4.1. Summary of findings and discussion
In this systematic review of the adoption of blended learning in physical education, 22 journal articles retrieved from the Web of Science (WOS) database were analyzed and grouped according to research trends, participants, learning tools, theoretical framework, evaluation methods, application domains, Research Topics, and challenges. The publication trend shows that there has been a growing interest in blended learning in physical education since 2018. This indicates that researchers have recognized the role of technology in physical education and have sought to apply technology in physical education to meet student educational needs based on the current challenges and technological teaching resources offered by contemporary society (32). In addition, the paucity of high-quality literature suggests that research on blended learning in physical education is still in its infancy around the world. Of the 22 articles in this review, 9 were conducted in China, 6 in Spain, and 3 in the UK. Each of the other articles was published in countries such as the USA, Singapore, Australia, and Ireland. Also, previous research supports the view that studies on blended learning in skills-based subjects are very limited and somewhat disconnected (27, 31, 43).
For the participants, the majority of blended learning journal articles in physical education have focused on undergraduates. This is in line with the study by Yang et al. (11) which found that researchers were more concerned with mobile learning in higher physical education. However, only a limited number of articles investigated K−12 students and teachers separately. This review discovers that blended learning can be a challenge for K−12 students as they have poor self-control and are unfamiliar with the operation of online learning platforms, making it difficult for them to watch instructional videos independently before class. As a result, some articles report several suggestions for applying blended learning in the K-12 educational setting, including determining the duration of online learning based on student attention spans (44), designing simple and streamlined online courses to create organized learning environments that enable students to improve user experience and reduce cognitive load (45), connecting online learning content to student experiences (46), creating study groups in which the teacher sets a theme and the students participate in the learning in a group form to develop the awareness of active participation and the ability to collaborate (47), providing personalized support (48), and learning through games to develop skills and knowledge related to course objectives (49). One prominent suggestion by the reviewed articles is that applying blended learning allows for the facilitation of various types of interactions (50). Among them, student-student interaction refers to peer support and collaborative learning, student-teacher interaction consists of evaluation, motivation, guidance, and prompt feedback (51), student–online learning content interaction is the process of intellectual interaction with learning content, to promote students' learning (52), and student-interface interaction refers to the interaction between students and the technology used to deliver educational content (53).
In addition, there is a limited number of articles on blended learning in physical education focusing on teachers. This may be because the selection of teachers as subjects for the study is challenging for several reasons. For example, the sample size may be too small for quantitative analysis and some teachers may be reluctant to embrace new teaching models. Nevertheless, technologies, through blended learning, offer many new opportunities for teaching. Besides that the use of blended learning could improve teachers' attitudes toward the application of technology, and it could also enhance their ability to apply technology to physical education, which is crucial for their professional development (54). Therefore, future blended learning papers in physical education should place greater emphasis on the teacher community.
Blended learning as an innovative pedagogical model requires the application of emerging methods in practice to meet specific pedagogical requirements (55). This review observed that teachers use different teaching platforms and online learning resources when incorporating blended learning in physical education in order to meet their pedagogical goals. The frequency of “learning platform” ranked highest among the selected studies, followed by “online learning materials” and “learning software.” With the development of educational technology, many student-centered learning platforms (e.g., Moodle, Superstar) are adopted by teachers in different educational institutions. These learning platforms are supported by teachers because they are powerful, easy to use, and can meet the common needs of both teachers and students (56). In addition, online learning materials which include online lectures, online documents, and online websites have also become teachers' choices. Compared to online learning platforms, online learning materials are richer in content and more diverse in learning formats. Teachers can select appropriate materials according to their student learning interests and practical needs (57). Self-developed learning tools or learning materials appropriate for the delivery of the courses are also created by teachers. One article developed and applied a robot (35), one article used recorded lectures (37), and a total of three articles used instructional software (e.g., basketball teaching mobile application) as the primary learning tool for learning activities (28, 32, 36). In general, while research on blended learning in physical education prior to 2020 on learning tools was homogeneous, the form diversifies as teachers begin combining two learning tools to produce better learning outcomes beginning in 2020, with the increased number of blended learning studies in physical education.
The theoretical framework is an essential component of disciplinary inquiry as it provides researchers with a strong argument for the significance of a particular research question and guides the analysis and interpretation of the data collected (58). The variety of theoretical frameworks found in reviewed articles indicates that blended learning in physical education is still in the stage of theoretical exploration, especially with twelve articles failing to specify a theoretical framework or a theoretical model used in the studies. The most commonly cited theories in this study are the self-determination theory (SDT) (22, 31) and the constructivist theory (34, 37). The self-determination theory asserts that individual development and progress are achieved through the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy (self-identity and autonomy of choice), relatedness (being loved and interacting), and competence (being perceived as effective and capable). Meeting these three needs in a learning task will significantly enhance students' intrinsic motivation (14). This is because, in blended learning, students can determine their own learning time and pace based on their preferences (autonomy) and individual learning levels (competence). Blended learning also allows for collaborative learning that provides a highly interactive learning environment that meets student needs for relevance (relatedness). In short, many studies support the existing literature that blended learning environments have a positive impact on students' cognitive learning outcomes and “needs” for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (59, 60).
On the other hand, constructivism, upholding the constructivist theory, believes that students do not passively acquire knowledge, but actively construct new understanding and knowledge through personal experience and social discourse and combine new information with existing knowledge (61). Blended learning emerged to overcome the disadvantages of passive learning in traditional physical education learning models and enhance students' learning experiences and build problem-solving skills for further practice by optimizing the combination of various learning modes. Applying constructivist theory to a blended learning environment, therefore, increases student interaction, learning efficiency, and quality (62). Post-humanist theory seeks to provide a new epistemology that is non-anthropocentric and rejects dualism as a central (63). Guided by this theory, researchers have a better understanding of the significance of online and face-to-face instruction in blended learning. Also, according to post-humanist theory, when introducing blended learning in physical education, teachers need to design and use an integrated approach so that all instructional elements, as well as their components (e.g., online instructional materials and face-to-face activities), are interacting, thus enhancing the learning experience of students (37). This review also discovers another theory associated with metacognition that stresses helping students master and reflects on their current learning situations in blended learning in physical education so that they can improve their skill performance. It is cognitive apprenticeship. Cognitive apprenticeship is an instructional model proposed by American cognitive psychologists Collins, Brown, and Duguid in 1989 that emphasizes the importance of the process by which teachers transfer skills to students. The reflective practice focuses on students' reflection on their performance in an ongoing practice for personal development.
In traditional physical education learning models, students can only passively accept knowledge and skills in the classroom. To extend the learning time and space, a new approach involving virtual learning environments has been proposed, which is the Collaborative Cyber Community (3C) model (64). This model highlights the importance of interaction and collaboration in a virtual environment where students can gain motor skills and knowledge and teachers can develop the competencies to guide students in technology-related instruction. In addition, some theoretical frameworks based on the flipped learning model were also included in some of the reviewed articles, such as the watch, summary, and question (WSQ) flipped learning model, the annotation, reflection, questioning, and interflow (ARQI) flipped learning model, and the identification, communication, reflection, and analysis (ICRA) flipped learning model. The watch, summary, and question (WSQ) flipped learning model aims to guide students to mark key points and difficulties when watching instructional videos and summarize and ask questions during the before-class stage to promote students' understanding of the learning content (29). Even though students can focus on understanding the learning content through WSQ flipped learning model, there is a lack of practical experience and reflection on motor skills. In contrast, practice videos in the annotation, reflection, questioning, and interflow (ARQI) flipped learning model facilitate students' ability to observe their sports performance from a spectator's perspective and critically reflect on their motor skills and internal experiences, thus allowing them to improve their performance (30). Similarly, based on the educational theory of reflective practice, the Identification, Communication, Reflection, and Analysis (ICRA) flipped learning model was developed to improve the effectiveness of flipped sports learning and to create pedagogies that are more suitable for motor skill learning (39).
Evaluation for learning is a method used for instruction that provides feedback to students and teachers to promote learning and guide the next stage of action. Feedback includes informal feedback (e.g., immediate verbal comments on student performance or behavior) and formal feedback (e.g., written feedback given at the end of a test and recorded as evidence for use by the student and the organization). Evaluation to facilitate learning involves high-quality peer assessment of learning with each other and self-assessment, with the results used as a basis for deciding what will be learned in the future (65). In terms of evaluation methods, this review found half of the articles used formal feedback (tests), with questionnaires and interviews being the most common of the other feedback methods. Other evaluation methods such as lesson observation, field notes, document analysis (34), and reflective blogging (37) were also mentioned, indicating the diversity of assessment methods of blended learning in physical education research. In addition, it is worth noting that five articles in this review used two evaluation methods, while six articles used three or more evaluation methods. This is in line with the current research trend where mixed methods research is increasingly valued in social science research as it provides a better understanding of what blended learning entails and how it can support student learning in a variety of ways (66).
In terms of the application areas of blended learning in physical education, the dynamic domain was explored the most, indicating that at this stage, the research on blended learning in physical education is mainly focused on physical exercise, which is in line with the characteristics of physical education. Even though studies have been investigating blended learning in single sports, such as dance, basketball, football, and Wushu, the sports categories are limited and lack richness. Moreover, this review discovers that the physical education theory (PET) curriculum is currently a less studied (37, 42), probably because it is mainly conducted in higher education. However, it still has a vital role to play in the development of physical education. These two articles on the physical education theory (PET) curriculum only used interviews and questionnaires to investigate teachers' and students' experiences and satisfaction, so future research could use other research methods such as experimental and mixed methods to further investigate students' effectiveness and depth of perception. Furthermore, three articles explored both theoretical and pedagogical activity aspects of the physical education curriculum, such as the Physical Activity and Wellness (22), Sports Coaching (23), and Sports Management (40). The findings showed that there are different specificities to the use of blended learning, particularly the collaborative nature between students, experiential learning, the increased autonomy of students in their learning process, and the greater effect of critical thinking. Students receive more guidance and feedback from teachers in classroom activities, which is impossible to achieve with traditional teaching methods.
The findings from the dimension of the Research Topic reveal that perceptions (n = 13), as well as learning effects (n = 12) and satisfaction (n = 6), have been the main concerns of researchers when conducting blended learning studies, in addition to motivation (n = 4) and self-efficacy (n = 4). This is largely in line with the study by Chen et al. (67) which flipped the science classroom and found that the researchers were more concerned with the student's learning effects, as well as their perceptions and attitudes/motivation. This is justified because blended learning is a new approach for most teachers and hence, it is essential to examine the impact of a relatively new pedagogical model on students' academic performance and perceptions. However, from the review of 22 articles, blended learning in physical education has generally met researchers' expectations. For instance, several studies mentioned the positive impacts of blended learning on students' learning effects, self-efficiency, interaction, and satisfaction (23, 27, 28, 32, 35), as well as their perceptions, motivation, and attitude (31, 36, 38, 41, 42). Furthermore, other topics such as the task load (29, 30), attendance (24), self-assessment tools (25), skills and career development (26), and psychological needs in sports (33) were also conducted. The findings show that blended learning in the field of physical education, though in a developmental stage, meets the expectations of researchers.
While the advantages of blended learning models in optimizing teaching and learning are evident in countless influential studies, incorporating technology into education also brings a degree of unease to students and teachers. The most common problem related to blended learning in physical education is the instructional design challenge. Researchers have recently begun to develop or use online technologies for teaching or training activities. However, due to its specificity and complexity, physical education is more difficult to design in blended learning than other academic learning activities (68). The research by Boelens et al. (69) identifies four key challenges in the design of blended learning environments: incorporating flexibility, facilitating interaction, facilitating the learning process for students, and creating an effective learning environment. The shortcomings of instructional designs such as a lack of variety in content (29, 34) and lengthy videos (23) are mentioned in several articles. Also, Liu et al. (42) report that students experience a sense of distance when involved in too many online learning activities. Tsai et al. (70) concur stating that online courses in blended learning should only be offered every 2 weeks so that students can learn on their own and, if they encounter problems, they can solve them through face-to-face interaction. Another challenge is the technological literacy and competency that have become necessary for teachers and students to pursue contemporary education. The findings of López-Fernández et al. (17), Lucena et al. (32), and Reddan et al. (23) emphasize the lack of literacy and competency among students and teachers in using technology. Liu et al. (42) mention that students are more conservative in enhancing their information-related skills, which affects their learning outcomes and satisfaction with the course. Similarly, Hsia et al. (29) highlight the need for blended-learning students to be technologically competent because incompetence with learning technology can be a barrier to students' success in blended learning.
Another challenge for students in blended learning is that they are expected to self-regulate their learning activities outside of face-to-face classes. Two articles specifically identified the types of self-regulation challenges, namely procrastination (42) and improper time management (29). It is worth noting that procrastination is considered a chronic habit of unnecessarily putting off things that need to be done (71). Students' procrastination behavior differs in traditional and blended models, as students in blended learning environments experience a more pronounced sense of transactional distance (8). Belief challenges in this study refer to the negative attitudes and perceptions of teachers or students regarding the use of technology for teaching and learning. As reported by Brown (72), the difficulties encountered in adopting technology may be seen as disruptive to teaching and learning. Teachers may think of blended learning as instruction that has two teaching sections to deal with. For example, some physical education teachers believe that blended learning meant extra work compared with traditional teaching (17). Chao et al. (38) also report that students are reluctant to accept pre-class preparation. Furthermore, past research has mentioned that student learning activities, such as homework and preparation before face-to-face lectures, are challenging due to the alienation and loneliness felt by students online. Similarly, the study by López-Fernández et al. (17) finds that alienation and loneliness were also a challenge for physical education teachers because they find it more challenging to establish social relationships, either between teachers and students or between students, in the blended learning model than in the traditional model. This view was confirmed by a previous study of blended learning in physical education, where teachers felt disconnected from students and expressed concerns associated with the potential lack of social relationships and learning opportunities for students in a virtual environment (73).