Pedagogical models: Can they make a difference to girls’ in-class physical activity?

Abstract

Background:

Research has shown the positive connections between physical activity and health, and physical education has been shown to influence the motivation to participate in physical activities. Student-centred pedagogical models encouraging active learning may be capable of bringing about changes in girls’ physical activity.

Objective:

The aim of the study was to investigate whether a hybrid pedagogical model could make a difference to adolescent girls’ in-class physical activity levels.

Design, setting and method:

Sixty-six students aged 13–17 years participated in the study from two Year 9 and two Year 11 classes in three different high schools. All classes experienced the same 12-session hybrid sports education-tactical games learning unit. To objectively measure students’ physical activity, participants wore accelerometers.

Results and conclusion:

The overall results showed that students spent 39.74% of the class in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), but girls showed statistically significantly lower scores. While in the role of judge/referee (27.34% of the class), students showed significantly higher levels of sedentary physical activity. Finally, year 11 students showed higher MVPA than Year 9 students. In conclusion, hybrid pedagogical models, per se, may not help girls achieve MVPA scores similar to those of boys. Teachers need to identify the barriers and make necessary changes to achieve this goal. Some ideas for doing so are discussed in the paper.

Keywords

Accelerometers adolescents models-based practice hybrid sports education physical education

Introduction

The link between physical activity and health is well documented (Cairney et al., 2019; Ramírez et al., 2021). However, many factors (including age, gender and parental support) can influence an individual’s level of physical activity and reduce the possible benefits (Arazi et al., 2022; Santina et al., 2021). Researchers point to adolescence as a time when the foundations for subsequent adult health are laid and warn against a decrease in physical activity at this time (García-Hermoso et al., 2022; Nogg et al., 2021). Although recently published guidelines recommend at least 60 minutes a day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years (World Health Organization [WHO], 2020), research indicates that 80% of adolescents fail to meet this goal (van Sluijs et al., 2021), especially girls and women, who consistently have lower levels of physical activity, declining even further as they age (O’Brien et al., 2021).

Researchers believe that schools can play a key role in changing this situation (Alcántara-Porcuna et al., 2022; Dauenhauer et al., 2022). The benefits of physical activity can be promoted in schools, encouraging students to be more active (Beets et al., 2016; Institute of Medicine, 2013). In particular, good-quality physical education holds the potential to be a major promoter of physical activity (Mayorga-Vega et al., 2018). For children who do not participate in extracurricular sport, this curricular subject may provide their sole opportunity to be physically active (Dauenhauer et al., 2022; Meyer et al., 2013) since physical education lessons can significantly contribute to the total amount of physical activity registered in a day (Mayorga-Vega et al. 2017). To help teachers set a physical activity goal for every lesson, the US Department of Health and Human Services (2018) has determined that students should be engaged in MVPA at least 50% of the time. Results indicate varying success between schools in achieving this aim: some report achieving this goal MVPA (Dudley et al., 2012), whereas others have been unable to do so (Marmeleira et al., 2012; Mayorga-Vega et al., 2017; Viciana et al., 2016). The teaching approach used by the teacher (e.g. in terms of methodology, grouping, resources, pacing) is considered a key element in achieving positive or negative outcomes with respect to MVPA (Nesbitt et al., 2021).

Gender is a key individual factor influencing physical activity (Butt et al., 2011). Focusing on physical education, research has found significant differences between girls and boys, with boys generally showing higher levels of MVPA (Mayorga-Vega et al., 2017; Meyer et al., 2013; Viciana et al., 2016). Many other factors contribute to this difference. For example, whether a physical education class is single-gender or coeducational has an impact, as girls spend significantly more time in MVPA in all-girl classes (Wallace et al., 2020). The content of classes may also be influential, as some male-dominated sports such as football and basketball do not encourage girls’ participation (Eime et al., 2022; Griggs and Fleet, 2021). In addition, societal norms suggest appropriate physical activity for boys or girls and what is suitable for their bodies and sexuality, which can result in young women becoming disengaged from sport (Scraton, 2018). Moreover, sports in general – and some team sports in particular such as handball and football – are associated with women being less feminine and with men being more masculine, which affects girls’ participation and perceptions of capability (Butt et al., 2011). Furthermore, girls get less social support for engaging in physical activity (Metcalf, 2018). In addition, the way that physical education teachers – consciously or unconsciously – conduct their lessons also has an effect, and lessons often follow masculine or feminine discourses and gendered habits, which can be detrimental to girls’ physical activity. Influenced by all of this, girls tend to enjoy their physical education classes less than boys (Huhtiniemi et al., 2019). Reasons like these led (Corr et al., 2019) to highlight gender as a key factor affecting levels of physical activity during adolescence and health in adulthood. While very young children show few significant differences based on gender, such differences begin to appear by the end of primary school and increase during adolescence (Saunders et al., 2022).

Models-based practice offers an innovative approach to providing children with high-quality physical activity experiences (Casey and Kirk, 2020) since it promotes the use of different pedagogical models as part of the physical education class (Casey and MacPhail, 2018). The term ‘pedagogical’ here emphasises the interconnection of teaching, learning, subject matter and context (Rovegno, 2006), while ‘model’ indicates benchmarks, lines of action and guidelines for practitioners to follow during implementation. Four main pedagogical models have been identified in physical education: cooperative learning, sports education, teaching games to aid understanding (e.g. tactical games) and teaching for personal and social responsibility (Fernandez-Rio et al., 2016). In each of these cases, the approach taken promotes student-centred, active, enquiry-based learning across four learning domains: cognitive, physical, social, and affective (Dyson et al., 2004).

Focusing on the physical, these approaches have the potential to spark change and help girls experience physical education classes so as to become more active individuals. Previous research on the sport education model (SEM) found no significant differences between boys and girls in MVPA (Rocamora et al., 2019). Regarding the tactical games model (TGM), there are contradictory results. Harvey et al. (2015, 2016a) found no significant MVPA differences based on gender in primary or middle school students, while Smith et al. (2015) and Wang and Wang (2018) did find such differences. Pedagogical models such as the TGM, whereby students are actively encouraged to develop their tactical awareness (Griffin and Butler, 2005), or sports education, where students are supported to become educated sportspeople (Siedentop et al., 2019), seem to produce more encouraging results. However, the question is whether bringing together these pedagogical models can make a real difference to girls’ in-class physical activity levels.

Pedagogical models that seek to actively involve students can help build physically literate individuals (Bessa et al., 2019). However, some authors have argued that the implementation of these approaches demands more management time (which promotes non-playing student roles such as observer or recorder) and detracts time from skill acquisition and practice (Evangelio et al., 2016; Fernandez-Rio and Iglesias, 2022). It is worth asking whether these frameworks negatively impact students’ in-class physical activity levels. To our knowledge, only three studies have tried to answer this question, and they reported an increase in engagement and physical activity levels when students performed roles such as referee, player or coach (Hastie, 1996; Hastie and Sinelnikov, 2006; Wahl-Alexander et al., 2019). However, no existing studies have used accelerometry to objectively assess the difference between playing (player) and non-playing roles (referee). Moreover, to our knowledge, no research has compared physical activity levels between playing (players) and non-playing roles (scorekeeper) while implementing different pedagogical models.

Based on the above, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a hybrid pedagogical model on adolescent girls’ in-class physical activity levels. Our second aim was to compare students’ physical activity while performing playing (player) and non-playing roles (judge/referee). The third and final goal was to assess participating students’ physical activity levels based on the grade they were in. The first hypothesis was that girls will have similar MVPA scores to boys and that the hybrid pedagogical model will make a real difference upgrading girls’ scores. The second hypothesis was that students will have lower MVPA scores when performing the judge/referee role, failing to achieve the recommendations for physical education lessons. The third and final hypothesis was that older students will have lower MVPA scores than younger students.

Materials and methods

Participants

Sixty-six students (29 boys, 37 girls), age range 13–17 years (14.92 ± 1.36), from two Year 9 (n = 23) and two Year 11 (n = 43) physical education classes agreed to participate. They belonged to three different high schools in northern Spain. All students experienced a hybrid SEM-TGM learning unit (the same learning unit in each grade). One teacher (M.O.), an expert in the use of pedagogical models, conducted all the classes over two consecutive school years (in one school during the first school year and in the other two schools in the following school year). The goal was to conduct the study in a naturalistic educational context where the teacher was already working.

Procedure

The study adopted a one-group, prospective research design, in that a group of individuals who possessed one trait (in this case, experiencing a hybrid SEM-TGM learning unit) was assessed over a period of time. This approach was cross-sectional in nature (Cohen et al., 2011). Convenience sampling was used because the participating students were enrolled in the classes that the contributing teacher was required to teach.

Permissions

Approval from the University of Oviedo Ethics Committee was first obtained. Following this, the project was introduced to the participating schools’ administrations and to students’ parents, and written consent was obtained from all of them. The study respected key ethical values including written informed consent, the right to information about all the procedures, protection of personal data (anonymised), guarantees of confidentiality, non-discrimination regarding gender or socio-economic status, and the opportunity to leave the study at any time (McMillan and Schumacher, 2001).

Intervention

All classes experienced the same 12-session hybrid SEM-TGM Team Handball learning unit. Each session lasted 50 minutes (two per week). Hastie and Casey (2014) highlighted that in order to assess the fidelity of a model’s implementation, it is necessary to provide ‘a) a rich description of the curricular elements of the unit, b) a detailed validation of model implementation, and c) a detailed description of the programme context’ (p. 423). These are detailed below.

Sport education model

The design of the unit adhered to the six essential features of the model (Siedentop, 1998):

Season: The learning unit was delivered as part of a longer 12-session season.

Formal competition: In each season, there were two formal competitions. The first of these assessed individual skills (dribbling, passing and shooting), with judges awarding points to players according to the standard of their performance. While a competition format has traditionally been used in the assessment of individual sports (Siedentop et al., 2019), Siedentop (1994) highlighted how teachers can create their own competition format so long as there is no elimination and there is full participation. The second competition involved games between small teams, in which students took it in turns to act as referees.

Affiliation: The teacher grouped students into mixed teams (by gender and skills) of four to five members for the whole unit (each team included high- and low-skilled students to make the teams similar in ability); each team had to design a shirt, a flag, a cheer, a mascot and self-made medals to be awarded at the culminating event.

Record keeping: Points were awarded in each competition (in the first competition: 5 points for skill execution; in the second competition, 2 points for the win), but also daily for bringing the team’s clothing to class (1 point per student/day, 2 points for bringing the flag, 2 points for bringing the mascot) or performing the allocated roles correctly (1 point per student/day).

Culminating event: In the last session, a final tournament was organised, where all teams played each other and exchanged their self-made medals.

Festivity: Together, the previously mentioned elements helped create a fun atmosphere. In addition, all students performed different roles during the unit: player, referee, judge, conditioning coach (the person in charge of the warm-ups), coach, team captain and equipment manager. Students changed roles after every session in order to have performed each of them by the end of the learning unit.

Tactical games model

The learning unit also adhered to the TGM’s five basic elements (Butler et al., 2008).

Session structure: Lessons were based on a three-stage structure which included (a) game form: students play a small-sided game created to address a specific tactical problem, (b) tactical awareness: the teacher guides students using questions to help them identify the tactical problem and the skills they need and (c) skill execution: the teacher shows students how to use the right technique.

Tactical goals: Each lesson included goals related to the tactical aspects of the game (e.g. choose the best pass depending on the teammate’s position), and the skills learned were part of the solution to the tactical problem to be solved (e.g. learning clues were used to teach different passes).

Representation: Competition maintained the essence of the sport (Team Handball), but it was adapted to meet students’ requirements (e.g. organising 4 × 4 small-sided games).

Exaggeration: Tasks were modified to address the students’ technical and tactical needs (e.g. the goal of one game was to make a specific number of passes between all teammates).

Questioning: The teacher provided the students with open-ended questions to guide their learning and promote their tactical awareness (e.g. ‘Which do you think is the best pass option?’ Once the student had answered, the teacher continued, ‘How would you pass the ball?’).

To validate the instructional approach implemented, all sessions were videotaped. Four clips from each group were randomly selected and sent to two independent researchers, experts on instructional design, to verify the intervention programme. A checklist with benchmarks (adapted from Hastie et al., 2013) was designed to assess adherence to the basic elements of both the SEM and the TGM (Figure 1). Both observers scored 24 points on each instructional approach (100% fidelity). They also reached 100% inter-observer agreement.

Figure 1.

Checklist.

The physical education teacher who conducted the learning unit had previous experience of pedagogical models and attended a 20-hour training seminar (5 hours theory, 15 hours practice) on SEM and TGM to become stronger on both models and their hybridisation. That seminar was conducted by a university professor with more than 20 years of experience using both models. It included various tasks, pre-designed sessions, video analysis and feedback to develop the final version of the learning unit and assess the implementation process. Following Braithwaite et al. (2011), the goal was to provide adequate training and support to the teacher both prior to and during the intervention programme.

Instruments

Accelerometers

In order to objectively measure participants’ physical activity levels, ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers (ActiGraphTM, Fort Walton Beach, FL, USA) were used. Data were collected every 10 seconds, measuring acceleration on three axes. The cut-off points were adjusted for children (Freedson et al., 2005) to categorise the physical activity intensity as sedentary (SED) (0–149 counts per minute [cpm]), light (LiPA) (150–499 cpm), moderate (MPA) (500–3999 cpm), and vigorous (VPA) (>4,000). MVPA was also calculated. Before the beginning of each physical education session, researchers placed the accelerometers on the children’s body, above the right hip and under the clothes, using an elastic strap. The researchers collected all accelerometers at the end of each session.

Data analysis

Actilife 6.7.1. software (ActiGraph^TM, Fort Walton Beach, FL, USA) was used to download data from the accelerometers prior to analysis aided by SPSS 24.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). Exploratory and preliminary analyses were conducted to establish whether data met parametric assumptions. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (n > 50) showed that the dependent variables were normally distributed (p > .05). From that point onwards, parametric tests were used to analyse the data. In order to assess overall physical activity levels, descriptive statistics were calculated. Then, a one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to assess differences based on the role adopted (player, judge/referee), gender (boys, girls) and grade (two Year 9, two Year 11). Effect size was also calculated and defined as small: d = .2, medium: d = .5 and large: d = .8 (Cohen, 1988). The level of significance was set at p < .05.

Results

Overall results regarding physical activity levels during the physical education class gave the following mean scores: sedentary = 25.70 ± 6.33 minutes, light = 9.54 ± 5.62 minutes, moderate = 15.45 ± 3.31 minutes, vigorous = 3.81 ± 1.84 minutes, very vigorous = 0.60 ± 0.56 minutes, MVPA = 19.87 ± 4.87 minutes, and steps = 1,504.64 ± 304.87. Since the classes lasted 50 minutes on average, students spent 39.74% of the time in MVPA.

With respect to gender, the results showed statistically significant differences, in that boys spent more time in moderate (p = .010), vigorous (p = .036), and MVPA (p = .010) than girls. Boys spent 43.18% of class time in MVPA, while girls spent only 37.04% of time this way (Table 1).

Table 1.

One-factor ANOVA of participants’ physical activity levels by gender (overall results).

	Boys	Girls	F	d
Sedentary	24.27 ± 6.19	26.83 ± 6.30	.104	.20
Light	9.71 ± 6.12	9.40 ± 5.28	.825	–
Moderate	16.52 ± 3.18*	14.62 ± 3.20	.010	.28
Vigorous	4.36 ± 2.18*	3.37 ± 1.42	.036	.25
Very vigorous	0.71 ± 0.70	0.52 ± 0.42	.187	–
MVPA	21.59 ± 5.36*	18.52 ± 4.04	.010	.30
Steps	1,381.66 ± 479.37	1,256.35 ± 545.75	.245	–

ANOVA: analysis of variance; MVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

p ⩽ .001; F = significance.

With respect to students’ roles as judge/referee or player, the results showed that there were statistically significant differences in favour of the player role in moderate (p ⩽ .001), vigorous (p ⩽ .001), very vigorous (p ⩽ .001), MVPA (p ⩽ .001) and steps (p ⩽ .001), and in favour of the judge/referee role in sedentary activities (p ⩽ .001). Moreover, the data showed that participants who were playing judge/referee roles spent 27.34% of the 50-minute class in MVPA compared with 41.94% when they performed player roles (Table 2).

Table 2.

One-factor ANOVA of participants’ physical activity levels by student role.

	Player	Judge/Referee	F	d
Sedentary	24.74 ± 5.99	30.86 ± 9.14*	.000	.36
Light	9.42 ± 5.47	10.38 ± 6.96	.384	–
Moderate	16.09 ± 3.42*	11.69 ± 4.46	.000	.48
Vigorous	4.20 ± 2.06*	1.72 ± 1.48	.000	.56
Very vigorous	0.67 ± 0.65*	0.25 ± 0.33	.000	.38
MVPA	20.97 ± 5.5*	13.67 ± 5.52	.000	.55
Steps	1,621.75 ± 316.46*	840.62 ± 317.75	.000	.77

ANOVA: analysis of variance; MVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

p ⩽ .001; F = significance.

Finally, with respect to grade, the results showed that there were statistically significant differences in favour of Year 9 students in light physical activity (p ⩽ .001) and steps (p = .014), while scores were significantly higher for Year 11 students in sedentary (p ⩽ .001), moderate (p ⩽ .001), vigorous (p = .001), very vigorous (p = .024), and MVPA (p ⩽ .001) levels of activity. Year 9 students spent only 30.36% of the sessions in MVPA, while Year11 students spent 44.76% (Table 3).

Table 3.

One-factor ANOVA of participants’ physical activity levels by grade level.

	Year 9	Year 11	F	d
Sedentary	18.50 ± 3.13	29.55 ± 3.66*	.001	.85
Light	16.87 ± 2.21*	5.61 ± 1.06	.001	.95
Moderate	12.04 ± 2.32	17.28 ± 2.09*	.001	.70
Vigorous	2.77 ± 1.41	4.36 ± 1.82*	.001	.43
Very vigorous	0.36 ± 0.37	0.73 ± 0.61*	.024	.34
MVPA	15.18 ± 3.07	22.38 ± 3.65*	.001	.72
Steps	1,680.54 ± 274.93*	1,410.52 ± 279.72	.014	.43

ANOVA: analysis of variance; MVPA: Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity.

p ⩽ .001; F = significance.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a hybrid pedagogical model on adolescent girls’ in-class physical activity levels, and the results showed that their scores remained significantly low. Our second aim was to compare students’ physical activity levels while performing playing (player) and non-playing (judge/referee) roles; the results showed significantly lower scores for the non-playing roles. The third and final goal was to assess participating students’ physical activity levels based on which grade they were in, and the results showed significantly higher scores for older students.

The first hypothesis was that girls would have similar MVPA scores to boys and that the hybrid pedagogical model would make a real difference. However, the data do not support this. Pedagogical models can promote student-centred, active, inquiry-based learning contexts (Dyson et al., 2004). They have the potential to foster change and help girls experience physical education classes in which they can become active individuals. Unfortunately, the results showed that this potential was not enough to level out boys’ and girls’ MVPA scores. More needs to be done. In particular, teachers need to identify specific barriers to girls’ engagement, enjoyment and participation, and assist girls in overcoming those obstacles (Oliver and Kirk, 2016). Specific actions teachers can take in this respect include changing the rules to create safe spaces during game play (e.g. by providing an extra number of dribbles with the ball and/or a 2-m safe area around the ball carrier) to help girls and any low-skilled individuals learn, improve and participate successfully. Physical education classes should not focus exclusively on physical performance, because doing that is likely to favour boys (Telford et al., 2016). Teachers should listen carefully to girls to help them overcome the barriers they consistently identify (e.g. girls have to constantly prove themselves to boys; girls’ fear of being embarrassed by the boys or even by the teacher) (Oliver and Kirk, 2016). Selecting girls as team captains or coaches, and giving them a star role, could help them thrive in physical education classes and enhance participation.

There are no previous data on hybrid models (SEM-TGM) and MVPA, so we must compare our results to those from previous studies with single models. Looking at SEM, Rocamora et al. (2019) found no significant differences between boys and girls in MVPA. Age may be responsible for these results because that study was conducted with Year 5 (primary) students. Saunders et al. (2022) documented how gender differences in physical activity increase drastically during adolescence. There have been contradictory results with regard to TGM. Harvey et al. (2015, 2016a, 2016b) found no significant MVPA differences based on gender in primary or middle school students, while Smith et al. (2015) and Wang and Wang (2018) did find such differences. Two important factors could have influenced these results: group composition (single-sex vs mixed-sex classes) and lesson content (net games vs ‘invasion’ games). The present study included mixed-sex classes, which have been shown to be associated with girls spending significantly less time in MVPA (Wallace et al., 2020). It also involved an invasion-based, male-dominated sport (team handball), which did not encourage girls’ participation and, consequently, their MVPA (Griggs and Fleet, 2021).

Unfortunately, these two elements did not help the participating girls achieve similar MVPA scores to their male classmates. One of the main goals of physical education is to contribute to the development of active lifestyles, but gender, as well as associated experiences in and out of school, can affect this goal (Butt et al., 2011). Following Metcalf (2018), in the present study girls received the same social support to engage in physical activity practice and they performed the same roles as their male classmates (the participating teacher was closely supervised by the research team in pursuit of these goals). This was not enough to produce similar MVPA scores and clearly more needs to be done. Coeducational and single-gender lessons (Wallace et al., 2020), social classification of content as masculine or feminine (Butt et al., 2011), teachers’ expectations and behaviours (Preece and Bullingham, 2022) and barriers to enjoyment and engagement (Fisette and Walton, 2014) are some of the reasons for the differences between girls’ and boys’ participation and, consequently, MVPA. Each needs to be carefully considered to empower girls in physical education classes (e.g. by promoting single-gender tasks, introducing gender-neutral content, making teachers aware of some stereotyped discourses and avoiding embarrassment during performance or assessment). Research has shown that pedagogical models, single or hybridised, per se, cannot promote girls’ in-class physical activity to similar levels to boys’. Teachers need to make changes (such as those detailed above) to achieve this goal.

The second hypothesis was that students would have lower MVPA scores when performing judge/referee roles, and not achieve the recommendations for a physical education class. Our results confirmed this. As expected, there were significant differences in physical activity levels between playing and non-playing roles. The objective measures from the present study should alert teachers to how specific roles can alter students’ overall physical activity levels. Unfortunately, in the present study, neither role (judge/referee or player) reached the minimum MVPA recommendation (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). Again, to our knowledge, there are no similar studies of hybridisation (SEM-TGM) to compare this with, and we must discuss preceding work on single models. Previous research has shown high levels of active involvement when students performed non-playing roles in a sport education unit (Hastie, 1996). In the present study, where students did not achieve the minimum MVPA recommendations, the learning outcomes encouraged by non-playing roles (e.g. fair play, leadership, responsibility) are also important to foster in adolescents. Therefore, there needs to be a balance in the use of playing and non-playing roles. Although the latter reduce MVPA time, they stimulate the development of other skills and knowledge (e.g. tactical awareness and cognitive knowledge) that are needed to spark interest and participation in sport outside school. Physical education can help students to meet the daily 60-minute MVPA goal, which can contribute to the maintenance of a healthy lifestyle during adolescence (WHO, 2020), and maybe into adulthood, but non-playing roles significantly decrease the amount of time students spend in MVPA, with possible consequences on health. Therefore, teachers should monitor the amount of time students spend performing these non-playing roles.

The third hypothesis was that older students would have lower MVPA scores. Our results did not confirm this since Year 11 students recorded significantly higher scores than Year 9 students. Again, as far as we are aware, there are no similar studies of hybridisation (SEM-TGM) to compare with. If we look at single approaches, and the TGM specifically, Harvey et al. (2016b) found a pattern of higher MVPA in middle school students compared to elementary students. They argued that older students were able to engage with the TGM framework faster, becoming more involved. Results from the present study indicate that hybrid forms of pedagogy such as the one used in the study (SEM-TGM) can help Year 11 students achieve higher in-class physical activity levels than their younger schoolmates, which runs contrary to the current negative pattern as children get older (Nogg et al., 2021). Of course, more research is needed to confirm this idea. Nevertheless, this finding could be noteworthy because adolescent behaviour is a key link between physical activity during childhood and adulthood (Huotari et al., 2011), and behaviours related to physical activity can change across different periods of life (García-Hermoso et al., 2022). Recent studies have shown that only a small percentage of adolescents meet the 60 minutes a day MVPA recommendation (WHO, 2020). Physical education may be a ‘tool’ that could be used to modify these negative data (Dauenhauer et al., 2022; Viciana et al., 2016), but suitable methodological approaches are needed, such as the one used in the present study (SEM-TGM).

Limitations

The present study is not without limitations. First, the number of participants was small and future studies should be conducted with larger samples. Second, convenience sampling was used. Similar studies should be conducted using more representative sampling. Third, the study used a one-group, prospective research design. In future work, experimental and/or quasi-experimental designs should be used to draw causal relationships. Fourth, the 12-session unit could be considered relatively short. Longer units should be developed to assess the impact of more prolonged interventions.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess students’ physical activity levels in a hybrid SEM-TGM learning unit using accelerometers. Four major outcomes can be highlighted: (a) the use of this hybrid pedagogical model cannot help adolescent girls’ in-class MVPA scores match those of their male peers; (b) the roles that students play in class (playing vs non-playing) can significantly affect their physical activity levels, and this should be carefully considered when planning classes/tasks; (c) the hybrid model helped older students (Year 11) achieve higher physical activity levels than younger students (Year 9); and (d) the hybrid model did not help students meet MVPA recommendations for the physical education class. The use of hybrid pedagogical models per se may not help girls achieve MVPA scores similar to those of boys. Teachers need to focus instead on the barriers that prevent girls from achieving this goal.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Javier Fernandez-Rio

References

Alcántara-Porcuna

Sánchez-López

Martínez-Andrés

, et al. (2022) Teachers’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators of the school environment for physical activity in schoolchildren: a qualitative study. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health. Epub ahead of print 17 February. DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2022.2037696.

Arazi

Izadi

Kabirian

(2022) Interactive effect of socio-eco-demographic characteristics and perceived physical activity barriers on physical activity level among older adults. European. Review of Aging and Physical Activity 19: 8.

Beets

Okely

Weaver

, et al. (2016) The theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced opportunities for youth physical activity promotion. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 13: 120.

Bessa

Hastie

Araújo

, et al. (2019) What do we know about the development of personal and social skills within the sport education model: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 18(4): 812–829.

Braithwaite

Spray

Warburton

(2011) Motivational climate interventions in physical education: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12: 628–638.

Butler

Oslin

Mitchell

, et al. (2008) The way forward for TGfU: Filling the chasm between theory and practice. Physical and Health Education Journal 74(1): 6–12.

Butt

Weinberg

Breckon

, et al. (2011) Adolescent physical activity participation and motivational determinants across gender, age, and race. Journal of Physical Activity & Health 8(8): 1074–1083.

Cairney

Dudley

Kwan

, et al. (2019) Physical literacy, physical activity and health: Toward an evidence-informed conceptual model. Sports Medicine 49(3): 371–383.

Casey

Kirk

(2020) Models-based Practice in Physical Education. London: Routledge.

10.

Casey

MacPhail

(2018) Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23(3): 294–310.

11.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

13.

Corr

McSharry

Murtagh

(2019) Adolescent girls’ perceptions of physical activity: A systematic review of qualitative studies. American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP 33(5): 806–819.

14.

Dauenhauer

Kulinna

Marttinen

, et al. (2022) Before- and after-school physical activity: Programs and best practices. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 93(5): 20–26.

15.

Dudley

Okely

Pearson

, et al. (2012) Changes in physical activity levels, lesson context, and teacher interaction during physical education in culturally and linguistically diverse Australian schools. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9: 1–9.

16.

Dyson

Griffin

Hastie

(2004) Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest 56(2): 226–240.

17.

Eime

Harvey

Charity

, et al. (2022) Participation of Australian women and girls in traditionally male-dominated sports 2016–2018. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics 14(3): 545–561.

18.

Evangelio

González-Villora

Serra-Olivares

, et al. (2016) The sport education model in Spain: A review of the state of the art and outlook. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte 16(1): 307–324.

19.

Fernandez-Rio

Calderon

Hortigüela

, et al. (2016) Pedagogical models in physical education: Considerations for theory and practice. Revista Española de Educación Física y Deportes 413: 55–75.

20.

Fernandez-Rio

Iglesias

(2022) What do we know about pedagogical models in physical education so far: An umbrella review. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. Epub ahead of print 17 February. DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2022.2039615.

21.

Fisette

Walton

(2014) ‘If you really knew me’… I am empowered through action. Sport, Education and Society 19(2): 131–152.

22.

Freedson

Pober

Janz

(2005) Calibration of accelerometer output for children. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37(11 Suppl.): S523–S530.

23.

García-Hermoso

Izquierdo

Ramírez-Vélez

(2022) Tracking of physical fitness levels from childhood and adolescence to adulthood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Translational Pediatrics 11(4): 474–486.

24.

Griffin

Butler

(2005) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

25.

Griggs

Fleet

(2021) Most people hate physical education and most drop out of physical activity: In search of credible curriculum alternatives. Education Sciences 11: 701.

26.

Harvey

Smith

Fairclough

, et al. (2015) Investigation of pupils’ levels of MVPA and VPA during physical education units focused on direct instruction and tactical games models. The Physical Educator 72: 40–58.

27.

Harvey

Smith

Song

, et al. (2016a) Gender and school-level differences in students’ moderate and vigorous physical activity levels when taught basketball through the tactical games model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35: 349–357.

28.

Harvey

Song

Baek

, et al. (2016b) Two sides of the same coin: Student physical activity levels during a game-centred soccer unit. European Physical Education Review 22(4): 411–429.

29.

Hastie

(1996) Student Role Involvement during a Unit of Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16: 88–103.

30.

Hastie

Calderon

Rolim

, et al. (2013) The development of skill and knowledge during a sport education season of track and field athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84(3): 336–344.

31.

Hastie

Casey

(2014) Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33: 422–431.

32.

Hastie

Sinelnikov

(2006) Russian students’ participation in and perceptions of a season of Sport Education. European Physical Education Review 12(2): 131–150.

33.

Huotari

Nupponen

Mikkelsson

, et al. (2011) Adolescent physical fitness and activity as predictors of adulthood activity. Journal of Sports Sciences 29(11): 1135–1141.

34.

Huhtiniemi

Sääkslahti

Watt

, et al. (2019) Associations among basic psychological needs, motivation and enjoyment within Finnish physical education students. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 18(2): 239–247.

35.

Institute of Medicine (2013) Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Educating-the-Student-Body-Taking-Physical-Activityand-Physical-Education-to-School.aspx

36.

Marmeleira

JFF

Carrasqueira

Dos Santos

(2012) Physical activity levels in Portuguese high school physical education. European Physical Education Review 18(2): 191–204.

37.

Mayorga-Vega

Martínez-Baena

Viciana

(2018) Does school physical education really contribute to accelerometer-measured daily physical activity non sedentary behaviour in high school students? Journal of Sports Sciences 36(17): 1913–1922.

38.

Mayorga-Vega

Parra

Viciana

(2017) Comparison of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels between physical education, school recess and after-school time in secondary school students: An accelerometer-based study. Kinesiology 2: 242–251.

39.

McMillan

Schumacher

(2001) Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction. New York: Longman.

40.

Metcalf

(2018) Adolescent constructions of gendered identities: The role of sport and (physical) education. Sport, Education and Society 23(7): 681–693.

41.

Meyer

Roth

Zahner

, et al. (2013) Contribution of physical education to overall physical activity. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 23: 600–606.

42.

Nesbitt

Fisher

Stodden

(2021) Appropriate instructional practice in physical education: A systematic review of literature from 2000 to 2020. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 92(2): 235–247.

43.

Nogg

Vaughn

Levy

, et al. (2021) Motivation for physical activity among U.S. adolescents: A self-determination theory perspective. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 55: 133–143.

44.

O’Brien

Coppinger

Hogan

, et al. (2021) The association of family, friends and teacher support with girls’ sport and physical activity on the island of Ireland. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 18: 925–936.

45.

Oliver

Kirk

(2016) Toward an activist approach to research and advocacy for girls and physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21(3): 313–327.

46.

Preece

Bullingham

(2022) Gender stereotypes: The impact upon perceived roles and practice of in-service teachers in physical education. Sport, Education and Society 27(3): 259–271.

47.

Ramírez

Nino

Hallal

, et al. (2021) Global, regional and national trends and patterns in physical activity research since 1950: A systematic research. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 18: 5.

48.

Rocamora

González-Víllora

Fernandez-Rio

, et al. (2019) Physical activity levels, game performance and friendship goals using two different pedagogical models: Sport Education and Direct Instruction. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 24(1): 87–102.

49.

Rovegno

(2006) Teaching and learning tactical game play at the elementary school level: The role of situated cognition. In: Wallian

Poggi

M-P

Musard

(eds) Co-construire des savoirs: les metiers de l’intervention dans les APSP. Besançon: Presses universitaries de Franche-Comte, pp. 115–126.

50.

Santina

Beaulieu

Gagné

, et al. (2021) Mediators and moderators of physical activity changes in a school-based intervention targeting childhood obesity. Journal of Health Psychology. Epub ahead of print 9 December. DOI: 10.1177/13591053211061407.

51.

Saunders

Rollo

Kuzik

, et al. (2022) International school-related sedentary behavior recommendations for children and youth. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 19: 39.

52.

Scraton

(2018) Feminism(s) and PE: 25 years of shaping up to womanhood. Sport, Education and Society 23(7): 638–651.

53.

Siedentop

(1994) Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

54.

Siedentop

(1998) What is sport education and how does it work? The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 69(4): 18–20.

55.

Siedentop

Hastie

van der Mars

(2019) Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

56.

Smith

Harvey

Savory

, et al. (2015) Physical activity levels and motivational responses of boys and girls: A comparison of direct instruction and tactical games models of games teaching in physical education. European Physical Education Review 21(1): 93–113.

57.

Telford

Olive

, et al. (2016) Why are girls less physically active than boys? Findings from the LOOK longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0150041.

58.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2018) Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

59.

van Sluijs

EMF

Ekelund

Crochemore-Silva

, et al. (2021) Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. The Lancet 398(10298): 429–442.

60.

Viciana

Mayorga-Vega

Martínez-Baena

(2016) Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in physical education, school recess, and after-school time: Influence of gender, age, and weight status. Journal of Physical Activity & Health 13(10): 1117–1123.

61.

Wahl-Alexander

Sinelnikov

Richards

KAR

(2019) Referee engagement and officiating accuracy in a college-level volleyball sport education season. The Physical Educator 76: 568–587.

62.

Wallace

Buchan

Sculthorpe

(2020) Comparison of activity levels of girls in single-gender and mixed-gender physical education. European Physical Education Review 26(1): 231–240.

63.

Wang

(2018) Teaching games for understanding intervention to promote physical activity among secondary school students. Biomed Research International 2018: 37: 595–511.

64.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2020) Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Habits. Geneva: WHO.