## 3 Results
### Qualitative Results  
The content analysis of the qualitative data shows the following results for each of the questions:  
* Question 1--After completing gamified digital games, do you think it is motivating that the teacher applies this methodology on the virtual platform? Why? Out of the 38 students of the experimental group, 36 stated positively that the gamified digital games had an impact on their motivation, e.g., \"Yes, in this way, the more theoretical content is worked on in a fun way and not in the traditional way as it is taught in the classroom. On the other hand, the fact of being able to play the games gives the student the possibility to self-manage the time\" (student 12); \"Yes, because it can motivate students to learn more about the subject, consult contents or other aspects related to it\" (student 2). In contrast, we found a response that rejects the use of technology for this type of dynamics: \" No. I suppose that the significance lies in the activity, not in the platform ( as it \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Control Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group comparison**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **Range** & _M (SD)_ & _M (SD)_ & _t (df)_ & \(p\) \\ \hline Roles and subroles academic performance & 0–5 & 3.47 (1.10) & 3.00 (1.04) & 2.294 (124) & 0.023 \\ Motor communication & 0–5 & 3.98 (1.08) & 3.32 (1.16) & 2.965 (124) & 0.004 \\ academic performance & 0–10 & 7.44 (1.38) & 6.32 (1.53) & 3.898 (124) & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(M\) = mean, _SD_ = standard deviation; _t (df)_ = _t_-test (freedom degrees); \(p\) = significance.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison between experimental and control groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Competitive Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Individual Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Group Comparison**} \\ \cline{3-6}  & **Range** & _M (SD)_ & _M (SD)_ & _t (df)_ & \(p\) \\ \hline Roles and subroles & 0–5 & 3.85 (1.06) & 3.15 (1.05) & 2.032 (36) & 0.050 \\ academic performance & 0–5 & 3.84 (1.07) & 4.08 (1.11) & \(-\)0.688 (36) & 0.496 \\
**Total academic performance** & **0–10** & **7.69 (1.44)** & **7.24 (1.34)** & **1.005 (36)** & **0.322** \\ Roles and subroles gamification scores & 0–500 & 426.65 (48.56) & 404.57 (51.34) & 1.350 (36) & 0.185 \\ Motor communication & 0–500 & 433.71 (51.14) & 431.48 (37.07) & 0.156 (36) & 0.877 \\
**Total gamification scores** & **0–1000** & **860.35 (88.60)** & **836.05 (75.78)** & **0.912 (36)** & **0.368** \\ Task motivation & 1–5 & 3.97 (0.59) & 4.10 (0.56) & \(-\)0.693 (36) & 0.493 \\ Motivation to learn & 1–5 & 4.00 (0.56) & 4.06 (0.41) & \(-\)0.404 (36) & 0.689 \\ Flow & 1–5 & 3.99 (0.49) & 4.03 (0.36) & \(-\)0.284 (36) & 0.778 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(M\) = mean; _SD_ = standard deviation; _t (df)_ = _t_-test (freedom degrees); \(p\) = significance.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison between competitive and individual Gamification. could also have been done face-to-face without the use of technology).\" (student 23). Table 4 shows the number and percentage of coded responses obtained by group and in total. Question 2--To make the activities more motivating, what do you think could be added? The comments obtained in this question have been coded into responses referring to the improvement of the dynamics/mechanics of the game, e.g., \"Possibly direct interactivity between participants\" (student 4) or \"Less chance of attempts and doing it in class in teams\" (student 29). Additionally, there were responses that refer to improvements in the games, e.g., \"Seeking to associate this activity with the current tastes of the group, such as the use of video games\" (student 9). Table 5 shows the number and percentage of responses coded by categories and subcategories of the second question. Question 3--Did the gamified digital games motivate you to log into the course platform more frequently?