پیامدهای یادگیری روش­های آموزش هیبرید در بافت تربیت‌بدنی: یک مرور نظام ­مند

Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
In recent decades, model-based teaching and learning have increasingly gained recognition as highly effective approaches that place students at the core of the teaching-learning process, especially within the field of physical education. Among the most prominent pedagogical models proposed are the Sport Education Model, the Constraints-Led Approach, Cooperative Learning, Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility, Game-Centered Approaches, and Health-Based Physical Education. Each of these models emphasizes specific educational objectives. However, the application of any single model in isolation may limit the comprehensive achievement of the full spectrum of physical education goals. In light of this, it has been suggested that hybridization of pedagogical models, tailored to educational needs, can be employed to enhance learning outcomes more effectively in physical education settings. Given the growing body of research investigating the efficacy of hybrid pedagogies, the present systematic review was designed to address the question: What are the learning outcomes of using hybrid pedagogical approaches in physical education, particularly across physical/motor, emotional, cognitive, and social domains?
 
Methods
This study was a secondary research project utilizing a systematic review methodology, following the 2020 edition of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was conducted using 26 carefully selected keywords across three Persian databases (Iranian Scientific Journals System, Noor Specialized Journals Database, and Google Scholar in Persian) and ten English-language databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, ERIC, Human Kinetics, APA PsycNet, ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight, Taylor & Francis Online, Sage Journals, and Wiley Online Library). The search period spanned from June 1, 2000, to August 1, 2022. The initial search yielded a total of 14,632 records, comprising 2,086 Persian and 12,546 English records. Following a rigorous process of screening titles and abstracts, removing duplicates, and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria guided by the PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes), 35 articles were ultimately deemed eligible for inclusion.
The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, which considers six domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting. Data extracted from each study included authorship, publication year, country of research, characteristics of the pedagogical intervention (field, content, duration, and pedagogical model), research methodology (data type, design, number of measurements, group numbers, participant selection and assignment methods), sample characteristics (age, gender, sample size), measurement instruments, and main findings.
 
Results
Among the 35 studies included, the majority (71.4%) were published within the last seven years, involving a total of approximately 2,600 participants, of whom 48% were male. Most studies were conducted in Spain (45.7%) and Portugal (22.9%), with only three studies (8.6%) originating from Iran. The majority of research focused on secondary school physical education (74.3%) and covered 17 types of educational content. These included volleyball (31.4%), basketball (17.1%), football (17.1%), kickboxing (8.6%), and general physical education content (28.6%). Other sports such as handball, futsal, tennis, and softball were each represented in 5.7% of studies, while hockey, cricket, badminton, athletics, cross-fit, lacrosse, and x-ball appeared in 2.9% of studies each.
In total, 14 hybrid pedagogical models were identified. Among these, the Sport Education Model was the most commonly used base model (85.8%), followed by Teaching Games for Understanding (20%), Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility (2.9%), and formal physical education (2.9%). The learning outcomes investigated fell mainly into four domains: emotional (54.3%), social (42.9%), physical-motor (40%), and cognitive (25.7%). Except for minor conflicting evidence, hybrid pedagogies generally demonstrated superiority over non-hybrid pedagogies in producing positive learning outcomes.
Physical-motor outcomes reported included improvements in skill acquisition, technical performance, game play, physical fitness, and physical activity levels. Emotional outcomes encompassed enhancements in motivational traits, perceived competence, autonomous motivation, enjoyment, perceived motivational climate, autonomy support, positive attitudes toward sports education and physical activity, as well as increased interest, desire, participation, involvement, and adherence. Cognitive outcomes involved advances in tactical knowledge, decision-making, technical understanding, deliberative and procedural knowledge, individual and team creativity, academic learning, and cognitive performance. Social outcomes included the development of active social identity, athletic social roles, individual and social responsibility, reduction in violence and negative behavior in class, improved communication and social interactions, friendship formation, sense of team belonging, social growth, creation of collaborative environments, cooperation, integrity, unity, fair learning environments, constructive competitive climates, and promotion of fair play.
Regarding risk of bias, only 3 studies (8.6%) were assessed as having a low risk for random sequence generation, while 32 studies (91.4%) were rated high risk. Allocation concealment was low risk in 12 studies (34.3%), unclear in 2 (5.7%), and high risk in 21 (60%). Performance bias was low risk in 5 studies (14.3%) and high risk in 30 (85.7%). Detection bias was low risk in 1 study (2.9%), unclear in 15 (42.9%), and high risk in 19 (54.3%). Attrition and reporting biases were low risk across all studies.
 Conclusion
Hybrid pedagogical models are effective in generating positive learning outcomes across physical-motor, emotional, cognitive, and social domains within school physical education contexts. However, due to the limited number of multi-group comparative studies, there remains insufficient evidence to conclusively determine the superiority or non-superiority of hybrid pedagogies compared to non-hybrid, nonlinear, or traditional pedagogical approaches. Therefore, it is recommended that physical education teachers and university instructors consider employing hybrid pedagogies tailored to the specific educational needs of their students to optimize learning outcomes.
Article Message
Hybrid teaching methods effectively foster positive learning outcomes across physical-motor, emotional, cognitive, and social domains in school physical education. Nonetheless, current evidence is inadequate to definitively establish their superiority over non-hybrid, nonlinear, or traditional pedagogical methods.
Ethical Considerations
All research ethics and principles of scientific writing were rigorously observed throughout this systematic review.
Authors’ Contributions
The first author contributed 50%, the second author (supervisor) 30%, and the third author (advisor) 20% to the research.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their sincere thanks to all professors and colleagues who contributed valuable insights and support during this research.
If you would like, I can also assist with Vancouver-style reference formatting or any further polishing.