Research on Educational Sport

Identifying the Benefits of Phygital Development in Sports Science Education

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Akbar Jaberi 1
Saeid Bahiraei 2

1 Associate Professor, Department of Sport Management, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Sport Injuries and Corrective Exercise, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2025.17198.2548
Abstract
Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
The rapid advancement of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), has revolutionized education and transformed teaching and learning processes in profound ways. The potential of AI in higher education is vast, ranging from improving access to resources to fostering personalized and adaptive learning experiences tailored to diverse student needs. However, encompassing these opportunities are manifold challenges that have the potential to hinder educational outcomes. This study aims to examine the dual role of AI in higher education, specifically focusing on faculty and student perceptions within the field of exercise science. It addresses a critical need to understand how AI influences essential academic competencies including motivation, creativity, critical thinking, and the overall rigor and quality of scholarly research in this specialized discipline.
 Materials and Methods
Using a qualitative research design, the study employed a thematic analysis approach to capture in-depth perspectives regarding AI integration in educational settings. A purposive sample of 26 participants, composed of faculty members and sport science students representing a broad spectrum of experience levels and academic roles, was recruited to ensure diverse and relevant viewpoints. Data collection occurred through semi-structured interviews enabling participants to share their nuanced experiences and reflections related to AI’s impact on their teaching methodologies, learning practices, and research activities.
Transcripts from these interviews were subjected to an iterative coding process wherein emergent concepts and categories were distilled into key themes elucidating opportunities and threats associated with AI adoption in higher education contexts. Researchers ensured analytic rigor through constant comparative analysis, memoing, and triangulation of findings.
 Findings
The thematic analysis revealed a multifaceted landscape of AI’s educational utility and risks. Faculty and students appreciated AI’s capacity to substantially broaden access to expansive knowledge repositories, enabling learners to engage proactively in self-directed educational pathways. The customization allowed by AI-driven personalized learning systems was particularly advantageous for motivated students seeking deeper intellectual engagement and the cultivation of skills such as sophisticated critical analysis and autonomous research.
Faculty participants underscored AI’s role in automating routine, repetitive administrative tasks including grading and content management, thereby liberating instructor bandwidth to innovate pedagogical approaches and facilitate meaningful, individualized student interactions. This shift enables a focus on higher-order teaching functions such as mentorship, critical facilitation, and creative instructional design.
Conversely, the study identified serious challenges requiring strategic attention. A paramount concern was the risk of diminished student motivation stemming from overdependence on automated AI solutions, potentially undermining the incremental development of critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills essential for scholarly growth. Participants lamented the erosion of interpersonal dynamics integral to high-quality education, specifically citing reduced collaborative engagement, lessened mentoring opportunities, and impaired learning communities.
Ethical and legal issues also emerged prominently, including data privacy concerns, intellectual property dilemmas, and the imperative for responsible AI use. Faculty and students alike expressed apprehension about the potential compromise of research integrity, as excessive reliance on AI tools may lead to superficial scholarship lacking depth and originality.
Collectively, these findings stress the necessity for balanced and discerning AI integration within higher education that maximizes benefits while proactively mitigating associated risks.
 Conclusion
While domestic research has predominantly foregrounded AI’s educational advantages, insufficient attention has been given to its attendant risks and challenges. For example, the proliferation of workshops titled “Application of AI in Academic Writing, Essay Development and Proposal Writing,” though attractive, may inadvertently cultivate superficial engagement with AI tools, discouraging deep cognitive processing, critical thinking, and the production of authoritative research. This highlights a significant gap between technology adoption and pedagogic depth.
The study strongly advocates for comprehensive educational strategies that not only highlight AI’s promise but also educate stakeholders to recognize and manage its limitations and threats. A holistic, ethics-driven approach is vital to equip students and faculty with the requisite competencies to adapt effectively and ethically to AI integration. Universities must critically appraise how AI tools are introduced and train users accordingly, avoiding superficial or promotional initiatives misaligned with learner readiness.
Neglecting these complexities risks deteriorating learning quality, weakening user confidence in scientific methodologies, and fostering inappropriate AI tool misuse. Absent a foundational understanding of AI’s ethical, epistemological, and practical dimensions, users risk becoming overly reliant on generative AI’s ready-made answers, eroding essential intellectual faculties such as independent analysis and creativity.
Therefore, AI-related educational programs should be designed to confer not only practical utility but also media literacy and ethical acumen, ensuring users can optimize AI as a learning ally rather than a crutch or intellectual shortcut. Educational institutions should strive toward a balanced integration that nurtures technical proficiency in tandem with robust ethical frameworks and critical scholarship to maximize AI’s transformative potential responsibly.
 Article Message
Artificial intelligence integration in higher education offers transformative opportunities for personalized learning and promotion of autonomous skills. Yet, without purposeful ethical engagement and critical awareness, AI’s implementation risks eroding vital human educational elements—interactive learning, motivation, and depth of intellectual inquiry—potentially engendering superficial scholarship.
 Ethical Considerations
All ethical principles, including informed consent, data confidentiality, and equitable analysis procedures, were strictly observed. The study ensured participant autonomy and avoided conflicts of interest, data manipulation, or coercion at all stages.
Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: Sajjad Pashaie, Mohammad Abbaszadeh
Data Collection: Sajjad Pashaie, Javad Karimi
Data Analysis: Sajjad Pashaie, Javad Karimi, Mohammad Abbaszadeh
Manuscript Writing: Sajjad Pashaie, Javad Karimi
Review and Editing: Mohammad Abbaszadeh, Sajjad Pashaie, Javad Karimi, Hamed Golmohammadi
Responsible for Funding: None
Literature Review: Mohammad Abbaszadeh, Sajjad Pashaie, Javad Karimi, Hamed Golmohammadi
Project Manager: Sajjad Pashaie

 Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully thank all faculty and students who shared their valuable insights making this study possible..

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence, Sports Science, Enhancing Self-learning Skills, Laziness in Learning, Critical Thinking

Subjects

 
1.       Abdollahi, M., Gholami Torksaluye, S., & Abbasian, M. (2022). Developing a model of effective factors in the effectiveness of virtual education in general physical education lessons in corona pandemic conditions. Research on Educational Sport, 9(25), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2021.10469.2092 [In Persian].
2.       Ali, M. M., Anwar, M. N., & Khizar, N. U. (2022). Introducing phygital English language classrooms in Pakistan. Journal of English Language, Literature and Education, 4(2), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.54692/jelle.2022.0402132
3.       Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.
4.       Barola, D., Bosco, K., Manjula, A., & Sudhakaran, M. V. (2022). Phygital learning, the next big revolution in education for the future. Psycho-Technological Approaches in Heutagogy, 47.
5.       Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6.       Cuthrell, K., & Lyon, A. (2007). Instructional strategies: What do online students prefer? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(4), 357–362.
7.       Dani, R., Juyal, M. D., & Chaudhary, M. A. (2021). Virtual reality application in tourism industry: A review. UGC Care Group I List Journal, 11(01), 1–6.
8.       De la Cruz-Campos, J. C., Pozo-Sánchez, S., Berral-Ortiz, B., & Alonso-García, S. (2022). Gamification: A learning technique for the dynamization of the teaching of social sciences. In Cases on Historical Thinking and Gamification in Social Studies and Humanities Education (pp. 119–141). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-5240-0.ch008
9.       Debattista, M. G. (2023). Physical, digital or phygital? Assessing the educational potential of virtual reality in heritage interpretation. Malta Review of Educational Research, 17(1), 51–72.
10.    Del Vecchio, P., Secundo, G., & Garzoni, A. (2023). Phygital technologies and environments for breakthrough innovation in customers' and citizens' journey: A critical literature review and future agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, 122342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122342
11.    Delhi, N. S. (2023). The reinvention of learning in a post pandemic: Phygital learning. Learning Policies and Strategies, 2(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7595080
12.    Dolzhich, E., Dmitrichenkova, S., & Pozuelo, Y. S. (2022). Ethical challenges in distance education. In INTED2022 Proceedings (pp. 5655–5658). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2022.1450
13.    Gembali, S. (2023). Phygital transformation: Adding physical devices to digital products to improve the user experience (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
14.    Goretti, G., Terenzi, B., Cianfanelli, E., Crescenzi, P., Colombo, C., & Civitelli, E. (2020, October). A phygital approach to playful experience in learning process for kids with special educational needs. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 223–229). https://doi.org/10.1145/3436756.3437049
15.    Hannay, M., & Tracy, N. (2018). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1–11.
16.    Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4(2), 97–128.
17.    Hannay, M., & Tracy, N. (2018). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(1), 1–11.
18.    Heljakka, K., & Ihamäki, P. (2020). Toys that mobilize: Past, present and future of phygital playful technology. In Proceedings of the Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2019: Volume 2 (pp. 625–640). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32523-7_46
19.    Jaberi, A., & Barkhordar, Z. (2023). Identifying the effectiveness requirements of virtual education in the field of sport sciences. Research on Educational Sport, 10(29), 185–222. https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2022.11530.2174  [In Persian].
20.    Jaberi, A., & Ghahreman Tabrizi, K. (2024). The benefits of phygital marketing in sports events. Sports Business Journal, 5(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.22051/sbj.2024.47495.1167
21.    Jagtap, M. S., & Adhikari, B. (2019). Digital transformation of education landscape: The phygital learning framework. Manpower Journal, 53, 19–40.
22.    Kashani, S., Keshtidar, M., Heydari, R., Esfahani, M., & Tabatabai, F. (2021). Identification and analysis the factors affecting the virtual education of the general physical education course of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad during the corona virus. Research on Educational Sport, 10(26), 85–116. https://doi.org/10.22089/res.2021.9312.1940  [In Persian].
23.    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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01278
24.    Killian, C. M., Kinder, C. J., & Woods, A. M. (2019). Online and blended instruction in K-12 physical education: A scoping review. Kinesiology Review, 8(2), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2019-0003
25.    Kumar, A., & Rajagopal, A. (2021). Phygital math learning with handwriting for kids. In Workshop on Math AI for Education (MATHAI4ED), Paper presented at the 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2021), 1–7.
26.    Lupetti, M. L., Piumatti, G., & Rossetto, F. (2015). Phygital play HRI in a new gaming scenario. Paper presented at the 2015 7th  International Conference on Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment (INTETAIN) (pp. 17–21). IEEE.
27.    Myravyova, N., Zhurbenko, N., & Artyushina, G. (2021). Blended learning for teaching professionally oriented foreign and native languages. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), Special Issue on CALL, 7, 126–139.
28.    Quirke, P., & AlShamsi, A. S. (2023). Perspective chapter: Peer observation of teaching in phygital communities of inquiry. In Higher education-reflections from the field-volume 4. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109380
29.    Reshetnikova, O. (2021). Effective learning tools in e-learning. Paper presented at the 20th European Conference on e-Learning, ECEL (pp. 387-393).
30.    Salenga-Talavera, S. M. (2022). Towards the development of the educational ethical practices’ mini book for generation Z and alpha. International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 4(7), 3098-3102.
31.    Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 9(1), 1-11.
32.    Sumathi, D., & Angelin Devakumari, J. (2022). Phygital approach to education. Psycho-Technological Approaches in Heutagogy, 21.
33.    Vate-U-Lan, P., Quigley, D., & Masouras, P. (2016). Phygital learning concept: from big to smart data. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, 9, 1–9.6. https://repository.au.edu/handle/6623004553/19817
34.    Zaitseva, E. V., Goncharova, N. V., & Daineko, L. V. (2023). Application of phygital games at the university in the context of digitalization. Paper presented at the International Conference on Professional Culture of the Specialist of the Future (pp. 19-34). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48016-4_2
35.    Zhukova, G., Ono, M., & Lavrova, S. (2021). Arts education ecosystem: Digital restrictions and phygital solutions. In EDULEARN21 Proceedings (pp. 9572-9578). IATED. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2021.1929
Research on Educational Sport
Volume 13, Issue 40
November 2025
Pages 35-56

  • Receive Date 06 September 2024
  • Revise Date 20 May 2025
  • Accept Date 10 August 2025

Home

Publication Ethics

Submit Manuscript

News

Journal Metrics

Contact Us