## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to examine the effect of the gamified DGBL strategy on students' academic performance motivation toward flow, motivation for learning and motivation for the task. According to the variables presented in the first research question, the application of gamified DGBL led to significant differences in the academic performance of the students in the experimental group compared to those in the control group. The results of the content tests show that the mean score of the experimental group is 1.12 points higher than that of the control group, which is, statistically, significant. On the other hand, there are no differences between the two experimental groups, so the competitive component of Gamification did not affect academic performance. The use of a virtual leaderboard, badges and points did not show a different result, so we can conclude that the gamification proposal contributed to a high level of academic performance in both cases, with or without the competitive element. Some authors have already justified the positive effects of gamified DGBL on academic performance [30,31] and Gamification [39, 40, 41]. The present study covers the unknown of the use of the two combined strategies, DGBL and Gamification, thus obtaining significant values on the academic performance of the students in the experimental group. The activities based on videogames, and the dynamics enhanced with game elements, have caused the students to achieve better grades. The second research question addressed a key factor contributing to student learning, motivation. The educational intervention using digital games showed that 90% of the students who played the games showed medium and high motivation levels. In particular, motivation to learn received the highest scores (4.03), which could be influenced by the elements and dynamics of the games. Followed by motivation for the task (4.02), where the games proposed during the experience were rated very positively, and flow (4.01), reflecting that the design and content of the gamified activities were appropriate and fun for the students. There were no significant differences within the experimental subgroups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Competitive Group** & **Individual Group** & **Total** & **Example of a Student’s Comment** \\
**Subcategory** & **5** & **13** & **18 (32\%)** & \\
**Task motivation** & 2 & 7 & & _“To check if there were any new activities.”_ \\
**Innovation** & 0 & 3 & & _“To see the diagrams of the activities.”_ \\
**Visual design** & **0** & **3** & & _“To discover the secret rooms of the video game.”_ \\
**Interactivity** & **3** & **3** & & _video game.”_ \\
**Motivation to learn** & **11** & **15** & **26 (47\%)** & \\
**Intrinsic motivation** & 7 & 10 & & _“I liked to re-investigate the secrets of the role-playing video game.”_ \\
**Extrinsic motivation** & **4** & **5** & & _“To check the leaderboard and the scores of my classmates.”_ \\
**Flow** & **8** & **3** & **11 (21\%)** & \\
**Fun** & **6** & **2** & & _“To play the role-playing video game more than one time.”_ \\
**Adequacy of the level** & **2** & **1** & & _“To check if I had a good level of the content before the exam.”_ \\
**Total** & & & **55 (100\%)** & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Question 3. Comparison between competitive, individual gamifications and comment examples. However, it is interesting to note that they scored better on the three motivational factors when the dynamic did not include a competitive element. In the literature, and specifically in physical education, motivation and improvements related to physical performance have been investigated [80, 81, 82], but equally important are those that demonstrate effects on learning or task motivation [52, 53, 54]. In addition, the qualitative data show that more than half of the participants attribute their high scores to motivation for learning, more specifically, to intrinsic motivation [83, 84].