Research on Educational Sport

Blended Education Model for School Physical Education

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

neda heydari 1
zahra alam 2
shahram alam 3

1 Department of Sports Management, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran.

2 Department of physical Education, Roudehen Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of physical Education, Yadegar-e-Imam Khomeini (RAH), Shahre-rey Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2025.18063.2654
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
Blended learning represents an educational paradigm that amalgamates face-to-face instruction with virtual learning environments. Blended learning has attracted much attention in the field of physical education due to its potential to increase engagement, accessibility, and personalized learning experiences. Recent studies highlight the effectiveness of blended learning approaches in improving educational results within physical education, especially when combined with well-established structures like the sports education model. The implementation of blended learning in physical education promotes active participation by merging traditional physical activities with digital resources, including video demonstrations and interactive assessments. This approach not only augments student motivation but also facilitates differentiated instruction, enabling educators to customize lessons to meet individual learning needs. Consequently, the present study aims to investigate and delineate the characteristics of a blended learning model for physical education in educational institutions.
 
Methods
This study is classified as applied research in terms of its objectives and as descriptive-analytical research concerning its nature. The data for this study were collected in the field. Furthermore, this investigation is classified as qualitative research and was conducted utilizing the six-step content analysis method proposed by Brown and Clark. Content analysis represents one of the fundamental methods of qualitative analysis. In this research, purposive sampling was employed. To initiate the sampling process, the approach of bounded rationality and case assessment by experts was utilized. This method does not allow for the precise determination of the number of participants required for the study in advance, as the aim is to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Consequently, data collection continues until saturation is reached, which is the stage at which new data no longer reveal significant differences from previous data. In other words, when data collection efforts reach a point of diminishing returns, confidence in the completion of the study is attained.
In this study, a total of 17 participants were involved. Participants included university professors and prominent physical education teachers with research and administrative activities in the field of physical education. Most participants had a PhD (76%) and the majority of their undergraduate degrees (59%) were in sports management. However, participants with undergraduate degrees in movement behavior, exercise physiology, and exercise pathology also participated in the study. In this study, interviews served as the primary instrument for data collection. The researcher conducted in-depth and semi-structured interviews with participants to explore the blended learning model of physical education in educational institutions. The interviews were administered both in person and online, with each session lasting between 40 and 80 minutes. Upon completion of the interview phase, the gathered data was subjected to analysis. To ensure accuracy and validity at each stage of the research, four key criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability were employed.
 
Results
The findings of this study are centered on a qualitative analysis of data collected through in-depth and semi-structured interviews aimed at designing a blended education model for physical education in schools. This study was conducted qualitatively using Brown and Clark's six-step content analysis method. This methodological framework facilitated the identification of the central category of blended education for physical education in schools, elucidating various dimensions pertinent to this subject matter. Based on the results of qualitative analysis of data from interviews, the blended learning model of physical education in schools included 129 primary codes, 23 subthemes, and 8 main themes.
The main themes also included teachers’ professional development, student engagement, curriculum and instruction, technology infrastructure, policy and strategic preparedness, local management and implementation, social culture, and external challenges and factors.
 Conclusion
This study presents a comprehensive framework for blended learning in school-based physical education, organized around eight interrelated themes. Each theme is derived from a thorough analysis and collectively addresses critical educational priorities within this field. The framework emphasizes the integration of professional development for educators and the promotion of collaboration while enhancing digital competencies, self-regulation, student engagement, and overall well-being. It advocates for a curriculum characterized by flexibility, interdisciplinarity, and assessment-centered approaches. Furthermore, the model highlights the necessity of robust platforms, emerging technologies, coherent policies, institutional readiness, and active participation from families and communities. Concurrently, it recognizes limitations such as inadequate infrastructure, environmental constraints, and regulatory gaps that may impede implementation.
By providing a dynamic and adaptable framework, it specifically addresses the needs of physical education while enabling schools to effectively balance in-person and virtual learning environments. This approach represents a timely opportunity for educational stakeholders to meet the evolving demands of the post-COVID era and to respond to the accelerating shift toward digital transformation in education. Additionally, it offers both diagnostic insights and practical guidance for designing adaptable, holistic, and impactful physical education programs.
Article Message
This study proposes a framework comprising eight themes for blended physical education. It advocates for the implementation of flexible, interdisciplinary, assessment-driven curricula that are underpinned by robust platforms, emerging technologies, coherent policies, institutional readiness, and active family-community involvement. Acknowledging limitations such as inadequate infrastructure, environmental challenges, and regulatory deficiencies, the model provides educational institutions with a dynamic, context-sensitive blueprint designed to harmonize in-person and virtual instruction. Positioned for the post-COVID era and the acceleration of digital transformation, this framework equips educational stakeholders with diagnostic insights and actionable recommendations for the development of adaptable, comprehensive, and impactful physical education programs.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations were observed in this study.
Authors’ Contributions

Conceptualization: Neda Heydari, Zahra Alam, Shahram Alam
Data Collection: Neda Heydari
Data Analysis: Neda Heydari, Zahra Alam
Manuscript Writing: Neda Heydari
Review and Editing: Zahra Alam, Shahram Alam
Funding Responsibility: Neda Heydari
Literature Review: Neda Heydari
Project Management: Zahra Alam

 
Conflict of Interest
There are no conflicts of interest in the present study.
 
Acknowledgments
The researchers would like to sincerely thank all individuals and groups who collaborated on this research.
 
 

Keywords

Blended Learning
Face-to-Face Learning
Virtual Learning
Schools Physical Education
School Sports

Subjects

 
1.       Abedi Ja’fari, H., Taslimi, M. S., Faghihi, A., & Sheikhzade, M. (2011). Thematic analysis and thematic networks: a simple and efficient method for exploring patterns embedded in qualitative data municipalities. Strategic Management Thought, 5(2), 151-198. https://doi.org/10.30497/smt.2011.163 [In Persian].
2.       Abolghasemi, S. A. (2024). Identifying the challenges of physical education teachers in online class management. New Researches of Management in Sport and Health, 1(1), 65-73.
3.       Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students' perspectives. Online Submission, 2(1), 45-51. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309
4.       Ahmed, N., & Pierre, D. P. (2024). The role of classroom management in enhancing learners’ academic performance: Teachers’ experiences. Studies in Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 202-218. https://doi.org/10.46627/silet.v5i1.364
5.       Barbour, M. K., & Reeves, T. C. (2009). The reality of virtual schools: A review of the literature. Computers & Education, 52, 402-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.009
6.       Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7.       Broadbent, J. (2017). Comparing online and blended learner's self-regulated learning strategies and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.01.004
8.       Can, H. C., Zorba, E., & Işım, A. T.  (2024). The effect of blended learning on 21st-Century skills and academic success in education of physical education teachers: A mixed method research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 145, 104614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104614
9.       Chen, T., Peng, L., Yin, X., Rong, J., Yang, J., & Cong, G. (2020). Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the Covid-19 pandemic. Healthcare, 8(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030200.
10.    Daum, D. N. (2020). Thinking about hybrid or online learning in physical education? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 91(1), 42–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2020.1683387
11.    Doering, T., Pereira, L., & Kuechler, L. (2012). The use of e-textbooks in higher education: A case study. Berlin (Germany): E-Leader, 109123.
12.    Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 98. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-98
13.    Epstein, J. (2018). School, family, and community partnerships, student economy edition: Preparing educators and improving schools. London: Routledge.
14.    Farajdokht, J. (2020). A model for online physical education classes during the coronavirus outbreak. Paper presented at the Third National Conference on Student Sports Achievements, Sanandaj. [In Persian].
15.    Faraji, R., Reihani, M., Shabani, S., & Rouhani, Z. (2023). Requirements and strategies for the development of blended learning of the schools' physical education lesson. Research on Educational Sport, 11(32), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2023.14526.2357  [In Persian].
16.    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
17.    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
18.    Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. John Wiley & Sons.
19.    Goad, T., Killian, C. M., & Daum, D. N. (2021). Distance learning in physical education: Hindsight is 2020—Part 3. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 92(4), 18-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2021.1886843
20.    Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: Definition, current trends, and future directions. In Bonk, C. J., & Graham, C. R. (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives (pp. 3-21). San Francisco: Local Designs, Pfeiffer Publishing,
21.    Graham, C. R., Borup, J., Pulham, E., & Larsen, R. (2019). K–12 blended teaching readiness: Model and instrument development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 239-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1586601
22.    Hajizadeh, A., Azizi, G., & Keyhan, G. (2021). Analyzing the opportunities and challenges of e-learning in the Corona era: An approach to the development of e-learning in the post-Corona. Research in Teaching, 9(1), 204-174. https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.24765686.1400.9.1.9.1 [In Persian].
23.    Hinojo Lucena, F. J., Lopez Belmonte, J., Fuentes Cabrera, A., Trujillo Torres, J. M., & Pozo Sanchez, S. (2020). Academic effects of the use of flipped learning in physical education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(1), 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17010276
24.    Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 3–42. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001003
25.    Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2014). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. John Wiley & Sons.
26.    Hrušová, D., Chaloupský, D., Chaloupská, P., & Hruša, P. (2024). Blended learning in physical education: application and motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1380041. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380041
27.    Kazempor, E., & Gafari, K. (2011). A feasibility study of establishing a virtual in-service training system in Islamic Azad University. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 2(5), 167-193. https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.20086369.1390.2.5.8.2 [In Persian].
28.    Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45, 973-986. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.785352
29.    Koti, D. K. (2022). Rapid-adoption of E-Learning during spread of corona virus (COVID-19): A special reference to Bangalore and Hubli city. Central Asian Journal of Mathematical Theory and Computer Science, 3(4), 74-89. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W8GX2
30.    Kucuk, T. (2023). The power of body language in education: A study of teachers’ perceptions. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 10(3), 275-289. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v10i3p275
31.    Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
32.    Liu, Z. (2022). Research on the existing problems and improvement strategies of blended teaching mode of physical education in universities. Educational Research and Reviews, 5(6), 8-11.
33.    López-Fernández, I., Burgueño, R., & Gil-Espinosa, F. J. (2021). High school physical education teachers' perceptions of blended learning one year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21): 11146. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111146
34.    Müller, C., & Mildenberger, T. (2021). Facilitating flexible learning by replacing classroom time with an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education. Educational Research Review, 34, 100394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394
35.    Murphy, M. P. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency eLearning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy, Contemp. Security Policy, 41(3), 492–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749
36.    Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2009). K-12 online learning: A 2008 follow-up of the survey of US school district administrators. Sloan Consortium. PO Box 1238, Newburyport, MA 01950.
37.    Pratama, M. H., & Roesdiyanto, R. (2022). The impact of the blended learning system on the learning outcomes of physical education and health students: A systematic review. Journal of Science and Education, 3(2), 94-112. https://doi.org/10.56003/jse.v3i2.163
38.    Rasheed, R. A., Kamsin, A., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Challenges in the online component of blended learning: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 144, 103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103701
39.    Samahati, G., Javadipour, M., Rezaee, A. A., & Hatami, H. (2024). Identifying the elements of physical education curriculum with blended learning. Research on Educational Sport, 12(34), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2024.15505.2425  [In Persian].
40.    Sanders, M. G. (2006). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Corwin Press.
41.    Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K–12 blended learning. Innosight Institute.
42.    Sujarwo, S., Sukmawati, S., Akhiruddin, A., Ridwan, R., & Suharti Siradjuddin, S. S. (2020). An analysis of university students‘ perspective on online learning in the midst of Covid-19 pandemic. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 53(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpp.v53i2.24964
43.    Syah, H., Irmansyah, J., Hulfian, L., & Lubis, M. R. (2022). Hybrid learning space as an alternative for physical education learning post Covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 10(5), 1047-1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.13189/saj.2022.100523
44.    UNESCO International Bureau of Education. (2023). Hybrid education, learning, and assessment: a reader; an overview of frameworks, issues and developments in light of COVID-19 and the way forward. Programme and meeting document.
45.    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, 1073423. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1073423
46.    Webster, C. A., Emily, D. A., Urtel, M., McMullen, J., Culp, B., Egan, C. A., & Killian, C. (2021). Physical education in the COVID era: considerations for online program delivery using the comprehensive school physical activity program framework. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(2), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0182
47.    Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.    Zhang, J., Geok Soh, K., Bai, X., Mohd Anuar, M. A., & Xiao, W. (2024). Optimizing learning outcomes in physical education: A comprehensive systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with the sport education model. PloS One, 19(12), e0311957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957
49.    Zhao, Y. (2020). COVID-19 as a catalyst for educational change. Prospects, 49(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09477-y
50.    Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(2), 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Research on Educational Sport
Volume 13, Issue 39
October 2025
Pages 39-66

  • Receive Date 30 May 2025
  • Revise Date 07 August 2025
  • Accept Date 17 August 2025

Home

Publication Ethics

Submit Manuscript

News

Journal Metrics

Contact Us