As future PHE educators, we are preparing to teach a subject rooted in movement, connection, and lived experience. Through our link-to-practice placements and prior coaching roles, we have seen both the value and the tension that technology brings into gyms, fields, and studios.

Technology is already present in schools. The question is not whether it belongs in Physical and Health Education, but how to use it intentionally without compromising movement, inclusion, and meaningful learning. PHE is one of the few spaces in school where students are fully embodied. That responsibility should guide every decision we make about digital integration.

Please enjoy the following video or read the rest of the blog post below to dive deeper into this topic.

Technology in Assessment and Feedback

One of the strongest arguments for using technology in PHE is its role in formative assessment. Clear and timely feedback has a significant impact on student learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Hattie, 2009). In fast-paced movement environments, however, providing individualized feedback can be difficult.

For example, in one of our EPHE skill classes, recording short clips during a volleyball serving lesson noticeably deepened reflection. When we, as students, watched our own performance and compared it to the given success criteria, we were able to identify specific adjustments. The feedback shifted from general external awareness to targeted self-correction.

The following video demonstrates this process clearly. Students perform a skill, immediately review the footage, and attempt the movement again with a specific focus. The tight feedback loop (perform, review, adjust) makes learning visible and actionable in real time.

Similarly, the next video shows how digital platforms can track fitness data, assessment benchmarks, and progress across units. Rather than replacing movement, the system organizes evidence of learning and supports ongoing feedback. It highlights how technology can strengthen accountability and documentation while still centering physical activity.

Research supports this approach. Video-supported feedback improves motor skill development when combined with structured reflection (Potdevin et al., 2018).

How technology can support assessment

  • Video recordings for skill analysis
  • Digital portfolios that demonstrate growth
  • Structured student reflections
  • Apps that track effort or personal goals

Benefits

  • Makes learning visible
  • Strengthens self-assessment
  • Documents progress over time
  • Supports data-informed instruction

Challenges

  • Reviewing submissions requires time
  • Risk of over-assessing and reducing movement
  • Privacy and consent considerations
  • Unequal device access

Across schools, access varies significantly. In some settings, every student had a device. In others, a single teacher iPad was shared. Technology strengthens assessment only when it sharpens feedback cycles rather than dominating instructional time.

Differentiation and Inclusion

Inclusive practice is central to effective PHE. The Universal Design for Learning framework emphasizes multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression (CAST, 2018).

During a dance unit in one of our placements at Belmont Secondary, students who struggled with live demonstrations or missed the previous class benefited from replaying short instructional clips at their own pace to learn the choreography. In another experience, translation tools and pre-made digital task cards played on an ipad during a tennis unit supported multilingual learners in accessing task instructions more independently.

The video below reinforces this idea. It presents practical strategies such as using video breakdowns, fitness tracking tools, and apps to personalize goal setting. What stands out is that the technology is manageable and clearly tied to learning intentions as it supports diverse learners without overwhelming the lesson.

In coaching settings, digital goal tracking can also help injured athletes stay connected to team culture while working within modified programs. For example, an athlete recovering from an ankle injury might log their rehab exercises in the same shared platform where teammates record sprint times or strength sessions. While their training looks different, they are still contributing to team goals, tracking progress, and participating in weekly check-ins. That connection can significantly impact motivation and belonging, especially during periods when athletes might otherwise feel isolated from the group.

Research suggests digital tools can increase participation and access for students with disabilities when implemented intentionally (Casey et al., 2017). For example, in a PHE class, a student with a learning disability or processing delay might benefit from having access to short, captioned video demonstrations they can pause and replay before joining an activity. Instead of feeling overwhelmed by fast verbal instructions, they can review the movement at their own pace and enter the task with greater confidence. In these cases, the technology does not lower expectations, but it simply provides an accessible pathway into the learning.

Examples

  • Replayable visual demonstrations
  • Translation tools
  • Digital choice boards
  • Adaptive fitness tracking
  • Modified goal tracking for injury

Benefits

  • Supports varied learning needs
  • Allows self-paced review
  • Provides alternative ways to demonstrate understanding
  • Maintains engagement during modification

Challenges

  • Access inequities may widen gaps
  • Teachers require training
  • Devices can shift focus away from embodied learning

Technology can amplify inclusive practice, but it cannot replace thoughtful planning.

Student Engagement and Motivation

Technology can energize lessons. QR code fitness stations, projected interval timers, and music integration often increase structure and participation quickly.

The previous WELNET video highlights how apps and tracking tools connect movement to students’ everyday technology use. When students set personal goals and monitor progress, engagement often increases because the learning feels relevant.

At the same time, we have observed how quickly devices can become distractions. During one lesson one of our group members did at Rockheights Middle School, they used iPads for video demonstrations. However, several students became more focused on rewatching clips, switching between apps, and taking photos than actually practicing the skill. Instead of using the video as a quick reference, it turned into extended screen time between attempts. As a result, repetitions decreased and the overall intensity of the lesson dropped. When screens begin to dominate attention, movement quality and engagement can decline. 

The lesson here is even when a tool is well planned, it might not match the energy or focus of that class on that day. Paying attention to how students are responding and being willing to adjust is part of good teaching. In this case, switching to paper skill breakdowns protected movement time and brought the focus back to practice. It was a great reminder that the goal is not to use the most innovative tool. The goal is to support learning by guaging the group dynamic and needs and only use technology when it is strengthening the student’s ability to engage in the lesson, not compete with it.

Technology supports motivation when it:

  • Encourages autonomy
  • Reinforces goal setting
  • Builds competence
  • Connects learning to real-world tools

It becomes problematic when:

  • It distracts from skill development
  • It increases passive screen time
  • It prioritizes numbers over physical literacy

In a subject centered on health and movement, technology should deepen embodied experience, not compete with it.

Teacher Planning and Professional Practice

Technology has also shaped our own learning in skill and methods classes. Shared planning documents allowed us to co-construct units in real time, leave feedback for one another, and adjust lessons collectively rather than planning in isolation. In skill-based courses, such as Net Games and our TGFU course, reviewing videos of our own teaching made pacing, clarity of cues, and actual movement time more visible. It pushed us to refine our instruction in ways we would not have noticed otherwise.

Moving forward as future educators, we can use these same tools to strengthen lesson planning collectively. Shared digital planning spaces can support consistency across classes, allow us to reflect on what worked, and build stronger progressions year over year. When technology aligns with pedagogy and content knowledge, as emphasized in the TPACK framework (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), it becomes a tool for professional growth rather than just another platform to manage.

Technology can support teachers through

  • Lesson planning platforms
  • Access to demonstration libraries
  • Collaboration tools
  • Digital progress tracking
  • Communication systems

Benefits

  • Improves organization and documentation
  • Encourages collaboration
  • Supports reporting
  • Connects school and home

Professional development remains essential to ensure technology is used ethically and effectively.

Conclusion

Technology has a meaningful place in PHE when it strengthens formative feedback, makes learning visible, supports inclusion, and aligns clearly with learning goals. In these cases, it deepens reflection and enhances movement-based learning rather than replacing it. However, it becomes problematic when it reduces movement time, creates inequities in access, distracts from embodied learning, or adds screen time without clear purpose. The impact of technology ultimately depends on how intentionally it is used and whether it protects the core values of Physical and Health Education.

As future educators, our responsibility is not to reject technology or adopt it uncritically. It is to use it intentionally, protecting the integrity of movement-based learning while adapting to contemporary educational contexts.

References

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 

Casey, A., Goodyear, V. A., & Armour, K. (2017). Digital technologies and learning in physical education: Pedagogical cases. Routledge. 

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.

Immediate video feedback in PE. (n.d.). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHjH8TmC9kg

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. https://citejournal.org/volume-9/issue-1-09/general/what-is-technological-pedagogicalcontent-knowledge

PhysEd Q & A. (n.d.). How do you integrate technology into PE class [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQtHeBSYrGA

Potdevin, F., Berthoin, S., & Gerbeaux, M. (2018). Effects of video feedback on motor skill learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37(2), 1–10. https://hal.science/hal.pdf 

WELNET. (n.d.). WELNET: 21st century technology for physical education [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quVCwiI3w1o