scholarly journals Are K–12 Learners Motivated in Physical Education? A Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Senlin Chen ◽  
Ang Chen ◽  
Xihe Zhu
2020 ◽  
Vol 112 (7) ◽  
pp. 1444-1469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Vasconcellos ◽  
Philip D. Parker ◽  
Toni Hilland ◽  
Renata Cinelli ◽  
Katherine B. Owen ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guadalupe Guzman ◽  
Taryn S. Goldberg ◽  
H. Lee Swanson

Author(s):  
José Miguel Merino-Armero ◽  
José Antonio González-Calero ◽  
Ramón Cózar-Gutiérrez

Author(s):  
Jihoon Kim ◽  
Darla M. Castelli

Background: Gamified reward systems, such as providing digital badges earned for specific accomplishments, are related to student engagement in educational settings. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analytic review to quantify the effects of gamified interventions on student behavioral change. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using the following databases: The Academic Search Complete, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Education Source, ERIC, Library Information Science & Technology Abstracts, and PsycINFO. Inclusion in the review required: (a) peer-reviewed conducted between 2010 and 2019, (b) experimental controlled design, (c) gamification elements, and (d) educational setting. Results: Using a random-effects model, a statistically significant (Cohen’s d (ES) = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.33, 0.62) gamification effect was evidenced by moderate and positive grand effects sizes (ES). Gamification effects were higher with adults in higher education (ES = 0.95) than K-12 students (ES = 0.92). Brief interventions delivered in days or less than 1 week were significantly more effective (ES = 1.57) than interventions lasting up to 20 weeks (ES = 0.30). Interventions incorporating gamification elements across years (ES = −0.20) was adversely associated with behavioral change. Conclusions: Findings suggest that short-term over longer-term gamified interventions might be a promising way to initiate changes in learner’s behaviors and improve learning outcome.


2007 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shudong Wang ◽  
Hong Jiao ◽  
Michael J. Young ◽  
Thomas Brooks ◽  
John Olson

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-664
Author(s):  
Jung-Hwan Oh ◽  
Jae-Ho Park ◽  
Sung-Woo Cho ◽  
Sok Park

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 2796
Author(s):  
Frederick L. Hitti ◽  
Andrew I. Yang ◽  
Mario A. Cristancho ◽  
Gordon H. Baltuch

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a leading cause of disability and a significant cause of mortality worldwide. Approximately 30–40% of patients fail to achieve clinical remission with available pharmacological treatments, a clinical course termed treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Numerous studies have investigated deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a therapy for TRD. We performed a meta-analysis to determine efficacy and a meta-regression to compare stimulation targets. We identified and screened 1397 studies. We included 125 citations in the qualitative review and considered 26 for quantitative analysis. Only blinded studies that compared active DBS to sham stimulation (k = 12) were included in the meta-analysis. The random-effects model supported the efficacy of DBS for TRD (standardized mean difference = −0.75, <0 favors active stimulation; p = 0.0001). The meta-regression did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between stimulation targets (p = 0.45). While enthusiasm for DBS treatment of TRD has been tempered by recent randomized trials, this meta-analysis reveals a significant effect of DBS for the treatment of TRD. Additionally, the majority of trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of DBS for this indication. Further trials are required to determine the optimal stimulation parameters and patient populations for which DBS would be effective. Particular attention to factors including electrode placement technique, patient selection, and long-term follow-up is essential for future trial design.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document