Method

A total of 4,362 PE teachers participated in the study with 52% representing elementary, 25% secondary, and 23% reported teaching multilevel. Multilevel was any combination that spanned across both the elementary (K–5) and secondary (6–12) grade bands. A strong, varied representation of the type of districts that teachers’ taught in was reported (urban 42%, suburban 35%, and rural 23%). Finally, 23% of teachers taught in the Northeast region of the United States, 25% in the Midwest, 32% in the South, and 20% from the West.

Results

The percentage of “yes” responses for the outcome variables by geographic region, type of school, and level of teaching are presented in Table 1. Nation content standards of priority by region, type, and level are presented in Table 2. Just over half of the teachers suggested they required assignments from their students during the COVID-19 stay-at-home period. Teachers also reported that approximately half of their students had “access to the technology required to effectively learn in a distance learning environment.” Only 37% of teachers reported that students were required to use video for teaching and learning purposes. Despite these barriers, 80% of the teachers reported their teaching as being “as effective or more effective” during the COVID-19 stay at home period. Finally, a majority of teachers prioritized getting students to value and enjoy PA (SHAPE America Standard 5, 43%) or develop skills and knowledge related to health-related fitness and health-enhancing PA (SHAPE America Standard 3, 32%).

Results from the chi-square tests revealed associations between content standards and district type, χ² (8) = 16.39, p = .04, grade level taught, χ² (8) = 156.59, p = .001, but not region χ² (12) = 17.21, p = .14. Urban teachers were more likely than rural and suburban teachers to prioritize Standard 4. Rural teachers were more likely than urban and suburban teachers to prioritize Standard 1 and more likely than urban teachers to prioritize Standard 5. Elementary teachers were more likely than secondary teachers to prioritize Standards 1 and 4; whereas, secondary teachers were more likely than elementary teachers to prioritize Standard 3.

Results from the four binary logistical regression models are presented in Table 3 including unstandardized beta coefficients and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. In Model 1, teachers from secondary schools were 10 times more likely to require assignments compared with elementary teachers. Teachers from the Northeast and from urban schools were also more likely to require their students to turn in assignments. In terms of students having access to technology, suburban school districts, teaching secondary students, or teaching in the Northeast increased the odds of increased access to technology. Urban and suburban teachers were more likely to require use of video. Increased odds of requiring students to use video as part of their PE during the remote instruction was also present for teachers teaching multiple grade levels. Finally, teachers from rural school districts, elementary teachers, and those from Midwest and West regions had greater odds of self-reporting their teaching to be less effective during the stay-at-home period.

Discussion

The current investigation examined the experiences with remote instruction of PE teachers in the United States during the initial outbreak of COVID-19. The robust and diverse study sample provides information describing how teachers from different types of schools, in different regions, and at different school levels dealt with the challenges of switching to remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic while attempting to still deliver quality PE. Understanding PE teachers’ remote instruction is crucial because it is unclear how long these practices will be in place. Our findings revealed that teachers’ remote PE instruction experiences varied by the types of schools they worked in, regions of the United States their schools were located, and the school level they taught. These differences are important to acknowledge and address when attempting to help teachers deliver equitable and effective remote PE instruction.

The PE teachers reported having students submit assignments (51% yes) and using video in their instruction (37% yes). Online assignment submissions and video instruction within our sample indicate the use of technology in PE during the onset of the pandemic. Research prior to the COVID-19 pandemic suggests many PE teachers feel unprepared to use technology (Casey, Goodyear, & Armour, 2017). In spring 2020, use of technology for remote instruction was, in essence, required for all PE teachers, with little to no time for training. The large number of responses to the OPEN survey, combined with the SHAPE America survey results, where teachers wanted assistance with remote instruction (SHAPE America, 2020) strongly suggests a desire by PE teachers for additional training to become more effective remote instructors. It is important for future research to identify what types of professional development prove successful in training teachers in delivering quality remote PE instruction. This study begins to shed light on the areas in which teachers need additional training as well as where current inequities by school type, region, and level, exist.

Teachers were asked to self-rate their effectiveness when teaching remotely, with the intent of trying to better understand their efficacy toward implementing PE during the pandemic. Only about 20% of teachers reported that they were less effective teaching students online during the pandemic. We expected this number to be quite higher given the lack of preparedness teachers had in teaching online, coupled with the abruptness of the transition to a remote learning environment. Since this was a self-rated scale item on the survey, it is unknown what criteria teachers were using to measure their own effectiveness. Some interesting and possibly alarming questions, however, remain regarding the goals of PE teachers while teaching remotely. If half of the sample did not use assignments to measure student learning and well over half of the teachers did not use video instruction, what actually occurred in these remote PE classes? A larger, and potentially more concerning question is, with little documented instruction and less identified learning, how did 80% of these teachers rate themselves as being as effective or more effective? Documenting student learning outcomes through assessments is a staple of effective in-person PE teaching (Rink, 2013) and apparently a largely missing component to PE during the onset of the pandemic.

Rural PE teachers reported the least access for their students to technology and rated themselves as least effective in their remote PE teaching. Apparent inequities in these settings led us to believe that children in rural areas received lower quality PE instruction than students in urban or suburban settings. Helping teachers, specifically those in rural settings, develop self-efficacy could aid in improving effective teaching. Teacher efficacy is linked to increased PA for children in PE (Ernst & Pangrazi, 1999). With a call for public health interventions aimed at increasing PA levels of children during the pandemic (An, 2020) and teachers in the current study identifying SHAPE America National Standard 3 (knowledge and skills to achieve and maintain a health-enhancing level of PA and fitness) as a focus area, it would seem appropriate to develop teacher efficacy to help teachers become more effective in achieving their identified area of focus. Observed decreases in children’s PA levels (Dunton et al., 2020; Xiang et al., 2020), the relationship between PA and the severity of COVID-19 complications (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020a; World Health Organization, 2020), and PE’s position as a place to address public health concerns (Sallis et al., 2012) further support increased work on promoting PA levels through remote PE instruction.

Access to technology and the amount of student assignments were the lowest among teachers from the South. In addition, secondary level teachers reported the highest student access to teaching and learning technology and the most student document submissions. Student assessment is a key component of quality PE programs (SHAPE America, 2015) and was not highly documented within our sample, especially at the elementary level. Disparities among these variables, specifically in the South and in rural communities were identified among specific groups. Support, through training and resources, is needed so that all students receive access to quality remote PE instruction. One idea for providing this support would be to make grant funding from state or national associations available for specific groups where disparities were identified. In addition, organizations, such as OPEN, could provide professional development sessions for groups disproportionately affected by changes in PE instruction.

Teachers identified a focus on SHAPE America National Content Standard 3 (maintain a health-enhancing level of PA and fitness) and Standard 5 (recognizes the value of PA for health, enjoyment, challenge, self-expression, and/or social interaction). It appears these two national PE standards were pushed to the forefront and served as prioritized student outcomes. Though the benefits of a focus on Standards 3 and 5 are clear, a sole objective of promoting PA could be too narrow for PE. It is possible that teachers found it easier to have students complete activity logs, report their PA beliefs, and rate their PA affect compared with providing motor skill instruction. As the pandemic, and remote instruction continue, ways to meet all PE goals should be pursued.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is that the variables measured were collected at one time point during the onset of the pandemic. With a summer to prepare, teachers and schools may have different responses to the questions posed on this survey. It would be beneficial to conduct a follow-up study to see how responses and teachers’ experiences changed with more preparation for remote instruction.

Another limitation is that results from the current study rely on the accuracy of teacher self-reporting. Future studies should look to include fidelity measures, such as a student or administrative element, to confirm the presence of findings. A final limitation is that the survey did not ask teachers to identify the types of technology used and needed for student effective remote instruction. Even with the presented limitations and suggestions for future research, the findings from this investigation yield important insights on the initial response to the pandemic from a PE teacher perspective.

Conclusion

The experiences of PE teachers as they switched to remote instruction during the onset of COVID-19 yielded important insights on the short and possibly long-term landscape of PE. Without the ability for physical educators to teach as they had been allowed to teach (i.e., face-to-face, shared equipment, consistent scheduled time), it is essential for teachers to identify alternative strategies to support students’ standards-based learning. Without the physical presence of the PE teacher, challenges in guiding students to engage in healthy levels of PA and fitness while fostering student enjoyment of those activities remain. Continued support for PE teachers, through professional development sessions and additional resources, especially among groups where inequities were identified, is needed as teachers adapt to leading students on a new path toward facilitating student learning in PE.