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

Conclusions Pedagogical models align with PMs’ motivational aspects, thus enhancing learning out- comes. However, evidence for partial hybrids is lacking. Future research should explore diverse interventions, addressing coherence and teacher competence, while maintaining fidelity. 1. Introduction The Pedagogical Model (PM) is a blueprint that "describes the specific procedures for organiz- ing content, task structures, and the sequence of learning activities" [1]. Each model has spe- cific design specifications and is considered a framework [2], allowing teachers to choose the most effective methods for delivering the model in different local contexts based on their per- ceived relevant teaching skills [3]. Furthermore, Pedagogical Models undergo a process of gen- eration, testing, refinement, and further testing in various situations, reflecting their continuous modification and development [3]. Consequently, physical education (PE) has been immersed in a process of continually updating the teaching methods and PMs used in the classroom [4]. Research on teaching methods in PE encompasses various PMs that allow students to acquire breadth and depth of PE knowledge in diverse contexts [3]. As an alternative to direct instruction, a range of pedagogical models (PMs) have been introduced, including second- generation models such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) by Bunker and Thorpe [5], the Sport Education Model (SEM) by Siedentop [6], Cooperative Learning, and the Teach- ing Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model by Hellison [7]. These PMs drive the

shift from teacher-centered to student-centered instructional approaches, featuring key design characteristics that enhance not only student learning but also motivation [8]. For instance, the Sport Education Model (SEM) aims to provide students with authentic and educationally meaningful movement experiences within the school sports context, with six key structural characteristics: seasons, affiliation, formal competition, culminating activities, record-keeping, and festivals [9]. Cooperative Learning (CL) emphasizes learning together, from each other, and for each other, aiming to foster five essential elements: interpersonal skills, processing, positive interdependence, interaction promotion, and individual responsibility [10]. The core idea behind Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) is to shift the focus from technical aspects of gameplay to situations (tactical considerations) through modification, representa- tion, and exaggeration [11]. It centers on placing learners in game situations where tactics, decision-making, and problem-solving are non-negotiable features, while skill practice is used to correct habits or reinforce skills. TGfU is based on six structural steps: games, game appreci- ation, tactical awareness, making appropriate decisions, skill execution, and performance [12]. The original TGfU model has evolved into several frameworks worldwide, such as the Step- Game Approach (SGA), Invasion Games Competence Model (IGCM), Tactical Game Approach (TGA) [13], Game Sense (GS) [14], Play Practice (PP) [15], Tactical Decision Learn-

ing Model (T-DLM) [16], and Developmental Game Stages Model (DGSM) [17], categorizing them under the umbrella term "game-centered approaches" (GCA). Health-Based Physical Education (HBPE) encourages healthy lifestyles by integrating health education into physical education programs, aiming to enhance students’ physical, mental, and social well-being [18]. Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) focuses on developing students’ social and emotional skills, such as self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and 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 2 / 22 Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.