More Than Just Games: Unequal Experiences and Evolving Attitudes Toward Physical Education in Thai Primary Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examines how primary school students experience physical education (PE) across government, private, and local authority schools in Thailand, and how these experiences influence their evolving attitudes toward sports. Using a multiple-case study design, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 54 students and 9 PE teachers, classroom observations, and student reflection tasks. Thematic analysis revealed five key findings: (1) game-based pedagogy enhances engagement and reduces performance anxiety; (2) disparities in resources and facilities limit equitable access; (3) emotional responses to PE—ranging from excitement to anxiety—affect participation and motivation; (4) culturally relevant activities strengthen students’ identity, focus, and belonging; and (5) student voice offers valuable insight for improving curriculum and inclusion. The study highlights the interplay between pedagogical strategies, institutional structures, and emotional dynamics in shaping physical literacy and self-confidence. It argues for the importance of culturally meaningful, emotionally responsive, and student-centered PE programs that foster both physical development and educational equity. By foregrounding student perspectives and revealing systemic disparities, the research contributes to global conversations on educational justice, embodiment, and transformative learning. Findings offer practical implications for educators, curriculum designers, and policymakers seeking to promote inclusive and empowering PE experiences for all learners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".