Effective implementation of the Sport Education Model in physical education: A meta-analysis of participant and intervention characteristics

personality, emotions, sleep behaviors, and dietary habits. Third, according to the GRADE assessment, the certainty of the reported cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes is very low, which undermines the credibility of these estimates. Despite these limitations, our study provides novel and valuable practical insights for frontline physical education teachers and researchers, revealing the positive impact of SEM on enhancing students’ physical education learning. Practical applications The results of this study reveal significant differences in the effects of SEM on students’ physical education learning out- comes under various teaching conditions, providing several practical implications. First, with regard to participant char- acteristics, it is recommended that frontline physical education teachers implement SEM interventions with small class sizes for secondary students who lack prior SEM experience, as this approach demonstrates the best outcomes. Regard- ing intervention characteristics, it is suggested that frontline physical education teachers design SEM course plans that involve two lessons per week, with each session lasting no less than 60 minutes and a total of no more than 18 lessons. Conclusion In conclusion, SEM can effectively promote students’ physical education learning and positively impact their cognitive and non-cognitive abilities. Specifically, the most effective SEM intervention plan involves two lessons per week, each lasting

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331228 October 16, 2025 15 / 17 no less than 60 minutes and no more than 18 lessons, applied to secondary students with no prior SEM experience in small class sizes. This study provides frontline physical education teachers with recommendations for selecting participant and intervention characteristics for SEM implementation and offers theoretical support for the high-quality development of school sports through SEM. Supporting information S1 Appendix. PRISMA 2020 checklist. (PDF) S2 Appendix. Detailed search strategy. (DOCX) S3 Appendix. Description of 430 records. (XLS) S4 Appendix. Data used for meta-analysis. (XLSX) S5 Appendix. The detailed results of the meta-analysis of the overall and different moderating variables effects. (DOCX) Author contributions Data curation: Gege Yao. Funding acquisition: Wensheng Xiao. Methodology: Xiaorong Bai, Wensheng Xiao. Resources: Wensheng Xiao. Software: Xiaorong Bai. Supervision: Kim Geok Soh, Mohd Ashraff Mohd Anuar. Writing – original draft: Junlong Zhang. Writing – review & editing: Kim Geok Soh, Lixia Bao. References 1. Bessa C, Hastie P, Araújo R, Mesquita I. What do we know about the development of personal and social skills within the Sport Education Model: a systematic review. J Sports Sci Med. 2019;18(4):812–29. PMID: 31827367 2. Hastie PA, de Ojeda DM, Luquin AC. A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2011;16(2):103–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2010.535202

3. Zhang J, Xiao W, Soh KG, Yao G, Anuar MABM, Bai X, et al. The effect of the Sport Education Model in physical education on student learning attitude: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2024;24(1):949. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18243-0 PMID: 38566018 4. Ma H, Zhang J, Su Z. Effects of the Sport Education Model on content knowledge, technical skill, and game performance among students: a system- atic review and meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2023;32(3):414–27. 5. Zhang J, Geok Soh K, Bai X, Mohd Anuar MA, Xiao W. Optimizing learning outcomes in physical education: a comprehensive systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with the Sport Education Model. PLoS One. 2024;19(12):e0311957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0311957 PMID: 39630649 6. Zhang J, Soh KG, Mohd Anuar MA. The effect of the Sport Education Model on sports ability: a critical systematic review. Rev Psicol Deporte. 2024;33(4):197–211. 7. Méndez-Giménez A, Fernández-Río J, Méndez-Alonso D. Sport Education model versus traditional model: motivational and sportsmanship effects. Int J Med Sci Phys Act. 2015;59(2015):449–66. https://doi.org/10.15366/rimcafd2015.59.004

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331228 October 16, 2025 16 / 17 8. Segovia Y, Gutiérrez D. Effect of a game-based high intensity interval training program on body composition in primary education: comparison of the Sport Education Model and traditional methodology. J Phys Educ Sport. 2020; 20(2): 791–9. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2020.02113 9. Perlman D. The influence of the Sport Education Model on amotivated students’ in-class physical activity. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2012;18(3):335–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x12450795 10. Iserbyt P, Ward P, Martens J. The influence of content knowledge on teaching and learning in traditional and sport education contexts: an explor- atory study. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2015;21(5):539–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1050662 11. Bessa C, Hastie P, Ramos A, Mesquita I. What actually differs between traditional teaching and sport education in students’ learning outcomes? A critical systematic review. J Sports Sci Med. 2021;20(1):110–25. https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2021.110 PMID: 33707994 12. Kao C-C. Development of team cohesion and sustained collaboration skills with the Sport Education Model. Sustainability. 2019;11(8):2348. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su11082348 13. Wang B, Chen S. Sport education for social competence in K-12 physical education. Quest. 2021;73(4):391–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297 .2021.1986410 14. Bessa C, Hastie P, Rosado A, et al. Differences between sport education and traditional teaching in developing students’ engagement and respon-

sibility. J Phys Educ Sport. 2020;20(6):3536–45. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2020.06477 15. Liu L, Luo X, Wang Y. Student self-efficacy on personal and social responsibility within a Sport Education Model. Revista De Cercetare Si Interven- tie Sociala. 2021;72:236–47. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.72.15 16. Perlman D, Goc Karp G. A self-determined perspective of the Sport Education Model. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2010;15(4):401–18. https://doi. org/10.1080/17408980903535800 17. Manninen M, Campbell S. The effect of the Sport Education Model on basic needs, intrinsic motivation and prosocial attitudes: a systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2021;28(1):78–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x211017938 18. Choi SM, Sum KWR, Wallhead TL, Leung FLE, Ha SCA, Sit HPC. Operationalizing physical literacy through sport education in a university physi- cal education program. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2021;27(6):591–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.1915266 19. Manninen M, Campbell S. The effect of the Sport Education Model on basic needs, intrinsic motivation and prosocial attitudes: A systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2022;28(1):78–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2019.1661948 20. Choi SM, Sum KWR, Leung FLE, Wallhead T, Morgan K, Milton D, et al. Effect of sport education on students’ perceived physical literacy, motiva- tion, and physical activity levels in university required physical education: a cluster-randomized trial. High Educ. 2020;81(6):1137–55. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10734-020-00603-5

21. Luna P, Guerrero J, Cejudo J. Improving adolescents’ subjective well-being, trait emotional intelligence and social anxiety through a programme based on the Sport Education Model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(10):1821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16101821 PMID: 31126004 22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 PMID: 33782057 23. Amir-Behghadami M, Janati A. Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes and Study (PICOS) design as a framework to formulate eligibility criteria in systematic reviews. Emerg Med J. 2020;37(6):387. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2020-209567 PMID: 32253195 24. Flemyng E, Moore TH, Boutron I, Higgins JP, Hróbjartsson A, Nejstgaard CH, et al. Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised con- trolled trials: guidance from Cochrane. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28(4):260–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112102 PMID: 36693715 25. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 PMID: 27733354 26. Schünemann HJ, Mustafa RA, Brozek J, Steingart KR, Leeflang M, Murad MH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;122:129–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jclinepi.2019.12.020 PMID: 32060007 27. Kovacs M, Goldston D. Cognitive and social cognitive development of depressed children and adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1991;30(3):388–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199105000-00006 PMID: 1711524 28. Zhao M, Lu X, Zhang Q, Zhao R, Wu B, Huang S, et al. Effects of exergames on student physical education learning in the context of the artificial intelligence era: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):7115. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57357-8 PMID: 38531948 29. Deng N, Soh KG, Abdullah BB, Huang D, Xu F, Bashir M, et al. Effects of plyometric training on health-related physical fitness in untrained partici- pants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):11272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-61905-7 PMID: 38760392 30. Ramirez-Campillo R, Perez-Castilla A, Thapa RK, Afonso J, Clemente FM, Colado JC, et al. Effects of plyometric jump training on measures of physical fitness and sport-specific performance of water sports athletes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med Open. 2022;8(1):108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00502-2 PMID: 36036301 31. Deeks J J, Higgins J P T, Altman D G, et al. Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of inter- ventions. Wiley; 2019. pp. 241–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch10 32. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Special topics in statistics. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: Cochrane book series. 2008. pp. 481–529.

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331228 October 16, 2025 17 / 17 34. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 PMID: 9310563 35. Luna P, Rodríguez-Donaire A, Rodrigo-Ruiz D, Cejudo J. Subjective well-being and psychosocial adjustment: examining the effects of an interven- tion based on the Sport Education Model on children. Sustainability. 2020;12(11):4570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114570 36. Burgueño R, Medina-Casaubón J. Sport education and sportsmanship orientations: an intervention in high school students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):837. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030837 PMID: 32013106 37. Liu H, Shen W, Hu A, Wang W, Li W, Hastie PA. The impact of sport education on physical education majors’ basketball content knowledge and performance. J Teach Phys Educ. 2023;42(3):480–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2022-0058 38. Sukiri S, Widyawan D, Setiawan I, Pelana R, Sari EFN, Razali R. The effect of sport education on empowerment and self-confidence. J Cakrawala Pendidikan. 2024;43(3):737–45. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v43i3.60078 39. Browne TBJ, Carlson TB, Hastie PA. A comparison of rugby seasons presented in traditional and sport education formats. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2004;10(2):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x04044071 40. Wahl-Alexander Z, Chomentowski P. Impact of a university physical conditioning sport education season on students’ fitness levels. Health Educ J.

2018;77(7):828–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896918776340 41. Burgueño R, Cueto-Martín B, Morales-Ortiz E, et al. Clarifying the influence of sport education on basic psychological need satisfaction in high school students. Motricidade. 2018;14(2-3):48–58. https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.13318 42. Fernandez-Rio J, Casey A. Sport education as a cooperative learning endeavour. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2020;26(4):375–87. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/17408989.2020.1810220 43. Bessa C, Hastie P, Rosado A, Mesquita I. Sport education and traditional teaching: influence on students’ empowerment and self-confidence in high school physical education classes. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020578 44. Franco E, Tovar C, González-Peño A, Coterón J. Effects of a Sport Education Model-based teaching intervention on students’ behavioral and motiva- tional outcomes within the physical education setting in the cOVID-19 scenario. Sustainability. 2021;13(22):12468. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212468 45. Liao C-C, Hsu C-H, Kuo K-P, Luo Y-J, Kao C-C. Ability of the Sport Education Model to promote healthy lifestyles in university students: a random- ized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2174. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032174 PMID: 36767543 46. Suryadi D, Okilanda A, Nofrizal D. How does cooperative learning work with students?: Literature review in physical education. Retos: nuevas tendencias en educación física, deporte y recreación. 2024;55:527–35.

47. MacPhail A, Kirk D, Kinchin G. Sport education: promoting team affiliation through physical education. J Teach Phys Educ. 2004;23(2):106–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.23.2.106 48. Evangelio Caballero C, Sierra-Díaz MJ, González-Víllora S, Fernández-Rio FJ. The Sport Education Model in elementary and secondary educa- tion: a systematic review. Movimento. 2018;24(3):931. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.81689 49. Jia Z-R. Effects of teaching games for understanding integrated Sport Education Model on college students’ football cognitive performance and motor skills. Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială. 2021;72:274–87. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.72.17 50. Eyuboğlu E, Dalkıran O. Comparison of the effects of sports education and direct teaching models on the attitude and cognitive domain level of undergraduate students. J Educ Learn. 2020;9(2):191. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v9n2p191 51. Dai J, Chen J, Huang Z, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun J, et al. Age-effects of Sport Education Model on basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation of adolescent students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2024;19(5):e0297878. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297878 PMID: 38753621 52. Dese DC, Wibowo C. Enhancing motivation, physical activity, and motor skills through a sport management program based on the Sport Education Model. Retos: nuevas tendencias en educación física, deporte y recreación. 2025;64:589–600. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v64.110949

53. Chen Y-C, Lu Y-L, Lien C-J. Learning environments with different levels of technological engagement: a comparison of game-based, video-based, and traditional instruction on students’ learning. Inter Learn Environ. 2019;29(8):1363–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1628781 54. García-González L, Abós Á, Diloy-Peña S, Gil-Arias A, Sevil-Serrano J. Can a Hybrid Sport Education/Teaching Games for Understand- ing Volleyball Unit Be More Effective in Less Motivated Students? An Examination into a Set of Motivation-Related Variables. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):6170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156170 55. Martínez de Ojeda D, Puente-Maxera F, Méndez-Giménez A. Motivational and Social Effects of a Multiannual Sport Education Program. Int J Med Sci Phys Act Sport/Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte. 2021; 21(81). https://doi.org/10.15366/ rimcafd2021.81.003 56. Jeno LM, Vandvik V, Eliassen S, Grytnes J-A. Testing the novelty effect of an m-learning tool on internalization and achievement: a self- determination theory approach. Comput Educ. 2019;128:398–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.008 57. Hsu W-T, Lin A, Shang I-W. The role of novelty satisfaction in distance physical education during the COVID-19 pandemic: a self-determination theory perspective. Psychol Rep. 2023;126(6):2924–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221092655 PMID: 35532003 58. Evans P, Vansteenkiste M, Parker P, Kingsford-Smith A, Zhou S. Cognitive load theory and its relationships with motivation: a self-determination

theory perspective. Educ Psychol Rev. 2024;36(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09841-2 59. van Nooijen CCA, de Koning BB, Bramer WM, Isahakyan A, Asoodar M, Kok E, et al. A cognitive load theory approach to understanding expert scaffolding of visual problem-solving tasks: a scoping review. Educ Psychol Rev. 2024;36(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09848-3