Developing an Expert-Validated Framework for Improving Online Physical Education in Higher Education
Keywords:
online physical education, blended learning, expert consensus, feasibility, safety, learning management system, higher educationAbstract
Background: Sustainable online and blended physical education (PE) requires coordinated solutions that address digital content, teaching organisation, assessment, self-regulated practice, safety, technology, and quality assurance. Objective: This study developed and expert-validated a structured set of solutions for improving online PE in a Vietnamese higher-education context. Methods: A development-oriented study used evidence from literature review, student survey findings, SWOT/TOWS analysis, and expert consultation. Twenty PE lecturers, coaches, and specialists with experience in online or blended PE were purposively selected. An initial set of 20 solution components was reviewed and restructured into 14 solutions across seven implementation groups. In the second evaluation stage, experts independently rated relevance and feasibility on five-point scales. A solution was retained when both means were at least 3.41, at least 70% of experts selected levels 4–5 for each dimension, and no principled objection was recorded. A high-priority solution required a composite score of at least 4.21 and feasibility of at least 4.00. Results: All 14 solutions met the formal retention criteria. Overall relevance was 4.27 and overall feasibility was 4.10. The highest-ranked solution was a safety procedure/checklist for independent practice (composite=4.53; relevance=4.60±0.50; feasibility=4.45±0.60), followed by outcome-aligned online content (4.38) and differentiated tasks/alternative exercises according to space, equipment, health, and student level (4.33). Solutions requiring greater institutional coordination, including LMS standardisation (4.05) and data-informed quality assurance (4.08), remained acceptable but were less feasible. Conclusion: Expert validation supported a multidimensional framework rather than a single technological intervention. Safety, outcome alignment, differentiated practice, assessment rubrics, interaction, self-regulation, LMS support, and quality assurance should be treated as interconnected components of online/blended university PE.
Downloads
References
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
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.
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
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
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
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
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90
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
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
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
