Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38566018›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2024

The effect of the Sport Education Model in physical education on student learning attitude: a systematic review.

Junlong Zhang, Wensheng Xiao, Kim Geok Soh, Gege Yao, Mohd Ashraff Bin Mohd Anuar, Xiaorong Bai, Lixia Bao

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
26.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Multiteaching style and active reflection for swimming.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Junlong ZhangDepartment of Sports Studies, Faculty of Education Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia.
Wensheng XiaoSchool of Physical Education, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China. 03218@zjhu.edu.cn.
Kim Geok SohDepartment of Sports Studies, Faculty of Education Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia. kims@upm.edu.my.
Gege YaoThe 19, Middle School, Haigang District, Qinhuangdao, 066000, China.
Mohd Ashraff Bin Mohd AnuarDepartment of Professional Development and Continuing Education, Faculty of Education Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia.
Xiaorong BaiSchool of Physical Education, Huzhou University, Huzhou, 313000, China.
Lixia BaoDepartment of Sports Studies, Faculty of Education Studies, University Putra Malaysia, 43400, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia.
Universiti Putra Malaysia · MYHuzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence indicates that the Sport Education Model (SEM) has demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing students' athletic capabilities and fostering their enthusiasm for sports. Nevertheless, there remains a dearth of comprehensive reviews examining the impact of the SEM on students' attitudes toward physical education learning. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review is to elucidate the influence of the SEM on students' attitudes toward physical education learning.

methodsEmploying the preferred reporting items of the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines, a systematic search of PubMed, SCOPUS, EBSCOhost (SPORTDiscus and CINAHL Plus), and Web of Science databases was conducted in mid-January 2023. A set of keywords associated with the SEM, attitudes toward physical education learning, and students were employed to identify relevant studies. Out of 477 studies, only 13 articles fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and were consequently incorporated into this systematic review. The validated checklist of Downs and Black (1998) was employed for the assessment, and the included studies achieved quality scores ranging from 11 to 13. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in the literature, whereby only one paper exhibited a moderate risk of bias, while the remainder were deemed to have a high risk.

resultsThe findings unveiled significant disparities in cognitive aspects (n = 8) and affective components (n = 12) between the SEM intervention and the Traditional Teaching (TT) comparison. Existing evidence suggests that the majority of scholars concur that the SEM yields significantly superior effects in terms of students' affective and cognitive aspects compared to the TT.

conclusionsNonetheless, several issues persist, including a lack of data regarding junior high school students and gender differences, insufficient frequency of weekly interventions, inadequate control of inter-group atmosphere disparities resulting from the same teaching setting, lack of reasonable testing, model fidelity check and consideration for regulating variables, of course, learning content, and unsuitable tools for measuring learning attitudes. In contrast, the SEM proves more effective than the TT in enhancing students' attitudes toward physical learning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: ( https://inplasy.com/ ) (INPLASY2022100040).

Indexed as

Physical Education and TrainingAttitudeHumansLearningModels, EducationalSportsStudentsAffectiveCognitiveLearning attitudeSports education curriculum

Identifiers

PMID38566018
PMCPMC10986141
OpenAlexW4393433617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.