Stakeholder Needs Analysis for Designing a Gamified Quest-Based Physical Education Course to Enhance Physical Fitness among Grade 11 Students
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Insufficient physical activity among Thai adolescents remains a significant challenge, while physical education instruction is often perceived as repetitive and lacking motivation. This study aimed to understand the experiences and needs of stakeholders to define design requirements for gamified missions in a physical education course intended to enhance the physical fitness of Grade 11 students. The study was conducted across six private schools under the Office of the Private Education Commission in Kalasin Province, applying the Empathize stage of the Design Thinking process. The stakeholder group consisted of 84 Grade 11 students, six physical education teachers, and six school administrators. Research instruments included a stakeholder analysis form and semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
The results indicated that students expressed a high level of excitement and enjoyment toward the new learning process (93.33%) and enthusiasm for participation (86.67%). However, they reflected on obstacles related to weather conditions and insufficient equipment (72.22%). Regarding needs assessment, students prioritized equipment and technology the highest (65.56%), followed by activity formats emphasizing fun and competition (60.00%). Simultaneously, teachers and administrators reflected a critical need for equipment and innovation (100%), as well as policy support from administrators (100%). These findings led to the definition of design requirements for gamified missions, which include: missions with clear goals and immediate feedback, safe and creative competition, the use of technology to reflect progress, and support systems for teachers and schools to ensure the practical implementation of the innovation. This Phase 1 Educational Design Research fills the academic gap by integrating the concept of gamification with Self-Determination Theory within a resource-constrained context. The findings can be concretely applied as policy recommendations for educational institutions in allocating resources and designing innovative physical education courses.
Article Details
References
ไปรมา อิศรเสนา ณ อยุธยา และ ชูจิต ตรีรัตนพันธ์. (2560). การคิดเชิงออกแบบ: เรียนรู้ด้วยการลงมือทำ. ศูนย์สร้างสรรค์งานออกแบบ (TCDC).
สุวิมล ว่องวาณิช. (2566). การวิจัยประเมินความต้องการจำเป็น (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 4). สำนักพิมพ์แห่งจุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
ศิริโฉม หนูเปีย และ ก้องเกียรติ เชยชม. (2568). สภาพปัญหาการจัดการเรียนรู้วิชาพลศึกษาของครูพลศึกษาสังกัดสำนักงานเขตพื้นที่การศึกษาประถมศึกษาภูเก็ต. วารสารวิชาการมหาวิทยาลัยการกีฬาแห่งชาติ, 17(1), 227–289.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
Busschaert, C., De Meester, F., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Cardon, G., Tercedor, P., & Haerens, L. (2016). Integrating stakeholders’ perspectives in the design of physical activity interventions. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, Article 114.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: Defining “gamification” [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference, Tampere, Finland.
Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification [Paper presentation]. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, HI, United States.
Kapp, K. M. (2012). The gamification of learning and instruction: Game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Pfeiffer.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.
McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2018). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 77–112.
Sal-de-Rellán, A., Hernández-Suárez, J., & Hernaiz-Sánchez, A. (2025). Gamification and motivation in adolescents: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1575104.
Snelson, C. (2022). Quest-based learning: A scoping review of the research literature. TechTrends, 66(2), 287–297.
Sotos-Martínez, C., Ferriz-Valero, A., & García-Martínez, S. (2022). The effects of gamification on the motivation and basic psychological needs of secondary school physical education students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Advance online publication.
Stanford d.school. (2010). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
UNICEF. (2024, May 8). Over 10 million children in Thailand affected by high heat [Press release].
Widyastari, D. A., Saonuam, P., Rasri, N., Pongpradit, K., & Katewongsa, P. (2022). Results from the Thailand 2022 report card on physical activity for children and youth. Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 20(4), 276–282.
World Health Organization. (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128
