanding of games, SDG was also presented as a new alternative to promote critical 
thinking in physical education (Cleland & Pearse, 1995; Rovengno, Skonie, Charpenel, & 
Sieving, 1995).  As stated by Almond (1983) students would have to ?find out for themselves? 
how rules impact games and therefore it would encourage them to have a reflexive attitude while 
designing their games.  
Curtner-Smith (1996) acknowledges the potential of SDG (if well implemented) in being 
able to develop all three domains of a child (psychomotor, cognitive and social). Once again, the 
author presents the three step process on how to teach SDG in elementary school (selecting the 
games category, playing modified games presented by the teacher and inventing games). In 
addition, Curtner-Smith also presents a series of new particularities that teachers are ought to 
                                                           
1The games categories were presented by Thorpe, Bunker and Almond (1984) as a classification of all games in four 
categories: target games, striking and fielding games, net/wall games and invasion games 
11 
 
know when teaching SDG: calling attention on how each student may have a different approach 
when designing their game as some may plan the whole game before trying out and others 
testing every new rule; the different roles that teachers may take during the process (advisor, 
observer and equal status to the students); how teachers are often needed to intervene in the 
games design (as previously stated by Rovegno and Bandhauer (1994); and how students present 
different social behaviors when working in group. 
In the first decade of the 21st century it was possible to see the beginning of a shift in the 
SDG literature. Unlike previous decades, there was a genesis of studies which presented 
empirical data. There were also more diverse perspectives addressing SDG. These new studies 
were no longer exclusively focused on what and how SDG could be taught, approaching SDG in 
forms such as: an assessment tool; presenting its ability to motivate students; discussing pre-
service teachers response to this approach; and comparing students? behaviors in physical 
education classes while playing teacher-designed games to SDG. 
Hastie and Curtner-Smith (2006) presented SDG as an assessment tool as the authors 
used a hybrid model that combined TGfU and Sports Education. Although SDG is not presented 
as the focus of that paper, it shows its versatility in the literature while being used as an 
assessment for evaluating students? game appreciation. In this study, besides designing their own 
games, students would have to explain why they chose specific rules. As a result, students would 
have to show an understanding on how each rule affected the designed game in terms of its 
playability, enjoyment, inclusiveness and risk/rewards strategies. 
Oliver, Hamzeh and Mccaughtry (2009) used SDG on a feminist post-structuralist 
perspective. The authors identified the reasons why a group of girls from two elementary schools 
would not participate in physical education classes regularly. Within interviews, the authors 
12 
 
pointed that the girls would consider themselves distant from the schools? physical activity 
culture. As a result, SDG were used as an approach that is able to create a new environment in 
which students would be able to relate and therefore become active. Although the authors do not 
show teaching strategies that were consistent to the SDG literature, the concept of promoting the 
creation of new games designed by students presents a breaking ground as SDG reach the critical 
theories. 
Butler, Gomm, Russell, Siess and Sullivan (2009) reported pre-service teachers? 
responses while teaching SDG. It was the first study found in the literature that presented SDG 
as part of the physical education teacher education curriculum. As a result, SDG could be 
proliferated as teachers would have formal training on how to teach SDG. This same study refers 
to SDG as a form of teaching the concept of democracy as previously conceptualized by one of 
the authors in Butler (2006). This shows one of the major features of SDG when first emerged: 
the potential to develop students? social domain as they are highly encouraged to engage in 
groups to design their games. 
Andr? and Rubio (2009) describe the different students? behaviors while playing different 
forms of games: exposed games (teacher-designed games), modified games (traditional games 
modified by the students), and spontaneous games (games that students created on their own 
while playing with their friends outside of school). The authors reported a growing autonomy by 
the students when comparing each form of game design, i.e. the more ownership the students had 
for the game, the less they would request the teacher for class management and officiating. In 
other words, the students reported an ?out of school? behavior by not requesting adult supervision 
and showing a more playful environment as they played their own games. 
13 
 
The current research (beginning of the second decade of the 21st century) shows a 
significant growth of studies in SDG, having empirical data supporting the claims in most of the 
studies. Showing the same trend described in the previous decade, current research appears to 
have an even bigger pluralization on how to approach SDG. The studies includes: new strategies 
on teaching SDG; the creation of not only games but equipment as well; the integration of SDG 
with technology; and supporting data of what students learn in SDG. 
Gim?nez (2010) presents the idea of creating homemade equipment for modified and 
SDG in the target games category. According to the author, target games with human targets 
have been banned from schools for being considered unsafe games. However, acknowledging 
that students favorite games from this category were the ones that had human targets (once they 
were moving targets and therefore more challenging), the author considered the creation of safe 
homemade equipment as an alternative to prevent these folkloric valued games to be banned 
from school. The same concept of designed equipment for SDG was introduced by Hastie and 
Andr? (2012), but these authors also incorporated the idea of teaching game appreciation while 
students design their equipment and games. According to this study, the students were able to 
understand the relationship between the equipment design and skills (e.g. small balls are better 
for games that required throwing whereas bigger balls were better for games that required 
kicking). In addition, this was the first study with supporting data that identified different 
approaches when students are designing their game, reporting differences between genders and 
skill levels. 
Acknowledging that during a SDG unit it is possible that some students take the lead of 
designing the game while others work as mere supporting roles in the process, two studies 
present teaching strategies to avoid this pitfall. Hastie and Casey (2010) presents the jigsaw 
14 
 
classroom method in which each student is responsible for designing a specific part of the game 
and therefore ensures that every student takes part while designing the game. In addition, this 
methodology promotes important social goals in physical education, such as the supportive and 
positive interdependence among students. Also concerned with the inclusiveness of every child 
while creating new games, Gim?nez (2011) presents the concept of giving different roles to each 
student involved in the SDG process, similarly to what is presented in the Sport Education model 
(Siedentop, Hastie, & der Mars, 2004). The roles presented by the author were: player, 
equipment manager, captain, secretary and evaluator. 
The incorporation of technology to SDG was first presented by Hastie, Casey and Tarter 
(2010) in a study that presents a wiki as a tool to create games. The study describes how the 
students, physical education teacher, librarian and SDG expert (the researcher) were able to be 
interconnected as students designed their games and reported its steps through the wiki. Among 
the studies major findings are: students were highly engaged; the physical education teacher and 
SDG expert were able to provide immediately accountability with constant feedback; and better 
outcomes (games designed) as there was a great deal of commitment by the students and 
teachers. However, the study does acknowledge the need of increasing out-of-class workload for 
the teacher as the students would engage in the game designed throughout the week.  
Although SDG have been claimed as an approach that promotes the development of the 
social domain once students had to work together to design their games, until very recently, there 
were not much empirical data that was able to support this claim. Casey and Hastie (2011) 
developed a study in which they investigated students? responses while engaging a SDG unit. 
The authors major findings were: students did respond positively to SDG and they made an 
effort to include every student in the process; students sought for games that were innovating, 
15 
 
that avoided skills that could only be performed by a few (therefore being inclusive once again) 
and that were influenced by popular culture (from popular movies); and last, students enjoyed 
their freedom of choice while designing their games. In addition to gaining understanding of how 
students responded to SDG, more empirical data was needed to identify what students learned 
from SDG. Casey, Hastie and Rovegno (2011) once again used wikis with SDG to investigate 
what were the students learning while designing their own games. The authors major findings 
included: gain of game appreciation by understanding how rules impacted the game and how 
rules and tactics were interconnected; and understanding how the environment (court or field 
dimension) impacted the game. 
Although other books in the past (Morris & Stiehl, 1989; Lichtman, 1999) have been 
somehow related to SDG (presenting how teachers could modify games and listing a number of 
examples of modified games), it was in 2010 that the first book exclusively dedicated to SDG 
was first published. Hastie's (2010) ?Student-designed games? presented a number of teaching 
strategies and examples of SDG that were successfully implemented. The book also presented a 
template for each game category with leading questions that students need to address when 
creating a game. The book can be considered groundbreaking for giving physical education 
teachers guidelines on how to teach SDG. In addition, it also added a fifth category of games: the 
tag games, which were not included in Thorpe, Bunker and Almond (1984) first categorization of 
games. 
After five decades since the idea of SDG first emerged, much has been claimed but little 
has been supported with empirical data. SDG have been claimed as the ?hero? of physical 
education, being able to address every domain of a child?s development (psychomotor, cognitive 
and social) and tackle many issues that are commonly related to physical education classes. 
16 
 
Unfortunately, this phenomenon of self-coronation is not new in physical education. Physical 
education itself has been claimed as an educational discipline able to address not only many 
educational issues but also issues that have not been well addressed by society as a whole. 
Mandigo, Corlett and Lathrop (in press) have identified that physical education has claims of 
being able to tackle social injustices, sexually transmitted diseases, violence, youth delinquency, 
life threatening diseases (obesity, type II diabetes, and high blood pressure), promote 
understanding among historical enemies, among others. On the other hand, the reality have 
shown that physical education has promoted many undesirable outcomes despite its intention 
(Ennis, 1996). In summary, like physical education, SDG need to differentiate its potential (what 
have been claimed) to what it is known (what have supporting empirical data). 
Student-Designed Games: What We Claim to Know, What We Actually Know, and What 
We Need to Know 
In order to provide a critique of what has been developed in the SDG literature, the study 
presented by Antunes et al. (2005) is used as a theoretical framework to explain the evolution 
and weaknesses of what has been developed up to date. Antunes et al. (2005) were able to 
establish seven major groups that categorized the main areas of physical education academic 
production; four of these categories will be adapted to explain the evolution of SDG literature 
production: (1) characterization, (2) purpose, (3) learning process and (4) physical education 
teacher education (which will be named as SDG teacher education). The characterization 
category refers to studies that tried to answer the question: ?What consists a SDG teaching unit?? 
In other words, defining everything related to the organization of the SDG unit (teacher?s role, 
number of students per group, duration and all the procedures). The purpose category refers to 
studies that sought to understand how SDG could be used to reach physical education goals and 
17 
 
objectives. The learning process category refers to studies that seek to optimize students learning 
in SDG teaching units. The SDG teacher education category refers to studies that seek to 
understand the process of providing formal training for implementing SDG.  
According to Antunes et al. (2005) the evolution of physical education academic 
production could be noticed when moving from the first two categories (characterization and 
purpose) to the last two (learning process and teacher education). The reasoning for this analysis 
is that an academic production of a field must first delimitate the subject matter 
(characterization) and define its usefulness (purpose) before it seeks to enhance its 
implementation (learning process) and formally train others to apply it (teacher education). 
Following this same train of thought, it is possible to understand how SDG literature has 
progressed up to date and what its remaining weaknesses are. 
The characterization of SDG has been its major advance in the literature. This category of 
research has been the focus of SDG studies from its emerging idea with Mauldon and Redfern 
(1969) until very recently with Hastie?s (2010) book to explain the process of teaching a SDG 
unit. Although the great majority of the studies that tried to characterize SDG do not present 
supporting data, it is not a major drawback in this form of research, once the delimitation of this 
form of teaching is theory based and with trial and error studies that may not require such a 
rigorous data collection. For instance, Rovegno and Bandhauer (1994) were able to report ten 
misconceptions of SDG by only observing students in an elementary school. The study did not 
report any other form of data collection that could have been triangulated. In spite of its ?lack of 
rigor? it became one of the most cited studies in the area for being responsible to delimitate what 
should be part of SDG and what should not. Many other studies that were either theory based or 
without rigorous methodology have also contributed to characterize the SDG literature (Almond, 
18 
 
1983; Butler, 2006; Cox & Ledingham, 1988; Curtner-Smith, 1996; Gim?nez, 2011; Hastie, 
2010; Smith, 1991).  
 Although the characterization category may not require much empirical research to 
delimitate SDG, in the purpose category it is essential that empirical data are able to support if 
SDG is or is not able to reach physical education goals and objectives. SDG have been claimed 
to teach students to: develop motor skills (Mauldon & Redfern, 1969; Rovegno & Bandhauer, 
1994); gain game appreciation (Almond, 1983; Curtner-Smith, 1996), think critically (Cleland & 
Pearse, 1995; Rovengno et al., 1995), develop social skills (Butler & Hopper, 2011; Curtner-
Smith, 1996) gain understanding on the concept of democracy (Butler, 2006), and to motivate 
unmotivated students (Oliver et al., 2009). These are just a few examples in which SDG have 
been claimed as a versatile teaching format that is able to teach almost any physical education 
goal. However, none of the studies cited above provides any empirical data that is able to support 
this claim. 
There are only three studies that presented supporting data while reporting what students 
learned when involved in a SDG teaching unit. Casey and Hastie (2011) have reported extensive 
findings on how students responded positively while being engaged in a SDG unit, being able to 
develop teamwork and include every student?s voice when designing their games, therefore 
teaching positive social skills. Hastie et al (2010) and Hastie & Andr? (2012) were two studies 
able to report that students did gain game appreciation while participating in a SDG unit. 
Therefore, some of the claims that were presented in previous research without any supporting 
data were confirmed by empirical research. However, this does not diminish the necessity of 
extensive empirical research to learn more of what SDG is able to teach and what may be a false 
claim. Hastie (2010) present SDG as a potential approach to reach seven standards developed by 
19 
 
the International Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport, and Dance 
(ICHPER-SD) and the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 
(UNESCO): (1) movement competency and proficiency, (2) knowledge and application of 
movement concepts, (3) healthy-enhancing fitness, (4) physically active life style, (5) personal 
and social behavior, (6) understanding and respecting individuals differences and (7) personal 
meaning derived from physical activity. Although it is exciting to consider that SDG may 
promote so many learning related to physical education, much research with supporting data is 
needed to ensure that these goals can be reached with this form of teaching.   
Once SDG literature is still in the process of understanding what it can actually teach, it 
comes with no surprise the fact that the last two categories (learning process and SDG teacher 
education) presents the smallest progress up to date. 
Within the learning process category, a couple of studies exist that seek to optimize some 
of the issues related to SDG teaching in order to provide students a better learning experience. 
As mentioned previously, there has been two studies that presented successful interventions to 
ensure that every student is part of the process of designing a game, one of them presented the 
jigsaw classroom project (Hastie & Casey, 2010) and the other offered specific student roles in 
the SDG process (Gim?nez, 2011). In addition, another study also analyzed how students 
responded to technology integration while participating in a SDG teaching unit (Hastie et al., 
2010). As a result, more empirical research is needed to gain understanding on how students 
learn best in SDG teaching units. Many of the research questions may arise from the same 
inquiries related to the physical education learning process research. For instance, Hastie and 
Andr? (2012) compared male and female students and low skill and high skill students in terms 
of their designing approach. The authors reported that girls were more planners (plan the whole 
20 
 
game before trying the rules) while boys were more doers (tried every new rule while playing the 
game). In addition, the same study found that despite many differences among low skilled and 
high skilled students, they all sought for games that avoided on waiting for turns (e.g. baseball). 
So what would be the best form of learning: a diverse group of students that would have to learn 
to accommodate different expectations or separated homogeneous groups that are able to relate 
to each other better and therefore provide better outcomes? These questions related to gender and 
skill level differences are very often approached in the physical education literature. Hence, 
looking into the questions that have already been investigated in other forms of teaching but 
applying these questions in SDG teaching units may improve the literature understanding on how 
students learn best in SDG. 
In addition, the research related to the learning process category would also have to 
address the different forms of use that have been given to SDG. According to Darido and Rangel 
(2005) there are four major topics that compose a teaching unit: goals/ objectives (what is the 
purpose of the lesson?), content (what will you be teaching?), strategies (how will you teach it?) 
and assessment (how you will evaluate?). SDG have been approached as a content (Hastie & 
Andr?, 2012), as a strategy (Oliver et al., 2009) and as an assessment (Casey et al., 2011). 
Although, there is no reason to think that SDG can only be used in one of these forms, it 
important to understand how each form is applied to suit its purpose. 
The SDG teacher education category has only one published study, showing that in spite 
its growing acceptance, SDG is still not part of the formal curriculum on most physical education 
teacher education undergraduate programs of universities. Butler et al. (2009) is the only study 
that analyzed how pre-service teachers responded while teaching a SDG unit. Although the study 
does report a positive response, there is not much evidence on how they were formally trained. In 
21 
 
addition, the study reports a very particular form of approaching SDG as the author uses the 
invention of games to teach students about democracy. Therefore much research is needed to 
understand how undergraduates should be introduced to SDG and once again addressing its 
particularities when approaching SDG as a content, strategy or assessment. 
In summary, there has been extensive effort to define SDG and the literature has shown 
maturity to delimitate what can be considered SDG and what should not. In the process of 
understanding which physical education objectives and goals can SDG address; there has been 
recent progress that shows a transition from assumptions and hypothesis analysis to empirical 
investigations. Understanding students? learning process in SDG is currently in its initial phase 
of investigation, and much can be accomplished by promoting different forms of interventions 
already proposed in the literature or looking into some of the issues also presented in the physical 
education teaching literature. Last, SDG teacher education may be optimized by integrating the 
other inquiries above-mentioned with pre-service teaching or outreach programs promoted by 
universities.  
Technology Integration in Physical Education 
Research involving the integration of technology in physical education (TIPE) has a very 
brief history. Mohnsen's (1995) ?Using technology in physical education? first edition was 
published seventeen years ago, establishing the landmark of when technology integration in 
physical education (TIPE) was first introduced in the academic literature. In terms of 
technological advances, seventeen years can be considered a very long time, during this time 
period, many technological devices that could be related to physical education application were 
launched: Dartfish (1997), iPod (1998), Flip-camera (2006), Nintendo Wii (2006), iPhone 
(2007), iPad (2009), Xbox Kinect (2010). In addition, other devices that were already launched 
22 
 
prior to 1995 were becoming popularized for being more affordable and user-friendly, such as 
pedometers, digital cameras, laptops, and portable projectors. Nevertheless, this same time 
period can be considered very brief for the development of TIPE as an academic subject matter 
that is able to enhance physical education teaching. In order to gain ripening as an academic 
subject matter in the physical education research, first, it is important to gain an understanding of 
its purpose (what is TIPE?s role in physical education) and its characterization (what consists 
TIPE?) (Antunes et al., 2005). Unfortunately, due to its brief history neither of these topics is yet 
clarified in the literature. 
In 2005, the National Association for Sport and Physical Education ([NASPE], 2005) 
published a revision of the guidelines for physical education teacher candidates to establish the 
standards for physical education teachers. NASPE?s revisions were made in order to meet the 
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education ([NCATE], 2005) standards that were 
publish earlier in the same year. Among the ten standards that were defined by NASPE/ NCATE, 
technology was one of them, therefore, establishing the importance of including TIPE as part of 
the physical education teacher education (PETE) curricula of universities. Within these 
standards, NASPE seeks to ensure that every physical education teacher develops the knowledge 
and ability to use technology in order to enhance students? experiences and learning. 
Nevertheless, the definition of technology is not clear and changes constantly. As a result, many 
questions related to the use of technology by physical education teachers may arise when 
considering these guidelines. Mitchell (2006, p. 24) considers the addition of this standard as 
?contentious? while rising a series of questions, including: ?What is appropriate technology in 
which candidates should develop competence? Should all candidates implement the use of heart 
rate monitors or pedometers into their teaching? Should candidates use a computerized fitness 
23 
 
program such as Fitnessgram to measure and record fitness scores? Should candidates use digital 
video to record skill performance for later student analysis?? These questions are placed in a 
provocative form to call attention to the reader that although NASPE obligates every future 
teacher to know how to implement technology in their teaching; it is still vague how this should 
be done. However, Mitchell (2006) agrees with NASPE?s (2005) guidelines as viewing 
technology as a tool, meaning that the diverse devices or software should be used to improve 
students learning. 
The idea of having TIPE as a supportive tool appears as a logical choice while 
considering the possible choices. As mentioned previously, there are four topics that compose a 
physical education teaching unit: goals/ objectives, content, strategies and assessment (Darido & 
Rangel, 2005). Considering that the goals/ objectives and contents should be related to the 
physical education curriculum (and not to the technology education curriculum), the tools 
provided by TIPE should be either related to the teacher?s strategies while seeking on different 
approaches to enhance students learning or while assessing students? performance and learning. 
In light of this, the majority of TIPE studies have limited their purpose to sample how 
diverse technologies can be used in physical education classes. In other words, most of the 
research in this area has only focused in presenting diverse ways to use technology as a 
supporting tool without presenting empirical data that is able to support the successful usefulness 
of technology in physical education. The two TIPE?s textbooks presented in the in the literature 
(Castelli & Fiorentino, 2008; Mohnsen, 1995, 2010) also follow this same trend of presenting a 
series of examples on how to use technology in physical education. 
As mentioned previously, the technological advances and academia advances have a very 
different pace. Therefore, the studies that work as ?instructional guides? describing how to use a 
24 
 
specific technology in physical education are likely to always have room in physical education 
journals that have teachers as their major audience. However, the present literature review will 
focus on presenting studies with empirical data that show to have a significant contribution to the 
better understanding of TIPE. The studies found in the literature were broken down into two 
major categories: (1) teacher education and professional development and (2) application. The 
research under teacher education and professional development is related to understanding how 
physical education teacher education and ongoing professional development courses can enhance 
teachers? preparation for feeling more confident and competent to apply TIPE in schools. The 
research under application category presents some form of intervention in all school levels, 
including K-12 and higher education. In the following, the literature review will be divided in the 
categories that were presented, showing research-based studies that have shown a significant 
contribution for the understanding of TIPE.   
Prior to presenting the literature review, it is important to acknowledge a delimitation 
from the papers that were reviewed: they are all related to physical education programs. In other 
words, after-school programs or any other intervention that may have been implemented in the 
school setting but it is not part of physical education regular classes will not be included in this 
review. It is understood that many extra-curricular activities (very often related to combating 
obesity) have reported many interventions with technology integration, but they represent a 
different environment and different challenges to be overcome, therefore these studies would not 
assist the understanding of technology integration in everyday physical education classes.  
  
25 
 
The Physical Education Teacher Education and Professional Development in Technology 
Integration  
The research involving physical education teacher education (PETE) and professional 
development (PD) in TIPE were broken down into two major focuses: initial analysis and teacher 
training (PD and PETE). The initial analysis research seeks to gain understanding of whether 
current physical education teachers are using TIPE and what are the major incentives and 
barriers for the improvement and expansion of TIPE in schools. PD research seeks to gain 
understanding on what kind of interventions have had a bigger impact in physical education 
teachers in order to promote TIPE in schools. The PETE research seeks to gain understanding of 
the different forms of formal training in undergraduate and pre-service teachers that may 
enhance TIPE in schools. 
Identifying the barriers and motivations for TIPE 
The following three studies are part of the initial analysis research, all these studies 
together are able to provide a broad analysis on how TIPE has been implemented in diverse 
scenarios once each study was conducted in a different country (United States, England and 
Turkey). These were the only three studies found in the literature that would fall under the initial 
analysis investigation in the past ten years, although their different origins and backgrounds 
occurred by chance, it is important to acknowledge the differences and similarities on how 
technology integration may have in different places. 
Although they all seem to agree with the belief that current physical education teachers 
have not been given any formal training in their undergraduate teacher education program, they 
have also given different options and approaches to resolve this matter. Thomas and Stratton 
(2006) present the first major difference while approaching TIPE implementation in England 
26 
 
(when comparing to the approach adopted in the United States). The authors call attention to the 
fact that despite recognizing the importance of technology integration in all subject areas, the 
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency?s (Becta) does not require that 
physical education teachers use technology in their classes until empirical research can prove the 
benefits of this integration. As a result, formal training is not required in current PETE programs 
in England. As previously reported, the United States had the opposite approach, requiring that 
all future physical education teacher candidates should have formal training in technology 
integration. 
Thomas and Stratton's (2006) study identified the English TIPE throughout four major 
aspects: (1) what equipment were the teachers using; (2) what kind of training did the teachers 
receive; (3) what were teachers? attitudes towards TIPE; and (4) which teaching approaches were 
they taken when using TIPE. The study applied a survey with 231 physical education teachers 
from all parts of England. Findings showed: (1) the most used technological device was the CD 
player; (2) despite not requiring TIPE, 41% of the teachers received professional development 
workshops by educational government agencies; (3) 92% of the physical education teachers 
valued the integration of technology to their classes; (4) TIPE was most used as an assessment 
tool, ranging from 30% to 50% depending on each part of the country that was being reported. In 
spite of being able to give an overall picture of TIPE implementation in England, it was not clear 
how many of the teachers that responded the survey actually used TIPE regularly. The English 
teachers reported a massive support on the use of technology in physical education but it is 
unknown how much is actually implemented. In addition, despite the government support in 
professional development, teachers also considered this training as ineffective.  
27 
 
Yaman's (2008) study had a similar approach to Thomas and Stratton (2006). In this 
Turkish study, the author applied a questionnaire with 64 questions for physical education 
teachers from 81 different provinces of Turkey.  The study was able to identify what were the 
major devices used in TIPE and who used the most. Apart from physical education equipment, 
blackboards were the most used supporting tool (50% of the participants), followed by 
television, videocassettes and CD players (all with 35% of the participants). Although the author 
does not discuss these findings, the present review suggests two hypotheses that may explain this 
outcome: (1) the teachers use these technologies the most because they were the ones that they 
have the most access; (2) the teachers use these technologies the most because they know how to 
use them. In England, the CD players were the most used technology because they were part of 
most schools equipment (Thomas & Stratton, 2006). The study was also able to report the 
teachers? three major characteristics that fit the profile for integrating technology the most: 
female, having a master?s degree and having received formal training. These were the three 
characteristics that reported statistical difference, suggesting that once again, formation (in 
training and in years of education) plays an important role in TIPE.  
The study presented by Woods, Karp, Miao, and Perlman (2008) follows similar 
procedures from the other initial analysis studies presented, however, unlike the other two 
studies, it relates to a particular region of the United States, instead of applying the survey in 
multiple regions of the country. The study applied a survey in the northwest region of the 
country, having 114 physical education teachers responding the survey through e-mail. The 
survey was designed to investigate teacher?s perception in TIPE, more specifically: (1) the 
teachers? perceived competence in applying TIPE, (2) where the teachers learned to use 
technology, (3) teachers? application of TIPE. The research findings were: (1) male teachers 
28 
 
reported a significant higher difference in their perceived competence when comparing to female 
teachers; (2) there was no consensus where teachers learned to use technology, having 
internships, fitness gyms, sport participation and exercise science courses among the responses; 
(3) the three major reasons why teachers use technology in their classes were: student 
assessment, visual aid and understanding individual development (pedometers and heart rate 
monitors that showed students? progress). 
Another American study that may enhance our understanding in identifying the 
usefulness of technology in physical education is presented by Russell (2007). Although the 
author does not provide such a broad analysis by focusing in teachers? perceptions and attitudes 
to use videogame technology in classes, it is also enlighten to identify teachers major barriers. 
The study applied a survey with 36 K-12 physical education teachers to gain understanding on 
their willingness to apply this form of technology in physical education classes. The study major 
findings were: (1) teachers that had a more positive attitude to technology were more likely to 
integrate this new approach in class; (2) teachers that had better attitude towards technology had 
a better understanding of what this new approach could provide in their classes; (3) secondary 
teachers presented a better attitude in implementing this technology; (4) teacher with less teacher 
experience (less than five years) had better attitude in incorporating this new technology in their 
classes. Although these results do not mention the importance of training teachers in order to use 
TIPE in their classes, it is likely that the teachers? positive attitude is related to their knowledge 
in technology as a whole. This claim is supported by the fact that less experienced teachers, and 
therefore younger, had a better attitude, once technology have been more part of their life when 
comparing to older teachers.  
29 
 
Another important finding from an American perspective is reported in the study 
presented by Ince, Goodway, Ward, & Lee (2006). According to these authors, another important 
restraint that plays a role in using TIPE in their classes is time. The study findings show that 
teachers may take up to five minutes to hand out pedometers to their students which is over 15% 
of class time for elementary school. This may be a good explanation why elementary teachers are 
less likely to implement technology in their classes, as younger students are less autonomous and 
therefore more time is necessary to manage these devices. On the other hand, Thomas and 
Stratton's (2006) study claims that in order to avoid time as a major restrain in TIPE, it is 
important that students should to be trained to help teachers in organizing these devices. 
In summary, although the challenge of ensuring that TIPE is part of every school may 
have multiple reasons that transcend school resources and teachers willingness to embrace this 
form of teaching, one common denominator came across all studies: formal training. The more 
educated and aware of what technology is able to do, the more likely they were to use TIPE in 
their classes.  
Preparing physical education teachers to use technology 
There are two formal ways to train physical education teachers to use technology: in their 
PETE and while they are working in schools with PD programs. Only one study of each case was 
found in the literature. 
Ince et al. (2006) proposed an experimental research in order to compare if teachers that 
received PD in TIPE were more likely to use technology in their classes while comparing 
teachers that did not receive the same training. The PD proposed in the study involved four 
forms of intervention: giving the teachers a number of technology devices (computers, digital 
cameras, PDA, heart rate monitors, pedometers, Fitnessgram and lesson and assessment 
30 
 
templates); (2) a two day workshop to learn how to use the given equipment; (3) five day 
workshop to teach curriculum models (sport education, tactical, teaching social and personal 
responsibility, cooperative learning and fitness); (4) ongoing support via e-mail, phone and 
personal visits for a full academic year. Within a pretest/ posttest procedure, the research 
analyzed the influence of the PD program in teachers? perceived competence and attitude 
towards TIPE. Although the research shows a positive influence in the PD intervention, neither 
of the variables (perceived competence and attitude) reported a statistical significant difference. 
The study suggests that the random selection of the control group might have an influence in the 
study?s outcome given there were a great number of younger teachers in that group. Although the 
study does not discuss the possibility of proposing an inefficient PD program, future studies 
should also consider different forms of interventions in order to compare the outcomes. 
Another two studies used technology to promote PD programs. These studies did not 
focus on preparing teachers to use TIPE, but they used the internet as a form of distance/ online 
learning to promote PD. In Slovenia, Majeric, Zvan, and Kolenc (2008) reported how electronic 
learning communities have had an impact in PD of physical education teachers, helping teachers 
with didactic materials and teaching plans. The study also shows that e-mails and internet forums 
were the most used ways that mentors (teachers involved in developing PD programs) chose to 
communicate with students and teacher seeking for professional support. Another similar study 
analyzed how physical education teachers have used NASPE?s listserv to provide mutual support 
with professional issues, teaching activities and strategies and even TIPE (Pennington, 
Wilkinson, & Vance, 2004). According to the authors, almost 8% of the analyzed messages 
related to the discussion on how to incorporate technology in physical education, the subject 
messages ranged from teachers ideas to book and online courses recommendations.  
31 
 
Unfortunately, no empirical research has been reported that describes successful 
implementation of TIPE in PETE undergraduate programs. Gubacs (2004) presents the idea of 
introducing TIPE education at Montclair State University, using a project-based learning process 
in which students are encouraged to create projects in physical education using technology 
devices. The study shows every step of the process from defining the project idea until its 
implementation and assessment but it does not provide a research-based evaluation of the 
program. Nevertheless, Sobral, Faro, and Edginton (2008) provides an analysis of the first year 
of a PETE master program focused in TIPE. The authors reported that students were able to have 
a better understanding of technology integration and that they were able to relate to multiple 
slopes of physical education that ranged from physical fitness to pedagogy strategies and 
curriculum assessment.  
Despite its modest appearance in literature, formal training in TIPE appears to be a 
growing segment of PETE and PD programs. These studies are fundamental to gain the 
perception that teachers need to not only know how to operate these technologies but also 
understand how to relate to physical education objectives. Ince et al. (2006, p. 439) presents a 
few principles that teacher-training institutions should consider when teaching TIPE, four are 
presented as the core guidelines: ? [1] Do not rely on one course to teach the operation of 
technology, but instead integrate technology into coursework in content and methods classes; [2] 
Require teacher candidates to use technology in their field placements; [3] Provide technology to 
them, when it is not available at their school sites; [4] Provide teacher candidates with 
information as to how they might access grants to support technology once they are in service.? 
  
32 
 
The Application of Technology Integration in Physical Education 
The research involving the application of TIPE is majorly composed by non-empirical 
research that works as ?instructional guides? to use diverse technological tools. As a result, it was 
extremely challenging to find research that provided supporting data that was able to justify a 
proposed intervention. In the following, application research is broken down into two categories, 
according to the level of education in which it is focused: K-12 and higher education.  
K-12 technology integration application in physical education 
The following studies show how TIPE application requires a much deeper understanding 
than just knowing ?how to use? a specific technology, clarifying the pedagogy behind the 
technology integration. 
Thornburg and Hill (2003) propose the use of an internet website for teaching and 
assessing knowledge based health related instructions related to a fitness unit of a middle school 
physical education class. The twenty seven students that took part in the study accessed the 
website in the school library as part of the requirements for physical education. While using the 
website, students answered questions related to nutrition and physical activity engagement. The 
questions were designed in a way to encouraged students to evaluate their own health behavior. 
In addition, the website provided a nutritional analyzes and assigned other websites in which 
students were able to research about nutrition. The intervention major focus was to replace a 
knowledge-based instruction that would have to been given by the physical education teacher 
within a lecture approach with an online instruction and assessment. The results reported that 
80% of the students enjoyed this approach and the majority also reported an understanding of 
?eating right? (75%) and ?being fit? (87%). More importantly, the students reported that the 
33 
 
web-based instruction encouraged them to think more critically about their eating habits (55%) 
and activity habits (63%). 
A similar approach is presented by Lazerte and Lathrop (2006) which also uses an 
internet website designed to influence students? participation, motivation and attitude towards 
physical education. In this study, the internet access did not have a designated time, so students 
accessed the internet in different places (in their own homes, in friends or relatives houses and in 
the library). Unlike the Thornburg and Hill (2003) study, this website did not have a specific aim 
of what students were supposed to learn, it presented a variety of thirteen options (e.g. ?healthy 
living?, ?get moving and practice your skills?, ?sports trivia? and ?talk to the teacher?) in which 
students could navigate according to their own choice. A pretest/ posttest design was used to 
investigate the website?s influence on students? physical activity engagement. The findings were 
positive, reporting that 35% of the students were able to learn physical activities that they would 
be able to do with their families and that the majority would either use the website frequently 
(38%) or almost always (24%). The teacher was also interviewed and confirmed that students 
showed to be having a more positive attitude towards physical education classes. 
Hastie et al. (2010) also used an internet tool to analyze the impact that would have in 
physical education classes. Nevertheless, these authors would have a different approach, as the 
students would not use the internet to learn a specific knowledge, instead, they would be using a 
wiki2 to relate to their peers and teachers while designing their own games that were ought to be 
played in their physical education classes. The study involved 28 male students from ten and 
eleven grade (ages between 14 and 16), the physical education teacher, the librarian and the 
researcher as the student-designed games (SDG) outside expert that could provide more specific 
                                                           
2A wiki is an online software that enable users to create and edit their own web-pages. In addition, the wiki provides 
an open-editing system in which allow a ?intensely collaborative? in which empowers anyone to edit any page 
34 
 
feedback. The students had only one class per week, but they would be able to relate to each 
other and by using the wiki. The students were broken down into small groups to design their 
games. Each group had a wiki-manager that was responsible for editing the wiki and make the 
game?s modifications official as they progressed. The teacher, librarian, SDG expert and the 
other students were able to input comments as the design progressed. The purpose of the study 
was to investigate the impact of TIPE, the research major findings were: (1) ?the extended 
classroom?, i.e. the 40-minutes physical education class was extended throughout the week as 
students were constantly engaged in developing their games and updating the wiki; (2) 
?immediacy accountability?, i.e. teachers were able to provide constant feedback throughout the 
week (although this also represented more workload for the teachers); (3) ?better games?, once 
there was a much bigger engagement than the mandatory 40-minutes per week, the outcomes 
were also significantly better than expected; (4) sharing ideas, i.e. students not only shared ideas 
and thoughts among group members but also interact with the members of other groups that were 
dealing with the same process; (5) ?positive interdependence?, i.e. students would have to rely on 
each other, promoting a positive social relationship that even gave voice to unskilled students 
that had a history of not having a major role in physical education classes. 
The only study found in the literature that did not have the internet as the major 
technological tool was presented by Clarke (2008). In the study, the author used digital video 
discs (DVD) to teach motor skills to students. The students were broken down into pairs and 
received a portable DVD player to watch how to perform the skill that they were learning. The 
idea of breaking students into pairs was that each student could provide feedback on peer 
performance while watching their performance and the video. A total of 109 students and 6 
teachers from five different middle schools participated in the research. After the intervention, 
35 
 
students reported their experience with the DVD learning by responding to a survey, and 
teachers were interviewed to provide their perspective. Although some students showed 
resistance, the majority reported having a positive experience, particularly enjoying coaching 
other peers, being able to learn on their own pace and feeling empowered to be trusted with such 
an expensive device. Teachers also had a positive response and recognized that in order to make 
this form of teaching work, teaching styles had to be suited to this approach, breaking students 
into small groups, empowering them and promote critical thinking as students would have to 
coach others.  
Although there is a limited literature that provides empirical data that is able to support 
TIPE, an important conclusion may be taken from these studies: different technology designs 
require different teaching styles. The two website studies limited students? actions to navigation 
of the internet and expect a behavior change in terms of their nutrition or physical activity 
engagement, showing to relate to a more traditional style in which students should acquire their 
knowledge from a given database and react positively. On the other hand, the studies with the 
wiki and the DVD learning, students were encouraged to take action while creating their own 
game or coaching another student, showing to relate to a constructivist approach that empower 
students and require their engagement in the learning process.  
Higher education technology integration application in physical education 
Only one study that applied technology integration in undergraduate physical education 
classes was found in the literature. Hastie and Sinelnikov (2007) presented the use of an 
electronic portfolio to assess a volleyball class for undergraduate students. The study presented 
an overall purpose of developing a digital assessment for physical education in higher education, 
36 
 
analyzing if students were able to complete an electronic portfolio3 and if the portfolio itself was 
able to assess: (1) their enjoyment in class; (2) their team affiliation; (3) their learning process of 
developing and publishing pages. The seventy students were taught within a Sport Education4 
approach for a fifteen weeks period and had the electronic portfolio as their only assessment tool. 
All electronic portfolios were sent to five different sport education experts and they all agreed 
that the students presented all features of sport education in their web-page. In addition, a survey 
was implemented to analyze students? perception to this form of assessment. Students showed to 
have a positive response to the use of portfolios, increasing their team affiliation, and enhancing 
other forms of learning not expected in the class (e.g. designing the web-page). However, 
students also recognized that this approach was more challenging than other physical education 
classes and that some students had to work harder to compensate others that were not as 
engaged.  
Despite the lack of research in physical education in higher education, most colleges in 
the United States require at least one physical education course among the elective courses for 
every major (Leenders, Sherman, & Ward, 2003). As a result, TIPE in higher education may play 
an important role in assessing these courses, since higher education evaluation in general has 
reported a growth in using technology (Millwood & Terrell, 2005). More importantly, this form 
                                                           
3In physical education, portfolios are used to sample students? performance to serve as the measure of 
learning. The digital portfolio uses different forms of electronic technologies, that are able to collect and organize 
different type of medias (video, audio, graphics, text), and to transform them into computer-readable formats (Hastie 
& Sinelnikov, 2007). 
4Sport Education is a physical education model that seeks to provide a more authentic sport experience by 
including six major features in the physical education classes: season, team affiliation, competition, record keeping, 
culminating event and festivity (Siedentop et al., 2004). 
 
37 
 
of assessment not only ensured that students were evaluated in their courses but also enhanced 
their overall experience and learning, showing to be an efficient form to evaluate the students. 
Developing TIPE Literature: Empirical Research that May Support this Goal 
As previously presented, TIPE academic research is still developing, having no clear 
delimitation and full comprehension of its full potential. Even with the growth of empirical 
research production, it is likely that this subject matter will always have a feeling of falling 
behind due to the fast pace technology industry. Nevertheless, this should not be a reason for 
discouragement, as technology integration may revolutionize physical education as it has been 
doing with so many other areas of our daily life. Thus, this final topic will be focusing in 
identifying needed research that may support our understanding of TIPE?s full potential. The 
same categories and subcategories presented in previously are considered when analyzing how 
each particular area of TIPE can support the understanding of this subject matter as a whole. 
The studies focused in identifying the barriers and motivations for TIPE in schools 
should be largely expanded. In order to understand what promotes and what restrain TIPE, it is 
necessary to identify what causes these reactions as much as possible. In light of this, future 
initial analysis research should not only focus on ?what equipment is used? and ?what is the 
profile of a teacher that promotes TIPE?, but also identifying ?what are the region major needs?. 
In other words, in order to promote authentic technology integration, it is important to 
contextualize what is needed and expected from each place, approaching not only physical 
education teachers but also students, school administrators, and policy makers. From the current 
literature, the Thomas and Stratton (2006) study can be taken as an example given they were able 
to break down their results among the different parts of England. Nevertheless, this study did not 
identify what is expected or needed in each region. This form of approach may require a joining 
38 
 
of forces with other research areas, but this should not be a restraint for providing a reliable and 
contextualized integration of technology in physical education. 
The studies that focus on formal training to promote TIPE were divided in two forms: PD 
workshops and programs for teachers that are already settled in schools and PETE programs for 
teacher candidates. In the proposed PD program presented by Ince et al. (2006) there was a focus 
on providing resources and support for the teachers, but the program still lacked in integrating to 
the teachers reality. Once again the integration portion of ?technology integration? appears to be 
missing. Prior to showing how teachers should incorporate technology, it is also important that 
researchers understand what are teachers? expectations and fears. Therefore, the PD research 
should have a three step process: (1) interviewing teachers and students in order to understand 
their expectations; (2) proposing an intervention that may relate to teachers and students? needs; 
(3) evaluating the success of the proposed program. Although it might not be as effective, an 
alternative to this process would be the creation of multiple interventions for PD programs and 
giving the teachers the opportunity to choose which would best fit their needs. 
The PETE programs studies may be considered the most challenging form of TIPE 
research. The few studies that reported how undergraduate and graduate programs are preparing 
future teachers to use TIPE were mostly descriptive, showing that PETE programs are still 
seeking for an identity on how to teach TIPE. Although much can be learned from TIPE 
application research, the focus of PETE studies should be related to answering the following 
question: ?Are we being successful in teaching our students to use TIPE?? In order to answer this 
question it would be necessary to create a tracking system, i.e. verify if students graduating from 
each PETE program are using TIPE. This form of approach may require longitudinal or trans-
39 
 
sectional methodologies which would raise difficulties on the research implementation, but it 
would be an effective form to evaluate if teachers are able to use TIPE after years of graduation. 
The studies focused on the application of TIPE were divided according to their school 
level (K-12 and higher education). In the studies related to K-12, there were a few good 
examples of TIPE usefulness to enhance students learning and assessment and even to increase 
class time (Hastie et al., 2010) and to avoid taking activity time away from students (Thornburg 
& Hill, 2003). In addition, the most important finding from these studies was related to the 
pedagogy behind each intervention, showing that different technologies and purposes require 
different forms of teaching. The teaching style behind each intervention should be the 
centerpiece of TIPE application research, understanding the teaching styles for each intervention 
may be the key factor that enables TIPE proliferation in schools. In light of this, another form of 
research not found in the literature is proposed: comparing teaching units with and without 
technology integration. It is important to understand what kind of learning may be highlighted 
and what can be restrained while using technology integration. TIPE is not being proposed as the 
?answer of all physical education problems? and understanding its best fit may require a 
comparison to a form of teaching that does not use technology. 
Last, the research involving application of TIPE in higher education can be considered 
the easiest form of conducting research among all categories. As aforementioned, most 
universities have physical education courses being offered for every student major, and many of 
these courses are taught by graduate physical education majors which is a clear connection to 
researchers. This creates a perfect scenario for the researcher: many participants available, 
graduate students that are able to implement an intervention and collect the data, resources from 
the university and support from staff specialized in technology. In spite of this supporting 
40 
 
scenario, this was the category that reported the least amount of research. Not only is this 
scenario inclined for this form of research, it also has a great potential to incorporate physical 
education students, therefore the research itself could be part TIPE?s education in the PETE 
programs. As aforementioned in Hastie and Sinelnikov (2007), TIPE may help the creation of 
assessments in higher education physical education; in addition, it may also help the learning 
process of students as proposed in the K-12 application studies. Once again, the teaching styles 
should be an important piece of the research, ensuring that TIPE usefulness relates to the form of 
teaching that is being proposed. 
In conclusion, there are diverse ways in which TIPE academic research may be 
developed. However, the most important learning that can be taken from this review is that in 
order to promote a significant development in TIPE academic research, more attention is needed 
in the ?integration? component. Technology has been so successful in changing our life for being 
able to cut-corners while doing multiple tasks. Therefore, technology integration requires the 
integration between technology and your audience and your goals. In technological terms, it is 
necessary that TIPE academic research establishes a good connection between hardware (the 
machine) and software (what is the machine programed to do). 
The Connection between Student-Designed Games and  
Technology Integration in Physical Education 
Education has been moving from a knowledge-based approach towards a research-based 
approach. In other words, it has become more important to be engaged in the process of learning 
and finding out on your own than memorizing content without asking why or sometimes not 
even understanding the subject matter. Information is no longer a privilege as our society 
organization has turned it increasingly public. Therefore the educational system has had to 
41 
 
modify its priorities, this changing process started with the development of constructivism. 
According to Rovegno and Dolly (2006) constructivism emphasizes the importance of students 
being actively engaged in the subject matter in order to understand what is being learned. As a 
result, the teacher would have a new role in this approach, performing as a facilitator rather than 
an instructor, therefore, the so-called constructivist approaches would be considered student-
centered.  
As a result, constructivism would be the major theoretical framework for many physical 
education models that arise in order to create an environment in which the student had an active 
learning process. As constructivism started to become well-known in the 1970s, the first physical 
education models arose in the 1980s and 1990s, such as: Teaching Games for Understanding 
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994), Sport for Peace (Ennis, 1999), 
among others. Although these models have shown a concern to engage students in the learning 
process, it still did not give students the opportunity to feel more empowered in terms of the 
content that is being developed.  
SDG and TIPE appear as possible alternatives to modify this scenario in which the 
student are empowered to be an active learners but are constrained in terms of the content they 
should learn and develop. SDG and TIPE present different roles that may be complimentary. On 
the one hand, SDG is based on the foundation that students should create their own games in 
order to focus on the learning of something meaningful and at the same time relates to physical 
education contents as the discipline should also address its educational goals. On the other hand, 
TIPE is commonly associated as a supporting tool that does not have specific educational goals 
related to physical education; instead, it provides strategies that may enhance students experience 
while learning different subject matters. In order to illustrate a clearer scenario why SDG and 
42 
 
TIPE are able to establish a positive relationship, two major rationales are presented: (1) the 
theoretical framework behind SDG, (2) the search for creativity and integration. 
As previously stated, SDG appear as an alternative that not only is student-centered but 
also empowers students in providing the content that will be explored. As a result, although SDG 
relates to constructivism in physical education (Rovegno and Dolly, 2006), SDG came to 
introduce constructionism in physical education. Constructionism is a form of teaching that give 
students the opportunity to design and think about the subject matter that is ought to be learned 
while creating something new (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Kafai and Resnick (1996) introduced the 
concept of constructionism while developing a technology integration project. Fifth grade 
students were asked to develop mathematics videogames (games that provided mathematics 
problems and challenges) to younger students that were able to teach the subject matter to this 
younger audience. The project showed the value of developing an understanding of the subject 
matter as students sought to develop entertaining ways to teach math. Therefore relating SDG, 
technology integration and constructionism, but being related to mathematics and not physical 
education. Therefore, the current study suggests the same principal of integrating all these three 
concepts, but referring to the discipline of physical education.  
Designing a new game and using technology is commonly related to the usefulness of 
creativity and for this matter these two approaches may also establish a good relationship in 
physical education. Although SDG are commonly related to games that already exist and 
therefore it does not mean that it seeks for something completely new, its creative essence does 
seek for a change. In most SDG research, the authors are able to report that students identify 
elements of the games that students wish to avoid (e.g. like waiting for turns in striking and 
fielding games) and change this reality. Likewise, TIPE is often used to simplify duties that may 
43 
 
be tedious or overwhelming into more interesting or simplified ways (e.g. assessment tools), i.e. 
it also seeks for creative alternatives that are able to enhance the overall experience. Therefore 
the idea of creativity in which SDG and TIPE relate does not have to do with the creation of 
something new (although it may occur), but it does relate to the idea of creating something 
meaningful and more pleasurable. 
In addition to its creativity essence, both SDG and TIPE have been claimed to be so 
powerful and versatile once they are able to relate to multiple possibilities, empowering not only 
the students for creating something that is meaningful to them, but also teachers for being able to 
orientate these approaches towards uncountable directions. As a result, SDG and TIPE can be 
highly empowered by the concept that has been changing our life in the 21st century: integration. 
Both SDG and TIPE have been able to relate to multiple physical education models, other school 
disciplines, and even different school environments. Therefore it is natural to suggest that SDG 
and TIPE are able to work together towards a common goal as they have been able to relate to 
other subjects and approaches that were not as versatile. 
At last, SDG and TIPE would together be promoting the ?education as a liberty practice?, 
concept presented by Paulo Freire in 1970. According to Freire (1970) the educational system 
ought to change from a ?banking education? to a ?freedom education?. Banking education was the 
name given to the established educational system in which teachers were described as knowledge 
owners that ignored students? knowledge and backgrounds and were responsible for depositing 
the content and values in students? minds. Freedom education was the alternative presented to 
change this reality. In this new educational system, the students? backgrounds, interests and 
knowledge would now be considered. The freedom education would not only change the concept 
on how students should be taught but also what should they be taught. The content presented 
44 
 
would have to be a meaningful learning, i.e. students ought to engage in learning contents that 
would relate to their daily life. As a result, the SDG would be the meaningful learning in which 
they would be able to relate and TIPE would be used as a supporting tool to accomplish this 
goal. 
Research Questions 
The purpose of this research was to analyze how technology integration has an impact on 
a student-designed games teaching unit in physical education. More specifically, the research 
addressed the following research objectives: 
i. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on a 
teacher?s pedagogy in a student-designed games teaching unit. 
ii. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on students? 
physical activity engagement in a student-designed games teaching unit. 
iii. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on 
students? enjoyment/ engagement in a student-designed games teaching unit.  
iv. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on 
students? communication in a student-designed games teaching unit.  
v. To gain better understanding on how technology integration has an impact on students? 
game characteristics/ architecture in a student-designed games teaching unit. 
  
45 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Chapter III. Study Design and Methodology 
Design 
The present study was conducted using a participatory action research design. According 
to McTaggart (1997), participatory action research (PAR) is the process in which the researcher 
takes part in the proposed intervention. In educational settings this means that the researcher also 
plays a role as a teacher, having an ongoing interaction with students and blending activities of 
teaching, data collection and reflection. PAR enables the researcher to provide a practical point 
of view as s/he deals with the same challenges as other teachers. In addition, PAR is able to 
contextualize the environment in depth as the researcher is able to experience how s/he 
influences students? learning and actions. 
The PAR design follows Lewin's (1946) cyclical model, having three stages in the cycle: 
plan, act and reflect (see Figure 3.1). This spiral orientation that keeps returning to the initial 
phase of planning establishes a good connection to the educational setting as students? needs, 
achievements and aspirations have to be reevaluated constantly. Considering that the study focus 
on understanding how technology integration (TI) has an impact upon a student-designed games 
(SDG) teaching unit, the study was designed to have two ongoing cycles concomitantly. One 
cycle was designed for a SDG teaching unit that does not have TI and another cycle for a SDG 
teaching unit that did have TI. In other words, there were two physical education classes 
focusing on SDG, but each class had different plans, actions and reflections once one used TI 
46 
 
while the other did not. Each intervention was presented with different cycles as TI requires a 
differentiated pedagogy when comparing with a class without TI. 
 
Figure 3.1. Lewin?s cycle model  
Prior to the study, there was no delimitation of how many classes would be allocated for 
each SDG teaching unit. According to Papert (1996) when students are dealing with problem 
solving situations, it is important to provide the time that they require. Acknowledging that SDG 
require problem solving that involves creativity, discussion, reflection, and several trials, 
Papert?s (1996) ?taking time? theme was considered an appropriate rationale for this study.  
However, in order to consider the SDG experience complete, students had to be involved with 
five stages: (1) SDG introduction, (2) learning about game design, (3) playing each other?s 
games, (4) games? refinement, (5) establishing the final game. Each stage required a specific 
number of lessons that varied according to the students? understanding. Each lesson had Lewin?s 
cycle model reaching full circle. That is, the teacher planned, acted (taught) and reflected each 
lesson before moving to the following lesson. This ongoing commitment remained until the end 
of the intervention (see Figure 3.2).  
Plan 
Act 
Reflect 
47 
 
 
Figure 3.2. Study design five stages using Lewin?s cycle model 
The SDG introduction (stage 1) was the process of checking students? previous 
knowledge, introducing the concept of games categories (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986) and assessing 
their understanding of the subject matter. This stage acted as preparation for starting the game 
design where students learned how games were categorized and what improved a game?s 
playability. The game design (stage 2) involved learning about students? roles (e.g. registering 
the game while designing it), leading questions to design their games, and the process of game 
design. This stage gave students the guidelines to design their game. For instance, Hastie's 
(2010) game design leading questions call attention of what needs to be answered in order to 
48 
 
avoid pitfalls in a game design. In spite of giving students the freedom to create any game from a 
given category, it was important that students had a sense of direction of what needs to be 
accomplished while designing their games. Playing each other?s games (stage 3) involved 
students experiencing other groups? games and giving feedback so each group could work on 
their refinements. This stage not only helped other groups to visualize how their games could be 
improved, but also helped students to realize how each game?s playability could be improved 
while experiencing different points of view. Games? refinement (stage 4) was the process of 
changing rules and reconfiguring games to enhance the final version of the game. Students from 
the same group were able to discuss the final rules of the game after receiving feedback from the 
other groups. Establishing the final game (stage 5) was the process of registering the game?s 
playbook in a way that other students that never played the game were able to play the game 
without any further explanation. Following this five-stage process, the two classes had their 
games exchanged, that is two games from each class were chosen to be introduced in the other 
class in order to observe students reactions. 
Although both SDG teaching units (with and without TI) had all five stages that were 
mentioned, it is important to acknowledge that there were differences in how each class designed 
its games. The students from the non-technology group performed all game design activities in 
their physical education classes. That is each lesson provided time for students to discuss and 
write how their game would be. This non-technology class was not required to do any activity 
outside the school. On the contrary, students that had TI performed all game design activities 
outside of the physical education classes. That is, each lesson was focused on playing games, 
increasing the time that students had to try out their games and limiting the discussions in class 
49 
 
time. Therefore, Edmodo was introduced as virtual hub in which students were able to 
communicate with group members, peers from other groups and the teacher. 
Edmodo (www.edmodo.com) is a website designed to create a virtual classroom 
environment in which teachers and students are able to communicate online. Edmodo can be 
described as the ?educational Facebook?. That is, it has a similar design to Facebook making its 
navigation intuitive and user friendly, since Facebook is a well-known social media interface. 
However, unlike Facebook, Edmodo is a restricted website. The teacher is able to control who is 
part of the online classroom, limiting the group members that are able to read the teacher and 
students posts.  The students from the TI class used Edmodo to design their own games, posting 
their rules ideas, diagrams of the game court and discussions that could be limited to group 
members or open to every student in class.  
In summary, each class had to reach the same goals and had the same process of 
designing their game (from the game design introduction to writing the game?s final version); 
nevertheless, the pedagogy adopted with each class was different. The non-technology group was 
guaranteed more time to discuss their games and write all their rules with all group members 
sharing their ideas face-to-face. However, less time was given to play all games which may 
diminish their full understanding of each game. The TI group was guaranteed more time to play 
games and therefore had more time to evaluate their overall experience. Nevertheless, since all 
their game design had to be done after class, they needed to be able to relate to each other online 
and also be committed to do work outside of the class.  
Participants and setting 
The participants in this study included 82 eighth and ninth-grade students (34 male, 48 
female) from a Junior High School located in the southern region of the United States. The 
50 
 
school enrolled 1,100 students of which 25% received free or reduced school meals and 87% had 
English as their first language. The school presented the following racial distribution: Asian 
(10%), Black (26.5%), Latino (3%), White (60%) and Multi-race (0.05%).  
The school selected for this study offered one laptop for every student in school, and 
therefore every student was eligible to volunteer to participate in the either of the proposed 
interventions. The students attended the proposed interventions during their physical education 
class. The school offered physical education classes every other day in a process that resulted in 
students participating in two classes one week, and then three on the following week. Therefore, 
the intervention was designed in a way that the researcher would teach a class every day, 
alternating the TI and non-technology groups. Although there was no allocated time to end the 
project, ultimately, the SDG intervention consisted of ten 75 minutes lessons for the TI group 
and eleven 75 minutes lessons for the non-technology group spanning for 5 weeks. All 
participants provided assent to participate and their legal guardians gave informed consent. The 
study protocol was approved by the university?s Institutional Review Board for human subjects 
(See Appendix F). 
Although all lessons were planned and taught by the researcher, there were two physical 
education teachers present during all lessons. The physical education teachers supported the 
researcher with equipment and class management, supervising students? activities and providing 
game instructions as students were broken down to smaller groups. Both teachers were highly 
interested since the beginning of the project, they constantly asked questions about upcoming 
activities or what were the findings reported up to that point, they also reported students 
reactions during class constantly. All students showed respect and affection for the teachers 
which was important to create a positive atmosphere from day one. At last, it is important to call 
51 
 
attention that the teachers constantly reinforced the assignments that were given by the 
researcher as they had more authority. This was particularly important with the technology group 
once they had outside of school assignments.  
The students became members of 17 construction teams that remained together for the 
duration of the project. Each of the two groups was asked to choose their group members having 
one single rule: every group should have between three to five members. The non-technology 
group was formed by 31 students (12 male and 19 female) and had a total of 7 groups (all single-
sex). The technology group was formed by 51 students (22 male and 29 female) and had a total 
of 10 groups (2 coeducational, 8 single-sex).  
Data collection  
The research presents a multi-method design, having a total of six different methods: 
pedometer, observations (field notes), Edmodo, interviews, surveys and lesson plans. Besides 
Edmodo that was only used to collect data from the TI-group exclusively, all other methods were 
used in the same way to collect data from both groups. Each method was designed to have a 
significant contribution to answering the research question that was addressed. In the following, 
each method is briefly explained. 
Pedometer ? this portable device was used to count the number of steps a person takes 
by detecting the motion of the person?s hips. Each student wore a pedometer during every lesson 
of the SDG teaching unit. 
Observations (field notes) ? The researcher used a portable digital voice recorder to 
make personal observations about students? actions during all lessons. The observations included 
descriptions, analysis, students? quotes and informal interviews with students during lessons. 
52 
 
Edmodo ? Since the TI-group was required to complete most of their game design 
outside of school, Edmodo was used as a tool for students to communicate with each other while 
designing their games. As a data collection method, Edmodo may be seen as an extension of the 
observations, once the researcher was able to visualize posts from all students while they 
designed their games. Edmodo data collection was used from the day they start to use the 
website (third lesson) until the end of the teaching unit. 
Interviews ? At the very end of the intervention, interviews were conducted with each 
game design group separately. The questions were developed according to what was reported in 
other methods during the intervention. Therefore, the interviews were used for two purposes: (1) 
to double check what was reported in other methods; (2) to seek for further explanations on why/ 
how to enhance students? experience (See Appendix A).  
Survey ? In the last day of the intervention, each group was given a survey to complete. 
Both groups completed a 5-question survey to report their enjoyment in the SDG unit. In 
addition, the TI group also completed 10 extra questions to provide background information 
about their daily use of technology devices. Both surveys were anonymous to ensure that 
students felt save to report any dissatisfaction with the SDG unit (See Appendix B). 
Lesson plans ? As part of a participatory action research, the researcher himself was one 
of the participants, he was analyzed in his role as a physical education teacher. The lesson plans 
were used to analyze the strategies, content and evaluations included in each lesson to enhance 
the students? experience and optimize their learning. 
Data analysis 
The research seeks to gain understanding of how TI has an impact on a SDG teaching 
unit. In order to address this question with more clarity, the research question was broken down 
53 
 
into five categories. On the following, each category of the research question is restated along 
with the explanation on how each method was designed to answer the research question.  
How TI has an impact on teacher?s pedagogy in a SDG teaching unit? 
Observations (field notes) ? The observations of the teacher?s pedagogy were used to 
describe how each lesson had to be modified for each group. The observations were reported as a 
self-perception evaluation in which the teacher kept a daily journal that helped him to plan and 
evaluate each of his lesson plans and actions in class. 
Lesson plans ? The lesson plans plays an important role in Lewin?s (1946) three stage 
cycle (plan, act and reflect). The lesson plans establishes a good connection between the 
reflection and planning necessary to teach each lesson. An analysis on how each lesson plan had 
to establish different strategies to reach similar learning goals was used to provide an overview 
how TI impacted SDG pedagogy. 
How TI has an impact on students? physical activity engagement in a SDG teaching unit? 
Pedometer ? The step count was used to assess students? physical activity engagement in 
the SDG teaching unit. At the end of the intervention, a repeated measures analysis of variance 
(ANOVA) was conducted in order to compare the TI group step count with the non-technology 
group step count at two time points (first including stages 1 and 2 and second, including stages 
3,4 and 5). The selection of the time points were based on the activities conducted on each stage. 
That is, on stages 1 and 2, the activities were led by the teacher and therefore there were minor 
differences between the two groups. Stages 3, 4 and 5 had activities led by students and therefore 
they were completely different when comparing the two groups. This analysis was used to 
evaluated whether TI provided more, less or the same amount of physical activity during the 
SDG teaching unit. A 2 (gender) x 2 (teaching condition) ANOVA was also conducted to 
54 
 
establish a comparison of physical activity engagement by group (TI and non-technology) and by 
gender.  
How TI has an impact on students? enjoyment/ engagement in a SDG teaching unit? 
Observations (field notes) ? By reporting students? reactions during each activity, it was 
possible to gain understanding on how students liked or disliked activities as well as their 
commitment in the process of designing their games.  
Edmodo ? When visualizing all students? posts, the researcher was able to identify how 
often students post and with what level of details students discussed while designing their game 
or while posting comments about other games. These posts were used to analyze how engaged 
and excited the students showed to be in each stage of the SDG teaching unit.  
Survey ? A 5-question Likert-type scale survey gave students the opportunity to rate 
their overall experience in the SDG unit. The ratings from each group were compared with a 
one-way ANOVA in order to analyze if TI provided more, less or the same amount of 
enjoyment/ participation. In addition, the TI group also had ten extra questions to report their 
daily use of technology that were reported within descriptive statistics (means, standard 
deviations and frequencies). 
Interviews ? The questions related to students? enjoyment and engagement were 
developed according to the findings reported in the observations, and Edmodo. The interviews 
sought to find which factors improved/ worsened the students? experiences in the SDG teaching 
unit.  
How TI has an impact on students? communication in a SDG teaching unit? 
Observations (field notes) ? By reporting students? social interactions during each 
lesson, it was possible to gain understanding on how students related to each other, answering 
55 
 
questions such as: How did students communicate while designing their game? How did they 
relate to peers from other groups (e.g. receiving feedback about their games)?  
Edmodo ? The TI-group reached a social interaction in physical education that was not 
only limited to face-to-face relationship. The posts that were published in Edmodo were used to 
analyze if the website was able to promote good or bad social interactions when students were 
working together online. 
Interviews ? The interviews sought to find how social interactions changed when groups 
work together in the physical education class or online through Edmodo. The interviews sought 
for descriptions from the participants in order to reinsure if the analysis reported by the 
observation were accurate in describing how the social interactions changed from one group to 
another.  
How TI has an impact on students? game characteristics/ architecture in a SDG teaching 
unit? 
Observations (field notes) ? By reporting students? discussions during each lesson and 
during their game design in particular, it was possible to gain understanding on what kind of 
characteristics were students seeking when designing their games. Moreover, the observations 
also focused on establishing a comparison of the final outcomes of the TI-group and the non-
technology group, i.e. the observations sought to answer the question: was one group able to 
produce better games than the other? 
Edmodo ? The TI-group had many of its discussions in Edmodo, as a result, the website 
was used to analyze if the discussions related to game-design showed that the students had a 
better/ worse understanding of the subject matter when comparing to the other group. 
56 
 
Interviews ? The interviews focused on asking questions that encouraged students to 
explain the reasons that led their game design, i.e. what were they trying to promote for those 
who would play their games (e.g. participation, challenge). 
Each of the six methods contributed on the data analysis of the five inquiries, some 
methods were used to answer more than one inquiry while others were exclusively used in 
answering one inquiry. The pedometer count and the survey were the only two methods that 
provided data that received statistical analysis. The pedometer count analysis involved a repeated 
measures ANOVA while the survey used a one-way ANOVA to evaluate if there were statistical 
differences between the TI group and non-technology group. 
The remaining four methods (observations, Edmodo, interviews and lesson plans) 
followed a systematic process of inductive analysis and comparison among methods having the 
protocols proposed by Denzin and Lincoln (1994) and Lincoln and Guba (1985). Although all 
qualitative data received the same procedures while being analyzed, it is important to 
acknowledge that once each inquiry used different methods, there is a dissimilarity in terms of 
which method was compared to another while cross-referencing. First, the observations (field 
notes) and Edmodo were exanimated to establish the first interpretations. Second, these 
interpretations were compared with the interview transcripts (lesson plans in the teacher?s 
pedagogy inquiry) in order to confirm or contradict the preliminary interpretations. When 
accumulative data confirmed the same concept, themes were generated. Each category of the 
research question generated a number of themes and sub-themes that explained the differences 
and similarities reported in SDG units taught with TI and without TI.  
Trustworthiness 
The present research used two methods to ensure trustworthiness: triangulation and 
ethnographer observer. Triangulation is the process in which multiple methods are used to 
57 
 
analyze the same research question, providing a more holistic perspective and reducing the 
likelihood of misinterpretation (Stake, 2002). Overall, the research used six different methods 
that were used for different research questions. Besides the quantitative analysis on physical 
activity impact due to TI that only used one method (pedometer), all other research questions had 
between two to four methods analyzing the same subject matter. Therefore, the data collected 
with one method was either reevaluated with another data collected from another method (in 
order to guarantee research rigor) or further explanation was drawn as each method provided 
complementary information regarding the subject matter that was being analyzed.  
The ethnographic observer is the process in which another researcher, that is to be 
considered an expert on the studied subject matter, takes a supporting role to ensure that the 
proposed theoretical framework is being properly delivered (Hastie & Buchanan, 2000). The 
ethnographic observer, undertaken by the researcher adviser, attended many lessons of both 
groups (TI-group and non-technology group) and had several meetings to discuss the 
intervention pedagogy in order to provide his perspective on: (1) how SDG was being taught; (2) 
reinsuring that the TI group and the non-technology group were both receiving a quality SDG 
lessons that were equivalent despite their pedagogy differences; (3) making his own observations 
(in class) regarding each research question in order to work as a member check when the 
researcher was drawing analysis of students? actions. Therefore, the ethnographic observer not 
only reinsured that the researcher was providing accurate analysis when writing about his 
observations in class, but he also played an important contribution for the plan, act and reflect 
loop that was part of the participatory action research methodology. 
  
58 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Chapter IV. Results 
The results of this research were broken down into five categories according to the 
research questions. Each category (pedagogy, physical activity, enjoyment, communication, and 
game characteristics) is presented in terms of the themes and sub-themes that were generated 
from the data analysis of multiple methods. As previously mentioned, the two classes that 
attended the SDG intervention were broken down into groups that designed the games. Table 4.1 
(non-technology groups) and Table 4.2 (groups with TI) provides a summary of the game created 
by each group as a reference point for the discussion as it outline key elements of the game, 
students? gender and involvement in game design. 
Table 4.1 
Game summaries from students of the non-technology group 
 
Name of 
the game 
Students? 
gender and 
grade 
Games details 
Ultimate 
Basketball 
4 boys 
3 eighth-graders 
1 ninth-grader 
Concept: Mix of basketball and football. Played with a 
basketball but player had to get to an end-zone to shoot the 
basket. 
Setting: regular basketball court with end-zones starting at the 
free-throw line. Play with 2 teams of 4 players each. Use a 
basketball. 
Scoring: Put basketball in regular basketball hoop 
Progression: Regular basketball dribbling throughout the court. 
No dribbling in end-zone (just passing). 
Streetball 3 boys 
All eighth-
graders 
Concept: Adaptation of football played in a basketball court. 
Setting: regular basketball court, using the basketball keys as 
end-zones. Play with 2 teams of 5-6 players each. Use a 
football. 
Scoring: 6 points for a touchdown. Extra points: basket from the 
free-throw (1 point) or basket from the 3-point line (2 points). 
Progression: 4 downs to get to the end-zone ? running and 
passing. 
59 
 
Tinezz 4 boys 
All ninth-
graders 
Concept: Variation of speedball (game that used both hands and 
feet to progress with the ball) 
Setting: Indoor court with walls and no boundaries. 1 soccer 
goal at each end of the court. Play with 2 teams of 5+ players 
each. Use a dodge ball. 
Scoring: 1 point for passing the ball to a teammate in the center 
circle after 3 passes or 1 point for kicking the ball in the goal. 
Progression: Dribbling with the feet or passing the ball with 
using the hands. 
Wall ball 
mix 
5 girls 
All eighth-
graders 
Concept: Variation of wall ball 
Setting: Half indoor court with a wall. Designate 1 goal area for 
each team (each goal area is next to each other in the same 
wall). Play with 2 teams of 5 players. Use a tennis ball. 
Scoring: 1 point for catching the ball after throwing in the wall. 
Progression: Every player must receive the ball before throwing 
scoring. 
Balloon 
ball 
5 girls 
All eighth-
graders 
Concept: Create an invasion game using a kin-ball 
Setting: Regular basketball court, using the basketball keys as 
end-zones. Play with 2 teams of 4-5 players each. Use a kin-ball 
(35? radius). 
Scoring: 1 point for catching the ball inside either of the end-
zones. 
Progression: Volleying and passing. 
 
Bags to 
Mats 
5 girls 
All ninth-
graders 
Concept: Game uses bean-bag for easy to throwing and catching 
Setting: Indoor court with walls and no boundaries. 1 designated 
area (mat on the wall) at each end of the court. Play with 2 
teams of 5-10 players each. Use a bean bag. 
Scoring: 1 point for throwing the bean bag in the mat and 2 
points for touching the bean bag in the mat while holding it.  
Progression: Running and passing. 
Hogball 4 girls 
All ninth-
graders 
Concept: Soccer played with a ?horizontal? net (wide baseline ? 
ball must cross all of it) 
Setting: Indoor court with walls and no boundaries. Play with 2 
teams of 5 players each. Use volleyball. 
Scoring: 1 point for scoring in the soccer net.  
Progression: Dribbling and passing. 
 
  
60 
 
Table 4.2 
Game summaries from students of the TI group 
 
Name of 
the game 
Students? 
gender and 
grade 
Edmodo 
usage 
Games details 
Hoopball 5 boys 
All eighth-
graders 
Moderate to 
very high  
*one of the 
players from 
this group 
got the 
Edmodo App 
Concept: Mix of basketball and football. Player 
had to get to an end-zone to shoot the basket. 
Setting: Regular basketball court with 9ft2 end-
zones. Play with 2 teams of 5-6 players each. 
Use a foam ball. 
Scoring: 1 point for getting the ball in the 
basket.  
Progression: Running and passing (no 
dribbling). Players lost possession if tagged with 
two hands.   
Ground 
Quidditch 
5 boys 
All ninth-graders 
Low to 
moderate 
Concept: Used a goal similar to Quidditch 
(Harry Potter?s game) by hanging a hula-hoop 
from the basketball hoop. Goalkeeper with a bat 
would protect the goal. 
Setting: Indoor court with one goal box of 5ft2. 
Play with 2 teams of 4-6 players each. Use a 
foam ball and one bat for each keeper. 
Scoring: 1 point for getting the ball in the goal.  
Progression: Passing only. 
The 
Game 
4 boys 
All eighth-
graders 
No usage to 
very low 
Concept: Knock down cones from the other 
team?s territory. When a cone is hit, a player is 
eliminated (target game). 
Setting: Indoor court with 6 cones on each side. 
Play with 2 teams of 6 players each. Use 6 
dodgeballs. 
Scoring: team that eliminate all other opponents 
wins 
Progression: Throw the ball to hit the cones. 
Handball 3 girls  
All eighth-
graders 
2 boys 
1 eighth-grader 
1 ninth-grader 
No usage to 
low  
Concept: Variation of ultimate football 
Setting: Indoor court with end-zones starting 6 
feet from the baseline. Play with 2 teams of 5 or 
more players. Use a football. 
Scoring: team gets one point for scoring a 
touchdown. 
Progression: Running (first play only) and 
passing. 
 
 
 
 
61 
 
Hula 3 girls 
All ninth-graders 
2 boys 
All ninth-graders 
No usage to 
very low 
Concept: Mix of handball and tag (similar to a 
game that was presented to them). 
Setting: Indoor court with 2 small soccer nets 
and 4 hula hoops by the side of the court. Play 
with 2 teams of 5-6 players. Use foam ball. 
Scoring: 1 point for getting the ball in the net.  
Progression: Running and passing. If player get 
tagged he must swing the hula-hoop ten times to 
get back in the game. 
2 person 
kickball 
5 girls 
All ninth-graders 
Moderate to 
high 
Concept: variation of kickball (striking and 
fielding game). 
Setting: 7 bases spread in a rectangle format 
inside an indoor court. Play with 2 teams of 8-10 
players each. Use dodgeball. 
Scoring: run seven bases to score a point 
Progression: All kickers must have a partner. 
When kickers run they must be holding hands 
with their partner. 
Catch the 
Frozen 
Kin 
4 girls  
All eighth-
graders 
 
All very high Concept: tag game with a prison. Use a kin-ball 
to tag players (tag game). 
Setting: Use an indoor court. Set a jail that takes 
1/3 of the court space. Play with 3 teams of 3-7 
players each. 
Scoring: 2 teams are runners and 1 team is a 
tagger. The tagging team must put an entire 
team in jail in less than five minutes to score one 
point. 
Progression: Tagging team must use the kin-ball 
to tag runners. One of the taggers may tag 
without the kin-ball to be able to protect the jail 
(runners may safe their teammates by tagging 
them back). 
Flag War 5 girls  
All eighth-
graders 
 
High to very 
high 
Concept: Mixture of capture the flag and 
dodgeball. 
Setting: Use an indoor court. Place a flag on 
both ends of the court and place 5-10 balls. Play 
with two teams of 10-20 players each. Use soft 
dodgeballs.  
Scoring: recuperate the flag from opponent 
team?s court wins the game. 
Progression: Running - when on the opponents? 
court capture the flag (may be tagged and must 
go to jail). Throwing - Players from your team 
may throw grenades (balls) to eliminate 
opponents on their court.  
 
62 
 
Noodle 5 girls 
All ninth-graders 
No usage Concept: Capture the flag with multiple flags. 
Setting: Use an indoor court. Divide the court in 
half and place 8 hula-hoops with 8 different 
objects inside (cones and different balls). Play 
with 2 teams of 5-6 players each.  
Scoring: recuperate the most number of objects 
in 5 minutes (or recuperate or before 5 minutes).  
Progression: Running and tagging. 
Dodge 
shoot and 
capture 
5 girls 
All ninth-graders 
High to very 
high 
Concept: Capture the flag variation. 
Setting: Divide the basketball court in two. Each 
end of the court should have a flag on one side 
and a hula-hoop with a basketball on the other 
side. Play with 2 teams of 5-7 players each.  
Scoring: recuperate the flag from opponent 
team?s court wins the game. When tagged ? 
must go to jail (hula-hoop with basketball ? may 
have a ?jail break? when making a basket). 
Progression: Running and tagging. 
 
The Impact of Technology Integration on the Teacher?s Pedagogy  
 
The themes and sub-themes from the teacher?s pedagogy are presented in Figure 4.1. 
 
 
Figure 4.1 Teacher?s pedagogy themes and sub-themes  
63 
 
Theme 1 ? Stages progression 
The non-technology and TI classes both had the five stages of SDG: (1) SDG 
introduction, (2) learning about game design, (3) playing each other?s games, (4) games? 
refinement, (5) establishing the final game. Nevertheless, the forms in which each stage was 
conducted had to be designed differently. The non-technology class presented linearity in the 
SDG stages, i.e. there was a clearer delimitation from one stage to another. The TI class did not 
present this linearity, meaning that although all elements of each stage were taught, they were 
developed concomitantly. This differentiation was due to the fact that students worked on their 
games outside of school and therefore each group had the opportunity to be working on different 
stages of process at the same time. Figure 4.2 shows how each stage was developed along the 
unit. 
Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 
Non-
technology 
(1) SDG 
introduction (2) game design 
(3) play each other's 
game (5) 
playbook 
play 
other 
classes 
games   
(4) 
refinements 
stage 1 
alone stage 2 alone 
stage 3 
alone 
stage 3 and 
4 
stage 5 
alone 
final 
day 
Classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 
TI 
(1) SDG introduction (3) play each other's game play 
other 
classes 
games 
no 
class   (2) game design 
(4) refinements 
(5) playbook 
stage 1 
alone stage 1 and 2 stage 3, 4 and 5 final day 
 
Figure 4.2 SDG stages in each class 
 
 
 
64 
 
Subtheme 1. TI students had more liberty to work at their own pace 
Given that physical education classes do not usually deal with homework, a student?s 
development is restricted to his/ her participation in class. The same scenario was repeated in the 
non-technology class. All assignments were done in class and each group of students did not 
have much opportunity to work at their own pace (they could not be far ahead or behind). Thus, 
all groups had very similar amount of time to invest in each given task.   
The TI class was able to give more liberty on how much time each group was designated 
to invest in each stage of the game design. Groups that felt more engaged and confident were 
able to present their game first while others were still discussing game ideas. As a result, the 
entire teaching unit had more than one activity going on at the same time and the five stages 
were more interrelated. For instance, when students presented their game for their first time, they 
were already able to make the first refinements as well as starting the playbook process; they did 
not need to wait for others to present their game to start this process.  
Subtheme 2. Three physical education classes in a week was a constraint for the TI group 
The non-technology group was designed in a way that each group was able to pick up 
their assignments exactly where they left off in the previous class. Therefore, having two or three 
classes per week did not interfere with their progression. Nevertheless, the TI class had to design 
their game outside of class, and as a result, they seemed overwhelmed when they only had one 
day to prepare for class. Students reported that they had many other activities after class and it 
was an overload when they had to design their game in a short time (even though they have 
committed themselves to do it). In addition, it was hard for them to ?meet online? as some of 
them planned to do the work together so they would only be able to meet at night.  
 
65 
 
Theme 2 ? Students autonomy 
There was a substantial difference in the development of students? autonomy in each of 
the SDG classes. Once all activities in the non-technology group were done in class, these 
students had not shown to develop much autonomy throughout the semester. In other words, they 
needed more assistance to fulfill their responsibilities. On the other hand, the TI group seemed 
more able to deliver their assignments with less help from the teacher. Although the teacher tried 
to reply posts in Edmodo and repeat many times that he could be contacted in Edmodo, students 
wrote a direct post asking for help only a few times. 
The behavior reported by each group required a different approach when the teacher was 
dealing with each group. The non-technology group was taught in a ?filling the blacks? pedagogy 
in which the teacher presented a more restricted pathway and students would complete the tasks 
as they were given. The TI group was taught in an ?open-ended? pedagogy in which the teacher 
posted questions and tried to instigate their creativity, seeking to provoke their critical thinking.  
Subtheme 1. The teacher had less control of students work in the TI group 
  The teacher was completely aware of students work in the non-technology group. The 
teacher would know which group was struggling and needed more help and which group was 
able to fulfill their assignments by themselves. This awareness enabled the teacher to direct his 
attention for those that showed to be lost. For instance, the group that created ?Ultimate 
Basketball? had serious communication issues on their first day of game design and they were 
struggling in designing an invasion game as they kept creating different target games (shooting 
games with a basketball). With just a few minutes of observation and a brief conversation, the 
teacher was able to explain the leading questions to create the game and they were able to start 
brainstorming ideas during the first day of game design. 
66 
 
 The teacher had less awareness with respect to the TI group. Edmodo was not used on 
regular basis by some groups (and they hardly ever asked for help); and although they were all 
able to complete the tasks, there were some groups that the teacher would not know exactly how 
their creative process progressed until he conducted the interviews. On the one hand, as students 
did not share how they created their game, the teacher was not able to give as much feedback to 
students during their design process. On the other hand, students may have been encouraged to 
think more critically before the teacher would jump in and show what were the issues with their 
design. 
Therefore, the non-technology group gave the teacher the ability to give more feedback 
during the game design process whereas in the TI group, the teacher would give the feedback 
after the students had already experience their game. In the first case, the students would be 
somewhat prevented from making novice mistakes, whereas in the second scenario students 
would make these mistakes but would be able to understand them as they experienced and 
therefore having a more enriched discussion after the game.  
Subtheme 2. The teacher workload varied in the TI group 
The non-technology group did not present much variation in terms of planning and 
preparation for the class. As this group did not work together outside of school, the teacher?s 
workload was restricted to preparing the upcoming class as all students were in the same pace 
and required similar feedback at a given time. As a result, the workload with respect to teacher 
preparation remained almost constant as students had little autonomy development. 
The TI group did present a big variation in terms of the requirements for planning and 
preparation for class. Between the beginning of game design (stage 2) and the middle of playing 
each other?s game (stage 3), there was a high demand for teacher attention as students dealt with 
67 
 
many new challenges. Besides having to design their own games, the students from the TI group 
also had to learn how to work on Edmodo. Although students considered Edmodo user-friendly, 
it did require learning and therefore it would also require more teaching and planning from the 
teacher. In this process, the teacher had to (1) help students logging in Edmodo, (2) create video 
tutorials explaining Edmodo?s interface and tools, (3) follow students game design progression 
in Edmodo, (4) deal with technical issues while dealing with the technology (e.g. when 
presenting a video in class that would teach a game, the teacher was unable to reproduce the 
sound of the video and therefore had to change his initial approach). 
However, it is important to acknowledge that by the end of the SDG teaching unit, the TI 
group required less planning and workload as most students would be able to take responsibility 
for their assignments. As a result, the TI group was even able to finish all their assignments and 
SDG stages in only 10 lessons instead of the 11 lessons that were required in the non-technology 
group. This difference may seem irrelevant at first glance, but it is important to call attention to 
the fact that the TI group had 51 students while the non-technology group had only 31 students. 
In other words, the teacher had a bigger workload with the TI group as the preparation, support 
and feedback were ongoing beyond the time allocated for physical education classes, but it 
would also be more productive spite of having more students.   
Theme 3 ? Establishing a new culture 
Only three out of the 82 students reported to have had some previous experience in 
designing their own activity in physical education, therefore the SDG was a new scenario for the 
great majority. Having the responsibility of providing the content that was going to be developed 
in class was not a challenge for the teacher as most students seemed to enjoy this freedom of 
choice. A quote from one interview may illustrate this matter: ?You don?t get to do what you like 
68 
 
to do in PE a lot of times, like a lot of games in PE are kind of stupid, but when you make your 
own game, you actually get to do what you like to do?. Although a few students reported 
disliking this responsibility, the great majority enjoyed being able to design their own game. A 
quote from an interview illustrates that dissatisfied students rather have the regular physical 
education class because they did not have to worry about anything else besides being active: ?I 
rather be playing games than sitting around and writing in my laptop.? It is important to call 
attention that the TI class only used their computer in class in two occasions. 
Nevertheless, when the responsibility of creating a new game also required work outside 
of school, another new culture was also established: physical education homework. This was a 
harder culture to establish. Students did recognize that many were not use to this workload and 
seemed dissatisfied. A quote from one interview may illustrate this matter: ?I rather do the work 
in class because if everything [game design] is at home I think I forget about it or I 
procrastinated and not do it.? Even students that showed to be enjoying this process and liked to 
create the game outside of school recognized that needed to get used to this responsibility. A 
quote from Edmodo illustrate this matter: 
- Teacher: ?Billy (pseudonym), I want to make sure you understand that your group recognized 
that you were working on the game - this is something new for you, I'll give the support you feel 
needed - when I said that they could change the manager, I was saying that if you felt 
overwhelmed you did not need to do it - I want this project to be something enjoyable not a 
burden. I'll make sure I will talk to you tomorrow. Sorry if you interpreted in any other way - I 
am trying to give the support that I feel that each student need.?  
- Billy ? ?Thanks, I just need to get used to checking Edmodo along with my other homework. It 
just takes a little getting used to.? 
69 
 
Subtheme 1.Edmodo participation needed practice  
 The challenge of establishing Edmodo as part of the physical education culture for the TI 
class did not come as a surprise for the teacher. In order to avoid any technical issues or excuses 
that students were not being able to login, the teacher made the login during on designated class 
at the beginning of the unit. However, being able to login all students was only a minor 
challenge. The bigger challenge was getting students used to logging in to Edmodo outside of 
school. In order to encourage students, the teacher focused on three actions: (1) make Edmodo 
look ?fresh?, (2) making the interface user-friendly, (3) including entertaining content in 
Edmodo.  
Although Edmodo is a closed environment in which only students in class are able to 
visualize the page, the website still works as a social media. That is, the content of the website is 
designed by the posts and replies of the teacher and students. Recognizing that there is a clear 
comparison between Edmodo and Facebook (the most popular social media), the teacher thought 
it was important to keep adding new content to Edmodo. In other words, the teacher tried to give 
some new information to students even if they logged in every day. Social media websites have a 
?snowball effect? in which one new post may result in a reply that may generate other comments. 
In addition, in order to maintain a personal attention, the teacher also posted comments to 
specific groups (as each group was able to communicate with each other as a private 
conversation) to encourage their adherence to Edmodo.  
 Although Edmodo interface looks familiar to most students as it has a similar design to 
the popular Facebook page, there are a few differences that needed to be taught. First, the teacher 
?tagged? (labeled the comment where it could be found in a folder with similar topics) every 
topic that he wrote so students would be able to find them easily. Second, the teacher created 
70 
 
instructional videos teaching each tool that could be used in Edmodo and how to access all the 
information.  
 Last, the teacher was able to include videos that were at the same time entertaining and 
related to the subject matter. Every other day, the teacher included videos of different games that 
are less common in the American culture, in order that students would be able to have a 
reference of other games that they may have never seen it before. Below the video, there was a 
poll where students voted if they liked or disliked the game. The poll was used to measure 
students? use of Edmodo. The videos became very popular among some students as some made 
comments and even came to class with questions. After watching the videos, students would 
place comments on Edmodo, here are a couple of quotes after watching ?Slamball?, a basketball 
game that have trampolines: ?Looks so cool! Wish we could do it!? and ?What are we, the 
Globetrotters?! :D Yeah.... this is a little dangerous...? Other students came to class and asked the 
teacher if all of those games were actual real. Every time a student went to talk about the videos, 
the teacher would ask if they voted on the poll, some of them recognized that they did not.  
Overall, Edmodo had a moderate adherence; the survey reported that in average students 
logged in to Edmodo one time per week (see Table 4.9 and Figure 4.9). It is important to 
acknowledge that many students complained that they were unable to watch the videos that were 
posted in Edmodo since the school blocked access to the YouTube website on all the laptops 
given to the students by the school. The teacher tried to circumvent this issue by posting a few 
videos to a different website provider, but these sites were also blocked by the school. 
Considering that this constraint may have led to students? disappointment, this may also have 
contributed to a higher adherence in Edmodo. This became clear to the teacher?s attention when 
he asked the whole class if they saw the instructional videos that taught them on how to use 
71 
 
Edmodo. Many students complaint that they did not have access to any video in their computer 
and that made it harder for them to use Edmodo. 
Subtheme 2. TI group students focused on preparing their game the day before their presentation 
 Although it is not possible to quantify how much each group concentrated their effort 
throughout the SDG teaching unit, it was clear that the activity on the Edmodo site became more 
intense by the groups that were presenting in the upcoming day. From a teacher?s perspective 
this was considered an issue as the teacher wanted to follow students progression and give 
feedback in a diffuser way. As a result, there were times in which the teacher was not online 
while the students were meeting and he was unable to anticipate a few issues that students would 
probably have while playing the game with the proposed rules.  
The Impact of Technology Integration on Students? Physical Activity Engagement 
The results of the students? step counts in the two teaching conditions are presented in 
Table 4.3.  
Table 4.3 
Physical Activity Engagement Means by Group, Gender and Time 
________________________________________________ 
Teaching       Mean (SD)          Mean (SD) 
Condition              Stage 1/2          Stage3/4/5 
________________________________________________ 
 
Non-tech 1959.80 (775.62)       2620.19 (810.94)  
Girls  1455.80 (461.13)       2079.03 (447.45) 
Boys  2757.81 (399.05)       3477.03 (398.96) 
 
TI 1947.85 (640.56)       2183.96 (741.98)  
Girls 1608.43 (507.27)       1742.28 (542.87) 
Boys 2400.40 (510.93)       2772.85 (534.94) 
________________________________________________ 
  
72 
 
 A repeated measures ANOVA determined that the accumulated step count during lessons 
in the non-technology group were significantly higher than the TI group, F (1,76) = 70.37, p < 
.001, partial ?2 = .481. There was also a statistically significant interaction between the two time 
points and the groups on the students? overall step count, F (1,76) = 14.39, p < .001, partial ?2 = 
.159. 
 In terms of students? gender, there was a significant difference between girls and boys F 
(1,76) = 124.94, p < .001, partial ?2 = .622.  There was no significant interaction between the 
two time points and gender, F (1,76) = 2.30, p = .133 partial ?2 = .029. 
Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 present the follow up analysis of step count, analyzing the 
interaction between group and time and the interaction of group and gender. 
Table 4.4 
Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Time 
________________________________________________________________________ 
Group 
 
 
Stage 1 & 2  Stages 3,4 & 5 
 
F 
       Non-tech 
 
1959.80 (775.62) 
 
2620.19 (810.94) 
 
39.91** 
TI 
 
1947.85 (640.56) 
 
2183.96 (741.98) 
 
20.07** 
       F 
 
0.01 
 
6.11* 
  ________________________________________________________________________ 
*p < .05, ** p < .01 
A one-way ANOVA determined that the accumulated step count during stages 3, 4 and 5 
in the non-technology group was significantly higher than the TI group, F (1,79) = 6.11, p = 
.016. There was no statistical difference in the accumulated step count during stages 1 and 2  
when comparing the non-technology group and the TI group, F (1,79) = 0,01, p = .940. 
 
73 
 
 
Figure 4.3 Comparison of physical activity engagement by group and time 
Table 4.5 
Comparison of Physical Activity Engagement by Group and Gender 
________________________________________________________________________ 
Group   Girls   Boys   F 
       Non-tech 
 
1671.21 (348.81) 
 
3134.28 (327.48) 
 
135.49** 
TI 
 
1669.03 (491.34) 
 
2574.02 (474.14) 
 
41.93** 
       F   0   13.09**     
** p < .01 
 
 A one-way ANOVA determined that the accumulated step count performed by non-
technology boys were significantly higher than TI boys, F (1,79) = 13.09, p = .001. There was no 
statistical difference in the accumulated step count when comparing non-technology girls and TI 
girls, F (1, 79) = 0, p = .987.  
 A one-way ANOVA also determined that the accumulated step count performed by boys 
were significantly higher than girls in both groups, in the non-technology, F (1,30) = 39.91, p < 
.001; and in the TI group, F (1,48) = 20.07, p < .001. 
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
stage 1 and 2 stage 3, 4, and 5
Me
an
 ste
ps
 
Stages 
Non-tech
TI
74 
 
 
Figure 4.4 Comparison of physical activity engagement by group and gender 
The Impact of Technology Integration on Students? Enjoyment/Engagement 
The themes and sub-themes from students? enjoyment/ engagement are presented in 
Figure 4.5. 
 
Figure 4.5 Student?s enjoyment/ engagement themes and sub-themes 
1671.21 
3134.28 
1669.03 
2574.02 
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Girls Boys
Non-tech TI
75 
 
Theme 1 ? Overall experience 
The results of the students? overall experience (enjoyment and participation) in the two 
teaching conditions are presented in Table 4.6 and Table 4.7. Table 4.8 and Table 4.9 present TI 
students? technology involvement in their everyday life.  
Table 4.6 
Comparison of students overall experience by group, gender and group x gender 
 
_________________________________________ 
Variable   Wilks?  Sig 
_________________________________________ 
 
Group    .853  .039 
Gender   .827  .016 
Group x Gender  .921  .305 
_________________________________________ 
 
Table 4.7 
Comparison of students overall experience in each group and each gender 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
  
 Group   Gender  
DV Non-tech TI F Girls Boys F 
Q1 7.86 (1.30) 6.31 (2.57) 8.48** 7.11 (2.40) 6.5 (2.21) 0.88 
Q2 3.07 (0.81) 2.83 (0.88) 1.45 3.15 (0.76) 2.59 (0.89) 7.09** 
Q3 3.64 (1.13) 3.60 (1.05) 0.01 3.91 (0.94) 3.21 (1.12) 9.42** 
Q4 4.07 (0.66) 3.65 (0.90) 5.58* 3.82 (0.85) 3.76 (0.85) 0.06 
Q5 3.97 (0.92) 3.77 (1.04) 1.00 3.91 (0.96) 3.74 (1.05) 0.11 
____________________________________________________________________________ 
*p < .05, ** p < .01 
 
  
76 
 
Table 4.8 
TI students? technology usage and interest  
 
 N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev. 
Q1-2) Number of devices per person 50 .25 3.33 1.27 .620 
Q4a) Computer hours - school 46 1 8 4.12 1.941 
Q4b) Computer hours - home 45 0 6 2.41 1.646 
Q5) Do you like technology? 52 3 5 4.40 .774 
Q6) Do you like laptops in school? 52 1 5 3.92 1.135 
Q7) Do you like laptops in PE? 52 1 5 2.77 1.198 
Q8) Did you like Edmodo? 52 1 4 2.58 1.091 
Q9) How often you used Edmodo? 52 1 5 2.94 1.335 
Q10) What kind of tech do you prefer? 52 1 3 1.79 .536 
Valid N (list-wise) 43     
 
Table 4.9 
TI students? internet access in their houses  
 
Q3) Do you have internet access in your house? Frequency Percent 
Valid 
yes 50 98 
no 1 2 
Total 51 100.0 
 
  
77 
 
 
 
Figure 4.6 Students enjoyment of having laptops in school? 
 
 
Figure 4.7 Students enjoyment of having laptops in physical education? 
4% 8% 
21% 
27% 
40% 
Q6 - Do you like computers in school? 
1- No, I hate it!
2 - Not so much
3 - It's okay
4 - Yes, I like it
5 - Yes! Of course
19% 
21% 
29% 
25% 
6% 
Q7 - Do you like laptops in PE? 
1- No, I hate it!
2 - Not so much
3 - It's okay
4 - Yes, I like it
5 - Yes! Of course
78 
 
 
Figure 4.8 Students enjoyment of using Edmodo 
 
 
Figure 4.9 Students adherence to Edmodo 
 
 
 
25% 
14% 
40% 
21% 
Q8 - Did you like to use Edmodo? 
1- No, I hate it!
2 - Not so much
3 - It's okay
4 - Yes, I like it
5 - Yes! Of course
19% 
21% 
29% 
25% 
6% 
Q9 - How often did you logged in to 
Edmodo? 
1- Never logged in
2 - Logged in 5 or less
3 - Logged in 1/week
4 - Logged in 2-3/week
5 - Logged in everyday
79 
 
Sub-theme 1. Higher engagement relates to feeling responsible  
 Students from both groups felt responsible for having to deliver the game that was going 
to be played by their peers. The assignment of designing a game that was a commitment that they 
had established with the teacher, along with peer pressure that would experience their game, both 
played important roles to encourage students to have a higher engagement in physical education.  
One eighth-grade boy from the non-technology group explained his commitment to the 
assignment: ?In regular PE some people can just do little work and get a passing grade, but like 
this [SDG], we have to make sure we get everything done, we really have to try it?. Although 
students felt that they had to do some extra work that they were not used in physical education 
classes, most of them felt comfortable with the work load, as reported by an eighth-grade girl 
from the TI group: ?it wasn?t a big thing, it was something that you could do a little at each time, 
it was more relaxed than other homework.? An eighth-grade boy from the non-technology group 
reported a similar perception: ?I don?t think it pressured us, I think it forced us to be more 
involved, not in a bad way though.? 
One eighth-grade boy from the TI group explained how he felt some peer pressure as he 
saw the game design process as a competition: ?I like the challenge, I like competing with 
people, I am very competitive. I was trying to make the best game that you could possibly 
make.? A ninth-eighth-grade girl from the TI showed that she felt good about herself when peers 
liked her game: ?when you watched other people having fun [while playing your game], it made 
you feel good.? This feeling of peer pressure influenced the characteristics of the game students 
designed, as reported by an eighth-grade student from the non-technology group: ?I felt, it [our 
game] was like what everyone wanted soccer to be because you can touch the ball with your 
hands without stopping.? There was one group of girls from the non-technology group that 
80 
 
reported feeling embarrassed that there were unable to design a game that others could play. As 
one of the members noted: ?when we were writing down, it [the game] made sense but when we 
actually played the game, it was confusing. And when we taught the game and they didn?t get 
it?it was embarrassing bec ause we couldn?t actually think of a game.?  
Sub-theme 2. Higher enjoyment due to novelty and variety of activities 
 Designing their own games was something new to the great majority of students and 
novelty played an important role when students reported the major characteristics from SDG that 
they liked. A ninth-grade girl from the TI group share this opinion: ?all PE games are the 
same?we have been playing the same PE games every year; these games [from SDG] are 
different and you have the ability to say what you want if you don?t like it or if you do like it.?. 
Another ninth-grade girl from the non-technology group report a similar perception: ?Some PE 
classes we just do the same games, [in SDG] we had time to learn different experiences?. 
 The SDG teaching unit provided a mixture of focusing on one game for a long period and 
at the same time providing a variety of game experiences. On the one hand, students were able to 
discuss their game from the moment they started to design it (stage 2) until the establishment of 
the playbook (stage 5). Students reported that they enjoyed this opportunity of thinking 
constantly about one game for a longer period. A ninth-grade boy from the TI explain his 
satisfaction: ?[we] spend more time with it, because in regular PE you learn one game in one day 
and then you come back the next day and you learn a new game, a whole different game, which 
you can get kind of sad you left behind the old game but in this way?with Edmodo, you get to 
stick to one game, play around with it, and then explore it.? On the other hand, while each group 
was designing and refining their own game, everybody had the opportunity to play different 
games which remained the perception that they were constantly experiencing something new. As 
81 
 
students learned about the variety of games that they would be able to play, they got excited and 
wanted to extend this excitement of discovering new games. A quote from an eighth-grade boy 
from TI represents this feeling of trying something new: ?I wish we would play a few of the 
games I saw on Edmodo.?  
Sub-theme 3. Extra work load and discussing game rules were the major dissatisfactions  
 Although most students reported that they did not mind having assignments, the major 
issues identified by students who indicated that did not enjoy SDG as much as other physical 
education classes were related to the work load and in-class assignment.  
The non-technology group did not have any homework activity, therefore all their 
complaints related to stopping the game to make reviews. According to one eighth-grade boy: ?if 
I am in the middle of a game, I don?t want to stop and write some stuff and then go back playing 
that game or not play that game at all.? Dissatisfied students felt that the process of constantly 
playing and stopping the game (time given to discuss refinements) would break the flow needed 
in play time. Boys (especially those who were highly skilled) reported a higher level of 
discontent with the scenario that promoted discussions in the middle of game play. When 
inquired if they would rather do the game design and refinements as a homework assignment, 
they agreed that this would be the best solution.  
The TI group did have homework assignments but their in-class discussions were 
minimal, therefore, their major complaints were related to the extra work load that they were not 
used to have in physical education classes. Among the major complaints was that they had a 
difficult time relating to each other saying that Edmodo did not help in the game design and that 
they were not used with having homework assignments in physical education. Boys reported a 
higher level of discontent with this extra work load, although there were girls who also reported 
82 
 
dislike with this new scenario. When asked if they liked to do design the game outside of class or 
if they felt obligated to design it, an eighth-grade girl answered: ?half-and-half, I wanted to play 
our game, but I did not want to have to work.? 
Theme 2 ? Freedom of choice 
A common characteristic that students enjoyed in the SDG was their freedom of choice. 
Students from both groups and from both genders reported that they felt empowered as their 
opinion played an important role in the class development. The research findings were unable to 
report any difference between the two groups. That is, the SDG pedagogy did not seem to 
influence the students? ?freedom of choice? perception.  
Sub-theme 1. Students enjoyed being able to develop the class content 
 The most unanimous opinion among students from both groups was that SDG gave them 
the freedom to make their own choices with regards the content developed in class. Hence, this 
perception played an important role in their overall enjoyment. According to students, this 
freedom was not common in most of physical education classes they had experienced up to date. 
An eighth-grade girl from the non-technology group illustrates this perception: ?you got to do 
what you wanted to do and other people get to do what they wanted to do?there are some PE 
games that you don?t like and some games that you do like?.  
 It is important to call attention to the fact that although students had this perception that 
they would enjoy the content because they developed themselves, most of the activities that they 
experienced were either developed by the teacher or by other students. For instance, the TI group 
had a total of ten classes, five of those classes were conducted by activities led by the teacher (in 
order to illustrate non-traditional games), and in the remaining five classes, students were able to 
play their own game only twice for half the period of the class. In other words, students would 
83 
 
only play their own game for an equivalent period of one out of ten classes. However this did not 
diminish their perception of developing the class content once every group had the opportunity to 
give suggestions on how each game could be molded to improve game play. Students often 
reported that the game enjoyment increased after they had a quick discussion that would change 
a rule in the game. A quote from an eighth-grade girl from TI group is representative with 
regards to the students need to stop the game and make suggestions. She noted ?that made it 
more fun?because a lot of the games weren?t that involved [optimize participation] until you 
made revisions.? 
Developing the class content was also enjoyable due to the feeling of ownership. That is, 
students felt proud and excited to see that other students were playing a game that was created by 
them. A quote from a ninth-grade boy from the TI group illustrates this perception: ?It made the 
games more enjoyable know that you and your group came up with it, you kind of know what to 
expect and at the same time you would not know how would people handle it and that was kind 
of the fun way?the surprise ? Another ninth-grade boy from the TI group suggested this same 
idea: ?Mind set of really this is my game and we came up with it just how you feel behind that 
really cool.? 
Sub-theme 2. Students enjoyed being able to work with groups chosen by themselves 
 In other physical education classes, besides having control of the activity that was being 
developed, the teacher would also designate which group of students would work together. In 
both classes of SDG, students had the liberty to choose their group members in which they 
would not only work together to design their game but also play together.  The great majority of 
students believed that they would not enjoy designing their own games if they would not be able 
to do with group members who were not chosen by them. The majority of students showed a 
84 
 
concern at not being able to show their own personality or share their opinion while working 
with peers who were not their friends. One eighth-grade girl from the TI group illustrated this 
point of view: ?I know I can be bossy, so if I am bossy, they [referring to her group members] 
will tell me to stop being bossy and other people may be shy to tell me to stop being bossy.?  
Gender differences were once again mentioned by many students when discussing group 
membership. Boys showed a concern with respect to working with girls because they believed 
that their ideas about games are different from their own. An illustration of this point may be 
taken by this eighth-grade boy from the non-technology group who said: ?well boys are more 
dominant [higher skill level] and girls games taught little to no skill?and girls have very 
different opinions on things?and if you need to cooperate it would be hard to do with different 
opinions.? Girls also showed a disbelief of being able to work with boys, as they believed that 
boys would not work properly. In this case, an eighth-grade girl from the TI group noted that 
?boys just say random things and we would have to write everything.? Two groups of girls said 
that they would like to work with boys, but once again, they showed the same concern. An 
eighth-grade girl from the TI group illustrated this scenario as follows: ?I think it would be fun to 
work with boys because they have different perspectives?but it would be fun if they would 
actually put in the work, because some of the guys are just like ?I don?t care?.?  
 The appreciation of playing the games with your own group members was also 
appreciated, especially by girls. One ninth-grade girl from the non-technology group pointed out 
the importance of playing with girls on your team: ?they [boys] are all mean; they ?hog? the ball 
and don?t let you contribute?. Girls often complained that boys would mistreat them for missing 
a play and/ or losing possession of the ball, while girls would not mind if they were not good and 
would even ensure that everyone got to participate in the game. Boys, on the other hand, were 
85 
 
more concerned to have a balanced game when playing, so they did not value if they would be 
playing with their group members or not. A boys group from the TI class admitted that they 
changed players a few times with other groups in order to ensure that the game was even. 
Theme 3 ? Motivation 
 Students from both groups reported several factors that motivated their engagement in the 
SDG teaching unit. Each group did not report differences in terms of what would motivate them 
to have a higher dedication in their game design. Among the major reasons identified as stimuli 
were novelty, challenge and obligation.  
The most common motivating factor was novelty. That is, students had not experienced 
any similar process of developing their own games in physical education. Many even mentioned 
that they had never experienced this freedom in school all together. The novelty of playing many 
different games therefore, was motivating in terms of experiencing something new. The 
challenge of creating a new game also had an intimate relationship with the novelty of the 
experience, as reported by a ninth-grade girl from the TI group while referring to her major 
motivation to design their game: ?we never knew what to expect how people would see it [our 
game]?. 
There were three groups of girls from the TI group that considered the obligation 
(assignment) of creating a game as their major motivation (this was the only factor that was 
identifiable by a single group). All these groups showed to have a high engagement during the 
game design process, but their feeling of obligation did not diminish their enjoyment as they 
reported to appreciate the overall process. These groups showed a higher commitment to their 
school assignments and therefore it appeared as a motivation as explained by one eighth-grade 
86 
 
girl: ?I didn?t have a motivation, it was just habit, when a teacher gives you homework, you say, 
ok, I?ll do it.? 
Sub-theme 1. TI students reported a higher dedication than the non-technology students 
 Although non-technology students reported a high level of enjoyment and participation, 
none of the students reported that they dedicated any time towards designing their game outside 
of class. Given that all TI students were required to design their game outside of physical 
education classes, it is predictable that the majority of groups (8 out of 10) dedicated after-school 
hours to designing their game. Although it is important to report that students were able to be 
hold accountable to do their ?homework?, it is important to call attention on how much time they 
dedicated to complete it, as there is not a fine line defining when the game is ready. Five out of 
ten groups had students that would enter in Edmodo every day or every other day showing a 
commitment in searching for new ideas and discussing game rules/ scenarios of their own games 
with their own group members or with members of other groups. 
 It is important to call attention that this form of intervention had a ?snow ball? effect. That 
is, the more people are involved, the bigger it gets and the more they enjoy. In other words, even 
a highly dedicated student would not be able to feel very motivated if others would not login to 
Edmodo, as the discussions were created by a group of students. One eighth-grade girl explained 
this idea: ?few more people could have said stuff [in Edmodo], but they didn?t. Like in our game 
we only had a few people? I didn?t mind that some people didn?t [write] as long as an amount 
of people did because if nobody does it, it is no fun at all, but if ten people do it, then it is fine 
because at least you can get a discussion.? Despite being dependable on others to enjoy 
themselves more, TI students that felt highly motivated by SDG had the opportunity to maximize 
their engagement while logging into Edmodo. 
87 
 
The Impact of Technology Integration on Students? Communication 
The themes and sub-themes from students? communication are presented in Figure 4.10. 
 
Figure 4.10 Students communication themes and sub-themes 
Theme 1 ? Game preparation 
Students from the non-technology and TI both reported to not have any personal issues 
with their group members while designing their game. The communication among group 
members was considered friendly and for the most part productive. The most non-productive 
communication was reported by ninth-grade girls from both non-technology and TI. These girls 
admitted that they sometimes ?lost track? of their discussion and start talking about something 
that was not related to game design. However, they considered this behavior as typical when 
working in groups and that it did not interfere with their productivity. Unlike eighth grade girls 
and boys, these girls would break down the game design into smaller assignments and while a 
88 
 
few members were working, others were able to chat about something else, as they reported in 
this interview: ?Oh yes, we would get off track, but we did get it done! While others [group 
members] were talking about the game we would hold on our own conversation?.  
Students from the TI group also admitted that it was harder to be unproductive in 
Edmodo as reported by an eighth-grade girl in the interview: ?It?s hard to get distracted in 
Edmodo? you don?t want to waste comments?. It is important to call attention to the fact that the 
environment created in Edmodo is different from a face-to-face conversation. While analyzing 
students work in Edmodo it was possible to notice that the conversation had linearity. That is, 
students would keep track of questioning and answering one topic at a time. In the group 
discussions in class, the environment was completely different, as there were times where several 
students would speak at the same time and carry parallel conversations, even when being 
productive.  
Sub-theme 1. Non-technology students were able to communicate better than TI students 
Non-technology students did not report any issues of communication while designing 
their games. Groups of different genders showed to have different forms of approaching game 
design but none of them were considered to be off task for a very long time. Two out of the three 
groups formed by boys designed their game in a very active manner. That is, they did not sit 
down for long and talk about their game plans, they discussed a couple of ideas and start testing 
with a ball just after a few minutes after they were given the assignment. The group formed by 
ninth-grade boys had a similar behavioral pattern as reported by the girls groups. All four groups 
formed by girls discussed their ideas for a long time, doodle court diagrams and even talked 
about a few specific situations before trying their game.  
89 
 
On the other hand, the TI students reported difficulties in designing their game outside of 
class. Many groups chose not to use Edmodo while designing their game. Although Edmodo is 
designed for students to place comments in different time periods, none of the groups 
approached game design in this form. In other words, all groups wanted to meet when designing 
their game and therefore meeting online was sometimes a challenge and inconvenient so students 
would chose to relate in more direct ways such as talking to each other between classes and 
talking on the phone. An eighth-grade boy illustrates this scenario: ?You would call somebody 
and say: ?get in Edmodo, but by that time, you already called so what was the point?? There 
were four groups that showed to have a very active participation in designing their game while 
using Edmodo. Of interest, all these groups were formed by girls (two 8th graders and two 9th 
graders). These groups showed to have a similar approach reported by the girls in the non-
technology group in which they would discuss all their rules one-by-one.  
Among the other six groups, the three groups formed by boys talked about the game 
design while meeting with each other between classes. Two of these boys groups would still use 
Edmodo for minor game design activities such as exchanging court diagrams and place 
reminders which show that they were logging to Edmodo but they chose not to design the game 
with this platform. The two co-ed groups and the remaining group formed by girls did not 
specify how they designed their game.  
Theme 2 ? Game presentation 
In the game design stage, students were given a chance to practice how to teach a game in 
the ?learn-teach-play? (LTP) lesson in which they had to read the rules of an unknown game and 
introduced them to another group that did not know the game. Both non-technology and TI 
students reported similar skills while presenting their games. In spite of having an oriented 
90 
 
experience on how to teach a game, most students felt challenged when presenting their own 
game, showing that more LTP experience was needed to approach this challenge better.  
One characteristic that was reported by both groups is that boys tended to present the 
game faster than girls. Boys were usually very excited about playing and had difficulty in 
focusing on their presentation. For example, they would overlook to see if other students were 
paying attention and did not give as many opportunities for questions. Girls, on the other hand, 
were calmer while presenting, they took longer while describing the rules, answered everyone?s 
questions and even showed to be perfectionists with the game set up (they would not like using 
different equipment from what they had originally planned). In spite of being more careful, girls 
were not more successful when teaching their game. Like boys, most of them did not develop a 
logical order on their presentation, explaining rules in a random order and therefore raising 
difficulties for others? understanding. 
Apart from their difficulties, all groups were able to teach their game and experience 
showed to be the most valuable tool in improving their presentation. Many students reported that 
this was the first time that they had talked in front of a big crowd and that they felt nervous while 
doing it. As a result, students were able to give better presentation when teaching their game for 
the second or third time.  
Sub-theme 1. Students who had higher participation within Edmodo were able to present the 
game better  
Although both groups reported similar issues when presenting their games, four groups (3 
girls groups and 1 boys group) from the TI were able to present their games better than the 
others. They presented a more logical presentation, starting with general rules and moving 
towards more specific rules (e.g. starting with game set up and how to score, ending with 
91 
 
specific rules and violations). All four groups had one characteristic in common: most group 
members were very active in Edmodo. There were six videos of other games posted in Edmodo 
and four of those videos where instructional videos. That is, they explained the rules of the game 
step-by-step. In other words, students who were more active in Edmodo were more exposed to 
examples of how to teach or present a game. Nevertheless, there was a fifth group who was very 
active in Edmodo and still were not able to teach their game very well, showing that these 
instructional videos were able to support many students? presentations, but others still needed 
other form of support.  
Theme 3 ? Game discussion 
The promotion of game discussion in non-technology and TI had very different 
approaches. In the non-technology group, students were able to discuss their opinion about the 
game immediately after their experience with face-to-face interaction with students that created 
the game as well as with other students that just participated in the game play. In the TI group, 
students discussed about the game after class while logging to Edmodo. The teacher would write 
a post asking for students opinions on the game that they played in class and each student had to 
reply this post giving their opinion on the game and explaining their reasons. The following 
quotes illustrate how this procedure was done in Edmodo (the first quote was posted by the 
teacher and the following quote was answered by a student):  
- ?If you are receiving this post please reply to the game you played last PE class presented 
by the ?Bear? and ?Tigers? (pseudonyms) groups. ?Bear? and ?Tigers members, you are 
also welcome to write your perception of how it go - are there any rules you would 
change?  Specify which game you played: ?Bear? or ?Tigers?. Answer questions such as: 
1) Did you like the game? Explain why or why not? 2) What rule would you change? 3) 
Was the game challenging? 4) Did the game needed strategies or teams would score 
based on luck?  Write as many replies as you wish.? 
 
92 
 
- ?We played the ?Tigers? game. It was fun, but I think that the idea of passing the ball to 
another person is bad. The game ends too quickly. It would be better to have 2 dodgeballs 
on each team and the first group that gets all the 4 balls wins. Other than that, love it (:? 
 
Sub-theme 1. Non-technology group had a predominance of boys and TI had a predominance of 
girls  
 The face-to-face interaction in the non-technology group was predominantly led by boys. 
That is, boys would talk longer (and many times louder) while giving their opinion about their 
experience in the game. Although girls did participate in the discussions, many would choose to 
not say anything. The participation in the discussion was also influenced by their skill level, 
meaning that students that presented a higher skill level were more participative than students 
with lower skill level. 
The online interaction in the TI group (in the Edmodo website) was predominantly led by 
girls. That is, girls posted more comments and with greater number of details. This followed the 
trend that girls were more engaged in every online task given. Boys reported that sometimes they 
did discuss their games but chose to do it in person rather than going to Edmodo. The following 
quote illustrate this behavior: ?We talked to the 9th grade male group a lot. They played our game 
and gave a lot of feedback in class but not in Edmodo.? 
Sub-theme 2. TI students had a better relationship than the non-technology group when 
discussing their games 
 The different forms of interaction (face-to-face versus online) also affected how students 
related to each other while discussing their games. The non-technology group registered a few 
unpleasant discussions as students were sometimes very critical about other groups? games or 
when game owners were sometimes unwilling to hear any suggestions. Although these 
unfriendly discussions were not limited between boys and girls, they did occur more often 
93 
 
between different genders. Here is a boy?s quote explaining why he was refuting a girl?s 
suggestion: ?There would be groups that would want to mold the game to make it easier for them 
to play?saying like ?make the goal bigger?, the goal is already big, it?s them [the girls] that can?t 
score?. Apparently, the students from the non-technology had a difficult time of detaching the 
competition that occurred between game play and the game refinements. In another quote, a 9th 
grade student was able to verbalize this matter: ?I think that everyone?s opinion was heavily 
dependent on if they were good on the game or not, because I remember my group saying that 
they loved the game I came up with as opposed to anything else and I didn?t enjoy the idea as 
much and I wasn?t incredibly good at it.?  
 The TI did not report any relationship issues when students were discussing the game in 
Edmodo. The online discussion took the game play excitement away from students, they never 
discussed about who won or who lost (which was common in the other group). They focused on 
discussing the refinements of the game. When asked if there was any time that they felt offended 
by a suggestion, all students from this group said that they did not. Edmodo changed the way 
students communicated to each other, by being less directive and reinforcing positive aspects as 
well as negative aspects. Two students explained this matter in a complimentary way: ?Everyone 
said at least one thing, something nice and then they might have added a suggestion?; ?If they 
said that something needed to be improved, they said it in a nice way?.  
 Theme 4 ? Students Outcomes 
The social interaction promoted in SDG has shown to impact students learning. When 
asked in the interview: ?What did you learn in the SDG unit?? All non-technology and TI 
students mentioned about their experience in communicating to each other. Students reported 
that working with each other requires learning. While referring to game design, one of the 
94 
 
students said: ?we learned to be able to compromise? as the group discussed how each person 
had different ideas and they had to come with a consensus what would be the final word before 
they included as a game rule.  
Nevertheless, the biggest challenge was not dealing with group members as all groups 
reported good relationship, their learning was communicating with other students while teaching 
a game. One 8th grade girl says: ?I learned to talk in front of a lot of people, like a huge crowd 
when presenting, you set out really clearly and you have to start from the beginning, like you 
have to say first the most important things [about the game] ?you learn by your mistakes.?  
Students also recognized that they needed to have leadership skills as they were 
presenting their game to other students. As one 8th grade boy pointed out: ?the teacher could be 
there when students are presenting the game, to get them all around [give the presenters 
authority] because other students don?t like to listen to kids specially when we were teaching 9th 
graders, they would think: all they are just 8th graders?. Due to the nature of the SDG unit it was 
not possible to have the teacher?s presence with all students at all times, but the students still 
showed improvement in their communication skills by calling peers attention when presenting, 
using visual aids (they would demonstrate specific rules/ game situations) and check for their 
understanding. 
Sub-theme 1. TI groups had a better playbook presentation than non-technology groups 
Students from the non-technology group and TI experienced a different process when 
writing their playbooks. The non-technology students started their game design by completing a 
poster with leading questions to design an invasion game (see Appendix C). After completing 
this poster, students would play their game, make their refinements and settle the final rules in a 
playbook portfolio (see Appendix D) only at the end of the SDG teaching unit. The TI students 
95 
 
had the opportunity to start designing their game while answering the leading questions of a 
PowerPoint presentation posted in Edmodo (see Appendix E). The same PowerPoint presentation 
that was used to present the leading questions was able to be used to establish the game?s final 
rules in a playbook. As a result, students had the ability to change their playbook as they would 
make modifications to their game.  
When comparing the playbooks from the non-technology group with the TI group, it was 
noticed that the non-technology group playbook provided less information about their games. 
The most common issues found with the non-technology playbooks were: (1) unclear diagram, 
(the drawings were not well done and most of them did not include any caption specifying what 
each drawing represented), (2) rules were simplified, (most playbooks missed rules that would 
lead to violations and their writing was unclear or confusing). Although the non-technology 
group were given a designated space to include each rule that was asked in the portfolio, none of 
the playbooks completed most of the space given. 
Besides being able to deliver a better playbooks by addressing the overall rules better and 
giving better diagrams (with captions), the TI group also included an extra features that went 
beyond the initial requirements: most of the playbooks included illustrations that went beyond 
the game diagram, such as pictures of equipment that were used in the game. In addition, there 
were two playbooks that needed extra attention: (1) the group that designed the game ?Flag war? 
presented their playbook in a storyboard format, describing players? actions and consequences 
while being in ?war?, (2) the group that designed the game ?Catch the frozen kin? did two 
playbooks, the PowerPoint presentation as all the other groups and a video presentation while 
explaining the game to another group. Although there were good and bad presentations in both 
96 
 
groups, the overall presentation from the TI students were better and they had the opportunity to 
go beyond the minimal requirements. 
The Impact of Technology Integration on Games Characteristics/ Architecture 
The themes and sub-themes from games? characteristics/ architecture are presented in 
Figure 4.11. 
 
Figure 4.11 Game?s characteristics/ architecture themes and sub-themes 
Theme 1 ? Game design purpose 
 The different results in game design purposes were led by gender differences rather than 
the impact of technology use in the teacher?s pedagogy. Although students in both groups had 
the opportunity to create their groups as heterogeneous as they wished, there were only 2 out of 
17 groups that were formed by boys and girls; all the remaining 15 groups were constituted by 
students of the same gender. In addition, there were only 3 out of the 17 groups that were formed 
by students of different grades. However, the researcher was unable to report any noticeable 
difference between groups of different grade levels. The following results do not present any 
97 
 
differentiation between non-technology and TI groups as the game design purposes showed to be 
very similar and consistent in both scenarios. 
Sub-theme 1. Girls created more ludic games whereas boys created strategic/ challenging games 
The most unanimous opinion among boys and girls when defining their game purpose 
was that they think differently. According to a 9th grader boy (non-technology): ?girls have a 
different opinion about games?it is like tha t bouncing ball game [balloon ball], it is a very 
simple game, it is like a game of keep up [keeping a balloon without touching the ground].? 
Another 8th grade boy (TI) show a similar perception: ?all girls games were kind of capture the 
flag, it was less skill and more luck?. Boys from both groups were able to identify that girls? 
games were more ludic. As mentioned by one of the boys, 3 out of the 5 games designed by girls 
in the TI group had some components that related to capture the flag, which is a game that is 
played by younger children. In addition, the games designed by girls presented less challenging 
skills. Most of the girls games focused on locomotor skills (e.g. running and dodging) or 
manipulative skills that were not very challenging (e.g. catching a bean bag and volleying a kin-
ball).  
According to a 9th (non-technology) grader girl, boys have a different perception about 
game play: ?they act like this is the Olympics, so if you mess up, they freak out?and then it is 
the end of the world?. Another 8th grade girl (TI) describe boys games? as being ?more sporty? 
while referring to the fact that games were more ?physical? (involving more aggressiveness), 
involved harder skills. When boys created their games, they focused on the promotion of 
competition, and each player?s dexterity in performing a specific task.  
Table 4.10 illustrates how boys and girls groups answered two questions related to game 
design. 
98 
 
Table 4.10 
Non-Technology and TI Single-Sex Groups? Response to Game Design 
 
Question Boys response Girls response 
When proposing new rules on your own game or others, what were 
you trying to do? 
Turn the game more strategic 4 1 
Make the game easier for me to play/ win 1 3 
Include everyone in the game 1 5 
 If someone could not play my game, it was: 
My fault (as a presenter) 2 5 
Their fault 4 2 
Undecided 0 2 
 
 As shown in Table 4.10 boys tend to modify the game to turn it more strategic and girls 
show a concern on including everyone in the game. In order to illustrate these reactions, two 
examples are given: (1) the group of girls that created ?wall ball mix? included a rule that every 
player from the offensive team had to touch the ball before they would score; (2) the group of 
boys that created ?Ground Quidditch? made a few modifications on the keeper?s box in order to 
establish a balance between offense and defense (in order to make the scoring goal not too easy 
or too hard). Therefore, boys sought to design games that involved a higher skill level and more 
strategic as they enjoyed the competition component of games; whereas girls sought to design 
games that were easier to play and/ or that would ensure everyone?s participation in order to 
promote a more ludic atmosphere while playing.  
  
99 
 
  
  
  
  
 
Chapter V. Discussion and Conclusion 
Discussion 
The discussion of this research was broken down into five categories according to the 
research questions (pedagogy, physical activity, enjoyment, communication, and game 
characteristics).  
The Impact of Technology Integration on the Teacher?s Pedagogy 
When comparing the two teaching conditions (non-technology and TI) to teach SDG, this 
study identified four elements that influenced the teacher?s practice: (1) experience, (2) number 
of classes, (3) student accountability/ teaching style, and (4) school culture. 
Experience 
The SDG with TI condition was considered more appropriate for teachers with more 
experience with SDG and with TI. As previously mentioned, teaching SDG require a student-
centered approach that deals with two forms of methodologies: constructivism (Rovegno & 
Dolly, 2006) and constructionism (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). In the present study, the game design 
process was broken down into five stages. In the non-technology group each stage was presented 
in a more discrete form, so it was easier for the teacher to notice if all groups were able to 
complete their tasks before they moved to the following stage. In the TI group, stages occurred 
concomitantly, so the teacher had to support students in different stages of game design and 
therefore it was harder to keep track of each group?s work and provide the proper feedback. For 
instance, while there were groups that were working on their game refinements (stage 4) and 
100 
 
writing their playbook (stage 5), there were still groups who had not yet presented their game for 
the first time and therefore, they were still designing their game (stage 2). 
The TI component also requires experience in order to provide all the necessary tools to 
design their games away from school. The technological interface chosen to conduct this study, 
Edmodo, is a good example why TI experience is needed. Although the teacher had experience 
with Edmodo and chose this interface due to its user-friendly design, students still needed to be 
introduced to its tools and features. As the teacher did not want to spend time in class explaining 
how to use Edmodo (although it occurred occasionally), the teacher chose to create instructional 
videos. The instructional videos were screen recordings in which the teacher showed how to 
navigate Edmodo. The production of these videos required the ability to use software that 
enabled the teacher to record his own computer screen. Although the teacher did not know how 
to record his own screen, he felt comfortable with his technological skills and believed that he 
was able to learn quickly in order to deliver the needed support. Therefore being able to deal 
with different technologies is an important factor to feel comfortable while teaching with TI. 
Inan and Lowther (2010) have shown that teachers had this same perception while analyzing the 
main factors that influenced teachers to use TI in their teaching. The feeling of readiness 
(capabilities and skills needed to integrate technology in instruction) was the most significant of 
all variables analyzed, overcoming even teachers? beliefs (how teachers perceived technology?s 
influence on student learning and achievement). 
Number of classes 
In the proposed intervention, the TI students felt overwhelmed having to complete their 
SDG assignments in a short period of time. In addition, a longer time period between classes 
may not only give time for students to focus on their own game, but also post more comments 
101 
 
about their peers? games. Having a longer interval between classes would also be beneficial for 
the teacher. The teacher?s workload in the TI group varied from time to time, but overall it was 
higher than the non-technology group. In the non-technology group, the teacher was able to 
check the game design progression of each group in class, but in the TI group, the teacher had to 
go on each group section of Edmodo to check the progress of their game. These findings were 
consistent to Hastie, Casey and Tarter (2010) who also reported a higher workload with SDG 
intervention that used a wiki when students were developing their game. In Hastie et al. (2010) 
study, the students constantly required the teacher?s feedback while being active in the wiki. 
Student accountability/ teaching style  
The SDG with TI was considered more appropriate for teachers that felt comfortable in 
having less control of their students and therefore holding students accountable. SDG already 
requires a number of new situations that may be overwhelming for teachers and students, 
therefore it is important to consider the teaching style and the teacher-student relationship when 
choosing the teaching condition to apply SDG. 
In the TI condition, students are much more autonomous as the teacher does not have 
control on how much effort and time is spent in each path of the game design. Students often had 
to decide when a discussion should stop and when it needed further consideration. There were 
times in which students were the ones that who needed the teacher?s feedback, since it was very 
hard for the teacher to follow all game discussions. In other words, the teacher-student 
relationship should involve a lot of trust, since that the freedom of choice given to students 
involves responsibility. In the present study, students that were unable to show this responsibility 
focused on finishing their game design on the very last day before their game presentation. 
102 
 
Although SDG with TI requires more autonomous students, teachers should consider that 
each student has a different preference in terms of teaching styles. Schell (2004) reported that 
students tend to show a balance between ?watchers? and ?doers? with regards to their preference 
of teaching styles when learning physical education contents that were taught with TI. In other 
words, there is a balance between students that prefer to learn by doing and students that prefer 
to receive instruction before having any action. In the non-technology group, students received a 
more restricted script in which they had to follow step-by-step. Therefore, the non-technology 
group appears to be more appropriate for ?watchers?. In the TI group, students had more freedom 
and therefore it was more appropriate for ?doers?. Regardless of the teaching condition, it is 
important that the teacher identifies the tendency of each student (?watcher? or ?doer?) in order to 
give them more freedom or more direction. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that Hastie 
and Andr? (2012) reported that each gender has a preference in designing their game. Boys are 
usually ?doers? (like to design their game by testing their theories) and girls are usually 
?planners? (write the whole game before testing). This is another indication that it is important to 
provide different game design options to optimize their productivity.  
School culture  
When making the decision to include SDG, the teacher should consider the school culture 
when analyzing the most appropriate teaching condition. SDG alone may be considered a 
?culture shock? for many schools as it breaks many paradigms: (1) the teacher is not the one 
responsible for developing the content, (2) students need to change their mindset from ?adapting 
themselves to games rules? to ?adapt the games to their own condition?, (3) students may have to 
give up physical activity time to discuss about games? rules. This culture shock may lead the 
belief that SDG is just a new form of ?ball rolling? as Rovegno  and Bandhauer (1994) were able 
103 
 
to identify as one of the most common misconceptions of SDG. For instance, physical education 
teachers and students believe that students understand why games have rules, penalties and 
boundaries, but they do not. It takes several trials before they can anticipate what a rule can 
provoke in their game.  
School culture should also be analyzed when considering the usefulness of TI. In the 
present study, the school that received both forms of intervention had a very significant indicator 
that TI was appropriate; that is, all students carried a laptop given by the school. Although TI 
was common in almost every discipline in school, it was not a common practice in physical 
education. However, once students were familiar with the technological tools, TI in physical 
education was not considered an issue. The biggest culture shock was the introduction of 
homework assignments given in the TI group. Students were not used to having homework from 
physical education and it was considered an issue by many students. Mitchell, Stanne and Barton 
(2000) were able to report that despite teachers? positive response of using homework in physical 
education, few teachers use this procedure. In addition, the resistance of physical education 
homework may even come from their parents. For example, Tannehill, Romar, and O'Sullivan 
(1994) reported in a study that over 70% of parents were against physical education homework. 
In summary, it is important to understand what is considered a common practice in the school 
and what is not. Although SDG may lead the break of a few paradigms that may be overcome, 
breaking too many paradigms at once may lead to students? disengagement and discontent.  
The Impact of Technology Integration on Students? Physical Activity Engagement 
Non-technology students reported a higher physical activity engagement than TI students. 
The findings were surprising at first glance since TI students did not need to spend any time 
104 
 
designing their game in class. However, two main reasons had an important impact in these 
findings: (1) number of students, and (2) learning about TI. 
Number of students 
There was a significant difference in the number of students attending each physical 
education class. While the non-technology group had 31 students, the TI group had 51students. 
The difference in the number of students of each group must be acknowledged as a study?s 
limitation when addressing TI impact in physical activity. Despite having 64% more students, 
the TI group had the same available space (two indoor gyms) for their physical education classes. 
During stages 1 and 2, the teacher was able to organize both groups in a way that would 
accommodate all students to be active during all game activities. However, when students 
designed their games and started playing in stages 3, 4 and 5, the TI group had a very different 
organization. Due to the great number of students, there would be a rotation between groups that 
would be active in the TI group (the games were designed in a way that only accommodated a 
limited number of students). The physical activity impact reports a statistical difference only in 
stage 3, 4 and 5, suggesting that the needed rotation of students during game play had a 
significant impact in physical activity.  
Learning about technology integration 
Although TI did not spend time designing their activities in class and kept their in class 
game discussions to a minimal, they had to learn about Edmodo and other technological features 
in order to design their game outside of class. The technological teaching sessions were not 
performed every class and they were not long, but they must be acknowledge as an extra activity 
that took physical activity time away from students. 
105 
 
When comparing physical activity engagement by group and gender, it was reported that 
only boys from the non-technology group had significant difference in comparison to boys from 
the TI group. Girls from both groups reported very similar outcomes. Although it was possible to 
identify what had diminished the TI physical activity, it is not clear why it had a bigger impact 
on boys. Apart from reporting higher levels of physical activity in the non-technology group, 
more research with the same number of students in each group would be needed to ensure if TI 
have a negative impact in students physical activity engagement.  
The Impact of Technology Integration on Students? Enjoyment/Engagement 
The enjoyment and participation in SDG was satisfactory in both teaching conditions as 
students reported a positive perception in both groups. Nevertheless, non-technology students 
reported a statistically higher enjoyment and higher feeling of engagement when comparing to 
the TI students. There were three major reasons that diminished the enjoyment of the TI group: 
(1) lack of TI culture in physical education, (2) homework in physical education, and (3) 
discontent with Edmodo. 
Although students were accustomed to using their laptops in almost every other subject in 
school, they were not familiar with their role in physical education classes. After the 
intervention, 88% of students reported to be either indifferent or support the use of technology in 
all the activities in school; whereas, only 60% of students reported as either indifferent or support 
the use of technology in physical education. There is not a clear explanation why students felt 
different when considering the use of technology in school and in physical education in 
particular. Many hypotheses may be given, but three main reasons seem to have a better fit in 
this scenario: (1) the fact that they were not used to dealing with computers in physical 
education; (2) they felt that computers were taking physical activity time away from them 
106 
 
(although there were only two occasions in which they used computers in class), or (3) 
computers were majorly used to complete homework assignments and they did not want to have 
homework.  
Homework seems the most probable contribution for students? dissatisfaction as it was an 
extra assignment in which they had never had to do before. Students did report to be dissatisfied 
in having homework assignments for physical education. In spite of that, TI students reported a 
higher dedication than non-technology students. That is, even having a lower enjoyment 
perception; they dedicated more time once they felt it was a school assignment that should be 
taken seriously. According to Hastie and Pickwell (1996) students are engaged in class either 
driven by their own interests or by being motivated. Thus, the feeling of being obligated to 
complete an assignment in the TI group overcame non-technology students? interest in SDG, 
leading to a higher dedication in their game design preparation. It is important to call attention 
that among the students that were dissatisfied in the non-technology group; the class discussion 
was considered a big issue (which would be equivalent to the TI homework assignment).  
The Edmodo interface also led to the discontent of some students. Students did not report 
any difficulty in using Edmodo but only 61% reported to be either indifferent or support the use 
of Edmodo and only 60% reported to login to Edmodo once a week or more. The major issue 
with Edmodo was related to the fact that students did not chose to use Edmodo as it was 
presented to them. It was suggested that students would post comments in different times and 
lead towards a discussion that was ongoing and would eventually create a game. Students that 
did use Edmodo scheduled a time to meet their group members online, and students that did not 
use Edmodo claimed that it was hard to schedule a time that would accommodate everyone?s 
agenda. Therefore, future interventions should either use an interface that facilitates students 
107 
 
meeting online at the same time (as it seems to be their preference) or when using Edmodo, 
students should be prepared to work without the need of meeting online. In other words, when 
using Edmodo to design games, students may have to learn to collaborate while working 
separately on their own.  
When comparing gender differences, girls showed to have a higher appreciation for SDG.  
Girls reported to want to have other SDG experiences and when comparing to other physical 
education classes, they reported enjoying SDG much more than boys. These findings are 
consistent with the extensive literature that reports that physical education curricula are usually 
built for aggressive male students as they are able to dominate team-sports activities, the most 
common content developed in physical education (Cockburn & Clarke, 2002; Couturier, Chepko, 
& Coughlin, 2007; Ennis, 1996, 2011). In other words, in regular physical education classes, 
girls are not as empowered as boys (not only physically but also in terms of being able to give 
their opinion) and therefore, they are constantly restrained from participation and led to 
marginalization. SDG is able to create an equity that transcends gender and skill level 
differences, since students are empowered to create a game that relates to their own preferences. 
Therefore it is natural that girls enjoy this gain of power in physical education as they are able to 
express their opinion and even propose a game that they would like to play. Oliver, Hamzeh, and 
McCaughtry (2009) use this same trend of thought when proposing that disengaged girls create 
their own physical activities in order to propose higher levels of engagement. 
Despite group and gender differences, students reported a positive overall response. 
Three major reasons created this positive environment: (1) feeling responsible, (2) novelty, and 
(3) freedom of choice.  
108 
 
The feeling of responsibility was one of the most cited reasons to enjoy the SDG unit. 
According to Lin, Myers and Yanes (2010) teenagers that feel responsible show a higher 
dedication towards school. The feeling of responsibility had also an intimate connection to 
ownership as students were proud to present their games to their peers. Students reported being 
proud when other students praised their game. 
Novelty was also an important feature that led to students? satisfaction. There were many 
students who said that they were pleased because they usually play the same games every year. 
Couturier, Chepko and Coughlin (2005) reports that one of the main reasons that led students to 
not participate in physical education classes was having to take part in the same activities every 
year. As SDG always provide new games every time that it is implemented, this is an important 
characteristic that is able to please most students. 
Freedom of choice was also cited by most students as a characteristic that was much 
appreciated. Students reported that they are not given as many opportunities to have this freedom 
of choice and that they were only supposed to do whatever the teacher would tell them to do. 
When reporting this frustration, students would refer to most of schools activities and not only 
physical education classes. It is important to call attention that this freedom of choice does not 
only bring advantages. For instance, students had the freedom to choose to play with their own 
group members when playing each other?s games, but this led to a ?battle of sexes? (as groups 
were mainly formed by single-sex) on a few occasions that required the teacher?s intervention. 
Although this scenario is unpleasant (and even avoidable had the teacher delegated the teams), it 
also empowers the teacher to negotiate students behaviors as their freedom of choice are 
negotiable according to their behavior (if they can or cannot be hold accountable). 
  
109 
 
The Impact of Technology Integration on Students? Communication 
There are four elements that should be considered when comparing the two teaching 
conditions impact on students? communication: (1) group members? communication, (2) inter-
group communication, (3) students? presentations, and (4) communicative outcomes. 
Group members? communication 
The non-technology group promoted a better communication among group members. The 
majority of the students from both groups (non-technology and TI) showed that they wanted to 
work together when designing their game, given that Edmodo did not promote this form of 
interaction, TI students had difficulty in using Edmodo while designing a game. In class, the 
non-technology students were able to approach the game design in different ways. The girls 
would remain sitting and discuss the entire game before they would test it, whereas most of the 
boys would not discuss their ideas for long without testing their theories. These finding where 
consistent to Hastie and Andr? (2012) who found that girls were ?planners? while boys were 
?doers? when designing their own games.  
In the TI group, boys had significantly less participation in Edmodo than girls, showing 
that the game development of ?planners? and ?doers? may have played an important role. 
Edmodo was not a huge imposition for girls because they were still able to discuss each rule one 
by one before trying their ideas. However, if boys are ?doers? the online game design that was 
imposed by Edmodo does not fit their game design preferences. In summary, the non-technology 
group was able to accommodate different forms of game design whereas the TI group restrained 
boys? game development, leading to alternative methods such as students meetings to discuss the 
game between classes.  
  
110 
 
Inter-group communication 
The TI group promoted a better inter-group communication. Although Edmodo was 
considered a restraint for developing the game design, it may be considered more ?democratic? 
when it comes to discussions that involve a bigger group. The teacher would post questions 
about the game and students would answer by replying to these questions or by making 
comments from other students? posts. Students who are constantly overlooked in physical 
education classes (e.g. girls and lower skill students) were the most active in Edmodo. This form 
of discussion was also considerate more appropriate since the teacher was able to initiate all 
groups? discussions by placing the focus of attention. Holland and Muilenburg (2011) reported 
similar findings showing that Edmodo was able to promote discussions with big group of 
students. The authors also recognized that students needed guidance to discuss the desired 
subject matter otherwise students would discuss personal matters. 
In the non-technology group, students were able discuss about game refinements, but 
they were constantly led by the same students (generally high skill boys). The discussions were 
often distracted by other subjects such as who won the game or game situations that just 
happened. Moreover, the discussions constantly turned into arguments as students were still 
excited about the game. 
Although many games discussions in Edmodo did not receive many comments, it is 
believed that the major restraint was the lack of time to complete the task. Students would only 
have one day to make their comment in Edmodo, given that they had physical education classes 
in every other day, so whenever they had a new class, they would play a new game and have to 
place a new comment. This assumption appears to be consistent with the literature that found that 
70% of high school students were able to be actively engaged in Edmodo when given a week to 
111 
 
complete a publication that was given to them (Fardoun, Alghazzawi, L?pez, Penichet, & 
Gallud, 2012). 
Students? presentations 
Both groups reported difficulty in presenting their games. The learn-teach-play (LTP) 
lesson showed to be an adequate form to approach their need to learn to present their game. 
However, much more support would be needed in order to ensure a better game presentation 
without the teacher?s intervention. In the non-technology teaching condition, extending the 
number of LTP lessons would be the most appropriate form to aid students in their presentation.  
In the TI teaching condition, the usefulness of LTP could be done with videos. That is, 
the teacher would be able to teach different games with instructional videos. This format may 
help students focus on the game presentation as it takes the excitement away (since they would 
not perform after the presentation). Moreover, instructional videos could also describe how 
games should be presented and students could even make their own instructional videos which 
may lead to better preparation and presentation. This format of teaching was originally planned 
for this group, but it was not possible to be implemented since students had online videos 
blocked on their laptops (YouTube and similar websites) due to school policy. The concept of 
teaching physical education content with videos has already reported positive findings in the 
literature. Clarke (2008) was able to report positive responses when using recorded videos to 
teach motor skills to children. Therefore, if there are no technical restrains, TI have more options 
to support students? presentations.  
Communicative outcomes 
The TI group was able to develop better communicative outcomes. The TI students 
presented much more elaborated playbooks than the non-technology students. The major reason 
112 
 
for finding such a gap between groups was due to available time and tools.  With regards to time 
available, TI students had weeks to prepare their playbook, whereas non-technology students had 
to complete this assignment in one class only. In addition, TI students were empowered with all 
the technological tools of a computer. All TI students chose to use the PowerPoint software 
(which was presented as an option for them), thus, they were able to personalize their playbook 
with different backgrounds, pictures that related to their game (loaded from the internet), and 
present precise diagrams with tools that did not require drawing skills.  
The Impact of Technology Integration on Games Characteristics/ Architecture 
While the games? characteristics were not influenced by the teaching condition, there 
were differences related to gender. Boys showed to have more concern with promoting 
competition, and therefore their focus related to strategic games that encouraged the performance 
of high levels of particular skills. For instance, the game ?Streetball? mixed skills from football 
and basketball, becoming very popular among boys but not as appreciated by girls. Girls showed 
more concern with designing games that were able to optimize all players? participation, having 
a ludic atmosphere that would not require much skill in order to play. For instance, the game 
?Noodle? was a variation of capture the flag with multiple flags in each team, ensuring 
everyone?s participation (since there were many flags that enabled multiple foci in the game) and 
involving only locomotor skills which are easier to perform. 
Boys and girls also had different responses when it came to changing their games. Girls 
tried to change their own game (or make suggestions to other games) focusing on everyone?s 
participation. Boys tried to change their games to make it more strategic. Moreover, girls would 
blame themselves if other students would not be able to play their game, whereas boys tended to 
blame other students. These findings seem to be consistent with Hastie and Andr? (2012) who 
113 
 
reported that girls were more likely to change their games more often to accommodate other 
students? needs. 
These differences in reactions may well be reflective of the students? previous physical 
education experiences. While the most popular American sports such as Basketball and Football 
are constantly part of physical education classes and may play an important role to keep boys 
motivated, they may also have the potential to marginalize girls? participation. Azzarito (2011) 
calls attention to the gendered hidden curriculum that keep shaping the contexts of schools, 
praising activities that are historically predominant by boys and excluding girls. Therefore, the 
girls? concern for including every student in the game and even avoiding skills that were harder 
to perform may be a reaction to previous unpleasant experiences that problematized their own 
participation.  
Conclusion 
This study contributes to our understanding on how the incorporation of TI has an impact 
on the teaching of SDG. Prior to this study, there were only two studies that used TI in SDG 
(Casey, Hastie, & Rovegno, 2011; Hastie et al., 2010). However, this is the first research that 
analyzed the usefulness of TI when teaching a SDG unit, that is, the potentialities and limitations 
of teaching SDG when using TI. The use of TI in any physical education teaching component 
may present diverse possibilities, given the many different technological tools that may be used. 
The present study focused on using Edmodo as a communication tool while students designed 
their games outside of class. 
The first conclusion drawn from analyzing the outcomes of this study is that TI was more 
difficult to implement when teaching SDG. There were more challenging situations that required 
the teacher to have a high level of experience with SDG and with TI. The teacher?s relationship 
114 
 
with students also required a higher level of trust as students were much more empowered. Due 
to the need for completing homework assignments, students in the TI group reported lower levels 
of enjoyment when compared with the non-technology group. Moreover, in order to provide 
better outcomes with TI, it would be important to teach students on how to collaborate when 
working separately as it was needed in the online game design. 
Having so many obstacles, one may question why any teacher would chose to use TI in 
SDG. There were, however, some very positive findings that came from the TI group. The most 
significant of these was that Edmodo was able to promote a more democratic communication 
among all students when discussing games? rules. While classroom discussions were led by high 
skilled boys, the online discussions opened doors to whoever was interested in discussing the 
game. In other words, having the chance of promoting equity in physical education may be a 
single reason that is worthwhile to use TI in SDG. Moreover, using TI enabled the teacher to 
provide online supporting materials and enabled students to produce better playbooks as they had 
access to supporting tools. 
The second conclusion taken from this study is that students wanted to have a more direct 
interaction when dealing with their creative process which was diminished with Edmodo. 
Considering that online discussion during the games? refinements promoted more equality in 
physical education, three possible solutions are proposed to approach this problem: (1) create a 
hybrid pedagogy that is able to optimize the desired features of each teaching condition; (2) seek 
new TI options that are able to overcome issues found with Edmodo, (3) have different forms of 
implementing SDG. 
A hybrid pedagogy would focus on the main features of the two teaching conditions that 
were studied: providing face-to-face interaction while designing the games, and providing online 
115 
 
games discussions. The face-to-face interaction should give students the ability to approach the 
game design in different forms (providing the freedom of being a ?planner? or a ?doer?) as well as 
ensuring opportunities for the teacher to follow this process and give feedback. The online 
discussions would maximize students? participation and would also give more direction to these 
conversations as teachers would be able to post specific questions that lead these discussions. 
This proposed hybrid model could use Edmodo since this interface was considered appropriate 
for the post-game discussions. 
Knowing that TI may use different tools that are likely to change over time, other TI tools 
may be considered when proposing a TI in SDG. For instance, Google Plus (a social media 
similar to Facebook) has online meeting tools that enable up to ten people to chat online (with 
video, audio and texting) and at the same time, having the ability to share the same PowerPoint 
presentation, videos and a white board (place where they can draw together). This interface 
enhances the online interaction and may overcome the issues found in Edmodo. However, 
Google Plus is not a closed environment in which the teacher has full control of who is 
participating. Therefore, finding a tool that is both powerful and safe for students is not an easy 
task. 
The improvement of TI in SDG may also be possible while proposing different SDG 
methodologies. The present study developed a five-stage teaching unit (SDG introduction, 
learning about game design, playing each other?s games, games? refinement, playbook), but there 
are other SDG teaching methodologies such as the division of roles (Gim?nez, 2011) and jigsaw 
(Hastie & Casey, 2010) that may be a better fit with TI.  
The third and final conclusion taken from this study is that there were significant gender 
differences when dealing with SDG. Although this matter is not exclusively related to TI in 
116 
 
SDG, both teaching conditions reported different forms of approaching SDG. These differences 
included game design preferred, game characteristics and different levels of enjoyment. Further 
research focusing on gender differences in SDG may support teachers on how to approach each 
gender and enhance their SDG experience.  
There are many forms of TI implementation in SDG and further research is needed to 
enhance our understanding in the subject matter. The present study was able to analyze many 
different factors that influenced students? learning and participation as well as factors that require 
teachers? preparation. While considering these factors, other interventions may be drawn and 
analyzing these new interventions may deepen our current understanding.  
117 
 
 
 
 
 
References 
Almond, L. (1983). Games-making. Bulletin of Physical Education, 19(1), 32-35. 
Andr?, M. H., & Rubio, K. (2009). O jogo na escola?: um retrato das aulas de Educa??o F?sica de 
uma 5a s?rie [The game inside the school: an overview of 5th grade physical education 
classes]. Motriz, 15(2), 284-296. 
Antunes, F., Dantas, L., Bigotti, S., Tokuyochi, J., Tani, G., Brasil, F., & Andr?, M. H. (2005). 
Um retrato da pesquisa brasileira em educa??o f?sica escolar?: 1999 ? 2003 introdu??o ? 
pedagogia da educa??o f?sica escolar [A review of Brazilian research in physical education: 
1999 - 2003 introduction to the physical education pedagogy]. Motriz, 11(3), 179-184. 
Azzarito, L. (2011). Gender, the Hidden Curriculum and Physical Education Through Girls? 
Eyes. 
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. 
Bulletin of physical education, 18(1), 5-8. 
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986). The Curriculum model. Rethinking the Games Teaching (pp. 
7?10). 
Butler, J. (2006). Curriculum constructions of ability: enhancing learning through teaching 
games for understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society, 
11(3), 243-258. Taylor & Francis. 
Butler, J., & Hopper, T. (2011). Inventing net / wall games for all students. Active & Healthy, 
18(3), 5-9. 
118 
 
Butler, J., Gomm, T., Russell, E., Siess, F., & Sullivan, S. (2009). TGfU?S inventing games: 
Chaotic or controlled? Responding to pre-service teacher's concerns following inventing 
games unit using the 3-2-1 assessment tool. Moving Mountains, Banff, AB. 
Casey, A., & Hastie, P. (2011). Students and teacher responses to a unit of student-designed 
games. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 295-312.  
Casey, A., Hastie, P., & Rovegno, I. (2011). Student learning during a unit of student-designed 
games. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 16(3), 37-41. 
Castelli, D. M., & Fiorentino, L. (2008). Physical education technology playbook. Champaign, 
IL: Human Kinetics Publishers. 
Chandler, T., & Mitchell, S. (1990). Reflections on models of games education. Journal of 
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 61(8), 19-21. 
Clarke, N. (2008). A novel teaching and learning approach for physical education - an update. 
Practice Matters, 3(2), 22?26. 
Cleland, F., & Pearse, C. (1995). Critical thinking in elementary physical education: Reflections 
on a yearlong study. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 66, 31.  
Cockburn, C., & Clarke, G. (2002). ?Everybody?s looking at you!?: Girsl negotiating the 
?femininity deficit? they incur in physical education. Woemen?s Studies International 
Forum, 25(6), 651?665. 
Couturier, L. E., Chepko, S., & Coughlin, M. A. (2005). Student Voices--What Middle and High 
School Students Have to Say about Physical Education. Physical Educator, 62(4), 170?177.  
Couturier, L. E., Chepko, S., & Coughlin, M. A. (2007). Whose Gym Is It? Gendered 
Perspectives on Middle and Secondary School Physical Education. Physical Educator, 
64(3), 152?158.  
119 
 
Cox, R., & Ledingham, D. (1988). Games-making: Principles and procedures. Scottish Journal 
of Physical Education, 16(2), 14-16. 
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1996). Teaching for understanding: using games invention with 
elementary children. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(3), 33-37. 
Darido, S. C., & Rangel, I. (2005). Educa??o f?sica na escola: Implica??es para a pr?tica 
pedag?gica [Physical education in school: Implications for educational practice]. Rio de 
Janeiro, RJ: Guanabara Koogan. 
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage. 
Ennis, C. D. (1996). Students? experiences in sport-based physical education: [More than] 
apologies are necessary. Quest, 48(4), 453-456.  
Ennis, C D. (1999). Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport, 
Education and Society, 4(1), 31-49. Taylor & Francis. 
Ennis, C. (2011). Physical Education Curriculum Priorities: Evidence for Education and 
Skillfulness. Quest, 63(1), 5?18. 
Fardoun, H., Alghazzawi, D., L?pez, S., Penichet, V., & Gallud, J. (2012). Online Social 
Networks Impact in Secondary Education. International Workshop on Evidence-Based 
Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 37?45). 
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). New York: Continuum.  
Gim?nez, A. M. (2010). Los juegos deportivos de blanco m?vil?: Propuesta de categorizaci?n e 
implementaci?n desde un enfoque comprensivo, inclusivo y criativo. Nuevas tendencias en 
Educaci?n F?sica, Deporte y Recreaci?n, 18(1), 41-46. 
120 
 
Gim?nez, A. M. (2011). El proceso de la creaci?n de juegos de golpeo y fildeo mediante la 
hibridaci?n de modelos de ense?anza. Agora para la Educaci?n F?sica y el Deporte, 13(1), 
55-85. 
Gubacs, K. (2004). Project-based learning: A student-centered approach to integrating 
technology into physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education 
Recreation and Dance, 75(7), 33?37. 
Hastie, P. (2010). Student-Designed Games. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 
Hastie, P., & Andr?, M. (2012). Game Appreciation through Student Designed Games and Game 
Equipment. Internation Journal of Play, 1(2), 165?183. 
Hastie, P., & Buchanan, A. (2000). Teaching responsibility trough sport education: prospects of 
a coalition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(1), 25-35. 
Hastie, P., & Casey, A. (2010). Using jigsaw classroom to facilitate student-designed games. 
Practice Matters, (1), 15-17. 
Hastie, P., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid sport education - teaching 
games for understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education & Sport 
Pedagogy, 11(1), 1-27.  
Hastie, P., Casey, A., & Tarter, A. (2010). A case study of wikis and student-designed games in 
physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(1), 79-91.  
Hastie, P., & Pickwell, A. (1996). Take Your Partners?: A Description of a Student Social System 
in a Secondary School Dance Class. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(3), 
171?187. 
Hastie, P., & Sinelnikov, O. (2007). The Use of Web-based Portfolios in College Physical 
Education Activity Courses. Physical Educator, 64(1), 21?28. 
121 
 
Holland, C., & Muilenburg, L. (2011). Supporting Student Collaboration: Edmodo in the 
Classroom. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International 
Conference (Vol. 2011, pp. 3232?3236). 
Inan, F. A., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 
classrooms: a path model. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(2), 137?
154.  
Ince, M. L., Goodway, J. D., Ward, P., & Lee, M. (2006). Chapter 6: The Effects of Professional 
Development on Technological Competency and the Attitudes Urban Physical Education 
Teachers Have Toward Using Technology. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 
25(4), 428?440. 
Kafai, Y., Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning 
in a Digital World. Lawrence Erbaum Associates. 
Lazerte, D. K. S., & Lathrop, A. H. (2006). ?Hot Links to Cool Stuff?: Website Technology in 
the Elementary School Physical Education Classroom. Physical & Health Education 
Journal, 72(2), 14?20.  
Leenders, N. Y., Sherman, W. M., & Ward, P. (2003). College physical activity courses: why do 
students enroll, and what are their health behaviors? Research quarterly for exercise and 
sport, 74(3), 313. 
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. 
Lichtman, B. (1999). More Innovative Games. Human Kinetics. 
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 
122 
 
Lin, W., Myers, D. L., & Yanes, M. J. (2010). Creating Student-Centered Learning Experience 
through the Assistance of High-End Technology in Physical Education: A Case Study. 
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(4), 352?356.  
Mandigo, J. L., Corlett, J., & Lathrop, A. (in press). Physical education in the 21st century: To 
infinity and beyond? In E. Singleton & A. Varpalotai (Eds.). Pedagogy for the Moving 
Body. London, ON: Althouse. 
Mauldon, E., & Redfern, H. (1969). Games Teaching: A New Approach for the Primary School. 
Macdonald & Evans. Macdonald & Evans London. 
Majeric, M., Zvan, M., & Kolenc, M. (2008). An example of an e-learning community for 
lifelong learning by physical eduction teachers. Acta Universitatis Palackianae 
Olomucensis. Gymn, 38(1), 59?67.  
McTaggart, R. (1997). Participatory action research: International contexts and consequences. 
State University of New York Press. 
Millwood, R., & Terrell, I. (2005). Overview: New technology, learning and assessment in 
higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 195?204. 
Mitchell, M., Stanne, K., & Barton, G. V. (2000). Attitudes and Behaviors of Physical Educators 
Regarding Homework. Physical Educator, 57(3), 136.  
Mitchell, S. (2006). Unpacking the standards. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & 
Dance, 77(2), 1?58. 
Mohnsen, B. S. (1995). Using technology in physical education. Champaign, IL: Human 
Kinetics. 
Mohnsen, B. S. (2010). Using technology in physical education (Seventh Edition). Champaign, 
IL: Human Kinetics. 
123 
 
Morris, G., & Stiehl, J. (1989). Changing Kids? Games. Human Kinetics. 
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. ([NASPE], 2005). Physical best activity 
guide elementary level (2d ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 
Oliver, K. L., Hamzeh, M., & Mccaughtry, N. (2009). Girly girls can play games / las ni?as 
pueden jugar tambien?: Co-creating a curriculum of possibilities with fifth-grade girls. 
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28(1), 90-110. 
Papert, S. (1996). A word for learning. In Kafai, Y, & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in 
practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a digital world. (pp. 2-24). Mahwah, NJ: 
Lawrence Erlbaum. 
Pennington, T., Wilkinson, C., & Vance, J. (2004). Physical Educators Online: What is on the 
Minds of Teachersin the Trenches?. Physical Educator, 61(1), 45?56.  
Piaget, J. (1971). A Forma??o do S?mbolo na Crian?a. Imita??o, Jogo e Sonho, Imagem e 
Representa??o. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar. 
Rovegno, I, & Bandhauer, D. (1994). Child-designed games-experience changes teachers? 
conceptions. Journal of Physical Education Recreation and Dance, 65(6), 60.  
Rovegno, I., & Dolly, J. (2006). Constructivist perspectives on learning. In Kirk, D., MacDonald, 
D., & O'Sullivan, M. (2006). The Handbook of Physical Education. London; Thousand 
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.  
Rovengno, I., Skonie, R., Charpenel, T., & Sieving, J. (1995). Learning to teach critical thinking 
through child-designed games. Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 6(1), 1-6. 
Russell, W. (2007). Physical Educators? Perceptions and Attitudes toward Interactive Video 
Game Technology within the Physical Education Curriculum. Missouri JOPERD, 17, 76?
90. 
124 
 
Schell, L. A. ?Beez?. (2004). Teaching Learning Styles with Technology. JOPERD: The Journal 
of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(1), 14?18.  
Siedentop, D, Hastie, P., & der Mars, H. (2004). Complete Guide to Sport Education. Human 
Kinetics. 
Siedentop, Daryl. (1994). Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport Experiences. 
Human Kinetics. 
Smith, M. D. (1991). Utilizing the games for understanding model at the elementary school 
level. The Physical Educator, 48(4), 184-187.  
Sobral, F., Faro, A., & Edginton, C. R. (2008). Technology and physical education teacher 
preparation: a summary and prospectus for future research. Asian Journal of Exercise & 
Sports Science, 5(1), 9?15.  
Stake, R. E. (2002). Case studies. In Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research 
methods (2nd ed.) (p.448-555). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 
Tannehill, D., Romar, J.E., O'Sullivan, M. (1994). Attitudes toward physical education: Their 
impact on how physical education teachers make sense of their work. Journal of Teaching 
in Physical Education, 13, 406-420. 
Thomas, A., & Stratton, G. (2006). What we are really doing with ICT in physical education: a 
national audit of equipment, use, teacher attitudes, support, and training. British Journal of 
Educational Technology, 37(4), 617?632.  
Thornburg, R., & Hill, K. (2003). Using Internet Assessment Tools for Health and Physical 
Education Instruction. TechTrends, 48(6), 53?70.  
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (1984). Four fundamentals for planning a games 
curriculum. Bulletin of Physical Education, 20(1), 24-29. 
125 
 
Woods, M. L., Karp, G. G., Miao, H., & Perlman, D. (2008). Physical Educators? Technology 
Competencies and Usage. Physical Educator, 65(2). 
Yaman, ?. (2008). The abilities of physical education teachers in educational technologies and 
multimedia. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(2), 20?31. 
 
  
126 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix A 
Interview Guide 
  
127 
 
Interview questions 
I. Introduction 
1. Did you like the SDG unit? 
a. What did you like or dislike in particular? 
2. Was this the first time that you had a SDG in PE? 
3. What made you chose this group? 
a. Do you think you would enjoy as much with a group delegated by the teacher? 
b. Would you like to work with boys/ girls (different gender)? Why? 
II. Students-enjoyment / engagement 
In our class, we had 5 stages: 
? SDG introduction 
? Learning about game design 
? Playing each other?s games 
? Games? refinement 
? Establishing the final game 
 
(Evaluate different answers from boys and girls) 
1. Did you have a favorite moment and something that you did not like about it? 
2. Is there something in this class that you wish we would not do? (considering SDG unit) 
3. Is there something in this class that we did not do, but you wish that we did? (considering 
SDG unit) 
4. Do you consider your engagement in this class the same as in other PE classes, higher or 
lower? 
a. (If any changes) what made it differently? 
5. Did you mind having an assignment for PE? 
a. Boys x girls in Edmodo ? state questions ? like enjoyment/ participation in 
Edmodo. 
6. Did you mind to stop playing to focus on the game design? 
7. Did you work outside of PE for this class? If so, how much? 
8. What would be the major motivation for you to engage in an out-of-class assignment? 
9. Did you saw a purpose on this class?  
128 
 
10. What did you learn with it? 
III. Levels of communication 
1. How would you evaluate the communication within your group? 
a. Friendly / always introducing the opposites as well 
b. Efficient 
c. Pleasant 
d. productive 
2. How would you evaluate your communication with other group members when they gave 
feedback about your game or when you gave feedback about their? 
3. Did you like this form of communication? 
a. Discussions 
b. Edmodo 
i. Did everyone participate in Edmodo? 
ii. Did it bother you that some did not participate? 
c. Suggest another option? 
4. Do you feel that Edmodo prepared you for class in any way? 
a. Liked the videos (did you watch the videos) 
b. Something else? ? coneball slides 
5. Did you liked when I placed specific comments on your game (privacy)? 
6. Did you relate different to boys/ girls when talking about the game design 
a. Was the communication any different to you?  
i. Felt better/ worse talking to boys/ girls 
ii. Felt that listened to you more or less 
7. Did you felt embarrassed at any point to give your input about something in class/ 
Edmodo? 
IV. Game appreciation / learning ? favorite games & why 
1. We have a list of the SDG that you played which one was your favorite and tell me why? 
2. What did you learn while designing your game? 
a. How many times did you change? 
b. Did you come up with more than one game? 
c. What did you learn about the rules you introduced ? how they fit your game/idea? 
129 
 
3. What was your goal when designing your game? 
a. Novelty (New) 
b. Challenge 
c. Exploration/ intention 
d. Instant enjoyment 
e. Attention demand 
4. Did you find the games that the boys/ girls designed more/ less fun or the same? Why? 
5. Did you notice anything different in games designed by boys/ girls? 
6. When proposing new rules on your own game or others, what were you trying to do? 
a. Turn the game more strategic 
b. Make the game easier for me to play/ win 
c. Include everyone in the game 
7. If someone could not play my game, it was: 
a. My fault?  
b. Their fault?  
  
130 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix B 
Survey 
  
131 
 
Survey: Enjoyment/ Engagement CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER!!! 
 
1. How would you rate your overall enjoyment in the SDG teaching unit? (1-10 rating) 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 
 
2. Would you like to have more creating games experiences in PE classes? (1-4 rating) 
No way  probably not   most likely   yes, definitely 
 
3. Comparing to other PE lessons in general, do you consider creating games in  PE (enjoyment): 
Much worse  Worse  The same Better  Much better 
 
4. Looking at your overall experience in creating games, do you think that your engagement/ 
participation was: 
Very low  Low  Ok  High  Very high 
 
5. Comparing to other PE lessons in general, do you consider your participation in creating 
games (participation):  
Much worse  Worse  The same Better  Much better 
 
132 
 
Survey: technology involvement in everyday life - CIRCLE YOUR ANSWER!!! 
 
 
1. In my house, there are____________ computers (put the number of computers including 
desktops, laptops and tablets/ iPads) 
 
2. In my house there are ______________people living (number of people that live in your 
house) 
 
3. Do you have internet access in your house?    YES   NO 
 
4. How many hours you spend in front of your computer per day: 
a. In school: _________________________ 
b. At home:__________________________ 
 
5. Do you like computers and technology devices? 
 
No, I hate it! Not so much It?s okay Yes, I like it Yes! Of course 
 
6. Do you like to have laptops in your school? 
 
No, I hate it! Not so much It?s okay Yes, I like it Yes! Of course 
 
7. Did you like to have laptops in physical education? 
 
No, I hate it! Not so much It?s okay Yes, I like it Yes! Of course 
 
8. Did you like to use Edmodo in this class? 
 
No, I hate it! Not so much It?s okay Yes, I like it Yes! Of course 
 
9. How often did you use Edmodo for this class? 
 
Never 
logged in 
Logged in 5 
times of less 
Logged in once 
a week 
Logged in 2 to 3 
times a week 
Logged in every day 
or almost everyday 
 
10. Do you prefer to learn about new software (programs) and/ or new hardware (devices) or 
do you prefer to work with software (programs) and/ or hardware (devices) that you 
know how to work? 
 
I prefer to deal with programs and 
devices that I am already familiar 
Either way is okay I prefer new programs/ devices 
 
133 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix C 
Poster 
Leading Questions for the Non-Technology Group
134 
 
 
  
135 
 
 
136 
 
 
  
137 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix D 
Playbook Portfolio 
Leading Questions for the Non-Technology Group 
  
138 
 
Name of the game:  
 
? To play our game you will need 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
? You play the game by using________________________________________________________ 
? The goal/ end zone of our game is___________________________________________________ 
? The game must have _________ teams and each team should have ______________ players. 
In order to score in the game you must: 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
? You start the game by   
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
? You resume game play after score by 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________   
139 
 
This is how the court of our game looks like  
? (include a caption to your diagram) 
  
140 
 
In this game this is how you progress along the court: 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
In our game, you get possession of the ball by 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
Here are some important rules of our game 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
141 
 
If you do not follow the rules, there are consequences 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
This game is cool because 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
We created this game because 
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 
  
142 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix E 
Leading Questions and Playbook Portfolio for the 
Technology Integration Group 
  
143 
 
 
 
 
  
144 
 
 
 
 
  
145 
 
 
 
 
  
146 
 
 
 
 
  
147 
 
 
 
 
  
148 
 
 
 
 
  
149 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appendix F 
IRB Forms and Letters 
  
150 
 
 
151 
 
 
152 
 
 
153 
 
 
154 
 
 
  
155