ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
ePhyLi digital tools improve student-teachers' physical literacy knowledge: evaluation of usability, user experience, and learning outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Physical Literacy (PL) is widely recognized as an essential focus for promoting active lifestyles and lifelong healthy habits. Equipping teachers and student-teachers, particularly those in primary and physical education, with significant PL-related knowledge is essential for fostering lifelong healthy behaviors from childhood. This study aimed to present the ePhyLi Erasmus + Sport project contents and to evaluate the effectiveness, usability, and user satisfaction of educational materials developed within the project (e-book, mobile app, and e-platform). Methods: Eighty-six student-teachers (38 males; aged 19-26) were invited to participate in the study. To investigate the tools' adaptability to teaching strategies commonly employed in higher education, three models were used: curricular integration, autonomous study, and mixed approach. PL knowledge improvement was assessed using a 20-item questionnaire administered pre- and post-intervention. User experience was comprehensively evaluated using the User Experience Questionnaire short version, the System Usability Scale, the Gameful Experience Questionnaire, and the App Usability Evaluation Questionnaire. Self-perceived usefulness, understanding, and gamification of the e-platform and the app were evaluated by administering nine single-ended questions. Results: Findings showed that the ePhyLi tools significantly improved participants' PL knowledge, particularly when the e-book was integrated into weekly lectures, alongside the use of the e-platform and app (curricular integration model). User experience was moderately positive, while system usability showed marginal issues. The app usability questionnaire showed a generally positive result, and the gamification elements were perceived as highly engaging and motivating. Participants reported strong self-perceived learning and increased confidence in applying PL concepts, rating the tools favorably for overall educational utility. However, primary school student-teachers reported significantly lower system usability, overall satisfaction, and playfulness when using the app compared to Sport Science students. Conclusion: Digital innovation and gamification can be valuable tools for improving student-teachers' training in promoting physical literacy. Although the ePhyLi tools were effective in increasing knowledge, some areas need future attention. Future studies are needed to improve the amount of evidence that supports these results and to evaluate whether the increased knowledge gained through ePhyLi tools translates into improved teaching practices in schools.
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.