Optimizing learning outcomes in physical education: A comprehensive systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with the Sport Education Model

3.3 Hybrid curriculum implementation Seven hybrid types were identified across all literature. One study employed a combination of three PMs: SEM-CL-HBPE [29], while the rest involved combinations of two PMs: SEM-TGFU (14), SEM-SGA (6), SEM-TPSR (4), SEM-IGCM (3), SEM-SEL (1), SEM-SPRM (1). Most studies emphasized the organization structure based on SEM seasons, incorporating elements of other PMs, forming a "SEM + 1" model. The learning tasks and teaching content of SEM seasons mainly originated from game-centered models (TGFU, IGCM, and SGA) and TPSR. 3.4 Study design and data collection Different research designs were employed for various instructional objectives. Qualitative studies primarily collected data through interviews and observations, while quantitative stud- ies mainly utilized scales and questionnaires. There was a total of 20 quantitative studies, 7 qualitative studies, and 3 mixed-methods studies. 3.5 Quality assessment and level of evidence The results of the quality assessment are presented in Table 2, indicating that all 30 studies are of high quality. The primary factors influencing article quality are validity and reliability, and the inclusion of models’ fidelity. Among these, 12 studies did not conduct validity and reliabil- ity testing, and 22 studies lacked models’ fidelity procedures. 3.6 Optimization of learning outcomes by hybrid pedagogical model This section aims to demonstrate the impact of hybrid PMs included in the literature on learn- ing outcomes. 3.6.1 The impact of hybrid SEM-TGFU on students’ learning outcomes. Existing

research indicates that hybrid SEM-TGFU benefits students in terms of motor learning, cogni- tive learning, and affective learning outcomes. Motor Learning: Stran et al. found that SEM-TGFU increased student engagement in the classroom [61]. Guijarro & MacPhail concluded that the use of hybrid SEM-TGFU units sur- passed SEM in decision-making, support, overall game performance, and game participation, leading to improved game performance and engagement [51]. Jia found a significant impact of SEM-TGFU on students’ motor skills [54]. Notably, Oliveros & Fernandez-Rio’s results showed that female students scored significantly lower than males in high-intensity physical activity (MVPA) during hybrid SEM-TGFU, emphasizing that the hybrid PM itself may not assist girls in achieving MVPA scores similar to boys. Additionally, the study found that MVPA for lower-grade students was significantly higher than for higher-grade students [57]. Gouveia et al. concluded that SEM-TGFU significantly reduced classroom sedentary time [50]. Lo´pez-Lemus et al. [55] demonstrated that the implementation of hybrid models SEM/ TGFU could enhance students’ game involvement and performance, as well as increase enjoy- ment, perceived competence, and intention to be physically active, in both boys and girls. Cognitive Learning: Hastie & Curtner-Smith found that students could understand, appre- ciate, and execute some basic hitting, throwing, and outfield throwing tactics and strategies, as well as grasp the overall principles, rules, and structures of hitting/batting/fielding games, real-

izing their importance [53]. Jia found a significant impact of SEM-TGFU on students’ cogni- tive performance [54]. Affective Learning: Gil-Arias et al. reported that students showed significant improvements in autonomy, competence, and enjoyment [46]. Gil-Arias et al. further found a significant PLOS ONE A systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with Sport Education Model PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957 December 4, 2024 11 / 22