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

two PMs is an extremely complex and challenging task, with potential benefits for both stu- dents and teachers if the models have similar characteristics and goals [31]. Likewise, recent research has demonstrated the feasibility of hybridizing TPSR and SEM by observing that they share similar learning theories and complementary objectives. For example, both models emphasize student-centered learning and personal development [32]. Combining TPSR’s focus on personal and social responsibility with SEM’s structure and organization can enhance student engagement and learning outcomes [32]. Moreover, hybrid models can address the limitations of individual PMs by leveraging their strengths, leading to more comprehensive educational experiences [25]. Previous studies also indicated that hybridization can enhance game performance and motor skills [26, 29] and yield positive psychosocial outcomes, such as enjoyment, willingness for physical activity, and responsibility [33, 34]. Hybrid PMs serve as effective resources for developing flexible physical education programs within multimodal projects. Teachers can choose and blend appropriate PMs based on students’ situations to meet the diverse needs of different teaching objectives. Therefore, this is considered an innovative trend and a necessary means for achieving higher-quality learning outcomes [22, 35]. Despite an increasing number of studies on hybrid PMs in recent years, systematic reviews regarding the hybridization of PMs remain scarce. Indeed, only two systematic reviews have

comprehensively examined various hybridizations between 2019 and 2022 [3, 35]. The first review in this field by Gonza´lez-Vı´llora et al. primarily provides fundamental information on PM hybridization in PE, covering aspects such as Hybridization, Research Focus, Participants and Context, Sport/Content, Length of Implementation, Data Sources and Analysis, and Out- comes [35]. It acknowledges that hybridization benefits students in terms of game-related skills and psychosocial variables. To extend the work of Gonza´lez-Villora et al., Shen & Shao further investigate the impact and mechanisms of hybrid models on students’ learning outcomes (i.e., motor, cognitive, emotional, and social) and provide a comprehensive review of empirical studies on various PM hybridizations. The results suggest that the duration of implementation and teacher familiarity are the primary limiting factors for the implementation of hybrid PM teaching [3]. Notably, from the two systematic reviews, it is evident that SEM is the most fre- quently appearing model in hybrid PM teaching, constituting 90% and 88% in the first and second reviews, respectively. This raises the questions: which hybrid pedagogical models incorporating SEM are currently the mainstream choices in research, and what are the main factors supporting their integration? How does SEM function as a foundational model in these hybrid teaching approaches? What learning outcomes are optimized through the hybrid mod- els that combine SEM with other pedagogical models? However, these aspects have not been

extensively explored or explained in previous research. Therefore, building on prior work, this study aims to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the role of hybrid PMs, combined with the SEM, in optimizing learning outcomes in physical education. Specifically, this study will investigate the impact of these hybrid models, integrated with SEM, on students’ learning outcomes. Additionally, the study seeks to explore the advantages of SEM as a foundational model in hybrid PMs. 2. Methods 2.1 Protocol and registration The PRISMA statement was followed in reporting this systematic review and meta-analysis [36], and the review protocol has been registered on Inplasy.com: [INPLASY202410027]. 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 4 / 22