Toward Sustainable Integration of Digital Technology in Physical Education: A Teacher-Centered TAM–TPACK Framework for Instructional Design

Abstract

This study proposes an integrated TAM–TPACK framework that explicates how teachers’ technology acceptance progresses to lesson design and enactment in elementary physical education, using augmented reality (AR) climbing as the focal case. A qualitative case study was conducted with three elementary teachers. Data comprised semi-structured interviews, classroom videos, lesson plans, and satisfaction surveys, and were interpreted through directed content analysis. The findings indicate that perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) systematically informed goal setting, feasibility judgments, and content–curriculum alignment, whereas behavioral intention (BI) shaped pedagogical intent and design decisions. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) and Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) functioned as core mechanisms that structurally aligned AR functionalities with curricular aims and instructional procedures. Clear correspondences—PU↔TCK, PEU↔TPK, and BI↔TPACK—were identified, conceptually mapping a pathway from technology acceptance to lesson design and classroom enactment. The study advances a concise, empirically grounded, teacher-centered model for digital physical education and underscores the need for standardized adoption criteria, structured professional development, implementation incentives, and equitable access to local infrastructure to support sustained practice as part of a sustainability-oriented digital transformation of physical education systems.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the adoption of digital technologies in physical education (PE) has accelerated significantly, with augmented reality (AR) drawing particular attention for its potential to offer immersive learning experiences [1,2]. Among various AR applications, AR climbing has been recognized as a technology that transforms conventional climbing activities into interactive PE experiences by integrating visual interfaces and sensor-based feedback mechanisms [3,4,5]. Prior studies have reported that AR climbing may contribute positively to the physical and socio-emotional development of elementary school students [6].

Despite the educational potential of such technologies, their effective implementation in school settings requires more than technical deployment. Scholars have emphasized that teachers’ technology acceptance and instructional competence are critical prerequisites for ensuring the stability and pedagogical value of digital tools in actual classrooms [7,8]. The indiscriminate influx of digital content into schools—often without sufficient pedagogical review—has led to unintended consequences such as budget inefficiencies, instructional disruptions, and increased teacher stress [9,10,11]. In this context, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) highlights that effective integration of digital tools in instruction is contingent upon teachers’ perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), and behavioral intention (BI) [12,13]. These constructs reflect the extent to which teachers actively evaluate the educational legitimacy of a given technology.

However, bridging the gap between technology acceptance and instructional enactment necessitates a structured understanding of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). Specifically, Technological Content Knowledge (TCK) enables teachers to align digital content with curriculum goals and subject matter, while Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK) supports the translation of that content into effective instructional strategies [14,15,16]. From this perspective, an integrative TAM–TPACK approach is essential for resolving the discontinuity between acceptance and pedagogical implementation.

Beyond this conceptual rationale, cumulative empirical work across K–12, higher education, and preservice settings has directly modeled TAM–TPACK linkages: teachers’ TPACK reliably predicts PEU and PU, and TAM pathways frequently mediate downstream attitudes, satisfaction, and behavioral intention (BI) [17,18,19,20]. By contrast, within AR-enhanced instruction, the teacher literature has largely foregrounded TAM-only acceptance models (e.g., the Mobile Augmented Reality Acceptance Model, MARAM), and concurrent estimation of TAM and TPACK remains comparatively rare—particularly in physical education. This contrast delineates a persistent gap between acceptance constructs and pedagogical enactment in AR-supported PE [21], highlighting the need for an integrative approach that explicitly links acceptance to design and enactment.

While prior studies have reported positive outcomes regarding learning effectiveness and motivational engagement associated with AR-based instruction [3,6,22,23], systematic accounts of how teachers conceptualize AR technologies (in terms of TAM) and translate those perceptions into structured pedagogical strategies (in terms of TPACK) remain limited [24]. Although some VR-based design studies have been conducted [25,26,27], the unique affordances of AR—such as sensor-based feedback, gamification elements, and adjustable difficulty levels—remain underexplored in terms of their instructional applications. At the same time, much of the AR/VR literature has privileged learner-level outcomes and generic affordances [24], providing limited evidence on how teachers make judgments, design, and enact technologies as pedagogical implementations at the classroom level. Against this backdrop, the present study adopts an integrated TAM–TPACK framework to clarify how teachers’ knowledge and perceptions are converted into context-sensitive design decisions and classroom enactment in elementary AR climbing.

Accordingly, this study aims to examine how elementary school teachers perceive and implement AR climbing content through an integrated lens of TAM and TPACK. Specifically, the research focuses on the following questions:

• How do teachers perceive the usefulness (PU), ease of use (PEU), and behavioral intention (BI) of AR climbing content?
• How are TCK and TPK reflected in the instructional implementation of AR climbing?
• In what ways do TAM and TPACK interact during the instructional design process?

By connecting technology acceptance (TAM) with instructional design (TPACK), this study seeks to identify the structural elements of teacher-centered digital PE instruction, moving beyond simple technology adoption toward equitable, sustainability-oriented classroom integration that supports long-term, system-level innovation in physical education.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study employed a qualitative case study approach to explore elementary school teachers’ instructional practices using AR climbing content in physical education (PE). The case study method is particularly suitable for in-depth analysis of phenomena situated in real-world contexts and was implemented following the procedures suggested by Creswell and Poth [28]. Given the limited adoption of AR climbing in elementary PE, this study aimed to provide contextual insights into the instructional decisions of early adopters. AR climbing was selected as the focal instructional content because it affords observable route planning, immediate performance feedback, and safe, modular tasks aligned with fundamental movement skills and the PE curriculum. These features make it suitable for examining TAM (PU, PEU, BI) in relation to TPACK (TCK, TPK) in authentic classroom contexts.

In addition to the qualitative case study (primary data: teacher interviews and lesson artifacts), we adopted a qualitatively driven design (QUAL + quan) with an embedded, supplementary survey (n = 130 general users; see Section 2.5) to examine the external coherence/consistency of the TAM constructs (PU, PEU, BI). This supplementary strand was not intended to statistically generalize to teachers; rather, it functioned as a bounded check on whether directional tendencies among general users align with—or help contextualize—the teacher-centered findings (see Section 2.5 and Section 2.6).

The analytical framework was based on the TAM—including PU, PEU, and BI—as well as two core components of the TPACK framework: TCK and TPK. As illustrated in Figure 1, a deductive approach was adopted, using these theoretical constructs as a priori categories for consistent data collection and analysis [29]. Integration procedures were specified a priori: after separate analyses of each strand, a joint display compared TAM constructs across sources and supported meta-inferences; discrepancies were retained and reported as boundary conditions rather than forced into convergence (see Section 2.6 and Section 2.7).

Figure 1. TAM–TPACK Framework. The model depicts PU, PEU, and BI directing to TCK, TPK, and TPACK (lesson design and enactment), respectively (PU → TCK, PEU → TPK, BI → TPACK).

2.2. Intervention and Instructional Implementation

We used a commercially available AR climbing system, AR Screen Climbing (Asportz Co., Ltd., Hanam, Republic of Korea; PC kiosk-based). The installation comprised a 5000 × 3000 mm screen climbing wall, a 5000 × 2000 mm safety mat, AR-climbing content software (T-CLIMBWORD ver1.3.1), a PC kiosk, a motion sensor, a touch monitor, a sound bar, and a projector. Content modules available included training (route, online battle), gaming (story, arcade), two-player gaming (battle, speed), and PAPS assessment. Unless otherwise noted, parameter settings followed vendor defaults, and no source-code modifications were made. The system version described here refers to the pre-installed exhibition build provided by the vendor for the 2024 SPOEX event, and it does not indicate any research activity conducted prior to IRB approval.

In this study, the platform was implemented with elementary Grades 3–6 during regular school physical education classes and school sports club sessions; units typically comprised 10 lessons per semester, and each lesson involved 10–20 students. Each session lasted approximately 40 min in regular PE classes and 40–60 min in school sports club sessions. A typical lesson followed a concise sequence: orientation/safety briefing; focused technique instruction (e.g., triangle stance, safe landing, grip/balance); AR-mediated practice using TR/SG/DG modules; cooperative tasks; and brief reflection/assessment. Pedagogically, training routes (TR) supported technique acquisition and progression; single-player games (SG; e.g., Balloon Pang, Seraphang, Everest) afforded individualized practice with immediate feedback; dual-player games (DG; e.g., Boomers, Numbers, Basketball, Volcano) fostered cooperative/competitive tasks and teamwork; and the PAPS mode was used for fitness/skill checks aligned with school PE routines.

2.3. Participants

Three elementary school teachers who had prior experience integrating AR climbing into their PE classes participated in this study. A three-participant sample was intentionally set to enable in-depth, information-rich case analysis and cross-case comparison while minimizing deductive-disclosure risk in a small pool of early adopters; this size aligns with qualitative case-study conventions and the narrow phenomenon under investigation [28]. The minimum experience threshold was set at six months to approximate one academic semester in the local context, ensuring exposure to a full plan–teach–reflect cycle and stabilization beyond initial onboarding. This threshold balanced analytic rigor and feasibility: shorter exposures (<3 months) risk capturing transient adoption effects, whereas longer thresholds (≥12 months) would unduly restrict the early-adopter pool and bias toward expert users. The selection criteria were as follows:

(1)

at least six months of instructional experience using AR climbing content (operationalized as ≥one semester of routine use in PE or school sports club sessions);

(2)

active involvement in the instructional design process, including setting goals, organizing content, implementing teaching strategies, and conducting assessments; and

(3)

the ability to articulate their perceptions and instructional practices in detail (operationalized via a 15–20 min pre-screening interview and artifact check; see Section 2.4).

All participants were fully informed of the study’s purpose and procedures and voluntarily consented to participate. Pseudonyms were used to protect their anonymity. Detailed participant profiles are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant information (anonymized).

Participant ID	Gender	Age Group (Years)	Teaching Experience (Years)	Role	Prior AR Climbing Experience (Duration; Context; Frequency)
T1	Male	30–39	10–15 years	PE Department Head	≥6 mo; routine PE classes; weekly
T2	Female	40–49	20–25 years	PE Department Head	≥6 mo; PE + after-school sports club; weekly
T3	Male	20–29	1–5 years	Sports Club Instructor	≥6 mo; school sports club sessions; weekly

2.4. Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi-structured, one-on-one interviews were conducted synchronously via telephone and messenger calls; brief follow-ups and clarifications were handled by email. Each participant completed two ~60 min sessions scheduled 7–10 days apart. Interviews were conducted in Korean, audio-recorded with prior consent, transcribed verbatim, and accompanied by field notes. To protect confidentiality and reduce noise, interviews took place in quiet settings (e.g., café during off-peak hours, school research room) with only the interviewer and participant present. A standardized interview protocol was applied across cases—consent check and rapport; elicitation of recent AR-use episodes; TAM-guided probes (PU, PEU, BI); TPACK mapping (TCK, TPK) using lesson artifacts; debrief. Interview questions were developed based on the TAM (PU, PEU, BI) and TPACK (TCK, TPK) frameworks and organized around key components of instructional design such as objectives, content, methods, assessment, strategies, and cautions (see Table 2). Transcripts were pseudonymized (IDs T1–T3) and stored on an access-controlled drive; member checking is described in Section 2.7.

Table 2. Semi-Structured Interview Items Based on the TAM–TPACK Framework.

Theoretical Category	Interview Question
TAM-PU	“What educational benefits did AR climbing provide in your physical education class?”
TAM-PEU	“What challenges did you experience when using AR climbing in your PE classes?”
TAM-BI	“Do you plan to continue using AR climbing in the future?”
TPACK-TCK	“How did you incorporate AR climbing into your lesson objectives, content, methods, and assessments?”
TPACK-TPK	“How can AR climbing be used more effectively in physical education instruction?”

2.5. Supplementary Survey

We incorporated an embedded supplementary survey to appraise the external coherence of TAM signals identified in the teacher-centered strand (QUAL + quan, see Section 2.1). The user satisfaction data from the 2024 SPOEX exhibition were pre-existing records collected by the event organizer. The research team accessed and analyzed these de-identified data only after receiving IRB approval in 2025. The dataset was provided by the company that developed the content and was deemed theoretically relevant to the TAM framework by the researchers. Only de-identified, aggregate-level records were used.

The questionnaire included five closed-ended items on a five-point Likert scale and two open-ended items. The closed items covered usefulness (physical activity, enjoyment), ease of use (sensor responsiveness, realism), and behavioral intention (continued use). The open-ended items asked about perceived strengths and weaknesses of the AR content. The items were reviewed by three experts in AR education, and content validity was established. The internal consistency of the scale was confirmed (Cronbach’s α = 0.86).

Given that respondents were general users rather than teachers, this strand neither adjudicated teacher effects nor served as primary evidence; its inferential role was limited to contextualizing and triangulating the qualitative findings. Integration proceeded via a concise joint display comparing TAM constructs across strands and classifying patterns as concordant, complementary, or discordant; divergences were retained as boundary conditions to support confirmability (see Section 2.6 and Section 2.7).

2.6. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using directed content analysis, applying the TAM–TPACK theoretical framework as a deductive coding scheme [30]. Interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses were converted into textual units and classified according to predefined theoretical categories. The unit of analysis was a meaning unit (a clause or short passage expressing a single perception, judgment, or instructional decision); segmentation was applied at topical shifts (e.g., objectives, content, methods, assessment) or when the TAM/TPACK referent changed. Coding was conducted in Korean, and representative quotations were translated into English after coding to preserve meaning. Repeated meaning units were grouped into subcategories, and analysis focused on the relationships between TAM (PU, PEU, BI) and TPACK (TCK, TPK).

The analysis procedure included the development of a codebook, iterative coding, constant comparison, and memo writing. An a priori codebook specified operational definitions, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and anchor examples, and was calibrated on a pilot subset. Full-cycle deductive coding permitted inductive subcodes nested within the predefined categories. Case-by-construct and episode-by-construct matrices supported cross-case synthesis; co-occurrence and pattern coding examined the proposed correspondences (PU↔TCK, PEU↔TPK, BI↔TPACK). Interview codes were triangulated with lesson artifacts (lesson plans, classroom videos) and thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses, treating the survey as supplementary evidence. When multiple researchers were involved, discrepancies were resolved through negotiated agreement, and an audit trail (versioned codebook, memos, matrix snapshots) was maintained in an access-controlled repository. All steps were thoroughly documented to ensure procedural transparency. Following the separate strand analyses, we then constructed a TAM–TPACK-by–data-source joint display (teachers vs. general users) and derived meta-inferences through narrative weaving; pre-specified adjudication rules (concordant, complementary, discordant) guided interpretation, and any discrepancies were retained and reported transparently as boundary conditions.

2.7. Trustworthiness and Ethical Considerations

To ensure trustworthiness, the study employed triangulation, member checking, and referential adequacy strategies. First, triangulation was achieved by cross-validating findings from interviews, lesson materials, and the supplementary survey of 130 AR users, particularly regarding teachers’ TAM-related perceptions [31,32,33]. Second, member checking was conducted by sharing the coded results with the teacher participants to verify whether the interpretations aligned with their intended meanings and instructional contexts [34]. Third, referential adequacy was maintained by reserving a subset of the data for preliminary analysis and comparing it with the final interpretation to examine internal consistency [35]. Convergence was sought for coherence, but discordances between strands were retained and reported as boundary conditions, thereby supporting confirmability rather than enforced agreement.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Korea National University of Education (Approval No. KNUE IRB 2025-08-013-002). All participants were fully informed about the research purpose, procedures, and privacy protection policy, and voluntarily agreed to participate based on written informed consent. The research was conducted in accordance with the IRB-approved protocol and ethical guidelines for human subjects research.

3. Results

3.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

3.1.1. Perceived Usefulness (PU)

Educational Effectiveness

The participating teachers perceived AR climbing as having positive effects on students’ physical, emotional, and social development. The activity was associated with improvements in muscular strength, agility, endurance, and self-efficacy. T1 remarked that “students developed both physical endurance and the ability to concentrate through this activity.” T2 highlighted that “team-based AR climbing enhanced flexibility and strengthened peer bonds,” while T3 emphasized the “sense of accomplishment upon completing routes, which significantly boosted students’ confidence.” The survey results supported these observations. Over 55% of respondents agreed that AR climbing provided sufficient physical activity. Open-ended responses included statements such as “It’s as fun as a game,” and “It helped me improve my stamina while playing with friends,” reinforcing both the teachers’ perceptions and the broader educational potential of the content. These findings suggest that AR climbing contributes meaningfully to multidimensional learning experiences, extending beyond the mere technological novelty of its implementation.

Motivational Impact

Teachers also noted that AR climbing enhanced students’ intrinsic motivation and engagement. T2 stated that “AR-based lessons aligned with students’ preferences and elevated their energy and participation.” T3 observed that “the gamified elements increased immersion and encouraged active involvement.” The survey echoed these views: 95% of respondents found the activity “enjoyable” (52% “strongly agree,” 43% “agree”), and 84% attributed their sense of immersion to sensor responsiveness and real-time feedback. Open responses included remarks such as “It was fun like a game,” and “It was my first AR experience, and it was engaging and accessible even for beginners.” Structurally, participants appreciated elements like “the two-player competition mode,” “variation within the same course,” and “combinations of vertical and horizontal routes,” which sustained their interest. Collectively, these findings indicate that AR climbing operates not merely as physical activity but as a gamified learning experience that fosters students’ engagement, challenge-seeking, and immersion.

3.1.2. Perceived Ease of Use (PEU)

Difficulties in Implementation

Teachers reported multiple challenges in applying AR climbing in real classrooms, including equipment integration, operational complexity, and maintenance. T1 noted, “It’s difficult to manage multiple devices simultaneously; user manuals and teacher training are necessary.” T2 emphasized the need for “pre-session guidance on system operation and content updates,” and T3 warned of “potential system errors or safety issues due to environmental factors or users’ inexperience.” Similar concerns emerged from the survey. Participants frequently cited a limited variety of climbing holds, sensor misrecognition, and low input accuracy. These findings suggest that the successful application of AR content requires not only system stability, but also sufficient TK on the part of teachers.

Suggested Improvements

Teachers proposed both hardware improvements and structured professional development to enhance usability. T2 recommended “head-mounted sensors to improve motion recognition,” and also suggested adjustable hold heights for safety and immersion. T3 proposed a three-step training model: “interface familiarization → motion practice → problem-solving workshop.” These suggestions underscore the link between TK and instructional feasibility, highlighting the need for TPACK-based teacher training rather than focusing solely on technical reliability to ensure sustainable use of AR in education.

3.1.3. Behavioral Intention (BI)

Willingness to Continue Use

According to the survey, 76% of respondents expressed a desire to continue using AR climbing in the future. However, actual implementation was constrained by administrative decisions and budgetary limitations. All participating teachers noted that “support from school administrators is essential due to the high cost of equipment.” This suggests that technology adoption is influenced not only by individual attitudes but also by institutional factors. T3 observed that “even students without prior climbing experience could easily engage with the content due to its gamified design,” indicating that AR climbing can expand accessibility to physical activity for diverse learners. These insights call for an extension of the TAM framework to the organizational level, where sustained adoption is conditioned by both personal and structural support.

Recommendations for Sustainability

Teachers emphasized three conditions for sustainable use of AR climbing: technical stability, budget support, and systematic teacher training. T2 acknowledged that “the content is highly accessible,” but also stated that “equipment costs are prohibitive for schools to afford independently.” T1 stressed the importance of “pre-training and in-class technical support to build confidence and maintain lesson stability.” These findings suggest that sustained integration of digital technology in PE depends not only on individual acceptance but also on institutional infrastructures such as funding, maintenance, and human resources. A combined model—strengthening both teacher capacity and organizational support—is therefore required to ensure long-term viability.

3.2. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)

3.2.1. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

Goal Setting

Teachers demonstrated varying interpretations of learning goals when applying AR climbing, reflecting differences in their utilization of TCK. While T3 focused on the functional benefits of AR climbing—particularly its ability to stimulate physical activity—T1 and T2 raised questions about the content’s curricular alignment and disciplinary authenticity. T3 described AR climbing as a “safe entry-level climbing activity” and emphasized its potential to improve students’ engagement and fundamental movement skills. This illustrates a function-oriented application of TCK. In contrast, T1 argued that “AR climbing does not correspond to standard sport climbing events such as lead or speed climbing,” warning that students may perceive it merely as “a game-like wall-based activity.” T2 similarly stated that the content “lacks ecological validity,” suggesting that, much like screen golf diverges from actual golf, AR climbing functions more as a simulation than a sport. These contrasting views illustrate the tension within TCK between perceived educational utility and curricular fidelity. Effective use of AR content, therefore, demands not only creative instructional design but also critical reflection on its pedagogical alignment with subject-specific goals.

Lesson Structure

Teachers emphasized the importance of transforming AR climbing from a one-off experience into a sustained learning sequence. T3 designed a ten-session unit, beginning with instruction on basic postures and grips and gradually progressing toward complex route-solving tasks. Each session followed a structured sequence: warm-up, explanation, demonstration, main activity, and cooldown. This structure exemplifies how TCK supports curricular sequencing and scaffolding, with difficulty levels and repetitive practice adapted to student readiness. It demonstrates the role of TCK in aligning technological affordances with progressive learning objectives.

Grade-Level and Group Structuring

Teachers considered AR climbing most suitable for grades 3 to 5 (ages 8–11), noting that this age group balances physical capability with sustained attention. Lower grades (ages 6–8) posed challenges in classroom management, while upper grades (ages 10–12) showed decreased interest. Operational efficiency was also a key concern. T1 recommended limiting each device to five students to minimize wait times and maintain focus. T3 similarly observed increased attention and engagement in small-group settings. Survey findings echoed this, with many users describing AR climbing as “accessible and effective for beginners.” These insights underscore that successful implementation relies less on technology itself and more on context-sensitive instructional adaptation to learner characteristics and classroom dynamics.

Assessment Methods

Assessment practices in AR climbing lessons integrated quantitative metrics and qualitative observation. T3 used the PAPS (Physical Activity Promotion System) scores to measure physical fitness gains, maintaining alignment with national health standards. T2 observed peer interactions during cooperative activities and treated behaviors such as encouragement and guidance as indicators of socioemotional development. T1 focused on resilience and self-direction, particularly students’ responses to repeated attempts and failures. These examples illustrate how AR climbing can facilitate multi-domain assessment—encompassing cognitive, physical, and affective outcomes—and how TCK strengthens the coherence between instruction and evaluation.

3.2.2. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Student Engagement Strategies

Teachers did not treat AR climbing merely as a technological tool, but as a pedagogical medium whose instructional value depended on strategic use. T3 introduced pre-task route analysis and structured student teams to promote autonomy and sustained concentration. T1 incorporated external motivators, such as in-school competitions and team formats, to enhance engagement beyond the classroom. These examples reveal that TPK involves not just tool functionality, but recontextualizing technology within the social and pedagogical fabric of instruction.

Managing Wait Time

Limited equipment availability introduced challenges related to student downtime. T3 addressed this by incorporating cognitively engaging pre-tasks such as “route prediction activities” and providing parallel tasks to minimize inactivity. T1 maintained engagement by organizing groups of five or fewer, improving focus and instructional density. These strategies reflect how TPK contributes to classroom flow management, attention regulation, and behavior continuity, supporting pedagogical coherence in tech-enhanced environments.

Instructional Flexibility

Teachers applied AR climbing flexibly across various instructional settings. T1 used it both in a ten-session after-school program and as a rotating station in regular PE. T2 employed it as part of warm-up routines to enhance flexibility and mitigate monotony. T3 emphasized that “even teachers without climbing expertise could implement it easily,” positioning AR climbing as a tool for both experiential learning and career exploration. Such uses highlight the pragmatic adaptability of TPK, which enables teachers to reconfigure digital content according to curricular goals and situational constraints.

Pedagogical Considerations

AR climbing lessons required careful attention to multiple instructional dynamics, including peer interaction, motor learning, focus retention, and lesson pacing. T1 emphasized continuous feedback as a means to encourage supportive peer behavior, reinforcing the importance of social-emotional learning. T2 cautioned that game-centered instruction might overlook essential movement skills such as posture and landing technique. She stressed the need to balance engagement with systematic skill development. Concerns were also raised about excessive competitiveness undermining inclusive goals. T3 pointed out declining attention in repeated sessions and advocated for varied content and strategic time management. These insights reaffirm that the core of TPK lies in pedagogical adaptability—not in the technology itself, but in the teacher’s ability to orchestrate instructional conditions. The success of digital PE instruction thus depends on teachers’ practical expertise rather than the affordances of the tool alone.

To help readers quickly grasp the overall pattern across cases, we added Table 3, which summarizes the main findings by teacher (T1–T3) and by TAM–TPACK construct (PU, PEU, BI, TCK, TPK).

Table 3. Summary of main findings by teacher and TAM–TPACK construct.

Participant ID	PU (Perceived Usefulness)	PEU (Perceived Ease of Use)	BI (Behavioral Intention)
T1	Fitness, grip strength, peer interaction acknowledged; raised concerns about limited ecological fidelity.	Reported instability and interface difficulty; emphasized the need for manuals and pre-training.	Conditional intention depending on administrative and budget support.
T2	Highlighted flexibility, teamwork, and socioemotional gains from cooperative AR tasks.	Identified maintenance/update challenges; usability improvable through training.	Positive intention but constrained by high equipment cost.
T3	Noted increased motivation, problem-solving, and self-efficacy for beginners and reluctant movers.	Found interface accessible but cited sensor misrecognition; suggested improved or head-mounted sensors.	Strong intention for continued use, especially in sports clubs and beginner programs.

4. Discussion

4.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): Acceptance of AR Climbing in Elementary PE

4.1.1. Perceived Usefulness (PU)

Teachers consistently recognized the educational utility of AR climbing across physical, emotional, and social domains. T1 highlighted improvements in grip strength and peer bonding, T2 emphasized flexibility and teamwork, and T3 underscored enhanced problem-solving and self-efficacy. These findings suggest that PU extends beyond technical performance to encompass social-emotional learning (SEL) and bodily self-awareness. This aligns with Davis’s foundational TAM framework [12] as well as recent studies linking educational technology with socioemotional development [36,37,38].

Survey results corroborated these perceptions: 80% of respondents agreed that AR climbing provided sufficient physical activity, and 95% found it enjoyable. Open-ended responses such as “It felt like a game but made me sweat” and “I liked doing it with friends” reflect intrinsic motivation—a known predictor of sustained participation in PE, as emphasized in prior research [39,40].

In parallel, recent syntheses indicate that AR/VR/MR deployments in school PE generally show positive effects on engagement and motor/health outcomes, and meta-analytic evidence suggests exergames yield moderate learning gains in PE, especially in short (≈1–2 month) implementations [21,41]. Further, real-time feedback via wearables is associated with enhanced self-monitoring and motivation among school-aged populations, reinforcing a broadened notion of usefulness [42].

4.1.2. Perceived Ease of Use (PEU)

Despite its perceived benefits, teachers identified practical challenges in operating AR content. T1 reported recurrent system instability, T2 highlighted challenges with unfamiliar interfaces and maintenance responsibilities, and T3 noted sensor inaccuracies affecting user immersion. These cases confirm the centrality of usability and system reliability in technology acceptance, echoing findings that PEU and self-efficacy are key determinants of digital engagement [43,44].

To address these issues, teachers proposed structured training and hardware refinements. T3 suggested a three-phase model (system control—biomechanical comprehension—troubleshooting practice), and T2 recommended sensor calibration improvements. These proposals mirror the aims of TPACK theory [14], which emphasizes the transformation of technological knowledge into actionable teaching strategies. The variability of PEU across contexts further implies that ease of use is shaped not only by design but also by teachers’ technological enactment capacity.

Consistent with school-based surveys, teachers’ reported barriers frequently cluster around access, training, time, and institutional support—underscoring the need for standard operating procedures and context-specific professional development to translate PEU into enactment [42,45].

4.1.3. Behavioral Intention (BI)

Teachers’ intent to continue using AR content was largely shaped by institutional conditions. As noted by T2 and T3, “The decision to apply digital content is often administrative, not discretionary,” underscoring the relevance of external variables in extended TAMs [12]. While 76% of survey respondents expressed a willingness to reuse AR climbing, teachers emphasized the need for budgetary, training, technical, and policy supports to enable meaningful implementation.

T1 stressed the importance of intuitive interfaces and secured funding, T2 called for technical staff and formal training programs, and T3 emphasized the necessity of collaborative structures between school leadership and teachers. Consistent with recent evidence in PE, intention to reuse strengthens when organizational supports reduce workload and improve access and training, whereas deficits in support suppress BI despite favorable attitudes [45,46]. Together, these observations indicate that although BI originates from personal beliefs, institutional infrastructure is essential for sustained enactment [6,23].

Taken together, TAM offers a robust framework for understanding both the motivational appeal and operational constraints of AR integration in PE. Teachers’ acceptance reflected not only perceived utility but also a broader network of contextual enablers—including usability, training systems, and administrative environments—that support classroom implementation.

4.2. TPACK: Instructional Enactment of AR Climbing in Elementary PE

4.2.1. Technological Content Knowledge (TCK)

Teachers perceived AR climbing as simulating specific sub-skills, such as bouldering, functioning as an accessible entry point into physical activity. T3 emphasized its role in reducing psychological barriers to participation, aiming to help students enhance their physical capacity without fear. However, T1 raised concerns regarding its limited alignment with more advanced forms like lead or speed climbing, and T2 compared it to screen golf—suggesting that, while engaging, it lacks ecological fidelity.

These views imply that AR climbing functions as a partial metonymy of authentic sport climbing—capturing certain technical elements like route solving and grip technique, while omitting others such as spatial perception, equipment use, and risk management [47]. Thus, TCK in physical education must include critical evaluations of representational integrity and the potential for skill transfer. Consistent with VR performance research, this fidelity–transfer tension is mitigated when task authenticity is high, yet heterogeneity across randomized trials cautions against overgeneralization [21,48].

Moreover, AR climbing embeds affordances—perceptual cues that guide motor engagement. According to ecological theory, affordances structure behavior by offering actionable possibilities to the user [49]. The content design of AR systems thus directly shapes students’ embodied responses and contributes to the quality of motor learning experiences.

4.2.2. Technological Pedagogical Knowledge (TPK)

Teachers employed diverse strategies to integrate AR climbing into instructional routines. T3 used route previews, team-based activities, and pre-task cognitive exercises to enhance immersion. T1 implemented school-wide competitions and encouraged autonomous route completion, while T2 utilized AR content as part of warm-up or strength-building routines.

These practices reflected the core principles of digital integration—goal alignment, instructional restructuring, and contextual flexibility. Similar reconfigurations in AR-based geography education [50] and studies calling for lesson design to be reorganized around technological affordances [51] together reinforce that teachers actively reshape pedagogy in response to new content types and technological features.

Particularly in physical education, where immediacy, bodily movement, and spatiality are essential, technology must function not only as a content carrier but as a design medium. In this study, TPK-based strategies—such as restructuring participation, managing instructional flow, and scaffolding peer interaction—transformed AR content into lessons that integrated assessment, motor learning, and SEL [52]. Comparable reorganizations are reported across exergames and wearables, where immediate feedback and gamified goals help teachers orchestrate participation and assessment [41,42].

TPACK thus served as an effective analytical lens for understanding how teachers designed and enacted AR-based PE instruction. TCK facilitated critical appraisal of content alignment and physical transferability, while TPK enabled adaptive implementation. Together, they supported a coherent framework for integrating technological affordances into high-quality instructional practice.

4.3. Instructional Feasibility of AR-Based PE via TAM–TPACK Integration

This section considers how TAM and TPACK interacted during teachers’ implementation of AR climbing in PE. The findings indicated a strong correspondence between PU and TCK, PEU and TPK, and BI and the broader TPACK structure—highlighting a mutually reinforcing architecture for digital integration.

Teachers viewed AR climbing not simply as an engaging tool but as a resource that supports physical fitness, social bonding, and self-efficacy. These perceptions aligned with TCK-informed goal setting. T3 emphasized autonomous problem-solving, while T2 emphasized cooperation and confidence-building. This reflects prior findings that PU positively affects both students’ motivation and teachers’ instructional planning [21,53]. Jang et al. [53] similarly argued that PU enhances self-efficacy and motivation in AR-based PE, positioning TCK as a facilitator of goal-oriented technology use.

PEU was linked to the practical feasibility of instruction and, therefore, aligned with TPK. T2 noted that although AR tools initially seemed complex, these challenges could be overcome through systematic training. This supports the notion that technological self-efficacy strengthens teachers’ capacity for digital integration [54]. A recent study [55] further showed that enjoyment and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between PEU and BI, underscoring the close connection between teacher readiness and instructional execution, while Thohir et al. [20] emphasized that effective integration depends not only on usability, but also on infrastructure, physical space, and institutional support.

Behavioral intention (BI) functioned not merely as a TAM outcome but as a driver of instructional transformation. Teachers shifted away from traditional competition-focused lessons to cooperative and challenge-based models. This shift is consistent with Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness [56], and with findings that AR-based PE can better facilitate intrinsic motivation than conventional approaches. Such restructuring is also in line with Centeio et al. [57], who reported that teachers adapted their strategies to maintain engagement during the pandemic, highlighting that TPACK capacity—rather than simple technological familiarity—is a central engine for innovation. Ertmer [58] cautioned that entrenched beliefs can hinder adoption, while Cendra et al. [59] argued that the strength of TPACK directly determines the quality of digital lesson design.

Taken together, the PU–TCK, PEU–TPK, and BI–TPACK pathways map onto a coherent acceptance-to-enactment system observed across digital PE ecosystems (AR/VR/exergames/wearables), where content–task fit bolsters PU, usability/training structures bolster PEU, and institutional infrastructure enables BI to materialize in design and enactment [21,41,42,46]. From a sustainability perspective, equity-minded roll-outs, shared infrastructure, and curriculum-linked PD are emphasized in recent syntheses of digital education for sustainable development [60].

These findings suggest that the PU–TCK, PEU–TPK, and BI–TPACK pathways operate not as separate models but as components of a single instructional system: when teachers can design, operate, and adapt technology within a pedagogical frame, technology acceptance follows as a consequence rather than a starting point. This reinforces the need for TPACK-based professional development and structural supports to realize sustainable digital physical education.

It is important to note that these PU–TCK, PEU–TPK, and BI–TPACK pathways are theorized from an integrated reading of the qualitative and supplementary data rather than statistically tested models and should therefore be interpreted as conceptually grounded propositions that require further empirical validation.

5. Policy Implications for Sustainable Integration of Digital Physical Education

This study demonstrated that AR-based instruction in elementary physical education can enhance students’ participation, engagement, and the diversity of movement experiences. Rather than functioning merely as a media supplement, AR can facilitate qualitative transformations in instructional design and delivery. By integrating the TAM and Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), this study highlights the necessity of overcoming the adverse effects of indiscriminate digital adoption—such as instructional inefficiency and teacher stress—and thus calls for systematic policy frameworks that enhance the educational utility of emerging technologies. From a sustainability perspective, such frameworks should also address equity of access, teacher workload, data ethics, and life-cycle procurement, while leveraging shared repositories to diffuse curriculum-aligned, high-quality resources across contexts [42,60]. Accordingly, the following policy implications are proposed.

First, standardized criteria for technology acceptance in digital physical education should be established. When advanced technologies such as AR are introduced into educational settings, instructional acceptance criteria informed by TAM and TPACK frameworks should extend beyond functional checks to educational validation, including feasibility of instructional redesign, learning and motivation outcomes (e.g., engagement, SEL), and learner responsiveness. Syntheses in PE indicate that AR/VR/MR and exergames yield meaningful improvements in engagement and learning, providing concrete outcome domains for such validation frameworks [21,41]. This recommendation responds to interview evidence that ambiguity in acceptance/evaluation criteria depressed teachers’ behavioral intention (BI) despite high PU, particularly where the feasibility of redesign and curriculum alignment (TCK–TPK) was uncertain.

Second, context-responsive instructional materials and teacher training must be provided in an integrated manner. Because effective digital integration is largely determined by teachers’ instructional design capacity, professional learning should be modular and context-based, weaving TPK and TCK within a curriculum-linked sequence [15,61]. Beyond delivery, the system should incorporate teachers’ voices and ensure tight coupling between training completion and classroom implementation. Resources and modules should be continuously curated, shared, and expanded through a centralized repository for collective teacher access. In practical terms, this could include regional digital sports resource libraries and modular TPACK training packages that provide ready-to-use lesson blueprints, assessment rubrics, and AR task banks tailored to local curricula in East Asian contexts. This reflects qualitative findings that enactment barriers were most often TPK/TCK-related (lesson orchestration, content–curriculum fit), even when PU was positive; teachers requested concrete, context-tuned exemplars and task designs to translate acceptance into practice.

Third, institutional incentives should be introduced to promote teacher participation. Technology-based lessons impose considerable implementation burdens on teachers. As TAM suggests, if teachers do not perceive the necessity of adopting technology, the actual application remains unlikely. Incentives such as allocated time, recognition opportunities, and small-scale research grants should be embedded in local evaluation frameworks. Recent PE studies indicate that workload relief, access, and PD strengthen reuse intentions, whereas deficits suppress BI despite acceptable PEU [46,47]. School–enterprise cooperation models—where local sports-tech companies co-develop and maintain AR systems with schools—can also distribute costs and technical responsibilities, making long-term use more sustainable. Our interviews indicated that workload and evaluation pressures attenuated BI despite acceptable PEU; embedding time, recognition, and small-grant incentives was described as a prerequisite for sustained use.

Fourth, school-level infrastructure and regionally grounded expansion strategies must be developed simultaneously. AR-based instruction requires spatial resources, equipment, and technical assistance that exceed the capacity of individual schools; shared-use spaces, safety protocols, and technical staffing, coupled with equity-oriented pilots in under-resourced areas, are recommended. Consistent with empirical school-based evidence, PEU is contingent on spatial layout, safety management, and on-site technical support; equity-minded rollouts and shared infrastructure thus function as enabling conditions for pedagogical enactment [42,60]. This aligns with teacher reports that PEU was contingent on spatial layout, safety management, and on-site technical support; infrastructure and equity-oriented rollouts thus function as enabling conditions for pedagogical enactment.

Taken together, sustainable digital physical education should move away from uncritical technology deployment and instead pursue an integrated approach involving standardized acceptance criteria, curriculum-based resources and PD, incentive structures, and infrastructural development. In line with the acceptance-to-enactment perspective suggested by our findings, policy should connect TAM-diagnosed acceptance factors (PU, PEU, BI) with TPACK-oriented enactment supports (TCK, TPK, TPACK), while attending to sustainability principles of equity, ethics, and feasibility for scalable diffusion [21,41,42,45,46,60].

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study provides meaningful implications for the pedagogical integration of digital tools in elementary physical education by analyzing the instructional acceptance and practical application of AR climbing through the integrated framework of the TAM and TPACK. Nevertheless, several limitations must be acknowledged.

First, the study was limited to three teachers who had experience implementing AR in real classroom contexts. This narrow sample constrains the generalizability of the findings and reflects an in-depth, early-adopter case study rather than a representative survey of teachers. Accordingly, the results should be understood as transferable insights that may inform similar contexts, rather than statistically generalizable claims. Future research should include a broader range of participants representing diverse regions, school types, and teacher backgrounds to identify more universal patterns in the acceptance and implementation of digital PE instruction.

Second, student perspectives and learning outcomes were not directly examined. While this study focused on teachers’ experiences, subsequent research should incorporate student interviews, classroom observations, and assessments of learning outcomes and physical activity levels to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of AR-based PE instruction from multiple angles. In particular, future work could track changes in students’ physical literacy, health-related fitness (e.g., PAPS indicators), and motivational profiles over time in AR climbing units.

Third, the study did not empirically assess the causal effects of AR integration. Although this research employed a qualitative approach, future studies should adopt experimental or quasi-experimental designs to measure outcomes such as motivation, physical fitness, and activity engagement using validated tools (e.g., PAPS). Subgroup analyses by gender or ability level may also offer valuable insights.

Fourth, the present study relied on a vendor-provided, closed commercial AR system. This limited our ability to tailor task mechanics, data capture, and teacher dashboards to curriculum needs. As a direction for future work, we plan to co-design and evaluate a curriculum-aligned, school-safe AR climbing application (or an open API layer) dedicated to PE, enabling teacher-authored tasks, PAPS-linked assessment rubrics, and longitudinal data use.

Finally, while this study proposed conceptual linkages between TAM and TPACK components (i.e., PU–TCK, PEU–TPK, and BI–TPACK), these relationships were not empirically validated. Further research should utilize structural equation modeling (SEM) or partial least squares SEM (PLS-SEM) to examine the structural validity of the proposed integrated framework and to test whether the hypothesized pathways (PU → TCK, PEU → TPK, BI → TPACK) hold across larger and more diverse teacher samples.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to practice-oriented scholarship by analyzing a real-world case of digital integration in elementary PE through a robust theoretical lens. Future research should build on these findings to establish more refined empirical evidence and theoretical models that support the sustainable digital transformation of physical education.

7. Conclusions

This study explored how AR climbing content is accepted and integrated into elementary PE classes through teacher-centered instructional design. By applying an integrated framework of the TAM and TPACK, the study aimed to reveal the structural connection between teacher perceptions and instructional enactment in digital PE. Although grounded in three in-depth cases, the findings show that digital tools can function as viable pedagogical resources when technology adoption is guided by teachers’ evaluative judgments and design competence rather than by tools alone.

First, teachers’ technology acceptance emerged as a prerequisite for the realization of digitally integrated PE instruction. Acceptance went beyond tool use and involved teacher-led evaluation of the educational relevance and contextual suitability of the technology. The core TAM elements—PU, PEU, and BI—mediated instructional goal setting, operational feasibility, and design intent, respectively, and influenced the overall structure of lesson planning.

Second, the post-acceptance phase involved the contextualization of technology within instruction, operationalized through the TPACK framework. Specifically, TCK supported the alignment of AR functions with curricular goals and content, while TPK guided the transformation of these functions into effective teaching strategies. Together, these components within the TPACK framework enabled teachers to manage both the contextual alignment and practical implementation of AR content, thus ensuring its instructional feasibility.

Third, the interplay between TAM and TPACK was observed through the structural correspondences between PU–TCK, PEU–TPK, and BI–TPACK. These relationships illustrate how technology acceptance transitions into design-driven execution, suggesting that digital PE realizes its potential when technology adoption is embedded in teachers’ pedagogical judgments and instructional capabilities rather than treated as an external mandate.

Taken as a whole, the TAM–TPACK framework served not only as an interpretive tool for understanding educational acceptance and implementation of digital technologies, but also as a practical prerequisite for integrating such tools into PE classes. In subject areas like physical education, where physical activity and learning contexts are tightly interwoven, teacher expertise and design competence—not the technology itself—are decisive for successful integration.

Therefore, to ensure the sustainability of digital PE instruction, it is essential to establish TAM–TPACK-based acceptance criteria, provide curriculum-aligned and context-sensitive instructional resources and training programs, and offer institutional supports such as teacher incentives to strengthen behavioral intention. When these conditions are organically connected, digital technologies can move beyond temporary adoption and be institutionalized as part of a sustainable instructional structure. This shift signals not technology-centered reform but teacher-centered, user-informed digital transformation, which is likely to be the core determinant of success in technology-integrated instruction.