Online teaching and learning in physical education teacher education: A mixed studies review of literature

Abstract

Delivering physical education teacher education (PETE) programmes through online platforms has been proposed as an alternative (or complementary) to traditional in-person modes of learning. Focusing on empirical studies, this mixed studies review explores the use of online teaching and learning in PETE and synthesises literature published between 2010 and 2020. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A data-based convergent synthesis design is adopted. Pedagogies and technologies commonly used are examined. Studies using a blended approach to teaching and learning provide more detail about the pedagogies and technologies used than those studies using a fully online model. There is scant information regarding the principles underpinning the development and delivery of online PETE courses. We provide extensive insights into the key learning from the experiences of faculty and pre-service teachers who engage with online teaching and learning in PETE. Our findings suggest online instruction may suit particular students and facilitate a shift to independent learning. Teaching and learning in the online space can impact the development of relationships, both positively and negatively. Furthermore, constructivist pedagogies should be prioritised, alongside support for students and teacher educators to develop online learning competence. Our review highlights considerations for teacher educators engaging in online teaching and learning in PETE and implications for future research.

Keywords

Physical education teacher education online learning technology blended learning

Introduction

The effect of well applied technology will be to improve instruction and alter the function of teachers in their relations to students and to each other. The role of technology in education is now being invented (Kurland, 1968: 13).

The debate about the role of technology to enhance teaching and learning in education and teacher education seems to be an evolving topic of discussion among the teacher education and educational community over many years. The ‘marriage’ between education and technology is still unfolding (Fawns, 2022). Digital education formats became the central form of interaction between teachers and students during the Covid-19 pandemic (Williamson et al., 2020) and continue shaping the digital transformation of higher education (Bygstad et al., 2022). The number of research studies exploring online teaching and learning experiences has grown rapidly (Carrillo and Flores, 2020; Pokhrel and Chhetri, 2021). Studies report lessons learned from online teaching and learning during and post-pandemic (Hofer et al., 2021), but also describe the impact of online pedagogies on students’ achievement (Gopal et al., 2021) and examine teachers’ digital competencies (König et al., 2020; Sailer et al., 2021).

In physical education teacher education (PETE), while there are strong and theoretically based proposals to educate PETE graduates to effectively use technology to enhance teaching and learning (Gawrisch et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2020), there is a lack of shared knowledge on the pedagogical and technological practices of contributing to online teaching and learning in PETE. To this end, we suggest that while aiming to explore the ways that PETE programmes are preparing the next generation of physical education teachers to teach in the current school and educational context, it would also be paramount to explore principles underpinning the development and teaching and learning of PETE modules and/or PETE programmes through online platforms. In other words, in the present review, we are interested in online teaching and learning approaches or pedagogies in PETE regardless of the mode of delivery of the programme in which they are embedded (either fully online or blended). Furthermore, it is prudent to also examine the key learning from the experiences of faculty and pre-service teachers (PSTs) who engage with some format of online teaching and learning in PETE. Reviewing the key research priorities in online teaching and learning in PETE will help PETE researchers to understand the challenges, relevant patterns, and significant trends within the literature and the effective articulation of their nature and importance to others (Alexander, 2020).

Early years of online teaching and learning in PETE

More than two decades ago, Silverman (1997) anticipated the use of ‘virtual instruction on the World Wide Web’ (p. 311), and the use of ‘telecommunications’ for finding and posting information, for getting help from others, and for teacher educators’ interaction with PSTs on school placement throughout email. Nevertheless, no mention of online teaching and learning was evidenced in the literature. When describing the potential problems of using technology in physical education, Silverman (1997) pointed to teacher educators as ‘the biggest hurdle to use technology in all areas of educational practice’ (p. 312) due to their lack of digital skills. The author suggested that teacher educators should be upskilled for a meaningful integration both in teacher education and physical education.

Pierre (1998) published perhaps the first paper reflecting specifically on ‘distance learning’ in PETE. The author shared two pedagogical cases where PETE programmes delivered their modules over the internet using ‘home page web sites’ (p. 352) as a base for accessing class materials, to submit assignments, access bulletin boards, chat rooms, and link to related websites (known today as Virtual Learning Environments; VLEs). One of the targeted programmes also used ‘two-way’ desktop video conferencing for group communication and interaction, and for access to guest speakers. Similarly, Goggin et al. (1997) described the use of ‘listservs’ as an instructional technology to conduct online discussions via email. The authors also described the use of a ‘multimedia interactive tutorial’ (p. 284). Students could access each unit, learn the content, take quizzes to test their knowledge, and did not have to attend a lecture to obtain the necessary information. Interestingly, it was the advent of ‘desktop video conferencing’ as a tool for distance education. It allowed teachers and students to interact from their own desks and communicate using a personal computer to call other participants via the internet. Goggin et al. (1997) pictured an optimistic view of distance learning and the use of technology in PETE. However, the literature highlights other critical perspectives. Rintala (1998), drawing on sociology and philosophy of technology, questioned the role of technology to enhance (or detract) from the purposes of higher education, and raised some issues related to accessibility, considering factors such as social class and gender inequality in accessing digital technology for learning and its technical prerequisites (e.g. computers and internet at home). It is worth noting that the use of digital technologies and the critical issues presented in the early years of research on online teaching and learning in PETE are still evolving and being discussed in current research (Wallace et al., 2022).

Recent perspectives on online teaching and learning in PETE

Luguetti et al. (2021: 18) contend that ‘while the COVID-19 pandemic will hopefully resolve, online teaching will stay, and thus, scholars in our field should continue exploring the (im)possibilities of translating HPETE [Health and Physical Education Teacher Education] and HPE [Health and Physical Education] pedagogies online’. The experiential nature of teaching and learning in PETE (and associated pedagogies) is often seen as compromised in the shift to the online space (O'Brien et al., 2020). Teacher educators note the challenges of ‘teaching students without faces’ (p. 10) and that attempts to foster an online eLearning community may be hampered by teacher educators’ unfamiliarity with digital technology (Luguetti et al., 2021). These issues, alongside other issues arising from the shift to online learning, may be seen as a ‘grand challenge’ (MacPhail and Lawson, 2020). Indeed O'Brien et al. (2020) label the online space for PETE as ‘unchartered territories’. There are learnings to be obtained from the wider teacher education and higher education literature – for example, the importance of instructional design, teacher online presence, and self-regulation strategies to maximise students’ engagement; the importance of online tools and VLEs to increase the flexibility around time and space and facilitate online formative assessment; and the importance of creating online learning communities to promote collaborative and intercultural learning (Baleni, 2015; Czerkawski and Lyman, 2016; Kumi-Yeboah, 2018; Roberston and Barber, 2017). However, such is the nature of physical education that unique challenges are often presented. The main ones are related to physical education (and PETE) relying on rich experiential learning (Thorburn, 2007) where students learn in, through and about movement (Arnold, 1979), and transformative teaching and learning practices (Quennerstedt, 2019). As Lawson (2018) also suggested physical education is about promoting social integration and positive identities by embracing diversity, it is culturally responsive and aims for positive youth development knowledge implemented as caring oriented. Finally, it also involves extended learning, service learning and models-based practice (Casey and Kirk, 2021). A robust synthesis of the research literature in this area is urgently warranted, to explore the potential of online teaching and learning in PETE in addressing the described uniqueness. To this end, the purpose of this review was to explore this ‘uncharted territory’ of online teaching and learning in PETE and examine the nature and range of research activity in this area. MacPhail and Lawson (2020) comment, ‘It really is timely for us to rethink, reconceptualise and consider alternative approaches to the (uncertain) future of effective teacher education’ (p. 56). For this to occur, we need to answer the following research questions that guide our exploration:

What pedagogies and technologies are being used for online teaching and learning in PETE?.

What are the principles underpinning the development and delivery of PETE modules and programmes through online means?.

What are the key learnings from the experiences of faculty and PSTs who engage with online teaching and learning in PETE?.

What are the key research priorities in online teaching and learning in PETE?.

We embarked on this review during the rapid switch to online teaching and learning due to public health restrictions imposed by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our intent is that this work will provide PETE colleagues with a robust synthesis of existing literature in order to support, guide and develop both research and practice.

Methods

Study design

We conducted a mixed studies review. In this type of review, the author team identifies, selects, appraises, and synthesises qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies (Pluye and Hong, 2014). Therefore, a mixed studies review allows for the inclusion of a range of study designs: in the present paper studies using qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods were eligible for inclusion. This approach was used in order to combine the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods (Pluye and Hong, 2014). In conducting and reporting the review we followed the eight stages outlined by Pluye et al. (2016): (a) formulating a review question, (b) defining eligibility criteria, (c) defining the scope of sources of information, (d) identifying potentially relevant studies, (e) selecting relevant studies, (f) appraising the quality of studies, (g) extracting data, and (h) synthesising included studies. We adopted a data-based convergent synthesis design. With this approach, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data occurs at the level of the extracted data (Pluye et al., 2016). Therefore, all included studies are analysed using the same synthesis method and results are presented together (Hong et al., 2017). For recent examples of this data synthesis approach, see Burt et al. (2021) and Valanci-Aroesty et al. (2020). Ethical approval was not required as this paper involves the collation and analysis of previously published findings.

Search strategy

A pre-planned comprehensive search strategy was employed. A specialist librarian for Education and Health Sciences was consulted when developing the search strategy, including the choice of search terms and databases. We searched the following electronic databases: Australian Education Index, Education Source, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Databases were searched for articles published in the English language between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2020. The rapid change in digital technologies over the last decade and previous research in the field (Sargent and Calderón, 2021; Singer and Alexander, 2017) prompted this decision about the timeframe. Key words included: physical education teacher education, sport pedagogy, physical education, online, blended, remote, and e-learning. The full search strategy can be viewed in the supplementary material.

Study selection

Following the removal of duplicates, we uploaded all studies that were identified from the electronic searches to the online software Rayyan (Ouzzani et al., 2016). We used a two-part study selection process. In the first stage, the titles and abstracts of studies were screened independently by two authors [EM, AC]. All studies that were considered relevant moved to the next stage. In the second stage, the full-text versions were reviewed by two authors [AM, DS]. Studies that did not meet all the inclusion criteria were excluded (see Table 1). We included studies where the method of delivering the course was mainly online, that is, instructional elements of PETE courses/modules were delivered online. Studies that reported research into courses/modules delivered fully online and studies reporting online elements of hybrid/blended courses were eligible for inclusion. Reasons for exclusion were recorded. Any disagreements between authors regarding study eligibility were resolved by consensus. Figure 1 provides an overview of the study selection process.

Figure 1.

Study selection process.

Table 1.

Eligibility criteria for included studies.

Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
Dates:	1 January 2010–31 December 2020	Before 1 January 2010
Language:	English	Languages other than English
Sample:	PSTs enrolled on a PETE programme^a Faculty teaching on a PETE programme^a	Participants not undertaking or teaching on a PETE course^a
Literature focus:	Articles where the main method or some element of delivering the course was through online platforms^b	Articles that focus on digital technologies to support face-to-face PETE, for example, technology-enhanced learning (TEL)
Publication type:	Peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters	Conference abstracts, dissertations, reviews of literature
Study design:	Empirical research studies^c	Literature reviews, opinion pieces, editorials

We define a PETE programme as a teacher education programme of study (e.g. BSc, BEd, PME, PGCE, UK School Direct) that qualifies the student to teach physical education in the school setting upon graduation.

We define online teaching and learning as education that takes place via the internet. For this review, this would include entire modules/courses that are delivered online or parts of a module/course that are delivered online. Articles that discuss courses/modules where online platforms are only used to support assignments, for example, a blog or infographic, are not included in the review. We are interested in articles where ‘instructional’ elements are delivered through online platforms.

We define empirical research studies as studies involving data (qualitative and/or quantitative). This can also include self-study and reflective pieces on implementing instructional approaches/pedagogies online.

Data charting

A data extraction form was purposively developed to record relevant data from the included studies. The form was piloted by two authors prior to use and reviewed by all authors. Extracted data included: study characteristics (type of article, study design, country, field), participant characteristics (socio-demographic information), study aim/purpose, theoretical framework, details of online delivery, and key findings. Two authors carried out data extraction [EM, DS].

Critical appraisal

We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies (Hong et al., 2018). The MMAT includes two screening questions and five criteria. Tailored criteria are applied to each study depending on the study category: qualitative research, randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies. The MMAT criteria focus on the core criteria that may hinder the validity of the findings of a study, for example, data collection methods, outcome data, and interpretation of results (Hong et al., 2019). Two authors independently carried out the appraisal process, assessing the quality of each study in line with the MMAT [AC, AM].

Data synthesis

Adopting a data-based convergent synthesis design, qualitative synthesis methods were used to analyse all the data (Pluye et al., 2016). Thus, quantitative data were converted into textual descriptions to allow integration with qualitative data (Stern et al., 2020). The results of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies were then transformed into categories and themes (Hong et al., 2017). We followed the guidance of Thomas and Harden (2008) for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research for research question three. Firstly, two authors [DS, EM] independently coded each line of text. Codes were created inductively to capture the meaning and content of each sentence (Thomas and Harden, 2008). As such, to capture such meaning, these free codes were constructed as descriptive short statements/words. These were free codes without any hierarchical structure. Secondly, we looked for similarities (and differences) between the codes in order to start grouping them. The organisation of our free codes into related areas led to the construction of ‘descriptive’ themes. This was carried out jointly by two authors through discussion [DS, EM]. Thirdly, we used the descriptive themes to generate ‘analytical’ themes. We did this by using the descriptive themes to answer our review questions. This third step represents a stage of interpretation whereby the ‘reviewers “go beyond” the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses’ (Thomas and Harden, 2008: 45). Two authors generated the analytical themes independently and then jointly discussed and refined the themes. Through this discussion themes were honed and more abstract themes were identified. A sample of the free codes, descriptive themes and the associated analytical theme is presented in Figure 2. Given the brief and factual nature of the data charted in relation to research questions one, two and four, a descriptive narrative summary is used to synthesise and present these findings (Parker et al., 2021).

Figure 2.

Sample of codes and themes generated by the data synthesis process.

Findings

Included studies

In total, 401 potentially relevant records were identified from our searches. Following the removal of duplicates, 361 studies were then screened. We identified 51 studies for full-text review, and 14 of these studies met the inclusion criteria.

The included studies were conducted in a range of countries, with half taking place in the United States, (n = 7) and the remaining in Ireland, Indonesia, Egypt, Canada, Greece, Korea, and Australia. The characteristics of included studies are summarised in Supplementary Table A. Participants in the studies were PSTs (Butts et al., 2013; Elsissy, 2013; Faucette and Nugent, 2015; Frimming et al., 2013; Giannousi et al., 2014; Jung and Gilson, 2014; Kwon and Block, 2017; McMahon and Thompson, 2014; Sato and Haegele, 2019), teacher educators (Dwiyogo, 2018; Fletcher and Bullock, 2015; O'Neil et al., 2017), or both PSTs and their teacher educators (Calderón et al., 2020; Goad and Jones, 2017).

Critical appraisal judgements are summarised in Supplementary Table C. All but one study (Jung and Gilson, 2014) fulfilled the MMAT screening criteria of sharing clear research questions and presenting data aligned to the stated research questions. In general, the included studies using qualitative designs met all the methodological quality criteria. Often randomised controlled trials and non-randomised quantitative studies did not provide enough information to allow us to make judgements about the methodological quality.

To remind the reader, the purpose of this research was to explore online teaching and learning in PETE and examine the nature and range of research activity in the area. While we acknowledge how PETE courses use digital technology to deliver parts of their courses, we do not limit this exploration to ‘digital technology in PETE’. Rather, we focus on ‘online teaching and learning in PETE’, that is, teaching and learning which operates through the medium of the internet/online space. This is stated in Table 1 in our inclusion/exclusion criteria. We now move onto outlining the findings of our included studies before delving into the analytical themes and discussion.

Principles underpinning the development and delivery of online teaching and learning in PETE

Only five studies reported the principles underpinning the development and/or delivery of their online PETE courses (Calderón et al., 2020; Faucette and Nugent, 2015; Giannousi et al., 2014; Jung and Gilson, 2014; Kwon and Block, 2017). These included design models such as the Science Learning Activities Model (Calderón et al., 2020), the 3C-model of didactical components (Giannousi et al., 2014), and Dick et al.'s (2005) instruction design model (Kwon and Block, 2017). Faucette and Nugent (2015) noted that the design of their internship was informed by constructivist learning theory, while in Jung and Gilson (2014) student-student dialogue, instead of student-instructor dialogue, was identified as a key strategy.

Pedagogies and technologies used for online teaching and learning in PETE

The included studies differed in the level of detail reported about the pedagogical approaches adopted in the online PETE environment, particularly if the studies were in the blended learning space (Butts et al., 2013; Calderón et al., 2020; Dwiyogo, 2018; Elsissy, 2013; Faucette and Nugent, 2015; Frimming et al., 2013; Giannousi et al., 2014) or the fully online space (Fletcher and Bullock, 2015; Goad and Jones, 2017; Kwon and Block, 2017; McMahon and Thompson, 2014; O’Neil et al., 2017; Sato and Haegele, 2019). The studies which were located in the blended space provided much more detail on the structure of the teaching and learning process. For example, Calderón et al. (2020) outlined an integrated blended learning block structure to the module which incorporated face-to-face lectures and tutorials, recorded lectures, and ‘live chats’ through the VLE. While the authors commented on the interactive pedagogical nature of all these teaching and learning spaces, interestingly, as the teaching and learning moved from face-to-face to online, their pedagogical approaches also moved from teacher instruction (face-to-face) to a more student-centred approach (online) which involved the teacher taking more of a facilitator role. Other studies also alluded to student-centred approaches in the online components of blended learning which encouraged synchronous (through online messengers) and asynchronous (through online discussion forums) collaboration between PSTs (Elsissy, 2013). This collaboration allowed for critical dialogue in enhancing the task at hand, for example, planning and problem-solving (Faucette and Nugent, 2015).

In the fully online space, similar to the online components of blended learning, online chats and message/discussion threads proved to be the main source of communication (Fletcher and Bullock, 2015; Kwon and Block, 2017; Sato and Haegele, 2019) but some studies also used online quizzes and self-evaluation questionnaires to assess knowledge (Frimming et al., 2013; Giannousi et al., 2014; Sato and Haegele, 2019). The professor in Goad and Jones’s (2017) study designed learning experiences based on pedagogical approaches which encouraged active learning. Furthermore, they constructed a ‘technology toolbox’ resource for their PSTs so that they could use these technologies to design online teaching and learning experiences, with the professor scaffolding the construction experience for their PSTs. Similar to the online components of blended learning, some studies used online tutorial groups to encourage PSTs to work collaboratively in peer groups (McMahon and Thompson, 2014). In terms of technologies used for online teaching and learning in PETE, the respective VLEs were used in the organisation and delivery of online PETE practices. Outside of this, O’Neil and colleagues (2017) discussed how they used iPads (Skype/FaceTime) for the operations of ‘live remote supervision’. The technology used for live remote supervision provides a ‘new paradigm’ of PETE supervision in the online space. O’Neil and colleagues’ (2017) research highlighted the benefits (e.g. the ability to hear the PSTs’ instructions through Bluetooth) and drawbacks (e.g. restricted vision of the PSTs’ practice due to the placement of the iPad, connectivity issues, and relationship building with the PST and cooperating teacher) of remote supervision of PETE school placement. O’Neil and colleagues (2017) concluded that the technologies which allowed for remote supervision and placement enabled a practical and cost-efficient ‘viable alternative to face-to-face supervision’ (p. 124) in PETE.

Key learning from the experiences of faculty and PSTs

Our analysis revealed four main analytical themes, as illustrated in Figure 3. Each theme is presented below.

Figure 3.

Graphical representation of analytical themes highlighting the experiences of teacher educators and PSTs.

Online teaching and learning may promote different types of learning

Online teaching and learning may promote independent learning for PSTs (Sato and Haegele, 2019). Being tasked to create their own online physical education units encouraged comfort in the online setting and a greater level of ownership of their own learning (Goad and Jones, 2017). The course structure allowed PSTs to self-reflect and self-evaluate (Sato and Haegele, 2019). Further, assigning student facilitators can encourage PSTs to assume ownership of online discussions (Jung and Gilson, 2014). That said, online teaching and learning may suit particular PSTs, for example, those with a preference for an independent and self-paced curriculum (Butts et al., 2013) and quiet students who feel more comfortable presenting thoughts in online courses (Sato and Haegele, 2019). While PSTs can become ‘hidden’ during online coursework, this can be viewed by some as a positive aspect in that racial and gender stereotypes could be reduced (Sato and Haegele, 2019).

A clear benefit of online teaching and learning is the greater flexibility afforded to PSTs (Butts et al., 2013; Calderón et al., 2020). PSTs valued watching recorded lectures in their own time and re-watching recordings to support the development of module assignments (Calderón et al., 2020). Online teaching and learning therefore takes into consideration the life constraints that students may encounter, with asynchronous content providing both PSTs and instructors with flexibility to find the best time for engaging (Jung and Gilson, 2014). Several studies sought to compare the effects of online and face-to-face delivery modes; however, outcomes varied greatly by study. No differences between delivery modes were seen for student perceptions of engagement (Butts et al., 2013), academic achievement (Frimming et al., 2013) and self-efficacy (Kwon and Block, 2017). However, another study reported that the hybrid approach results in greater increases in knowledge and student satisfaction (Elsissy, 2013). One study reported that PSTs have a better experience during the face-to-face mode of delivery (Frimming et al., 2013). With such variability in findings across studies, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions.

Pedagogies underpinned by constructivist learning theory should be prioritised in online teaching and learning

Pedagogical approaches underpinned by constructivist learning theory can support PSTs learning in an online teaching and learning environment (Faucette and Nugent, 2015). Scaffolding the online learning experience for PSTs proved crucial for the enhancement of student learning. Some studies alluded to the importance of the design of the VLE (Calderón et al., 2020; Frimming et al., 2013). Calderón et al. (2020) highlight how an interactive and visually appealing space, which integrates instructional elements, can improve the online learning experience for the learners. In preparing PSTs for this learning environment, some studies encouraged the establishment of online netiquette and expectations which can reduce perceived problems (Jung and Gilson, 2014). Informed by constructivist learning theory, student-centred approaches were adopted in the online space by several studies in different formats, for example, the use of student mentors (Faucette and Nugent, 2015) and student facilitators (Jung and Gilson, 2014) for peer-support and teaching, small-group activity discussions (Sato and Haegele, 2019), student debates (Calderón et al., 2020), and problem-based learning (Dwiyogo, 2018). These student-centred approaches were supported by learning tasks which were either embedded into the online activity, conducted through a flipped classroom approach (Calderón et al., 2020), or through an authentic assignment, for example, the construction of an online physical education unit (Goad and Jones, 2017). These constructivist learning approaches and instructions encouraged PSTs to take more responsibility and ownership over their learning. PSTs who experienced constructivist-learning strategies ‘felt able and eager to take on the challenge … [of] being active leaders of their own development [of] … using online delivery skills’ (Faucette and Nugent, 2015: 13). One study in particular discussed strategies in supporting students as ‘active leaders’ through the use of personalised communication methods in building a sense of community in the online space (Goad and Jones, 2017); this will be further discussed in the following theme with regards to building (or not) relationships in online teaching and learning. While we encourage the use of pedagogies underpinned by constructivist learning theory in online teaching and learning (informed by the above research studies), we emphasise the need for additional research to strengthen its use in the online space.

The (dis)embodiment of online teaching and learning can impact the development of relationships

Several studies alluded to the encouraging and discouraging influence the online environment had on the development of relationships between teacher and student, and student and student. Goad and Jones (2017) emphasise the importance of the instructor-student relationship in the online space and suggest the use of personalised communication methods for the development of interactivity between students and in building a sense of community. Butts et al. (2013) also report a significant difference in the student–instructor relationship in the online space compared to the face-to-face space whereby PSTs reported to ‘know their instructor better’ in the online environment. This was similar to Faucette and Nugent's (2015) study which reported positive interactions between the cooperating teacher and their PSTs in the online space (which also enhanced their online teaching skills). These studies were in contrast to other studies; for example, in Calderón and colleagues’ (2020) paper, teacher educators discussed how creating and sustaining relationships with PSTs in the blended learning environment was a challenge, particularly for teacher educators who never met their PSTs before. While Calderón et al. (2020) explored the blended learning space, Fletcher and Bullock's (2015) work focused on the asynchronous aspect of online teaching and learning. Through a collaborative self-study, Fletcher and Bullock (2015) discuss how the disembodiment (i.e. the lack of a meaningful connection) of teaching and learning online (in an asynchronous format) discourages relationship building between teacher educators and PSTs, and further affects the teacher educators’ responses to problems of practice. This impacted their teacher educator identity and affiliated pedagogical approaches, with participants commenting how the online space reduced their pedagogies to providing feedback. Through this reduction, an implicit power dynamic developed between teacher and PST which further retracted from their teacher education philosophy and identity. The authors critically question the disembodied nature of online teaching and learning, and how this can limit the potential of teacher education (particularly in the area of relationship building and experiential learning). O’Neil and colleagues (2017) also alluded to this in relation to remote supervision as the supervisors commented on the loss of the ‘personal touch’ associated with on-site visits. A supervisor in O’Neil and colleagues’ (2017) study captures this as they commented:

‘I think that because you are on a screen there is some sort of lack in personal touch. I don’t really know how to explain it but I feel like being able to connect with a student teacher on a personal level. Remote supervision makes it harder to do, versus if you were in person’ (O’Neil et al., 2017: 120).

With this study in mind, we can see how the disembodied nature of online teaching and learning also extends to school placement once this experience is online (remote supervision).

PSTs and teacher educators need support to develop online teaching and learning competence

Both staff and PSTs highlighted a need for training and support to develop their ability to engage successfully in an online environment. As noted by Jung and Gilson (2014), this is an ongoing process where ‘well-designed professional development opportunities need to be provided to faculty on an ongoing and regular basis to develop the knowledge and skills necessary for effective implementation of online courses’ (p. 245). Further, these development opportunities should allow course instructors to pay attention to students’ autonomy as learners (Sato and Haegele, 2019). This links with our earlier finding in relation to the prioritisation of constructivist learning approaches that encourage PSTs to take responsibility for their learning. A caveat shared by some studies was that technology itself cannot create an effective instructional environment (Jung and Gilson, 2014) and delivery of an effective course may depend upon teaching experience rather than the mode utilised (Frimming et al., 2013).

McMahon and Thompson (2014) contend that PSTs’ perceived readiness to teach health and physical education after engaging with the subject online is indicative of the capacity for online learning in education. Nonetheless, the need for ongoing support for PSTs was evident in many studies. Dwiyogo (2018) identified shortcomings in PSTs’ self-evaluated blended learning competence, in particular their perceived ability to use several types of software commonly used in online classes. There is a role for ‘students assistants, who are knowledgeable of the online course management system to help others having technical difficulties (Jung and Gilson, 2014: 245). The online environment revealed prerequisites for successful teaching and learning in the online space. For example, there is a need for support from writing centres in situations where PSTs’ writing skills are the tool that demonstrates their learning and allows for communication with classmates (Sato and Haegele, 2019). With regard to PSTs who themselves will be delivering physical education online, their readiness for this undertaking was greatly affected by their depth of content and pedagogical knowledge (Goad and Jones, 2017). This was echoed by PSTs embarking on a virtual internship/placement who felt concern about lacking skills needed to teach online (Faucette and Nugent, 2015). Thus, due attention to the triad of pedagogical, content and technological knowledge may be required for educating PSTs online and preparing them to teach physical education online.

Research priorities in online teaching and learning in PETE

Of the 14 included studies, eight explicitly identified priorities for future research in the area of online teaching and learning in PETE. Some made generic recommendations in relation to further examination of the ‘effectiveness’ of teaching and learning online, for example, using remote supervision for placement experiences (O'Neil et al., 2017). Butts et al. (2013) and Calderón et al. (2020) advocate for future research focusing on the teacher educator. This includes the level of satisfaction to use online instruction and the effort/time teachers spend on each PST (Butts et al., 2013), as well as learning trajectories of teacher educators learning about digital pedagogies (Calderón et al., 2020). Meanwhile, Frimming et al. (2013) noted the need to explore participants’ perceptions of distance education over time. There were several calls for replication studies to confirm findings and make generalisations to different students, different PETE contexts, and different subject areas (Calderón et al., 2020; Giannousi et al., 2014; Kwon and Block, 2017). Authors also made the case for more robust, experimental research designs to lend further support to their initial findings (Dwiyogo, 2018; McMahon and Thompson, 2014).

Discussion

This review of literature explores the nature and range of empirical research activity in online teaching and learning in PETE and provides a comprehensive summary for those seeking to engage with research and practice in the field. We note that only one third of the included studies described the principles underpinning the development and delivery of online PETE courses, thus making it difficult to draw conclusions regarding best practice in this important area. With respect to the pedagogies and technologies used for online teaching and learning in PETE, studies using a blended approach provided more detail about the structure of the teaching and learning process than those using a fully online model. Comprehensive insights into the experiences of faculty and PSTs were garnered from the included studies and our analysis generated three themes for discussion.

Developing the relationship between learner and teacher through the embodiment of online teaching and learning

A clear distinction is made in the literature with respect to online teaching and learning in PETE. Interestingly, the phrase ‘face-to-face’ remains consistently aligned with the ‘live’ element of blended learning, with the underlying assumption that ‘face-to-face’ results in superior experiences between the learner and teacher. However, other studies report that relationships are indeed enhanced in the online space, albeit that this is dependent on challenging ‘face-to-face’ preferences and embodying online teaching and learning. A recent literature review of online teaching and learning practices in teacher education verifies that the ability of teachers and learners to engage effectively in relationships is central to meaningful educational experiences (Carrillo and Flores, 2020). Interestingly, such embodiment is discussed more from the perspective of the teacher than the learner, appreciating that teachers are embodied in several ways when teaching online and that it is therefore possible to view the body as multiple, ‘since both the offline body and online ones come into play and relate to each other in different ways’ (Bolldén, 2016: 14). Based on the principles that are evidenced through what continues to be termed ‘face-to-face’ (i.e. increased interaction between teacher and learner, development of meaningful relationships), we would encourage the reader to render such principles as transferable to both blended and online learning. This prioritises the pedagogical skillset that can retain the principles of such a practice in all forms of learning environment and supports the need for a comprehensive and solid view of the pedagogy of online teaching and learning as well as the pedagogical possibilities associated within online tools (Carrillo and Flores, 2020).

Multiple meanings for technology

We sought to capture the range of technologies being used for online teaching and learning in PETE. More care needs to be exercised in the use of ‘technologies’ as a catch-all phrase for any practice that does not rely on traditional ‘face-to-face’ communication. Specific to this point is the reference in the literature to VLEs as a ‘technology’. While technology may be a means through which VLEs are accessed, we propose that it would be more meaningful and considered to position VLEs as organising platforms. In this way, it would be the principles of planning and preparation that would direct the effectiveness of the VLE, with access to the platform, through technology, enhancing access opportunities for all. Similar to the finding from the literature that technology itself cannot create an effective instructional environment, the effectiveness of VLEs is not dependent on PSTs gaining access but on the way in which the teacher scaffolds the learning experiences captured through accessing VLEs. Tsui and Tavares (2021) and Fawns (2022), similar to Casey et al. (2017), advocate for a complex system perspective, whereby technology and pedagogy are interconnected and interdependent elements of the classroom or learning environment as a system, alongside other elements (not just a dichotomy but an entanglement with other variables).

Developing online teaching and learning competencies

While reviewing the literature on the use of online teaching and learning in PETE serves a purpose in and of itself, it is hard to deny that the ‘proof of concept’ is to be captured in the extent to which it prepares PSTs to teach physical education online. It is this space that we suggest requires immediate attention if, as physical educator teacher educators, we are to acknowledge and accommodate the realities of delivering online physical education. This can be informed by PSTs capturing their experiences of online physical education during school placement elements of the programme and challenging the extent to which they were prepared for such realities, as well as informing specific necessary skillsets that they may not have had the opportunity to experience in their PETE programme. Indeed, we suggest there is a need for programmes to consider how best PSTs become ambassadors for online provision at programme and school level when required (Rice and Deschaine, 2020). This concern is not specific to PETE, with literature noting that despite the existing knowledge base with respect to digital competencies, it remains unclear how best to prepare PSTs with different profiles and needs in training (Howard et al., 2021; Tondeur et al., 2021). The PETE community should continue to engage in research that considers the feasibility of online platforms being a legitimate means of teaching and learning in physical education. Rice and Deschaine (2020) contend that any new action plans for online teacher preparation should focus on: (a) collaboration for new standards and certification requirements; (b) administrative support; (c) new programme designs; (d) expanded models for teacher preparation in online learning; and (e) ongoing professional learning for all. With the exception of item (d), these echo desired practice for the development of PETE programmes for traditional on-campus delivery formats.

Dyment et al. (2013), drawing on Pittaway's (2012) Engagement Framework, explored the problematic nature of understanding teacher educators’ engagement in the online teaching environment. They focused on teacher educators’ perceptions about their readiness to prepare PSTs in an online environment and shared a summary of strategies to support increased engagement for teacher educators working in an online environment that are timely almost a decade later. Dyment et al.'s (2013) recommendations extend our finding that teacher educators (and PSTs) need support to develop online learning competence by offering more philosophical considerations that (physical education) teacher educators will need to consider in a shift to online preparation of PSTs. This echoes much earlier observations by Silverman (1997) when he suggested that teacher educators should be upskilled in the use of technology.

Implications

In relation to implications arising from this review for PETE practice, we encourage teacher educators to build upon the solid pedagogical foundations and experiences in live, in-person teaching when embarking upon online teaching and learning in PETE, but avoiding pedagogical determinism where methods are emphasised over the technologies or vice-versa (Fawns, 2022). We would suggest than in order to enrich the discussion among the PETE community, we need to go beyond the dominant binaries presented in the online teaching and learning in PETE literature (e.g. face-to-face versus online or pedagogy versus technology), because online teaching and learning is situated, social, material and digital, not purely online or in-person (Fawns, 2019). Based on this perspective, when designing online teaching and learning experiences, we would suggest considering the relationship between pedagogy and technology as entangled with many other variables (e.g. purposes, values and context), and the planning/designing process as iterative and not fixed.

Next, we advise that potential pros and cons of an online or blended model are considered. This review noted several shortcomings and challenges associated with online teaching and learning in PETE; it would be prudent that these are carefully considered by faculty before current models are altered. The need for professional learning opportunities for both staff and PSTs to develop online teaching and learning competence featured strongly in our findings. Teacher educators should also consider the principles underpinning the design and development of their PETE courses and programmes. Thoughtful consideration of the theories and models which inform practices in the online teaching and learning in PETE environment is merited. Finally, as established, there appears to be no definitive differences between the experiences gleaned from ‘face-to-face’ and online teaching and learning with either working as effectively as the other, dependent on PSTs’ needs and preferences. As such, it may be prudent to consider how best ‘synchronous flexibility’ can be accommodated rather than relying on one or the other. That is, exploring the extent to which an element of choice is provided in the type of engagement and subsequent activities PSTs undertake in completing the same module/unit. This would entail PSTs enrolled on the same module/unit having the option to choose a complement of learning activities, for example, a mix of blended learning or solely reliant on online. It is therefore imperative that the learners’ perceptions of and satisfaction with various online learning activities are captured (Kwon, 2020) so that informed negotiation of learning activities can take place between the PST and teacher educator.

Limitations

This review includes studies published in English only, therefore it is possible that relevant research published in other languages has been omitted. While our search strategy was developed in consultation with an expert librarian, it is plausible that studies were not captured by our search if our choice of search terms were not featured in the article title, abstract or main text. Approximately half of the included studies were undertaken in the United States therefore we note the potentially homogenous nature of the settings of the included research. Finally, when critically appraising studies we found that many of those using quantitative methods did not provide sufficient information to judge each item. Whether this reflects issues with reporting or conduct of the studies is unknown but points to the needs for clearer reporting of future research in this area.

Conclusion

In this review we sought to explore the nature and range of empirical research activity in online teaching and learning in PETE, with a view to providing a robust synthesis of literature in order to support, guide and develop both research and practice in the field. We set out four related research questions at the outset of this work; the extent to which each could be addressed was influenced by the available studies that met our inclusion criteria. We note that studies using a blended approach to teaching and learning provided more detail about the pedagogies and technologies used than those studies using a fully online model. There was scant information regarding the principles underpinning the development and delivery of online PETE courses, and this observation suggests that authors should be cognisant of considering (and reporting on) the theories, design models and principles that inform their chosen approach. We provide extensive insights into the key learning from the experiences of faculty and PSTs who engage with online teaching and learning in PETE, as this was reported widely. In relation to key research priorities identified by the authors, further examination of the effectiveness of teaching and learning online, replication of studies to make generalisations to different contexts, and exploration of participants’ perceptions over time are suggested as important avenues of further investigation. Also pressing is the need for research that supports PETE programmes to prepare PSTs to teach physical education online. This requires an informed and agreed understanding within PETE on what quality online physical education is and the associated skills that physical education teacher educators require if they are to prepare PSTs effectively for the task.

This review collates the research conducted on practices of pedagogies and technologies contributing to online teaching and learning in PETE. As such, we have contributed to the literature by highlighting the challenges, patterns and trends, possibilities and potentialities of online teaching and learning in PETE. The significance of this research is captured in the above implications/considerations for research and practice in the online PETE space. The use of online teaching and learning in PETE to educate PSTs to teach physical education online is under-researched and warrants thoughtful and extended examination. We suggest further empirical research to be conducted in this space and encourage a sharing of such research (and associated practices) to enhance teaching and learning in online PETE. Our review highlighted important considerations for teacher educators engaging in online teaching and learning in PETE. Given the widespread shift to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic we anticipate a plethora of related research articles will be published in the coming years. We will seek to update this review in future to reflect the accumulated research into online teaching and learning in PETE and provide our field with state-of-the-art recommendations for research and practice. Meaningful and informed research is needed if the full potential of online learning in PETE is to be realised.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-epe-10.1177_1356336X231155793 - Supplemental material for Online teaching and learning in physical education teacher education: A mixed studies review of literature

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-epe-10.1177_1356336X231155793 for Online teaching and learning in physical education teacher education: A mixed studies review of literature by Elaine M Murtagh, Antonio Calderón, Dylan Scanlon and Ann MacPhail in European Physical Education Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Liz Dore, Librarian for Education and Health Sciences at the University of Limerick, for her advice on developing the search strategy.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Elaine M Murtagh

Antonio Calderón

Dylan Scanlon

Ann MacPhail

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Elaine Murtagh is a physical education teacher educator at the Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research interests include understanding and enhancing physical activity experiences for young people.

Antonio Calderón is a (physical education) teacher educator at the Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland. His research interest revolves around (digital) pedagogies for teaching and learning in teacher education.

Dylan Scanlon is a teacher educator at Deakin University, Australia. Dylan's research interests include (physical education) teacher education practices, assessment, policy, social justice and figurational sociology.

Ann MacPhail is Associate Vice President, Doctoral College at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her main areas of interest are teacher educators’ professional development, curriculum change and development and assessment.

References

Alexander

(2020) Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research 90(1): 6–23.

Arnold

(1979) Meaning in Movement, Sport, and Physical Education. London: Heinemann.

Baleni

(2015) Online formative assessment in higher education: Its pros and cons. Electronic Journal of e-Learning 13(4): 228.

Bolldén

(2016) Teachers’ embodied presence in online teaching practices. Studies in Continuing Education 38(1): 1–15.

Burt

Mayer

Paul

(2021) A systematic, mixed studies review of the outcomes of community garden participation related to food justice. Local Environment 26(1): 17–42.

Butts

Heidorn

Mosier

(2013) Comparing student engagement in online and face-to-face instruction in health and physical education teacher preparation. Journal of Education and Learning 2(2): 8–13.

Bygstad

Øvrelid

Ludvigsen

, et al. (2022) From dual digitalization to digital learning space: Exploring the digital transformation of higher education. Computers & Education 182: 104463.

Calderón

Scanlon

MacPhail

, et al. (2020) An integrated blended learning approach for physical education teacher education programmes: teacher educators’ and pre-service teachers’ experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2020.1823961.

Carrillo

Flores

(2020) COVID-19 and teacher education: A literature review of online teaching and learning practices. European Journal of Teacher Education 43(4): 466–487.

10.

Casey

Goodyear

Armour

(2017) Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society 22(2): 288–304.

11.

Casey

Kirk

(2021) Models-Based Practice in Physical Education. London: Routledge.

12.

Czerkawski

Lyman

(2016) An instructional design framework for fostering student engagement in online learning environments. TechTrends 60(6): 532–539.

13.

Dick W, Carey L, and Carey JO (2005). The Systems Design of Instruction. (6th ed). Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

14.

Dwiyogo

(2018) Developing a blended learning-based method for problem-solving in capability learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET 17(1): 51–61.

15.

Dyment

Downing

Budd

(2013) Teacher educator engagement in an online environment. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38(1): 134–149.

16.

Elsissy

ALY

(2013) Effect of hybrid learning on student’s satisfaction in faculty of physical education. Ovidius University Annals, Series Physical Education & Sport/Science, Movement & Health 13: 396–403.

17.

Faucette

Nugent

(2015) Impacts of a redesigned virtual internship program on preservice Teachers’ skills and attitudes. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education 30(2): 1–15.

18.

Fawns

(2019) Postdigital education in design and practice. Postdigital Science and Education 1(1): 132–145.

19.

Fawns

(2022) An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy—technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education. DOI: 10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7.

20.

Fletcher

Bullock

(2015) Reframing pedagogy while teaching about teaching online: A collaborative self-study. Professional Development in Education 41(4): 690–706.

21.

Frimming

Bower

Choi

(2013) Examination of a physical education personal health science course: Face-to-face classroom compared to online hybrid instruction. Physical Educator 70(4): 359–373.

22.

Gawrisch

Richards

KAR

Killian

(2020) Integrating technology in physical education teacher education: A socialization perspective. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 72(3): 260–277.

23.

Giannousi

Vernadakis

Derri

, et al. (2014) A comparison of student knowledge between traditional and blended instruction in a physical education in early childhood course. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 15(1): 99–113.

24.

Goad

Jones

(2017) Training online physical educators: A phenomenological case study. Education Research International 2017: 1–12.

25.

Goggin

Finkenberg

Morrow

(1997) Instructional technology in higher education teaching. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 49(3): 280–290.

26.

Gopal

Singh

Aggarwal

(2021) Impact of online classes on the satisfaction and performance of students during the pandemic period of COVID 19. Education and Information Technologies. 1-25.

27.

Hofer

Nistor

Scheibenzuber

(2021) Online teaching and learning in higher education: Lessons learned in crisis situations. Computers in Human Behavior 121: 106789.

28.

Hong

Pluye

Fàbregues

, et al. (2018) Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. Registration of Copyright (#1148552), Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada.

29.

Hong

Pluye

Bujold

, et al. (2017) Convergent and sequential synthesis designs: implications for conducting and reporting systematic reviews of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Systematic Reviews 6(61). DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2.

30.

Hong

Pluye

Fàbregues

, et al. (2019) Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: A modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 111: 49–59.e41.

31.

Howard

Tondeur

, et al. (2021) What to teach? Strategies for developing digital competency in preservice teacher training. Computers & Education 165: 104149.

32.

Jung

Gilson

(2014) Online threaded discussion: Benefits, issues, and strategies. Kinesiology Review 3(4): 241–246.

33.

König

Jäger-Biela

Glutsch

(2020) Adapting to online teaching during COVID-19 school closure: Teacher education and teacher competence effects among early career teachers in Germany. European Journal of Teacher Education 43(4): 608–622.

34.

Krause

O’Neil

Jones

(2020) Technology in physical education teacher education: A call to action. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 72(3): 241–259.

35.

Kumi-Yeboah

(2018) Designing a cross-cultural collaborative online learning framework for online instructors. Online Learning 22(4): 181–201.

36.

Kurland

(1968) The impact of technology on education. Educational Technology 8(20): 12–15.

37.

Kwon EH (2020) Review of online learning in physical education teacher education (PETE) program. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 20(6): 3560–3568. DOI: 10.7752/jpes.2020.06480.

38.

Kwon

Block

(2017) Implementing the adapted physical education E-learning program into physical education teacher education program. Research in Developmental Disabilities 69: 18–29.

39.

Lawson

(2018) Redesigning Physical Education: An Equity Agenda in which Every Child Matters. New York: Routledge.

40.

Luguetti

Enright

Hynes

, et al. (2021) The (im) possibilities of praxis in online health and physical education teacher education. European Physical Education Review. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X211016485.

41.

McMahon

Thompson

(2014) Health and physical education and the online tertiary environment at two universities: Preservice teachers’ perceived ‘readiness’ to teach HPE. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 39(3): 120–134.

42.

MacPhail

Lawson

(2020) School Physical Education and Teacher Education: Collaborative Redesign for the 21st Century. London: Routledge.

43.

O'Brien

Adamakis

O’ Brien

, et al. (2020) Implications for European physical education teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-institutional SWOT analysis. European Journal of Teacher Education 43(4): 503–522.

44.

O'Neil

Krause

Douglas

(2017) University supervisor perceptions of live remote supervision in physical education teacher education. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education 1(4): 113–125.

45.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

, et al. (2016) Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 5(1): 210.

46.

Parker

Patton

Gonçalves

, et al. (2021) Learning communities and physical education professional development: A scoping review. European Physical Education Review. DOI: 10.1177/1356336X211055584.

47.

Pierre

(1998) Distance learning in physical education teacher education. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 50(4): 344–356.

48.

Pittaway S (2012) Student and staff engagement: Developing an engagement framework in a Faculty of Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37(4): 37–45.

49.

Pluye

Hong

(2014) Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health 35(1): 29–45.

50.

Pluye

Hong

Vedel

(2016) Toolkit for mixed studies reviews. Available at: http://toolkit4mixedstudiesreviews.pbworks.com (accessed 21 April).

51.

Pokhrel

Chhetri

(2021) A literature review on impact of COVID-19 pandemic on teaching and learning. Higher Education for the Future 8(1): 133–141.

52.

Quennerstedt

(2019) Physical education and the art of teaching: Transformative learning and teaching in physical education and sports pedagogy. Sport, Education and Society 24(6): 611–623.

53.

Rice

Deschaine

(2020) Orienting toward teacher education for online environments for all students. The Educational Forum. 84(2): 114–125.

54.

Rintala

(1998) Computer technology in higher education: An experiment, not a solution. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 50(4): 366–378.

55.

Roberston

Barber

(2017) New directions in assessment and evaluation: Authentic assessment in fully online learning communities. Education Research 11(3): 249–262.

56.

Sailer

Murböck

Fischer

(2021) Digital learning in schools: What does it take beyond digital technology? Teaching and Teacher Education 103: 103346.

57.

Sargent

Calderón

(2021) Technology-Enhanced learning physical education? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 41(4): 689–709.

58.

Sato

Haegele

(2019) Physical education preservice Teachers’ academic and social engagement in online kinesiology course. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 35(3): 181–196.

59.

Silverman

(1997) Technology and physical education: Present, possibilities, and potential problems. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich) 49(3): 306–314.

60.

Singer

Alexander

(2017) Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research reveal. Review of Educational Research 87(6): 1007–1041.

61.

Stern

Lizarondo

Carrier

, et al. (2020) Methodological guidance for the conduct of mixed methods systematic reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 18(10): 2108–2118.

62.

Thomas

Harden

(2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 8(1): 45.

63.

Thorburn

(2007) Achieving conceptual and curriculum coherence in high-stakes school examinations in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 12(2): 163–184.

64.

Tondeur

Yang

(2021) One-size does not fit all: Towards an adaptive model to develop preservice teachers’ digital competencies. Computers in Human Behavior 116: 106659.

65.

Tsui

Tavares

(2021) The technology cart and the pedagogy horse in online teaching. English Teaching & Learning 45(1): 109–118.

66.

Valanci-Aroesty

Alhassan

Feldman

, et al. (2020) Implementation and effectiveness of coaching for surgeons in practice–a mixed studies systematic review. Journal of Surgical Education 77(4): 837–853.

67.

Wallace

Scanlon

Calderón

(2022) Digital technology and teacher digital competency in physical education: A holistic view of teacher and student perspectives. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education: 1–17. DOI: 10.1080/25742981.2022.2106881.

68.

Williamson

Eynon

Potter

(2020) Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology 45(2): 107–114.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB