You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Education Sciences
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

25 September 2025

Effect of the Use of New Technologies on Mental Health in Physical Education Students: A Systematic Review

,
,
and
EGIIOFID Research Team, Faculty of Education, Pontifical University of Salamanca, 37002 Salamanca, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2025, 15(10), 1282;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15101282
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Background/Objectives: In today’s society, the use of new technologies in education has become increasingly relevant. In the subject of Physical Education, these tools offer resources to increase motivation and allow for a better academic monitoring of students. However, their use has also generated academic debate. This systematic review aims to analyse the educational impact of the use of new technologies and their effect on mental health and academic performance in Physical Education students. Methods: The PRISMA Statement was used. A literature search was conducted from January 2020 to April 2025 in the databases Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus and Dialnet. To refine the search process, the following research question was posed, following the PICO model: in Physical Education students, what is the educational effect of the use of digital technology on mental health and academic performance in teaching practice? The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies analysed. Results: From a total of 897 articles, 27 relevant papers were selected and classified according to: authors, manuscript title, year of publication, population, main objective, type of design, digital tool, results and conclusions. Conclusions: The findings of this systematic review underline the importance of adopting a constructivist approach to the use of technological resources in Physical Education classes, without losing sight of the motor component, competence learning and the mental well-being of students.

1. Introduction

Currently, the use of digital technologies in education represents a turning point in the teaching-learning processes, because it enables more personalised pedagogical experiences, promotes a higher degree of student involvement and contributes to improved academic performance (Gros, 2015; Hermann, 2018). In this sense, one of the main contributions of these new tools to education is the possibility of providing different methodological resources based on multimedia elements, such as, for example, videos, simulations or interactive activities, with the main aim of achieving competent students (Espinosa et al., 2017). These elements not only make the teaching process more dynamic but also offer multiple ways of working by interconnecting content, thus improving understanding and the acquisition of concepts, procedures and attitudes and, therefore, student learning (Barboto et al., 2025; Herrera et al., 2024; Huillca et al., 2024).
Another significant advance in the use of new technologies in the classroom is their use together with active methodologies (Arabait-García et al., 2023). Therefore, a clear example of this is gamified learning situations that, through new technologies, incorporate motivating and novel elements such as badges, classifications or interactive challenges, which can increase student participation (Céspedes, 2025; Tolentino et al., 2023; Valencia et al., 2025; Zambrano et al., 2022). Apart from gamification, there are other methodologies that are currently relying on the use of digital media due to their multiple benefits, such as Project-Based Learning, Flipped Classroom or Service-Learning (Caicedo et al., 2025; López & Lizcano, 2022; Santágueda et al., 2021).
On the other hand, digital technologies are positioned within the educational sphere as one of the most useful resources for increasing and strengthening student engagement, influencing their academic performance in a decisive way (Pérez-Díaz et al., 2023). In fact, research by Akpen et al. (2024) and Vieriu and Petrea (2025) highlights the importance of integrating digital tools into educational environments, as they promote academic performance and enhance student engagement in the classroom, provided they are used appropriately.
However, beyond their function as a means of accessing information, these technological resources promote flexible, personalised and motivating learning environments, in which all students can make decisions and manage their learning with greater autonomy (Larrañaga et al., 2023; Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024; Omarov et al., 2024; Zermeño et al., 2022). Within these innovative actions, the adaptive learning platforms stand out, which offer work guidelines adjusted to the characteristics of each student, offering additional support for the contents that require more attention and, at the same time, allowing for agile progress in those that are already consolidated (Jácome et al., 2025; Sanmartín et al., 2024).
In addition to improving student motivation and autonomy, the use of these tools brings many advantages in terms of sharing results and providing feedback on the activities carried out during the student’s training process (Guaña et al., 2023; Posso et al., 2023). This is due to a faster and more direct form of communication, avoiding the long waits associated with more traditional methods, which often lead to disinterest or lack of commitment (Fernández-Baños & Baena-Extremera, 2018; Sepúlveda-Romero, 2019).
All these improvements are particularly relevant in Physical Education (PE), where the use of new technologies has increased exponentially, as they facilitate the monitoring of the teaching-learning process, improve the organisation of tasks and encourage student interest and participation (Díaz-Barahona, 2020; Fernández-Baños & Baena-Extremera, 2018; Pérez-Díaz et al., 2023). Within the context of this subject, continuous feedback is key for students to identify how to improve their skills and decision-making during the sessions, as the immediacy of the feedback helps to build their confidence and maintain their active motivation during physical-sport practice (Bofill et al., 2025; Magdaleno et al., 2023).
Also, in the area of PE, digital tools add value to learning by stimulating students’ creativity and critical thinking (Nuraini et al., 2023). Several studies have shown how these resources facilitated the understanding of content by presenting information in an attractive and dynamic way, which helped students to develop creative skills to solve problems more effectively (Díaz-Barahona et al., 2020; Moreno, 2022; Quilindo, 2023).
Moreover, these technologies in PE should be used with caution and never in excess, ensuring that the physical-sporting and active component that characterises this subject is not lost (García et al., 2015; Fernández-Espínola & Ladrón-Moreno, 2016). The presence of technological devices can alter the pace of the sessions or reduce the time dedicated to motor engagement, which requires reflection on when and how to integrate them appropriately (Carrasco et al., 2021; García et al., 2015).
Therefore, the use of these tools should be careful and planned, as excessive use can lead to negative physical effects such as eyestrain, poor sleep quality or difficulties in disconnecting from digital environments (Castillo-Riquelme et al., 2023; de la Hoz, 2018; Pascuas-Rengifo et al., 2020; Prieto, 2021). These effects are aggravated when healthy lifestyle habits related to the moderate use of mobile devices are not promoted or when clear limits on usage times are not established (Besolí et al., 2018; García-Soidán et al., 2020).
Furthermore, another negative aspect of the overuse of new technologies is their adverse effects on mental health, since uncontrolled use of these technologies affects the emotional regulation of students, as it causes an increase in anxiety levels or can even lead to social isolation (Almodóvar-Fuentes et al., 2023; Castillo-Riquelme et al., 2023), generating dependence or compulsive behaviour, especially at an early age (Pérez-Cabrejos et al., 2021). The need to constantly check one’s phone, even during study or break time, can lead to a loss of attention span and an increased level of stress (Besolí et al., 2018; Toctaguano & Eugenio, 2023).
Therefore, the role of teachers is key. The integration of technologies must be accompanied by teacher training that includes not only technical mastery but also emotional management, psychosocial risk prevention and the promotion of a balanced use of digital tools (Castro-Palomino & Coras, 2024; Viñals & Cuenca, 2016).
In summary, the presence of technologies in the learning environment offers a dynamic and adaptive approach to learning, facilitating personalisation and access to content (La Rosa Feijoó, 2021; Mateo-Orcajada et al., 2025). However, their intensive use can affect students’ emotional well-being, so digital resources must be incorporated consistently and with the intention of keeping students active through social and dynamic activities (Kucera et al., 2022).
Therefore, the main objective of the research was to analyse the educational impact of the use of new technologies and their effect on the mental health of students in the area of PE.

2. Materials and Methods

The study carried out a systematic review following the PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Page et al., 2021) with the aim of providing a synthesis of the existing scientific literature on digital technology in the educational phenomenon, and specifically in the subject of PE.
The start of the process was to register the protocol with PROSPERO (CRD420251101732), to avoid duplication, reduce bias and ensure methodological transparency in the study.
Specifically, in May 2025, an exhaustive search was conducted of research published from January 2020 to April 2025, following specific guidelines and taking into account the points on the PRISMA statement checklist (Page et al., 2021) to ensure a comprehensive information process. The last five years were selected in order to understand the evolution and impact of the use of digital technology in PE classes following the global COVID-19 pandemic.
In order to refine the efficiency of the search process, the PICO model, consisting of the elements of population (P), intervention (I) and outcomes/effects (O), was used as a reference (Richardson et al., 1995). In this case, the ‘C’ (comparison) component was omitted due to the absence of comparative analyses with other variables. Based on these criteria, the following research question was formulated: In PE students, what is the educational effect of digital technology use on mental health in teaching practice?
As for the search strategy, the following string of words was used by combining Boolean operators, following the terms considered by the UNESCO Thesaurus: “Physical Education” AND (“Digitization” OR “Digital Technology”) AND “Mental Health”. Finally, the following eligibility criteria were applied to proceed with the selection of studies (Table 1).
Table 1. Eligibility criteria for the selection process.
In the second phase of the process, we started with the selection of a total of 897 pieces of scientific evidence found in the selected databases (Table 2).
Table 2. Search strategy and Boolean combinations.
As a first step, 11 studies were discarded as duplicate records, so that 886 publications were analysed in a first screening by title and abstract. This was followed by a second screening in which 68 scientific articles were analysed in full text. To conclude the search strategy, 27 manuscripts were finally selected for data extraction. All the above points about the selection process are detailed in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of included studies (PRISMA Statement 2020) (Haddaway et al., 2022).
Subsequently, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), designed to systematically appraise qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies within systematic reviews (Pluye et al., 2011). For this work, we used the updated 2018 version, which includes specific criteria and guidelines for summarising results descriptively or with a standardised scoring system (Hong et al., 2018).
In this review, four researchers independently assessed the 27 articles, applying the specific items according to the design of each study. Inter-rater agreement was high (Kappa index = 0.85), and after this phase, discrepancies were discussed in consensus meetings until the final rating was agreed. Each study was categorised using this system to reflect the degree of compliance with the quality criteria: * (20% of criteria), ** (40%), *** (60%), **** (80%) and ***** (100%) (Figure 2). All selected articles reached sufficient levels of quality for inclusion in the review. The distribution of the articles, according to these categories, is detailed in the corresponding column of the results section.
Figure 2. Article quality percentage based on the Kappa index.
Finally, a coding manual with the main characteristics of the selected studies was developed in order to address the research question.

3. Results

Considering the results of the present review, 27 studies were selected for data extraction using a coding manual detailing the characteristics of the study, which were classified according to: authors, title of the manuscript, year of publication, target population, main objective, type of design, digital tool, results and conclusions. In this way, a synthesis was made, clearly detailing the characteristics of the manuscripts for subsequent reflection (Table 3).
Table 3. Characteristics of the studies included in this systematic review and the use of new technologies in PE.
According to the year of publication of the manuscripts, the year 2021 presented the highest number of published studies with a total of nine, followed by 2024 with six publications, four in 2022 and 2023, three in 2025 and one study in 2020 (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Distribution of studies by year of publication.
Considering the population of the selected studies, six research studies were analysed at the Primary Education stage, eight at the Secondary Education stage, four included the two previous stages, one was studied at Baccalaureate, two combined Secondary Education and sixth form and, finally, six manuscripts focusing on teachers in the educational field were analysed (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Distribution of studies according to educational stage.
In terms of research design, 11 studies used a qualitative approach, 10 used a non-randomised quantitative methodological design, one study used a randomised controlled trial, two used a descriptive quantitative approach, and three used mixed methods. Figure 5 shows the distribution of studies with percentage data.
Figure 5. Distribution of studies according to methodological approach (N = 27). Qualitative (n = 11), Non-randomised Quantitative (n = 10), Mixed Methods (n = 3), Descriptive Quantitative (n = 2), Randomised Controlled Trial (n = 1).
In addition to the above, the following thematic fields were identified to analyse the articles; (a) Methodologies and evaluation; (b) Motivation, enjoyment and interest; (c) Video games, Augmented Reality (AR) and video analysis systems; (d) Physical and cognitive dimension; (e) Teacher training; (f) Digital technologies during COVID-19; (g) Digital divide.
In the first area, studies by Fuentes-Nieto et al. (2023); Mateo-Orcajada et al. (2025); Petrušič and Štemberger (2021); Valdez et al. (2023) raised the need to reconfigure the PE curriculum by integrating digital technology, through the application of formative and innovative assessments and active methodologies such as gamification.
According to the second categorisation, the findings of Castillo-Peláez and Salazar-Ruiz (2021); Gomes et al. (2024); La Rosa Feijoó (2021); Omarov et al. (2024); Papastergiou et al. (2021); Rutkauskaite et al. (2022); Sánchez-Martínez et al. (2024); Soto et al. (2020); Zapata-Agudelo et al. (2023) supported the improvement in motivation, enjoyment and interest in PE, reflecting the idea that digital resources are a potential enabler.
Regarding the next dimension, research by Cece et al. (2025); Faruk et al. (2025); Gomes et al. (2024); Mateo-Orcajada et al. (2025); Nuraini et al. (2023); Omarov et al. (2024); Sánchez-Martínez et al. (2024); Valdez et al. (2023) implemented video games, AR technology and visual interpretation systems, demonstrating that they can enrich the student learning process significantly.
Regarding the physical and cognitive component, there was evidence of improved academic performance and understanding of PE content, and attention, problem solving and creativity were enhanced by integrating interactive digital media (Abadi et al., 2024; Cece et al., 2025; Faruk et al., 2025; Frömel et al., 2021; Lan et al., 2022; Mödinger et al., 2024; Nuraini et al., 2023; Valdez et al., 2023; Zapata-Agudelo et al., 2023).
In the fifth area of teacher training, the authors’ evidence (Castillo-Peláez & Salazar-Ruiz, 2021; Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024; Parris et al., 2022; Rutkauskaite et al., 2022; Webster et al., 2021; Wyant et al., 2021) pointed to the need for teachers to adapt to and be familiar with digital tools in order to provide quality teaching based on digital competence (Castillo-Peláez & Salazar-Ruiz, 2021; Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024; Parris et al., 2022; Rutkauskaite et al., 2022; Webster et al., 2021; Wyant et al., 2021).
The sixth category, related to digital media in PE that were used during the global pandemic, showed a significant increase in their application due to the situation caused by COVID-19. However, the need for effective use in subsequent years was raised (Fuentes-Nieto et al., 2023; Kucera et al., 2022; López-Secanell, 2021; Parris et al., 2022; Talero-Jaramillo & Guarnizo-Carballo, 2022; Valdez et al., 2023; Webster et al., 2021; Zapata-Agudelo et al., 2023).
In relation to the last area on the current presence of the digital divide, the studies of Fuentes-Nieto et al. (2023); Matheu-Pérez et al. (2024); Parris et al. (2022); Webster et al. (2021) detected technological inequalities, recognising the need to establish institutional support (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Number of studies associated with each subject area.
From each study, the values represented were grouped according to the main subject area. Thus, the figure reflects the number of studies associated with each dimension, which facilitates distribution and interpretation.
The coding manual, including the 27 articles included for data extraction, is presented below (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The main objective of the study presented was to answer the following research question: what is the educational effect of the use of digital technology on mental health in teaching practice?
The review of the scientific literature showed that the use of digital technology had a positive impact on competency learning within the student learning process. In particular, improvements in physical and mental processes such as academic performance (Abadi et al., 2024), problem solving, critical thinking (Valdez et al., 2023), creativity (Nuraini et al., 2023), understanding of pedagogical content and improved motor actions (Cece et al., 2025; Faruk et al., 2025; Frömel et al., 2021; Mödinger et al., 2024) were perceived. In fact, these findings coincide with studies that have shown a positive correlation between academic performance and the practice of physical activity when using digital resources or tools in PE sessions (Lima, 2024; Rasdiana et al., 2024). Furthermore, evidence has supported the great potential they present, as they improve motor skills and abilities, which favours the development of healthy habits and, therefore, their quality of life (Sotoca-Orgaz et al., 2025).
In relation to the affective and socioemotional component, it has been shown that the application of digital tools in the classroom increases motivation and interest in the subject of PE (Castillo-Peláez & Salazar-Ruiz, 2021; Gomes et al., 2024; La Rosa Feijoó, 2021; Omarov et al., 2024; Papastergiou et al., 2021), generating a positive and enjoyable atmosphere in the classroom (Sánchez-Martínez et al., 2024; Soto et al., 2020). Similar data showed that there was an increase in participation and commitment to the subject, which confirms the positive use of these media in the educational environment (Oshanova et al., 2025).
On the other hand, in terms of mental health, the studies included in the review showed that the use of digital technologies in PE sessions led to motivating and participatory situations, which was related to the emotional well-being of students (Castillo-Peláez & Salazar-Ruiz, 2021; La Rosa Feijoó, 2021; Papastergiou et al., 2021). Furthermore, the use of ICT resources, such as video games or mobile applications, offered more attractive experiences, which favoured the reduction in anxiety associated with physical-sports practice and reinforced the student’s confidence to face new challenges (Magdaleno et al., 2023; Papastergiou et al., 2021; Zapata-Agudelo et al., 2023). These findings can also be interpreted from a constructivist perspective, as the use of digital tools encourages active knowledge construction through interaction, exploration and problem solving. In this sense, students are not limited to receiving information but actively participate in the creation of meaning and the practical application of content, which enhances both intrinsic motivation and autonomy in learning (Papastergiou et al., 2021; Valdez et al., 2023).
It was also observed that the proposals in which gamification-based methodologies were used had a very positive impact on factors such as empathy and communication among students (Castillo-Peláez & Salazar-Ruiz, 2021; Faruk et al., 2025; Omarov et al., 2024). In this sense, there are numerous studies that show how these dynamics based on digital technologies can become effective tools for strengthening personal bonds and preventing feelings of isolation or demotivation (Kucera et al., 2022; Sánchez-Martínez et al., 2024; Parris et al., 2022).
However, it is essential to highlight that several studies have highlighted that the misuse of technologies can have negative effects on students’ mental health, generating compulsive behaviour, technological dependence, increased anxiety, decreased attention or difficulties in emotional regulation (Almodóvar-Fuentes et al., 2023; Castillo-Peláez & Salazar-Ruiz, 2021; Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024).
Added to this is the concern that many young people spend several hours a day playing video games or using mobile phones, as prolonged use of these devices can be associated with difficulties in mental well-being or lower academic performance (Castillo-Riquelme et al., 2023; Skripkauskaite et al., 2022). In addition, another negative aspect that should be taken into account is the digital divide and unequal access to resources, as these limit equal participation in activities, developing feelings of frustration, exclusion or demotivation in students with fewer opportunities (Fuentes-Nieto et al., 2023; Parris et al., 2022). Therefore, collaboration between educators, psychologists, and policy makers is a very relevant aspect of addressing the mental health challenges that arise in the digital age (Burnell & Odgers, 2023; Shuangli et al., 2025; Vuorre et al., 2021).
However, detrimental aspects in the use of digital resources in PE classes were also detected, such as the lack of initial and continuous teacher training (Rutkauskaite et al., 2022; Wyant et al., 2021; Zapata-Agudelo et al., 2023), the presence of technological inequalities (Fuentes-Nieto et al., 2023; Parris et al., 2022), limitations in accessibility (Mateo-Orcajada et al., 2025; Webster et al., 2021) and possible technological failures (Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024). In addition to the above, similar results emphasised that PE teachers had basic training in digital resources. In this regard, the literature reviewed has stated the need for aids to bridge the digital divide and thus ensure that students can engage in physical activity and sport through the use of technology (Ting et al., 2023; Zhu & Dragon, 2016). Therefore, it is essential for teachers to keep themselves constantly updated in order to offer quality teaching and face the challenges posed by the new digital era, since, without these competences, it will not be possible to make appropriate use of technological media (Menescardi et al., 2021).
Furthermore, it is important to highlight the increase in studies that have emerged in this field after the COVID-19 pandemic, as this situation marked a turning point in the way digital technologies were incorporated into the teaching environment (Fuentes-Nieto et al., 2023; Parris et al., 2022; Valdez et al., 2023). As a result, approaches focused on reinforcing their educational value by revising the objectives, contents and methodologies used in the educational field began to be developed (Webster et al., 2021; Zapata-Agudelo et al., 2023).
Several studies underlined that the pandemic created opportunities to share experiences and implement strategies with a more inclusive approach (López-Secanell, 2021; Valdez et al., 2023). Consequently, there has been an evolution towards proposals that are not limited to responding to specific needs, but which aim to enrich the teaching and learning processes in PE classes in a stable way (Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024; Webster et al., 2021).
On the other hand, this increase in research has made it possible to identify areas that require further development, such as the integration of these tools into the curriculum or their long-term impact on student learning (Fuentes-Nieto et al., 2023; Parris et al., 2022). However, beyond responding to specific needs, it is essential to move towards proposals that strengthen teaching and learning processes in physical education classes in a stable manner, guaranteeing both educational quality and the overall well-being of students (Matheu-Pérez et al., 2024; Webster et al., 2021). In this regard, it is necessary to develop a critical and reflective approach to the use of technology in education, oriented towards pedagogical models that ensure the mental health of students at all educational stages (Li & Wang, 2024; Talero-Jaramillo & Guarnizo-Carballo, 2022; Zapata-Agudelo et al., 2023).

5. Conclusions

The aim of the systematic review was to analyse the educational impact of the use of new technologies and their effect on the mental health of students in the area of PE, from which it can be deduced that the appropriate use of digital resources and tools in PE classes, at any educational stage, has a positive impact on the mental health of students, as well as on the acquisition of skills. Moreover, thanks to digital media, it is possible to improve students’ motor engagement time, facilitating continuous and constructive feedback and encouraging autonomous learning on the part of students.
However, it is necessary for teachers to be well trained and constantly updated in this area, since an inappropriate use of digital resources can cause problems, both in mental health and in the training of students, causing the opposite effect to what is really intended with the use of active methodologies and the use of new technologies.
In summary, the findings of this systematic review underline the importance of adopting a constructivist approach to the use of technological resources in PE classes, without losing sight of the motor component, competency learning and the mental well-being of students, seeking loyalty to physical-sports practice and cooperation with peers.
However, the systematic review has certain limitations that must be taken into account. One of these relates to the heterogeneity of the studies included, as most of them use different designs, a small sample size or very specific contexts, aspects that make it difficult to make direct comparisons or draw solid conclusions. In addition, some results differ from one another, indicating the importance of considering these variations when interpreting the evidence. In this sense, the set of articles provides a valuable overview but also shows the need to continue advancing in systematic reviews that allow for further comparison and deeper analysis of the results.
Another limitation relates to the scope of the analysis, as the review focused particularly on the Spanish education system, which helps to better contextualise the conclusions but also limits generalisation to other international settings or areas with different education systems.
Furthermore, the literature search was restricted to a limited number of databases, which may have resulted in the exclusion of some relevant studies and a corresponding limitation in the scope of the review. In this regard, future research could broaden the scope of the search by including a larger number of databases in order to obtain a more comprehensive overview. Furthermore, it would be advisable to analyse, in a more specific manner, how the digital divide or the integration of technology affects students’ academic performance by making a comparison at each stage of education.
Finally, in view of current needs and the evolution of society towards an increasingly digital world, this study proposes future lines of research that could focus on: (a) comparison of different active methodologies and their effectiveness on mental health and academic performance in different contexts, (b) integration of advanced technologies for the improvement of students’ basic motor skills and physical abilities and (c) the relationship between the use of technological resources in terms of the different blocks of content worked on in PE classes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.R.-C., D.N.-S. and P.T.M.-C.; methodology, A.R.-C., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; software, A.R.-C., D.N.-S. and S.P.-M.; validation, A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; formal analysis A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; investigation, A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; resources, D.N.-S. and P.T.M.-C.; data curation, A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; writing—review and editing, A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; visualisation, A.R.-C., D.N.-S., S.P.-M. and P.T.M.-C.; supervision, A.R.-C. and P.T.M.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Abadi, A. K., Dewi, I. S., Islam, S., Pratama, O. P. A., Kristiono, A. A., & Wijaya, M. B. (2024). Development of interactive learning media in the city of Purwokerto: Cognitive aspects of school basketball. Retos, 58, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Akpen, C. N., Asaolu, S., Atobatele, S., Okagbue, H., & Sampson, S. (2024). Impact of online learning on student’s performance and engagement: A systematic review. Discover Education, 3(1), 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Almodóvar-Fuentes, S., Castellanos, E., Núñez-Lara, E., Arias, A., & Tejera-Muñoz, A. (2023). Cross-sectional study on sleep habits and new technologies among vocational training students. Revista Española de Salud Pública, 97, e202304027. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arabait-García, J., Prendes, M. P., & Serrano, J. L. (2023). Open educational resources and active methodologies for teaching STEM in primary education. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnología Educativa, 22(1), 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barboto, C. M., Rómulo, R. A., Cordovilla, C. A., Barba, P. F., Santillán, N. D., & Suárez, L. J. (2025). Impact of augmented reality on teaching and learning natural sciences: A case study. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 9(1), 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Besolí, G., Palomas, N., & Chamarro, A. (2018). Mobile phone use among parents, children and adolescents: Beliefs about its risks and benefits. Aloma, 36(1), 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bofill, J., Pla-Campas, G., & Sebastiani, E. M. (2025). Is artificial intelligence an educational resource in physical education? A systematic review. Apunts. Educación Física y Deportes, 160, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Burnell, K., & Odgers, C. L. (2023). Trajectories of perceived technological impairment and psychological distress in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 52(2), 258–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Caicedo, F. N., Suárez, M. Y., & Mosquera, A. C. (2025). Project-based learning with geospatial technologies: Educational innovation for the development of critical thinking in social studies. Revista Científica Salud y Desarrollo Humano, 6(2), 105–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carrasco, O. R., Caicedo, J. G., Savedra, O. A., & Ochoa, V. L. (2021). Pedagogical foundations for the teaching learning of physical education in a virtual modality: A current challenge. Ciencia Digital, 5(1), 232–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Castillo-Peláez, J., & Salazar-Ruiz, M. R. (2021). ICT and their use in the subject of physical education in primary education. ESHPA, 5(1), 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Castillo-Riquelme, V. F., Lamilla-Cifuentes, Y. E., Araya-Fernández, M. E., & Martínez-Lecaros, B. N. (2023). Emotional (dis)regulation in university students: When addiction to mobile devices takes its toll. Propósitos y Representaciones, 11(2), e1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Castro-Palomino, L., & Coras, E. A. (2024). Digital tools in teacher performance: Systematic review. Horizontes Revista de Ciencias de la Educación, 8(32), 288–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cece, V., Fargier, P., Roure, C., & Lentillon-Kaestner, V. (2025). Multidisciplinary teaching with an active video game: The effect on learning in mathematics and physical education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 34(1), 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Céspedes, J. M. (2025). Gamification in higher education: An analysis of its benefits and limitations. I+D Internacional, 4(1), 23–42. [Google Scholar]
  16. de la Hoz, J. P. (2018). Advantages and disadvantages of adolescent use of ICT: Students’ perspective. Revista Complutense de Educación, 29(2), 491–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Díaz-Barahona, J. (2020). Challenges and opportunities of mobile technology in physical education. Retos, 37, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Díaz-Barahona, J., García, J. M., & Pañego, M. (2020). Knowledge and teaching intent in the use of ICT by physical education teachers. Retos, 38, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Espinosa, J. G., Peña, D. S., Astudillo, J. F., & Coronel, C. J. (2017). Educational multimedia as a teaching resource and its use in the classroom. Revista Científica Sinapsis, 1(10). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Faruk, M., Ali, M., Susilana, R., Dewi, L., Alias, N., Mahardika, I. M. S. U., Syafi’i, I., Huda, M. S., Wahyudi, A. R., Andriana, L. M., & Pranoto, A. (2025). The interventions of physical education by using augmented reality based mobile learning can significantly improve gross motor skills in elementary school students. Retos, 64, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fernández-Baños, R., & Baena-Extremera, A. (2018). Innovative digital tools as teaching resources in physical education. EmásF, 52, 79–91. [Google Scholar]
  22. Fernández-Espínola, C., & Ladrón-Moreno, L. (2016). The use of ICT in physical education today. e-Motion: Revista de Educación, Motricidad e Investigación, 5, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Frömel, K., Skalik, K., Svozil, Z., Groffik, D., & Mitáš, J. A. (2021). Higher step count is associated with the better evaluation of physical education lessons in adolescents. Sustainability, 13(8), 4569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fuentes-Nieto, T., Jiménez-Herranz, B., López-Pastor, V. M., & Fernández-Garcimartín, C. (2023). Use of ICT during COVID-19 lockdown and level of connection among students in physical education. Revista Complutense de Educación, 34(2), 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. García, I. G., Lemus, N. C., & Morales-Toledo, P. (2015). Flipped classrooms via smartphone: Effects of experimentation in secondary physical education. Prisma Social, 15, 296–352. [Google Scholar]
  26. García-Soidán, J. L., Boente, B., & Leirós, R. (2020). Do Spanish children prefer electronic devices or physical activity in their free time? Sportis Scientific Journal, 6(2), 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gomes, L., Teixeira, D., Slawinska, M., Davis, P., López-Flores, M., Nyström, M., Silva, M., Palmeira, A., & Pereira, H. (2024). Adolescents’ perspectives on smartphone applications for physical activity promotion: Insights from focus group discussions. Retos, 56, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gros, B. (2015). Challenges and trends regarding the future of research on learning with digital technologies. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 50(10), 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guaña, J., Arteaga-Alcívar, Y., & Cedeño, M. E. (2023). Advantages and disadvantages of using artificial intelligence tools in education. Revista Tecnología e Inteligencia, 2(2), 6–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA 2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and open synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), e1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hermann, A. (2018). Innovation, technologies and education: Digital narratives as teaching strategies. Revista Killkana Social, 2(2), 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Herrera, L. P., Consuelo, B., Sumba, D. F., Chulli, J. F., Casanova, H. M., Baque, M. T., & Moran, I. R. (2024). Pedagogical strategies for improving understanding of abstract mathematical concepts in secondary school students. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(4), 8590–8606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hong, Q. N., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M., Dagenais, P., & Pluye, P. (2018). The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. E-Science Information, 34(4), 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Huillca, V., Chalco, R., Challanca, F. O., Chalco, E. G., & Frisancho, W. (2024). Impact of innovative approaches in teaching communication through PBL, interactive technologies, and student motivation. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(5), 6854–6871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jácome, D. C., Barahona, M. C., Merchán, R. P., Velarde-Meléndez, D. E., & Velarde, L. R. (2025). Artificial intelligence-based learning platforms for inclusive education of students with TDH: An approach to adaptive learning. Revista Veritas Difusión Científica, 6(1), 970–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kucera, C., Gomes, A. L. do V., Ovens, A., & Bennett, B. (2022). Teaching online physical education during social distancing using Google Sites: Pedagogy, strategies, reflections and barriers of a teacher. Movimiento, 28, e28019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. La Rosa Feijoó, Ó. C. (2021). Information and communication technologies in the learning of secondary school physical education students. Sportis Scientific Journal, 7(3), 386–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lan, L. T., Huy, D. T. N., Nguyen, T. H., & Hien, D. T. (2022). Sports training for primary and secondary school students: Training solutions in the context of digital transformation. SPORT TK-Revista Euroamericana de Ciencias del Deporte, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Larrañaga, N., Jiménez, E., & Garmendia, M. (2023). Opportunities and perceived needs among primary school teachers for the educational use of ICT. Educar, 59(2), 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, J., & Wang, R. (2024). Determining the role of innovative teaching practices, sustainable learning, and the adoption of e-learning tools in leveraging academic motivation for students’ mental well-being. BMC Psychology, 12(1), 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lima, F. (2024). Physical activity and its correlation with academic performance in South American schools. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte, 24(94), 498–514. [Google Scholar]
  42. López, E. K., & Lizcano, R. N. (2022). Flipped classroom for the development of digital skills in secondary education. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (79), 182–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. López-Secanell, I. (2021). Analysis of the use of digital tools in physical education before and during COVID-19. Revista Española de Educación Física y Deportes, 72(431), 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Magdaleno, A. R., Manzano, S. S., Martínez, J. L., & López, E. J. (2023). New technologies for physical education and proposal for active homework assignments. Wanceulen SL. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mateo-Orcajada, A., Abenza-Cano, L., López-Miñarro, P. Á., Meroño, L., Gallardo-Guerrero, A. M., Morales-Belando, M. D. L. T., González-Gálvez, N., Espeso-García, A., Abelleira-Lamela, T., Gómez-Cuesta, N., & García-Velez, A. J. (2025). Analyzing the keys to the design of a mobile application for physical activity for school and out-of-school use from the perspective of adolescents, teachers, coaches, managers, and experts. PLoS ONE, 20(5), e0322074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Matheu-Pérez, A., Muñoz-Lara, M., Escobar-Ruiz, N., Arriagada-Guerrero, M., Cortés-Cancino, R., & Dehnhardt, M. (2024). Gender equality in physical education: Perceptions and strategies of teachers in Chile. Retos, 59, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Menescardi, C., Suárez-Guerrero, C., & Lizandra, J. (2021). Training physical education teachers in the use of technological applications. Apunts. Educación Física y Deportes, 144, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moreno, J. (2022). Teaching strategies in school physical education processes mediated by ICTs during COVID-19 lockdown. Revista Internacional de Pedagogía e Innovación Educativa, 2(1), 73–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mödinger, M., Woll, A., & Wagner, I. (2024). Motor learning with digital media in physical education—A digitally based methodological teaching concept for implementing visual feedback. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 54(4), 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nuraini, S., Rezaki, R., Marini, A., Sagita, J., Safitri, D., & Attas, S. G. (2023). Games-based interactive multimedia to increase student creativity in physical education course. Global Journal of Information Technology, 13(2), 144–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Omarov, N., Omarov, B., Azhibekova, Z., & Omarov, B. (2024). Applying an augmented reality game-based learning environment in physical education classes to enhance sports motivation. Retos, 60, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Oshanova, N., Kamalova, G., Tekesbayeva, N., Turashova, S., Anuarbekova, G., & Bukanova, A. (2025). Assessing the efficacy of an artificial intelligence-driven real-time exercise monitoring system in computer supported collaborative learning. Retos, 67, 580–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., & Chou, R. (2021). PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guide to publishing systematic reviews. Revista Española de Cardiología, 74(9), 790–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Papastergiou, M., Natsis, P., Vernadakis, N., & Antoniou, P. (2021). Introducing tablets and a mobile fitness application into primary school physical education. Education and Information Technologies, 26(1), 799–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Parris, Z., Cale, L., Harris, J., & Casey, A. (2022). Physical activity for health, COVID-19 and social media: What, where and why? Movimento, 28, e28024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pascuas-Rengifo, Y. S., García-Quintero, J. A., & Mercado-Varela, M. A. (2020). Mobile devices in education: Trends and impact on innovation. Revista Politécnica, 16(31), 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Petrušič, T., & Štemberger, V. (2021). Effective physical education distance learning models during the COVID-19 epidemic. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 11, 291–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pérez-Cabrejos, R. G., Rodríguez-Galán, D. B., Colquepisco, N. T., & Enríquez-Ludeña, R. L. (2021). Consequences of nomophobia in adolescents: A systematic review. Revista Conrado, 17(81), 203–210. [Google Scholar]
  59. Pérez-Díaz, J. J., Salas-Montoro, J. A., Rodríguez-Gallego, L., & Mateo-March, M. (2023). Impact of new technologies on levels of physical activity and sedentary lifestyles among compulsory secondary education students: Diagnosis and action plan. SPORT TK-Revista Euroamericana de Ciencias del Deporte, 12, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pluye, P., Robers, E., Cargo, M., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Griffiths, F., Boardman, F., Gagnon, M. P., Rousseau, M. C., Robert, E., & O’Cathain, A. (2011). Proposal: A mixed-methods assessment tool for systematic reviews of mixed studies. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Available online: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com (accessed on 14 May 2025).
  61. Posso, R. J., Ulcuango, M. T., Morales, L. A., Pastaz, G. P., & Jaramillo, L. A. (2023). Revolutionising education: Effective implementation of technology in the classroom. GADE: Revista Científica, 3(1), 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Prieto, M. F. (2021). Psychosocial risks of working through digital platforms. Temas Laborales, 156, 167–186. [Google Scholar]
  63. Quilindo, V. (2023). Teachers’ conceptions of ICT-mediated physical education in times of COVID-19: A case study. Retos, 48, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rasdiana, R., Mauludin, I., Yahya, A., Putri, D. E., Machrus, M. A., Marbun, M., Marbun, M., Sholikhah, A. M., Sinusi, N. S., Fathonah, S., Salmayda, S., & Pawartani, T. (2024). Mediation of digital literacy in investigating the effect of school culture on teacher performance: Implication for educational policy. Journal of Innovation in Psychology, Education and Didactics, 8(12), 9117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club, 123(3). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rutkauskaite, R., Koreivaite, M., Karanauskiene, D., & Mieziene, B. (2022). Students’ skills and experiences using information and communication technologies in remote physical education lessons. Sustainability, 14(23), 15949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sanmartín, R. C., Sanmartín, T. C., Sanmartín, M. E., & Angamarca, M. E. (2024). Innovative educational technology: Exploring the influence of ChatGPT on the quality of learning in the area of language and literature. Revista INVECOm Estudios Transdisciplinarios de Comunicación y Sociedad, 4(2), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Santágueda, M., Llopis, M. A., & Esteve, F. M. (2021). A mobile application for working on university service learning: Usability, suitability, and perceptions of usefulness. Revista Electrónica de Tecnología Educativa, (78), 22–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sánchez-Martínez, C., Martínez-Carrera, S., Alonso-Carnicero, A., & Veiga-Fernández, A. (2024). Geocaching: Socio-educational intervention with mobile devices. Prisma Social, 46, 54–76. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sepúlveda-Romero, M. E. (2019). Humanising the act of feedback in virtual education. Virtu@lmente, 7(1), 95–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Shuangli, Z., Sheng, T., Yan-Li, Z., Jun, Z., Jie, W., Min, C., Qiang, H., Hui, Z., & Zi-Liang, W. (2025). Examining the spectrum of problematic online behaviors in Chinese adolescents: A network analysis of smartphone, gaming, and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 167, 108611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Skripkauskaite, S., Fazel, M., & OxWell Study Team. (2022). Time spent gaming, device type, addiction scores, and well-being of adolescent English gamers in the 2021 OxWell Survey: Latent profile analysis. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 5(4), e41480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Soto, A., Camerino, O., & Castañer, M. (2020). Teaching innovations in physical education, observation with LINCE PLUS software. Sportis Scientific Journal of School Sport, Physical Education and Psychomotricity, 6(2), 390–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sotoca-Orgaz, P., Arévalo-Baeza, M., & Navia, J. A. (2025). Playing for a healthy life: Integrating mobile exergames in physical education. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Talero-Jaramillo, E. A., & Guarnizo-Carballo, N. (2022). The physical education curriculum in e-learning and b-learning modes during lockdown. Apunts Med, 27(1), 57–65. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ting, T. T., Lee, K. T., Lim, S. M., Lai, C. C., Omar, M. A., Alin, J., & Meri, A. (2023). Assessing the identity of digital technology in education in the age of digital communication. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 13(4), e202353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Toctaguano, B. S., & Eugenio, L. C. (2023). Sleep quality and its relationship with academic stress in high school students. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 7(1), 1245–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tolentino, C., Bravo, E., & Cieza-Mostacero, S. (2023). Revisión sistemática: Gamification in mobile applications for education. Revista Iberoamericana de Sistemas y Tecnologías de Información, 8, 271–282. [Google Scholar]
  79. Valdez, P. N., Mariano, J., & Cordova, M. S. G. (2023). Using mobile gaming in virtual physical education: Challenges and opportunities. Studies in Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Valencia, I. Z., Guzmán, R., & Baque, M. E. (2025). Gamification using digital tools in the teaching and learning process of biology. MQR Investigar, 9(1), e422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vieriu, A. M., & Petrea, G. (2025). The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on students’ academic development. Education Sciences, 15(3), 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Viñals, A., & Cuenca, J. (2016). The role of teachers in the digital age. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 30(2), 103–114. [Google Scholar]
  83. Vuorre, M., Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2021). There is no evidence that associations between adolescents’ digital technology engagement and mental health problems have increased. Clinical Psychological Science, 9(5), 823–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Webster, C. A., D’Agostino, E., Urtel, M., McMullen, J., Culp, B., Egan-Loiacono, 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wyant, J. D., Tsuda, E., Keath, A., & Baek, J.-H. (2021). Insights from teachers on the digitization of the physical education knowledge base. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 21(5), 2687–2696. [Google Scholar]
  86. Zambrano, L. E., Vélez, J. M., & Zambrano, J. M. (2022). Gamification as a teaching strategy for the development of meaningful learning in early education students. MQR Investigar, 6(4), 24–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zapata-Agudelo, N., Torres-Rojas, I. S., & Cardozo-Cardona, J. J. (2023). ICT in physical education as a teaching tool in times of pandemic. Revista Digital Actividad Física y Deporte, 10(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  88. Zermeño, A. I., González-Sánchez, R., & Navarrete, M. A. (2022). Technological practices among young university students and how they affect their personal autonomy. Paakat: Revista de Tecnología y Sociedad, 12(22), e678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhu, X., & Dragon, L. A. (2016). Physical activity and situational interest in mobile technology integrated physical education: A preliminary study. Acta Gymnica, 46(2), 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
The Interface Between Inclusion and Creativity: A Qualitative Scoping Systematic Review of Practices Developed in High School
Previous
Revisiting Popular Frameworks of Geometric Thinking: The Case of Mariah’s Thinking About Hierarchical Relationships and Diagrams
Next