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

3.6.5 The impact of hybrid SEM-SEL, SEM-SPRM, and SEM-CL-HBPE on students’ learning outcomes. Due to the limited number of included studies for hybrid SEM-SEL, SEM-SPRM, and SEM-CL-HBPE (each with only one study), they will be collectively described here. Evangelio et al.’s study is the only one among the included literature that hybridized all three models. The results indicate that the current hybrid SEM-CL-HBPE can contribute to shaping habitual, motivated, critical, and informed advocates [29]. Using a 16-week SEM-SEL volleyball program based on the SEM, Arikan (2020) compiled a SEL. The results showed that the SEM-SEL volleyball program is effective in enhancing stu- dents’ emotional intelligence levels, advocating for further exploration of the compatibility of SEM and SEL hybridization. Quiñonero-Martı´nez et al.’s results revealed different outcomes in motor learning. Tradi- tional methodology, including standing long jump and speed-agility scores, showed significant improvement. Conversely, in SEM-SPRM, neither of the tests demonstrated significant improvement [59]. 4. Discussion 4.1 Hybrid curriculum implementation Our review of the literature reveals a lack of detailed descriptions regarding fixed or optimal methods for implementing the "SEM + 1" model. This may be due to the inherent flexibility of the "SEM + 1" approach, which allows teaching strategies to be adjusted based on specific instructional goals and contextual factors, effectively leveraging the strengths of both models

[8]. Some studies have provided intervention programs that emphasize combining the charac- teristics and principles of the two models, offering guidance to both future researchers and frontline teachers [48, 58]. However, certain challenges remain in implementing these hybrid models. First, these intervention programs are often developed in specific educational con- texts, which may lead to issues with adaptability when applied in different settings. Second, while some studies offer guidance, they may not fully address the practical difficulties teachers face and the professional support required for effective implementation, potentially impacting the model’s effectiveness. Additionally, there is often a gap between the theoretical design of these hybrid models and their practical execution in real-world classrooms. Teachers may struggle with balancing the dual demands of integrating two pedagogical models while main- taining coherence in their teaching, which can hinder the overall implementation process. Future efforts should focus on providing clearer implementation guidelines and professional development opportunities to better support educators in adopting these hybrid approaches. 4.2 The impact of hybrid SEM-TGFU on students’ learning outcomes The popularity of SEM-TGfU as a hybrid pedagogical model can be attributed to three key fac- tors: the theoretical foundation for constructing these PMs [32, 63, 64], the characteristics of the models themselves [9], and the motivational aspects they bring to physical education [65].

Firstly, while constructivist learning theory and game theory serve as the theoretical under- pinnings for both SEM and TGfU, it is important to highlight that these theories support the effectiveness of the hybrid approach. Constructivism provides the rationale for creating active, student-centered learning environments, which is the cornerstone of SEM and TGfU. This theoretical foundation justifies why combining these models can enhance students’ learning experiences by promoting autonomy and engagement [32, 63, 64]. Secondly, the distinct characteristics of SEM and TGfU complement each other, making their integration beneficial for students. SEM’s emphasis on structured seasons, affiliation, for- mal competition, culminating events, record-keeping, and festivity helps students experience 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 15 / 22