ArticleScientific reports2026
AI-enabled learning analytics use relates to physical literacy and engagement in university PE via smart teaching and personalised feedback.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Identifying and alleviating ethical risks of artificial intelligence in physical education: a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Development and validation of the digital competence framework and scale for pre-service physical education teachers.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The influence of physical activity self-efficacy on the continuance use of AI learning tools among physical education students: a three-wave longitudinal study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital transformation and AI-enabled learning analytics are reshaping higher education, and wearable-enabled analytics are increasingly used in embodied curricula such as university physical education (PE), but empirical evidence linking these systems to physical literacy remains limited. This study investigates how AI-enabled learning analytics use (wearable-derived dashboards and automated alerts) in smart PE relate to students' physical literacy and learning engagement, and tests whether perceived smart teaching quality and personalised feedback mediate these associations within an established human-centred learning analytics perspective. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design combined a survey of 1,182 students from four Chinese universities with semi-structured interviews with 12 students and six staff members. Structural equation modelling showed that analytics use was associated with perceived smart teaching quality (β = 0.47, p < .001) and personalised feedback (β = 0.39, p < .001), which were in turn related to physical literacy (β = 0.28 and β = 0.36, respectively, p < .001) and learning engagement (β = 0.24 and β = 0.31, respectively, p < .001); direct paths from analytics use to physical literacy (β = 0.06, p = .080) and engagement (β = 0.05, p = .110) were small and not statistically significant, while bias-corrected bootstrap mediation estimates (5,000 resamples) indicated that the association operated primarily through teaching and feedback processes. Thematic analysis showed that students and instructors experienced analytics both as a "mirror and coach" and as a source of pressure, fairness concerns and heightened bodily visibility, with system reliability, assessment regimes and data literacy shaping these interpretations. Overall, the findings suggest that AI-enabled analytics are more consistently linked with physical literacy and engagement through pedagogical and feedback processes rather than through data exposure alone. By applying and testing established human-centred learning analytics mechanisms in a compulsory university PE setting, the study provides mixed-methods evidence to inform the design of smart PE initiatives that support physical literacy in higher education. Because the survey data are cross-sectional and self-reported, common-method bias cannot be fully ruled out and findings should be interpreted as associations rather than causal effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.