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

responsible decision-making, which are crucial for success in school and life [19]. Self-Regu- lated Physical Education Model (SPRM) promotes students’ ability to manage their own learn- ing processes, including goal setting, self-monitoring, and self-reflection, to become autonomous and motivated learners [20]. Finally, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) is a model that focuses on fostering individual and social responsibility through five developmental goals: (1) Respect and self-control; (2) Participation and effort; (3) Self-direc- tion; (4) Leadership and caring; and (5) Transfer. By addressing these goals, TPSR enhances students’ basic psychological needs, thereby increasing their motivation and engagement in physical activities beyond PE classes [21]. Currently, the aforementioned PMs have the potential to be beneficial for students’ devel- opment. However, it is widely acknowledged that no single model can be universally applicable to all PE environments [2, 22, 23]. Each model has its own strengths and limitations, and their effectiveness can vary depending on the context in which they are implemented. This is because each model is developed for specific curriculum objectives, and thus, each model has its limitations when implemented in isolation [17]. For example, while SEM aims to cultivate competent, literate, and enthusiastic individuals, it might not simultaneously foster social skills improved through Cooperative Learning (CL) group tasks or a sense of responsibility in stu-

dents enhanced through Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) instruction. Moreover, SEM can sometimes be limited by its focus on sports and competition, which may not appeal to all students and could potentially marginalize those less interested in competitive sports [1]. Another limitation is that SEM requires significant time and resources to imple- ment effectively, which may not always be feasible in all school contexts [2]. Additionally, SEM’s structured seasons and formal competitions may not leave enough room for spontane- ous or student-led activities, potentially reducing opportunities for creativity and flexibility in learning [22]. These limitations provide compelling reasons for hybridizing SEM with other PMs. Hybrid models can address the shortcomings of individual PMs by combining their strengths. For instance, integrating SEM with CL can enhance social interaction and team- work, while blending SEM with TPSR can promote personal and social responsibility along- side sports competence. Evaluating the effects of hybrid PMs, which include SEM, is crucial to understanding their potential benefits in diverse educational settings and to developing more comprehensive and effective physical education programs [23–25]. In pursuit of maximizing benefits for students in teaching or achieving specific teaching goals, some researchers have attempted to introduce how to integrate two PMs to create a new hybrid PM [26–29]. Hybridizing PMs involves extracting and combining key features from

multiple models or using one model as a base and incorporating additional essential elements from another model. For instance, in SE-TGfU, the SEM provides key organizational features (seasons, persisting teams, formal competition, record keeping, festivity, and a culminating event), while the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) contributes the primary instruc- tional approach (teacher-mediated formats (e.g., active teaching and teaching through ques- tioning) and student-mediated formats (e.g., peer tutoring, small-group/cooperative learning approaches) to assist educators in identifying key tactical issues within each team, such as (a) tactical or strategic awareness (What do you do to keep the ball away from other players?), (b) skill execution (How do you keep the ball away from other players?), (c) time (When is the best time to pass?), (d) space (Where should you move when your teammate is trying to restart play?), (e) risk (What options do you have if your defender is near?), and (f) rationale (Why should you move after passing?) [30]. In addition, Casey and Dyson combined the emphasis on encouraging adaptation to individual differences, fair teaching, and personal and social development of CL with the TGfU, which prioritizes the development of correct decision- making and tactical awareness over skilled performance. They found that hybridizing these 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 3 / 22