Centre for Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport (CIFI2D), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Portugal.
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, United States.
J Sports Sci Med. 2021 Mar 1;20(1):110-125. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2021.110. eCollection 2021 Mar.
This systematic review aimed to examine the main findings concerning to the investigations focused on compare, within Physical Education context, the influence of Sport Education (SE) and Traditional Teaching (TT) on students' learning outcomes. A literature search was conducted on nine electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Academic Search Ultimate, ERIC, Education Source, APA PsycINFO and APA PsycARTICLES). Inclusion criteria were defined before the selection process. Accordingly, were only included articles that (i) were published in peer-reviewed international journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports or Scientific Journal Rankings; (ii) were available in full-text; (iii) were published in English, Portuguese or Spanish; (iv) were performed within Physical Education context; and (v) provided specifically a comparison between the effects of SE and TT on students' learning outcomes. Globally, twenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The manuscripts' methodological quality was assessed through Downs and Black checklist, with all studies displaying moderate quality. Results showed that comparisons among SE and TT tend to analyze team sports activities sampling high-school students via quasi-experimental designs, with more than half of them were published over the past five years. Also, these investigations typically focused on the differences between both models on the development of personal and social skills, as well as its impact on the motor and cognitive domains. In this respect, although the results tend to point out increases in both SE and TT, superior values are achieved when SE is implemented. The analysis of the teaching-learning process using alternative research methods and designs (i.e., experimental studies, qualitative data, longitudinal analysis, action-research and case studies), longer units with appropriate planning, and the report of model's fidelity so that robust findings can endorse the teachers' praxis, must be a concern in future studies.
本系统评价旨在考察有关体育教育背景下比较体育教育（SE）和传统教学（TT）对学生学习成果影响的主要研究结果。通过九种电子数据库（PubMed、Google Scholar、Web of Science、SCOPUS、Academic Search Ultimate、ERIC、Education Source、APA PsycINFO 和 APA PsycARTICLES）进行文献检索。在选择过程之前定义了纳入标准。因此，仅纳入了符合以下条件的文章：（i）发表在被同行评审的国际期刊上，这些期刊被列入期刊引文报告或科学期刊排名中；（ii）可获取全文；（iii）以英文、葡萄牙文或西班牙文出版；（iv）在体育教育背景下进行；以及（v）特别比较 SE 和 TT 对学生学习成果的影响。总体而言，有 28 项研究符合纳入标准。通过 Downs 和 Black 清单评估手稿的方法学质量，所有研究均显示为中等质量。结果表明，SE 和 TT 之间的比较倾向于通过准实验设计分析高中学生的团队运动活动，其中超过一半的研究是在过去五年内发表的。此外，这些研究通常侧重于两种模式在个人和社会技能发展方面的差异，以及对运动和认知领域的影响。在这方面，尽管结果倾向于指出 SE 和 TT 都有所提高，但当实施 SE 时，会取得更高的效果。使用替代研究方法和设计（即实验研究、定性数据、纵向分析、行动研究和案例研究）、更长的具有适当计划的单元以及报告模型的保真度来分析教学-学习过程，必须成为未来研究的关注点，以便为教师的实践提供有力的支持。
