1 Introduction

The use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in educational contexts is increasingly becoming a tangible reality worldwide. More and more attention has been given to the potential of using technologies during Physical Education (PE) in both face-to-face and distance educational settings (Goodyear, 2020; Miller et al., 2024; Mokmin and Rassy, 2024). In this sense, digitalisation is a new concept to identify how ICT is integrated into daily activities, including teaching and learning processes (Karlsson et al., 2023). Different international institutions such as the Organization for Economy Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2020) argued that digitalisation would increase the quality of education in terms of universalisation and personalisation. For that reason, a wide range of measures is taken to provide tools and resources for increasing digital skills among citizens such as The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens also termed as DigComp 2.1 (Carretero et al., 2017). Within this kind of political strategy, the emphasis is placed on investing in digital skills enhancement for competitiveness and economic growth.

1.1 The concept of digital competence

Digital literacy (also called digital competence) is a set of skills which involves the confident and critical use of ICT for work, leisure and communication; and which is underpinned by basic competence in terms of the use of digital devices to retrieve, assess, store, produce, present and exchange information wirelessly (Spante et al., 2018). Considering the majority of European national objectives of promoting a more prosperous society and economic growth expressed in their respective educational curricula, original DigComp 1.0 (Ferrari et al., 2014) started dividing the digital competence into four main levels of proficiency (i.e., foundation, intermediate, advance and highly specialised) to facilitate relationships between the rest of key competences for lifelong learning (e.g., communication in a foreign language, mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology or learning to learn).

In a reviewed and updated version of DigComp 2.1 (Carretero et al., 2017), the previous four proficiency levels were subdivided into two different categories expressed with numbers from one to eight. These levels were associated with a cognitive domain including remembering (1–2), understanding (3–4), applying (5–6) and creating (7–8). In this sense, national governments have been in charge of promoting digital competence courses and resources for all citizens according to their specific digital skills. In terms of the specific set of skills that are needed to achieve a specific proficiency level, DigComp 2.2 (Vuorikari et al., 2022) differentiate five main areas in the shape of knowledge, skills and attitudes. For all the above, a person is digitally literate when he/she achieves highly specialised (8) knowledge, skills and attitudes in the five areas of interest shown in Fig. 1. However, in some investigations, these levels of expertise are reduced to three factors (i.e., low, medium and low, medium and high) to facilitate the interpretation of the overall digital literacy enabling easy comparisons in the literature (Cerny, 2021).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Digital competence entails five different areas and their respective proficiency levels

Full size image

1.2 The concept of Teachers’ professional digital competence

Teachers of the twenty-first century have to add a new important competence for their daily activity (alongside another pedagogical set of skills): Teachers’ Professional Digital Competence (TPDC). It is rooted in the definition of (general) digital competence but it is centred on providing students with tools and resources to develop their own digital competence. Therefore, both digital competence and TPDC have become an emerging topic of interest for education, policy-making and research. Unexpectedly, the analysis of the concept of a systematic review carried out by Spante et al. (2018) concluded that TPDC (and digital literacy) are sometimes used as an elusive and ambiguous concept by teachers, researchers and people in general. For that reason, Skantz-Åberg et al. (2022) noted that an exhaustive analysis including teachers’ points of view is needed to understand the whole concept of TPDC. This analysis is essential for understanding which extra measures must be developed in terms of teaching training and educational quality.

TPDC requires more comprehensive, complex and demanding knowledge, skills and attitudes than the digital literacy of a standard user (Novella-García & Cloquell-Lozano, 2021). In addition to the set of skills needed to use any digital device, TPDC implies that all teachers (including lecturers and professors) must meta-reflect on the use of ICT to both promote digital literacy and significant learning in all their students. An inevitable turning point in the development of TPDC was the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing teachers to mandatory use and teach how to use the devices during distance education periods (Sierra-Díaz et al., 2021). As was the case with digital competence, the European Commission has driven the Digital Competence Framework for Educators [DigCompEdu] (Redecker & Punie, 2017). In this case, the TPDC is divided into three main blocks of knowledge, skills and attitudes: (I) Educators’ professional competencies, (II) Educators’ pedagogical competencies and (III) learners’ competencies. Therefore, the TPDC is subdivided into six areas: (I) professional engagement, (II) digital resources, (III) teaching and learning, (IV) assessment, (V) empowering learners and (VI) facilitating learners’ digital competence.

In terms of researching TPDC, there are different approaches and methodological orientations. One of them is the analysis of the shortcomings of TPDC within the different educational levels (Skantz-Åberg et al., 2022) including real use of ICT in the classes or the attitudes towards digital technology. Indeed, according to these authors, a general tendency to examine whether teachers effectively integrate technologies into their classes beyond the limited use of digital but non-innovative tools has been observed. Indeed, an analysis of the contextual features (e.g., rural or urbal school) must be relevant to determine specific policies in order to increase the positive impact of the education.

Specifically, when it comes to researching the implementation of technologies in PE, most studies are focused on wearable technologies for tracking fitness (Almusawi et al., 2021). Results indicated that while ICT may not necessarily imply innovation in practical sessions, its presence in schools is viewed as a way of innovation. Previously, (Alemán de la Garza et al., 2019) established that two of the roles of digital innovations in educational settings are to objective metric and measure performance and to improve significant teaching and learning experiences. Nevertheless, more research is needed to shed some light on the state of the art of ICT in PE. To our knowledge, there is a gap in the literature regarding teachers’ background and personal digital competencies, as well as in the perceptions and attitudes of PE teachers about the use of technologies in their classes.

1.3 Digital technology at school: Barriers and facilitators

One of the priorities of PE is to promote an active and healthy lifestyle, supporting an autonomous climate, social interaction and comprehensive participation during class (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Inactive children and adolescents are mainly due to the increasing use of digital technology (Kerres, 2022). As Moore et al. (2023) highlighted, this aforementioned disengagement is caused by a new trend based on spending time on computer games (sometimes called e-sports), TV and social media. Another relevant barrier is the negative experience that students underwent in previous sports and physical activity programs. Paradoxically, new technologies can have a relevant role in motivating and engaging students in PE classes. For that reason, the TPDC is conceived as a highly relevant 21st-century capability among teachers for PE.

However, barriers do not only come from students. When it comes to practical barriers to teachers’ uses of digital technology at PE, Bodsworth and Goodyear (2017) highlighted time, expense, TPDC, teacher burden as well as a certain level of resistance to change and use of digital technology. Another resisting factor is the minimal use of digital technology for certain tasks only to meet curricular expectations (Casey et al., 2016). For those reasons, effective integration of ICT and pedagogy is an issue that research must cover in order to suggest better strategies to address the aforementioned barriers.

Several studies have observed the potential role of technologies with several pedagogical models such as Cooperative Learning (Casey et al., 2017). It is observed that student-centred approaches are in line with strategies for introducing digital devices to empower students’ meaningful learning. All in all, the first step is to consider an effective integration between digital technology and pedagogy considering the teachers’ opinions to understand what they have and what they need to achieve the acquisition of students’ key competencies alongside digital literacy.

1.4 A brief literature overview and current study

The implementation of digital technology in PE classes and its implications for the students’ learning has been a line of research since the last decade of the twentieth century. At this time, Mohnsen and Lamaster (1998) carried out a survey to gather PE teachers’ attitudes concerning the application of computer technologies. Results showed that teachers had positive attitudes toward technologies, indicating that computers would assist them in finding information, creating materials and managing class records. However, they also consider the need to develop workshops and training courses to demonstrate how to implement technologies in PE.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the interest in ICT of teachers and researchers has increased. At this time, heavy computers started to become more compact and mobile, enabling people (and students) to use them anywhere including PE classes. For instance, Zita (2008) observed the potential of using devices such as GPS or smartwatches in outdoor education. At the same time, different studies confirmed positive outcomes related to the implementation in educational settings (e.g., Donovan et al., 2007). Specifically, Bisgin (2014) confirmed that motivation is a variable that was able to improve in contrast to traditional methods, because technologies promote support and flexibility to students allowing them to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand, attend, organise and memorise in different paths. More recently, various systematic reviews highlighted the positive contribution of the use of digital technology in PE in areas such as health or motivational variables (Gil-Espinosa et al., 2022; Sargent & Calderón, 2022). However, previous evidence has also identified a lack of connection between digital technology and curricular aspects related to student learning. In other words, there is a gap between digital technology and pedagogy (Goodyear, 2020; Sargent & Casey, 2018; Wallace et al., 2023). Similarly, a major barrier related to the lack of teacher training in the use of digital technology in the PE class has also been consistently identified (Jastrow et al., 2022; Koekoek & van Hilvoorde, 2019).

Technologies have changed society. As a result, the World Health Organization (Bull et al., 2020) has warned against the excessive use of technologies to consolidate unhealthy sedentary behaviours. Although it may be paradoxical, new technologies continue to be essential for creating a relevant learning environment for learners in PE. Wyant and Baek (2019) emphasized that the focus is not on the digital technology itself, but how this digital technology may be used to enrich learning and acquire digital competence. Juniu (2013) also supported this idea adding that digital technology must be a resource to support teaching instead of fitting methodologies to fit the available digital technology. After all, digital educative frameworks are needed to motivate today’s generation of students (Ospankulov et al., 2023).

For all the above, it is essential to understand the level of TPDC and the implementation of digital technology in real contexts. Therefore, the present research aims to find an answer to the following research question: what are the factors that directly and indirectly impact PE teachers’ decision to use new technologies in their lessons? Therefore, this research aimed to analyse PE teachers' acceptability of the use of digital technology in their classes. In this sense, an initial hypothesis states that TPDC is an essential and relevant competence that all teachers must have in order to show high levels of digital competence.

2 Research methodology

2.1 Design

A quantitative research method was used following a cross-sectional design (Cohen et al., 2018). A web-based survey study was conducted, where participants self-reported their responses via online (Dillman et al., 2014).

2.2 Survey development and questions

The researchers’ University Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the survey. The survey was initially designed via recent literature reviews of digital technology related to PE (Gil-Espinosa et al., 2022; Jastrow et al., 2022; Sargent & Calderón, 2022) and several books and chapters that were deemed of interest in this research area (Casey et al., 2016; Koekoek & van Hilvoorde, 2019). The authors jointly defined the categories for the survey. Each author then created a list of 10 items per each of them. Subsequently, we met to review, reformulate, and select the most relevant items. Later, an external panel of experts was contacted to determine the face validity of the questions (Patton, 2015). Specifically, five professors with extensive experience in PE research and questionnaire development reviewed the survey questions. Positive feedback was received on all items, except for slight changes (e.g., three items were rephrased). A pilot survey was undertaken to examine the face and content validity (Ball, 2019) with ten PE teachers. They were approached to provide feedback on the pilot survey’s usability and content. This information allowed the authors to review and make amendments to improve the clarity of the survey. Only few slight modifications were made before the final version (spelling/format changes).

The survey had two sections. (a) Demographic and technology use statistics. At the beginning, a series of inquiries were presented to collect socio-demographic, professional and technology-use information: age, gender, years of teaching experience, educational stage taught, type of educational institution (e.g., public–private and rural–urban), average class size ratio, perceived level of digital competence and ownership and current use of technology. (b) Ad-hoc questions. Two main categories of inquiries were defined to group responses regarding the acceptability of digital technology use in line with our research objectives: (I) interest in the use of digital technology in PE and in transferring learning to the out-of-school context (eg., to what extent do you think digital technology can enrich the learning experience in your subject?), and (II) reasons to use or not to use digital technology in PE (eg., I have not received the necessary training to use digital technology effectively). A Likert scale with 5 options (1 = not at all, 5 = very much) was used for the first category and a dichotomous scale (Leppink, 2019) was used for the second one. These different scales were chosen to adjust to the content.

2.3 Procedure, participant recruitment and data collection

Participant information and consent forms were embedded into the survey platform. The exact number of participants was not defined before the survey was distributed. Instead, an attempt was made to gather as many responses as possible to increase the reliability of the results. To this aim, the survey was distributed via schools’ email addresses and Twitter, and through a non-probability snowball sampling strategy focusing on recruiting in-service PE teachers in primary and secondary education. Specifically, the survey was distributed through all the e-mail addresses to which the authors had access in Spain. The result was the questionnaire dissemination to around 1000 schools (the exact number is difficult to determine because it is uncertain whether some of these e-mails were received, as schools change their e-mail addresses relatively frequently). Online snowball surveys are very effective in contacting participants from different locations and the response rate is higher than in other strategies (Baltar & Brunet, 2012; Goodman, 1961). The final number of participants is thus presented in the results section. These participants were informed that their responses would be kept anonymous and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Surveys were completed by Spanish PE teachers during the 4-week period from November 15, 2023 to December 15, 2023. The survey took 10–15 min to complete.

2.4 Data analysis

All data were analysed using SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Co. LTD, Chicago, IL). First, demographic and digital technology use statistics were calculated for the total sample, primary and secondary education PE teachers. Then, the interest in the use of digital technology in PE and in transferring learning to the out-of-school context was analysed, again, for the total sample, primary education teachers and secondary education teachers. The same was done for the reasons to use or not to use digital technology in PE. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to analyse differences between school levels (primary and secondary education) for continuous variables and X2 testing of difference for categorical variables. Finally, the differences between the responses to the items for both categories of inquiries (I and II) were analysed considering the different groups derived from demographic and technology use statistics. Specifically, the differences were analysed based on age, gender, years of teaching experience, average class size ratio, type of institution (public/private and rural/urban) and perceived level of competence. Again, the same data analysis was performed for continuous and categorical variables.

3 Results

Completed surveys were returned by 265 PE teachers (93 females and 172 males, ages 23–66, M = 41.34 years). Demographic and technology use statistics were calculated for the total sample, primary and secondary education teachers (Table 1). It was found that the average class size ratio was significantly different for primary and secondary education for each level assessed. Also, a higher number of primary education PE teachers (16.6%) reported low perceived digital competence than secondary education PE teachers (6.3%, p = 0.03). Regarding the previous use of digital technology during their classes, the proportion of PE teachers who reported having used a smartphone, music speaker, smartwatch/fitness tracker, social networks and apps was significantly higher (p < 0.01) in secondary education than in primary education (see Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic and technology use statistics
Full size table

The analyses for the interest in the use of digital technology in PE and in transferring learning to the out-of-school context for primary education teachers and secondary education teachers showed no significant differences for any item (Table 2). Descriptive statistics showed that the highest agreed-with item was that digital technology can be a useful tool in education (M = 4.23, SD = 0.90). Two items obtained the same lowest score: perceived level of institutional support for the implementation of digital technology in your classes (M = 2.68, SD = 1.12) and perceived level of institutional support for the implementation of digital technology that facilitates the transfer of learning to the out-of-school context (M = 2.68, SD = 1.17).

Table 2 Interest in the use of digital technology in physical education and in transferring learning to the out-of-school context
Full size table

Concerning the reasons to use or not to use digital technology in PE, some significant differences were found (Table 3). PE teachers in primary education (32.5%) agreed that their subject does not favour the use of digital technology in a higher proportion than those in secondary education (17.1%, p = 0.01). Also, significant differences for the reasons not to use digital technology were found for the item “I have colleagues who have had negative experiences when trying to incorporate digital technology into their subject”, for which secondary education teachers (37.8%) reported higher agreement than primary education teachers (21.4%, p = 0.00). Finally, significant differences were found for one reason to use digital technology in PE: “The implementation of digital technology in my classes favours the practice of physical activity outside school hours”, for which secondary education teachers (64.9%) reported higher agreement than primary education teachers (46.1%, p = 0.00).

Table 3 Reasons to use or not to use digital technology in physical education
Full size table

Significant differences were found between responses to items in the categories of inquiry derived from age (Supplementary Table 1), years of teaching experience (Supplementary Table 2), average class size, type of institution (public/private -Supplementary Table 3- and rural/urban) and perceived digital competence (Supplementary Table 4). The results showed no significant differences for any of the items based on gender. The summary of the significant differences found is shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Summary of significant differences
Full size table

The results indicated that age, years of teaching experience and perceived level of digital competence are the most influential variables on the acceptability of digital technology use in the educational context. In particular, it was found that older teachers with more years of teaching experience and a lower perceived level of digital competence had a lower acceptability of the use of digital technology. Also, some differences were found based on the type of institution (public/private and rural/urban) and the average class ratio. Significant differences between teachers in public and private schools focused on the resources available (for both teachers and students), with public school teachers having the greatest self-reported limitations. For ratio, there were significant differences only in the item "Some of my students do not have access to digital technology outside the classroom" (p = 0.001) with 61.1% agreement for those with a ratio of less than 10, 64.3% for those with a ratio of between 10 and 24 and 39.2% for those with a ratio of more than 25. Finally, there were significant differences between the responses of urban and rural teachers on the item "RNTU7. Digital technology could require a lot of additional preparation and planning time that I do not have" (p = 0.01) with 66.7% agreement for teachers in rural schools and 49.7% agreement for teachers in urban schools. No differences were found in any of the items related to the reasons to use digital technology for any of the sociodemographic variables.

4 Discussion

The aim of this study was to analyse PE teachers' acceptability of the use of digital technology in their classes. To this aim, two categories of inquiries were analysed based on teachers’ socio-demographic and professional variables: (I) interest in the use of digital technology in PE and in transferring learning to the out-of-school context, and (II) reasons to use or not to use digital technology in PE. Findings showed a generalised interest in the use of digital technology in the school context, with a particularly positive opinion about its usefulness in teaching, which reflects a line of thought in line with the potentialities identified in previous literature. For instance, Goodyear (2020) explained that digital technology has the potential to support, develop and extend learning in the four learning domains (physical, cognitive, social and affective) in PE. Furthermore, PE teachers showed largely willingness to explore new technological tools and/or to receive specific digital technology training. It was also observed that PE teachers considered the potential increase in student motivation to be important as one of the reasons to introduce digital technology in the class. These results are consistent with previous research on the positive impact of digital technology use on motivational variables (Jastrow et al., 2022; Østerlie et al., 2023). Remarkably, the results of our study showed two items with the lowest scores for the first category of inquiries: (I) perceived level of institutional support for the implementation of digital technology in your classes and (II) perceived level of institutional support for the implementation of digital technology that facilitates the transfer of learning to the out-of-school context. Some of the first-ever studies concerning the application of digital technology in education already showed teachers’ demands for additional support and training courses on the subject (Mohnsen & Lamaster, 1998; Wood et al., 2005). Therefore, the lack of institutional support continues to be an obstacle to the use of digital technology in education (Lai & Bower, 2019). Moreover, it was found to be particularly so for those who reported low perceived digital competence. Thus, more efforts by government agencies are needed for all teachers, especially considering those who are less competent in the use of digital technology.

The results showed that there were no differences in the reasons for using digital technology based on any of the socio-demographic variables analysed in this study, but there were differences in the reasons for not using it. In other words, all participants saw the potential of digital technology in the same way, but there was one group that saw more reasons for not using it: older teachers, those with more years of teaching experience and a lower perceived level of digital competence (to a lesser extent, teachers in the public sector also saw more barriers to its use than those in the private sector). But what are the reasons to use it? The usefulness of digital technology as teaching support was one of the main ‘reasons to use’ for teachers in this study (> 76% agreement for RTU4, RTU5, RTU6 and RTU11). Similarly, the role that digital technology can play in the promotion and transfer of learning outside the school context was positively highlighted by PE teachers, who expressed particular interest in receiving specific training in educational digital technology to promote the continuity of learning outside the PE class. However, not only the learning possibilities were highlighted, but also the potential to promote physical activity outside school hours (although at a lower proportion of teachers’ agreement – 54% for RTU10 vs > 80% for RTU1 and RTU2). Remarkably, (64.9%) secondary education teachers agreed significantly more with the possibility of using technology to promote physical activity in the out-of-school context than primary education teachers (46.1%), while 24.9% believed that digital technology should not be used in class to avoid distractions from physical activity. Interestingly, the recent systematic review carried out by Gil-Espinosa et al. (2022) highlighted the usefulness of smartphone applications in physical activity promotion from PE. Hence, according to the evidence found, there is a positive connection between the views expressed by teachers and the possible positive impact. In this regard, evidence of the effectiveness of digital technology-based approaches was also one of the reasons for teachers' use (61.5% agreement). Lastly, teachers reported that the potential for student teamwork (> 71% agreement for RTU7 and RTU8), communication with families (91.3%) and class management were also reasons for the use of digital technology (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Reasons to use digital technology

Full size image

However, although the results showed a generally positive attitude towards the interest in digital technology, approximately 50% of teachers reported not having sufficient access to digital technology resources (> 56% agreement for RNTU8, RNTU18 and RNTU19) and not having received the necessary training to use digital technology effectively (52.5% agreement). Recently, the systematic review by Jastrow et al. (2022) also consistently found that lack of teacher training was a constraint. These two identified barriers, together with the lack of institutional support (61.5% agreement), could be limiting the introduction of digital technology in the PE class and, consequently, not allowing the achievement of some of the benefits evidenced in the previous literature (Koekoek & van Hilvoorde, 2019). In accordance with the results reported by generalist teachers (Dinc, 2019), lack of time to effectively introduce digital technology (54.3% agreement) and students’ data privacy (66.8% agreement) were also major reasons not to use it. Furthermore, it should be noted that these teachers' perceptions contrast with the high percentages of agreement on the reasons for using digital technology, with values of around 70–90%, which show a high level of interest among teachers in its usefulness for improving learning and assessment, physical activity, teaching support, communication with families and teamwork among students inside and outside the class. However, even though these opportunities have been supported by previous literature (Gil-Espinosa et al., 2022; Østerlie et al., 2023), it is a topic that is not without criticism, since a true and authentic integration of digital technology in the PE class requires addressing more specific aspects related to curricular learning and pedagogy (Casey et al., 2016, 2017), beyond the use of digital technology solely as a tool for health promotion or motivation enhancement (Sargent & Calderón, 2022; Wallace et al., 2023) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Reasons not to use digital technology

Full size image

Although the survey design procedure followed the established recommendations (Eysenbach, 2004), a mixed methods approach to data collection could help better understand the reasons for the variables studied. Thus, complementing the survey with the inclusion of open-ended questions of a qualitative nature could bring us closer to a better understanding. In any case, the exploratory, descriptive and cross-sectional nature of the study necessarily implies a cautious interpretation of the results found. Moreover, the sample was restricted to a single country and mostly in public school contexts, belonging to urban settings and with ratios between 10–24 students per classroom. Additional information on other geographical areas would be of interest to draw a more complete picture of this area of research. Certainly, replication and expansion of this research should be part of the future agenda. Finally, this study focused only on teachers. Future research is suggested to focus on students, delving deeper into their learning experiences with technology.

5 Conclusions

Spanish PE teachers, most of whom indicated that they teach in public schools, in urban environments and with ratios of between 10–24 students per class, showed a generalized interest in the use of digital technology in the school context and a very positive view of its usefulness in teaching. In the same way, teachers also positively highlighted the role that technology can play in promoting and transferring learning outside the school context. There is therefore a majority consensus on the reasons for deciding to use digital technology: to improve learning and assessment, physical activity, teaching support, communication with families and teamwork among students inside and outside the class. As a counterpart to these interests and attitudes, teachers identified five major barriers that might be limiting the introduction of digital technology in the PE classroom: (a) not having sufficient access to technological resources, (b) not having received the necessary training to use digital technology effectively, (c) lack of institutional support, (d) lack of time to effectively introduce digital technology and (e) students’ data privacy. In particular, one group of PE teachers found more limitations to the use of digital technology in their classes: older teachers, those with more years of teaching experience and a lower perceived level of digital competence (to a lesser extent, teachers in the public sector saw more barriers to its use than those in the private sector). Nevertheless, taking into consideration the widespread interest of teachers in integrating digital technology in the classroom and the positive evidence on the use of digital technology provided in the previous literature, the findings of this study suggest the implementation of measures that can overcome the existing barriers to facilitate the incorporation of digital technology in the PE class.