2.1. Research Design

This study adopted a Research and Development (R&D) approach, as outlined by (Borg & Gall, 1989), guided by the ADDIE model, which consists of five sequential stages: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (Branch, 2010). This framework was chosen to ensure a systematic and iterative process of game design, validation, and evaluation, aligning with contemporary standards for instructional innovation research. The process is visually summarized in Figure 1, which outlines the sequential stages and their application in the development of the movement literacy game.

Figure 1. -  The ADDIE framework applied in game-based movement literacy design.

In the analysis stage, learning needs were identified through classroom observations, curriculum analysis, and a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) involving ten junior high school arts teachers from the MGMP Seni Budaya network in Jakarta. The FGD aimed to establish a shared understanding of the importance of thinking skills, emphasizing the integration of cognitive and psychomotor domains in adolescent learners.

The design stage focused on developing the conceptual framework of the movement literacy game. Labanotation, a symbolic system for recording human movement, was adapted into simplified geometric symbols suitable for junior high school learners. The game was structured into progressive levels of complexity, and a scoring system was embedded to capture indicators of analytical, creative, and reflective thinking.

During the development stage, the prototype was created through collaboration among experts in dance pedagogy, instructional design, software development, and psychometrics. Expert validation was conducted through FGDs, where feedback on pedagogical structure, symbolic clarity, and usability informed subsequent revisions and ensured cultural relevance within Indonesian arts education.

The implementation stage involved pilot testing with junior high school students to evaluate the usability, functionality, and educational value of the game. In each session, students selected a simplified Laban symbol, attempted the corresponding movement, received immediate feedback through motion detection, and reflected on their performance. Their performance data, behavioral responses, and reflective feedback were recorded.

Finally, in the evaluation stage, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were employed to assess the effectiveness of the game in fostering movement literacy and higher-order thinking. Quantitative data were derived from gameplay scores, while qualitative data were obtained from classroom observations and expert feedback. The triangulation of these findings provided a comprehensive understanding of the game’s pedagogical impact and guided further refinement.

2.2. Participants

The participants in this study consisted of two main groups. First, a small-scale test was conducted with six undergraduate students from Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM). Their role was to provide qualitative feedback through interviews and questionnaires regarding the usability of the game, the readability of the movement symbols, and the appropriateness of the procedures. This stage was essential for refining the model prior to large-scale implementation.

Second, the large-scale test involved 79 junior high school students (16 boys and 63 girls) aged 12 to 15 years, drawn from several schools in Jakarta and Serang-Banten. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, focusing on students enrolled in Seni Budaya (arts education) classes. Most students had limited prior dance experience, participating mainly through formal arts education classes rather than extracurricular or professional training. The game sessions were conducted in two meetings, each lasting approximately 60 minutes, allowing sufficient time for orientation, practice, and reflection. Prior to gameplay, all students received a brief orientation session introducing the concept of movement literacy and the simplified Laban notation symbols used in the game.

In addition to student participants, ten arts teachers from the MGMP Seni Budaya network in Jakarta were involved during the needs analysis stage. Each region was represented by two teachers, resulting in a diverse group with teaching experience ranging from 5 to 10 years. These teachers, drawn from schools in Jakarta and Banten, contributed perspectives grounded in local arts education practices. They served as collaborators in the FGD, helping to establish a shared understanding of the importance of thinking skills and providing insights into the integration of cognitive and psychomotor domains in junior high school education. This combination of student participants, pilot testers, and teacher collaborators ensured that the study reflected both learner perspectives and pedagogical expertise, thereby strengthening the validity of the research design.

2.3. Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute for Research and Community Services, State University of Jakarta, with approval number 30/UN39.14/PT.01.05/1/2026, dated January 13, 2026. All research procedures were conducted in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki Declaration and applicable research ethics guidelines. All participants were informed about the purpose and procedures of the study and voluntarily agreed to participate. Participant confidentiality was maintained throughout the research process.

2.4. Game Design

The movement literacy game was developed to foster higher-order thinking skills through three main features: Learning Movement Symbols, Movement Practice, and Movement Evaluation. These features are presented in Figure 2 (left), illustrating the game’s interface and highlights the structured design of the learning process.

Figure 2. -  Movement literacy game interface.

In the learning phase, students were introduced to simplified Laban notation. The symbols were organized into three levels of complexity, each distinguished by color coding. Brown symbols represent basic movements such as stepping forward, backward, sideways, or remaining stationary, as shown in Figure 2 (center). Green symbols indicate medium-level movements that require simultaneous coordination of hand and foot gestures. Blue symbols represent advanced movements, incorporating tiptoe footwork and upward or diagonal arm gestures that demand greater balance and expressive control. Tutorials are provided to help students understand the meaning of each symbol before attempting independent execution.

The symbols were further arranged into a Practice Chart, displayed in Figure 2 (right). This chart is read sequentially from bottom (1) to top (8), functioning as a “movement score” that guides students through ordered phrases across different body parts. Some practice tasks also take the form of visual pattern exercises with symmetrical arrangements, challenging students to recognize spatial structures and perform them step by step. These exercises integrate spatial reasoning with embodied performance, reinforcing both cognitive and motor engagement.

Each game session lasts approximately 60 minutes and follows a structured sequence. Students began with a short orientation, continued with symbol learning and practice, and concluded with evaluation. During the evaluation phase, the system employs motion detection technology (Mediapipe/OpenCV) to assess the alignment between students’ movements and the symbols. Scores are generated automatically for both individual movements and overall performance. Afterward, students are asked to reflect on their strategies and reasoning, articulating how they interpreted and adjusted their movements to match the symbolic cues.

The scoring mechanism in this game consists of two types. First, a knowledge score in the symbol learning phase, ranging from 20 to 100 based on the accuracy of students’ understanding of the symbols. Second, a performance score in the movement evaluation phase, which is automatically generated based on the alignment of body position, direction, and timing with the displayed symbols. Performance scores are assigned for each movement and then averaged into an overall score. The practice phase serves as training without direct assessment but acts as an important bridge between symbol comprehension and movement performance.

The game design fosters three dimensions of higher-order thinking. Analytical thinking is stimulated through accurate interpretation of symbols. Creative thinking emerges through variation and improvisation during practice. Reflective thinking is developed through students’ ability to explain their reasoning and strategies. These dimensions align with the revised taxonomy of cognitive processes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), ensuring that the game not only assesses knowledge and performance but also advances movement literacy as a holistic integration of cognitive and psychomotor domains.

2.5. Data Collection

Data collection was carried out using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Qualitative data were obtained from expert validation involving a cultural arts teacher, an information technology specialist, and an expert in instruments and measurement. The experts provided feedback on conceptual and operational alignment, clarity of the practice materials, and the accuracy of the scoring system. Expert validation and teacher collaboration were conducted not only to refine the scoring system and procedures but also to ensure that the simplified Laban symbols were culturally appropriate and pedagogically relevant for Indonesian students. Additional qualitative data were gathered through a small-scale test with six UiTM students, who contributed feedback via interviews and questionnaires regarding their experience with the game, the readability of the symbols, and the appropriateness of the procedures. Teacher observations during implementation further enriched the qualitative data, documenting student engagement, movement accuracy, and reflective ability in explaining the reasoning behind their actions.

Quantitative data were obtained through a large-scale test with 79 students (see Participants subsection), 45 students were able to complete the exercises up to practice chart level 6. Knowledge scores from the Learning Movement Symbols feature (range 20–100) and performance scores from the Movement Evaluation feature, generated automatically through motion detection technology (Mediapipe/OpenCV), were collected. These data were analyzed using regression methods to examine the relationship between students’ understanding of symbols and their movement performance.

2.6. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using regression methods to examine the relationship between students’ knowledge scores and their movement performance scores. Descriptive statistics were also employed to summarize the distribution of scores and to provide an overview of student achievement across the sample.

Qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Expert feedback, student interviews, questionnaires, and teacher observations were reviewed to identify recurring patterns related to usability, clarity of movement symbols, and student engagement. Thematic coding allowed the researchers to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the game design and its implementation.

3.1. Qualitative Findings

3.2. Quantitative Results

Quantitative analysis was conducted on 45 students who successfully completed the exercises up to practice chart level 6 in the movement evaluation feature. The study employed two main variables: the Laban notation knowledge test (V2) and the thinking skills test through movement literacy (V3). V2 scores were obtained from the movement literacy symbol learning feature, which includes a knowledge assessment test, while V3 scores were generated from the movement evaluation feature with an automatic scoring system based on accuracy, consistency, and completeness of movements according to the displayed symbols.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the two research variables. In general, the average score of Laban notation knowledge (V2) was 69.11 with a standard deviation of 14.27, indicating that students’ cognitive ability was relatively moderate and fairly evenly distributed. In contrast, thinking skills through movement literacy (V3) had an average score of 35.71 with a standard deviation of 23.33, suggesting a higher level of variation in practical movement ability among students.

To examine the relationship between Laban notation knowledge and thinking skills through movement literacy, a Pearson correlation test was conducted (Table 2). The analysis yielded a correlation coefficient of r = –0.096 with a significance level of p = 0.264. This value indicates that the relationship between the two variables is very weak and not statistically significant.

A simple linear regression analysis was conducted to test the contribution of Laban notation knowledge to thinking skills through movement literacy. The results showed an R² value of 0.009, meaning that Laban notation knowledge explained only 0.9% of the variation in thinking skills through movement. The model significance test yielded p = 0.529, indicating that the regression model was not significant (Table 3).

These results reinforce that symbolic knowledge cannot be positioned as a sole predictor in developing thinking skills through movement literacy, particularly in the context of digital game-based learning.

4.1. Students’ Experiences in Movement Literacy

During the trial phase, many students stopped at levels 5–6 when simultaneous coordination of hands and feet was required. This situation reveals that even simple symbols can become challenging when the body negotiates between visual abstraction and motor limitations. Such moments are not merely technical obstacles but lived experiences that show how body and mind interact in learning. As Tenison et al. (2016) note, the transition from the cognitive to the associative phase in motor learning is often marked by interruptions that open space for reflection.

4.2. Symbols as Bridges of Meaning

Teachers highlighted the fast tempo and small size of the symbols. For students, symbols are not just visual signs but gateways into meaningful movement experiences. When symbols are difficult to recognize, the meaning of movement becomes blurred, and bodily reflection is hindered. Castro-Alonso et al. (2024) emphasize that embodied learning requires the integration of visual representation, bodily experience, and environmental context. In this practice, the movement literacy game functions as a bridge: students learn to read their own bodies through symbols, and from this emerges new awareness of movement.

4.3. Technology as Part of the Learning Experience

Limitations in RAM, internet connectivity, and jump detection meant that some movements were not properly recorded. When the system failed to recognize gestures, students experienced disruptions in their learning flow. Luo et al. (2023) show that integrating skeleton data with Labanotation requires precision to ensure continuity of movement experience. In this context, technology is not merely a tool but part of the learning experience itself, shaping how students interpret and reflect on their movements.

4.4. Cultural Horizons

Labanotation originated in Western traditions, and its application in Indonesia raises questions about how universal symbols interact with local nuances. Davis et al. (2023) caution that universal frameworks risk erasing cultural meanings. Yet, the experiences of junior high school students in Jakarta suggest that symbols can serve as bridges for understanding movement, even as cultural meanings must be preserved. Ma & Chen (2025) argue that Labanotation-based curricula must always be contextualized to remain culturally relevant. Similarly, higher education in China has integrated scaffolding theory and symbolic interaction theory to examine their impact on cognitive growth and social interaction (Liang et al., 2025). Thus, the game is best understood as a flexible diagnostic medium rather than a complete representation of cultural expression.

4.5. Limitations and Future Directions

The weak correlation between symbolic knowledge and movement-based thinking skills indicates that understanding symbols does not automatically transform into embodied reflection. Faella et al. (2025) affirm that embodied learning requires the integration of motivation, context, and bodily experience. He (2024) also shows that game designs based on embodied cognition are most effective when they emphasize exploration and engagement rather than scores alone. Future research should expand trials across schools, develop more precise motion detection algorithms, and position the game as a space where body, symbol, and culture interact to shape thinking skills.