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

RESEARCH ARTICLE Optimizing learning outcomes in physical education: A comprehensive systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with the Sport Education Model Junlong ZhangID1*, Kim Geok SohID1*, Xiaorong Bai2, Mohd Ashraff Mohd Anuar3, Wensheng Xiao2 1 Department of Sports Studies, Faculty of Education Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia, 2 School of Physical Education, Huzhou University, Huzhou, China, 3 Department of Professional Development and Continuing Education, Faculty of Education Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia * gs62618@student.upm.edu.my (JZ); kims@upm.edu.my (KGS) Abstract Background There is a notable gap in systematic reviews concerning hybrid pedagogical models (PMs) integrated with the Sport Education Model (SEM) and their impact on students’ outcomes. Purpose Which hybrid PMs 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 opti- mized through the hybrid models that combine SEM with other PMs? Methods A systematic search was conducted in major databases in December 2023 following PRISMA guidelines. Out of the identified 1342 studies, 30 met the eligibility criteria, all of which were deemed to be of high quality. Results Seven hybrid types were identified, primarily composed of two PMs, among which the blend of SEM and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) emerges as the mainstream in cur-

rent research. SEM, serving as the foundational structure, provides a stable framework for the hybrid, termed the "SEM + 1 model," yielding positive effects on enhancing students’ learning outcomes. PLOS ONE PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957 December 4, 2024 1 / 22 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Zhang J, Geok Soh K, Bai X, Mohd Anuar MA, Xiao W (2024) Optimizing learning outcomes in physical education: A comprehensive systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with the Sport Education Model. PLoS ONE 19(12): e0311957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0311957 Editor: Musa Adekunle Ayanwale, National University of Lesotho, LESOTHO Received: May 19, 2024 Accepted: September 28, 2024 Published: December 4, 2024 Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957 Copyright: © 2024 Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

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.

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

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

2.2 Data sources and search strategy On December 3, 2024, a search of four electronic databases, namely Web of Science, EBSCO host, PubMed, and SCOPUS, was conducted to identify relevant articles on the topic. Previous reviews [3, 35] were consulted to guide the formulation of the search strategy, with keywords and Boolean operators considered both individually and in combination during the search across the four databases (see S1 Table). The search employed terms and operators such as "Sport Education," "pedagogical model," "curriculum model," "instructional models," "physical education," "hybrid*," "Integrate*," and "combine*." Additionally, a manual search of Google Scholar was performed to retrieve missing studies, including article citations and free-text searches. Moreover, all identified articles underwent reference list screening to identify any publications not initially found during the database searches (See S1 Checklist for details). To ensure the robustness of the data collection process, experienced librarian Miss Chen assisted. To mitigate selection bias, two knowledgeable authors (J.Z. and M.A.), both familiar with SEM, independently screened and selected studies. In cases of disagreement, a third reviewer (K.G.S) was involved to reach a consensus. Following the review of titles and abstracts, publications not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Full-text examination was conducted based on exclusion criteria, and the final set of 30 articles was included for sys- tematic review and analysis (Fig 1 and S1 File). 2.3 Eligibility criteria

A PICOS framework [18] was used to rate studies for eligibility. The criteria include the following: Inclusion Criteria: (1) Published in peer-reviewed international journals; (2) Implementation of a hybrid PM incorporating the SEM in physical education (PE) environment; (3) Pri- mary findings report at least one aspect of the impact of the hybrid PMs on student learning outcomes; (4) Articles published and written in English; (5) Empirical studies utilizing quantitative, qualitative, or mixed research methods. Exclusion Criteria: (1) Books, book chapters, conference proceedings, master’s theses, and doctoral dissertations not subjected to independent peer review are excluded; (2) Studies published in non-peer-reviewed journals and/or not indexed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) or Science Journal Rankings (SJR) are excluded; (3) To align with the research objectives, studies that do not design hybrid PMs with SEM and those not specifi- cally measuring any aspect of learning outcomes are excluded. 2.4 Data extraction Based on the pertinent reviews in the realm of the physical education pedagogical model [3, 35], we have succinctly outlined the distinctive features of each retained study: Sources, Pur- pose, Sample Characteristics, Hybrid, Length of Unit/Content, Data Collection, Study Design & Analysis, Learning Outcomes (Table 1). This process involved two reviewers (J.Z. and M.A.) obtaining information on each study through Microsoft Excel spreadsheets (Microsoft Corpo- ration, Redmond, WA, United States), and a third reviewer (K.G.S) subsequently verified its

accuracy. Previous studies have indicated that learning outcomes encompass motor learning, cogni- tive learning, affective learning, and social learning [3, 9]. Motor learning is defined as body growth-related physical characteristics and technical skills [3]; cognitive learning primarily 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 5 / 22

explains learning about strategies and decision-making abilities [63]; affective learning typi- cally includes psychological factors such as confidence, self-esteem, motivation, and self-worth [33]; social learning comprises (a) interpersonal communication skills; (b) the ability to build relationships and listen to team members’ opinions; (c) the sharing of beliefs, perspectives, and the collaborative construction of new understandings [10]. This serves as the reference basis for data extraction in this section. 2.5 Quality assessment and level of evidence The updated PRISMA framework [36] was initially employed to assess the quality of this sys- tematic review. Subsequently, the quality of published manuscripts was evaluated using a checklist adapted from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957.g001 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 6 / 22

Table 1. Data extraction included in the study. Sources Purpose Sample Characteristics Hybrid Length of Unit /Content Data Collection Study Design & Analysis Learning Outcomes Arau´jo et al. (2016) [37] Portugal Analyzing students’ improvements in game performance during a hybrid SEM-SGA approach 17 grade 7 students, consisting of 7 girls and 10 boys, with an average age of 11.8 years SEM— SGA 25 lessons volleyball Video Observation, Game Performance Assessment Tool (GPAI) Quantitative: analysis of variance (ANOVA) Motor, cognitive Arau´jo et al. (2017) [38] Portugal Examining the impact on student coaches’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) 21 students (11 males and 10 females); mean age 12.0 SEM— SGA 20–25 lessons volleyball Video observation, field notes, interviews Qualitative: thematic analysis method Cognitive Arau´jo et al. (2019) [39] Portugal Analysis of student competition performance in three SEM-SGA seasons 18 grade 7 students (8 female and 10 male) 11–13 years old SEM— SGA 20–25 lessons volleyball Video observation, the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) Quantitative: hierarchical linear model Motor Arau´jo et al. (2020) [40] Portugal Investigating students’ tactical understanding 96 students (40 boys and 53 girls, aged from 16–18 years- old) SEM— SGA 24 lessons volleyball Video-based test Quantitative: Mann-Whitney test Motor, cognitive Arikan (2020) [41] Turkey Analysis of SEM-SEL on students’ emotional intelligence levels 166 students, aged from 15– 17 years- old) SEM— SEL 16 lessons volleyball The Schutte Emotional

Intelligence Scale (SEI-S) Quantitative: Covariance Analysis Social Buendı´a et al. (2021) [42] Spain To compare the sportsmanship and enjoyment between the SEM-TGFU and PSRM 85 teenagers, 39 girls, and 46 boys ages 16.42 ± 0.50 SEM— TGFU 10 lessons ultimate frisbee The SSI questionnaires adapted to Physical Education (SSI-PE); the Multidimensional Sportsmanship Orientations Scale (MSOS) Quantitative: Wilcoxon’s test Affective Evangelio et al. (2021) [29] Spain Explore students’ perceptions of the SEM-CL-HBPE three-model mix 115 grade 5–6 students (46.09% girls); 10–13 years old SEM— CL-HBPE 13 lessons an educative version of CrossFit Interviews Qualitative: thematic analysis method Social Farias et al. (2015) [43] Portugal Analyzing the impact of SEM-IGCM on students’ performance and understanding of soccer games 24 grade 5 students, comprising 16 girls and 8 boys, with a mean age of 10.3 years SEM— IGCM 17 lessons soccer The Game Performance Observation Instrument, Coding Association 6 Conference, The Game Understanding Test Mixed studies: Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon test Motor, cognitive Farias et al. (2019) [44] Portugal To examine game performance according to the tactical structures of invasion games throughout three consecutive model- based units 26 students (10 females and 16 males); mean age of 12 years and three months SEM— IGCM Basketball: 20 lessons; Handball: 12 lessons; Football: 16 lessons Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI), Video observation Quantitative: analyses of variance Motor Farias et al. (2022) [45] Portugal To explore the influence

of SEM-SGA on pre- service teachers’ professional content knowledge (SCK) and students’ play development 60 eighth-grade students (three classes: 38 boys, 22 girls, Mage = 13.3) SEM— SGA 10 lessons volleyball Using audio/ video data Quantitative: analysis of variance; Mauchly’s test; Bonferroni post hoc comparisons Motor Fernandez- Rio & Menendez (2017) [32] Spain Evaluating the perceptions of students and teachers in an educational kickboxing learning unit 71 grade 9 students, with an average age of 15.4 years and a standard deviation of 0.73 SEM— TPSR 16 lessons kickboxing Open-ended questions, Photovoice, teacher and external observers’ diaries, semi-structured interviews Qualitative: thematic analysis method Social (Continued) 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 7 / 22

Table 1. (Continued) Sources Purpose Sample Characteristics Hybrid Length of Unit /Content Data Collection Study Design & Analysis Learning Outcomes Garcı´a- Gonza´lez et al. (2020) [4] Spain Analyzing the effects of SEM-TGFU on student initial motivations 49 students (M = 15.50, SD = 0.57) SEM— TGFU 10 lessons volleyball Questionnaires on basic psychological need (BPN) support and satisfaction, novelty and variety satisfaction, motivation, and intention to be physically active Quantitative: analysis of variance Affective Gil-Arias et al. (2017) [46] Spain Assessing students’ motivation levels for participating in physical activity 55 grade 9 students, comprising 27 females and 28 males, with a mean age of 15.45 years SEM— TGFU 16 lessons volleyball Scales: Autonomous motivation, Basic psychological needs, Enjoyment, Intention to be physically active Quantitative: control group, MANOVA, Shapiro-Wilks test Affective Gil-Arias et al. (2020) [47] Spain Analysis of SEM-TGFU on autonomy support, sensory Knowing the effects of motivating atmosphere, fun, and perceptual ability 53 grade 9 students (16 female, 37 male); mean age 15.50 SEM— TGFU 16 lessons; handball and basketball Physical Education Class Learning and Performance Orientation Questionnaire, Autonomy Support Coaching Strategies Questionnaire, Enjoyment and Perceived Ability Scale Quantitative: a counter-balanced crossover design Affective Gil-Arias, Diloy-Peña, et al. (2020) [48] Spain Analyzing the effects of SEM-TGFU on student motivational outcomes 53 grade 9 students (16 female, 37 male); mean age 15.50 SEM—

TGFU 10 lessons volleyball Questionnaires, focus groups Mixed: one-way analysis of variance, analysis of variance, deductive content analysis Affective Gil-Arias et al. (2021) [49] Spain Investigating the effects of using SEM-TGFU on perceived autonomy support, perceived need satisfaction, autonomy motivation, and adaptive outcomes 292 grade 6 students (140 female, 152 male); mean age 10.41 SEM— TGFU 16 lessons basketball Autonomy Support Coaching Strategies Questionnaire, BPNs in Sport Scale, Perceived Causality Questionnaire, Relational Goals Questionnaire, Physical Activity Class Satisfaction Questionnaire Quantitative: analysis of variance Affective Gouveia et al. (2022) [50] Portugal Investigating the Impact of Different Pedagogical Models on Moderate-to- Vigorous Physical Activity in Physical Education Classes 17 students, 9 males, 13.7 ± 0.90 years old SEM— TGFU 26 lessons Objectively measure Quantitative: Wilcoxon signed- rank test; analysis of variance Motor Guijarro & MacPhail. (2021) [51] Spain Exploring Game Performance and Game Involvement through SEM-TGFU 85 fourth- and fifth-grade students (aged 9–11) SEM— TGFU 15 lessons basketball Systematic observation of video recordings of students’ game behavior Quantitative: multivariate analysis of variance Motor Hastie & Buchanan (2000) [52] The United States To assess the effectiveness of SEM-TPSR in practice and formulate a theoretical model of Empowering Sports United States, there are 45 boys in the sixth grade, aged 11 to 13 years old SEM— TPSR 26 lessons Xball Independent observations,

daily debriefs, and student interviews Qualitative: constant comparison technique Social (Continued) 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 8 / 22

Table 1. (Continued) Sources Purpose Sample Characteristics Hybrid Length of Unit /Content Data Collection Study Design & Analysis Learning Outcomes Hastie & Curtner- Smith (2006) [53] Australia Analyzing the effects of implementing SEM-TGFU on both teachers and students Australia; 29 grade 6 students, consisting of 11 boys and 18 girls, aged 11–12 years old SEM— TGFU 22 lessons batting/fielding games Reflective logs, critical incident reflective sheets, tactical quizzes, game design forms, and team interviews Analytic induction technique, enumerative analysis, typological analysis, and constant comparison Cognitive, affective Jia (2021) [54] China Investigating the effects of SEM-TGFU on students’ football cognitive performance and motor skills 224 students SEM— TGFU 16-week (3 hours per week for a total of 48 hours) experimental The ball games cognitive performance measurement (Prat et al., 2020); the benchmark of motor skills (Wang, 2018) Quantitative: Analysis of variance Cognitive; Motor Lo´pez-Lemus et al. (2023) [55] Spain Analyzing the impact of SEM-TGFU on students’ enjoyment, perceived competence, intention to be physically active, skill execution, decision- making, performance, and game involvement CG: 70 students; age = 14.43 ± 0.693; n = 32 female) EG: (SEM-TGFU): 67 students; age = 13.91 ± 0.900; n = 30 female) SEM— TGFU 12 lessons handball Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI); the Enjoyment and perceived competence scale (ECS); the Measure of Intentionality to be Physically Active (MIFA) Quantitative: pre- test/post-test quasi- experimental

design Cognitive; affective; Motor Menendez & Fernandez- Rio (2017) [34] Spain Analyzing the impact of SEM-TPSR on learners with disabilities during a contactless kickboxing learning unit 12 students, with 5 of them having disabilities, and their ages range from 15 to 16 years SEM— TPSR 16 lessons kickboxing Drawings, open-ended questions, discussion groups, diaries and semi- structured interviews Qualitative: thematic analysis method Social; Affective Mesquita et al. (2012) [56] Portugal Analyze the influence of SEM-IGCM on student decision-making, skill execution, and overall performance in competition 26 grade 5 students, consisting of 17 girls and 9 boys, aged between 10 and 12 years old SEM— IGCM 22 lessons soccer Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI), Video observation Quantitative: Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon test Motor, cognitive Oliveros & Fernandez- Rio (2022) [57] Spain Investigating whether a hybrid pedagogical model could make a difference in adolescent girls’ in-class physical activity levels 66 students aged 13–17 years SEM— TGFU 12 lessons Objectively measure Quantitative: analysis of variance Motor Pan et al. (2023) [58] China Comparing the learning effects between SEM-TGFU and TGFU on students’ motivation, enjoyment, responsibility, and game performance 90 students in the 4 classes (experimental group: 24 boys and 22 girls, Mage = 15.02 ± 0.73 years, and control group: 23 boys, and 21 girls, Mage = 14.78 ± 0.66 years) SEM— TGFU 10 weeks with 20 PE lessons Responsibility scale in physical education (RSPE); Learning motivation scale

in physical education (LMSPE); Sport enjoyment scale in physical education (SESPE); Game performance assessment instrument (GPAI) Quantitative: A quasi- experimental design; Analysis of covariance Cognitive; affective; Motor Quiñonero- Martı´nez et al. (2023) [59] Spain investigating the effect of the SEM-SPRM on students’ physical fitness and physical activity 76 Secondary Education students aged 12–14 (male: 32; female: 44) SEM— SPRM 17 lessons Colpbol sport; racket games; Frisbee Ultimate Objectively measure Quantitative: A quasi- experimental pre- post study Motor (Continued) 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 9 / 22

Epidemiology (STROBE) statement [64]. Referring to the 9 assessment criteria chosen by Shen and Shao for the structure of typical publications in this research domain: (1) Description of PM Hybridizations, (2) Characteristics of the Participants, (3) Reasonable Design of the Study, (4) Detailed Data Collection, (5) Detailed Data Analysis, (6) Validity and Reliability, (7) Inclu- sion of Models’ Fidelity, (8) Report of Learning Outcomes, and (9) Discussion of Results. Each item was scored as 1 (yes) or 0 (no). The total quality score for each included study was deter- mined by summing individual scores. Studies scoring 7 or above were categorized as "high quality," those scoring between 4 and 6 were classified as "moderate quality," and those scoring below 4 were classified as "low quality" [3]. Manuscripts had to score at least 4 points for inclu- sion. Two independent researchers (J.Z. and M.A.) assessed the selected studies. The final scores were reviewed and discussed by a research team composed of other co-authors, with any discrepancies negotiated with a third researcher (K.G.S) until a consensus was reached. 3. Results 3.1 Study background The majority of the 30 studies were conducted in Western countries, with the highest number in Spain (13), followed by Portugal (10), China (3), the United States (2), Turkey (1), and Aus- tralia (1). The earliest article in this field was published in 2000 [52], with 20 articles published in the last five years, indicating that research on the hybridization of PM with SEM in physical education has become a recent focal point.

3.2 Participants The majority of studies examined the effects of hybrid PMs in physical education classes for primary and secondary school students, with a combined sample size of 2,399 participants. Specifically, 70% of the studies focused on middle school students, totaling 1,238 participants, while seven studies targeted elementary school students, with 733 participants. Interestingly, no studies addressed university students. Additionally, two studies reported participant num- bers but did not specify the ages of the students. The hybrid PMs curriculum primarily cen- tered around sports such as soccer, basketball, volleyball, handball, taekwondo, frisbee, and various game-based activities like invasion games and batting/fielding games. Table 1. (Continued) Sources Purpose Sample Characteristics Hybrid Length of Unit /Content Data Collection Study Design & Analysis Learning Outcomes Silva et al. (2022) [60] Portugal Investigating students’ perceptions about lived learning experiences and active involvement in SEM-SGA 25 students as participants (aged be- tween16 and17 years old) who SEM— SGA 26 lessons volleyball Diary and interviews Qualitative: thematic analysis method Cognitive; effective Stran et al. (2012) [61] The United States To assess pre-service teachers’ perceptions of SEM-TGFU and analyze the facilitators and barriers they encountered during model implementation 22 pre-service teachers, comprising 14 males and 9 females, with an average age of 23. Additionally, there are 162 grade 5 students, aged 10–11 years old SEM— TGFU 20 lessons Invasion games

Focus group interviews, critical incident reflections, lesson plans, and observations Qualitative: thematic analysis method Cognitive, affective Wei et al. (2020) [62] China Analysis of the effects of SEM-TPSR on students’ responsibility and exercise self-efficacy 204 students SEM— TPSR 15-week (45 hours) Questionnaires Quantitative: regression analysis Affective cognitive https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957.t001 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 10 / 22

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

Table 2. Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned. Author(s)/Date Description of PM Hybridizations Characteristics of the Participants Reasonable Design of the Study Detailed Data Collection Detailed Data Analysis Validity and Reliability Inclusion of Models’ Fidelity Report of Learning Outcomes Discussion of Results quality score level of evidence Arau´jo et al. (2016) [37] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 High Arau´jo et al. (2017) [38] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Arau´jo et al. (2019) [39] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 High Arau´jo et al. (2020) [40] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Arikan (2020) [41] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Buendı´a et al. (2021) [42] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Evangelio et al. (2021) [29] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Farias et al. (2015) [43] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Farias et al. (2019) [44] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 High Farias et al. (2022) [45] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 High Fernandez-Rio & Menendez (2017) [32] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Garcı´a- Gonza´lez et al. (2020) [4] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Gil-Arias et al. (2017) [46] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Gil-Arias et al. (2020) [47] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Gil-Arias, Diloy-Peña, et al. (2020) [48] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Gil-Arias et al. (2021) [49] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 High Gouveia et al. (2022) [50] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Guijarro & MacPhail. (2021) [51] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Hastie & Buchanan (2000) [52] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Hastie &

Curtner-Smith (2006) [53] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Jia (2021) [54] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Lo´pez-Lemus et al. (2023) [55] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 High (Continued) 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 12 / 22

involvement, decision making, adjustment, skill efficiency, and skill efficacy, for both boys and girls from pre-test to post-test. Additionally, students with lower skill levels gained greater ben- efits, and there were no significant changes in all indicators between the post-test and retention test [37]. This reinforces the idea that the implementation of this hybrid approach in the future should be adjusted based on different skill levels in terms of content and learning tasks. Arau´jo et al. applied hybrid SEM-SGA to study the long-term development of students’ volleyball play performance over three years. The results of the survey showed an improvement in the play performance levels of all 18 students, and the study also concluded that the implementation Table 2. (Continued) Author(s)/Date Description of PM Hybridizations Characteristics of the Participants Reasonable Design of the Study Detailed Data Collection Detailed Data Analysis Validity and Reliability Inclusion of Models’ Fidelity Report of Learning Outcomes Discussion of Results quality score level of evidence Menendez & Fernandez-Rio (2017) [34] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Mesquita et al. (2012) [56] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Oliveros & Fernandez-Rio (2022) [57] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8 High Pan et al. (2023) [58] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 High Quiñonero- Martı´nez et al. (2023) [59] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Silva et al. (2022) [60] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High Stran et al. (2012) [61] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 High Wei et al. (2020) [62]

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7 High https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957.t002 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 13 / 22

over three seasons would gradually eliminate the gap in students’ skill levels [39]. It implies that the improvement effect of students with low skill levels is higher than that of students with high skill levels. Farias et al. investigated students’ game-play development using hybrid SEM-SGA, revealing improvements in most game variables (such as "serving," "receiving," and "setting") and the "game performance index" [45]. Cognitive Learning: Arau´jo et al. studied students’ pedagogical content knowledge of coaches using hybrid SEM-SGA, demonstrating the effectiveness of SEM-SGA in enhancing students’ coaches’ pedagogical content knowledge [38]. Arau´jo et al. proposed that students’ tactical understanding during hybrid SEM-SGA instruction significantly improved [40]. Farias et al. investigated the specialized content knowledge (SCK) of pre-service teachers using hybrid SEM-SGA, revealing a significant improvement in pre-service teachers’ SCK over time [45]. Affective Learning and Social Learning: Existing research suggests that hybrid SEM-SGA benefits students in terms of cognitive learning, affective learning, and social learning out- comes. Silva et al. conducted a unique survey analysis of pre-service teachers using hybrid SEM-SGA, employing inductive and deductive theme analysis. The results showed that the use of this hybrid approach helped teachers act as facilitators of learning, increased students’ levels of responsibility for their learning experiences, promoted students’ autonomy and sense of

active control over classroom activities, facilitated the development of student’s abilities and volleyball fundamental knowledge, and increased their interest and engagement in physical education [60]. 3.6.3 The impact of hybrid SEM-TPSR on students’ learning outcomes. Existing research indicates that hybrid SEM-TPSR benefits students in terms of motor learning and social learning outcomes. Hastie & Buchanan concluded that hybrid SEM-TPSR allows achievement in a powerful triad of goals-motor skill competence, social responsibility, and personal empowerment [52]. Menendez-Santurio & Fernandez-Rio conducted hybrid SEM-TPSR teaching targeting students with disabilities and found that it helped them and their peers establish connections both inside and outside the classroom [34]. This result seems to broaden the range of beneficiaries. At the same time, it enriches the future research direc- tion. The results of Fernandez-Rio & Menendez-Santurio’s study indicated that SEM-TPSR significantly enhances students’ responsibility and exercise self-efficacy [32]. 3.6.4 The impact of hybrid SEM-IGCM on students’ learning outcomes. Existing research indicates that hybrid SEM-IGCM benefits students in terms of motor learning, cogni- tive learning, and social learning outcomes. Motor Learning and Social Learning: Mesquita et al. provided students with opportunities to improve skill execution and tactical decision-making through a hybrid SEM-IGCM soccer unit. Furthermore, inclusive participation had a strong impact on learning for girls and stu-

dents with lower skill levels [56]. Farias et al. concluded that hybrid SEM-IGCM promoted improvements in students’ soccer game performance and understanding, increasing the corre- lation between the two concepts [43]. Farias et al. examined game performance in three conse- cutive basketball, handball, and soccer units based on the hybrid SEM-IGCM model. The results showed significant improvements in game performance for handball and soccer units, but not for basketball. This means that hybrid PMs may have different effects on different sports. However, when breaking down game performance into tactical structure indicators, improvements were observed in all seasons. The correlation between tactical structure indica- tors and game performance increased over time. The predictive model of game performance improvement demonstrated correlations with expanded team contextual features, coordinated interpersonal dynamics in the game, the nature of peer teaching mediation, and the game for- mat [44]. 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 14 / 22

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].