# The Influence of Computer Network Technology Using Digital Technology on the Quality of Physical Education in Colleges under Complex Scenes

Authors: Tianyang Liu; Qizhe Zheng; Ling Tian
Journal: Mobile Information Systems
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Recently, college physical education has received a lot of attention. Traditional physical education and teaching are unable to meet the demand of students in today’s society and cannot attract students’ interest in sports. In this study, the challenges of college physical education classrooms are examined and the teaching objectives, contents, and teaching evaluation of the course are established to improve students’ deep learning (DL) and the effect and quality of college PE. The flipped classroom model based on DL is applied to PE teaching in colleges, and the influence of classroom teaching is explored. Moreover, a teaching experiment is conducted and the teaching effect before and after the experiment is compared. The results show that theP values of the three groups of students in the five items of 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running are 0.003, 0.012, 0.024, 0.024, and 0.048, respectively. This indicates significant improvements in the physical quality of the three groups of students after the experiment. In addition, the three groups of students have significant differences in basketball technical and tactical application ability, DL ability, and autonomous learning ability after the experiment. This exploration integrates the concept of DL with the flipped classroom, providing a theoretical supplement for the design of flipped classrooms in college PE.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

The advent of cloud computing, changes in educational systems, and the demands of lifelong education present significant challenges to the traditional teaching platform. With the rapid advancement of network and computer technology, the rate at which knowledge is updated is increasing every day, and the educational process is evolving [1]. Faced with the informationization of education, physical education (PE) teaching techniques and methods remain trapped in conventional words and actions, which are unable to satisfy the needs of the development of PE and health curriculum. Today, the scientific as well as technological revolution is booming. Computer network technology is a crucial driving force of the present educational revolution. People’s daily life as well as learning modes change greatly because of it, which further makes human society become a new era of human-computer integration, CO creation, sharing, and intelligence. It is a general trend to apply deep learning (DL) in education as well as teaching and learning. Deep learning prepares students to be curious, active learners, thoughtful, productive, and active citizens in a democratic society [2].The rapid advancement of computer network technology has resulted in a flipped classroom, a new teaching technology, which has a wide application in college PE [3]. Flipped classroom differs from the traditional teaching mode, which makes students find fun in learning as well as form the consciousness of independent inquiry [2–4]. Moreover, the recent progress of wireless networks provides a platform for the flipped classroom. Using tablet computers, e-book bags, and other intelligent products broadens students’ learning channels as well as improves students’ learning interest [4]. Unlike the traditional teaching mode of combining teaching and learning, flipped classroom introduces various newly developed technologies into the classroom to give students a better learning environment as well as improve teachers’ teaching efficiency [5]. The related literature review suggests that there is little domestic research on flipped classrooms, and the research starts late. The flipped classroom can satisfy teachers’ teaching needs while also providing a better learning environment for students [6]. The flipped classroom is critical for modern teaching today, and several domestic scholars have devoted more attention to flipped classrooms [7].Meng [8] used the Internet of Things as research background and 5G technology as a study topic to improve the quality of university PE and raise students’ interest in sports. It delivers Internet of Things technical help as well as research sports colleges on the Internet of Things. The final result showed that after implementing virtual reality technology (VRT) in PE, the five schools reduced the number of sports-related safety incidents by over 90%. Zhang et al. [9] examined the positive effects of “Internet +” on the concept of physical activity, educational methods, and communication modes. To investigate the reform of university sports in the context of educational information, a sports platform is built, and a 3D mixed teaching model and a diversified target assessment system are used. Wei-Ping and Jin-Song [10] divided the college physical education curriculum reform into three stages using literature and logical analysis: accumulation, differentiation, and deepening. They sorted out the theoretical and practical outcomes of each step of the college PE curriculum reform and described the positioning and direction of the reform in the current era. Silvrman [11] examined the use of technology in PE teaching and teacher education, and the issues and problems that may appear with the application of technology in PE were highlighted. Current uses include using computers for word processing and data management, assessment and teaching, computer and video-assisted instruction, and telecommunications. Tearle and Gordle [12] examined the application of information and communication technology (ICT) in PE as a major subject. They investigated the courses, which are offered at both universities and schools, attempted to encourage trainees’ use of ICT in PE, and then identified areas where the program could be improved. Papastergioua et al. [13] looked at how the course, which is offered at both universities and schools, attempted to encourage trainees’ use of ICT in PE and then identified areas where the program could be improved.Since the 21st century, increasing studies on the combination of computer network technology with subject teaching have laid a theoretical foundation for this exploration. However, recent research and investigation reveal that the quality of PE in multiple colleges in China has not been improved, and the physical condition of teenagers is not optimistic. Therefore, in this study, a classroom teaching strategy that can improve the physical quality, tactical application ability, autonomous learning as well as DL ability of college students is established. The DL-based flipped classroom paradigm is used in PE instruction in colleges, and the impact of classroom teaching is investigated. Furthermore, a teaching experiment is carried out, with the teaching effect compared before and after the experiment. Its application effect is summarized as well as discussed. The research content further implements the requirements put forward by the new curriculum concept, so it is of great practical significance.The rest of the article is organized as follows: Section2 is about material and methods and provides a detailed description of the data collection, experiment and evaluation processes. In Section 3, the results are illustrated and compared and finally, the conclusion is presented in Section 4.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Problem Analysis of College PE Classroom

In China, most institutions still follow the traditional classroom teaching approach, which means that teachers’ instruction takes precedence over students’ primary role in the learning process [14]. During PE teaching, teachers grasp the progress of the whole classroom teaching activities without guiding students to make them actively participate in the whole classroom. Moreover, there is no interaction between teachers and students. Students only passively accept sports skills through teachers’ teaching [15]. Today, many schools only focus on basic subjects such as Chinese, math, and English, and the proportion of PE courses in students’ learning time is very small. The frequency of PE courses set in some schools is once a week, which is difficult to bring certain changes to students, and students’ ability of autonomous learning cannot be improved. Some college stadiums are in disrepair for a long time, which has brought some hidden dangers to the safety of students. Moreover, most colleges lack enough attention to physical exercise, so they lack massive necessary sports equipment; the collision and friction between students caused by a large number of students during class also bring some hidden dangers to the safety of students [16]. Figure 1 presents the four problems in college PE classroom teaching.Figure 1
Existing problems in college PE classroom.


### 2.2. Analysis of Instructional Design Strategy Based on DL

#### 2.2.1. Principles and Characteristics of Questioning Teaching Design

Figure2 shows the instructional design strategy based on DL. The role of teachers’ questioning guidance, inquiry concretization, and gathering and dispersing questioning is to make students clearly understand their learning route, improve, and open their thinking. During classroom teaching, teachers should make students aware of their problems and improve themselves through continuous guidance, rather than make students learn new knowledge through the traditional method of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning [17]. Teachers can make students deeply understand the questions by properly explaining and supplementing the questions; they should also focus on dispersing the contents to be taught according to students’ learning situations. In this way, students can further associate with the learning process of other sports and even other disciplines [18].Figure 2
Instructional design strategy.In fact, questioning refers to the process in which teachers constantly ask questions about a problem and trigger students to think deeply. What students do in this process is DL. A relevant literature review shows that there are few studies on DL based on China’s educational system, and there are few open courses and various types of excellent courses. Regarding the current situation of social development, inquiry learning plays a vital role in cultivating students’ thinking. Teachers can make students master relevant action essentials and theoretical knowledge through inquiry activities and promote students’ DL through flipped classrooms and autonomous learning.


#### 2.2.2. Principles and Characteristics of Reverse Instructional Design

The principles of reverse instructional design mainly include four points as shown in Figure2. Among them, the main role in the development and cultivation of students’ personal quality is to start from students’ needs. Relevant materials reveal that there are many studies on the new teaching mode of “reverse teaching” in China. However, there are several differences in the definitions given by each scholar [19–21]. The types of sports are not single, and each project has different characteristics. Therefore, teachers need to adopt different teaching models according to different teaching projects. Here, “reverse teaching” is defined as follows. First, the expected teaching effect is designed based on the basic situation of students. Without affecting the integrity of teaching, according to the teaching idea from simple to complex, it is essential to start with the most important link in the teaching, find the evidence that students achieve the expected goal in the teaching, and reflect on the whole teaching process at the end of the course.


### 2.3. Preliminary Analysis of College PE Classroom Design Based on DL

#### 2.3.1. Learner Analysis

The survey shows that the frequency of extracurricular exercise or PE courses will be relatively high after one to two years of enrolment. The present teaching focus of PE courses accepted by college students is mainly the improvement of sports technology and physical quality. Thereby, the ability of students to carry out DL needs to be further investigated. In this study, 106 undergraduates of the Xi’an University of Technology in 2019 were investigated using the questionnaire survey method. The questionnaire mainly involves the structural level of five aspects: extended abstract structure, parallel structure, single point structure, multipoint structure, and former structure.


#### 2.3.2. Curriculum Analysis

As a major course in college PE, basketball can effectively enhance students’ physical quality and cultivate students’ cooperation, hard work, competition, courage, tenacious enterprising spirit, and good personal character. “Basketball” course can make students understand the theoretical knowledge related to sports and make their body get all-round exercise, enhance their physique, and promote their healthy development [22]. “Basketball” course is taken as an example to analyze PE teaching because of its important role in college PE.The study of the “basketball” course has 3 parts. First, students should master the relevant theoretical knowledge of basketball. Second, students should study and discuss the rules and basic tactics of basketball games. Finally, students should summarize and analyze the problems through competition. Figure3 shows that the curriculum design of “basketball” teaching can be divided into four links, and students can know the teaching content as well as the expected teaching effect of this class before the commencement of specific courses.Figure 3
Course learning.


### 2.4. College PE Curriculum Design Based on DL

#### 2.4.1. Design of Deep Teaching Objectives

The design of teaching objectives is the most important step in teaching design. Clear teaching objectives can make teachers move towards teaching objectives in the teaching process. Moreover, it can make students know the level they can achieve after the course. Students can also analyze their problems and deficiencies according to the teaching objectives to improve their learning depth. Especially, when publishing teaching tasks and requirements, online teachers also need to send the teaching objectives of this class to students, so that students can refer to their situation and teaching objectives to learn [23]. However, when formulating teaching objectives, teachers should focus on the fact that the learning objectives provided to students must be specific and can be achieved by most students to prevent students from facing difficulties. With the “football” course as an example, Figure 4 shows the designed teaching objectives.Figure 4
Design of curriculum teaching goal.


#### 2.4.2. Selection of Deep Teaching Content

Based on the basic rules of problem design, the learning content is selected, which is more authentic and attractive to students. Students deal with problems through continuous exploration in the learning process, which is deep learning [24]. Figure 5 shows the design of specific teaching contents.Figure 5
Teaching content design.


#### 2.4.3. Design of Deep Teaching Environment

In 2021-22, the new teaching mode of network teaching has been developing rapidly due to COVID-19. Students have to study online sports courses. The information environment provides students with quite rich learning resources. Hence, teachers’ teaching methods, as well as students’ learning methods, have been greatly improved [25]. However, different from other courses, the face-to-face classroom of physical space is still the main place for PE teaching. Therefore, to realize the effective link between different times and spaces and further realize students’ DL, the network and teaching environment need to be constructed [26].


#### 2.4.4. DL Evaluation

To improve students’ interest in learning, two evaluation methods, including peer evaluation and teacher evaluation, are adopted. It is believed that the degree of understanding of things can be reflected through the cognitive level and further divided the answer level of questions into five structural levels [27]. Figure6 depicts the specific DL evaluation contents.Figure 6
Meaning of deep learning ability at all levels.


### 2.5. Experimental Design

In this study, the research samples of 106 students of the 2019 basketball class of the Xi’an University of Technology were selected and divided into a control group (CG) (34 students) and two experimental groups (EG1 and EG2) (with 36 students in each group). The experiment was conducted from April to June 2020, with a total of 16 weeks and 32 class hours. The whole experimental process had 3 parts: before the experiment, during the experiment, and after the experiment. Students were not aware of the whole experimental process. Figure7 shows the experimental test indexes designed by consulting the relevant literature.Figure 7
Experimental test indexes.The teaching modes adopted by EG1 and EG2 were the flipped classroom teaching modes based on DL whereas the teaching mode adopted by the CG was the traditional teaching mode as shown in Figures8 and 9, respectively.Figure 8
Flipped classroom teaching mode based on DL. (a) EG1 and (b) EG2.
(a)(b)Figure 9
Traditional classroom teaching mode.


## 2.1. Problem Analysis of College PE Classroom

In China, most institutions still follow the traditional classroom teaching approach, which means that teachers’ instruction takes precedence over students’ primary role in the learning process [14]. During PE teaching, teachers grasp the progress of the whole classroom teaching activities without guiding students to make them actively participate in the whole classroom. Moreover, there is no interaction between teachers and students. Students only passively accept sports skills through teachers’ teaching [15]. Today, many schools only focus on basic subjects such as Chinese, math, and English, and the proportion of PE courses in students’ learning time is very small. The frequency of PE courses set in some schools is once a week, which is difficult to bring certain changes to students, and students’ ability of autonomous learning cannot be improved. Some college stadiums are in disrepair for a long time, which has brought some hidden dangers to the safety of students. Moreover, most colleges lack enough attention to physical exercise, so they lack massive necessary sports equipment; the collision and friction between students caused by a large number of students during class also bring some hidden dangers to the safety of students [16]. Figure 1 presents the four problems in college PE classroom teaching.Figure 1
Existing problems in college PE classroom.


## 2.2. Analysis of Instructional Design Strategy Based on DL

### 2.2.1. Principles and Characteristics of Questioning Teaching Design

Figure2 shows the instructional design strategy based on DL. The role of teachers’ questioning guidance, inquiry concretization, and gathering and dispersing questioning is to make students clearly understand their learning route, improve, and open their thinking. During classroom teaching, teachers should make students aware of their problems and improve themselves through continuous guidance, rather than make students learn new knowledge through the traditional method of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning [17]. Teachers can make students deeply understand the questions by properly explaining and supplementing the questions; they should also focus on dispersing the contents to be taught according to students’ learning situations. In this way, students can further associate with the learning process of other sports and even other disciplines [18].Figure 2
Instructional design strategy.In fact, questioning refers to the process in which teachers constantly ask questions about a problem and trigger students to think deeply. What students do in this process is DL. A relevant literature review shows that there are few studies on DL based on China’s educational system, and there are few open courses and various types of excellent courses. Regarding the current situation of social development, inquiry learning plays a vital role in cultivating students’ thinking. Teachers can make students master relevant action essentials and theoretical knowledge through inquiry activities and promote students’ DL through flipped classrooms and autonomous learning.


### 2.2.2. Principles and Characteristics of Reverse Instructional Design

The principles of reverse instructional design mainly include four points as shown in Figure2. Among them, the main role in the development and cultivation of students’ personal quality is to start from students’ needs. Relevant materials reveal that there are many studies on the new teaching mode of “reverse teaching” in China. However, there are several differences in the definitions given by each scholar [19–21]. The types of sports are not single, and each project has different characteristics. Therefore, teachers need to adopt different teaching models according to different teaching projects. Here, “reverse teaching” is defined as follows. First, the expected teaching effect is designed based on the basic situation of students. Without affecting the integrity of teaching, according to the teaching idea from simple to complex, it is essential to start with the most important link in the teaching, find the evidence that students achieve the expected goal in the teaching, and reflect on the whole teaching process at the end of the course.


## 2.2.1. Principles and Characteristics of Questioning Teaching Design

Figure2 shows the instructional design strategy based on DL. The role of teachers’ questioning guidance, inquiry concretization, and gathering and dispersing questioning is to make students clearly understand their learning route, improve, and open their thinking. During classroom teaching, teachers should make students aware of their problems and improve themselves through continuous guidance, rather than make students learn new knowledge through the traditional method of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning [17]. Teachers can make students deeply understand the questions by properly explaining and supplementing the questions; they should also focus on dispersing the contents to be taught according to students’ learning situations. In this way, students can further associate with the learning process of other sports and even other disciplines [18].Figure 2
Instructional design strategy.In fact, questioning refers to the process in which teachers constantly ask questions about a problem and trigger students to think deeply. What students do in this process is DL. A relevant literature review shows that there are few studies on DL based on China’s educational system, and there are few open courses and various types of excellent courses. Regarding the current situation of social development, inquiry learning plays a vital role in cultivating students’ thinking. Teachers can make students master relevant action essentials and theoretical knowledge through inquiry activities and promote students’ DL through flipped classrooms and autonomous learning.


## 2.2.2. Principles and Characteristics of Reverse Instructional Design

The principles of reverse instructional design mainly include four points as shown in Figure2. Among them, the main role in the development and cultivation of students’ personal quality is to start from students’ needs. Relevant materials reveal that there are many studies on the new teaching mode of “reverse teaching” in China. However, there are several differences in the definitions given by each scholar [19–21]. The types of sports are not single, and each project has different characteristics. Therefore, teachers need to adopt different teaching models according to different teaching projects. Here, “reverse teaching” is defined as follows. First, the expected teaching effect is designed based on the basic situation of students. Without affecting the integrity of teaching, according to the teaching idea from simple to complex, it is essential to start with the most important link in the teaching, find the evidence that students achieve the expected goal in the teaching, and reflect on the whole teaching process at the end of the course.


## 2.3. Preliminary Analysis of College PE Classroom Design Based on DL

### 2.3.1. Learner Analysis

The survey shows that the frequency of extracurricular exercise or PE courses will be relatively high after one to two years of enrolment. The present teaching focus of PE courses accepted by college students is mainly the improvement of sports technology and physical quality. Thereby, the ability of students to carry out DL needs to be further investigated. In this study, 106 undergraduates of the Xi’an University of Technology in 2019 were investigated using the questionnaire survey method. The questionnaire mainly involves the structural level of five aspects: extended abstract structure, parallel structure, single point structure, multipoint structure, and former structure.


### 2.3.2. Curriculum Analysis

As a major course in college PE, basketball can effectively enhance students’ physical quality and cultivate students’ cooperation, hard work, competition, courage, tenacious enterprising spirit, and good personal character. “Basketball” course can make students understand the theoretical knowledge related to sports and make their body get all-round exercise, enhance their physique, and promote their healthy development [22]. “Basketball” course is taken as an example to analyze PE teaching because of its important role in college PE.The study of the “basketball” course has 3 parts. First, students should master the relevant theoretical knowledge of basketball. Second, students should study and discuss the rules and basic tactics of basketball games. Finally, students should summarize and analyze the problems through competition. Figure3 shows that the curriculum design of “basketball” teaching can be divided into four links, and students can know the teaching content as well as the expected teaching effect of this class before the commencement of specific courses.Figure 3
Course learning.


## 2.3.1. Learner Analysis

The survey shows that the frequency of extracurricular exercise or PE courses will be relatively high after one to two years of enrolment. The present teaching focus of PE courses accepted by college students is mainly the improvement of sports technology and physical quality. Thereby, the ability of students to carry out DL needs to be further investigated. In this study, 106 undergraduates of the Xi’an University of Technology in 2019 were investigated using the questionnaire survey method. The questionnaire mainly involves the structural level of five aspects: extended abstract structure, parallel structure, single point structure, multipoint structure, and former structure.


## 2.3.2. Curriculum Analysis

As a major course in college PE, basketball can effectively enhance students’ physical quality and cultivate students’ cooperation, hard work, competition, courage, tenacious enterprising spirit, and good personal character. “Basketball” course can make students understand the theoretical knowledge related to sports and make their body get all-round exercise, enhance their physique, and promote their healthy development [22]. “Basketball” course is taken as an example to analyze PE teaching because of its important role in college PE.The study of the “basketball” course has 3 parts. First, students should master the relevant theoretical knowledge of basketball. Second, students should study and discuss the rules and basic tactics of basketball games. Finally, students should summarize and analyze the problems through competition. Figure3 shows that the curriculum design of “basketball” teaching can be divided into four links, and students can know the teaching content as well as the expected teaching effect of this class before the commencement of specific courses.Figure 3
Course learning.


## 2.4. College PE Curriculum Design Based on DL

### 2.4.1. Design of Deep Teaching Objectives

The design of teaching objectives is the most important step in teaching design. Clear teaching objectives can make teachers move towards teaching objectives in the teaching process. Moreover, it can make students know the level they can achieve after the course. Students can also analyze their problems and deficiencies according to the teaching objectives to improve their learning depth. Especially, when publishing teaching tasks and requirements, online teachers also need to send the teaching objectives of this class to students, so that students can refer to their situation and teaching objectives to learn [23]. However, when formulating teaching objectives, teachers should focus on the fact that the learning objectives provided to students must be specific and can be achieved by most students to prevent students from facing difficulties. With the “football” course as an example, Figure 4 shows the designed teaching objectives.Figure 4
Design of curriculum teaching goal.


### 2.4.2. Selection of Deep Teaching Content

Based on the basic rules of problem design, the learning content is selected, which is more authentic and attractive to students. Students deal with problems through continuous exploration in the learning process, which is deep learning [24]. Figure 5 shows the design of specific teaching contents.Figure 5
Teaching content design.


### 2.4.3. Design of Deep Teaching Environment

In 2021-22, the new teaching mode of network teaching has been developing rapidly due to COVID-19. Students have to study online sports courses. The information environment provides students with quite rich learning resources. Hence, teachers’ teaching methods, as well as students’ learning methods, have been greatly improved [25]. However, different from other courses, the face-to-face classroom of physical space is still the main place for PE teaching. Therefore, to realize the effective link between different times and spaces and further realize students’ DL, the network and teaching environment need to be constructed [26].


### 2.4.4. DL Evaluation

To improve students’ interest in learning, two evaluation methods, including peer evaluation and teacher evaluation, are adopted. It is believed that the degree of understanding of things can be reflected through the cognitive level and further divided the answer level of questions into five structural levels [27]. Figure6 depicts the specific DL evaluation contents.Figure 6
Meaning of deep learning ability at all levels.


## 2.4.1. Design of Deep Teaching Objectives

The design of teaching objectives is the most important step in teaching design. Clear teaching objectives can make teachers move towards teaching objectives in the teaching process. Moreover, it can make students know the level they can achieve after the course. Students can also analyze their problems and deficiencies according to the teaching objectives to improve their learning depth. Especially, when publishing teaching tasks and requirements, online teachers also need to send the teaching objectives of this class to students, so that students can refer to their situation and teaching objectives to learn [23]. However, when formulating teaching objectives, teachers should focus on the fact that the learning objectives provided to students must be specific and can be achieved by most students to prevent students from facing difficulties. With the “football” course as an example, Figure 4 shows the designed teaching objectives.Figure 4
Design of curriculum teaching goal.


## 2.4.2. Selection of Deep Teaching Content

Based on the basic rules of problem design, the learning content is selected, which is more authentic and attractive to students. Students deal with problems through continuous exploration in the learning process, which is deep learning [24]. Figure 5 shows the design of specific teaching contents.Figure 5
Teaching content design.


## 2.4.3. Design of Deep Teaching Environment

In 2021-22, the new teaching mode of network teaching has been developing rapidly due to COVID-19. Students have to study online sports courses. The information environment provides students with quite rich learning resources. Hence, teachers’ teaching methods, as well as students’ learning methods, have been greatly improved [25]. However, different from other courses, the face-to-face classroom of physical space is still the main place for PE teaching. Therefore, to realize the effective link between different times and spaces and further realize students’ DL, the network and teaching environment need to be constructed [26].


## 2.4.4. DL Evaluation

To improve students’ interest in learning, two evaluation methods, including peer evaluation and teacher evaluation, are adopted. It is believed that the degree of understanding of things can be reflected through the cognitive level and further divided the answer level of questions into five structural levels [27]. Figure6 depicts the specific DL evaluation contents.Figure 6
Meaning of deep learning ability at all levels.


## 2.5. Experimental Design

In this study, the research samples of 106 students of the 2019 basketball class of the Xi’an University of Technology were selected and divided into a control group (CG) (34 students) and two experimental groups (EG1 and EG2) (with 36 students in each group). The experiment was conducted from April to June 2020, with a total of 16 weeks and 32 class hours. The whole experimental process had 3 parts: before the experiment, during the experiment, and after the experiment. Students were not aware of the whole experimental process. Figure7 shows the experimental test indexes designed by consulting the relevant literature.Figure 7
Experimental test indexes.The teaching modes adopted by EG1 and EG2 were the flipped classroom teaching modes based on DL whereas the teaching mode adopted by the CG was the traditional teaching mode as shown in Figures8 and 9, respectively.Figure 8
Flipped classroom teaching mode based on DL. (a) EG1 and (b) EG2.
(a)(b)Figure 9
Traditional classroom teaching mode.


## 3. Results

We performed different types of validity tests for the designed test indexes before the specific experiment including the surface validity, logical validity, content validity, structural validity, and expected validity. Figure10 shows the results for different types of validity tests.Figure 10
Validity test of test indexes: (a) surface validity; (b) logical validity; (c) content and structure validity; (d) expected validity.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.1. Comparative Analysis of EG and CG before the Experiment

#### 3.1.1. Analysis of Physical Quality of Students in EG and CG before the Experiment

Figure11 displays the test results of the physical quality of students before the experiment.The physical quality of students was tested through five items: 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running. The tests of these five items can reflect students’ explosive power level, abdominal strength, upper limb strength level, endurance level, flexibility, and sensitivity. Figure11 reveals that the average score of 50 m running of students in EG2 is the highest, which is 74.37.Figure 11
Physical quality of students in the EG and the CG: (a) EG1; (b) EG2; (c) CG; (d)F/P value.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


#### 3.1.2. Analysis on the Test of Students’ Physical Skills in Each Class before the Experiment

Figure12 presents the test results of students’ physical skills before the experiment. The four indexes of the full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition are selected to test the basketball skills and tactics of college students. These four indexes measure students’ passing and low hand layup level, students’ one hand shoulder shooting level, students’ standing jump shot level, and students’ comprehensive level. It can be seen that the average scores of the four items of EG1 are 63.75, 65.94, 61.25, and 61.56, respectively; those of EG2 are 64.67, 60.67, 59.33, and 60.33, respectively; and those of the CG are 63.44, 60.63, 58.44, and 58.75, respectively. The variance test shows that the P values of the three groups of students’ full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition scores are 0.881, 0.107, 0.529, and 0.571, which are not less than 0.05, indicating no significant difference among the students in EG1, EG2, and CG for the four items, so the next experiment can be conducted.Figure 12
Basketball skills and tactics of students in the EG and the CG: (a) comparison of the average scores of students in the three groups; (b)F/P value.
(a)(b)


#### 3.1.3. Analysis of Students’ Deep Learning Ability in the EG and the CG before the Experiment

Five aspects of the former structure level, single point structure level, multipoint structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level were selected to test the deep learning ability of the three groups of students. Figure13 reveals that the average scores of these five indexes of students in EG1 are 12.25, 11.41, 9.84, 8.59, and 9.44, respectively; those of students in EG2 are 12.27, 12.03, 10.2, 9.3, and 9.57, respectively; and those of students in CG are 12.41, 11.81, 9.88, 9.06, and 8.94, respectively.Figure 13
DL ability of students in the EG and the CG before the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of students in the three groups; (b)F/P value.
(a)(b)A variance test was conducted on the average score of students. TheP values of the three groups of students in five aspects were 0.918, 0.259, 0.416, 0.092, and 0.055, which are not less than 0.05, indicating no significant difference in the above five dimensions among the three groups of students, so the next experiment can be conducted.


#### 3.1.4. Analysis of Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability in the EG and the CG before the Experiment

Autonomous learning ability takes students as the main body of learning, which can be measured by improving their ability through practice and reading. Students with strong autonomous learning abilities can improve faster. Figure14 shows that the scores of the students in the EG1, the EG2, and the CG are 156.16, 155.1, and 154.28, respectively. Through the analysis of variance, the P value of the average score of the students in the autonomous learning ability test of the three groups is 0.412. It is higher than 0.05 indicating that is no significant difference in the autonomous learning ability of the three groups and the reasonable sample selection.Figure 14
Comparison of students’ autonomous learning ability before the experiment.


### 3.2. Comparative Analysis of EG and CG after Experiment

#### 3.2.1. Analysis on the Changes of Physical Quality of Students in the EG and the CG after the Experiment

Figure15 shows the analysis results of the changes of various physical qualities of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment. The average scores of students in EG1 in five items including 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running are 80.06, 82.22, 80.78, 79.19, and 78.91, respectively. Similarly, the average scores of students in EG2 in the above five items are 78.7, 79.33, 78.83, 77.43, and 75.8, respectively. Likewise, the average scores of the students in the CG in the above five items are 74.12, 76.09, 74.22, 74.06, and 75.23, respectively. The average scores of the three groups of students are tested by the analysis of variance. The P values of the average scores of the three groups of students in the above five items are 0.003, 0.012, 0.024, 0.024, and 0.048, which are not greater than 0.05, indicating obvious differences in the physical quality of the three groups of students after the experiment. Moreover, unlike the students in the two EGs, the students in the CG have the least improvement in physical quality after the experiment, showing that the flipped classroom can effectively improve the students’ exercise enthusiasm. Compared with EG1, the physical quality of students in EG2 is slightly worse after the experiment, which may be due to some differences in the importance of the above items between the two groups.Figure 15
Physical quality of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of physical quality of three groups of students; (b)F value; (c) P value.
(a)(b)(c)


#### 3.2.2. Analysis of the Test of Physical Skills of Students in Each Group after the Experiment

The analysis results of students’ physical skills in the EG and the CG after the experiment are shown in Figure16. The average scores of the students in the EG1 in the four items of the full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition are 74.38, 75.31, 70.94, and 69.69, respectively; those of the students in the EG2 in the above four items are 66.67, 67.67, 65.67, and 61.67, respectively; those of the students in the CG in the above items are 65.94, 62.19, 60.31, and 60.31, respectively; the analysis of variance is conducted on the test scores of the three groups of students, and the P values of the average scores in the above four items are 0 (P<0.05) indicating obvious differences among the three groups of students in the above four items after the experiment. Among them, the basketball skills of the students in experimental group 1 have obvious advantages compared with the other two groups, indicating that the students in experimental group 1 have high recognition and acceptance of the flipped classroom based on DL.Figure 16
Physical skill test of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of the three groups of students; (b)F value.
(a)(b)


#### 3.2.3. Analysis on the Changes of Students’ DL Ability in the Experimental Group and the CG after the Experiment

Figure17 shows that the average scores of students in EG1 in a former structure level, single point structure level, multipoint structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level are 8.75, 8.84, 11.19, 11.22, and 13.91, respectively; those of students in EG2 in the five aspects are 9.6, 10, 10.9, 9.6, and 10, respectively; the average scores of the students in the CG in the above five aspects are 9.81, 10.56, 10.16, 9.44, and 9.34, respectively. The analysis of variance is conducted on the test scores of the three groups of students. The P value of the average scores of the three groups of students in single point structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level is 0, the P value of the former structure level is 0.012, and the P value of the multipoint structure level is 0.002. It suggests that the P values are not greater than 0.05, showing significant differences among the three groups in the above five dimensions after the experiment.Figure 17
DL ability of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of the students in three groups; (b)F value.
(a)(b)


#### 3.2.4. Analysis on the Changes of Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability in the EG and the CG after the Experiment

Figure18 shows the analysis results of students’ autonomous learning ability in the EG and the CG after the experiment. The average scores of autonomous learning ability tests of students in EG1, EG2, and CG are 159.34, 155.77, and 153.84, respectively. The P values of the above three groups of students’ absorbing learning ability are analyzed through the analysis of variance, and the calculated P values are 0, less than 0.05, indicating obvious differences in the autonomous learning ability of the three groups of students after the experiment.Figure 18
Comparison of students’ autonomous learning ability after the experiment.


## 3.1. Comparative Analysis of EG and CG before the Experiment

### 3.1.1. Analysis of Physical Quality of Students in EG and CG before the Experiment

Figure11 displays the test results of the physical quality of students before the experiment.The physical quality of students was tested through five items: 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running. The tests of these five items can reflect students’ explosive power level, abdominal strength, upper limb strength level, endurance level, flexibility, and sensitivity. Figure11 reveals that the average score of 50 m running of students in EG2 is the highest, which is 74.37.Figure 11
Physical quality of students in the EG and the CG: (a) EG1; (b) EG2; (c) CG; (d)F/P value.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.1.2. Analysis on the Test of Students’ Physical Skills in Each Class before the Experiment

Figure12 presents the test results of students’ physical skills before the experiment. The four indexes of the full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition are selected to test the basketball skills and tactics of college students. These four indexes measure students’ passing and low hand layup level, students’ one hand shoulder shooting level, students’ standing jump shot level, and students’ comprehensive level. It can be seen that the average scores of the four items of EG1 are 63.75, 65.94, 61.25, and 61.56, respectively; those of EG2 are 64.67, 60.67, 59.33, and 60.33, respectively; and those of the CG are 63.44, 60.63, 58.44, and 58.75, respectively. The variance test shows that the P values of the three groups of students’ full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition scores are 0.881, 0.107, 0.529, and 0.571, which are not less than 0.05, indicating no significant difference among the students in EG1, EG2, and CG for the four items, so the next experiment can be conducted.Figure 12
Basketball skills and tactics of students in the EG and the CG: (a) comparison of the average scores of students in the three groups; (b)F/P value.
(a)(b)


### 3.1.3. Analysis of Students’ Deep Learning Ability in the EG and the CG before the Experiment

Five aspects of the former structure level, single point structure level, multipoint structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level were selected to test the deep learning ability of the three groups of students. Figure13 reveals that the average scores of these five indexes of students in EG1 are 12.25, 11.41, 9.84, 8.59, and 9.44, respectively; those of students in EG2 are 12.27, 12.03, 10.2, 9.3, and 9.57, respectively; and those of students in CG are 12.41, 11.81, 9.88, 9.06, and 8.94, respectively.Figure 13
DL ability of students in the EG and the CG before the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of students in the three groups; (b)F/P value.
(a)(b)A variance test was conducted on the average score of students. TheP values of the three groups of students in five aspects were 0.918, 0.259, 0.416, 0.092, and 0.055, which are not less than 0.05, indicating no significant difference in the above five dimensions among the three groups of students, so the next experiment can be conducted.


### 3.1.4. Analysis of Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability in the EG and the CG before the Experiment

Autonomous learning ability takes students as the main body of learning, which can be measured by improving their ability through practice and reading. Students with strong autonomous learning abilities can improve faster. Figure14 shows that the scores of the students in the EG1, the EG2, and the CG are 156.16, 155.1, and 154.28, respectively. Through the analysis of variance, the P value of the average score of the students in the autonomous learning ability test of the three groups is 0.412. It is higher than 0.05 indicating that is no significant difference in the autonomous learning ability of the three groups and the reasonable sample selection.Figure 14
Comparison of students’ autonomous learning ability before the experiment.


## 3.1.1. Analysis of Physical Quality of Students in EG and CG before the Experiment

Figure11 displays the test results of the physical quality of students before the experiment.The physical quality of students was tested through five items: 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running. The tests of these five items can reflect students’ explosive power level, abdominal strength, upper limb strength level, endurance level, flexibility, and sensitivity. Figure11 reveals that the average score of 50 m running of students in EG2 is the highest, which is 74.37.Figure 11
Physical quality of students in the EG and the CG: (a) EG1; (b) EG2; (c) CG; (d)F/P value.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.1.2. Analysis on the Test of Students’ Physical Skills in Each Class before the Experiment

Figure12 presents the test results of students’ physical skills before the experiment. The four indexes of the full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition are selected to test the basketball skills and tactics of college students. These four indexes measure students’ passing and low hand layup level, students’ one hand shoulder shooting level, students’ standing jump shot level, and students’ comprehensive level. It can be seen that the average scores of the four items of EG1 are 63.75, 65.94, 61.25, and 61.56, respectively; those of EG2 are 64.67, 60.67, 59.33, and 60.33, respectively; and those of the CG are 63.44, 60.63, 58.44, and 58.75, respectively. The variance test shows that the P values of the three groups of students’ full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition scores are 0.881, 0.107, 0.529, and 0.571, which are not less than 0.05, indicating no significant difference among the students in EG1, EG2, and CG for the four items, so the next experiment can be conducted.Figure 12
Basketball skills and tactics of students in the EG and the CG: (a) comparison of the average scores of students in the three groups; (b)F/P value.
(a)(b)


## 3.1.3. Analysis of Students’ Deep Learning Ability in the EG and the CG before the Experiment

Five aspects of the former structure level, single point structure level, multipoint structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level were selected to test the deep learning ability of the three groups of students. Figure13 reveals that the average scores of these five indexes of students in EG1 are 12.25, 11.41, 9.84, 8.59, and 9.44, respectively; those of students in EG2 are 12.27, 12.03, 10.2, 9.3, and 9.57, respectively; and those of students in CG are 12.41, 11.81, 9.88, 9.06, and 8.94, respectively.Figure 13
DL ability of students in the EG and the CG before the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of students in the three groups; (b)F/P value.
(a)(b)A variance test was conducted on the average score of students. TheP values of the three groups of students in five aspects were 0.918, 0.259, 0.416, 0.092, and 0.055, which are not less than 0.05, indicating no significant difference in the above five dimensions among the three groups of students, so the next experiment can be conducted.


## 3.1.4. Analysis of Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability in the EG and the CG before the Experiment

Autonomous learning ability takes students as the main body of learning, which can be measured by improving their ability through practice and reading. Students with strong autonomous learning abilities can improve faster. Figure14 shows that the scores of the students in the EG1, the EG2, and the CG are 156.16, 155.1, and 154.28, respectively. Through the analysis of variance, the P value of the average score of the students in the autonomous learning ability test of the three groups is 0.412. It is higher than 0.05 indicating that is no significant difference in the autonomous learning ability of the three groups and the reasonable sample selection.Figure 14
Comparison of students’ autonomous learning ability before the experiment.


## 3.2. Comparative Analysis of EG and CG after Experiment

### 3.2.1. Analysis on the Changes of Physical Quality of Students in the EG and the CG after the Experiment

Figure15 shows the analysis results of the changes of various physical qualities of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment. The average scores of students in EG1 in five items including 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running are 80.06, 82.22, 80.78, 79.19, and 78.91, respectively. Similarly, the average scores of students in EG2 in the above five items are 78.7, 79.33, 78.83, 77.43, and 75.8, respectively. Likewise, the average scores of the students in the CG in the above five items are 74.12, 76.09, 74.22, 74.06, and 75.23, respectively. The average scores of the three groups of students are tested by the analysis of variance. The P values of the average scores of the three groups of students in the above five items are 0.003, 0.012, 0.024, 0.024, and 0.048, which are not greater than 0.05, indicating obvious differences in the physical quality of the three groups of students after the experiment. Moreover, unlike the students in the two EGs, the students in the CG have the least improvement in physical quality after the experiment, showing that the flipped classroom can effectively improve the students’ exercise enthusiasm. Compared with EG1, the physical quality of students in EG2 is slightly worse after the experiment, which may be due to some differences in the importance of the above items between the two groups.Figure 15
Physical quality of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of physical quality of three groups of students; (b)F value; (c) P value.
(a)(b)(c)


### 3.2.2. Analysis of the Test of Physical Skills of Students in Each Group after the Experiment

The analysis results of students’ physical skills in the EG and the CG after the experiment are shown in Figure16. The average scores of the students in the EG1 in the four items of the full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition are 74.38, 75.31, 70.94, and 69.69, respectively; those of the students in the EG2 in the above four items are 66.67, 67.67, 65.67, and 61.67, respectively; those of the students in the CG in the above items are 65.94, 62.19, 60.31, and 60.31, respectively; the analysis of variance is conducted on the test scores of the three groups of students, and the P values of the average scores in the above four items are 0 (P<0.05) indicating obvious differences among the three groups of students in the above four items after the experiment. Among them, the basketball skills of the students in experimental group 1 have obvious advantages compared with the other two groups, indicating that the students in experimental group 1 have high recognition and acceptance of the flipped classroom based on DL.Figure 16
Physical skill test of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of the three groups of students; (b)F value.
(a)(b)


### 3.2.3. Analysis on the Changes of Students’ DL Ability in the Experimental Group and the CG after the Experiment

Figure17 shows that the average scores of students in EG1 in a former structure level, single point structure level, multipoint structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level are 8.75, 8.84, 11.19, 11.22, and 13.91, respectively; those of students in EG2 in the five aspects are 9.6, 10, 10.9, 9.6, and 10, respectively; the average scores of the students in the CG in the above five aspects are 9.81, 10.56, 10.16, 9.44, and 9.34, respectively. The analysis of variance is conducted on the test scores of the three groups of students. The P value of the average scores of the three groups of students in single point structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level is 0, the P value of the former structure level is 0.012, and the P value of the multipoint structure level is 0.002. It suggests that the P values are not greater than 0.05, showing significant differences among the three groups in the above five dimensions after the experiment.Figure 17
DL ability of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of the students in three groups; (b)F value.
(a)(b)


### 3.2.4. Analysis on the Changes of Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability in the EG and the CG after the Experiment

Figure18 shows the analysis results of students’ autonomous learning ability in the EG and the CG after the experiment. The average scores of autonomous learning ability tests of students in EG1, EG2, and CG are 159.34, 155.77, and 153.84, respectively. The P values of the above three groups of students’ absorbing learning ability are analyzed through the analysis of variance, and the calculated P values are 0, less than 0.05, indicating obvious differences in the autonomous learning ability of the three groups of students after the experiment.Figure 18
Comparison of students’ autonomous learning ability after the experiment.


## 3.2.1. Analysis on the Changes of Physical Quality of Students in the EG and the CG after the Experiment

Figure15 shows the analysis results of the changes of various physical qualities of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment. The average scores of students in EG1 in five items including 50 m running, sit-up/pull-up, 800 m/1000 m, sit and reach, and crossing direction change running are 80.06, 82.22, 80.78, 79.19, and 78.91, respectively. Similarly, the average scores of students in EG2 in the above five items are 78.7, 79.33, 78.83, 77.43, and 75.8, respectively. Likewise, the average scores of the students in the CG in the above five items are 74.12, 76.09, 74.22, 74.06, and 75.23, respectively. The average scores of the three groups of students are tested by the analysis of variance. The P values of the average scores of the three groups of students in the above five items are 0.003, 0.012, 0.024, 0.024, and 0.048, which are not greater than 0.05, indicating obvious differences in the physical quality of the three groups of students after the experiment. Moreover, unlike the students in the two EGs, the students in the CG have the least improvement in physical quality after the experiment, showing that the flipped classroom can effectively improve the students’ exercise enthusiasm. Compared with EG1, the physical quality of students in EG2 is slightly worse after the experiment, which may be due to some differences in the importance of the above items between the two groups.Figure 15
Physical quality of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of physical quality of three groups of students; (b)F value; (c) P value.
(a)(b)(c)


## 3.2.2. Analysis of the Test of Physical Skills of Students in Each Group after the Experiment

The analysis results of students’ physical skills in the EG and the CG after the experiment are shown in Figure16. The average scores of the students in the EG1 in the four items of the full-court pass, 60 s free throw, V-shaped layup, and teaching competition are 74.38, 75.31, 70.94, and 69.69, respectively; those of the students in the EG2 in the above four items are 66.67, 67.67, 65.67, and 61.67, respectively; those of the students in the CG in the above items are 65.94, 62.19, 60.31, and 60.31, respectively; the analysis of variance is conducted on the test scores of the three groups of students, and the P values of the average scores in the above four items are 0 (P<0.05) indicating obvious differences among the three groups of students in the above four items after the experiment. Among them, the basketball skills of the students in experimental group 1 have obvious advantages compared with the other two groups, indicating that the students in experimental group 1 have high recognition and acceptance of the flipped classroom based on DL.Figure 16
Physical skill test of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of the three groups of students; (b)F value.
(a)(b)


## 3.2.3. Analysis on the Changes of Students’ DL Ability in the Experimental Group and the CG after the Experiment

Figure17 shows that the average scores of students in EG1 in a former structure level, single point structure level, multipoint structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level are 8.75, 8.84, 11.19, 11.22, and 13.91, respectively; those of students in EG2 in the five aspects are 9.6, 10, 10.9, 9.6, and 10, respectively; the average scores of the students in the CG in the above five aspects are 9.81, 10.56, 10.16, 9.44, and 9.34, respectively. The analysis of variance is conducted on the test scores of the three groups of students. The P value of the average scores of the three groups of students in single point structure level, parallel structure level, and extended abstract structure level is 0, the P value of the former structure level is 0.012, and the P value of the multipoint structure level is 0.002. It suggests that the P values are not greater than 0.05, showing significant differences among the three groups in the above five dimensions after the experiment.Figure 17
DL ability of students in the EG and the CG after the experiment: (a) comparison of the average scores of the students in three groups; (b)F value.
(a)(b)


## 3.2.4. Analysis on the Changes of Students’ Autonomous Learning Ability in the EG and the CG after the Experiment

Figure18 shows the analysis results of students’ autonomous learning ability in the EG and the CG after the experiment. The average scores of autonomous learning ability tests of students in EG1, EG2, and CG are 159.34, 155.77, and 153.84, respectively. The P values of the above three groups of students’ absorbing learning ability are analyzed through the analysis of variance, and the calculated P values are 0, less than 0.05, indicating obvious differences in the autonomous learning ability of the three groups of students after the experiment.Figure 18
Comparison of students’ autonomous learning ability after the experiment.


## 4. Conclusion

Traditional physical education and teaching are unable to fulfill the demands of today’s students or to stimulate their interest in sports. In this study, the flipped classroom teaching mode based on DL is applied to the college PE teaching, and the influence of the classroom teaching effect under this teaching mode is explored. The problems of college PE classrooms were analyzed, and the teaching objectives, teaching contents, teaching environment, and teaching evaluation of the course were designed according to the existing problems. The teaching experiments were carried out and the teaching effects before and after the experiment were compared. The experiment revealed that the designed flipped classroom based on DL can effectively promote students’ deep learning. Under this teaching mode, students’ physical quality level, basketball skills and tactics, cognitive structure level, and autonomous learning ability are improved. However, no deep learning program has been developed due to the limited research time. In future studies, further studies will be conducted to form a set of procedures that can identify whether students carry out deep learning.



---

*Source: 1031515-2022-04-21.xml*