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

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

authentic sporting events through various roles [9]. However, SEM may not sufficiently address tactical understanding and skill development [65]. TGfU, on the other hand, fills this gap by focusing on game-based learning, tactical awareness, and skill execution through a structured approach [66]. By integrating TGfU’s instructional steps into SEM’s framework, students gain a more comprehensive understanding of sports, which includes both the organi- zational structure and tactical execution [46]. Lastly, the motivational aspects of the hybrid SEM-TGfU model further enhance student engagement. Both models encourage cooperative learning, which fosters a positive team envi- ronment and supports improved decision-making, game performance, and overall involve- ment [67]. This approach also reduces sedentary behavior, increases physical activity, and positively influences students’ motivation, enjoyment, and sense of responsibility [45, 68]. 4.3 The impact of hybrid SEM-SGA on students’ learning outcomes In addition to research on hybrid SEM-TGFU, there is a relatively significant amount of research on SEM-SGA. SAG emphasizes providing students with an appropriate framework for the development of tactical and technical skills in net sports to ensure the success of the game [37, 56]. Combining SEM with SGA retains SEM’s core elements such as stable teams, formal com- petition, and role-playing, while integrating SGA’s learning tasks and sports skills taught dur- ing the season. This combination enables students to enhance the acquisition of motor skills

and performance in the game [37, 39, 45]. The primary purpose of this hybrid is also to address SEM’s lack of specific teaching strategies to cultivate students’ tactical competence [37]. 4.4 The impact of hybrid SEM-TPSR on students’ learning outcomes The integration of TPSR with SEM leverages SEM’s six characteristics (seasons, affiliation, for- mal competition, culminating event, record keeping, and festivity) to provide a structured and authentic learning environment. SEM-TPSR encourages cooperation, self-esteem develop- ment, and sustained social interactions [34]. This hybrid model supports students’ autonomy and responsibility, fostering attention to their rights, feelings, and the needs of others [32, 34]. In investigating how SEM functions as a foundational model, it becomes clear that the orga- nizational strengths of SEM complement TPSR’s focus on personal and social responsibility. This synergy addresses key factors supporting their integration, such as shared theoretical foundations and mutual reinforcement of learning outcomes. Consequently, SEM-TPSR opti- mizes learning outcomes by promoting interpersonal skills, social responsibility, and overall student motivation [10, 33, 69]. 4.5 The impact of hybrid SEM-IGCM on students’ learning outcomes SEM-IGCM is also a prevalent choice in hybrid teaching due to its alignment with constructiv- ist principles and the complementary strengths of both models. The Invasion Game Compe- tence Model (IGCM), like the Step-Game Approach (SGA) and Teaching Personal and Social

Responsibility (TPSR), originates from Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and is rooted in constructivist learning theory and game theory. IGCM focuses on game-centered approaches, emphasizing structured planning, the development of tactical skills, decision- making, and skill execution in invasion sports. It provides a comprehensive framework for assessing competence in invasion games, considering overall game performance and participation. When combined with the Sport Education Model (SEM), IGCM benefits from SEM’s struc- tured framework, including stable teams, formal competitions, and role-playing, while IGCM 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 16 / 22

enhances the learning plans and sports skills taught during the season. This hybrid approach allows students to improve skill acquisition and game performance [39, 43, 56]. 4.6 The impact of hybrid SEM-SEL, SEM-SPRM, and SEM-CL-HBPE on students’ learning outcomes The hybrid models of SEM-SEL, SEM-SPRM, and SEM-CL-HBPE facilitate the development of students’ sociological and affective learning abilities [29, 40]. The emphasis on cooperative learning and student engagement in these models likely contributes to their positive impact. SEM’s stable teams create a consistent platform for fostering social skills through collaborative learning [70], while HBPE promotes healthy lifestyles, motivating team members to prioritize physical well-being [71]. This group teaching approach enhances students’ ability to work within teams, improving social relationships. However, further research is needed due to the limited evidence in the literature. Additionally, in SEM-SPRM, performance tests for standing long jump and speed and agil- ity did not show significant improvement, whereas the traditional teaching group demon- strated significant enhancement. This suggests a need for further clarification on the compatibility of SEM and SEL hybrids [3]. 4.7 Implementation limitations and future applications First of all, since the premise of hybrid PM is that teachers have a comprehensive understand- ing of the theories, methods, and procedures of each mode and have teaching experience in implementing them, this creates major obstacles and challenges for pre-service teachers [34,

48, 61]. At the same time, teachers need to accurately select suitable hybrid pedagogical models (PMs) based on teaching needs. The implementation of hybrid PMs often centers around the six key features of the Sport Education Model (SEM). Teachers must repeatedly emphasize basic team agreements, individual roles, and how to conduct independent team activities. This focus can sometimes reduce the time available for the instructional content of the other teach- ing model, which may impact the overall progress of the class [53]. Therefore, in the future application of hybrid PMs, it is important to strengthen the early training of PE teachers on the use of hybridization. This training should include a focus on maintaining model fidelity, ensuring that teachers can accurately and consistently implement the hybrid models as intended. Without this fidelity, the benefits of hybrid PMs may not be fully realized, and the variability in implementation could lead to inconsistent outcomes. PE teachers should accu- rately understand student needs, consider the most suitable hybrid PM, and master the two PMs in hybridization. If implementation challenges arise or teaching progress is hindered, selecting one model may be advisable. Moreover, proficient teachers should adjust teaching content and tasks according to students’ skill levels to optimize learning outcomes. 5. Conclusion This review examines hybrid pedagogical models (PMs) integrated with SEM to optimize stu- dents’ learning outcomes. It identifies seven hybrid PMs, primarily composed of two models,

with the blend of SEM and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) emerging as the main- stream in current research. SEM serves as the foundational structure, creating a stable frame- work for these hybrids, referred to as "SEM + 1 models." These hybrids have shown positive effects on enhancing students’ learning outcomes across various domains. While the motiva- tional aspects of these models contribute to improved learning outcomes, evidence for some hybrid models remains limited. Future research should focus on exploring diverse interven- tions and addressing issues related to teaching coherence and teacher competence. Ensuring 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 17 / 22

model fidelity and expanding empirical support are essential for the effective development and implementation of these hybrid models. Supporting information S1 Table. Detailed search strategy. (DOC) S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist. (PDF) S1 File. Numbering table. (XLS) Author Contributions Conceptualization: Junlong Zhang, Kim Geok Soh, Mohd Ashraff Mohd Anuar. Investigation: Junlong Zhang, Xiaorong Bai. Methodology: Kim Geok Soh, Mohd Ashraff Mohd Anuar. Supervision: Kim Geok Soh. Writing – original draft: Junlong Zhang. Writing – review & editing: Kim Geok Soh, Wensheng Xiao. References 1. Hastie P A, Casey A. Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future in-vestigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2014; 33(3):422–31. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jtpe.2013-0141 2. Kirk D. Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 2013; 45(9):973–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.785352 3. Shen Y, Shao W. Influence of hybrid pedagogical models on learning outcomes in physical education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(15):9673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159673 PMID: 35955027 4. Garcı´a-Gonza´ lez L, Abo´s A´ , Diloy-Peña S, Gil-Arias A, Sevil-Serrano J. Can a hybrid sport education/ te-aching games for understanding volleyball unit be more effective in less motivated students? An examin-ation into a set of motivation-related variables. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6170. https://doi.

11. Barba-Martı´n R A, Bores-Garcı´a D, Hortigu¨ ela-Alcala´ D, Gonza´lez-Calvo G. The application of the tea- ching games for understanding in physical education: Systematic review of the last six years. Internatio- nal Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(9):3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph17093330 PMID: 32403272 12. Morales-Belando M T, Kirk D, Arias-Estero J L. A systematic review of Teaching Games for Understa- nding intervention studies from a practice-referenced perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2022; 93(4):670–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2021.1897066 PMID: 34705604 13. Gouveia E´ R, Gouveia B R, Marques A, Kliegel M, Rodrigues A J, Prudente J, et al. The effectiveness of a tactical games approach in the teaching of invasion games. Journal of Physical Education and Sport.2019; 19(3):962–70. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2019.s3139 14. Jarrett K, Harvey S. Similar, but not the same: Comparing the game-based approaches of Teaching Gam-es for Understanding (TGfU) and Game Sense. Ejournal de la Recherche sur l’intervention en E´ ducation Physique et Sportive. 2016; ( 39):24–43. https://doi.org/10.4000/ejrieps.900 15. Zhan P, Ward P, Li W, Sutherland S, Goodway J. Effects of play practice on teaching table tennis skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2012; 31(1):71–85. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.31.1.71 16. Gre´haigne J F, Wallian N, Godbout P. Tactical-decision learning model and students’ practices. Physi- cal Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2006; 11(3):297–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/

17408980500340869 17. Rivera-Pe´rez S, Fernandez-Rio J, Gallego D I. Effects of an 8-week cooperative learning intervention on physical education students’ task and self-approach goals, and emotional intelligence. International Jour-nal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(1):61. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18010061 PMID: 33374777 18. McKenzie J E, Brennan S E, Ryan R E, Thomson H J, Johnston R V, Thomas J. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins J P T, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M J, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Inter- vent-ions. Wiley; 2019. p. 33–65. 19. Durlak J A, Weissberg R P, Dymnicki A B, Taylor R D, Schellinger K B. The impact of enhancing stud- ents’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev-elopment. 2011; 82(1):405–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x PMID: 21291449 20. Zimmerman B J. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice. 2002; 41 (2):64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2 21. Pienima¨ ki I. Scoping review: Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity (TPS- R-MODEL). 2019. https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/64838 22. Casey A. Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pe-dagogy. 2014; 19(1):18–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.726977 23. Metzler M W. Instructional models for physical education. 3rd ed. Routledge; 2011.

24. MacPhail A, Kirk D, Griffin L L. Throwing and catching as relational skills in game play: Situated learn- ing in a modified game unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2008; 27(2):100–15. https://doi. org/10.1123/jtpe.27.1.100 25. Casey A, MacPhail A. Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Edu-cation and Sport Pedagogy. 2018; 23(3):294–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018. 1429588 26. Costa L. C. A. D., Nascimento J. V. D., & Vieira L. F. Teaching invasive team sports in the school envi- ronment: From theory to practice from the perspective of a hybrid model. Journal of Physical Education, 2016; 27, e2709. https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v27i1.2709 27. Threatt A S, Simonton K L, Layne T E. Motivating students through content and curriculum models: Bu-ilding a Sport Education Tactical Games Model (SETGM) unit on Spikeball. Journal of Physical Educa-ti-on, Recreation & Dance. 2022; 93(4):31–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2022. 2100533 28. Alexander K, Penney D. Teaching under the influence: Feeding Games for Understanding into the Sport Education development-refinement cycle. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2005; 10 (3):287–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500340901 29. Evangelio C, Ferna´ ndez-Rio J, Peiro´ -Velert C, Gonza´ lez-Vı´llora S. Sport education, cooperative lear- nin-g, and health-based physical education: Another step in pedagogical models’ hybridization. Journal of P-hysical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2021; 92(6):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084. 2021.1977739

30. Griffin J I, Butler L L, Sheppard M A. Athlete-centred coaching: Extending the possibilities of a holistic and process-oriented model to athlete development. Routledge; 2018. 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 19 / 22

31. Casey A, Dyson B. The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research. European Physical Education Review. 2010; 15(2):175–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1356336X09345222 32. Fernandez-Rio J, Menendez-Santurio J I. Teachers and students’ perceptions of a hybrid sport educa- tion and teaching for personal and social responsibility learning unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educat-ion. 2017; 36(2):185–96. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0077 33. Dyson B, Griffin L L, Hastie P. Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theore- tica-l and Pedagogical Considerations. Quest. 2004; 56(2):226–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297. 2004.10491823 34. Menendez J I, Fernandez-Rio J. Hybridising Sport Education and Teaching for Personal and Social Res-ponsibility to include students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2017; 32(4):508–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1267943 35. Gonza´ lez-Vı´llora S, Evangelio C, Sierra-Dı´az J, Ferna´ndez-Rı´o J. Hybridizing pedagogical models: A s- ystematic review. European Physical Education Review. 2019; 25(4):1056–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1356336X18797363 36. Page M J, McKenzie J E, Bossuyt P M, Boutron I, Hoffmann T C, Mulrow C D, et al. Updating guid- ance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 st-atement. Journal of Clini- cal Epidemiology. 2021; 134:103–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 PMID: 33577987

37. Arau´jo R, Mesquita I, Hastie P, Pereira C. Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education—step-game-approach volleyball unit. European Physical Education Review. 2016; 22 (2):185–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X15597927 38. Arau´jo R M F, Hastie P A, Pereira C H de A B, Mesquita I M R. The evolution of student-coach’s peda- gogical content knowledge in a combined use of sport education and the step-game-approach model. Ph-ysical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2017; 22(5):518–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989. 2017.1294668 39. Arau´jo R, Hastie P, Lohse K R, Bessa C, Mesquita I. The long-term development of volleyball game pl- ay performance using Sport Education and the Step-Game-Approach model. European Physical Edu- cation Review. 2019; 25(2):311–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17730307 40. Arau´jo R, Delgado M, Azevedo E, Mesquita I. Students’ tactical understanding during a hybrid sport ed- ucation/step-game approach model volleyball teaching unit. Movimento. 2020; 26:1–16. https://doi.org/ 10.22456/1982-8918.97764 41. Arikan N. Effect of Sport Education Model-Based Social-Emotional Learning Program on Emotional In- telligence. International Education Studies. 2020; 13(4):41. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n4p41 42. Go´mez Buendı´a A´ , Sa´ nchez-Alcaraz Martı´nez B J, Cifo Izquierdo M I, Go´ mez Ma´rmol A. Effects of a hybrid teaching model (SEM + TGfU) and the model of personal and social responsibility on sportsman- ship and enjoyment in 4˚ Secondary and 1˚ Baccalaureate students (Efectos de un modelo hı´brido de

enseña-nza (MED + TGfU) y el modelo de respon). Retos. 2021; 43:550–59. https://doi.org/10.47197/ retos.v43i0.85928 43. Farias C F, Mesquita I R, Hastie P A. Game Performance and Understanding Within a Hybrid Sport Ed- ucation Season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2015; 34(3):363–83. https://doi.org/10. 1123/jtpe.2013-0149 44. Farias C, Mesquita I, Hastie P A. Student game-play performance in invasion games following three co- nsecutive hybrid Sport Education seasons. European Physical Education Review. 2019; 25(3):691– 712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18769220 45. Farias C, Teixeira J, Ribeiro E, Mesquita I. Effects of a two-stage physical education teacher education programme on preservice teachers’ specialised content knowledge and students’ game-play in a stu- dent-centred Sport Education-Step Game approach. European Physical Education Review. 2022; 28 (4):816–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X221084516 46. Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, Ca´ rceles A, Pra´xedes A, Del Villar F. Impact of a hybrid TGfU-Sport Education unit on student motivation in physical education. PLoS One. 2017; 12(6):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0179876 PMID: 28658267 47. Gil-Arias A, Claver F, Pra´ xedes A, Del Villar F, Harvey S. Autonomy support, motivational climate, en- joyment and perceived competence in physical education: Impact of a hybrid teaching games for under- sta-nding/sport education unit. European Physical Education Review. 2020; 26(1):36–53. https://doi. org/10.1177/1356336X18816997

48. Gil-Arias A, Diloy-Peña S, Sevil-Serrano J, Garcı´a-Gonza´ lez L, Abo´s A´ . A hybrid TGfU/SE volleyball teaching unit for enhancing motivation in physical education: A mixed-method approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 18(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph18010110 PMID: 33375232 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 20 / 22

49. Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, Garcı´a-Herreros F, Gonza´ lez-Vı´llora S, Pra´xedes A, Moreno A. Effect of a hybr- id teaching games for understanding/sport education unit on elementary students’ self-determined moti- vation in physical education. European Physical Education Review. 2021; 27(2):366–83. https://doi. org/10.1177/1356336X20950174 50. Gouveia E´ R, Lizandra J, Martinho D V, Franc¸a C, Ihle A, Sarmento H, et al. The Impact of Different Pedagogical Models on Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity in Physical Education Classes. Chil- dren. 2022; 9(12):1790. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9121790 PMID: 36553234 51. Guijarro E., MacPhail A., Arias-Palencia N.M., & Gonza´ lez-Vı´llora S. (2021). Exploring Game Perf- ormance and Game Involvement: Effects of a Sport Education Season and a Combined Sport Educa- tion—Teaching Games for Understanding Unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2020-0170 52. Hastie, P.A., & Buchanan, A.M. (2000). Teaching Responsibility Through Sport Education: Prospects of a Coalition. 53. Hastie P.A., & Curtner-Smith M.D. (2006). Influence of a Hybrid Sport Education—Teaching Games for Understanding Unit on One Teacher and His Students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813 54. Jia Z.-R.R. (2021). Effects of Teaching Games for Understanding Integrated Sport Education Model on College Students’ Football Cognitive Performance and Motor Skills. Revista de Cercetare și Intervenție Socială, 72, 274–287. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.72.17

55. Lo´ pez-Lemus I., Del Villar F., Rodrı´guez-Gutie´ rrez A., Gonza´lez-Silva J., & Moreno A. (2023). Cou-ld the Hybridization of the SE/TGfU Pedagogical Models Be an Alternative for Learning Sports and P- romoting Health? School Context Study. Children, 10(877). https://doi.org/10.3390/children10050877 PMID: 37238425 56. Mesquita I., Farias C., & Hastie P. (2012). The Impact of a Hybrid Sport Education—Invasion Games Competence Model Soccer Unit on Students’ Decision Making, Skill Execution and Overall Game Per- form-ance. European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1356336X12440027 57. Oliveros M., & Fernandez-Rio J. (2022). Pedagogical Models: Can They Make a Difference to Girls’ In- Class Physical Activity? Health Education Journal, 81(8), 913–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 00178969221128641 58. Pan Y.-H., Huang C.-H., & Hsu W.-T. (2023). A Comparison of the Learning Effects Between TGfU-SE and TGfU on Learning Motivation, Sport Enjoyment, Responsibility, and Game Performance in Ph-ysical Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1165064 PMID: 37519367 59. Quiñonero-Martı´nez A.L., Cifo-Izquierdo M.I., Sa´ nchez-Alcaraz Martı´nez B.J., & Go´mez-Ma´ rmol A. (2023). Effect of the Hybridization of Social and Personal Responsibility Model and Sport Education Model on Physical Fitness Status and Physical Activity Practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1273513 PMID: 37915524

60. Da Silva R.M.R.R., Farias C.F.G.G., Ramos A.G.A.A., & Mesquita I.M.R.R. (2022). A Novice Teac-her as Facilitator of Learning During a Hybrid Sport Education/Step-Game Approach Volleyball Seaso-n. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 21, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2022.153 PMID: 35719230 61. Stran M., Sinelnikov O., & Woodruff E. (2012). Pre-Service Teachers’ Experiences Implementing a Hybrid Curriculum: Sport Education and Teaching Games for Understanding. European Physical Educ- at-ion Review, 18(3), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X12450789 62. Wei C., Su R., & Hsu M. (2020). Effects of TPSR Integrated Sport Education Model on Football Less-on Students’ Responsibility and Exercise Self-Efficacy. Revista de Cercetare și Intervenție Socială, 71, 126–136. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.71.8 63. Luoma J., & Martela F. (2021). A Dual-Processing View of Three Cognitive Strategies in Strategic De- cision Making: Intuition, Analytic Reasoning, and Reframing. Long Range Planning, 54(102065). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102065 64. Von Elm E., Altman D.G., Egger M., Pocock S.J., Gøtzsche P.C., & Vandenbroucke J.P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guide- lines for Reporting Observational Studies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(11), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.07.045120 PMID: 18038077 65. Guijarro E., MacPhail A., Gonza´lez-Vı´llora S., & Arias-Palencia N.M. (2021). Relationship Between Per-

sonal and Social Responsibility and the Roles Undertaken in Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 40(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1123/JTPE.2019-0097 66. Pozo P., Grao-Cruces A., & Pe´ rez-Orda´ s R. (2018). Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Mod- el-Based Programmes in Physical Education. European Physical Education Review, 24(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X16664749 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 21 / 22

67. Farias C., Segovia Y., Vale´rio C., & Mesquita I. (2022). Does Sport Education Promote Equitable Ga- me-Play Participation? Effects of Learning Context and Students’ Sex and Skill-Level. European Phys- ical Education Review, 28(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X211013832 68. Hastie P.A., De Ojeda D.M., & Caldero´n A. (2011). A Review of Research on Sport Education: 2004 to the Present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17408989.2010.535202 69. Goodyear V.A., Casey A., & Kirk D. (2014). Tweet Me, Message Me, Like Me: Using Social Media to Facilitate Pedagogical Change Within an Emerging Community of Practice. Sport, Education and Soci- ety, 19(7), 927–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2013.858624 70. Dyson B., Shen Y., Xiong W., & Dang L. (2022). How Cooperative Learning is Conceptualized and I- mplemented in Chinese Physical Education: A Systematic Review of Literature. ECNU Review of Edu- cation, 5(2), 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311211006721 71. Haerens L., Cardon G., De Bourdeaudhuij I., & Kirk D. (2011). Toward the Development of a Pedag-ogi- cal Model for Health-Based Physical Education. Quest, 63(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00336297.2011.10483684 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 22 / 22