ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
Augmentation or substitution: defining role of large language model in physical education.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Large language model has seen rapid uptake in education alongside advances in artificial intelligence. Its capabilities in areas such as healthcare planning and question answering suggest strong potential for supporting personalised instruction in physical education. At the same time, studies have raised concerns regarding safety, accuracy, and contextual appropriateness. This study examines the role of large language model in physical education and evaluates its suitability as an assistive tool or possible alternative to human instruction. Methods: This study conducted a questionnaire-based evaluation comparing three generative approaches for producing physical education lesson plans and teacher responses: (1) plans written directly by a large language model, (2) plans produced by a large language model after being provided with domain resources, and (3) plans created collaboratively by physical education teachers together with the large language model. Feasibility, practicality, safety, adaptability, and content quality were assessed across these approaches. Large language model-generated responses in typical physical education scenarios were further evaluated in terms of response accuracy, safety, clarity, adaptability, guidance quality, acceptability to learners, and perceived potential to enhance teacher response efficiency. Results: Lesson plans produced collaboratively by physical education teachers and the large language model outperformed those produced solely by the large language model-both with and without additional resources-across all evaluated dimensions. In addition, responses generated by the large language model in physical education scenarios were rated highly for clarity, guidance, adaptability, and support for teacher efficiency. Discussion: The large language model demonstrates clear value in physical education, particularly as a means to support and augment instructional design and responsiveness. However, it does not yet replace the pedagogical judgment, contextual awareness, and safety oversight of human instructors. Overall, this study concludes that the large language model is best positioned as an assistive tool to optimise teaching practice rather than as a standalone replacement for human teachers.
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.