SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2026
How do students learn to move? A systematic review of collaborative and game-based pedagogies in physical education.
Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Collaborative and game-based pedagogical approaches are increasingly applied in physical education (PE) to enhance engagement and support meaningful movement learning. However, empirical evidence remains fragmented across educational levels, instructional models, outcome domains, and methodological designs, limiting coherent synthesis and interpretation. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guide-lines and was registered in PROSPERO (no. CRD420261306696). It aimed to map quasiexperimental evidence on collaborative and game-based pedagogies implemented in formal Physical Education contexts, as well as to synthesize their associations with movement-related outcomes. Methods: A systematic search of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, and SPORTDiscus was conducted for studies published between January 2011 and December 2025. Seventeen peer-reviewed studies met predefined PICOS-based inclusion criteria. Eligible studies implemented collaborative or game-based instructional models within PE or Physical Education Teacher Education contexts and assessed movement-related outcomes. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis supported by structured descriptive evidence mapping. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, participant characteristics, pedagogical approaches, and outcome measures, quantitative meta-analysis was not considered appropriate. Methodological quality was appraised using an adapted Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Results: Seventeen quasi-experimental studies were included, involving preschool ( Discussion: Collaborative and game-based pedagogies appear pedagogically viable in PE, particularly when instructional design aligns with targeted movement outcomes. However, heterogeneity in study design, outcome measurement, and participant age limits comparative inference. Future research should prioritise adolescent populations, longitudinal designs, and ecologically valid movement assessments. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261306696.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.