Vol. 2 No. 3 (2023): December Special Issue of The QUEST: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development

The Influence of Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) on Students Learning Performance in Physical Education

Tian Zuo
Hainan Vocational University of Science and Technology
Jet Aquino
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology

Published 12/30/2023


  • computer-aided,
  • instruction,
  • interactive simulations,
  • adaptive learning pathways,
  • interactive learning environment,
  • multimodal learning experience,
  • real-world applications,
  • gamification
  • ...More

How to Cite

Zuo, T., & Aquino, J. (2023). The Influence of Computer Aided Instruction (CAI) on Students Learning Performance in Physical Education. The QUEST: Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.60008/thequest.v2i3.120


This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the influence of Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI) on student learning and performance in college physical education. Analyzing cognitive understanding, knowledge retention, skill development, engagement, and adaptability, the study identified specific components of CAI affecting outcomes. Challenges faced by teachers during CAI integration were explored, and a strategic plan for effective implementation was proposed. The research employed a quantitative descriptive design, focusing on Shijiazhuang Information Engineering Vocational College with 669 student respondents.

It was found that learners and teachers expressed satisfaction with CAI's adaptive learning pathways, interactive simulations, and progress tracking, indicating its value in enhancing the learning experience, CAI in Physical Education was well-received, demonstrating effectiveness in providing an engaging and enriching educational approach, the integration of CAI positively impacted cognitive understanding, memory retention, and bridging theoretical and practical knowledge in physical education, challenges included limited technical proficiency, insufficient training, access to reliable technology, time constraints, and content customization difficulties, learners coped by seeking assistance, independent exploration, using online resources, adapting learning strategies, and engaging in collaborative work and a proposed course of action addressed challenges through targeted workshops, comprehensive training, infrastructure upgrades, flexible scheduling, and adaptive content development.

CAI significantly influences physical education learning, with positive outcomes in engagement, understanding, and performance. Challenges identified underscore the need for tailored interventions. The proposed strategies offer a comprehensive plan for effective CAI utilization, fostering a supportive and technologically equipped learning environment.

In conclusion, Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI) significantly influences physical education learning, yielding positive outcomes in engagement, understanding, and performance; the identified challenges underscore the imperative for tailored interventions, and the proposed strategies offer a comprehensive plan for effective CAI utilization, fostering a supportive and technologically equipped learning environment; therefore, educational institutions should implement targeted interventions to enhance CAI integration, teaching faculty should adapt teaching strategies and undergo continuous professional development, IT departments should guide infrastructure upgrades and support initiatives for a reliable technological environment, students should actively engage in seeking assistance, independent exploration, and utilizing online resources, and future researchers should build on identified challenges and coping strategies to explore emerging technologies and assess long-term impacts of CAI in educational settings.

Full PDF


  1. Barakabitze, A. A., William-Andey Lazaro, A., Ainea, N., Mkwizu, M. H., Maziku, H., Matofali, A. X., ... & Sanga, C. (2019). Transforming African education systems in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) using ICTs: Challenges and opportunities. Education Research International, 2019, 1-29.
  2. Bargh, J. A. (2013). Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychology Press.
  3. Barrot, J. S., Llenares, I. I., & Del Rosario, L. S. (2021). Students’ online learning challenges during the pandemic and how they cope with them: The case of the Philippines. Education and information technologies, 26(6), 7321-7338.
  4. Bassachs, M., Serra, T., Bubnys, R., Cañabate, D., & Colomer, J. (2022). Multimodal approaches to math and physical education within cooperative learning to enhance social attitudes. Sustainability, 14(24), 16961.
  5. Breedt, M. (2015). Aspects influencing Accounting teachers attitudes towards Computer Aided Learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria).
  6. Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. John Wiley & Sons.
  7. Cairns, L., & Malloch, M. (2017). Computers in education: The impact on schools and classrooms. Life in Schools and Classrooms: Past, Present and Future, 603-617.
  8. Chen, H., Wen, Y., & Jin, J. (2023). Computer-aided teaching and learning of basic elementary functions. Heliyon, 9(5).
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
  10. Dap-og, E. R., & Orongan, M. J. Q. (2021). COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION ON STUDENTS’ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT IN SCIENCE. International Journal of Teaching and learning, 1(1), 46-57.
  11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
  12. Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2020). From Game Design Elements to Gamefulness: Defining Gamification. Conference Paper.
  13. Doung-In, S. (2017). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Walailak Journal of Learning Innovations, 3(2), 71-78.
  14. du Toit-Brits, C. (2019). A focus on self-directed learning: The role that educators’ expectations play in the enhancement of students’ self-directedness. South African Journal of Education, 39(2).
  15. Ferrés, J., Masanet, M. J., & Mateus, J. C. (2018). Three paradoxes in the approach to educational technology in the education studies of the Spanish universities. International journal of educational technology in higher education, 15(1), 1-14.
  16. Freedman, R. (2015). Enhanced possibilities for teaching and learning: A whole school approach to incorporating multiple intelligences and differentiated instruction.
  17. Freeman, A., Becker, S. A., & Cummins, M. (2017). NMC/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K. The New Media Consortium.
  18. Garcia, M. B., Yousef, A. M. F., de Almeida, R. P. P., Arif, Y. M., Happonen, A., & Barber, W. (2023). Teaching physical fitness and exercise using computer-assisted instruction: A School-based public health intervention. In Handbook of Research on Instructional Technologies in Health Education and Allied Disciplines (pp. 177-195). IGI Global.
  19. Gillies, R. M. (2016). Cooperative learning: Review of research and practice. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 41(3), 39-54.
  20. Ginja, T. G., & Chen, X. (2020). Teacher Educators' Perspectives and Experiences towards Differentiated Instruction. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4), 781-798.
  21. Ginter, P. M., Duncan, W. J., & Swayne, L. E. (2018). The strategic management of health care organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
  22. Gunčaga, J., & Janiga, R. (2016, September). Virtual labs and educational software as a tool for more effective teaching STEM subjects. In Proceedings from the Third International Conference on Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Education Technologies (pp. 1-12).
  23. Hsu, Y. C., Ching, Y. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (2014). Web 2.0 applications and practices for learning through collaboration. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, 747-758.
  24. Ivanovska, B. (2015). Learner autonomy in foreign language education and in cultural context. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 352-356.
  25. Jacob, O. N., Jegede, D., & Musa, A. (2020). Administration of information communication technology (ICT) in Nigerian secondary schools: challenges and the ways forward. Electronic Research Journal of Engineering, Computer and Applied Sciences, 2, 50-63.
  26. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2013). Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning environments. International guide to student achievement, 372-374.
  27. Kemp, N., & Grieve, R. (2014). Face-to-face or face-to-screen? Undergraduates' opinions and test performance in classroom vs. online learning. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1278.
  28. Kervin, L., Verenikina, I., Jones, P., & Beath, O. (2013). Investigating synergies between literacy, technology and classroom practice. The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 36(3), 135-147.
  29. Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 397-429.
  30. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6-36.
  31. Klemenčič, M., & Chirikov, I. (2015). How do we know how students experience higher education? On the use of student surveys. The European higher education area: Between critical reflections and future policies, 361-379.
  32. Kopcha, T. J., Neumann, K. L., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Pitman, E. (2020). Process over product: The next evolution of our quest for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 729-749.
  33. Kreber, C. (2013). Authenticity in and through teaching in higher education: The transformative potential of the scholarship of teaching. Routledge.
  34. Kuusisaari, H. (2014). Teachers at the zone of proximal development–Collaboration promoting or hindering the development process. Teaching and teacher education, 43, 46-57.
  35. Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational technology research and development, 64, 707-734.
  36. Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language courses. Language Learning & Technology.
  37. Leih, S., & Teece, D. (2016). Campus leadership and the entrepreneurial university: A dynamic capabilities perspective. Academy of management Perspectives, 30(2), 182-210.
  38. Leutner, D. (2014). Motivation and emotion as mediators in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 174-175.
  39. Lockman, A. S., & Schirmer, B. R. (2020). Online instruction in higher education: Promising, research-based, and evidence-based practices. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(2), 130-152.
  40. McCoy, L., Lewis, J. H., & Dalton, D. (2016). Gamification and multimedia for medical education: a landscape review. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 116(1), 22-34.
  41. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & education, 70, 29-40.
  42. Murtaza, M., Ahmed, Y., Shamsi, J. A., Sherwani, F., & Usman, M. (2022). AI-based personalized e-learning systems: Issues, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Access.
  43. Nusir, S., Alsmadi, I., Al-Kabi, M., & Sharadgah, F. (2013). Studying the impact of using multimedia interactive programs on children's ability to learn basic math skills. E-learning and Digital Media, 10(3), 305-319.
  44. Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An empirical study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33.
  45. Peng, H., Ma, S., & Spector, J. M. (2019). Personalized adaptive learning: an emerging pedagogical approach enabled by a smart learning environment. Smart Learning Environments, 6(1), 1-14.
  46. Psaltis, C., & Zapiti, A. (2014). Interaction, communication and development: Psychological development as a social process. Routledge.
  47. Reimers, F. M. (2020). Transforming education to prepare students to invent the future. PSU Research Review, 4(2), 81-91.
  48. Robinson, J. D., & Persky, A. M. (2020). Developing self-directed learners. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(3).
  49. Serrano, D. R., Dea‐Ayuela, M. A., Gonzalez‐Burgos, E., Serrano‐Gil, A., & Lalatsa, A. (2019). Technology‐enhanced learning in higher education: How to enhance student engagement through blended learning. European Journal of Education, 54(2), 273-286.
  50. Stanley, R. K. (2015). 1: 1 laptop initiatives and teacher practice change: An exploratory study of constructivist teaching practice (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
  51. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2014). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on college students’ academic learning. Journal of educational psychology, 106(2), 331.
  52. Suresh, P., Ramabalan, S., & Natarajan, U. (2016). Integration of DFE and DFMA for the sustainable development of an automotive component. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 9(2), 107-118.
  53. Timotheou, S., Miliou, O., Dimitriadis, Y., Sobrino, S. V., Giannoutsou, N., Cachia, R., ... & Ioannou, A. (2023). Impacts of digital technologies on education and factors influencing schools' digital capacity and transformation: A literature review. Education and information technologies, 28(6), 6695-6726.
  54. Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). “Together we are better”: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & education, 102, 15-34.
  55. Wang, X., Kollar, I., & Stegmann, K. (2017). Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and skills in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 153-172.
  56. Wilson, A. B., Brown, K. M., Misch, J., Miller, C. H., Klein, B. A., Taylor, M. A., ... & Lazarus, M. D. (2019). Breaking with tradition: A scoping meta‐analysis analyzing the effects of student‐centered learning and computer‐aided instruction on student performance in anatomy. Anatomical sciences education, 12(1), 61-73.
  57. Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 3087.
  58. Xie, M. (2021). Design of a physical education training system based on an intelligent vision. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(3), 590-602.
  59. Yang, T. C., Hwang, G. J., & Yang, S. J. H. (2013). Development of an adaptive learning system with multiple perspectives based on students' learning styles and cognitive styles. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(4), 185-200.
  60. Zheng, L. (2016). The effectiveness of self-regulated learning scaffolds on academic performance in computer-based learning environments: A meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 17, 187-202.