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

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).

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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].

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].

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.