Current Status and Challenges of Online Physical Education among University Students in Vietnam
Keywords:
online physical education, blended learning, university students, digital learning materials, learning management system, self-regulated learningAbstract
Background: Online and blended learning have become increasingly important in higher education, but physical education (PE) presents distinctive challenges because learning outcomes depend on movement practice, observation, feedback, and safe participation. Objective: This study examined the current status of online PE from university students’ perspectives, focusing on digital content and learning materials, teaching organisation, assessment and self-practice tasks, engagement and self-regulated learning, perceived barriers, technological infrastructure, and overall perceived effectiveness. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 300 university students in Vietnam during the 2021–2022 period. A 39-item instrument organised into seven domains was developed through literature review, expert consultation, pilot refinement, and reliability testing. Items were rated on five-point Likert scales. Descriptive statistics were used; the analysis was explicitly interpreted as descriptive rather than causal. Results: Student engagement, self-learning capacity, and motivation received the highest domain mean (M=3.71, SD=0.48), followed by online content and digital learning materials (M=3.66, SD=0.61), teaching methods and organisation (M=3.63), and infrastructure/LMS/management (M=3.61, SD=0.53). Assessment and self-practice tasks were rated somewhat lower (M=3.53). Perceived barriers were generally low (M=2.57, SD=0.51), although maintaining concentration/self-discipline, safety or injury concerns, and time management remained notable. Overall perceived effectiveness was moderate-to-good (M=3.43, SD=0.58). Students particularly valued the suitability of combining online and face-to-face learning. Conclusion: Online PE was feasible for theoretical content, digital resources, task distribution, and progress monitoring, but its effectiveness was constrained by the practical nature of PE. The findings support a blended approach in which digital environments complement rather than replace face-to-face practice, technical correction, skill assessment, and safety supervision.
Downloads
References
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). AU Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781897425084.01
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27 March 2020.
D’Agostino, E. M., Urtel, M., Webster, C. A., McMullen, J., & Culp, B. (2021). Virtual physical education during COVID-19: Exploring future directions for equitable online learning tools. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 716566. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.716566
Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001
Wang, C., Dev, R., Dev, O., 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, 1073423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1073423
Zheng, W., Ma, Y.-Y., & Lin, H.-L. (2021). Research on blended learning in physical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of Chinese students. SAGE Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211058196
Broadbent, J., & Poon, W. L. (2015). Self-regulated learning strategies and academic achievement in online higher education learning environments: A systematic review. The Internet and Higher Education, 27, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.04.007
Zimmerman, B. J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 166–183. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312909
Martin, F., & Bolliger, D. U. (2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092
Jung, I., Choi, S., Lim, C., & Leem, J. (2002). Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290252934603
Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2333–2351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.004
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010
Ali, S., Uppal, M. A., & Gulliver, S. R. (2018). A conceptual framework highlighting e-learning implementation barriers. Information Technology & People, 31(1), 156–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0242
Jeong, S.-H., & Chung, J.-Y. (2023). University students’ satisfaction and evaluations of synchronous online learning for physical education courses. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 12(3), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2023-0057
World Health Organization. (2020). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. World Health Organization.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Pham Duc Hau, Nguyen Duc Thanh*, Le Van Lam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Current Clinical and Medical Education
