Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review

Abstract

The goal of this study was to assess hybridizations conducted among pedagogical models (PMs) from 1st to 12th grade (six–18 years) in physical education (PE). Research articles selected were found through Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, SportDiscus (EBSCO), ERIC (ProQuest) and Google Scholar databases. The keywords associated with PMs (e.g. models-based practice and sport education (SE)), hybridization (e.g. hybrid), PE and educational levels (e.g. middle school) were used in different combinations. The articles were selected using the following criteria: (a) peer-reviewed studies in international journals indexed in JCR/Scopus; (b) PM hybridizations; (c) quantitative and/or qualitative methods and findings; (d) school context research; and (e) published in English or Spanish. 20 articles were identified as being of moderate/high quality. Results showed that the PMs used in the hybridizations determined the outcomes, and these were grouped in two major categories: (a) game-related skills (physical/motor and cognitive domains), which included game understanding and tactical–technical skills; and (b) psychosocial variables (social and affective domains), which included psychological, social and personal development. The combination of SE and sport initiation models favoured the first category, while the hybrid models which included cooperative learning and/or teaching for personal and social responsibility favoured the second one. There seems to be an advantage for hybrid over isolated PM implementation, because the former can promote outcomes in many different domains, overcoming the constraints of single PMs. Teachers’ commitment, training and experience of PMs were key features for a successful hybridization.

Keywords

Hybridizations models-based practice pedagogical approach instructional models physical education

Introduction

All over the world, models-based practice in physical education (PE) has become a leading trend for practitioners and researchers alike (Casey, 2014; Fernández-Río, 2017). Rooted in the ideas of the instructional models developed by Jewett et al. (1995) and Metzler (2017), Haerens et al. (2011) proposed the term pedagogical model (PM) to reinforce the instructional model concept and to portray the interdependence and irreducibility of teaching, learning, content and context. In this trend, several PMs have been developed, and the most widely implemented in educational contexts have been: cooperative learning (CL; Johnson and Johnson, 1994); teaching for personal and social responsibility (TPSR; Hellison, 2011); sport education (SE; Siedentop et al., 2011); and the games centred approach (GCA; Harvey and Jarrett, 2013), which embraces several PMs, such as teaching games for understanding (TGfU; Bunker and Thorpe, 1982), the step game approach (SGA; Mesquita et al., 2005), the invasion games competence model (IGCM; Mesquita et al., 2012) or tactical games (TG; Mitchell et al., 2013), among others.

Although each PM has different characteristics, they also share common features (Joyce et al., 2014), which led to the idea of possible hybridizations between them: (a) learn-to-learn competency – the development of students’ metacognition processes to enable them to transfer knowledge to different contexts (e.g. use skills learned in one sport in other sport; Chatzipanteli et al., 2015); (b) constructivist approach – pedagogical strategies that help students build their own knowledge (e.g. guided questions which allow students to reflect on the tactical aspects of the game; Harvey et al., 2017); (c) scaffolding the teaching–learning process – guarantee students’ understanding and progression towards more significant understanding (e.g. work in pairs to clarify the skills to improve in each individual student; Barker et al., 2015); (d) on-going formative assessment – help students to identify what they need to improve during the learning process (e.g. debates about the learned content and the needs; Ni Chróinín and Cosgrave, 2013); (e) current skills and competences – select, organize and promote the essential elements which will allow students to increase their holistic development (e.g. develop a healthy lifestyle; Jarvis et al., 2018); (f) collaborative and cooperative skills – promote each member of the class’s learning through the help and support of others (e.g. creative and collaborative problem-solving to enhance students’ connections and progression; Tan et al., 2017); (g) global awareness – develop comprehensive knowledge about all the basic skills for a successful performance (e.g. project-based learning helps develop physical literacy; Treadwell, 2018); and (h) creativity development – the ability to reorient any process in a non-standard way, based on the context, for more meaningful learning (e.g. vocabulary that encourages original solutions to tactical problems; Howe, 1972).

Nonetheless, PMs also present some limitations when they are implemented in school settings: teachers’ limited experience and time when attempting to use TGfU (Griffin and Butler, 2005); the absence of previous training when incorporating SE (Cruz, 2008); and the erratic implementation of CL by not moving on from the initial honeymoon period (Dyson and Casey, 2012). On the other hand, Haerens et al. (2011) highlighted that each model tends to be implemented using specific content areas (e.g. SE focuses on games and sports; Siedentop et al., 2011), which led Lund and Tannehill (2010) to believe that there is no one PM that is capable of being effective in every context or with every content area.

The common features shared by the PMs, the need to overcome some limitations, and the belief that there is not a single model capable of fitting all the content areas and contexts led scholars to combine different PMs or parts of them (Haerens et al., 2011). Certainly, Dyson et al. (2004: 227) believed that SE, CL and TGfU provide students with a situated learning context through the use of ‘meaningful, purposeful and authentic activities’, which make them easy to combine. These combinations produced the hybrid implementation of PMs such as the invasion games competence model (IGMC)–SE hybridization (Farias et al., 2015) or the creation of new models such as the empowering sport model based on SE and TPSR (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000). The term hybridization has been used to represent both ideas, which have the same beginning: the combination of different PMs or parts of them. According to Casey (2014) and Casey and MacPhail (2018), the hybridization of PMs can help educators use a multi-model approach in their programmes to enable innovation to fit current educational frameworks (Kirk, 2011). Moreover, hybridizations can also help teachers fully reach all their students, maximizing their impact (Fernández-Río, 2014). Based on the aforementioned factors, hybridizations could be considered a new and innovative trend that is necessary to increase the benefits and the possibilities for the implementation of PMs.

Several systematic reviews of isolated PMs have been conducted: SE (Araújo et al., 2014; Chu and Zhang, 2018; Hastie and Wallhead, 2016; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005); CL (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Gillies, 2014); GCA (Harvey and Jarrett, 2013); and TPSR (Gordon and Doyle, 2015; Pozo et al., 2016). These reviews have included some hybridizations. However, the number and diversity of these hybridizations have increased exponentially in recent years, which calls for a more exhaustive analysis. For this reason, the aim of this systematic review was to describe and assess the existing hybridizations of different PMs implemented from 1st–12th grades (six–18 years) in PE to contribute to future research.

Method

Search limits

An exhaustive and systematic search of six scientific literature databases (Web of Science, Medline, Scopus, SportDiscus-EBSCO, ERIC and Google Scholar) from January 2000 to February 2018 was conducted. On the one hand, these databases were selected because they included PE articles published in journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) or a similar one (e.g. the Scimago Journal Rank-SJR). On the other hand, a systematic search was conducted to obtain an extended examination of the phenomenon under study. Finally, as shown in Figure 1, the search strategies used in the aforementioned databases included a combination of the following keywords: PMs (models-based practice, pedagogical model, sport education model, games centred approach, cooperative learning, teaching games for understanding, and teaching for personal and social responsibility); hybridization (hybrid, hybridizing, and hybridization); and PE and educational levels (elementary/middle/secondary school). Additionally, the English Boolean data types ‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘not’ were used.

Figure 1.

Keywords and English Boolean data type process during the search.

Selection criteria

All relevant articles in this review were included based on the following criteria: (a) studies published in peer-reviewed international journals indexed in JCR or SJR; (b) hybridizations of PMs; (c) studies that included quantitative and/or qualitative methods and findings; (d) research conducted within a school context; and (e) studies published in English or Spanish, the main languages used in PM interventions.

Duplicated documents and opinion articles, books, book chapters, conference papers or theses were excluded at the first level of exclusion. Moreover, works focused on the comparison between individual PMs or hybridizations with no clear procedural and/or methodological strategies (e.g. procedures, implementation, and assessment) were excluded at the second level of exclusion.

The systematic search process and the number of results in each database are shown in Figure 2. Subsequent to the elimination of many works at the first level of exclusion, 519 original articles were retrieved as potential studies to be included in the review. After reading the titles and the abstracts, 499 were discarded at the second level of exclusion. Finally, 20 articles were included in this study.

Figure 2.

Flow diagram of the systematic search process.

Data extraction and reliability

After the initial search, the articles that did not fit the selection criteria were discarded at the first level of exclusion. The rest of the studies were summarized and classified in three categories (authors, journals, and years of publication) to organize the analysis for the second level of exclusion. Finally, the most relevant articles, which met the selection criteria, were retrieved for this review. In order to assess and obtain relevant information from them, the following categories were used (Harris et al., 2014): study name; journal (impact factor); authors; location; objectives; sample size; method; data sources; and results.

Quality assessment and level of evidence

First, the quality of this systematic review was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Moher et al., 2009). This evaluation tool includes an evidence-based set of items to report the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Second, the criteria for assessing the quality of the selected studies were based on the Checklist for Measuring Study Quality (e.g. is the hypothesis/aim of the study clearly described?; Downs and Black, 1998), the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies statement (e.g. is it possible to use the design in other studies?; von-Elm et al., 2008), and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (e.g. the study’s blinding and quality assessment; Moher et al., 2001).

Previous studies (Araújo et al., 2014; Chu and Zhang, 2018; Hastie and Casey, 2014) were used to obtain a quality score for each investigation based on the following criteria: (a) programme description; (b) JCR/SJR journal; (c) detailed methodological description; (d) sample or number of participants; and (e) length of the implementation. Each item was scored from ‘0’ to ‘2’ using the criteria described in Table 1. A total quality score from all the selected publications was calculated by adding up the number of positive items between ‘0’ and ‘10’. Investigations were classified as: (a) low quality: a score lower than ‘3’; (b) moderate quality: a score between ‘4’ and ‘6’; and (c) high quality: a score of ‘7’ or higher. Four experts on PMs performed this evaluation independently. The Cronbach’s alpha (0.96) indicated high reliability among the individual evaluations (Araújo et al., 2014).

Table 1.

Investigation quality score checklist.

Research	Programme description	JCR / SJR inclusion	Methodology	Sample	Length	Total score	Quality level
Hastie and Buchanan (2000)	2	1	2	1	2	8	HQS
Hastie and Curtner-Smith (2006)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Casey and Dyson (2009)	2	2	2	1	0	7	HQS
Gubacs-Collins and Olsen (2010)	2	1	1	1	2	7	HQS
Mesquita et al. (2012)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Stran et al. (2012)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Araújo et al. (2013)	1	0	1	1	2	5	MQS
Gutiérrez et al. (2014)	2	1	2	0	1	6	MQS
Pritchard et al. (2014)	2	0	2	2	2	8	HQS
Farias et al. (2015)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Araújo et al. (2016)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río (2016a)	2	0	2	2	2	8	HQS
Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río (2016b)	2	2	2	2	2	10	HQS
Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río (2017)	2	0	1	1	1	5	MQS
Araújo et al. (2017a)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Araújo et al. (2017b)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio (2017)	2	2	2	2	2	10	HQS
Gil-Arias et al. (2017)	2	2	2	2	2	10	HQS
Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río (2017)	2	2	2	1	2	9	HQS
Casey and MacPhail (2018)	2	2	2	1	1	8	HQS

Notes: programme description (did the research offer a detailed description of the hybridization?). ‘0’, not included; ‘1’, brief and undetailed description; and ‘2’, detailed description; JCR/SJR inclusion (was the study published in a journal indexed on the JCR or SJR?). ‘0’, not indexed; ‘1’, indexed on SJR; and ‘2’, indexed on JCR; methodology (did the paper report in detail the methodological process used?). ‘0’, not reported; ‘1’, reported but imprecise (not completely); and ‘2’, exhaustive description reported; sample (number of participants). ‘0’, fewer than 10 participants; ‘1’, from 10 to 50 participants; and ‘2’, more than 50 participants; length (duration). ‘0’, less than eight lessons; ‘1’, from nine to 14 lessons; and ‘2’, more than 15 lessons; JCR, Journal Citation Report; SJR, Scimago Journal Rank; HQS, high quality study; and MQS, moderate quality study.

Results

Table 2 shows the 20 hybrid programmes implemented around the world, from the first (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000) to the last hybridization (Casey and MacPhail, 2018). The most important and relevant information from each study was assessed following the structure used in previous systematic reviews of PMs (Chu and Zhang, 2018; Pozo et al., 2016): ‘author(s)’ (and publication year); ‘hybridization’ (PMs hybridized); ‘focus’; ‘country/participants/grades’; ‘sports/length’; ‘analysis/data sources’; and ‘outcomes’.

Table 2.

Synthesis of experimental studies of models-based practice hybridizations.

Author(s)	Hybrid.	Focus	Country / participants/grade(s)	Sport(s)/length	Analysis/data sources	Outcomes
Hastie and Buchanan (2000)	SE–TPSR	Develop a theory using a practical–constructivist hybrid model: Empowering Sport	The United States 45 students 6th grade	Xball (Modified Australian Football) 26 lessons (OU)	QUAL: observation; field notes, daily debriefings; independent observers’ and students’ interviews during and after the lessons	Positive responses in the tasks. The self-selected time-out strategies had a positive impact on students. Significant results in students’ decisions, skills, and social development
Hastie and Curtner-Smith (2006)	SE–TGfU	Describe students’ and researcher’s expectations and reactions to guided-discovered approaches	Australia 29 students 6th grade	Softball and cricket 22 lessons (OU)	QUAL: critical incident reflection of the curriculum (O’Sullivan and Tsangaridou, 1992); team interviews using a focus group format QUANT: tactical quizzes; game-design forms	Significant improvements in students’ competence and tactical–technical knowledge
Casey and Dyson (2009)	CL–TGfU	Investigate the benefits and students’ experience	England 35 students and one teacher 6th grade	Tennis Seven lessons (OU)	QUAL: students’ interviews; teacher–researcher field journal (included a voice recorder) QUANT: GPAI (Mitchell and Oslin, 1999); group reflexion sheets	Positive evolution in the skill level. Significant increase in students’ cooperation and integration
Gubacs-Collins and Olsen (2010)	SE–TGfU	Analyse and observe the challenges in organisation during a longitudinal five-year study	The United States Teachers and students from 6th grade to 8th grade	Soccer, Tennis, Flag football, softball, badminton and lacrosse From 10–20 lessons (CU)	QUAL: practitioner’s chronicle of his experiences during the implementation of the model; videotaped and written records of the expectations and experiences of all involved: teacher, school principal, students and students’ parents	Significant improvements in students’ academic learning, as well as in their affective, cognitive and physical domains
Mesquita et al. (2012)	SE–IGCM	Assess performance and tactical-technical development	Portugal 26 students 5th grade	Soccer 22 lessons (OU)	QUANT: GPAI (Mitchell and Oslin, 1999); Game Performance Observation Coding Instrument (Blomqvist et al., 2005)	Students improved their skill execution (technical) and tactical decisions in defence and offense; especially girls and low-skill students
Stran et al. (2012)	SE–TGfU	Examine pre-service teachers’ perceptions and expectations	The United States 22 pre-service teachers 5th grade	Invasion games 20 lessons (OU)	QUAL: pre-service teachers’ focus group and interviews; critical incident reflections; lesson plans; field notes	Pre-service teachers perceived higher student participation and a preference for the hybrid model. However, their minimal experience and knowledge about the model were handicaps
Araújo et al. (2013)	SE – SGA	Assess the transfer of content knowledge from teachers to student-coaches	Portugal 23 students 7th grade	Volleyball 20 lessons (OU)	QUAL: videotapes; student-coaches pre- and post-interviews	An evolution was observed in the student-coaches’ task management. Strategies such as role task-cards or scaffolding (brief demonstrations) could provide more preparation for this important role
Gutiérrez et al. (2014)	SE–TGfU	Assess the viability of a hybrid model in a rural area based on teachers and students’ perceptions	Spain 10 students 2nd grade	Dodgeball 10 lessons (OU)	QUAL: teacher’s diary and ad-hoc semi-structured questionnaire, and students’ drawings QUANT: Physical Education Season Survey: students’ perceptions questionnaire (Gutiérrez et al., 2015)	Positive perception of the season’s structure and length. Problems were observed in some roles and phases in the first lessons. In the final lessons, enjoyment and a positive attitude. There were also difficulties in class control, but social and physical benefits, and the sense of belonging to a team were observed
Pritchard et al. (2014)	SE–TGfU	Assess the effectiveness of a hybrid model in coeducational and single-gender contexts	The United States 90 students 6th-7th grades	Basketball 18 lessons (OU)	QUANT: GPAI (Mitchell and Oslin, 1999)	There were significant differences between pre- and post-test. Female students had a higher game performance ratio with interaction in single-gender classes than in coeducational ones. Significant improvements without interaction were observed in the male group
Farias et al. (2015)	SE– IGCM	Examine the students’ game understanding and performance	Portugal 24 students 5th grade	Soccer 17 lessons (OU)	QUAL: ad-hoc game understanding test QUANT: Game Performance Observation Coding Instrument (Blomqvist et al., 2005)	The hybridization fostered fair participation, tactical knowledge, and a cooperative environment. It is crucial to guarantee equity in participation. Teacher guide, different teams, complexity in tasks and individual goals helped
Araújo et al. (2016)	SE–SGA	Investigate the effects and results in game play performance	Portugal 17 students 7th grade	Volleyball 25 lessons (OU)	QUANT: pre- and post-test GPAI (Mitchell and Oslin, 1999)	Significant improvements in game performance (pre- and post-test). Lower skill-level students achieved significant improvement in the post-test
Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río (2016a)	SE–TPSR	Analyse the results of an educational kickboxing season	Spain 78 students 10th grade	Educational Kickboxing 16 lessons (OU)	QUAL: WebQuest QUANT: attitudinal self-evaluation (Hellison, 2011)	Development of cooperative and innovative non-contact games and tasks in PE. The hybrid model helped develop a student-centred context
Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río (2016b)	SE– TPSR	Assess the effects on students’ responsibility, competence, violence, basic psychological needs and friendship goals	Spain 143 students 12th grade	Educational Kickboxing 16 lessons (OU)	QUANT: Violence in Adolescents (Tejero-González et al., 2011); Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (Vlachopoulos and Michailidou, 2006); Friendship Goals Questionnaire in Physical Education (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2014); Personal and Social Responsibility Questionnaire (Li et al., 2008)	Significant positive improvements in students’ relatedness, social responsibility and self-competence, and a decrease in attitudes against violence and in-class negative behaviour. SE helped increase students’ competence, while TPSR helped obtain positive attitudes and values (cooperation and respect)
Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río (2017)	SE–TGfU	Investigate and assess the effects of a hybridization	Spain 30 students 10th grade	Alternative sport: Duni Eight lessons (OU)	QUAL: students’ open-ended question QUANT: case studies or scenarios (students’ tactical assessment)	The hybridized model promoted girls’ engagement, participation, tactical knowledge and technical skills
Araújo et al. (2017a)	SE– SGA	Investigate coaches’ pedagogical content knowledge	Portugal 21 students 7th–9th grades	Volleyball three seasons from 20–25 lessons (CU)	QUAL: videotaped observations; field notes; student-coaches pre-lessons interviews	Positive results in the development of the student-coach role; effective transfer of the instructional responsibility from the teacher to the students. Student-coaches’ previous preparation and training must be provided.
Araújo et al. (2017b)	SE–SGA	Assess students’ game play performance	Portugal 18 students 6th–7th and 9th grades	Volleyball three seasons from 20–25 lessons (CU)	QUANT: pre- and post-test GPAI (Mitchell and Oslin, 1999)	Students improved their tactical-technical performance. Lower skilled students achieved major improvements. Multiple seasons produced the acquisition of basic skills and an effective tactical development
Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio (2017)	SE–TPSR	Evaluate students’ and teachers’ perceptions and expectations	Spain 71 students 9th grade	Educational Kickboxing 16 lessons (OU)	QUAL: students’ open-ended questions; photovoice; teacher and external observers’ diaries and semi-structured interviews	Three strong themes: responsibility, roles, learning. Five moderate themes: enjoyment, cooperation, competition, novelty, teaching. Three weak themes: friendship, affiliation, transfer
Gil-Arias et al. (2017)	SE–TGfU	Examine the effect on students’ motivation and engagement in sport practice	Spain 55 students 12th grade	Volleyball, Ultimate- Frisbee 16 lessons (OU)	QUANT: Intention to be Physically Active (Arias et al., 2013); Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (Vlachopoulos and Michailidou, 2006); Perceived Locus of Causality (Goudas et al., 1994); Basic Enjoyment/Boredom in Sport Scale (Duda and Nicholls, 1992)	Significant increase of students’ autonomy, competence, enjoyment and intention to be physically active with the hybridized model; a positive image of sport and a greater adherence to it
Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río (2017)	SE–TPSR	Explore the impact among learners with disabilities	Spain 12 students 12th grade	Educational Kickboxing 16 lessons (OU)	QUAL: students’ drawings; open-ended questions; discussion groups; teacher’s diary; interviews	Increase in students’ learning, competence and enjoyment. They had a feeling of belonging to a team, inclusion, friendship, cooperation and transference
Casey and MacPhail (2018)	CL–TG	Analyse the implementation of several models (CL; CL-TG; SE)	England 74 students 6th–7th grades	Track and Field (6th grade) and Soccer (7th grade) 12 lessons (CU)	QUAL: three types of field notes (reflective diaries; unit diaries; post teaching reflective analysis; and post cycle reflective analysis); interviews	Significant increase of students’ engagement and responsibility, which could be limited by the teachers’ training and experience. Time was the main factor cited in the implementation of the model

Notes: Hybrid., hybridization(s); QUAL, qualitative data collect and analysis methods; QUANT, quantitative data collect and analysis methods; OU, one unit; CU, consecutive units; PE, physical education; SE, sport education; SGA, step games approach; TPSR, teaching personal and social responsibility; TGfU, teaching games for understanding; DI, direct instruction; IGCM, invasion games competence model; GPAI, Game Performance Assessment Instrument.

Hybridization

The total number of PM hybridizations has increased rapidly over the last 10 years (20); especially those which used SE (18) (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000; Stran et al., 2012). On the one hand, the combination SE–GCA has been the most widely implemented (13) (Gil-Arias et al., 2017; Gutiérrez et al., 2014), probably because of the adaptability and applicability of SE to sport initiation contexts (e.g. the structure and length of the seasons contribute to the acquisition of basic skills and tactical development; Araújo et al., 2017b), and the development of students’ tactical performance promoted by the GCA. TGfU was the GCA most frequently hybridized with SE (7) (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Pritchard et al., 2014) in different countries such as the United States (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010; Stran et al., 2012), Spain (e.g. Gil-Arias et al., 2017; Gutiérrez et al., 2014) or Australia (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006). Moreover, SE has been hybridized with other GCAs in Portugal, such as SGA (4) (Araújo et al., 2016, 2017a) or IGCM (2) (Farias et al., 2015; Mesquita et al., 2012).

On the other hand, SE has been combined with TPSR to favour students’ social skills, autonomy and/or motivation in Spain (4) (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016b, 2017) and the United States (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000). Finally, two hybridizations of CL–TGfU (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010) and CL–TG (Casey and MacPhail, 2018) have been conducted in England.

Focus

Initially, the main focus of the hybridizations of PMs was to assess their viability in PE. The participants’ perceptions (teachers and/or students), as well as their effects on the teaching–learning process, were observed in the following hybridizations: SE–TPSR (3) (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Hastie and Buchanan, 2000); SE–TGfU (4) (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017; Stran et al., 2012); and CL–TGfU (Casey and Dyson, 2009). Additionally, two studies evaluated the implementation of the programme’s management (e.g. methods, time, resources, grouping, etc.) in SE–TGfU (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010) and CL–TGfU (Casey and MacPhail, 2018) implementations. One SE–TPSR hybridization assessed its effects among students with disabilities (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2017).

Secondly, the hybridizations’ impact on the students’ social skills and motivation was assessed using a comparative research design: Direct Instruction (DI) versus SE–TGfU (Gil-Arias et al., 2017) and DI versus SE–TPSR on students’ basic psychological needs (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016b).

Lastly, the goal of different implementations was to assess students’ tactical–technical skill development in the hybridization SE–IGCM (Farias et al., 2015; Mesquita et al., 2012) or SE–SGA (Araújo et al., 2016, 2017b). Moreover, one study assessed students’ tactical knowledge and performance in a hybrid SE–TGfU implementation (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006). In addition, another study evaluated the same goal based on gender (Pritchard et al., 2014). Finally, two studies researched the transfer of content knowledge from teachers to student-coaches in SE–SGA hybridizations (Araújo et al., 2013, 2017a).

Participants and context

Regarding the studies’ context, Spain was the country in which the highest number of hybridizations were implemented (7) (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016a, 2016b), followed by Portugal (6) (Araujo et al., 2016; Farias et al., 2015) and the United States (4) (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000; Pritchard et al., 2014). Only two studies were conducted in England (Casey and Dyson, 2009; Casey and MacPhail, 2018) and one in Australia (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006).

Concerning the participants’ grade level, the majority of studies were conducted at one level: elementary (4) (Mesquita et al., 2012; Stran et al., 2012); middle (8) (Araujo et al., 2013, 2016); and high school (6) (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016a, 2016b). However, some studies were implemented at various educational levels (Araújo et al., 2017a, 2017b). The grades most frequently assessed were 6th and 7th, with seven hybridizations in each one (Araújo et al., 2017b; Casey and MacPhail, 2018), followed by 12th, 9th and 5th grades, with three in each one (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2017). Other implementations have been conducted in 8th and 10th grades, two in each one (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017; Gutiérrez et al., 2014). There seem to be limited hybridizations for the early ages, probably because of the complexity of the methodology – there is only one study in 2nd grade (Gutiérrez et al., 2014).

Sport/content

Three studies implemented more than one sport, while the rest used a single sport/content area. Moreover, several game/sport categories (Werner and Almond, 1990) were used, with a preference for invasion games (9): soccer (4) (Farias et al., 2015; Mesquita et al., 2012) was the most popular sport, followed by ultimate-frisbee (Gil-Arias et al., 2017), xball (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000), basketball (Pritchard et al., 2014), and flag-football and lacrosse (Gubac-Collins and Olsen, 2010). Net/wall was another game/sport category with a high number of implementations (9): volleyball was the most popular one (5) (Araújo et al., 2013, 2016), followed by tennis (Casey and Dyson, 2009; Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010). Only one study implemented Duni (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017), which is an alternative sport that originated in Argentina, or badminton (Gubac-Collins and Olsen, 2010). Certain categories were scarcely researched, such as combat sports (4) (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016a, 2016b) or striking and fielding games (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Gubac-Collins and Olsen, 2010). Finally, other categories/sports that were implemented were target games (dodgeball; Gutiérrez et al., 2014) and track and field (Casey and MacPhail, 2018).

Length of the implementation

The number of lessons in the different studies ranged from seven (Casey and Dyson, 2009) to 26 (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000). The majority (nine studies) ranged from between 16 (5) (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Gil-Arias et al., 2017) and 20 lessons (2) (Araújo et al., 2013; Stran et al., 2012), and all of them hybridized SE in order to obtain significant improvements. Two studies were implemented through 22 lessons (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Mesquita et al., 2012). Finally, only one hybridization each lasted seven (Casey and Dyson, 2009), eight (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017), 10 (Gutiérrez et al., 2014), 12 (Casey and MacPhail, 2018), 25 (Araújo et al., 2016), and 26 lessons (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000). Two studies had different numbers of lessons because they were conducted at different grades: from 10–20 lessons (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2009) and from 20–25 lessons (Araújo et al., 2017a, 2017b).

Finally, concerning the number of learning units, the vast majority of studies assessed the implementation of a single unit (16) (Gil-Arias et al., 2017; Hastie and Buchanan, 2000), and only a limited number assessed several consecutive units (4) (Araújo et al., 2017a; Casey and MacPhail, 2018).

Data sources and analysis

Various types of data collection and analysis strategies were used: qualitative (8) (Araujo et al., 2017a; Casey and MacPhail, 2018); quantitative (6) (Araujo et al., 2017b; Pritchard et al., 2014); and mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative: 6) (Farias et al., 2015; Gutiérrez et al., 2014).

In the qualitative studies, interviews were the most widely used instrument (12), followed by the teacher’s diary and/or field notes (10) to assess the students’ and/or teachers’ perceptions. Furthermore, four studies videotaped the lessons to assess the programmes. Finally, it is relevant to note the use of drawings with early ages (Gutiérrez et al., 2014) or learners with disabilities (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2017).

In the quantitative studies, the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (Mitchell and Oslin, 1999) was the most widely used instrument to assess students’ decision-making and performance skills in hybridizations that included TGfU (Casey and Dyson, 2009; Pritchard et al., 2014), SGA (Araújo et al., 2016, 2017b) or IGCM (Mesquita et al., 2012). Finally, questionnaires such as the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (Vlachopoulos and Michailidou, 2006) have also been used (Gil-Arias et al., 2017; Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016b).

Outcomes

The PMs used in the hybridizations determined the outcomes obtained in the different studies. They have been grouped in two major categories to facilitate understanding: (a) game-related skills (physical/motor and cognitive domains), which included game understanding and tactical–technical skills to emphasize cognitive learning and effective execution during the game (Memmert, 2010); and (b) psychosocial variables (social and affective domains), which included psychological, social, and personal development (Mama et al., 2015).

On the one hand, hybrid implementations between SE and sport initiation models (GCA) favoured students’ game-related skills. The results showed that students improved their game understanding and skill execution in the following hybridizations: SE–TGfU (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017; Pritchard et al., 2014); SE–TPSR (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000); and CL–TGfU (Casey and Dyson, 2009). Moreover, some studies showed greater improvement in girls’ tactical–technical development (Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2014) and low-skilled students (Araújo et al., 2016, 2017b).

On the other hand, the hybrid implementations which included CL and/or TPSR favoured students’ psychosocial variables and personal development. Connected to the improvements in game understanding and skill execution, the hybridizations TPSR–SE (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Hastie and Buchanan, 2000), CL–TGfU (Casey and Dyson, 2009; Casey and MacPhail, 2018), and SE–TGfU (Gil-Arias et al., 2017) promoted students’ autonomy, competence, relatedness, cooperation and responsibility. Improvement in the students’ basic psychological needs helped promote their motivation and active participation in PE (Gil-Arias et al., 2017; Stran et al., 2012), enjoyment (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio, 2017; Gutiérrez et al., 2014), and equal participation (Farias et al., 2015). The positive atmosphere created enhanced students’ affective domain (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010) and decreased their attitudes against violence (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2016b).

Finally, teachers’ PM experience and knowledge were key features for the following hybrid implementations: CL–TGfU (Casey and Dyson, 2009; Casey and MacPhail, 2018); and SE–TGfU (Stran et al., 2012), especially at early ages (Gutiérrez et al., 2014).

Discussion and conclusions

The aim of this systematic review was to describe and analyse the existing hybridizations of different PMs implemented from 1st–12th grades (six–18 years) in PE. The results showed 20 hybridizations focused on two outcome categories: (a) game-related skills (physical/motor and cognitive domains), which included game understanding and tactical–technical skills; and (b) psychosocial variables (social and affective domains), which included psychological, social, and personal development. The combination of SE and sport initiation models (GCA) favoured the first category, while the hybrid implementations which included CL and/or TPSR favoured the second one. There seems to be an advantage of PM hybridizations over the use of a single PM, because the former has benefits in many different domains.

Previous reviews acknowledged only three articles describing hybridizations: SE–TPSR, which showed positive responses on students’ sport skill competence, social responsibility and personal empowerment (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000); and SE–TGfU (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006) and SE–IGCM (Mesquita et al., 2012), which showed positive results on students’ game performance and tactical knowledge. In the current review, 20 hybridizations have been included, which indicates that this trend has expanded in the last 15 years to include the four major PMs: SE; GCA; CL; and TPSR. Most hybridizations included SE and GCA, because SE integrates play practice (Launder, 2001), one type of GCA, as one of the key instructional features of SE (Siedentop et al., 2011). Both models focus on content related to sports in PE, and SE features, such as seasons, affiliation or roles (coach, referee, etc.), fit perfectly with GCA’s modified or exaggerated games (Araújo et al., 2016). Within this category, TGfU was the GCA most frequently hybridized with SE worldwide: United States (Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010; Pritchard et al., 2014; Stran et al., 2012); Spain (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017; Gil-Arias et al., 2017; Gutiérrez et al., 2014); and Australia (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006). However, there has been an increase in the use of other GCAs, such as SGA (Araújo et al., 2013, 2016, 2017a, 2017b) and IGCM (Farias et al., 2015; Mesquita et al., 2012) promoted by a drive from Portuguese researchers. SE has also been combined with TPSR, but the number of studies is low (five). Finally, CL was the least often hybridized PM despite numerous implementations of the model alone (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Gillies, 2014).

SE has been hybridized with GCA several times with results similar to the previous reviews (Harvey and Jarrett, 2013): improvements in physical, cognitive and affective domains. However, the combination SE–GCA also helped to increase students’ tactical knowledge (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006), with larger improvements in girls and low-skilled students (Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río, 2017; Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2014). This seems to indicate that the combination SE–GCA can overcome SE’s limitations in developing students’ tactical knowledge when it is implemented in isolation (McCaughtry et al., 2004). Moreover, the hybridization SE–GCA also helped to develop students’ psychosocial variables, such as autonomy and competence (Gil-Arias et al., 2017), fair play, cooperation, and the feeling of belonging to a team (Farias et al., 2015; Gil-Arias et al., 2017). These results were not observed in the GCA review (Harvey and Jarrett, 2013), which seems to indicate that there is a need to combine SE and GCA to obtain these benefits. Furthermore, in some single GCA implementations, it was difficult to observe skill development and tactical awareness in the participating students (Harvey and Jarrett, 2013). In the hybridization, this problem was sorted with the transference of pedagogical content knowledge from the teacher to the student while performing the role of student–coach (Araújo et al., 2013, 2017a). For this reason, the hybrid SE–GCA seems to produce better results than the GCA single model implementation. However, considerable knowledge about PMs is necessary, as is teacher experience in their implementation (Griffin and Butler, 2005; Gutiérrez et al., 2014; Stran et al., 2012). The teacher training needed to apply hybridizations is more complex than the isolated PM training, because it requires knowledge about both PMs, as well as of their combination (Gil-Arias et al., 2017). The successful hybridization of SE with other PMs has been found to be linked to teacher experience (Casey and MacPhail, 2018).

On the other hand, the combination of PMs which included CL and/or TPSR favoured students’ psychosocial variables. The CL–GCA hybridization helped students to achieve learning outcomes in the social, cognitive, and affective domains (Casey and MacPhail, 2018; Gubacs-Collins and Olsen, 2010). The hybrid SE–TPSR implementations increased students’ social values, such as attitudes against violence, responsibility, competence, and relatedness (Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio 2017; Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río 2016a, 2016b, 2017), and a reduction in negative behaviours and excessive competitiveness (García-López and Gutiérrez, 2015). Single TPSR implementations showed a decrease in students’ aggressive and disruptive behaviours (Escartí et al., 2006) or an increase in students’ self-control (Cecchini et al., 2007), but no physical/motor or cognitive benefits were observed (Pozo et al., 2016). However, the CL–GCA (Casey and Dyson, 2009) and SE–TPRS (Hastie and Buchanan, 2000) hybridizations did show improvements in these domains, highlighting their advantages.

Furthermore, the implementation of TPSR alone has been shown to improve students’ basic psychological needs (Li et al., 2008) and to produce social, psychological, emotional, educational, and behavioural outcomes (Pozo et al., 2016). This could produce a positive effect when combined with other PMs such as SE. For example, the hybridization SE–TPSR promoted the inclusion of students with special needs in PE, helping them and their classmates to connect inside and outside of class (Menéndez-Santurio and Fernández-Río, 2017). This framework seems to fit the needs of SE to help increase all students’ perceptions of competence and autonomy. This hybridization constitutes a new research trend for investigators since other PMs have not yet been combined and assessed with TPSR.

Other features described in previous reviews were the length of the implementation or the content used. On the one hand, longer learning units favoured the acquisition of the PMs’ goals (Hastie et al., 2011) and physical/motor, cognitive, social or affective outcomes (Araújo et al., 2014; Chu and Zang, 2018; Hastie et al., 2011; Pozo et al., 2016; Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005). However, GCA and CL interventions included a lower number of lessons than TPSR or SE (Casey and Goodyear, 2015; Harvey and Jarrett, 2013). This seems to indicate that the latter PMs require longer units. In this same line of argumentation, the implementation of consecutive units could help better outcomes to be obtained (Farias et al., 2018). The consolidated execution of PMs over time could help promote multi-model programmes and all the benefits derived from them (Casey and MacPhail, 2018), but it is necessary to have higher teacher involvement to overcome management difficulties (Griffin and Butler, 2005).

On the other hand, hybridizations used a greater variety of sport/content in their interventions than single PMs. Invasion games were the most widely used content in the combination GCA–SE, which seems to indicate a preference (Araújo et al., 2014; Harvey and Jarrett, 2013; Hastie et al., 2011). However, new content such as Duni or educational kickboxing has been implemented using hybridizations. Content selection seemed to be influenced by the PMs combined, since hybridizations offer more possibilities of choice and promote students’ competence and motivation.

In conclusion, the increase in PM hybridizations suggests that this pedagogical strategy seems to extend the effects of the implementation of single PMs. The combination of PMs, based on common features, allowed teachers to introduce many different content areas in PE. Moreover, hybridizations helped to overcome the constraints of single PMs, such as the negative competitiveness of SE competition, which improves with TPRS–SE hybridizations, or the game-centred perspective in TGfU, which can include other domains such as the affective or the social domains when this model is hybridized with CL (Casey and Dyson, 2009). Finally, the teachers’ perspectives on the hybrid models suggest that this pedagogical strategy fits current curricular requirements. Nevertheless, teacher commitment, training and experience regarding PMs should be greater because of the complexity of implementing several models at the same time. Finally, combined benefits in the physical/motor, cognitive, affective, and social domains have been observed only when merging different PMs. For this reason, hybridizations could be an effective resource to develop a flexible and innovative PE curriculum within multi-model programmes. However, more studies on the hybrid models are needed to understand their effects, and thus guide teachers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Antón-Candanedo

Fernández-Río

(2017) Hybridizing pedagogical models to improve students’ tactical awareness: A study through the Duni. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte 19(2–3): 257–276.

Araújo

Mesquita

Hastie

, et al. (2013) Content knowledge of the student-coach in peer teaching tasks in a hybrid SE-SGA volleyball unit. Revista Mineira de Educação Física 9(1): 49–55.

Araújo

Mesquita

Hastie

(2014) Review of the status of learning in research on sport education: Future research and practice. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 13(4): 846–858.

Araújo

Mesquita

Hastie

, et al. (2016) Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education-step-game-approach volleyball unit. European Physical Education Review 22(2): 185–200.

Araújo

Hastie

Pereira

, et al. (2017a) The evolution of student-coach’s pedagogical content knowledge in a combined use of sport education and the step-game-approach model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 22(5): 518–535.

Araújo

Hastie

Loshe

, et al. (2017b) The long-term development of volleyball game play performance using sport education and the step-game-approach model. European Physical Education Review. E-Publication ahead of print. 21 September 2017. DOI.org/10.1177/1356336X17730307.

Arias

Castejon-Oliva

Yuste

(2013) Psychometric properties of the intention to be physically active scale in primary education. Revista de Educación 362: 485–505.

Barker

Quennerstedt

Annerstedt

(2015) Inter-student interactions and students learning in health and physical education: A post-Vygotskian analysis. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(4): 409–426.

Blomqvist

Vänttinen

Luhtanen

(2005) Assessment of secondary school students’ decision-making and game-play ability in soccer. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2): 107–119.

10.

Bunker

Thorpe

(1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1): 5–8.

11.

Casey

(2014) Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19(1): 18–34.

12.

Casey

Dyson

(2009) The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research. European Physical Education Review 15(2): 175–199.

13.

Casey

Goodyear

(2015) Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest 67(1): 56–72.

14.

Casey

MacPhail

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

15.

Cecchini

Montero

Alonso

, et al. (2007) Effects of personal and social responsibility on fair play in sports and self-control in school-aged youths. European Journal of Sport Science 7(4): 203–211.

16.

Chatzipanteli

Digledis

Karatzoglidis

, et al. (2015) Promoting students’ metacognitive behavior in physical education through TGfU. American Journal of Educational Science 1(2): 28–36.

17.

Chu

Zhang

(2018) Motivational processes in sport education programs among high school students: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 24(3): 372–394.

18.

Cruz

(2008) The experience of implementing sport education model. Journal of Physical Education & Recreation 14(1): 18–31.

19.

Downs

Black

(1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health 52(6): 377–384.

20.

Duda

Nicholls

(1992) Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(3): 290–299.

21.

Dyson

Casey

(2012) Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research-Based Approach. London, UK: Routledge.

22.

Dyson

Griffin

Hastie

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

23.

Escartí

Gutiérrez

Pascual

, et al. (2006) Enseñando responsabilidad personal y social a un grupo de adolescentes de riesgo: Un estudio ‘observacional’ [Teaching personal and social responsibility to a group of at-risk adolescents: An ‘observational’ study]. Revista de Educación 341(3): 373–396. [In Spanish.]

24.

Farias

Hastie

Mesquita

(2018) Scaffolding student–coaches’ instructional leadership toward student-centred peer interactions: A yearlong action-research intervention in sport education. European Physical Education Review 24(3): 269–291.

25.

Farias

Mesquita

Hastie

(2015) Game performance and understanding within a hybrid sport education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34(3): 363–388.

26.

Fernández-Río

(2014) Another step in models-based practice: Hybridizing cooperative learning and teaching for personal and social responsibility. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 85(7): 3–5.

27.

Fernández-Río

(2017) Quality physical education through models-based practice. In: Milanovic

(ed.) 8th international scientific conference on kinesiology , Opatija, Croatia, 10–17 May 2017. Zagreb, Croatia: Faculty of Kinesiology, pp.1–6.

28.

Fernández-Río

Menéndez-Santurio

(2017) Teachers and students’ perceptions of a hybrid sport education and teaching for personal and social responsibility learning unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36(2): 185–196.

29.

García-López

Gutiérrez

(2015) The effects of a sport education season on empathy and assertiveness. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(1): 1–16.

30.

Gil-Arias

Harvey

Cárceles

, et al. (2017) Impact of a hybrid TGfU-sport education unit on student motivation in physical education. PLoS ONE 16(6): 1–17.

31.

Gillies

(2014) Developments in cooperative learning: Review of research. Annals of Psychology 30(3): 792–801.

32.

Gordon

Doyle

(2015) Teaching personal and social responsibility and transfer of learning: Opportunities and challenges. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34(1): 152–161.

33.

Goudas

Biddle

Fox

(1994) Perceived locus of causality, goal orientation, and perceived competence in school physical education classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 64(3): 453–463.

34.

Griffin

Butler

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

35.

Gubacs-Collins

Olsen

(2010) Implementing a tactical games approach with sport education: A chronicle. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 31(3): 36–42.

36.

Gutiérrez

García-López

Chaparro

, et al. (2014) Sport education model in second grade: Teachers and students’ perceptions. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte 14(2): 131–144.

37.

Haerens

Kirk

Cardon

, et al. (2011) Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest 63(3): 321–338.

38.

Harris

Quatman

Manring

, et al. (2014) How to write a systematic review. American Journal of Sports Medicine 42(11): 2761–2768.

39.

Harvey

Jarrett

(2013) A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19(3): 278–300.

40.

Harvey

Pill

Almond

(2017) Old wine in new bottles: A response to claims that teaching games for understanding was not developed as theoretically based pedagogical framework. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23(2): 166–180.

41.

Hastie

Buchanan

(2000) Teaching responsibility through sport education: Prospects of a coalition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71(1): 25–35.

42.

Hastie

Casey

(2014) Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 33(3): 422–431.

43.

Hastie

Curtner-Smith

(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.

44.

Hastie

Wallhead

(2016) Models-based practice in physical education: The case for sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35(4): 390–399.

45.

Hastie

Martinez

Calderón

(2011) A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16(2): 103–132.

46.

Hellison

(2011) Teaching Responsibility through Physical Activity. 3rd edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

47.

Howe

(1972) Creativity and physical education. Physical Educator 29(4): 171–178.

48.

Jarvis

Williams

Rainer

, et al. (2018) Interpreting measures of fundamental movement skills and their relationship with health-related physical activity and self-concept. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 22(1): 88–100.

49.

Jewett

Bain

Ennis

(1995) The Curriculum Process in Physical Education. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

50.

Johnson

(1994) Leading the Cooperative School. 2nd edition. Edina, NJ: Interaction Book Company.

51.

Joyce

Weil

Calhoun

(2014) Models of Teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson.

52.

Kirk

(2011) The normalization of innovation, models-based practice, and sustained curriculum renewal. Paper Presented at the Association Association Internationale des Écoles Supérieures d’Éducation Physique (International Association for Physical Education in Higher Education) Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland, 23 June 2011.

53.

Launder

(2001) Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

54.

Wright

Rukavina

, et al. (2008) Measuring students’ perceptions of personal and social responsibility and the relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(2): 167–177.

55.

Lund

Tannehill

(2010) Standards-Based Physical Education Curriculum Development. 2nd edition. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

56.

Mama

McNeill

McCurdy

, et al. (2015) Psychosocial factors and theory in physical activity studies in minorities. American Journal of Health Behavior 39(1): 68–76.

57.

McCaughtry

Sofo

Rovegno

, et al. (2004) Learning to teach sport education: Misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties, and resistance. European Physical Education Review 10(2): 135–155.

58.

Memmert

(2010) Testing of tactical performance in youth elite soccer. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine 9(2): 199–205.

59.

Méndez-Giménez

Fernández-Río

Cecchini-Estrada

(2014) Validation of the Spanish version of the friendship goals questionnaire in physical education. Universitas Psychologica 13(1): 227–237.

60.

Menéndez-Santurio

Fernández-Río

(2016a) Hybridizing sport education and teaching for personal and social responsibility: An experience through an educational kickboxing program. Retos 30(1): 116–121.

61.

Menéndez-Santurio

Fernández-Río

(2016b) Violencia, responsabilidad, amistad y necesidades psicológicas básicas: Efectos de un programa de educación deportiva y responsabilidad personal y social [Violence, responsibility, friendship and basic psychological needs: Effects of a sports education program and personal and social responsibility]. Revista de Psicodidáctica 21(2): 245–260. [In Spanish.]

62.

Menéndez-Santurio

Fernández-Río

(2017) Hybridizing sport education and teaching for personal and social responsibility to include students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education 32(4): 508–524.

63.

Mesquita

Farias

Hastie

(2012) The impact of a hybrid sport education-invasion games competence model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European Physical Education Review 18(2): 205–219.

64.

Mesquita

Graça

Gomes

, et al. (2005) Examining the impact of a step game approach to teaching volleyball on student tactical decision making and skill execution during game play. Journal of Human Movement Studies 48(6): 469–492.

65.

Metzler

(2017) Instructional Models in Physical Education. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

66.

Mitchell

Oslin

(1999) Assessment in Games Teaching. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

67.

Mitchell

Oslin

Griffin

(2013) Sport Foundation for Elementary Physical Education: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

68.

Moher

Liberati

Telzlaff

, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7): 1–6.

69.

Moher

Schulz

Altman

, et al. (2001) The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263): 1191–1194.

70.

Ni Chróinín

Cosgrave

(2013) Implementing formative assessment in primary physical education: Teacher perspectives and experiences. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 18(2): 219–233.

71.

O’Sullivan

Tsangaridou

(1992) What undergraduate physical education majors learn during a field experience. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 63(4): 381–392.

72.

Pozo

Grao-Cruces

Pérez-Ordás

(2016) Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 24(1): 56–75.

73.

Pritchard

McCollum

Sundal

, et al. (2014) Effect of the sport education tactical model on coeducational and single gender game performance. The Physical Educator 71(1): 132–154.

74.

Siedentop

Hastie

Van-der-Mars

(2011) Complete Guide to Sport Education. 2nd edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

75.

Stran

Sinelnikov

Woodruff

(2012) Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review 18(3): 287–308.

76.

Tan

JPL

Caleon

Leng

, et al. (2017) Collective creativity competencies and collaborative problem-solving outcomes: Insights from the dialogic interactions of Singapore student teams. In: Griffin

(ed.) Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, pp.95–118.

77.

Tejero-González

Balsalobre-Fernández

Ibáñez-Cano

(2011) Self-defense as an educational intervention to modify violent attitudes. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte 11(43): 513–530.

78.

Treadwell

(2018) Making the case for project-based learning in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 89(1): 5–6.

79.

Vlachopoulos

Michailidou

(2006) Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The basic psychological needs in exercise scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 10(3): 179–201.

80.

Von-Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. (2008) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 61(4): 344–349.

81.

Wallhead

O’Sullivan

(2005) Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2): 181–210.

82.

Werner

Almond

(1990) Models of games education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 61(4): 23–30.