Embedding Digital Technologies (AI and ICT) into Physical Education: A Systematic Review of Innovations, Pedagogical Impact, and Challenges
Juan De Dios BenÃtez-Sillero
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors present in this paper the analysis of recent empirical studies, the main areas where digital technologies contribute to pedagogical innovation in physical education, such as personalised learning, real-time feedback, student motivation, and educational inclusion.
They also point out that AI contributes to more efficient and objective assessment of motor performance. However, significant structural and ethical challenges persist, such as unequal access to digital infrastructure, a lack of teacher training, and concerns related to personal data protection. Teachers’ perceptions reflect both openness to the educational potential of AI and caution regarding its practical implementation. The review concludes that AI and ICT can substantially transform physical education, provided that coherent policies, clear ethical frameworks, and investments in teachers' professional development are in place, but the idea is that technology in education must be based on coherent strategies, based on teacher training and infrastructure development.
The research hypothesis is that the effective integration of AI and ICT tools into physical education can significantly enhance the quality of the educational process by increasing student motivation, personalising the learning experience, and promoting inclusion. However, the success of this integration depends on overcoming a range of technical, pedagogical, and ethical limitations.
General Comments
The study predominantly, especially in the introductory part of the paper, deals with the general principles of introducing modern technologies into education, which may apply to subjects and contents related to the cognitive development of students, but does not emphasise the development of motor and motor skills enough. These are extremely specific, so that the heart does not touch on the fundamental goal of physical education, which is to activate students physically and motorically. I would like to highlight in particular the OECD study, which should be the starting point.
Aston, R. (2018), “Physical health and well-being in children and youth: Review of the literature”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 170, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/102456c7-en.
or general spletno stran:
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/physical-health-and-well-being-in-children-and-youth_102456c7-en.html
Another key objective could be to illustrate both the educational benefits and the practical and ethical limitations that may disrupt or obstruct the use of technology in physical education lessons.
My general comments and doubts are:
- In the summary and introduction, highlight the field of Physical Education and Activities - Describe the problems, target groups and contents/activities of physical education.
- Explain the purpose of using PRISMA and PICO procedures for health research. What adjustments have you made? Type of MMAT? All methods used require proper explanation and explanations. (PRISMA is used in the healthcare field. The 27-point checklist, which covers the essential aspects, is a reporting guideline and not a methodological guideline. It focuses on how to report a systematic review, not how to conduct it." Similarly, for PICO (PICO framework – formulate focused and responsible clinical questions, especially in medicine and evidence-based research)
Do you carry out "conducting systematic reviews in the field of sports science"? Explains in detail how and explains the correlation between healthcare and the sports field.
Particular Comments
- Line111 - /.../ "intelligent physical education"? What does this mean, what is the difference between intelligent and "non-intelligent" PE.
- Line 136: "literature in Romanian, direct access was used on the websites of relevant scientific journals in the field of sport science and physical education. Be more concrete! Always point out what the relationship is like between English and Romanian in your research!
- Line 153: "with a focus on the impact of AI and ICT in PE/PA, especially on the physical, cognitive and psychosocial aspects of young participants". Need additional explanation, what do cognitive and psychosocial aspects mean?
- "with academic visibility"?? What mean academic visibility?
- Problemi z vzorcem: 865 se reducira v 13? Isn't there a keyword problem here??? Analyse how many contributions are in English and how many are in Romanian?
- Line 336: "in primary physical education classes"? As can be seen from the research, most of the sample is from the field of Gymnasium, high school, university - Table 3,, missing the entire subsection about Sample? In the sample subsection, define a sample of all 13 hits. What is the population, what methods (AI, ICT) are used, etc?
- Line 337: "/.../ positive attitude towards the potential of these technologies to support personalised learning /.../ and increase student motivation and engagement" - How, I didn't trace in the text - further explanation needed!
- The Sample is really extremely small. Try something with the sample.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback provided. We greatly appreciate the valuable insights and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments. All changes have been clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript in red font for ease of reference.
Comment: The introduction treats general principles of technology in education, but lacks sufficient focus on motor skills and the fundamental goal of physical education.
Response: We revised the Abstract and Introduction to explicitly emphasize that physical education primarily targets motor skill development, health, and active participation. We also integrated the OECD reference (Aston, 2018) as a conceptual anchor. New text clarifies how ICT/AI contributes not only to cognitive but also motor and psychosocial outcomes.
Comment: Clarify purpose of PRISMA, PICO, MMAT, and explain adjustments for sports sciences.
Response: We expanded the Materials and Methods section:
- PRISMA: described as a reporting framework adapted for sports science systematic reviews (citing Rico-González et al., 2022).
- PICO: explained adaptation with Population = children/adolescents in PE, Intervention = AI/ICT, Comparison = traditional PE/other digital tools, Outcomes = motor, cognitive, psychosocial, and motivational.
- MMAT: justified choice due to heterogeneity of study designs.
Comment: Clarify what “systematic review in sport sciences” means and relation with health research.
Response: Added explanation that sport sciences borrow methodological standards from health but adapt outcomes to motor learning and performance. This was clarified in the methodology discussion.
Line 111 – “smart physical education”
Response: Response: Thank you for your observation. We have verified the manuscript and confirm that the phrase “smart physical education” does not appear at line 111 or elsewhere in the main text of the initial version. The term is referenced only in the bibliography, as part of the titles of cited sources. We have adjusted the comment accordingly to avoid confusion and ensure consistency between the manuscript and the reference list.
Line 136 – Romanian literature search
Response: Clarified that Romanian journals in sport science were searched (examples provided). Explained bilingual strategy (English + Romanian sources).
Line 153 – “cognitive and psychosocial aspects”
Response: Defined explicitly: cognitive = self-regulation, attention, decision-making; psychosocial = motivation, collaboration, inclusion, reduction of anxiety.
“Academic visibility”
Response: Rephrased as "indexed in Scopus/Web of Science or recognized scientific journals in sport sciences."
PRISMA flow (865 → 13)
Response: Added detailed explanation of exclusions at each stage. Clarified language distribution (10 English, 3 Romanian).
Sample section missing (Table 3)
Response: Added a distinct subsection "Sample" in Results, detailing educational levels, technologies used, and languages of included studies.
Positive attitudes toward AI (line 337)
Response: Expanded with explanations and examples from the studies reviewed (e.g., real-time feedback, gamification, AR for engagement).
Comment: Highlight both educational benefits and practical/ethical limitations.
Response: Revised Discussion and Conclusion to emphasize dual nature:
- Benefits: feedback for correcting movements, VR for motor gesture simulation, apps for fitness self-monitoring.
- Limitations: inequalities in infrastructure, lack of teacher training, ethical concerns over biometric data.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the opportunity to review this systematic review manuscript, which addresses a timely and relevant topic and follows a recognizable PRISMA-style structure. However, most of the systematic review requirements are met, but there some still some major weaknesses that require addressing.
- Your title foregrounds “AI and ICT,” but much of the synthesis centers on general ICT with relatively few AI-specific applications. Please clarify your scope (AI vs. ICT vs. broader digital technologies) or adjust the title to align with what you actually synthesize.
- In the Introduction, you sometimes shift into general ed tech rather than PE-specific particularities. Please tighten this section to studies that empirically examine PE contexts and motor learning outcomes.
- You state that “few systematic reviews” exist but do not substantiate this claim. Please cite the existing reviews and briefly explain how your review differs (e.g., time window, emphasis on AI vs. ICT, education levels, outcome domains).
- Your time window appears inconsistent. You state 2014–2024 but cite and search into 2025. Please standardize the window (e.g., 2014–2025) or revise citations to match the stated period.
- You would strengthen currency by incorporating empirical AI-in-PE studies in recent years and by concluding the Introduction with clear research questions aligned to targeted outcomes and technology categories.
- One major concern I have is that you indicate a focus on children and adolescents but also include university populations. Please clarify the population (children, adolescents and higher education students) and revise inclusion criteria if necessary. After this, you may need to go back and revise the gaps identified.
- You do not report how many reviewers conducted screening or how disagreements were resolved. Please specify the number of screeners and the reconciliation process, and provide agreement metrics if available.
- Please spell out all acronyms at first use (e.g., LMS, VR).
- Another major concern is that your categorization blends AI with generic wearables/VR/LMS. Please define what you counted as AI versus general ICT and consider presenting results separately for AI-specific studies.
- You should provide operational definitions and coding rules for distinguishing AI from ICT.
- You would improve transparency by adding columns regarding the characteristics of each study: sample size, outcome measures, outcome descriptor effect (e.g., improved self efficacy), effect size.
- Make sure to hedge your claims in the discussion. Avoid conflating self reported perceptions with objective outcomes, and explicitly note domains with insufficient evidence.
- Like I stated above, you cite multiple 2024–2025 sources in the discussion too. Some should go in the screened dataset. Please do this first and then make sure to anchor interpretation to included studies.
- Your practical implications would be stronger if you link recommendations to the specific barriers you identified and tailor them to stakeholders (teachers, students, schools, policymakers), with a brief rationale for each.
- Your theoretical framing needs strengthening. Where you propose mechanisms (e.g., self regulation via feedback), please tie them to established theories (e.g., guidance hypothesis).
- Overall, you need to explicitly separate inferences about AI from those about broader ICT, note where evidence remains preliminary, and acknowledge possible misclassification between AI and ICT.
I've spotted quite a few typos or minor mistakes, though most of them do not affect intelligibility, for example:
p. 2: “From mobile applications, that monitor physical activity…”
p. 2: “a crucial factor that conditions this modern trend”
p. 3: “…ICT, respectively artificial intelligence (AI).”
p. 3: “an analysis is necessary aimed at illustrating recurring patterns”
Kindly proofread the manuscript before submitting it again.
Author Response
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback provided. We greatly appreciate the valuable insights and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments. All changes have been clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript in red font for ease of reference.
Comment: The title emphasizes AI and ICT, but much of the synthesis focuses on ICT. Please clarify or adjust.
Response: We revised the title to "Embedding Digital Technologies (AI and ICT) into Physical Education" to reflect both AI-specific and broader ICT tools. We also clarified in the Abstract and Introduction that only a smaller subset of studies explicitly address AI, which is itself a relevant finding, highlighting a research gap.
Comment: The introduction often shifts to general educational technology rather than PE-specific outcomes. Please narrow.
Response: We revised the Introduction to explicitly emphasize motor learning, coordination, and physical activity outcomes unique to PE (with reference to Aston, 2018). Generic references to digitalization in education were reduced.
Comment: You state there are "few systematic reviews" but do not support this.
Response: We added citations to Jastrow et al. (2022) and Modra et al. (2021), explaining that our review differs by covering 2014–2025 and explicitly distinguishing AI from ICT.
Comment: Inconsistent reference period (2014–2024 vs. 2025).
Response: Standardized to 2014–2025 across the manuscript, including PRISMA diagram, inclusion criteria, and Results.
Comment: You indicate a focus on children and adolescents but include university populations.
Response: We revised inclusion criteria and clarified that our population includes children, adolescents, and university students in PE. This is consistently stated in Methods and Sample description.
Comment: Please specify number of reviewers and reconciliation process.
Response: Added: "Screening was conducted independently by two evaluators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus (agreement rate >85%)."
Comment: Please define acronyms (LMS, VR, etc.) at first use.
Response: Acronyms are now fully specified at first mention, e.g., Learning Management Systems (LMS), Virtual Reality (VR).
Comment: The classification mixes AI with ICT (VR, wearables, LMS). Please define and separate.
Response: We added operational definitions: AI includes systems using machine learning, motion recognition, or automated feedback. ICT includes broader digital tools such as LMS, VR/AR, mobile applications, and wearables. Results are now presented with AI-specific vs ICT-general subsections.
Comment: Please add columns with sample size, outcomes, and effect descriptors.
Response: To improve clarity and interpretability, Table 7 presents the reviewer-requested elements: Sample size, Outcomes measured, and Effect description (e.g., ‘self-efficacy improved’), enhancing transparency and comparability.
Comment: Do not confuse self-reported perceptions with objective outcomes.
Response: We added explicit clarification: "Most findings reflect self-reported perceptions, not objective motor performance data. Evidence for objective improvements remains preliminary."
Comment: Anchor mechanisms to theories.
Response: Added links to Guidance Hypothesis and Self-Determination Theory when interpreting feedback and motivation mechanisms.
Comment: Include more 2024–2025 sources.
Response: Integrated recent studies (Kaya 2025; Cui 2025; Han 2025) into the Discussion, strengthening relevance.
Comment: Adapt recommendations to stakeholders.
Response: In Conclusions, we differentiated implications by stakeholder:
- Teachers → need targeted digital training.
- Students → equitable access to inclusive technologies.
- Schools → infrastructure investments.
- Policymakers → ethical/legal frameworks for AI in PE.
Comment: Several minor errors in English phrasing.
Response: Corrected instances noted (e.g., "From mobile applications that monitor physical activity…"), and performed a thorough language edit across the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations to the authors on their study. It addresses the integration of AI and ICT in physical education, an emerging field with important pedagogical, technological, and ethical implications. Positive points include the use of the PRISMA protocol and the PICO framework to structure the search and selection of studies, as well as the evaluation of methodological quality with MMAT (2018), which provides transparency in the assessment of evidence. The classification of technological applications is done in clear typologies. The bibliography used is very up to date.
Some improvements are recommended.
In the approach of the review, has it been checked by means of a search strategy that the subject of the review was not previously included in the bibliography? With tools such as (PROSPERO. International prospective register of systematic reviews), (INPLASY accepts systematic review protocols assessing interventions) or similar.
I believe that the inclusion of studies in English and Romanian only potentially excludes evidence from other educational contexts.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive feedback provided. We greatly appreciate the valuable insights and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to all comments. All changes have been clearly highlighted in the revised manuscript in red font for ease of reference.
Comment: In the analysis approach, was it checked through a search strategy whether the subject of the analysis had not been previously included in the bibliography? With tools such as PROSPERO, INPLASY or similar?
Response: Thank you for the valuable observation. As mentioned in subchapter 2.6. from the very beginning, this review was not prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Subsequently, following your suggestion, we tried to retrospectively include the protocol on the OSF platform, obtaining the following DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N3JD7. Unfortunately, for technical reasons beyond our control, the link is currently not active. We will continue the steps to activate it, as we consider methodological transparency important.
Comment: I believe that the inclusion of studies in English and Romanian only potentially excludes evidence from other educational contexts. Also, the lack of prospective protocol registration may affect the transparency and reproducibility of the analysis process.
Response:
Thank you for your pertinent comments. I have explicitly integrated these aspects in the “Limitations” section of the manuscript, where I have stated the following:
“This review also has other limitations: the lack of prospective protocol registration, which may affect the transparency and reproducibility of the analysis, and the exclusive selection of studies in English and Romanian, which may limit the applicability of the results to more diverse educational contexts. In future research, protocol registration and expansion of linguistic criteria could increase the methodological rigor and international relevance of the conclusions.”
We believe that this formulation reflects the concerns expressed and provides a clear direction for improving the approach in future research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFrom the supplemented and corrected paper, it is clear that the authors tried to answer all the questions and comments more or less successfully. The article is largely quite improved, but what I still miss is a clear definition of what we gain from the use of AI and ICT in physical education and, above all, what we lose. The mention of the lines is just a kind of anchor, and the comments refer to the entire text. I would like to mention just three other comments that could shed some light on the issue in a little more detail.
- I agree with the authors' comment that the use of VR and AR can significantly improve coordination (this should be highlighted in particular), but there is no clear connection with AI. Try to do a comprehensive analysis in the paper, emphasising the aforementioned coordination.
- Line 47 - "Tools based on /.../" - what tools are these? Try to list them and briefly describe their role, how and why? Which ones did you use in your research?
- Line 49 - "Mobile application /.../" - similar to above, - what mobile applications are these, try to list them and briefly describe their role, how and why? Which ones did you use in your research?
Author Response
Comment 1: The manuscript is improved, but there is still no clear definition of what we gain and what we lose by using AI and ICT in physical education.
Response: Thank you for this important remark. We have revised the Introduction to include an explicit discussion of both the advantages (e.g., personalization, real-time feedback, increased accessibility) and disadvantages (e.g., reduced face-to-face interaction, dependency on technology, implementation costs) of AI and ICT in physical education. This addition clarifies the balance between benefits and limitations.
Comment 2: The use of VR and AR may improve coordination, but the link with AI is not clear. A more comprehensive analysis is needed.
Response: We appreciate this observation. In the revised manuscript, we emphasized the role of VR and AR in improving coordination, and we clarified how these technologies can be integrated with AI-driven analytics (e.g., AI-assisted motion tracking and feedback systems). This provides a clearer link between VR/AR applications and AI in the context of physical education.
Comment 3: Line 47 – "Tools based on..." Which tools? Please list and briefly describe them.
Response: We revised this section by adding examples of tools, such as motion capture systems, video-analysis platforms, and posture recognition software. We also explained how and why these tools were used in the context of our research.
Comment 4: Line 49 – "Mobile application..." Which applications? Please specify and briefly describe them.
Response: We clarified this section by including examples of mobile applications (e.g., Strava, MyFitnessPal, Fitbod) and describing their functions (tracking physical activity, monitoring progress, providing personalized training). We also specified which of these were directly used in our study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for the effort to address my comments. The revised manuscript has basically addressed all my raised issues, with clear improvements in scope, clarity and transparency.
I've noticed an addition of the sentence: "We applied PRISMA mainly as a reporting framework, adapted for sports science, not as a strict methodological protocol" (p. 4). This is an unusual remark, although I understand the change is likely to address a comment from another reviewer.
Can the authors at least find some support that this is an acceptable practice?
Author Response
Comment 1: The sentence "We applied PRISMA mainly as a reporting framework, adapted for sport science, not as a strict methodological protocol" is unusual. Please justify why this is acceptable.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reformulated this statement in the Methods section to emphasize that PRISMA was applied as a reporting guideline to ensure transparency and clarity of presentation. Given the heterogeneous nature of studies in sport science (quantitative and qualitative), a strict meta-analytic approach was not feasible. Instead, PRISMA was adapted as a flexible framework, a practice that has been documented in similar systematic reviews in sport and exercise science. We added supporting references to strengthen this justification. The new text reads:
"PRISMA was applied primarily as a reporting guideline to ensure a transparent and consistent presentation of results, adapted to the specific context of sport science, where a strict systematic approach is not always possible. This practice is consistent with approaches documented in related studies."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCongratulations to the authors for the improvements made to the study. I believe it meets the necessary requirements to be published in the journal.
Author Response
Thank you for the effort to evaluate our work!!!
