When the physical education (PE) environment in schools was disrupted in March of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, PE teachers faced unprecedented challenges in providing quality instruction to students who were sheltering in place and learning remotely. The primary challenges that PE teachers faced with the unanticipated shift to remote learning at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic included a lack of technology knowledge, being marginalized to movement breaks between subjects, as well as increased stress, and workload (Chan et al, 2021; Cruickshank et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2021). The Journal of Teaching Physical Education published some of the first data-based studies on the impact of the pandemic on PE in a Special Series (McCullick, 2021). Results from these studies indicated that PE teachers faced significant challenges in delivering an equitable and effective curriculum online (Mercier et al., 2021) and found that teachers struggled with many barriers while teaching PE remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic (Centeio et al., 2021). Specifically, results from our preliminary studies indicated that only 20% of teachers (n = 4,302) identified as being less effective while teaching during the pandemic; rural teachers reported significantly less access to technology and rated themselves the least effective, and teachers chose to focus on specific Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE) America Standards. As authors, we were unable to understand how most teachers identified as being effective in their teaching when so many of the indicators of effective teaching were missing from our data, so we made this a focus of the current investigation. Other key barriers to instruction that were identified included inaccessibility to technology, lack of student participation, and difficulty meeting student needs.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the corresponding social distancing guidelines continued through the 2021–2022 school year. Several follow-up PE studies within the pandemic identified the acute solutions districts, schools, and teachers employed to improve the online learning environment (i.e., Foye, 2024). Much of the literature suggested that contextual factors, such as community-based partnerships and engagement, as well as interpersonal teacher connections developed through communities of practice, provided the emotional and pedagogical support PE teachers felt they needed as they continued to navigate the online learning environment (Ferreira et al., 2022; Ha et al., 2023). Research also shed light on the role of technology and how PE teachers began to adopt and apply new forms of technology to motivate, engage, and assess their students (Calabuig-Moreno et al., 2020; Marín-Suelves et al., 2023). Taken collectively, PE teachers did cite utilizing several strategies to adjust and overcome the barriers they faced during COVID-19. Interestingly, sources also suggested that professional development (PD) played a critical role in PE teachers’ knowledge, efficacy, and motivation to effectively overcome challenges and navigate the online teaching environment (Foye & Grenier, 2022).
While a recent review of COVID-19 PE literature encouraged PE teachers and PE Teacher Education (PETE) professionals to use “lessons” learned to students, our critical understanding of what barriers PE professionals were able to overcome still lingers (Lambert et al., 2023). The current study uses a mixed-methods approach, which is severely lacking within the PE pandemic literature. For example, only one of the 38 studies included in the review performed by Lambert et al. (2023) used a mixed-method study design. The current investigation is a follow-up study that builds upon the initial findings of the current authors (Centeio et al., 2021; Mercier et al., 2021). This mixed-methods approach explored if the same results and barriers existed after more than a year of teaching during the pandemic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine how teachers were implementing PE a year after the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and determine what challenges to quality PE programming remained or were overcome during the pandemic.
Framework
In alignment with previous studies (Centeio et al., 2021; Mercier et al., 2021), the current study was framed within the Essential Components of Physical Education (ECPE; Society of Health and Physical Educators [SHAPE] America, 2015) and developed to outline the structure of quality PE programming implementation. While ECPE was not specifically developed to inform PE programming during unprecedented times such as the COVID pandemic, the framework focuses on four key generalized areas: (a) policy and environment, (b) curriculum, (c) appropriate instruction, and (d) student assessment that are critical aspects of a comprehensive PE program regardless of if the programming is provided in-person or online. Further, the foundation of the framework is the national physical activity (PA) guidelines, which calls for all youth to engage in 60 min or more of PA daily, which was a key guideline highlighted throughout the pandemic (Chtourou et al., 2020; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018).
Taken collectively, the four aspects of the ECPE framework stress the importance of supportive policies, a structured curriculum, appropriate instruction, continuous assessment, and creating environments that encourage PA. Specifically, policy and environment call for whole-school approaches that advocate for supportive policies and environments that ensure physical activity (PA) is accessible throughout the day, with schools prioritizing and allocating resources for PE. ECPE also indicates that curriculum should be standards-driven, inform instructional practices that maximize students’ PA time, and consist of clearly defined student learning objectives that align with diverse activities in which students engage. Further, the curriculum should reflect a well-rounded program that addresses students’ physical, cognitive, and socioemotional needs. The ECPE framework explains that the provision of appropriate instruction is not universal and instead focuses on delivering engaging and effective lessons tailored to students’ abilities and interests, employing varied teaching strategies, and adapting to individual learning styles. Last, the framework states that teachers must take a data-driven approach to student assessment, tracking ongoing student progress, and an understanding of PE concepts, and using diverse assessment methods to measure both skill acquisition and knowledge attainment to foster students’ continuous improvement and demonstrate that they are meeting the standards and objectives. In sum, grounding our studies in the ECPE framework was purposeful since our investigation sought to understand how teachers implemented PE in relation to the SHAPE America PE standards (SHAPE America, 2013).
Methodology
Following institutional review board approval at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, participant recruitment occurred. An explanatory sequential design was used for this mixed-methods study (Marttinen et al., 2024). This means that the quantitative data were collected first, and then the results were used to frame, and create the qualitative questions for the participant interviews. As discussed below, an interview with a subsample of the participants followed the collection and analysis of quantitative data.
Participants
PE teachers (N = 607) from 48 states completed an initial online survey that was disseminated through the OPEN (Online Physical Education Network) listserv during the summer of 2021. Of the 607 teachers, 73% taught elementary-level PE. The type of district in which teachers taught included 26% urban, 46% suburban, and 28% rural. Of the respondents, 26% of teachers taught in the Northeast region of the United States, 22% in the Midwest, 31% in the South, and 21% from the West.
Of the initial 607 teachers, 206 agreed to participate in a follow-up interview. Once quantitative data were analyzed, participants were split into two groups based on a self-rating of high and low effectiveness toward teaching in an online PE environment. Purposeful random sampling was then used to select participants for the qualitative interviews. An online random sample generator selected 55 teachers who were contacted to participate in the interviews (23 highly effective and 32 low effective). In all, 20 teachers were interviewed during the summer of 2021 (response rate 36%). Of those teachers, eight self-identified as highly effective and 12 as low effective. Across the interview sample, seven teachers taught elementary, seven secondary, and six multilevel schools K–8. Nine teachers indicated they taught in suburban districts, five in urban districts, and six in rural areas. Fifteen states were represented in the qualitative sample.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Quantitative
PE teachers (N = 607) who responded to the email from OPEN completed the informed consent document and PE survey electronically. The survey was an evaluation tool that OPEN used to learn more about the free online material that is provided for teachers. Because of this, the survey did not collect basic demographic data of teachers (i.e., age and gender), as it was developed to understand better how teachers were currently using the curriculum and how OPEN could improve their future resources.
The survey consisted of items, such as grade level taught, state, type of district, and level of teaching, as well as questions that focused on their current mode of teaching, given that this was still considered part of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey items were aligned with the four areas of focus from the ECPE framework to allow for an understanding of how the recommended practices for quality PE programming were being met within the PE environment during the pandemic. Specifically, questions were developed to follow the SHAPE America ECPE framework (SHAPE America, 2015) and emphasized SHAPE America National Standards (SHAPE America, 2013)1 to gather participants’ thoughts about effective teaching, assessment, and technology. It also asked teachers to rate themselves as an effective teacher and asked them to identify how the current content that they were teaching aligned with the National PE Standards. Some sample of the questions include: (a) “From your point of view, choose the learning standard that most closely matches your highest teaching priority?” (b) “Are your students required to submit any assignments or artifacts of learning?” (c) “Do you use any of the following technology to enhance your remote teaching?” and (d) “On a scale from 1 to 10, how effective has your physical education teaching been?”
Survey items included several response options, including Likert-type scales, multiple selection, yes/no, and open-ended responses. Survey items not aligned with the identified variables of interest were not included in the data analysis. The survey was similar to the one used in our initial quantitative inquiry (Mercier et al., 2021).
Qualitative
Given the explanatory mixed-methods design, the qualitative interviews occurred approximately 3–4 months after the initial quantitative data collection. The quantitative data were analyzed, and it was determined that there were differences among teachers in relation to their self-identification of effective teaching, standards taught, assessments, and technology use in their PE lessons. Using results from the quantitative data as a guide, qualitative data were collected and analyzed to contextualize the quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). Therefore, the semistructured interviews were also developed to align with the SHAPE America ECPE framework (SHAPE America, 2015) and included specific questions about effective teaching, standards, assessment, and technology use. The interviews were conducted and recorded via Zoom using the transcription feature. After completion, one researcher used the transcription files to create transcribed versions of the interviews for coding purposes. The transcribed interviews were sent back to the participants for member checking.
Data Analysis
Quantitative
Descriptive statistics and frequencies from the dataset were determined first (see Table 1). Chi-square tests were then used to investigate associations between levels of each independent variable and teachers who prioritized specific national learning standards. We also made nonstatistical comparisons of descriptive data between teachers’ responses in May of 2020 (Mercier et al., 2021), right at the onset of the pandemic, and again in the winter of the 2020–2021 school year (current dataset).
Descriptive Statistics and Chi-Square Tests for Teachers’ Reports of Effectiveness
| Low effectiveness | Average effectiveness | High effectiveness | Chi-square test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade level | ||||
| Elementary | 40% | 29% | 31% | χ2(4) = 3.46, p = .49 |
| Secondary | 40% | 34% | 25% | |
| Multilevel | 35% | 31% | 35% | |
| Total | 39% | 31% | 31% | |
| Region | ||||
| Northeast | 37% | 36% | 26% | χ2(6) = 6.94, p = .33 |
| Midwest | 40% | 27% | 32% | |
| South | 37% | 27% | 36% | |
| West | 43% | 31% | 26% | |
| Total | 39% | 30% | 31% | |
| District type | ||||
| Rural | 37% | 29% | 34% | χ2(4) = 2.07, p = .72 |
| Suburban | 38% | 32% | 30% | |
| Urban | 43% | 30% | 27% | |
| Total | 39% | 31% | 30% | |
Qualitative
The average length of the interviews was 71.5 min (range = 41–108 min). Richards and Hemphill (2018) collaborative qualitative analysis guide was used to aid in the qualitative analysis process. However, given the explanatory mixed-method design, data were organized and coded deductively first by two primary researchers using Nvivo V14 (Lumivero). Deductive coding was used first, as the quantitative results guided the codes. The researchers then went back through the interview transcripts to inductively code the data. This approach was important as the team wanted to understand the data in relation to the quantitative data, but they did not want to miss any other common themes among the participants that might not have been apparent in the quantitative data. After all data were coded, the two researchers discussed and identified emerging themes.
Throughout the whole process, the researchers tried to employ strategies to increase trustworthiness, including peer debriefing, searching for negative cases, and data triangulation. It is important to note that data triangulation utilized only two sources: the initial teacher surveys and the interview transcripts.
Results
Quantitative
Data used in this study are taken from two different samples at two different time points. Although a limitation, the use of the same survey, with participants from the same OPEN database and a large national sample, allows us the confidence to present these findings for discussion with the noted limitation.
It is important to note that in the current sample, 62% of teachers rated themselves as effective or highly effective teachers. This did not vary by grade level, region, or the type of district that they taught in (Table 1). This is much lower than the first study, where 80% of teachers rated themselves as effective or highly effective.
Consistent with May 2020 data, teachers emphasized students’ outcomes focused on Standards 3 (30%) and 5 (44%). Thirty percent of teachers reported teaching Standard 3, while 44% reported teaching Standard 5 (Table 2). Significant differences by grade level within Standards 1 and 3 (Table 2) occurred. Specifically, secondary and multilevel teachers were more likely to report covering Standard 3, while elementary teachers reported covering more of Standard 1. There were no differences among grade levels regarding Standard 5. There were no significant differences between regions or type of districts regarding standards (Table 2).
Descriptive Statistics and Chi-Square Tests for Physical Education National Content Standard Endorsement
| Standard 1 | Standard 2 | Standard 3 | Standard 4 | Standard 5 | Chi-square test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade level | ||||||
| Elementary | 19%a | 4% | 24%c | 9%a | 44% | χ2(8) = 27.30, p < .001 |
| Secondary | 6%c | 3% | 44%a | 5%c | 43% | |
| Multilevel | 12%b | 5% | 32%b | 7% | 44% | |
| Total | 15% | 4% | 30% | 7% | 44% | |
| Region | ||||||
| Northeast | 12% | 5% | 29% | 10% | 43% | χ2(12) = 12.76, p = .38 |
| Midwest | 19% | 2% | 31% | 3% | 44% | |
| South | 16% | 5% | 29% | 8% | 42% | |
| West | 12% | 2% | 32% | 7% | 46% | |
| Total | 15% | 4% | 30% | 7% | 44% | |
| District type | ||||||
| Rural | 17% | 5% | 31% | 5% | 41% | χ2(8) = 9.39, p = .31 |
| Suburban | 14% | 3% | 27% | 8% | 48% | |
| Urban | 14% | 3% | 36% | 9% | 37% | |
| Total | 15% | 4% | 30% | 7% | 44% | |
Note. Subscript denotes significant group differences.
Finally, 68% of teachers reported that they required students to submit assignments, and this varied significantly by grade level (p < .001) but not by district type or region of the country (Table 3). Specifically, secondary and multilevel teachers reported significantly more assignments than their elementary colleagues. Although the sample size is smaller, the percentage of teachers who reported giving assignments was larger in this sample than during the previous year’s initial onset of the pandemic. Similarly, secondary teachers reported having the most access to technology for PE.
Descriptive Statistics and Chi-Square Tests for Binary Outcome Variables
| Assignments (yes) % | ||
|---|---|---|
| Grade level | ||
| Elementary | 55%c | χ2(2) = 62.84, p < .001 |
| Secondary | 89%a | |
| Multilevel | 78%b | |
| Total | 68% | |
| Region | ||
| Northeast | 68% | χ2(3) = 2.42, p = .49 |
| Midwest | 71% | |
| South | 64% | |
| West | 70% | |
| Total | 68% | |
| District type | ||
| Rural | 72% | χ2(2) = 2.26, p = .32 |
| Suburban | 65% | |
| Urban | 67% | |
| Total | 68% | |
Note. Subscript denotes significant group differences. Assignments = % of teachers who required students to turn in assignments.
Qualitative
Based on prior research, four primary areas were used to guide the deductive coding process: (a) teacher effectiveness, (b) standards, (c) assessment, and (d) technology. From these primary areas of interest, the following themes emerged: (a) Operationalizing “Effective Teaching” Under Untraditional Circumstances, (b) Tackling Physical Education Standards in an Online Environment, (c) An All or Nothing Mindset for Adapting PE Assessments in an Online Environment, and (d) Thriving or Surviving in a Tech-Driven PE Setting. No additional themes relevant to this manuscript were identified during the inductive coding process. Qualitative findings are presented below.
Operationalizing “Effective Teaching” Under Untraditional Circumstances
Findings from the first primary area broadly indicated that teachers’ definition of being an effective teacher in an online environment for PE differed from traditional definitions of effective teaching. Although we will touch on teachers’ self-rating of effectiveness throughout the analysis, this section will focus on how teachers defined, or thought about, effective teaching. Traditionally, effective teaching is associated with classroom management, organizing and orienting for instruction, implementing instruction, and monitoring student progress (Ní Shé et al., 2019; Stronge, 2018). In an online PE teaching environment, effective teachers are encouraged to follow the national standards, assess student learning, and communicate regularly (Daum & Buschner, 2019; SHAPE America, 2018).
After a qualitative inquiry to better understand what teachers deemed highly effective, it was found that both teachers who self-identified as low and highly effective focused on some, but not all, of the traditional characteristics of effective teaching. Specifically, teachers related effective teaching to classroom management, curriculum and lesson planning, and student engagement.
Classroom Management
Classroom management is a theme that teachers understand both in the online and brick-and-mortar setting. Teachers understood that in traditional ways, we might define classroom management (i.e., attention of students, participation, following directions, etc.) applied in both settings. All teachers also understood the importance of classroom management in their online teaching environment. However, those teachers who identified themselves as highly effective had an easier time translating and enacting classroom management online. Among the less effective teachers, many faced and expressed challenges with student behavior and adjusting and dealing with space constraints. For example, Participant 10 stated, “I sometimes had issues with student behavior issues and managing space constraints in the online environment . . . my students didn’t always engage in the activities that we were trying to do each day.” Although those teachers who were rated as highly effective did not specifically mention classroom management, they seem to exhibit strong skills in managing their virtual classrooms. Teachers shared about the activities that were utilized and implemented in their teaching, and it was clear that teachers were able to maintain order, discipline, and engagement of their students consistently online.
Curriculum and Lesson Planning
It is well-known in PE that being an effective teacher includes curriculum planning. All teachers expressed frustration about moving the curriculum to an online environment. There are many restrictions when students are at home and participating in PE. All teachers reported utilizing online resources to help them plan and prepare for teaching online. However, highly effective teachers seemed more adaptable and innovative in their curriculum and lesson planning. Many prioritized student engagement and provided a variety of activities for their students, aligning with the need for a more dynamic approach in an online setting. For example, Participant 2 used “creative methods like HITT exercises and yoga” to keep their students engaged and interested. This contrasts with less effective teachers who discussed focusing more on integrating knowledge components of PE. Less effective teachers also discussed their struggles in planning their curriculum for the online environment. Although they relied heavily on technology and online resources to help with their curriculum and lesson planning, many of the less effective teachers struggled with implementing the lessons and creating a full curriculum instead of what was convenient at the time. For example, Participant 19 stated “I delivered them through those platforms of seesaw or Schoology . . . . So, it was do the activity, respond to the activity so, it was really more participation grade than anything because if they’re not in I can’t see them do it and it’s . . . I couldn’t hit all the standards.” The less effective teachers appeared to never really overcome barriers surrounding technology and the change in environment. Although not explicitly stated by the teachers, this led to a piecemeal approach to surviving on a day-by-day basis and not a standards-driven curriculum that used a scope and sequence.
Student Engagement
All of the teachers understood the importance of student engagement in relation to effective teaching. Many discussed how engaging students in the online environment differs from engaging them in the gym. What seemed different between the highly and lowly effective teachers was the ability to design a curriculum that would engage students for a class period and keep them engaged and interested. Participant 3 discussed how they “adapted teaching methods to maintain engagement during online classes.” They discussed the importance of relationship building in the online environment, “You know, virtually is completely different than being in the classroom because that’s where the struggles came, trying to get them to talk about things, trying to like have the whole conversation.” Once the relationships were established through engaging techniques, like Google breakout rooms and music, then the students felt more comfortable interacting in the online environment and started to engage more in the activities with their cameras on. The highly effective teachers also prioritized fun and enjoyment. This was important to them, and they tried to make curricular decisions based on this notion.
The teachers who identified as less effective talked more about challenges to student engagement rather than solutions. Many of these teachers never felt that they had good participation from their students in the online environment. When asked about engagement, many of these teachers said they struggled. For example, Participant 10 stated she faced challenges like “student behavior issues and managing space constraints.” This suggests difficulties in creating an engaging and orderly online learning environment, which is critical for effective teaching and learning in PE.
Much of the teacher’s understanding of effective teaching and learning online was aligned with traditional beliefs about effective teaching. However, many teachers deemed themselves effective without assessing student learning outcomes. Further, when teachers reflected on what they were teaching in their classrooms, they emphasized enjoyment of PA and the importance of social–emotional learning. It is unclear whether this belief will carry on into the traditional online classroom once the pandemic is behind us.
Highly effective teachers in this study demonstrated innovation, adaptability, and a structured approach across all four themes of effective teaching. Effective teachers were proactive in engaging students, using diverse curriculum methods, and implementing assessment strategies (discussed more below). In contrast, less effective teachers struggled with student engagement, classroom management, and adapting their teaching, and assessment methods to the online environment. It is hard to know how these factors influenced the teachers’ self-rating of their effectiveness. Almost like the chicken and the egg, is it that the teachers understood the importance of these and used these items subconsciously to rate themselves on effectiveness, or do they not truly understand how to be an effective teacher, which led to issues in the classroom? Then, that led to their low self-rating. These findings underscore the importance of flexibility, creativity, and structured planning in an effective online PE environment, especially under challenging circumstances, such as the pandemic, but also as we move forward to embrace online PE in the future.
Tackling Physical Education Standards in an Online Environment
This theme captures teachers’ perceptions of the role of national standards in the online learning environment during the pandemic. Throughout the interview, teachers were asked about the content and lessons that were taught in their online PE classes. Teachers rarely referred to the national standards when discussing the content taught. However, given the axial coding technique used, standards were coded based on the content discussed in the interview. Unlike the quantitative data that revealed teachers focused on Standards 3 and 5, most teachers referenced many activities in their lesson planning that spanned all standards. Although qualitative data also indicated that teachers integrated most standards within their teaching, most did not report assessing student learning or showing evidence of meeting the standards and grade level outcomes. Instead, in most instances, activities were offered in relation to the standards.
In unison with the quantitative data, all teachers discussed content related to Standards 3 and 5 of the national standards. Specifically, concerning Standard 3, which focuses on achieving, and maintaining a health-enhancing level of PA and fitness, participants emphasized the promotion of PA and fitness in both on-campus and remote settings to support students’ overall health and well-being. For example, Participant 8 (highly effective teacher) noticed that PA during the pandemic was limited, and so, they thought it was important to encourage regular activity. They used PA logs as a tool for students to track their activities. Similarly, Participant 20 (low-effective teacher) expressed concern about students’ reduced PA during the pandemic and the visible impact on their fitness levels and body sizes. They highlighted the need “to get kids moving their bodies regularly throughout the day and hopefully sixty minutes a day every day.” Finally, Participant 6 (highly effective teacher) stated the need for PA, especially given the sedentary nature of students’ lives during the pandemic. They mentioned, “My biggest concern was let’s get up let’s get moving” (Participant 6).
For Standard 5, participants expressed the significance of providing enjoyable and engaging PE experiences that encourage students to recognize the value of PA beyond the school setting. They encouraged students to find joy in movement, express themselves through physical activities, and appreciate the social aspects of PE. For example, Participant 6 (highly effective teacher) noted, “In kindergarten through fifth grade where they enjoy, and they have fun, they associate fun with PA and they carry that on through past high school and into college and even beyond that I feel like I’ve really accomplished something.” This quote demonstrates the importance that the teachers feel on instilling a lifelong love of PA in students by making it fun and enjoyable. Although everyone agreed that activities needed to be fun and enjoyable, the teachers who identified themselves as “low effective” struggled to keep kids active in an online environment. Unlike their highly effective counterparts who discussed how they kept students active, those teachers who identified as low effective focused more on the challenges of keeping kids active. For example, Participant 20 stated, “I was challenged to keep physical activities engaging and enjoyable for my students, especially during the pandemic.”
Within Standard 1, participants emphasized the importance of providing skill-based challenges and skill development activities, and they did so through virtual platforms. They reported either making their own content or, in most cases, using content provided by online resources like OPEN. There was little evidence that Standard 1 was assessed for student learning within the interviews.
Participants reported content related to Standard 2 and focused on understanding and applying concepts, strategies, and tactics. Some assessments were present for Standard 2, but they were mainly focused on written tests. Finally, content related to Standard 4 focused less on the student and more on the teacher, providing a space, and place for students to have positive social interactions with each other and for the teacher to create a positive and inclusive learning environment where students could interact and experience social support. In sum, this theme provides insights on how PE teachers integrated national standards into their online teaching and stresses the importance of identifying ways to align lessons with national standards regardless of if learning is occurring in-person or online.
An All or Nothing Mindset for Adapting PE Assessments in an Online Environment
Assessment was the third primary area identified through qualitative analysis and further synthesis of the data in this area indicated that teachers’ perceptions of and strategies for assessment varied greatly between high- and low-effective teachers. Although not all, most teachers who deemed themselves as effective had a more holistic approach to assessment. For these teachers, it was not just about providing a grade, they were utilizing assessments “of learning” and “for learning.” This is in contrast in low-effective teachers who saw assessment as a way to track participation and not utilize assessment other than to make sure that kids were doing something.
Participant 8, a highly effective teacher, described using rubrics for project assessments, reflecting a structured approach even in a remote learning environment. They explained, “we put together various rubrics for the different projects . . . we tried to be really clear about these are the things that we want to see when you’re doing a project, when you’re making a video etc.” Another teacher stated, “We were holding the kids a lot more accountable and the teachers are being held a lot more accountable now, making sure the kids are coming into class and being assessed appropriately” (Participant 2).
As stated previously, those teachers who deemed themselves as low effective were limited in their assessment, and sometimes, it was not a priority at all. For example, Participant 17 stated that “they (the students) got a grade. It was all grade appropriate. It was the same format and lesson plans and units that I would be doing anyways.” However, notice there was no detail about assessment, and it is not convincing that the assessment they are doing “normally” is appropriate. Participant 12 stated there was no assessment done “. . . it was really hard to assess and honestly it’s hard to assess close to 600 students virtually during a pandemic.” Another teacher (Participate 15) stated “I didn’t really do any formal assessment . . . I was just happy to have the kids online with me and trying to keep it fun.” Similarly, this reflects the challenges low-effective teachers faced in adapting their assessment strategies to remote learning.
It is important to note that there were some negative cases within this theme. Specifically, there were some highly effective teachers who did not have a holistic approach to assessment and instead, it was lacking rigor. For example, Participant 2 stated, “the only assessments we really gave them . . . were the fitness logs and I would see how they are progressing . . . are they doing more push-ups or doing more setups.” Another example is from Participant 6 who stated, “I would sometimes assess cognitive skills like this we would take quizzes on content and sometimes we did assessment PE logs.” Although these are forms of assessment, they are not as robust and innovative as many of the other highly effective.
While highly effective teachers adapted to the online environment with innovative and varied assessment methods, less effective teachers appeared to struggle with the adaptation, often resorting to simpler or less effective techniques. A common thread across both groups was the challenge of adapting PE assessments to a virtual setting, a task inherently difficult due to the physical and interactive nature of the subject. This underscores the need for continued PD and sharing of best practices in online PE assessment.
Thriving or Surviving in a Tech-Driven PE Setting
Technology was the final area identified through qualitative analysis, and further investigation within this area identified that the use of technology in online PE varied significantly among teachers, showcasing a range of successes and struggles. Even though the teachers had experienced online PE for over a year, there were still constant struggles in the online environment. These experiences are critical in understanding the role of technology in shaping the effectiveness of PE instruction moving forward, especially in a remote learning context.
Teachers recognized the importance of using technology to engage students and track their PA. Because this data were collected at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, teachers talked about both traditional use of technology, as well as technology that they were successful with, or struggled using during the pandemic. The overall message is that technology is important and can improve student learning. Many teachers that identified as high effective saw technology as a key to helping engage their students. Although they felt somewhat comfortable with using technology both in the gymnasium and in an online PE environment, they expressed the need for continued PD to effectively implement technology resources. Additionally, many felt comfortable with seeking out resources online in order to learn about new technological tools. Once they started using different technology tools, teachers expressed the need to continue using certain tools even when they are not teaching fully online.
Highly effective teachers demonstrated innovative uses of technology in PE, enhancing both their teaching methods and student engagement. For example, Participant 7 stated “We have wonderful lessons online which is great with our virtual gym so if there’s ever a time or need to bring those out again, we can do that.” Her approach ensured that students remained engaged with the PE curriculum even while learning from home. Participant 8 went further explaining that “we put together various rubrics for the different [online] projects . . . we tried to be really clear about these are the things that we want to see when you’re doing a project, for example, when you’re making a video etc.” These examples show how highly effective teachers are not only incorporating technology into their teaching methods but are also using it to create engaging, adaptable, and effective PE experiences for their students.
Conversely, less effective teachers often struggled with the integration of technology. Their approaches tended to be more traditional and less adapted to the online environment. For instance, when discussing technology integration, some teachers gave basic answers that centered around traditional brick-and-mortar gymnasium settings, such as using pedometers or a projector. This lack of integration of technology use indicates a struggle to fully embrace and utilize digital tools to enhance PE teaching and learning in an online format.
The varying degrees of success and struggle in using technology point to a broader need for PD. While some teachers showed a high level of proficiency and innovation in using digital tools, others lagged behind, indicating a gap in skills or confidence in using technology effectively. This disparity suggests that targeted PD and support in technology integration on a consistent basis, both in pre- and in-service settings, could be beneficial in leveling the playing field, ensuring that all PE teachers are equipped to deliver engaging and effective online instruction.
The interviews revealed that while some teachers have embraced technology to enhance online PE, others still face challenges. Addressing these challenges through PD and sharing of best practices could significantly improve the quality and effectiveness of online PE instruction in an increasingly digital educational landscape.
Discussion
This mixed-method study is timely because it is responsive to the call for more research on how online instruction can support teaching and learning (Killian et al., 2019). The results contribute to the literature base by providing much needed insights on the patterns and trends of what and how teachers were teaching in an online environment while also shedding light on the factors influencing teachers’ instructional practices in an online environment (Wang et al., 2023). While we know that the COVID-19 pandemic and the related switch to mandated online PE is well behind us, it is critical that we use this time point to learn from teachers’ online experiences because it can help inform the future directions of online PE and help us ascertain if it is feasible to train teachers and develop curriculum conducive to online teaching and learning. That is, lessons learned from the pandemic can inform how we work to enhance the online learning and teaching environment in PE.
Findings from the current study aligned with previous research (Foye, 2024) and revealed that as time went on, teachers were more flexible and therefore were able to adapt and implement traditional methods of effective teaching in their online classes. While the accounts from teachers in this study explain that their online instruction was not perfect, it demonstrates that if more preservice training, resources, and time spent in PD were allocated to equip teachers better to provide standards-driven online instruction and assessment practices, teachers would demonstrate more efficacy and effectiveness in providing quality online PE.
When we break down the results of the current study by qualitative theme, we can more deeply unpack what lessons and takeaways were gleaned from the online teaching experience. First, with Operationalizing “Effective Teaching” Under Untraditional Circumstances, there was a notable decline in self-rated teacher effectiveness (from 80% to 62%). Qualitative probing concluded that teachers used a traditional definition of effective teaching and, in doing so, equated their effectiveness to the extent to which they were demonstrating sound classroom management practices, strong curriculum and lesson planning, student engagement, and assessment and feedback. Teachers’ interviews noted that while they operationalize teaching effectiveness in a traditional manner, they felt best equipped to focus their online learning environment on developing physical literacy (Aspen Institute, 2015) and the affective domain. As this suggests, there was an apparent disconnect between what teachers knew as effective teaching versus what they felt they were able to implement while online. This is important because it seems as though teachers believed that much of being an effective PE teacher is feeling like you are an effective PE teacher. However, as we know, there is more that should be considered when determining effective and quality teaching both in an online and traditional PE settings (Dyson, 2014). Either way, understanding effective and quality teaching outside of the COVID-19 context is important, and this research lends credibility to the importance of PD tailored to online and hybrid teaching environments that focuses on (a) adapting and enhancing traditional teaching skills, such as classroom management and instructional implementation; (b) enhancing teachers’ digital proficiency; and (c) modeling best practices and strategies for virtual student engagement techniques may be the best way to ensure that teachers feel efficacious and effective in their teaching.
Interestingly, the theme of the Tackling Physical Education Standards in an Online Environment both reinforced and expanded on the notion of effective teaching. Quantitative findings reported that teachers focused on Standards 3 and 5, and this finding was consistent across both study time points in 2020 and 2021. This is important because Standards 3 and 5 center on the importance of promoting PA, and fitness, and developing enjoyable PE experiences, both aspects that teachers routinely stated they were encouraged to focus their instruction on for various reasons, including administrator guidance, student preference, perceptions of stress, and well-being (Ha et al., 2023; Murfay et al., 2022). This is in contrast with other COVID-19 literature that has reported teachers focusing on getting youth physically active and delivering content knowledge (Lambert et al., 2023).
Findings from the interview data did not completely align with the notion that teachers solely focused on Standards 3 and 5. Instead, as teachers explained the activities they provided during online instruction, the information suggested that teachers were indeed teaching across multiple standards and maybe just did not know what standards they were addressing, or perhaps teachers were not addressing the standards in a purposeful manner. Regardless of why teachers failed to accurately report the standards they addressed during their instruction, as evidenced in the ECPE framework, teachers must take a standards-driven approach to instruction. The concept of teachers not being fully aware of the standards or integrating them in totality is not a new concept. Chen (2006) shared many years ago that teachers often did not have a deep understanding and commitment to teaching based on the national standards. This research occurred in a traditional classroom; however, the concepts can be interpreted similarly. Therefore, PETE programs and PE-specific PD should look to provide preservice and certified educators with methods and strategies for planning, and implementing, a more balanced curriculum that encompasses all national standards, and in doing so, will ensure a holistic PE program that addresses skill development, cognitive understanding, and social–emotional learning.
Teachers’ self-reported assessment practices varied considerably, both by grade and by their self-reported identification of effectiveness. Collectively, the quantitative and qualitative data suggest that teachers find online assessment challenging overall. This finding indicates that all PE teachers, regardless of their level of effectiveness, would benefit from access to more structured and diverse assessment methods and resources they could utilize in the online PE setting. Perhaps the adoption of project-based assessments, fitness logs, and rubrics, explained in the interviews of more effective teachers, could serve as models for developing robust assessment frameworks adaptable to online settings.
Finally, technology underscores the entire basis for the study. Teachers all agreed that technology is important and that as the field of PE moves forward, technology must be accounted for because, when used effectively, it can improve student learning. The current study shed light on variations in how high- versus low-effective teachers used technology. Highly effective teachers utilize technology to engage students, maintain curriculum standards, and conduct assessments. Low-effective teachers, simply stated, did not do well in the online setting and struggled with technology beyond traditional tools, such as pedometers and projectors. These findings identify yet another preservice training and PD opportunity in the PE field. Emerging technologies can increase student learning and lead to improvements in components associated with effective teaching (Casey et al., 2017). As we look to expand PETE programs and innovate PD, we must help teachers develop a methodology that integrates technology, provides opportunities for teachers to share and locate available digital resources, and motivates teachers to be the innovators who develop new and effective online teaching tools.
In order for PE to be relevant moving forward, it must be adaptive and responsive to the ever-evolving online world in which we live. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted an unprecedented reliance on technology and online settings for PE that were never anticipated, yet, in some form, are here to stay. As such, we must take the lessons learned from the intensive time teachers spent in online instruction during the pandemic to inform the future directions of the PE field. That is, the future of PE lies in ensuring that PE teachers are well-equipped to deliver effective, engaging, and comprehensive PE in an increasingly digital world.
The study’s findings also provide significant insights into how teachers use the ECPE framework to date and what can be done to ensure that instruction better aligns with the framework’s guidance. First, the pandemic had a profound impact on the PE “environment” with the abrupt shift from the gym to the computer. This sudden shift highlights the need for flexible policies and adaptive environments capable of supporting quality PE under varying circumstances. The study’s emphasis on the national standards, especially teachers reporting a heavy emphasis on Standards 3 and 5, aligns closely with the curriculum component of PE. The PE standards findings from this study indicate that it is vital to develop a more comprehensive, standards-driven curriculum that addresses both physical fitness and enjoyment, as well as skill development, cognitive understanding, and social–emotional aspects of PE.
Appropriate instruction, another key component of the ECPE framework, is also evident in the current study, which provides considerable insights, especially in the context of online and hybrid teaching environments. The variation in self-rated teacher effectiveness and the differences in teaching approaches between more and less effective teachers highlight the need for enhanced PD to ensure teachers are efficacious in online teaching strategies, the effective use of technology, and adaptive instructional methods. Finally, the study’s findings on student assessment practices shed light on the challenges and innovations with this aspect of the ECPE framework. The use of diverse and innovative assessment methods by more effective teachers can inform the development of universal strategies and practices that PE teachers can adopt for student evaluation and engagement in the online setting. Further, knowing that many teachers also faced difficulties assessing students online highlights the urgent need for PD and resource allocation in this area. As PE continues to evolve in response to changing educational landscapes, these components will remain critical in ensuring the delivery of high-quality PE that meets the needs of all students.
Limitations
Although there are many strengths for this study, including quantitative and qualitative sample size, there are some limitations. First, it was a convenience sample from OPEN. Despite this, we feel that the sample is still representative of a range of teachers who replied to the request to complete the survey. Given the survey was conducted as part of a typical program evaluation, the survey data were shared with us, and we were unable to calculate a return rate. Another limitation includes the lack of validation for the survey instrument. Given the tool was created for evaluation purposes and included specific questions designed to address results from a prior study (Mercier et al., 2021), all questions were not validated ahead of time. However, we do not anticipate that the validation of questions would change the outcomes of the paper, given the simple analysis that were used to inform the qualitative data. Finally, keep in mind that teachers’ experience and what was enacted during the school year (2020–2021) impacted their experiences and answers. We know this was not consistent across the country and therefore understanding the exact context in which each teacher was teaching at the time is not feasible. Along this same line, the framework used to conceptualize this data are designed for an in-person PE classroom. Future studies should examine effective online teacher using theories and frameworks that are aligned better with online teaching practices in PE.
Conclusions
As we look ahead to the future of the PE field, we must look to conceptualize technology as a foundational aspect of PE. In doing so, we must seek to develop teachers who effectively utilize technology in their instruction and assessment, both in an online, and in-person setting. Despite a pandemic bringing us to an emphasis on technology, the fact of the matter is that technology, online learning, and data-driven instruction are not going away, rather, every school, classroom, and teacher are now held to an expectation that learning is technology driven. Findings from this study highlight the continued need to support PE teachers who struggle with online learning and technology integration.
Guided by the findings of the current study, we have five practical takeaways that we urge educators and administrators to consider as we look to advance PE:
- 1.Revitalize preservice teacher and PD. This study elucidates that developing and advancing the PE teacher profession hinges on relevant and meaningful training and PD. Therefore, we suggest reevaluating the ECPE framework to include a central component of PD. PD is a thread connecting all of the components of the ECPE, but is not currently represented. Additionally, we must look to refresh and innovate current PETE courses to ensure that preservice teachers are trained to purposefully integrate technology across their lesson planning, activities, and assessment. It is also critical to offer ongoing training for PE teachers, focusing on online teaching strategies, effective use of technology, and comprehensive standard integration.
- 2.Remedy and enrich curriculum. Districts, schools, and teachers should look to audit and revise their PE curricula, ensuring that they are standards-driven and purposefully address all aspects of PE. This needs to happen beyond a brick-and-mortar PE class, as the use of online learning in PE is here to stay, whether schools are using completely online classes or utilizing the technology for hybrid or flipped classrooms.
- 3.Innovate assessment practices. We live in an ever-evolving world of artificial intelligence technologies and digital platforms that can enrich assessment approaches and make them more meaningful for students. Therefore, it is timely and warranted to set expectations that PE teachers adopt diverse and creative assessment methods suitable for online environments (e.g., project-based learning and digital fitness tracking). The ECPE framework should also take online assessment into consideration and provide guidance around it.
- 4.Invest in technology. Resources are key to sustaining effective and engaging teaching practices. It is time for districts and schools to invest in technologies advantageous for schoolwide instruction, including PE, to enrich teaching, assessment, and student engagement. PE teachers must be equipped to, at the very least, operate current technology that students are utilizing in the schools.
- 5.Support ongoing research and evaluation. We must continue to conduct research on the progress and effectiveness of interventions and adapt them based on ongoing findings.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic is well behind us and we hope it stays that way, there is important information to learn from teachers’ experiences to help us prepare for the future of PE and our ability to deliver meaningful instruction. Specifically, lessons learned from the pandemic can inform how we work to enhance the online learning and teaching environment in PE. This study is essential as it is one of the only mixed-methods research studies in PE that seeks to understand what and how teachers were teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic. The data revealed that as time went on, teachers began to better implement effective methods in their online classes. Although not perfect, it demonstrates the potential for quality online PE with more training and time spent in PD to help prepare teachers better for online instruction. Furthermore, it is important to find a way to close the gap between practicing teachers and researchers in terms of what effective teaching is and how to measure it in an online environment.
Note
It is important to note that this data is based on the 2013 SHAPE America Standards.
References
Aspen Institute. (2015). Physical literacy in the United States: A model, strategic plan, and call to action. https://www.shapeamerica.org//Common/Uploaded%20files/uploads/pdfs/PhysicalLiteracy_AspenInstitute-FINAL.pdf
Calabuig-Moreno, F., González-Serrano, M.H., Fombona, J., & Garcia-Tascon, M. (2020). The emergence of technology in physical education: A general bibliometric analysis with a focus on virtual and augmented reality. Sustainability, 12(7), Article 2728.
Casey, A., Goodyear, V.A., & Armour, K.M. (2017). Rethinking the relationship between pedagogy, technology and learning in health and physical education. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 288–304.
Centeio, E.E., Mercier, K., Garn, A., Erwin, H., Marttinen, R., & Foley, J. (2021). The success and struggles of physical education teachers while teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(4), 667–673.
Chan, W.K., Leung, K.I., Ho, C.C., Wu, C.W., Lam, K.Y., Wong, N.L., Chan, C.Y.R, Leung, K.M., & Tse, A.C.Y. (2021). Effectiveness of online teaching in physical education during COVID-19 school closures: A survey study of frontline physical education teachers in Hong Kong. Journal of Physical Education & Sport, 21(4), Article 1622.
Chen, W. (2006). Teachers’ knowledge about and views of the national standards for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25(1), 120–142.
Chtourou, H., Trabelsi, K., H’mida, C., Boukhris, O., Glenn, J.M., Brach, M., Bentlage, E., Bott, N., Shephard, R.J., Ammar, A., & Bragazzi, N.L. (2020). Staying physically active during the quarantine and self-isolation period for controlling and mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic overview of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1708.
Creswell, J.W., & Plano Clark, V.L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Cruickshank, V., Pill, S., & Mainsbridge, C. (2021). ‘Just do some physical activity’: Exploring experiences of teaching physical education online during Covid-19. Issues in Educational Research, 31(1), 76–93.
Daum, D., & Buschner, C. (2019). Research on teaching K-12 online physical education. In K. Kennedy & R.E. Ferdigs (Eds.), Handbook of research on K-12 online and blending learning (2nd ed., pp. 321–324). Carnegie Mellon University: ETC Press. https://www.academia.edu/37013644/Handbook_of_Research_on_K_12_and_Blending_Learning_Second_Editio_pdf?sm=b
Dyson, B. (2014). Quality physical education: A commentary on effective physical education teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(2), 144–152.
Ferreira, H.J., Goncalves, L., Parker, M. (2022). Physical education teachers’ experiences of nurturing a community of practice online. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42(3), 420–429.
Foye, B. (2024). The evolution of teaching physical education online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education. Advance online publication.
Foye, B., & Grenier, M. (2022). Reflections on the successes and challenges of teaching physical education during the COVID-19 pandemic. In E. Baumgartner, R. Kaplan-Rakowski, R.E. Ferdig, R. Hartshorne, & C. Mouza (Eds.), A retrospective of teaching, technology, and teacher education during the COVID-19 pandemic (pp. 51–57). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Ha, A.S.C., Hoi, C., Chan, S. & Lander, N. (2023). Critical contextual factors of sustainable online teaching: Learning the lessons of pandemic times from physical education teachers’ and school administrators’ perspectives. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Advance online publication.
Killian, C.M., Kinder, C.J., & Woods, A.M. (2019). Online and blended instruction in K–12 physical education: A scoping review. Kinesiology Review, 8(2), 110–129.
Kim, M., Yu, H., Park, C.W., Ha, T., & Baek, J.H. (2021). Physical education teachers’ online teaching experiences and perceptions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 21, 2049–2056.
Lambert, K., Hudson, C., & Luguetti, C. (2023). What would bell hooks think of the remote teaching and learning in Physical Education during the COVID-19 pandemic? A critical review of the literature. Sport, Education and Society, 29(6), 667–683.
Marín-Suelves, D., Ramón-Llin, J., & Gabarda, V. (2023). The role of technology in physical education teaching in the wake of the pandemic. Sustainability, 15(11), Article 8503.
Marttinen, R., Centeio, E., & Hodges-Kulina, P. (2024). Mixed methods in physical education and physical activity. In K.A. Richards, M.A. Hemphill, & P.M. Wright (Eds.), Qualitative research and evaluation in physical education and sport pedagogy (pp. 197–211). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
McCullick, B. (2021). Special series: Research on teaching physical education in the age of COVID-19. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(2), 177.
Mercier, K., Centeio, E.E., Garn, A., Erwin, H., Marttinen, R., & Foley, J. (2021). Physical education teachers’ experiences with remote instruction during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(2), 337–342.
Murfay, K., Beighle, A., Erwin, H.E., Aiello, E., & Pyszczynski, S. (2022). Examining Physical Education teaching practices during the Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 1(3), Article 2.
Ní Shé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Trevaskis, S., Eccles, S. (2019). Teaching online is different: Critical perspectives from the literature. Dublin City University.
Richards, K.A.R., Hemphill, M. (2018). A practical guide to collaborative qualitative data analysis. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 225–231.
SHAPE America. (2013). National standards for K-12 physical education. https://www.shapeamerica.org/standards/pe/
SHAPE America. (2015). The essential components of physical education. https://www.shapeamerica.org/upload/TheEssentialComponentsOfPhysicalEducation.pdf
SHAPE America. (2018). Guidelines for K-12 online physical education.
Stronge, J.H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Physical activity guidelines for Americans (2nd ed.). https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf
Wang, C., Omar Dev, R.D., Soh, K.G., Mohd Nasirudddin, N.J., Yuan, Y., & Ji, X. (2023). Blended learning in physical education: A systematic review. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, Article 1073423.
