Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Formative assessment (FA) is widely recognized for enhancing student involvement and learning success. Grounded in the FA approach, which emphasizes continuous feedback and student autonomy, this systematic review explores the use of FA for teaching and learning in physical education (PE), with a focus on the potential of digital tools. This is the first review to systematically examine the intersection of FA and technology within the PE context. The review provides an overview of the use of digital tools for both the FA of students’ motor learning and teacher training modules aimed at improving FA competence. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in two databases (Web of Science and SCOPUS) and one meta-database (EBSCOHost), using key terms related to PE, motor learning, digital tools, and assessment. A total of 15 studies published between 2010 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria. Despite differences in contexts and methodologies, the findings consistently show that implementing FA through digital tools enhances both motor learning in students and assessment competence in PE teachers. The included studies highlight the benefits of video analysis tools, such as instant replay and posture analysis, in promoting student engagement and motor learning. Furthermore, digital tools were found to address critical gaps in traditional FA-related teacher education. Overall, the review underscores the transformative potential of digital tools in promoting evidence-based teaching and learning practices in PE. Integrating these tools into FA practices allows educators to move beyond summative assessments, fostering a more individualized and student-centered approach to motor learning.

Keywords

Physical education formative assessment digital systematic literature review motor learning

Introduction

The assessment of student learning has become increasingly important in educational practice and research (DeLuca et al., 2018; Klute et al., 2017; Pastore, 2023). However, teachers’ assessment practices often remain rooted in traditional methods such as standardized grading and summative testing (López-Pastor et al., 2013; Pastore, 2023; Smith, 2016). In recent decades, new approaches have emerged that seek to unlock the formative potential of assessment, aiming to improve student learning and gather evidence of progress, refine teaching practices, and, finally, adapt the teaching-learning process in a responsive manner (Bores-García et al., 2020). This essential pedagogical practice, known as formative assessment (FA), is a learning-oriented approach that aligns instruction, assessment, and intended learning outcomes (Bennett, 2011; Black and Wiliam, 1998). By embedding assessment within the learning process, FA fosters a more self-regulated and reflective educational process, with numerous systematic reviews highlighting its positive impact on student achievement (e.g. Black and Wiliam, 1998; Klute et al., 2017).

In the context of motor learning among children and adolescents, physical education (PE) is a critical setting (García-Hermoso et al., 2020). Motor learning, defined as an experience-dependent and relatively long-lasting change in movement execution (Krakauer et al., 2019), can be meaningfully influenced by PE and the quality of teaching strategies (Lorås, 2020). Therefore, PE teachers should adopt targeted FA strategies to enhance the motor learning process. Although the benefits of FA in PE are increasingly acknowledged (Herrero-González et al., 2024), there is limited research on the potential of digital tools in supporting FA.

Digital tools play a growing role in education (Albrecht and Revermann, 2016). Their potential to enhance teaching and learning processes in PE (Jastrow et al., 2022; Mulato et al., 2024) provides an opportunity to examine digitally supported FA practices. While digitization presents significant challenges for today's sports pedagogy (Meier et al., 2023), the opportunities it offers for FA remain largely unexplored. This is particularly important against the backdrop of heterogeneously skilled and motivated groups of students in PE and the resulting high demands on teachers’ FA competences. Despite this potential, no literature review to date has been conducted in this context. To address this gap, this study systematically reviews international literature on the use of digital tools to support FA of motor learning.

Theoretical background and state of research

In the educational literature, FA has gained widespread recognition as an effective strategy for promoting student learning (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Klute et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2021). While the term is used in various ways, this review adopts the foundational definition by Black and Wiliam (1998), who describe FA as the practice of continuously collecting and interpreting evidence of student learning to guide future instruction. This approach contrasts with traditional summative assessments focused on end-of-period testing (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Smith, 2016). Blundell's (2021) review traces this shift to an emergence of cognitive-constructivist learning theories, which emphasize student agency, self-regulation, and the active construction of knowledge—principles that align closely with the aims of FA.

Although FA is interpreted through various conceptual lenses (Bennett, 2011; Torrance, 2012), a common goal is to investigate teaching and learning processes to enhance student learning (López-Pastor et al., 2013), with feedback recognized as a key component within this practice (Black and Wiliam, 1998). While much of the literature on assessment in PE focuses on the concept of FA (Hamodi et al., 2017; Herrero-González et al., 2024), an important adjacent framework is Assessment for Learning (AfL; AIESEP, 2020; Moura et al., 2021). Both FA and AfL share key features, particularly the use of feedback to support student learning and engagement. While AfL suggests a specific focus on using feedback for learning progression and actively involving students in the assessment process, FA extends beyond AfL by also aiming to improve teaching practices and subject efficacy (Herrero-González et al., 2024). In this sense, FA benefits not only students but also teachers, serving as a tool to refine their pedagogical approaches through continuous assessment data.

López-Pastor et al. (2013) provide a comprehensive review of various assessment approaches in PE, categorizing them as “alternative” due to their strong educational focus, in contrast to traditional methods such as grading isolated motor skills. These alternative approaches include authentic assessment, which prioritizes real-life contexts and authentic tasks to evaluate skills, and integrated assessment, which is embedded within the teaching-learning process rather than functioning as an isolated testing practice. López-Pastor et al. (2013) also highlight FA and AfL as part of this framework. While each concept has distinct nuances, they are closely interconnected, with formative principles as their unifying thread (López-Pastor et al., 2013). Together, these approaches shift assessment from a static measure of performance to a dynamic process that actively shapes learning and instruction.

In PE, however, assessment often continues to emphasize product-oriented testing, such as isolated skills or fitness parameters (AIESEP, 2020; Herrmann et al., 2015; Seidel and Bös, 2012). The position statement of the International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education (AIESEP, 2020) advocates moving beyond this product-focused paradigm, which López-Pastor et al. (2013) critique in their review as a non-educative “technical rationality” (p. 2) that fails to foster meaningful learning. Two recent reviews have examined the contributions of FA and AfL to both teaching and learning in PE, but without focusing on digital tools. Moura et al. (2021) provide evidence for AfL's positive effects on the teaching-learning process and how it improves teachers’ instructional adaptability and capacity to deliver tailored feedback. Their findings also suggest that AfL encourages greater student involvement and self-regulation. The review of Herrero-González et al. (2024) supports these findings, noting that FA enhances student learning, motivation, and autonomy. Herrero-González et al. (2024) further highlight that FA in teacher education enhances teaching competences and critical thinking in pre-service PE teachers. However, despite this promising potential, the lack of necessary skills and limited experience with learning-oriented assessment remain major obstacles to its implementation in PE (Moura et al., 2021).

PE is widely recognized as an ideal setting for promoting motor skills (García-Hermoso et al., 2020). A review (Lander et al., 2017) highlights the role of PE teachers in substantially improving students’ fundamental movement skills and overall physical activity, especially when provided with professional development training. However, PE teachers often struggle with assessing motor learning, a challenge consistently highlighted in the literature. Many PE teachers lack the requisite content knowledge needed to diagnose student performance accurately, leading to inadequate feedback and leaving a gap between current and desired outcomes (Niederkofler et al., 2018; Ward et al., 2021). Additionally, Overdorf and Coker (2013) found that both pre- and in-service PE teachers often lack sufficient movement analysis skills necessary to effectively tailor learning opportunities appropriate to students’ needs.

The integration of technology presents new avenues for enhancing motor learning assessment. Against the backdrop of the growing trend toward digitization, several reviews describe the potential of integrating technology into PE. Digital technologies have been proven to enhance motor skills and the pace of motor learning (Modra et al., 2021), and new channels for video-based visual feedback have been shown to effectively enhance motor learning (Mödinger et al., 2022). The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in providing real-time, personalized feedback is also gaining attention (Zhou et al., 2024). Despite these promising developments, challenges persist, including a lack of teacher familiarity with digital tools and limited, and often costly, multimedia infrastructure (Mödinger et al., 2022; Modra et al., 2021).

Despite the increasing use of digital media in PE, significant gaps remain in research on the effectiveness, applicability, and pedagogical alignment of digital FA practices. While López-Pastor et al. (2013) and Moura et al. (2021) have emphasized the critical role of learning-oriented assessment in promoting student engagement and skill development in PE, Herrero-Gonzalez et al. (2024) point out that prior reviews have not examined how digital media interacts with FA practices, or what implications for PE aims (like physical literacy or motor learning) might occur. Although some cross-disciplinary reviews acknowledge the potential of digital FA (See et al., 2022), they overlook the unique challenges and opportunities in PE. Likewise, existing PE-related reviews on digital tools provide only limited insights into digital FA, such as enabling individualized learning (Jastrow et al., 2022) or enhancing feedback with video tools (Mödinger et al., 2022). Importantly, no review dealing with digital tools in PE has been strongly grounded in the FA approach.

Given these gaps, a systematic review focusing on the intersection of digital media and FA in PE is essential to explore this under-researched area and its transformative potential for both PE and PE teacher education. This review aims to address this critical gap by exploring the following research questions:

RQ1: Does FA through digital tools enhance students’ motor learning in PE?

RQ2: Do existing teacher training modules enhance PE teachers’ FA competence regarding motor learning through digital tools?

RQ3: What are PE teachers’ perceptions and recommendations regarding FA through digital tools in motor learning?

Methods

Identification of relevant studies

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). A preliminary search in all search fields was conducted using the search terms “assessment” AND “motor” AND “physical education” AND “digital” across the databases Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EBSCOHost (a meta-database including Education Research Complete, Academic Search Elite, ERIC, and SPORTDiscus). The most relevant results were checked for a thematic match, and the keywords were incrementally refined to match the relevant literature. As the concept of assessment is diverse in the literature, several keywords beyond “assessment,” such as “diagnosis” and “movement analysis,” were also included. Articles focusing solely on summative assessment, rather than focusing on formative potential, were excluded at a later stage during the screening process. Table 1 shows the final search strings for the different databases, with the final search and extraction of articles conducted on 13 August 2024.

Table 1.

Search string.

Database	Results	Search string
Web of Science	23	TS=(“assessment” OR “diagnos” OR “judgment” OR “skill analysis” OR “movement analysis”) AND TS=(“physical education” OR “pe” OR “pete”) AND TS=(“motor skill” OR “movement skill” OR “sport skill” OR “motor performance” OR “motor learning” OR “skill learning” OR “skill acquisition”) AND TS=(“digital” OR “technolog” OR “media” OR “web-based”) NOT TS=(“medical” OR “health” OR “patient”) Search in: TS=title, abstract, keyword plus, and author keywords Limiters: English or German, 2000–2024
EBSCOHost	104	– identical search string applied – Search in: TI=title, AB=abstract Limiters: Peer-review, English or German, 2000–2024
SCOPUS	39	– identical search string applied – Search in: TITLE-ABS-KEY=title, abstract, keywords Limiters: English or German

Study selection

The application of the search string resulted in 166 articles: 23 from Web of Science, 39 from SCOPUS, and 104 from EBSCOHost. An additional three studies that were not extracted after using the search string were identified using the snowballing method (Wohlin, 2014); this method involved identifying relevant studies by examining the reference lists of key articles to expand the pool of relevant literature systematically (Wohlin, 2014). After removing duplicates and studies in languages other than English or German, all remaining articles were screened in a two-stage procedure, checking for compliance with the defined eligibility criteria (Table 2). The inclusion of English- and German-language articles was based on the authors’ proficiency in these languages (C2 level), ensuring a thorough assessment of the selected studies. The broad time range (2000–2024) captured key technological advancements since the turn of the millennium.

Table 2.

Eligibility criteria.

	Exclusion
Criterion 1	Documents without peer review, literature reviews, monographs, gray literature
Criterion 2	Theoretical or conceptual articles
Criterion 3	Out-of-school sport setting, teacher education in non-PE subjects, kindergarten, inclusion setting, medical setting
Criterion 4	(a) Assessment functions as product-oriented testing and/or lacks relevance to motor learning and/or (b) The study addresses in-service and/or pre-service PE teachers’ motor learning
Criterion 5	Assessment does not incorporate any digital tools
Criterion 6	Languages other than English or German
Criterion 7	Date of publication before the year 2000

Initially, titles and abstracts were screened. If the content was still considered suitable, the studies were then subjected to a full-text screening. During the review process, some studies were excluded due to reasons such as inappropriate target group, summative assessment design, or lack of digital tools. Figure 1 shows the data screening process conducted in this study.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart diagram of the study selection process (based on Page et al., 2021).

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were independently assessed for eligibility by the first author and another researcher to ensure the reliability of the extracted studies. Consistency in the final selection of studies was 100%.

Data extraction and quality assessment

For each included study, a summary was created based on bibliometric indicators, including author(s) and year of publication, characteristics of participants (age, educational stage, skill level), intervention design, and outcomes. Additionally, risk of bias was assessed by the first author and another researcher, achieving 100% agreement.

The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), a 10-item scale to measure the methodological quality of the included studies (Maher et al., 2003), was used for both the quantitative and mixed-methods studies. The PEDro scale has demonstrated sufficient reliability (Maher et al., 2003) and validity (De Morton, 2009) for use in systematic reviews and has been applied in several recent reviews on motor learning in PE (e.g. García-Hermoso et al., 2020; Han et al., 2022; Mödinger et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2021). Items were scored as 1 (item was present) or 0 (item was absent), with a final score of 5 or higher indicating high methodological quality (Cancela et al., 2014; Cruz-Ferreira et al., 2011). Overall, the included studies demonstrated medium quality, primarily due to the absence of group blinding and retention testing (Table 3). This is partly attributed to the authentic school setting, which provides ecological validity but limits the control over variables that is typically achievable in laboratory conditions.

Table 3.

Quality assessment of the quantitative and mixed-methods studies.

Quantitative and mixed-methods studies
Number	Author(s)	Total sample size (groups)	Control group	Pre-test	Post-test	Retention test	Total PEDro score
1	Yu et al. (2022)	36 (2)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
2	Fuentes-Nieto et al. (2022)	38 (2)	No	No	Yes	No	4
3	Katz and Westera (2019)	150 (4)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
4	Potdevin et al. (2018)	43 (2)	Yes	No	Yes	No	5
6	Beseler et al. (2024)	47 (3)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
7	Baert et al. (2024)	323 (2)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	4
8	Wilson et al. (2021)	29 (1)	No	Yes	Yes	No	3
9	Korban and Künzell (2019)	55 (2)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	4
10	Kelly et al. (2012)	36 (2)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	6
11	Kelly and Moran (2010)	72 (4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	6
12	Van Rossum et al. (2025) ^a	9 (1)	No	No	Yes	No	3

Note: ^a The included article (Van Rossum et al., 2025) changed its status from pre-print to published during the preparation of this systematic review. The citation was updated accordingly (year 2025), while the original search strategy (years 2000–2024) was retained.

Qualitative studies were evaluated using the quality assessment tool by Garside (2014), including trustworthiness, theoretical considerations, and practical considerations as criteria. Based on these criteria, the studies of Van Rossum et al. (2019), Lander et al. (2022), and O’Loughlin et al. (2013) were rated as “good,” whereas the study of Sousa-Sá et al. (2023) was rated as “medium-good” (Table 4).

Table 4.

Quality assessment of the qualitative studies.

Qualitative studies
Number	Author(s)	Total sample size (groups)	Methods	Garside score
5	O’Loughlin et al. (2013)	23 (1)	Focus group discussions, interviews, skill self-assessments, teacher research diary	Good
13	Sousa-Sá et al. (2023)	9 (1)	Think-out-loud protocol during a workshop	Medium–good
14	Lander et al. (2022)	22 (1)	Focus group discussions	Good
15	Van Rossum et al. (2019)	39 (1)	Individual and group in-depth interviews	Good

Findings and discussion

General bibliometric overview

This review analyzed a final set of 15 studies involving pre- and in-service PE teachers (ages 20–50) and students (ages 9–18 years) across various educational settings. Although the initial search covered the years 2000–2024 and included both English- and German-language publications, the selected studies were published between 2010 and 2025, with only one study in German. The studies were conducted in eight countries, including the USA, Australia, and several European nations (UK, France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands). The contexts ranged from controlled laboratory environments to real-time PE lessons integrating digital assessment tools. Commonly used tools comprised video analysis applications for real-time assessment (e.g. Hudl Technique, Coach's Eye, Start2Move) and the web-based teacher training platform Motor Skill Assessment Program (MSAP). Table 5 outlines characteristics and findings for each study, referencing studies by number and grouping them by research question, starting with the most recent.

Table 5.

Overview of included studies.

			Characteristics of participants
No.	Authors (year)	Aim of the study	Country and school type	Age (years)	Level of expertise (years)	Study design and group assignment	Sample and group sizes	Main outcomes
1	Yu et al. (2022)	To examine the impact of the motion analysis application Hudl Technique on motor skills in a badminton unit	USA, middle school, eighth grade	Not reported	Novices	Quantitative TG: teacher-led group SG: student-led group	Total: n = 36 TG: n = 21 SG: n = 15	Significant improvement in gameplay (F(1, 34) = 85.702, p < 0.001, η² = 0.716), as well as in technical skill executions. No significant group differences.
2	Fuentes-Nieto et al. (2022)	To examine the impact of the application Plickers for FA in a Latin dance class	Spain, secondary school, ninth grade	M = 15	Novices	Mixed-methods IG1: intervention group 1 IG2: intervention group 2 (identical interventions)	Total: n = 38 IG1: n = 18 IG2: n = 20	Student surveys indicate that creating salsa video tutorials enhanced learning and assessment of salsa steps. Self- and peer assessment facilitated reflection on learning.
3	Katz and Westera (2019)	To examine the impact of student autonomy levels and a video-feedback application on touch somersault motor learning	Netherlands, secondary school, seventh/eighth grade	M = 13.4 SD = 0.6	Novices	Quantitative FTG: fully teacher-led group MTG: mostly teacher-led group MSG: mostly student-led group FSG: fully student-led group	n = 150	Significant differences between conditions (F(3, 144) = 3.79, p = 0.012). High student-autonomy conditions led to greater performance growth and improved self-assessment accuracy.
4	Potdevin et al. (2018)	To examine the impact of video feedback on gymnastics skill learning and self-assessment	France, secondary school, seventh grade	M = 12.5 SD = 0.5	Novices	Quantitative VFG: video feedback group VCG: verbal control group	Total: n = 43 VFG: n = 18 VCG: n = 25	VFG improved motor skills significantly (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.94). Self-assessment skills were enhanced after one lesson (p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 1.79). VCG showed no progress.
5	O’Loughlin (2013)	To examine the impact of digital video on primary students’ basketball learning experiences	Ireland, primary school	9–10	Novices	Qualitative	n = 22	Students valued digital video for self-assessment and motor learning, comparing skills with rubrics to identify areas for improvement. Despite high self-assessment accuracy, some students needed teacher guidance for skill improvement.
6	Beseler et al. (2024)	To examine the impact of a single peer-teaching session with video analysis application Hudl Technique on pre-service PE teachers’ non-dominant hand overarm throwing skills and qualitative movement diagnosis (QMD) skills	Australia, university, undergraduate PE students	M = 20.6 SD = 3.4	Novices	Quantitative VAG: video analysis group VG: verbal group CG: control group	Total: n = 47 VAG: n = 17 VG: n = 19 CG: n = 11	After intervention, VAG (82.4%) and VG (89.5%) had increased confidence in QMD. VAG showed significant improvements in throwing performance in post-test (mean difference = 4.253, p < 0.001) and retention test (mean difference = 4.147, p < 0.001), while VG only showed improvement in retention test (mean difference = 2.492, p = 0.011), as did the CG (mean difference = 3.360, p = 0.011).
7	Baert et al. (2024)	To examine the impact of an online learning resource on pre-service PE teachers’ FA competence	USA, university, PE students	Not reported	Novices	Mixed-methods IG1: intervention group 1 IG2: intervention group 2 IG3: intervention group 3 (identical interventions)	n = 323 IG1: n = 94 IG2: n = 124 IG3: n = 105	Pre-service teachers improved significantly in FA competence from pre- to post-test in both IG1 (t(93) = −22.547, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 2.32) and IG2 (t(123) = −19.148, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.72). Retention analysis showed improvements that approached significance.
8	Wilson et al. (2021)	To examine the impact of online MSAP on PE teachers’ FA competence of underhand ball rolling	USA, primary and secondary school PE teachers	M = 43.2 SD = 9.4	Experts M = 14.38 SD = 9.4	Quantitative	n = 29	MSAP significantly enhanced FA competence, shown by large pre- to post-test increase (t(28) = 6.89, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.68). Number of practice attempts and scores correlated positively with post-test improvement.
9	Korban and Künzell (2019)	To examine the impact of synchronized expert- and self-modeling videos using the Coach's Eye application on pre-service PE teachers’ FA competence of front handstand	Germany, university, PE students in third year or higher	Not reported	Novices	Quantitative ESTG: expert- and self-modeling treatment group SCG: self-modeling control group	Total: n = 55 ESTG: n = 40 SCG: n = 15	ESTG showed significant improvements in movement analysis (F(2.51, 78.05) = 3.37, p = 0.029, η² = 0.098) and feedback skills (F(2.578, 108.25) = 4.261, p = 0.010, η² = 0.092). Feedback skills significantly improved in SCG.
10	Kelly et al. (2012)	To examine the impact of online MSAP on pre-service PE teachers’ FA competence and transfer to live assessment of underhand ball rolling	USA, university, kinesiology students (qualified to teach PE)	M = 21.03 SD = 1.03	Novices	Quantitative WIG: web-based intervention group WCG: web-based control group	Total: n = 36 WIG: n = 18 WCG: n = 18	MSAP training improved assessment competence significantly (F(1, 34) = 341.59, p < 0.001), with a nonsignificant effect for group (F(1, 34) = 0.03, p = 0.853). Gains transferred to live assessments (F(1, 34) = 38.95, p < 0.001), and performance was maintained after one week.
11	Kelly and Moran (2010)	To examine the impact of online MSAP on pre-service PE teachers’ FA competence of ball kicking	USA, university, PE students	M = 21.7 SD = 3	Novices	Quantitative WNG: web-based no time constraints group WTG: web-based time constraints group TDG: teacher-directed group NTG: no training group	Total: n = 72 WNG: n = 17 WTG: n = 17 TDG: n = 20 NTG: n = 18	WNG/WTG achieved significantly higher post-training assessment scores than NTG (F(3, 66) = 2.80, p = 0.047, Cohen's d = 0.68–0.82). The differences between WNG/WTG and TDG were not significant (but approached significance).
12	Van Rossum (2025)	To evaluate the feasibility of the “Start2Move” application for the FA of fundamental movement skills	England, primary school PE teachers	Not reported	Experts M = 10.4 SD = 7.1	Mixed-methods	n = 9	Teachers valued the digital tool for its guidance through developmental stages, video content support, and enhancing confidence in assessing motor skills.
13	Sousa-Sá et al. (2023)	To design a prototype motor assessment app	Australia, primary and secondary school PE teachers	Not reported	Experts	Qualitative	n = 9	Usability testing showed need for user-friendly design, clear assessment instructions, video guidance, and student performance tracking.
14	Lander et al. (2022)	To evaluate PE teachers’ perceptions and recommendations for online continuous professional development (CPD) focused on motor skills instruction and FA	Australia, primary and secondary school PE teachers	M = 38.5 SD = 7.5	Experts M = 13 SD = 5.73	Qualitative	n = 22	Online PE CPD was valued for accessibility and addressing logistical gaps in traditional assessment trainings. Concerns about limited feedback opportunities and technological constraints were expressed. Recommendations include incorporating FA tools and comprehensive guidance.
15	Van Rossum et al. (2019)	To examine PE teachers’ assessment practices and recommendations for developing a digital assessment tool	England, primary school PE teachers	Not reported	Experts M = 8.1 SD = 6.4	Qualitative	n = 39	Teachers recognized the importance of FA for supporting motor development and tracking progress, suggesting digital tools such as video playback for skill review.

Effectiveness of digital FA of students’ motor learning

The first research question investigates the impact of digital FA tools on students’ motor learning outcomes. The results from five studies (1–5) using digital FA tools, especially video analysis, were examined. Features such as slow-motion replay, posture angles, and frozen images provided immediate and actionable feedback, helping students identify critical errors and refine movement execution in real time. These studies consistently demonstrated that these tools lead to notable improvements in motor execution, reinforcing the notion that FA bridges the gap between current performance and desired outcomes (Clark, 2012).

In gymnastics, complex skills like the touch somersault (3) and the front handstand (4) improved significantly in both motor execution and self-assessment accuracy. Study 3 reported greater improvements among students given higher autonomy. Similar gains were reported in study 4, where video analysis was repeated after every fifth handstand attempt, though FA in this setting was teacher-controlled. The positive effects of visually enhanced FA further align with a review by Mödinger et al. (2022), reinforcing the superiority of video-based over purely verbal feedback, as supported by the low results of the verbal control group in study 4.

Study 1 used a video analysis application for both closed and open skills (clear shot in badminton and tactical gameplay). Similar to study 3, it provided different student autonomy levels. Improvements occurred in both teacher- and student-controlled settings, contradicting the suggestion from study 3 that high autonomy is superior. Significant improvements extended to tactical gameplay (1), whereas FA in the other quantitative studies (2–10) focused solely on closed technical movements. Notably, improvements in motor performance (1) and self-assessment ability (4) occurred early within the first days of intervention, demonstrating the immediacy of impact that digital FA tools can have.

Beyond motor skills, digital FA fostered self-assessment and reflection, crucial for self-regulated learning (Clark, 2012). Study 2 found that student-created salsa dance tutorials, assessed via peer- and self-evaluation through the Plickers application, enhanced both motor skill acquisition and metacognitive engagement, confirming the capacity of video tools to enhance motor learning (1–5) and self-assessment (2–5). Similarly, study 5 confirmed that video self-assessment in basketball, supported by rubrics, helped students to self-assess their skills against objective criteria and led to high self-assessment accuracies closely matching teacher evaluations. These findings (2, 5) emphasize that effective self-assessment depends on structured teacher guidance through clear rubrics and defined assessment criteria. This scaffolding supports self-regulated learning, which is linked to greater motivation and engagement (Blundell, 2021)—both critical drivers for motor learning (Wulf and Lewthwaite, 2016).

The role of student autonomy in FA emerged as a crucial but complex variable. Studies 2 and 3 suggested that higher autonomy positively impacts motor learning, aligning with research indicating that freedom of choice in motor tasks enhances performance and deepens skill understanding (Andrieux et al., 2016; Janelle et al., 1995). However, study 1 found digital FA effective regardless of autonomy level, suggesting that autonomy alone is not decisive for learning success. This discrepancy may be attributed to self-assessment biases, as students tend to overrate their own performance unless guided by clear benchmarks (Bjork, 1999; Kolovelonis and Goudas, 2012). Consequently, a balanced approach that combines teacher guidance with student agency appears most effective in supporting motor learning through digital FA (McMillan and Hearn, 2008).

Moreover, high levels of student autonomy potentially contributed to immediate learning success, as evidenced by the rapid improvements in badminton skills (1) and self-assessment ability (4), reinforcing that digital FA tools can be effectively integrated from the start of a teaching unit. However, study 4 observed motor skill improvements only at the end of the intervention, reflecting a nonlinear progression in motor skill acquisition (Nourrit et al., 2003; Teulier and Delignières, 2007). These insights suggest that FA strategies should account for varying learning curves and provide sustained, adaptive feedback.

Overall, the studies indicate that a balanced integration of teacher guidance and student autonomy is essential for maximizing digital FA benefits. Teachers should carefully structure FA-based learning opportunities that enhance both motor skill development and self-regulated learning—an increasingly vital task in innovative PE settings (Langer and Seyda, 2022).

Effectiveness of digital teacher training modules for FA competence regarding motor learning

To address the second research question, six studies (6–11) were analyzed. These studies consistently demonstrate that digital teacher training modules significantly enhance PE teachers’ FA competence. Given that many PE teachers feel unprepared to use digital tools due to limited training and a lack of prior exposure during their own education (Jastrow et al., 2022), the analyzed teacher training modules (6–11) offer valuable opportunities for targeted teacher preparation. A key component across multiple studies was the MSAP, a web-based module designed to improve teachers’ movement analysis and feedback skills. Studies 8, 10, and 11 confirmed that MSAP training improved assessment accuracy in fundamental motor skills, such as underhand ball rolling (8, 10) and ball-kicking (11). A major strength of these digital training modules is their ability to provide structured tutorials, guided assessment attempts, and iterative feedback loops, leading to improved perception and evaluation of movement quality. Notably, the number of guided attempts was strongly correlated with improvements in assessment accuracy (8, 10). Study 10 further showed a successful transfer of FA skills from a digital training environment to a real-world PE setting, although assessment accuracy remained higher in the controlled digital environment. This supports prior findings suggesting that controlled settings facilitate skill acquisition, while authentic settings reinforce practical application (Overdorf and Coker, 2013). Therefore, a blended approach combining digital practice with hands-on experiences may be optimal for developing robust FA competence.

Study 6 demonstrated that video-based movement analysis significantly enhanced both confidence and perceived assessment accuracy when evaluating the overarm throw. Likewise, study 9 found that synchronized expert- and self-modeling video analysis and video feedback of the front handstand produced superior movement assessment skills compared to self-modeling alone. These findings reinforce the importance of expert-modeling in shaping teachers’ cognitive representations of motor patterns, as these are a prerequisite for effective movement assessment and feedback (Hartmann, 1999).

Given that many motor skills in PE are fundamental, study 7 further explored how digital training modules enhanced pre-service teachers’ ability to assess a wide range of fundamental movement skills, including running, jumping, and throwing. The results indicated significant improvements in teachers’ knowledge of motor development stages and movement analysis (7), both essential for providing developmentally appropriate FA.

A notable advantage of digital training modules over traditional teacher-directed training is flexibility. Traditional methods are often constrained by time-space limitations (Nielsen and Beauchamp, 1992), whereas digital modules allow teachers to learn at their own pace, revisit key concepts, and receive immediate formative and summative feedback throughout practice trials. This adaptive and autonomous learning supports ongoing professional development, making digital FA training valuable for both pre-service (6–7, 9–11) and in-service (8) PE teachers. However, while digital environments provide structured and consistent training, they lack the variability and dynamic conditions of real-world PE. This limitation suggests that blended learning approaches, combining digital training with real-life movement assessment, may be the most effective strategy to develop applicable FA competence. Once trained, teachers can provide more structured and meaningful feedback, helping students refine their cognitive motion representations and motor competence (Schmidt, 1975).

Overall, the studies indicate that digital training modules are highly effective means of enhancing teachers’ FA competence by offering individualized practice opportunities and corrective feedback, both critical for accurate assessment. As such, they represent a crucial element in modernizing PE teacher education.

PE teachers’ perceptions and recommendations regarding digital FA tools for motor learning

To answer the third research question, four qualitative studies (12–15) were analyzed, each exploring PE teachers’ perceptions and recommendations concerning the development and practical use of digital FA tools. The analysis revealed a strong demand for well-designed tools that enhance both teaching effectiveness and student learning. Across the studies, teachers emphasized the importance of process-oriented movement scoring, video integration, and structured feedback mechanisms to improve digital FA tools. However, technological barriers, usability concerns, and limited digital competence among teachers emerged as persistent challenges in real-world assessment settings.

Studies 12, 13, and 15 focused on developing and evaluating digital FA applications. In study 12, primary PE teachers reported increased confidence in assessing fundamental movement skills and tracking developmental stages using the Start2Move application. Similarly, study 13, which examined an application incorporating wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs), emphasized the need for user-friendly interfaces and clear video guidance to help identify and correct motor errors. Teachers in study 15 echoed these concerns, advocating for video demonstrations and integrated feedback mechanisms to guide both student learning and instructional decision-making. Across all three studies, clear, actionable feedback was consistently recommended. Moreover, studies 12, 13, and 15 highlight the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in the app development process to ensure user-centered design and facilitate effective implementation in practice (Daly-Smith et al., 2020).

Regarding existing training modules, study 14 explored teacher perceptions of continuous professional development for FA and instruction of motor skills. Teachers valued the accessibility and evidence-based content of digital training modules, particularly for addressing logistical challenges and gaps in teacher education. This is particularly relevant when generalist teachers, rather than PE specialists, deliver PE lessons and often feel ill-equipped to assess motor skills effectively (Lander et al., 2022). Digital platforms can bridge this gap by providing structured guidance and targeted training.

Although teachers appreciated the accessibility and evidence-based content of digital tools (11, 13, 14), many lack the digital skills needed for effective use (Modra et al., 2021; Schmid et al., 2017). Insufficient digital infrastructure in schools and skepticism toward digital tools could further limit their potential benefits. Therefore, enhancing teachers’ digital competence should be a primary focus in future training programs.

To meet these challenges, effective teacher training modules should integrate content knowledge of specific motor skills with pedagogical strategies appropriate for heterogeneous PE settings, as advocated by studies 12 and 14. This aligns with a review (Montoya-Grisales et al., 2023) that described the strong interdependence of content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in professional PE teaching. Digital platforms, when leveraged effectively, can play a key role in bridging these gaps.

Overall, the studies indicate that PE teachers recognize the potential of digital FA tools but stress the need for intuitive design, integrated feedback, and structured professional development to ensure effective implementation. Future training should prioritize digital skill development to fully capitalize on the benefits of digital FA tools in enhancing assessment accuracy, student learning, and teaching quality.

Limitations and future directions

Despite offering valuable insights, several limitations of this study should be noted. An extensive search across two databases and one meta-database yielded only 15 eligible studies. Integrating other widely used languages into the search strategy could expand the range of relevant studies. The relatively small number of studies and the diversity of quantitative and qualitative research approaches limit the generalizability of the findings across broader educational settings. Additionally, many of the studies were conducted in controlled laboratory environments, limiting their ecological validity. Furthermore, only five studies included retention tests, restricting conclusions regarding long-term skill improvements. Several studies also relied on self-reported data, which may introduce biases and affect the reliability of reported findings. Finally, the studies did not consistently focus on specific age groups or skill levels, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions.

Future research on digital FA should focus on several key areas. First, high-quality longitudinal studies are needed to understand the long-term impact of digital FA on motor learning, as well as broader outcomes such as student motivation and attitudes toward digital FA. Second, research should examine if and how various digital tools (e.g. AI-driven feedback systems, gamified assessments, or wearable technology) enhance FA practices. Third, studies should develop and validate teacher training modules aimed at building PE educators’ competence in digital assessment strategies. Fourth, survey studies should investigate teachers’ personal factors—such as their attitudes, knowledge, and perceived competence—as predictors of their intention to adopt digital FA in practice. From a practical perspective, advancing research in these areas can help educators integrate digital FA tools more effectively, aligning them with pedagogical objectives to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes in PE.

Conclusion

This systematic literature review highlights the transformative potential of digital FA in enhancing motor learning within PE. Regarding students’ motor skills, digital FA tools were shown to significantly improve both technical execution and self-assessment abilities. Features such as instant replay, slow-motion playback, and posture analysis facilitated real-time feedback, enabling students to make immediate adjustments and actively engage in their own learning process. Regarding PE teacher education, digital training modules were effective in enhancing teachers’ competence to assess motor skills, further supporting the added value of digital tools for PE teacher education. Regarding teachers’ perceptions of digital FA tools, the need for user-friendly designs and process-oriented movement scoring coincides with concerns about technological barriers that may hinder effective implementation in PE and teacher education.

This review contributes to the growing body of research on FA by showing that digital FA stands apart from traditional summative approaches. While summative assessments emphasize final outcomes, digital FA enables continuous, real-time feedback that supports students’ self-regulation and skill growth throughout the educational process. The integration of digital FA into instructional practice allows for more responsive and personalized teaching-learning processes, better aligning instruction with student needs and providing a more dynamic pathway for skill development.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Jonathan Müller

Ingo Wagner

Ethical considerations

There were no human participants in this article, and informed consent was not required.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article, as no datasets were generated during the current study.

Author biographies

Jonathan Müller is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Sport and Sport Science, University of Freiburg (Germany). His teaching and research interests focus on PE, teacher education, formative assessment, and digital tools.

Ingo Wagner works as Chair and Full Professor of Sports Science at Ludwigsburg University of Education in Germany. One of his key research areas is the implementation of technology-enhanced teaching and learning in PE and teacher education.

References

AIESEP (2020) AIESEP position statement on PE assessment. Available at: https://aiesep.org/scientific-meetings/position-statements/ (accessed 10 August 2024).

Albrecht

Revermann

(2016) Digitale Medien in der Bildung: Endbericht zum TA-Projekt. Berlin: Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag (TAB).

Andrieux

Boutin

Thon

(2016) Self-control of task difficulty during early practice promotes motor skill learning. Journal of Motor Behavior 48(1): 57–65.

Baert

True

Madden

, et al. (2024) Exploring the perception and retention of movement analysis skills through online mastery-based modules. Journal of Teaching, Research, and Media in Kinesiology 10: 10–17.

Bennett

(2011) Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 18(1): 5–25.

Beseler

Plumb

Spittle

, et al. (2024) Examining single session peer-teaching instructional approaches on pre-service physical education teachers’ throwing techniques. Perceptual and Motor Skills 131(1): 246–266.

Bjork

(1999) Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In: Gopher

Koriat

(eds) Cognitive Regulation of Performance: Interaction of Theory and Application. Cambridge: MIT Press, 435–459.

Black

Wiliam

(1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5(1): 7–74.

Blundell

(2021) Teacher use of digital technologies for school-based assessment: A scoping review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 28(3): 279–300.

10.

Bores-García

Hortigüela-Alcalá

González-Calvo

, et al. (2020) Peer assessment in physical education: A systematic review of the last five years. Sustainability 12(21): 9233.

11.

Cancela

de Oliveira

Rodríguez-Fuentes

(2014) Effects of Pilates method in physical fitness on older adults. A systematic review. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity 11(2): 81–94.

12.

Clark

(2012) Formative assessment: Assessment is for self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review 24(2): 205–249.

13.

Cruz-Ferreira

Fernandes

Laranjo

, et al. (2011) A systematic review of the effects of Pilates method of exercise in healthy people. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 92(12): 2071–2081.

14.

Daly-Smith

Quarmby

Archbold

VSJ

, et al. (2020) Using a multi-stakeholder experience-based design process to co-develop the Creating Active Schools Framework. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 17(1): 1–13.

15.

DeLuca

Valiquette

Coombs

, et al. (2018) Teachers’ approaches to classroom assessment: A large-scale survey. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 25(4): 355–375.

16.

De Morton

(2009) The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: A demographic study. The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 55(2): 129–133.

17.

Fuentes-Nieto

López Pastor

Palacios-Picos

(2022) A combination of transformative and authentic assessment through ICT in physical education. Retos 44: 728–738.

18.

García-Hermoso

Alonso-Martínez

Ramírez-Vélez

, et al. (2020) Association of physical education with improvement of health-related physical fitness outcomes and fundamental motor skills among youths: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics 174(6): e200223.

19.

Garside

(2014) Should we appraise the quality of qualitative research reports for systematic reviews, and if so, how? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 27(1): 67–79.

20.

Hamodi

López-Pastor

(2017) If I experience formative assessment whilst studying at university, will I put it into practice later as a teacher? Formative and shared assessment in Initial Teacher Education (ITE). European Journal of Teacher Education 40(2): 171–190.

21.

Han

Syed Ali

SKB

(2022) Use of observational learning to promote motor skill learning in physical education: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(16): 10109.

22.

Hartmann

(1999) Meinels Merkmale der Bewegungskoordination als Kategorien zur Bewegungsbeobachtung und Bewegungsbeurteilung. In: Krug

Hartmann

(eds) Praxisorientierte Bewegungslehre als angewandte Sportmotorik: Symposiumsbericht. Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 106–116.

23.

Herrero-González

López-Pastor

Manrique-Arribas

, et al. (2024) Formative and shared assessment: Literature review on the main contributions in physical education and physical education teacher education. European Physical Education Review 30(3): 493–510.

24.

Herrmann

Gerlach

Seelig

(2015) Development and validation of a test instrument for the assessment of basic motor competencies in primary school. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 19(2): 80–90.

25.

Janelle

Kim

Singer

(1995) Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills 81(2): 627–634.

26.

Jastrow

Greve

Thumel

, et al. (2022) Digital technology in physical education: A systematic review of research from 2009 to 2020. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 52(4): 504–528.

27.

Katz

Westera

(2019) The effect of learner autonomy on motor learning: An empirical study in Dutch vocational education. International Journal of Self-Directed Learning 16(2): 22–38.

28.

Kelly

Moran

(2010) The effectiveness of a web-based motor skill assessment training program. Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance 5(2): 48–53.

29.

Kelly

Taliaferro

Krause

(2012) Does computer-based motor skill assessment training transfer to live assessing? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 83(3): 400–406.

30.

Klute

Apthorp

Harlacher

, et al. (2017) Formative Assessment and Elementary School Student Academic Achievement: A Review of the Evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

31.

Kolovelonis

Goudas

(2012) Students’ recording accuracy in the reciprocal and the self-check teaching styles in physical education. Educational Research and Evaluation 18(8): 733–747.

32.

Korban

Künzell

(2019) Verbesserung der diagnostischen Kompetenz mit iPads^®: Ein Ausbildungskonzept. Zeitschrift für Studium und Lehre in der Sportwissenschaft 2(2): 5–13.

33.

Krakauer

Hadjiosif

, et al. (2019) Motor learning. Comprehensive Physiology 9(2): 613–663.

34.

Lander

Eather

Morgan

, et al. (2017) Characteristics of teacher training in school-based physical education interventions to improve fundamental movement skills and/or physical activity: A systematic review. Sports Medicine 47(1): 135–161.

35.

Lander

Lewis

Nahavandi

, et al. (2022) Teacher perspectives of online continuing professional development in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 27(4): 434–448.

36.

Langer

Seyda

(2022) Zusammenhang von fachdidaktischem Wissen mit der Unterrichtsqualität von Grundschulsportlehrkräften. In: Schwier

Seyda

(eds) Bewegung, Spiel und Sport im Kindesalter. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 205–213.

37.

López-Pastor

Kirk

Lorente-Catalán

, et al. (2013) Alternative assessment in physical education: A review of international literature. Sport, Education and Society 18(1): 57–76.

38.

Lorås

(2020) The effects of physical education on motor competence in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports 8(6): 88.

39.

Maher

Sherrington

Herbert

, et al. (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy 83(8): 713–721.

40.

McMillan

Hearn

(2008) Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons 87(1): 40–49.

41.

Meier

Rode

Ruin

(2023) Digitalization challenging physical culture and education—Current issues in sport pedagogical research. Current Issues in Sport Science 8(3): 001.

42.

Mödinger

Woll

Wagner

(2022) Video-based visual feedback to enhance motor learning in physical education—A systematic review. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 52(3): 447–460.

43.

Modra

Domokos

Petracovschi

(2021) The use of digital technologies in the physical education lesson: A systematic analysis of scientific literature. Timisoara Physical Education and Rehabilitation Journal 14(26): 33–46.

44.

Montoya-Grisales

Arroyave-Giraldo

Almonacid-Fierro

, et al. (2023) Pedagogical content knowledge in the physical education field. A systematic review of the literature 2011–2022. Retos 50: 1240–1250.

45.

Moura

Graça

MacPhail

, et al. (2021) Aligning the principles of assessment for learning to learning in physical education: A review of literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 26(4): 388–401.

46.

Mulato

Hidayatulloh

Purnama

, et al. (2024) Optimization of learning physical education in digital era: A systematic review. Retos 54: 844–849.

47.

Niederkofler

Herrmann

Amesberger

(2018) Diagnosekompetenz von Sportlehrkräften—semiformelle Diagnose von motorischen Basiskompetenzen. Zeitschrift für Sportpädagogische Forschung 6(2): 72–96.

48.

Nielsen

Beauchamp

(1992) The effect of training in conceptual kinesiology on feedback provision patterns. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 11(2): 126–138.

49.

Nourrit

Delignières

Caillou

, et al. (2003) On discontinuities in motor learning: A longitudinal study of complex skill acquisition on a ski-simulator. Journal of Motor Behavior 35(2): 151–170.

50.

O’Loughlin

Chróinín

O’Grady

(2013) Digital video: The impact on children’s learning experiences in primary physical education. European Physical Education Review 19(2): 165–182.

51.

Overdorf

Coker

(2013) Efficacy of movement analysis and intervention skills. The Physical Educator 70(2): 195–205.

52.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal 372: 71.

53.

Pastore

(2023) Teacher assessment literacy: A systematic review. Frontiers in Education 8: 1217167.

54.

Potdevin

Vors

Huchez

, et al. (2018) How can video feedback be used in physical education to support novice learning in gymnastics? Effects on motor learning, self-assessment and motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23(6): 559–574.

55.

Schmid

Goertz

Behrens

(2017) Monitor Digitale Bildung: Die Schulen im digitalen Zeitalter. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

56.

Schmidt

(1975) A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review 82(4): 225–260.

57.

See

Gorard

, et al. (2022) Is technology always helpful? A critical review of the impact on learning outcomes of education technology in supporting formative assessment in schools. Research Papers in Education 37(6): 1064–1096.

58.

Seidel

Bös

(2012) Chancen und Nutzen motorischer Diagnostik im Schulsport am Beispiel des DMT 6–18. Sportunterricht 61(8): 228–233.

59.

Smith

(2016) An introduction to the global testing culture. In: Smith

(ed) The Global Testing Culture: Shaping Education Policy, Perceptions, and Practice. Oxford: Symposium Books, 7–24.

60.

Sousa-Sá

Lander

Alqumsan

, et al. (2023) Physical education teachers’ perceptions of a motor competence assessment digital app. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 43(2): 276–291.

61.

Teulier

Delignières

(2007) The nature of the transition between novice and skilled coordination during learning to swing. Human Movement Science 26(3): 376–392.

62.

Torrance

(2012) Formative assessment at the crossroads: Conformative, deformative and transformative assessment. Oxford Review of Education 38(3): 323–342.

63.

Van Rossum

Foweather

Hayes

, et al. (2025) Start to move: Measuring the feasibility of a teacher-led digital fundamental movement skills assessment tool. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 44(1): 67–77.

64.

Van Rossum

Foweather

Richardson

, et al. (2019) Primary teachers’ recommendations for the development of a teacher-oriented movement assessment tool for 4–7 years children. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 23(2): 124–134.

65.

Ward

Ayvazo

Dervent

, et al. (2021) Skill analysis for teachers: Considerations for physical education teacher education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 92(2): 15–21.

66.

Wilson

Brian

Kelly

(2021) The effects of online motor skill assessment training on assessment competence of physical educators. Journal of Motor Learning and Development 9(1): 1–13.

67.

Wohlin

(2014) Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (ed Shepperd

Hall

Myrtveit

), London, UK, 13–14 May 2014, pp.1–10. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

68.

Wulf

Lewthwaite

(2016) Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(5): 1382–1414.

69.

Yan

Panadero

, et al. (2021) A systematic review on factors influencing teachers’ intentions and implementations regarding formative assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 28(3): 228–260.

70.

van der Mars

Hastie

, et al. (2022) Incorporating a motion analysis app in middle school badminton unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 41(4): 729–737.

71.

Zhou

Wang

, et al. (2024) Application of artificial intelligence in physical education: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies 29(7): 8203–8220.

72.

Zhou

de Shao

Wang

(2021) Effects of feedback on students’ motor skill learning in physical education: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(12): 6281.

Formative assessment of motor learning through digital tools in physical education: A systematic literature review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical background and state of research

Methods

Identification of relevant studies

Study selection

Data extraction and quality assessment

Findings and discussion

General bibliometric overview

Effectiveness of digital FA of students’ motor learning

Effectiveness of digital teacher training modules for FA competence regarding motor learning

PE teachers’ perceptions and recommendations regarding digital FA tools for motor learning

Limitations and future directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

Author biographies

References