Qualitative analysis of school sports: stakeholder insights

Evidano is an AI-powered qualitative data analysis platform that helps teams ingest, analyze, and report multi-stakeholder transcripts and audio. Problem: Schools and program teams often hear mixed claims about sports boosting grades or draining study time, but raw numbers miss why. Payoff: this post distills a June 29, 2026 PLoS One qualitative study (n = 18 stakeholders) into practical signals you can operationalize with AI-enabled qualitative analysis. The primary keyword here is qualitative analysis of school sports: we show which themes matter, where stakeholder views diverge, and a reproducible workflow to move from transcripts to decisions. Read the original study at PLoS One and then see how to reproduce and scale this analysis on Evidano. Intended audience: researchers, program evaluators, school leaders, and UX/insight teams who handle transcripts, focus groups, or mixed stakeholder data.

Key Takeaways

Key Takeaways: Stakeholders in a PLoS One study reported that school sports generally improve motivation, time management, school belonging, and psychosocial skills, while parents warned about fatigue and potential academic risk during intense training.

Published: 29 Jun 2026, study received 21 Jan 2026 and accepted 2 Jun 2026.
Sample: n = 18 (6 students grades 10–12; 6 parents; 6 PE teachers) in a single public Anatolian high school (Sakarya, Türkiye).
Primary themes identified: motivation, time management, school belonging, psychosocial benefits, and perceived risks (parents flagged fatigue and academic strain).
Methods and timing: three homogeneous focus groups recorded Nov 26 – Dec 7, 2024, with inductive content analysis on translated transcripts.

Fast take + source

Fast take: A PLoS One study published 29 June 2026 used three homogeneous focus groups (students, parents, teachers) in a public Anatolian high school (Sakarya, Türkiye) to explore perceived links between school sports and academic outcomes. Full study: PLoS One.

Published: 29 Jun 2026; Received: 21 Jan 2026; Accepted: 2 Jun 2026
Sample: n = 18 (6 students grades 10–12; 6 parents; 6 PE teachers)
Method: 3 homogeneous focus groups, transcripts in Turkish, inductive content analysis

Findings snapshot

Metric	Value	Notes / Implication	Source
Publication date	29 Jun 2026	Contemporary; peer-reviewed	PLoS One
Sample	n = 18 (6 students, 6 parents, 6 teachers)	Multi-informant, context-specific (one school)	Study methods
Data collection	Nov 26 – Dec 7, 2024	Three focus groups (45–60 min each)	Methods section
Primary themes	Motivation, time management, school belonging, psychosocial benefits, perceived risks	Stakeholder alignment plus role-based divergences	Results & Tables 5–8

How the study worked (plain English)

How the study worked: The study was a qualitative descriptive design using semi-structured focus groups recorded in Turkish, transcribed verbatim, and translated for reporting. Ethics approval: Sakarya University of Applied Sciences (Decision No: 50/22; 15.11.2024).

Analysis combined descriptive presentation with inductive content analysis; coding was manual with peer review.
Strength: multi-stakeholder view reveals convergences (motivation, belonging) and divergences (parents’ concern about academic strain).
Limitations: single-school context, small n, perceived (not objective) academic indicators, potential focus-group social effects.

So what for research teams, school leaders, and evaluators

For research teams & evaluators

For research teams and evaluators: Treat 'academic impact' as a relational, perceptual construct and capture student, teacher, and parent frames separately.

Code for mechanism terms (motivation, time management, belonging, fatigue) and run cross-segment frequency and co-occurrence checks to find driving narratives.

Use verbatim quotes to anchor recommendations because stakeholders disagree on risks versus benefits, so present balanced evidence.

For school leaders & program designers

For school leaders and program designers: Design scheduling and flexible academic supports around peak competition periods to reduce role strain.

Prioritize teacher–coach communication and routine monitoring because stakeholders flagged these as enabling factors for benefits.

Pilot small changes, for example temporary flexible deadlines, and collect post-intervention focus groups to test perceived shifts.

For UX / insight operations

For UX and insight operations: Predefine segments (students, parents, teachers) and automate cross-segment comparisons if you run mixed-source research (transcripts plus surveys).

Measure both frequency (how often themes appear) and narrative weight (which themes co-occur with 'risk' versus 'benefit').

Document codebook evolution and export stakeholder-ready visualizations for faster decision memos.

Do more, faster with Evidano (map to this study)

Ingest & clean

Ingest and clean: Evidano imports audio or uploaded transcripts and auto-transcribes with a custom dictionary and PII redaction so teams can work on anonymized data immediately.

Translate & preserve meaning

Translate and preserve meaning: Evidano translates while preserving technical and cultural terms using a custom dictionary, useful where transcripts were in Turkish and output needed conceptual accuracy.

Thematic + cross-segment analysis

Thematic and cross-segment analysis: Evidano runs inductive theme extraction, frequency counts, and cross-segment comparisons in minutes instead of days.

Use hierarchical codes and subcodes to reflect study themes (for example motivation → time management → fatigue).

Evidence & visuals

Evidence and visuals: Evidano generates co-occurrence networks, word clouds, and hierarchical code maps for stakeholder briefs, and allows pinning representative quotes to visuals for quick validation.

Follow-up data collection

Follow-up data collection: Evidano supports autonomous qualitative collection with AI-avatar interviewers and AI chat over your corpus to generate probe questions or synthesis.

Security & compliance

Security and compliance: Data is encrypted at rest and in transit; Evidano does not use customer data to train third-party models, suitable for sensitive school-level research.

Checklist: reproduce this qualitative analysis in Evidano (7 steps)

Checklist: Follow these seven steps to go from files to decisions in a reproducible pipeline.

1) Collect and upload audio/transcripts, label by segment: student/teacher/parent.
2) Auto-transcribe with custom dictionary and redact PII automatically.
3) Translate if needed, retain original-language text for quote validation.
4) Import or build a codebook (start inductive; lock themes for reliability).
5) Run thematic extraction plus frequency and cross-segment comparisons (report n and % per theme).
6) Produce visuals (co-occurrence network, hierarchical code map) and attach representative quotes.
7) Export stakeholder brief and run an AI chat over the corpus to draft policy recommendations or interview follow-ups.

FAQ: qualitative analysis of school sports

What did the PLoS One study find about the benefits of school sports?

The study found that stakeholders broadly see school sports improving motivation, time management, school belonging, and psychosocial skills.

Students and teachers emphasized motivation and belonging, while adults highlighted psychosocial gains tied to adult support and institutional coordination.

What risks did stakeholders identify in the study?

The study found that parents flagged fatigue and possible academic risk during intense training as primary concerns.

The study notes that risks are perceived not objectively measured, and that scheduling and monitoring were described as decisive moderators.

How was the study conducted and what is the sample?

The study used three homogeneous focus groups recorded in Turkish, with n = 18 participants (6 students grades 10–12, 6 parents, 6 PE teachers).

Data were collected Nov 26 – Dec 7, 2024, transcribed verbatim, translated for reporting, and analyzed using inductive content analysis with manual coding and peer review.

What are the study’s main limitations for applying its findings?

The main limitations are the single-school context, small sample size, and reliance on perceived rather than objective academic indicators.

The study also acknowledges potential focus-group social effects that can influence expressed views, so findings are useful as signals rather than generalizable estimates.

Topics

qualitative analysis of school sports
school sports evaluation
focus groups education
stakeholder insights
Evidano

Keep reading

Browse all articles

Qualitative analysis of school sports: stakeholder insights

Key Takeaways

Fast take + source

Findings snapshot

How the study worked (plain English)

So what for research teams, school leaders, and evaluators

For research teams & evaluators

For school leaders & program designers

For UX / insight operations

Do more, faster with Evidano (map to this study)

Ingest & clean

Translate & preserve meaning

Thematic + cross-segment analysis

Evidence & visuals

Follow-up data collection

Security & compliance

Checklist: reproduce this qualitative analysis in Evidano (7 steps)

FAQ: qualitative analysis of school sports

What did the PLoS One study find about the benefits of school sports?

What risks did stakeholders identify in the study?

How was the study conducted and what is the sample?

What are the study’s main limitations for applying its findings?

Conclusion, next move

Topics

Keep reading

Company

About

Preview Evidano

Account

Newsletter