How do students learn to move? A systematic review of collaborative and game-based pedagogies in physical education

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.

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.

Seventeen quasi-experimental studies were included, involving preschool (n = 1), primary (n = 4), secondary (n = 4), and university/PETE populations (n = 8). Pedagogical models included cooperative learning, peer teaching, Team Games Tournament, exergame-based learning, and structured game-based movement models (n = 3 each), while tactical or games-based approaches were less frequently examined (n = 2). Sport-specific technical skills were the most commonly assessed outcomes (35.3%), followed by fundamental movement skills, motor competence, game performance, and psychosocial/fitness-related outcomes. Motor or game-performance improvements were reported in 41.2% of studies, mixed effects in 29.4%, and no superior motor learning in 29.4%, with no negative outcomes reported.

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.

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261306696.