Peer-reviewed article
Comparative effects of physical education teaching models on motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
田琪, Yaowen Liu, Ziyu Wang, Gang Qin ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-sonnet-5-5This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared different physical education teaching models for building motor skills in school-aged children and adolescents. Twenty-one studies were included, and 13 of them made up the main analysis of participants under 18. Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding–Sport Education, Nonlinear pedagogy and Functional games had the most favourable estimates. The ranking changed depending on how outcomes were defined, the age of participants and which studies were included, so the authors do not claim any one model is best. They advise teachers to choose structured teaching models to suit student age, learning goals, sport content and context.
Key points
- 21 studies were included in the review; 13 were in the under-18 primary network and 19 in a broader sensitivity network.
- The primary network had nine treatment nodes.
- Hybrid TGfU–Sport Education, Nonlinear pedagogy and Functional games showed the most favourable relative effects in the primary network.
- The Cooperative model ranked highest in the broad network only while a single study (Akil, visual-motor integration) was included.
- Restricting the main analysis to participants under 18 improved comparability and reduced heterogeneity, but inconsistency, sparse comparisons and risk of bias remained.
Limitations
The abstract does not give effect sizes, the designs of the included studies or the countries studied. The authors report significant inconsistency, sparse comparisons, risk of bias and rankings sensitive to outcome definition, age and individual studies, so no definitive hierarchy of teaching models can be drawn.
Abstract
Background Motor skill development is a central objective of school physical education, yet the comparative effectiveness of teaching models remains unclear. Objective This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared physical education teaching models for motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents. Methods Records were identified from Scopus ( n = 300), Web of Science ( n = 41), OpenAlex ( n = 63), and PubMed ( n = 33). After removal of 42 duplicates, 395 records were screened, 65 full texts were assessed, and 21 studies were retained in the systematic review. Thirteen studies contributed to the under-18 primary network restricted to school-based physical motor execution or sport-specific performance outcomes; 19 contributed to a broader sensitivity network. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261417609). Random-effects models estimated standardized mean differences (SMD) relative to Control and P -score rankings. Results The primary network contained nine treatment nodes. Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding–Sport Education (TGfU-SE), Nonlinear pedagogy, and Functional games showed the most favorable relative effect estimates in the primary network. However, the treatment ordering was sensitive to outcome definition, participant age, and individual studies, while substantial heterogeneity, network inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias remained. In the broad sensitivity network, Cooperative had the highest P -score and estimated effect only while the single Akil visual-motor integration study was included; the node disappeared when that study was removed. Conclusion Restricting the primary network to participants younger than 18 years improved population and outcome comparability and reduced heterogeneity, but significant inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias preclude a definitive hierarchy. The P -score ordering should therefore be interpreted as a set of conditional effect estimates rather than proof that one teaching model is universally superior. In practice, physical education teachers should select and implement structured teaching models according to student age, learning objectives, sport content, and teaching context. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261417609 , identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261417609).
Findings the Hub has extracted
Each claim below is labelled by its type of design and links back to this report.
- Intervention
- Different physical education teaching models (e.g. hybrid TGfU–Sport Education, Nonlinear pedagogy, Functional games, Cooperative) compared with each other and with a control
- Population
- School-aged children and adolescents; the primary network was restricted to participants younger than 18
Key finding
Hybrid TGfU–Sport Education, Nonlinear pedagogy and Functional games had the most favourable relative effect estimates in the primary network.
田琪 et al. · OpenAlex · 6 Oct 2026