Learning with Digital Tools vs. Learning Through Digital Tools in Physical Education: Impacts on Student Perceptions

Abstract

Introduction Digital technologies are increasingly integrated into physical education (PE), primarily as tools for supporting skill acquisition (Jastrow et al., 2022). However, digital technologies hold additional educational potential by fostering digital competencies, aligning with the concept of an educating PE (“erziehender Sportunterricht”) (e.g., Wibowo et al., 2023). A key factor for adopting technology-based learning has been identified as perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU) (Granić & Marangunić, 2019). Therefore, this study investigates the effects of two intervention types on PEU and PU: (1) learning with digital tools (LWD), aimed at skill acquisition, and (2) learning with and through digital tools (LWTD), targeting skill acquisition and digital competency development. We hypothesized that LWTD would result in higher PEU and PU post-intervention.

Methods This quasi-experimental field study involved 33 students (14 females; age M = 14.4 ± 0.6 years) in regular PE classes over three weeks, learning the Fosbury flop with either an LWD (N = 16) or LWTD (N = 17) intervention. In LWD, the teacher provided feedback using Coach's Eye weekly, while in LWTD, students progressively learned to use the app independently. Perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU) were assessed (adapted from Roth & Beege, 2024) at pretest, after the second intervention, and posttest. The data were analyzed with mixed-factorial ANOVAs with group as between-subject and time as within-subject factor.

Results Both PU, F(2, 62) = 4.06, p < .05, η_p² = 0.12, and PEU, F(1.69, 52.30) = 22.76, p < .05, η_p² = 0.42, showed significant increases over time. Contrary to expectations, LWD consistently exhibited higher PU than LWTD across all measurement points, especially at posttest (LWD: M = 3.84 ± 0.6; LWTD: M = 3.37 ± 0.7). However, this interaction was statistically not significant, F(2, 62) = 1.51, p = .23, η_p² = 0.05.

Discussion/Conclusion Incorporating digital technologies in PE positively influenced students' perceived ease of use and usefulness of these tools. However, empowering students to independently use the tool – thereby enhancing their digital competencies – did not result in a more positive perception. Despite this, lesson observations revealed that students increased their tool usage and demonstrated comparable confidence in using Coach's Eye over the intervention. These findings provide first insights into the potential to develop digital competencies in PE.

References

Granić, A., & Marangunić, N. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864

Jastrow, F., Greve, S., Thumel, M., Diekhoff, H., & Süßenbach, J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-022-00848-5

Roth, A.-C., & Beege, M. (2024). Attitudes of students towards the use of video-based media in physical education. Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS, 9(2), 067. https://doi.org/10.36950/2024.2ciss067

Wibowo, J., Genfeld, L., Hofmann, R., & Wolters, H. (2023). Digitale Tools und Digitalität im Sportunterricht als Bedingungen von Bewegungsbildung. In E. Balz & T. Bindel (Eds.), Bildungszugänge im Sport. Bildung und Sport (pp. 147–162). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38895-9_12