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].

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 systematic review and analysis (Fig 1 and S1 File).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957.g001

2.3 Eligibility criteria

A PICOS framework [18] was used to rate studies for eligibility. The criteria include the following:

1. Inclusion Criteria: (1) Published in peer-reviewed international journals; (2) Implementation of a hybrid PM incorporating the SEM in physical education (PE) environment; (3) Primary 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.
2. 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 specifically 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, Purpose, 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 Corporation, Redmond, WA, United States), and a third reviewer (K.G.S) subsequently verified its accuracy.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Data extraction included in the study.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957.t001

Previous studies have indicated that learning outcomes encompass motor learning, cognitive 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 explains learning about strategies and decision-making abilities [63]; affective learning typically 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 systematic review. Subsequently, the quality of published manuscripts was evaluated using a checklist adapted from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in 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) Inclusion 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 determined 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 inclusion. 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.

3.1 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 Australia (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 numbers but did not specify the ages of the students. The hybrid PMs curriculum primarily centered around sports such as soccer, basketball, volleyball, handball, taekwondo, frisbee, and various game-based activities like invasion games and batting/fielding games.

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 studies 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 reliability testing, and 22 studies lacked models’ fidelity procedures.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957.t002

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 learning outcomes.

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 characteristics 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 contexts, 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 maintaining 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 factors: 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].

Firstly, while constructivist learning theory and game theory serve as the theoretical underpinnings 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, formal competition, culminating events, record-keeping, and festivity helps students experience 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 organizational 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 environment and supports improved decision-making, game performance, and overall involvement [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 competition, and role-playing, while integrating SGA’s learning tasks and sports skills taught during 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, formal competition, culminating event, record keeping, and festivity) to provide a structured and authentic learning environment. SEM-TPSR encourages cooperation, self-esteem development, 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 organizational 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 optimizes 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 constructivist principles and the complementary strengths of both models. The Invasion Game Competence 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 structured framework, including stable teams, formal competitions, and role-playing, while IGCM 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 agility did not show significant improvement, whereas the traditional teaching group demonstrated 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 understanding 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 teaching 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 accurately 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.