sustainability

Article
Development of Team Cohesion and Sustained
Collaboration Skills with the Sport Education Model
Chun-Chieh Kao
Office of Physical Education, Ming Chuan University, 5 De Ming Road., Gui Shan District, Taoyuan City 333,
Taiwan; kao@mail.mcu.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-920-777-921




Received: 23 February 2019; Accepted: 12 April 2019; Published: 19 April 2019


Abstract: Physical education is crucial to the development of physical and social abilities.
Team cohesion, nurtured in physical education, influences team performance and provides skills that
students may translate into future social arenas. However, whether teaching strategy in physical
education affects the development of team cohesion remains uncertain. The sport education model
(SEM) enhances sport skills, rule knowledge, sport etiquette, and affective development through
games and competition. The SEM has replaced many conventional physical education curricula in
advanced countries. Therefore, this quasi-experimental pretest–post-test study investigated the effects
of the SEM on team cohesion. Undergraduate volunteers from a Taiwanese university were divided
into experimental and control groups for a 10-week basketball course taught using the SEM or direct
instruction, respectively. Pretest and post-test questionnaires utilized a team cohesion scale, with
subscales measuring teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal interaction. Experimental group
(Mpre = 3.35 ± 0.42, Mpost = 3.98 ± 0.50) scores for overall team cohesion and the three subscales were
significantly improved after the course; no significant improvement was noticed in the control group
(Mpre = 3.23 ± 0.58, Mpost = 3.57 ± 0.57). Furthermore, all post-test scores for the experimental group
(M = 3.98 ± 0.50) were higher than those for the control group (M = 3.57 ± 0.57). Therefore, the SEM
is a feasible model for improving team cohesion and thus related social skills students may sustain
into adulthood.

Keywords: physical education; teaching strategy; team sports; education for sustainability

1. Introduction
The Japanese scholar Masakazu Yano once said: “Effective learning experiences in the university
could benefit the current income of a person, if such experiences continued in the workplace.” Nurturing
students to develop basic abilities, which they may sustain to become a socially competent adult,
through physical education is crucial. Physical education is one of the few subjects in education
that develops the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains of students [1], offers a chance to
communicate face-to-face with peers, and allows students to take on different social roles. In physical
education, students learn social skills, such as interpersonal interactions, tolerance, and respect, in
addition to team cohesion skills, such as teamwork and team adaptation. Additionally, students
learn to strengthen their confidence and self-esteem, and the development of social cognition is
reinforced [2]. With respect to the social responsibility of physical education, Brinkley et al. [3]
underscored that team sport holds benefits not only for individual health but also for group cohesion
and performance and organizational benefits, such as the increased work performance. Cronin et al. [4]
revealed that physical education can help students develop skills, such as teamwork, goal-setting, time
management, emotional skills, interpersonal interaction, social skills, leadership, problem-solving,
and decision-making. Additionally, physical education enables students to experience the fun of
exercising and develop a positive attitude toward physical activities and training through a variety

Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348; doi:10.3390/su11082348 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 2 of 15

of physical activities [5]. Physical education that adopts team activities and interactions influences
students’ future attitudes. Moreover, the course design and application of physical education are key
elements enhancing team cohesion.
The Physical Education curriculum is an overall plan for the total Physical Education program,
which is intended to guide teachers in conducting educational activities for a specific group of
students [6]. One of the primary goals of physical education is for students to gain the motivation to
continue to be physically active outside of curriculum time [7]. For teenagers, physical education is
beneficial experiential learning and an indispensable part of the curriculum; it serves as a substantial
medium for developing regular exercise habits. However, teaching strategy should consider that
not all students like physical education courses. When children enter adolescence, their learning
motivation usually decreases [8]. Gallé [9] considered that the importance of physical education was
often underestimated despite it being beneficial for physical conditioning and health. In other words,
the old-time learning methodology no longer meets the contemporary needs. Educational institutes
should provide students with correct and complete sports experiences courses to foster the experience
value of physical education courses. Athletic and educational pursuits are not only compatible but also
complementary [10]. Lupo et al. [11] indicated that, to develop a better understanding of the athletes’
sport and academic motivation, the same construct has to be investigated in relation to different sport
and educational systems. However, conventional lecturing and independent learning methods have
been replaced by diversified teaching methods. From the perspective of teaching outcomes, teamwork
and adequate course design are crucial to the success of physical education courses [5]. The point is
for learners to prioritize tight collaboration of the team over their individual interests. The strongest
and most direct effects of the teacher on the student result from the teaching strategy and plans and
ideas of teaching that the teacher holds [8]. Said aspects are closely tied to the teaching and learning
context. Teaching outcomes are the focal point for all physical education teachers. However, the results
of teaching are generally dependent upon the interaction between the students and teaching strategy.
Thus, the chosen teaching model plays a critical role in addition to the personal characteristics of
the student. Therefore, in addition to helping students gain knowledge and value through different
teaching strategies, course design must be able to prepare students for future social life through the
development of sustainable competencies.

1.1. Development of the Sport Education Model

The sport education model (SEM) was originally proposed in elementary and middle schools
in the state of Ohio of the United States in the 1980s and has been developed in New Zealand
and Australia [12]. The SEM has gradually replaced conventional physical education courses with
diversified activities [13]. The SEM is a curricular teaching model based on game theory and public
sport participation [14]. This model enhances sport skills, rule knowledge, and affective development
through games and enables students to learn to follow sport etiquette by participating in sporting
competitions. The SEM—a curricular model in theory and novel teaching method in practice—has
become the mainstream method of physical education in various advanced countries, including the
United States, New Zealand, and Australia [15]. Siedentop [16] identified six characteristics of the SEM:
seasons, affiliation, formal competition, culminating events, record keeping, and festivities. The focal
point of such courses is to learn about sport and game participation. Teachers must design an active
and positive teaching environment to offer sports and competitive activities for all students. The aim of
this model is to nurture students’ voluntary participation and interest in sports to develop their sports
skills and understanding of strategy. Additionally, teamwork is introduced into the sport scenario to
develop students’ sport ethics.
The SEM is a powerful teaching model [17] that enables teachers to provide a real, attractive,
and joyful learning environment for students [18], where students can enjoy companionship and a
sense of belonging when participating. Additionally, peers are highly tolerant toward one another [19].
The relationships in these teams are extremely attractive for students; students were found to maintain
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 3 of 15

an exceptionally high interest even after the end of courses [20]. With respect to the course, the SEM
proceeds like a game, which benefits the sport participation rate and learning motivation of students
and establishes a joyful learning environment. As students play a variety of roles in competition,
educational sport experiences become deeper, wider, richer, and more positive and complete [21–24].
The communication process among peers is considered the proactive core of the SEM [25,26]. The success
of the SEM results from providing more opportunities for students to participate in the team education
experience in physical education [27]. This teaching and learning method can enhance the development
of learners in physical education. Although the aforementioned literature has presented positive SEM
research results, none of the teaching strategies or models fit all situations. Stran and Curtner-Smith [28]
advised preservice teachers to teach in a teacher- or coach-oriented manner and focus on the promise
before the season starts; the most commonly encountered problems for these teachers is teaching
students to role-play. When arranging team competition, teachers often employ the SEM to enhance
the morale and motivation of students. Physical education teachers must pay extra attention to and
encourage students with relatively poor performance [29].
As previously mentioned, most scholars have focused on such topics as the participation
motivation, course development, physical activity level, and learning environment rather than on
the development of team cohesion in SEM courses. To analyze the development of team cohesion
through SEM course design, the present study used team cohesion as a variable to determine whether
students could obtain actual sport experiences through the implementation of the SEM. Additionally,
students were given control during the course through playing different roles. These activities enabled
students to have interpersonal interactions during the learning process, which stimulated their growth
in learning, increased their sense of responsibility, and engendered complete team cohesion.

1.2. Team Cohesion in Physical Education

Humans are social animals that require recognition and learn from one another. Additionally,
individuals are closely related to their teams [30]. In other words, cohesion is an important small group
variable within sport [31] and a common concept [32]. Once team cohesion is established, members
of a team can enhance team-related models and collective confidence [33]. Team-building activities
can elevate the confidence of the participant, enhancing mutual support among team members,
and increasing physical coordination and the joy of peer interaction [34]. Cohesion and success are
highly correlated. Team cohesion is beneficial for increasing collective professionalism and team
performance [32].
In the field of social psychology in sport, team cohesion is considered a series of dynamic process of
mutual attraction and collaboration among members of a sports team toward team goals or organization.
In 1950, Festinger [35] defined team cohesion as a driving force for a team that discourages members
from leaving the team by proactively encouraging them to stay on the team. Carron [36] proposed that
team cohesion referred to the dynamic process of team members working closely together to achieve a
team goal. Team cohesion can be divided into team and individual aspects. The team aspect refers to
individual team members’ evaluations of the team based on team tasks and interpersonal interactions;
the personal aspect refers to the level of acceptance among the team members of an individual member
joining and their feelings regarding the interpersonal relationship of the other members. Each aspect
can be further divided into interpersonal relationship and task aspects. Interpersonal relationship
refers to developing and maintaining social relationships with the team, such as friendships, emotional
support, and acceptance between team members that grow into mutual appreciation. Tasks, which are
marked by an objective and score indicators, refer to the cohesion that bounds team members through
common objectives and tasks [37].
From the perspective of teamwork, teamwork is frequently employed in both physical education
and the workplace. In team role theory, Belbin [38] indicated that the critical feature of a successful
team is reasonable role assignment. Yukl [39] proposed that a team is a working group that consists of a
group of people with a common goal, interdependent roles, and complementary skills. Teamwork is the
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 4 of 15

responsibility that interdependent individuals in small groups undertake to receive the benefits of an
organization [40]. Therefore, the aforementioned scholars defined teamwork as having a common goal,
being interdependent, and being achieved through communication and coordination. With respect
to the team adaptation, team learning behaviors are a fundamental aspect of team adaptation [41].
Team adaptation has positive influences on team performance [42] and refers to the interaction of
an individual and the environment [43,44]. A sports team is similar to a small society where the
behavioral model of team members is subject to influences within the group. The SEM course revealed
that role-playing enabled students to learn more meaningfully and try harder than they would under
a traditional model [45]. In addition, with respect to the interpersonal interaction, the objective of
teenage development is to obtain a sense of self-uniqueness. The most remarkable transformation
is the formation of intimate friendships with peers and understanding of individual and common
responsibilities, which are vital for the development of social skills [46]. In fact, sports are embedded
within the educational environment (i.e., sports staff, training programmes, sports facilities), and
athletes study and compete within the same institutions due to specific socio-cultural contexts and
different relationships between the academic and sport environments [47]. Student interaction is a
familiar feature of physical education lessons [48]. Unlike in other school subjects where teachers might
select pedagogic strategies that involve student interaction to teach skills such as reading, group work
is often an implicit part of doing physical education (PE) [49]. Hastie and Buchanan [50] indicated that
implementing games in a course enables students to learn negotiation by planning game strategies
and decision-making by acting as the referee. All the interpersonal interactions students experience
during the learning course to achieve the goal are the authentic sports experiences.
The literature defines team cohesion as a dynamic process, in which individuals pursue a common
goal, and members’ emotional needs are fulfilled [34,36,37]. An increase in team cohesion results in
a remarkable increase of team performance. In other words, team cohesion and team performance
constitute a circular relationship of social skills. Social attitudes and individual and collective behaviors
learned by students during sporting activities are then available in the student’s behavioral repertoire
and re-enacted and manifested in future contexts, such as work or family relations [51]. Therefore, team
cohesion is considered a crucial influence determining the performance of a physical education team.
In physical education, to solve the interpersonal coordination and communication problems in teams
formed by students, members must trust one another and collaborate to make decisions collectively and
help all members to fulfil their own responsibilities. From the perspective of the SEM, team-building
activities in classes help students to learn to give and receive compliments. Such activities can retain a
high participation rate among team members and enhance the development of a sense of belonging.
Additionally, the SEM encourages students to learn multidimensionality, enables students to experience
actual sports environments during education, and engenders in students the concepts of obedience,
respect, responsibility, and teamwork. Regardless of whether a student plays the role of coach, player,
referee, or observer, the SEM enables the enjoyment of a sense of accomplishment in the class and
feelings resulting from team development.
The performance of a physical education team is closely related to team cohesion. However,
the main interest for researchers was whether teaching strategy influences changes in team cohesion.
The practical focus of a teacher is the performance of the student team, and an exceptional performance
relies on high team cohesion. Therefore, team cohesion has become one of the most valued variables
for educators; this indicates its research potential.

1.3. Hypotheses
According to social and economic exchange theory, team effectiveness could result from interaction,
coordination, and collaboration between the team members [52]. An effective team is expected to
perform to an extent that is greater than the sum of the individuals’ performance [53]. Saavedra et al. [54]
indicated that team performance relies on mutual support among team members when executing a
highly interdependent task. Particularly with sports that are highly dependent upon teamwork, such
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 5 of 15

as soccer or basketball, team cohesion must achieve solidarity. Interactive sports activities require
high levels of task interdependence and teamwork cohesion to display a notable correlation with
performance [55]. Therefore, the authors of present study consider that team cohesion is composed
of teamwork, interpersonal interactions, and mutual trust and collaboration among team members.
Sinelnikov and Hastie [20] corroborated this view and indicated that the SEM could reinforce team
relationships. Additionally, formal competitions and perceptual learning are considerably attractive
to students. The present study has two objectives: the first is to analyze the impact of a SEM unity
on team cohesion (within effect), and the second is to compare team cohesion between a traditional
teaching method and a SEM unit (between effects). Based on the aforementioned influencing factors
and literature review, this study proposed that the SEM could enhance the nurturing of student
team cohesion.
Therefore, we propose two research hypotheses, as follows.

Hypothesis 1. Students’ team cohesion (including teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal interaction)
is significantly improved under the Sport Education Model.

Hypothesis 2. SEM Students’ team cohesion (including teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal
interaction) is significantly better than the traditional teaching method.

2. Methodology

2.1. Research Design

This study had been reviewed by Thai Clinical Trials Registry Committee (TCTR), and was
satisfactory for all items of Trial Registration Data Set required by the World Health Organization.
The present study employed the nonequivalent pretest–post-test quasi-experimental design with
an experimental group, which received the SEM method, and a control group, which received the
direct instruction method. In consideration of ethical research, the research content, research activity
design, feedback process for participants, possible harm or discomfort that may be experienced during
the research, protection of privacy and information for participants, and freedom for participants
to withdraw at any time were disclosed. The research continued with the consent of all recruited
volunteers. A team cohesion scale pretest was conducted on the experimental and control groups
before the start of the experimental course, and a post-test of the same scale was conducted after the
10-week experimental course.

2.2. Participants
Participants in this study were third-year students at a Taiwanese university. To mitigate the
interference of irrelevant variables, students who had not received prior SEM teaching were the main
target for recruitment. The total number of participants was 117, of which 59 were in the experimental
group (18 men and 41 women, with an average age of 20.19 ± 0.57 years) and were recruited from the
optional basketball course offered by the author. This course comprised a total of 20 h of basketball
classes across 10 weeks. The control group had a total of 58 participants (24 men and 34 women, with
an average age of 20.53 ± 1.10 years) from another basketball course offered in the same year at the
same university. To limit any interference from external variables, these students did not take any
other courses that employed the SEM.

2.3. Ideas for Course Design

The SEM is a curriculum and teaching model proposed by Siedentop [14,56] that can provide real
learning experiences for students. The objective of this model is to shape students to become capable,
educated, and passionate sportspersons. The course for the experimental group in this study was
designed in accordance with the six characteristics of the SEM proposed by Siedentop [56]: seasons,
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 6 of 15

affiliation, formal competition, culminating events, record keeping, and festivities. The following basic
principles were followed: (1) Shared learning responsibility between teacher and students (shifted
from teacher-centered teaching to students’ autonomous learning); (2) Heterogeneous grouping
(team members are selected by teachers, team leaders, or a sports committee organized by students);
(3) Additional Physical Education lessons (encourage students to practice after class or school);
(4) Assign other roles to students aside from players to inspire the cultivation of a sense of responsibility;
(5) Activity design (simplified rules, use of assistive devices or facilities); (6) Record announcement
and archival (used as a proof of individual or group performance and students’ learning record);
and (7) Festivity after the teaching is concluded (establish various awards and recognitions and have an
award conferment ceremony). The course for the control group was designed according to the teaching
procedure proposed by Rosenshine [57], which presents teaching objectives, explains teaching material,
implements group practice, observes student reactions, offers individual practice, and provides teacher
feedback. It was implemented based on the following basic principles: (1) Teacher-centered teaching
(make a systematic teaching plan); (2) Emphasize distributed learning (multiple unit activities are
designed to implement teaching in small steps); (3) Emphasize error correction, diagnosis, remedial
methods, and the importance of prerequisite skills; (4) Emphasize the importance of sufficient practice
and performing a review, and provide possible methods; and (5) Emphasize formative assessment,
and give immediate feedback to students’ learning progress and learning outcomes. The SEM teaching
material was based on the aforementioned six characteristics, and the course objective was as presented
in Table 1.

Table 1. Designing learning materials for educational objectives.

Feature Teachers Students Educational Objectives

(1) Arranging sports seasons (1) Learning about sports experiences
and training (2) Gaining sports knowledge
Seasons 1. Cognitive objectives:
(2) Adjusting time based on teaching (3) Adjusting strategy
items and content and application (1) Game planning
and management
(1) Heterogeneous grouping (1) Assigning roles: team captain, (2) Sports appreciation
(2) Conducting all practices and referees, and record keepers (3) Record keeping
Affiliation
games in teams (2) Planning jobs and participating (4) Strategy implementation
in games
2. Affective objectives:
(1) Learning about teamwork (1) Rational decision-making
(1) Disclosing the event schedule
Formal (2) Conducting strategy drills and (2) Etiquette, history, and
(2) Disclosing rewards
Competition developing team chemistry rules of games
(3) Arranging warm-up matches
(3) Appreciating the game (3) Team collaboration
(4) Interpersonal interaction
(1) Disclosing event schedules for and team adaptation
(1) Conducting strategy drills and
Culminating the finals
developing team chemistry 3. Psychomotor domain:
events (2) Analyzing the competition in
(2) Appreciating the game (1) Sport techniques
the finals
(2) Physical fitness
(1) Instruction on the (1) Learning the (3) Flexible rules that adapt to
Record record-keeping method record-keeping method the ability levels
Keeping (2) Teaching the basis for (2) Learning the evaluation method of students
final evaluation

(1) Maintaining a joyful atmosphere (1) Experiencing the meaning

in classes of sports
Festivity
(2) Hosting the awards ceremony (2) Appreciating the ceremony
in class

Organized by the author according to Jewett et al. [6]; Siedentop [14].

2.4. Research Tool

The research tool used in this study was the team cohesion scale, which adopted the 5-point
Likert-type scale and assigned 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points to strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree,
disagree, and strongly disagree, respectively. A higher score indicated higher team cohesion as perceived
by the respondent. This team cohesion scale took reference from the scales developed by Pan and
Hsiau [58] and Wu [59] and comprised a total of 11 items analyzing three dimensions. The initial
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 7 of 15

scale for the critical value was between 6.8 and 13.68 based on the results from content analysis.
Principal axis factors were adapted later for confirmatory factor analysis, extracting three factors
(Teamwork, Team Adaptation, Interpersonal Interaction) in total, with a KMO of 0.882 and Bartlett’s
Sphericity Test showed significance (p < 0.001). Four items concerned teamwork, three items concerned
team adaptation, and four items concerned interpersonal interaction. With respect to the validity of
the questionnaire, the factor loadings of each scale were as follows: teamwork was 0.63–0.79, team
adaptation was 0.54–0.82, and interpersonal interaction was 0.58–0.89. Regarding the reliability of
the scale, the Cronbach’s α of the overall scale was 0.89, whereas the Cronbach’s α of each subscale
(i.e., teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal interaction) was 0.86, 0.88, and 0.81, respectively.
The scale developed in this study had exceptional reliability and validity.

2.5. Data Analysis

This study conducted a pretest before the beginning of the course and a post-test after the end of
the course. The Statistical Product and Service Solutions software package was employed to calculate
the statistics with respect to data processing, and six analytical methods were applied to the results:
1. Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze the distributions of the height, weight, and body mass
index (BMI) of participants; 2. Chi-square testing was used to conduct a homogeneity test on the
gender of participants; 3. Independent-samples t testing was used to analyze the homogeneity of the
height, weight, and BMI of participants; 4. Paired-samples t testing was applied to test for differences
between participants in the experimental and control groups before and after the course; 5. Analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was applied to compare and analyze the experimental and control groups in
terms of team cohesion post-test results after excluding the influence of pretest scores; and 6. Based on
the standard proposed by Cohen [44], the Cohen’s d effect size was divided into three levels: small
(0.2 or lower), medium (0.5), and large (0.8 or higher); the η2 (eta squared) was used for ANCOVA, and
the thresholds were set to ≤0.02 for small, 0.059 for medium, and ≥0.138 for large. The significance
levels for all statistical tests in this study were set to α < 0.05.

2.6. Homogeneity Test between the Experimental and Control Group

The demographic analysis results indicated that there were no significant differences between
the groups in terms of age, weight, height, and body mass index (BMI), t = 1.02, p > 0.05. In addition,
in terms of the gender distributions for the two groups, x2 = 2.51, p > 0.05, suggesting that the two
groups were homogenous. Table 2 summarizes the demographic characteristics and physical fitness of
the participants in the two groups.

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants.

Exercise Group Control Group Total

Variable
(n = 59; M (SD)) (n = 58; M (SD)) (n = 117; M (SD))
Gender (male: female) 18:41 24:34 42:75
Age (years) 20.19 (0.57) 20.53 (1.10) 20.36 (0.89)
Height (cm) 168.81 (6.93) 166.53 (8.25) 167.68 (7.67)
Weight (kg) 62.83 (13.82) 59.41 (11.87) 61.14 (12.95)
BMI (kg/m2 ) 21.94 (3.99) 21.35 (3.38) 21.65 (3.69)

To determine differences in team cohesion, homogeneity tests on the internal regression coefficients
of the two groups were conducted (Table 3). The results revealed no significant differences in terms of
homogeneity (F = 8.69, p > 0.05), which indicated that the pretests of both groups did not have significant
interaction. Because the correlations of the covariate (pretest scores) and dependent variable (post-test
scores) within the experimental and control groups were not significantly different, the homogeneity
results indicated that the internal regression coefficients of the covariates were fit for ANCOVA.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 8 of 15

Table 3. Homogeneity test on the experimental and control groups.

Type III Sum Mean

Source of Variation Source df F p η2
of Squares Square
Group * Pretest 2.26 1 2.26 8.69 0.27 0.13
Team Cohesion
Error 29.39 113 0.26
* p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Team Cohesion Pretest and Post-Test Analysis of the Experimental and Control Groups
Table 4 presents the mean score, standard error, and paired-sample t test of the pretest and
post-test with respect to the course outcome, that is, the team cohesion of the experimental and control
groups. Post-test scores for teamwork, team adaptation, interpersonal interaction, and the overall team
cohesion scale of the participants in the experimental group were all higher than the pretest scores
(t = −9.89, −7.51, −8.72, −10.33, ES = 0.70, 0.74, 0.76, 0.83) and showed statistical significance (p < 0.05).
The pretest and post-test results of the control group for team cohesion (teamwork, team adaptation,
interpersonal interaction, and overall team cohesion scale) did not show significant differences (p > 0.05,
t = −3.94, −1.46, −2.95, −3.09, ES = 0.18, 0.13, 0.13, 0.05). Additionally, the effect size of the overall team
cohesion scale of the experimental group was 0.83, and those of the other three dimensions, namely
teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal interaction, were 0.70, 0.74, and 0.73, respectively.
The effect size of the overall team cohesion scale of the control group was 0.05, and those of the other
three dimensions, namely teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal interaction, were 0.18, 0.18,
and 0.13, respectively. According to the effect size results, participants of the experimental group had a
medium change in terms of team cohesion. Particularly, the overall team cohesion scale presented the
highest level of change (Cohen’s d = 0.83). According to Cohen [60], the change in team cohesion for
participants in the experimental group was statistically significant.

Table 4. Pretest–post-test differences in experimental and control groups.

Pretest Post-Test Paired-Sample t Test

Source of Variation Group
M SD M SD t p Cohen’s d
Experimental 3.33 0.41 4.04 0.56 −9.89 * 0.01 0.70
Teamwork
Control 3.22 0.62 3.69 0.60 −3.94 0.50 0.18
Experimental 3.28 0.54 3.87 0.56 −7.51 * 0.01 0.74
Team Adaptation
Control 3.25 0.59 3.42 0.68 −1.46 0.62 0.13
Interpersonal Experimental 3.41 0.47 4.01 0.52 −8.72 * 0.01 0.76
Interaction Control 3.22 0.65 3.55 0.59 −2.95 0.63 0.13
Experimental 3.35 0.42 3.98 0.50 −10.33 * 0.01 0.83
Total Team Cohesion
Control 3.23 0.58 3.57 0.57 −3.09 0.85 0.05
* p < 0.05.

3.2. ANCOVA on Team Cohesion of the Experimental and Control Groups

According to Table 5 and Figure 1, after excluding the influence of the covariate (pretest scores)
on the dependent variable (post-test scores), ANCOVA results indicated that the implementation
of the SEM in the experimental group resulted in remarkable outcomes in terms of team cohesion.
Specifically, post-test scores of the experimental group in teamwork (M = 4.04 > 3.69), team adaptation
(M = 3.87 > 3.42), interpersonal interaction (M = 4.01 > 3.55), and the overall team cohesion scale
(M = 3.98 > 3.57) were all notably superior to those of the control group. Moreover, the F values were
10.48, 14.82, 16.95, and 16.51, and statistical significance (p < 0.05) was observed. According to the η2
(eta squared) standard proposed by Cohen [60], the effect size results of team cohesion obtained in this
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 9 of 15

study had a medium to large effect; the η2 values were 0.09–0.14. The experimental course developed
in this study significantly improved the team cohesion of participants. These results suggest that the
SEM group students improved their team cohesion more than their peers in the control condition.

Table 5. ANCOVA results for team cohesion of the experimental and control groups.

Source of Variation Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p η2

3.50 1 3.50 10.48 * 0.01 0.09
Teamwork
36.05 108 0.33
5.62 1 5.62 14.82 * 0.01 0.12
Team Adaptation
40.95 108 0.38
5.14 1 5.14 16.95 * 0.01 0.14
Interpersonal Interaction
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 32.76 108 0.30 9 of 14
4.63 1 4.63 16.51 * 0.01 0.14
Total Team Cohesion
30.27 30.27 108 108 0.280.28
**pp<<0.05.
0.05.

Figure 1. Team Cohesion performance between the experiment group and the control group.
Figure 1. Team Cohesion performance between the experiment group and the control group.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
The research outcome indicated that SEM intervention effectively improved the team cohesion
(including teamwork,
The research team indicated
outcome adaptation, thatandSEMinterpersonal
intervention interaction)
effectively of studentsthe
improved compared with a
team cohesion
traditional teaching method, and the hypotheses of the study were confirmed.
(including teamwork, team adaptation, and interpersonal interaction) of students compared with a The situated learning
enriched
traditional theteaching
actual sports experience.
method, In the team learning
and the hypotheses of the study mode, theconfirmed.
were right to make Thelearning
situateddecisions
learning
has shifted from teacher to students, and the sense of responsibility in individuals
enriched the actual sports experience. In the team learning mode, the right to make learning decisions was thus cultivated.
As
hasfor socialfrom
shifted behavior development,
teacher to students, withand thethesense
foundation of fair competition,
of responsibility students
in individuals was are
thusencouraged
cultivated.
to
Aslearn team behavior
for social skills for development,
different roleswith and achieve a betterof
the foundation learning outcome. These
fair competition, studentsresults supported
are encouraged
the hypotheses:
to learn team skillsapplying the SEM
for different rolestoandphysical
achieveeducation is effective
a better learning in improving
outcome. team supported
These results cohesion;
and students participate more proactively in SEM classes than under
the hypotheses: applying the SEM to physical education is effective in improving team cohesion; the conventional teaching
and
method. These findings were similar to those of previous studies [17,61,62].
students participate more proactively in SEM classes than under the conventional teaching method. The SEM improved
team
Thesecohesion
findings andwererendered
similar tooutcomes superiorstudies
those of previous to expectations
[17,61,62].[20].
The The
SEMauthors
improved of present study
team cohesion
propose that the
and rendered teamwork
outcomes model of
superior to the SEM already
expectations [20].embodies
The authors the team learning
of present spirit.
study Moreover,
propose that the
the
competition-centered design provides students flexibility and offers diversified
teamwork model of the SEM already embodies the team learning spirit. Moreover, the competition- evaluation methods.
The design
centered SEM is confirmed
provides to be
students an effective
flexibility teaching
and offers modeevaluation
diversified with a positive
methods.influence [63].
SEM The encourages students to
SEM is confirmed to create
be an profound meaningmode
effective teaching within
withindividuals, integrate [63].
a positive influence different
SEM
information, construct an overall feeling towards the learning content
encourages students to create profound meaning within individuals, integrate different information, on one’s own initiatives,
and develop
construct personal
an overall potentials
feeling towards andtheskills, which
learning should
content onbe very
one’s different
own fromand
initiatives, traditional
developteaching
personal
methods [64]. Physical education mode courses adopt game theory as the foundation
potentials and skills, which should be very different from traditional teaching methods [64]. Physical and emphasize
education mode courses adopt game theory as the foundation and emphasize the learning history of
the team. SEM physical education encourages students to learn through a social interactive mode to
cooperate and integrate messages from multiple directions, whereas traditional teaching methods
focus on the linear mode for the teacher to lead the teaching and learning of students in a single
direction [64]. In other words, teachers who apply SEM provide abundant learning opportunities [65],
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 10 of 15

the learning history of the team. SEM physical education encourages students to learn through a social
interactive mode to cooperate and integrate messages from multiple directions, whereas traditional
teaching methods focus on the linear mode for the teacher to lead the teaching and learning of
students in a single direction [64]. In other words, teachers who apply SEM provide abundant learning
opportunities [65], assist students to acquire social interaction skills in classes, and allow students to
have team cohesion and the ability to depend on each other.
In addition, the SEM employs seasons in its design to gradually empower power students to
participate in activities and educate students regarding their individual and common responsibilities.
This model increases the opportunity for peers to learn from one another in groups and enhances their
abilities of leadership, participation, and teamwork through role-playing. This teaching strategy can
effectively offer students opportunities to learn equality and team interaction. Thus, students can share
their knowledge and nurture their ability for collaboration and spirit of mutual trust through learning
as a collaborative team. Additionally, the development of the sustainable competitiveness of students
for their future was a focus of the study.

4.1. Teamwork
In the SEM team scenario, peers work together in coordination for the common goal and
demonstrate great team spirit on the sport field to obtain exceptional honors. The trust an individual
has for other team members represents a belief that the team can achieve the goal. Similarly, Perlman [17]
revealed that the SEM was able to support the psychological needs and self-determination of students
through teamwork and its affective domain. The process of the SEM could enhance their sports
relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Previous studies have revealed that teamwork was positively
related to the success of a team [55] and could improve collective efficacy [66]. For the population of
university students, this teaching model and structure enabled team members to respect the differences
of their peers and communicate from a perspective of trust, thus establishing collaboration as a norm
of the team. In this manner, students might be encouraged to participate in sports activities to enhance
team operation.

4.2. Team Adaptation

Team learning plays a crucial role as an necessary, though not sufficient, condition for team
adaptation [67]. Team adaptation, as a process, occurs when a team recognizes that a change happens
in the team environment, and is able to effectively address the unexpected situation [68]. When team
members engage in team learning processes, they evaluate and reflect on past performance episodes
and interpret the consequences of team actions [42]. The establishment of a team in the course,
assignment of team tasks, and achieving of team goals raised team awareness and a sense of cohesion
for students in addition to a sense of belonging. The level of team adaptation in terms of mutual respect
and care among team members affected the level of team cohesion. This is not a possible situation using
the temporary groupings of conventional physical education classes. From the perspective of course
design, the festivity element in the SEM ensures a joyful atmosphere among the team; this meets the
demands of students in terms of the adaptation of team members and enables a successful experience for
students when participating in sports. The teams in this study were established based on heterogeneity
grouping to balance their abilities. In addition, students were asked to play diversified roles in these
teams in accordance with the spirit of collaborative learning and an education of diversified values.
Such a course process, which carries substantial social meaning, offers a comprehensive physical
education experience for students.

4.3. Interpersonal Interaction

The SEM increased student positive peer interactions, as well as accurate self-monitoring by
students of their social interactions [25]. Implications for the importance of providing specific prosocial
objectives in physical education are discussed in light of this study’s findings. Moreover, the role
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 11 of 15

assignments of team members and game management in the SEM course encourage students to
participate in sports and enhance interaction and communication among peers. In other words, playing
different roles in competitions offers students a deeper, wider, and more positive educational sports
experience. The skills, decision-making, responses, and responsibilities that students learn by playing
these roles provide complete and rich fundamental experiences. Therefore, encouraging interpersonal
interaction is one of the substantial efficacies of the SEM.
In summary, this quasi-experimental study clarified the efficacy of SEM in developing team
cohesion in physical education. The findings seem to support the conclusion that SEM is effective.
The evidence shows that students who participated in SEM improved their team cohesion. The findings
of this study are meaningful in that they provide useful evidence for physical educators interested in
using these teaching methods to enhance students’ team cohesion.

4.4. Limitations of the Study

The teaching design ideology of the study is to discuss if SEM could be adopted to promote students’
team cohesion. The present study employed the nonequivalent pretest-post-test quasi-experimental
design; yet, difficulties were encountered during actual implementation due to factors including the
difficulty of acquiring a group sample, experimental mortality, lecture hours, and course progress
and budgets. The research target of this study is limited to two classes of 3rd-year students in a
university in Taiwan; in actual practice, one may only carefully infer the population. Thus, I would
recommend to expand the research target’s year of study, university, and area to acquire a more
complete research outcome.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusions
The current study fills a gap in the literature by investigating university students’ team cohesion in
the context of physical education classes. This study revealed that SEM is a feasible approach. However,
the process is filled with controversy; competition, as the goal of teaching, rendered mutual respect
among peers and demonstration of team spirit while integrating personal and social responsibilities
into teaching is more relevant than actual the learning outcome. Understanding sport education
model lessons during planned activity is important for gauging the impact of team cohesion on the
learning process. The SEM method systematically shifts the control of teaching to students for them to
obtain successful experiences in sports. Thus, teachers should think outside the box and be versatile
and creative when designing physical education courses. The SEM method is feasible in terms of
reaching sports potential and eliciting passion from students. The results of this study led to the
recommendation for physical education teachers to establish an effective team development strategy
and strive to influence the cohesion of the entire class directly. The intervention design implemented
in the current study provides stronger evidence of the effects of sport education model on university
students’ team cohesion. These findings can be applied to other physical activities to maximize team
cohesion in students.

5.2. Recommendations

5.2.1. Teaching
The research limitation of the present study was that the research targets were students from
only one university. However, the results of this study showed that the application of SEM in
physical education can enhance team cohesion. We hope that physical education experts and teachers
can integrate diverse teaching strategies into physical education to enhance both teaching and
learning effectiveness.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 12 of 15

5.2.2. Future Studies

Future studies are recommended to test for a delayed effect after 1–2 months to observe the
continued effectiveness of the SEM method on team cohesion. In addition, team cohesion was chosen
to as the indicator to evaluate efficacy in the present study because the aim was to determine the effect
of the SEM method on the team cohesion of university students, but additional efficacy evaluation
indicators can be added. For instance, students’ personal internal abilities, such as resistance to
pressure, perseverance, and the leadership of team members, are research variables suitable to be
efficacy indicators for future studies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.-C.K.; Methodology, C.-C.K.; Formal Analysis, C.-C.K.; Investigation,
C.-C.K.; Data Curation, C.-C.K.; Writing (Original Draft Preparation), C.-C.K.
Funding: This work was supported by the Ming Chuan University.
Acknowledgments: The corresponding author wants to thank Ming Chuan University (MCU, Taiwan) for
supplying the necessary material for the execution of the work; and the teacher and Administrative Director of the
P.E. office for showing me the school and giving me all of the necessary information.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mitchell, D.; Hutchinson, C.J. Using graphic organizers to develop the cognitive domain in physical education.
J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance 2003, 74, 42–47. [CrossRef]
2. Bailey, R. Physical education and sport in schools: A review of benefits and outcomes. J. Sch. Health 2006, 76,
397–401. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Brinkley, A.; McDermott, H.; Munir, F. What benefits does team sport hold for the workplace? A systematic
review. J. Sports Sci. 2017, 35, 136–148. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Cronin, L.D.; Allen, J.; Mulvenna, C.; Russell, P. An investigation of the relationships between the teaching
climate, students’ perceived life skills development and well-being within physical education. Phys. Educ.
Sport Pedag. 2018, 23, 181–196. [CrossRef]
5. Lyngstad, I. Legitimate, expert and referent power in physical education. Sport Educ. Soc. 2017, 22, 932–942.
[CrossRef]
6. Jewett, A.; Bain, L.; Ennis, D. The Curriculum Process in Physical Education, 2nd ed.; Brown and Benchmark:
Madison, WI, USA, 1995.
7. Knowles, A.; Wallhead, T.L.; Readdy, T. Exploring the synergy between sport education and in-school sport
participation. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2018, 37, 113–122. [CrossRef]
8. Mowling, C.M.; Brock, S.J.; Eiler, K.; Rudisill, M. Student motivation in physical education: Breaking down
barriers. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance 2004, 75, 40–45. [CrossRef]
9. Gallé, F.; Valerio, G.; Di Onofrio, V.; Mantile, G.; Bottiglieri, R.; Liguori, G. Physical education in the Italian
higher secondary school: A pilot study based on experiences and opinions of undergraduate students.
Sport Sci. Health 2015, 11, 109–116. [CrossRef]
10. Aquilina, D. A study of the relationship between elite athletes’ educational development and sporting
performance. Int. J. Hist. Sport 2013, 30, 374–392. [CrossRef]
11. Lupo, C.; Guidotti, F.; Goncalves, C.E.; Moreira, L.; Doupona Topic, M.; Bellardini, H.; Tonkonogi, M.;
Colin, A.; Capranica, L. Motivation towards dual career of European student-athletes. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2015,
15, 151–160. [CrossRef]
12. Kinchin, G.D. Sport education: A view of the research. In The Handbook of Physical Education; Kirk, D.,
Macdonald, D., O’Sullivan, M., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2006; pp. 596–609.
13. Parker, M.B.; Curtner-Smith, M. Health-related fitness in sport education and multi-activity teaching.
Phys. Educ. Sport Pedag. 2005, 10, 1–18. [CrossRef]
14. Siedentop, D. Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport Experiences; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL,
USA, 1994.
15. Siedentop, D.L.; Hastie, P.; Van Der Mars, H. Complete Guide to Sport Education; Human Kinetics: Chicago, IL,
USA, 2018.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 13 of 15

16. Siedentop, D. Sport education: A Retrospective. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2002, 21, 409–418. [CrossRef]
17. Perlman, D. Change in affect and needs satisfaction for a motivated students within the sport education
model. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2010, 29, 433–445. [CrossRef]
18. O’Neil, K.; Krause, J.M. The sport education model: A track and field unit application. J. Phys. Educ.
Recreat. Dance 2016, 87, 14–20. [CrossRef]
19. Clarke, G.; Quill, M. Researching sport education in action: A case study. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2003, 9,
253–266. [CrossRef]
20. Sinelnikov, O.A.; Hastie, P.A. Student’s autobiographical memory of participation in multiple sport education
seasons. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2010, 29, 167–183. [CrossRef]
21. Metzler, M.W. Instructional Models for Physical Education, 3rd ed.; Holcomb Hathaway: Scottsdale, AZ, USA,
2011.
22. Perlman, D. Motivating the student: Sport education can be a framework for success. J. Phys. Educ.
Recreat. Dance 2014, 85, 12–16. [CrossRef]
23. Wallhead, T.; Garn, A.C.; Vidoni, C.; Youngberg, C. Game play participation of a motivated students during
sport education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2013, 32, 149–165. [CrossRef]
24. Dana, P. The influence of the Sport Education Model on a motivated students’ in-class physical activity.
Eur. Phy. Educ. Rev. 2012, 18, 335–345.
25. Hastie, P.; Sharpe, T. Effects of a sport education curriculum on the positive social behaviors of at-risk rural
adolescent boys. J. Educ. Stud. Placed Risk 1999, 4, 417–430. [CrossRef]
26. MacPhail, A.; Kirk, D.; Kinchin, G. Sport education: Promoting team affiliation through physical education.
J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2004, 23, 106–122. [CrossRef]
27. Carlson, T.B.; Hastie, P.A. The student social system within sport education. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1997, 14,
467–477. [CrossRef]
28. Stran, D.; Curtner-Smith, M.D. Influence of occupational socialization on two preservice teachers’
interpretation and delivery of the sport education model. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2009, 28, 38–53. [CrossRef]
29. Wei-Ting, H.; Hsiu-Hua, L.; Yi-Hsiang, P. Student misbehavior in physical education: The role of 2 × 2
achievement goals and moral disengagement. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2017, 16, 302–310.
30. Hunter, G.K.; Perreault, W.D., Jr. Sales technology orientation, information effectiveness, and sales
performance. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2006, 26, 95–113. [CrossRef]
31. Eys, M.A.; Loughead, T.M.; Bray, S.R.; Carron, A.V. Perceptions of cohesion by youth sport participants.
Sport Psychol. 2009, 23, 330–345. [CrossRef]
32. Carron, A.V.; Bray, S.R.; Eys, M.A. Team cohesion and team success in sport. J. Sports Sci. 2002, 20, 119–126.
[CrossRef]
33. Filho, E.; Tenenbaum, G.; Yang, Y. Cohesion, team mental models, and collective efficacy: Towards an
integrated framework of team dynamics in sport. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 641–653. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Prouty, D. Project adventure-a brief history. In Adventure Programming Workshop Manual; Project Adventure,
Ed.; Kendall Hunt: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1991; pp. 5–23.
35. Festinger, L. Informal social communication. Psychol. Rev. 1950, 57, 271. [CrossRef]
36. Carron, A.V. Cohesiveness in sports groups: Interpretations and considerations. J. Sport Psychol. 1982, 4,
123–138. [CrossRef]
37. Carron, A.V.; Widmeyer, W.N.; Brawley, L.R. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport
team: The Group Environment Questionnaire. J. Sport Psychol. 1985, 7, 244–266. [CrossRef]
38. Belbin, R.M. Team Roles at Work; Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, MA, USA, 1993.
39. Yukl, G.; Gordon, A.; Taber, T. A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of
behavior research. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2002, 9, 15–32. [CrossRef]
40. Sundstrom, E.; De Meuse, K.P.; Futrell, D. Work team: Applications and effectiveness. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45,
120–133. [CrossRef]
41. Abrantes, C.M.A.; Passos, A.M.; Cunha, M.P.; Santos, C.M. Bringing team improvisation to team adaptation:
The combined role of shared temporal cognitions and team learning behaviors fostering team performance.
J. Bus. Res. 2018, 84, 59–71. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 14 of 15

42. Santos, C.M.; Passos, A.M.; Uitdewilligen, S. When shared cognition leads to closed minds: Temporal mental
models, team learning, adaptation and performance. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 258–268. [CrossRef]
43. Arkoff, A. Adjustment and Mental Health; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1968.
44. Evans, J.; Roberts, G.C. Physical competence and the development of children’s peer relations. Quest 1987,
39, 23–35. [CrossRef]
45. Hastie, P.A.; Sinelnikov, O.A. Russian student’s participation in and perceptions of a season of sport education.
Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2006, 12, 131–150. [CrossRef]
46. Penney, D.; Kinchin, G.D.; Clarke, G.; Quill, M. What is Sport Education and Why is it Timely to Explore
it? In Sport and Physical Education: The Key Concepts; Penney, D., Clarke, G., Quill, M., Kinchin, D., Eds.;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 3–22.
47. Lupo, C.; Mosso, C.O.; Guidotti, F.; Cugliari, G.; Pizzigalli, L.; Rainoldi, A. The adapted Italian version of the
Baller identity measurement scale to evaluate the student-athletes’ identity in relation to gender, age, type of
sport, and competition level. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169278. [CrossRef]
48. Barker, D.; Quennerstedt, M.; Annerstedt, C. Learning through group work in physical education: A symbolic
interactionist approach. Sport Educ. Soc. 2015, 20, 604–623. [CrossRef]
49. Lafont, L. Cooperative learning and tutoring in sports and physical activities. In Cooperative Learning in
Physical Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2012; pp. 152–165.
50. Hastie, P.A.; Buchanan, A.M. Teaching responsibility through sport education: Prospects of a coalition.
Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2000, 71, 25–35. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Cañabate, D.; Martínez, G.; Rodríguez, D.; Colomer, J. Analysing motions and social skills in physical
education. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1585. [CrossRef]
52. Hackman, J.R.; Morris, C.G. Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness:
A review and proposed integration. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Berkowitz, L., Ed.;
Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1975; Volume 8, pp. 45–99.
53. Salas, E.; Fiore, S.M. (Eds.) Why Team Cognition? An Overview. In Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors
that Drive Process and Performance; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 3–8.
54. Saavedra, R.; Earley, P.C.; Van Dyne, L. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. J. Appl. Psychol.
1993, 78, 61–72. [CrossRef]
55. Carron, A.V.; Colman, M.M.; Wheeler, J.; Stevens, D. Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis.
J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2002, 24, 168–188. [CrossRef]
56. Siedentop, D.L.; Hastie, P.A.; Van der Mars, H. Complete Guide to Sport Education; Human Kinetics: Chicago,
IL, USA, 2011.
57. Rosenshine, B. Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elem. Sch. J. 1983, 83, 335–350. [CrossRef]
58. Pan, H.-W.; Hsiau, C.-C. The relationship between coaches’ leadership behavior and team cohesion in college
basketball team. J. Chan. Jung Christian Univ. 2010, 14, 101–115.
59. Wu, C.-C. Effects of adventure education mountaineering courses on undergraduates’ life-effectiveness and
group cohesion. Sports Exerc. Res. 2014, 16, 1–13. [CrossRef]
60. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988.
61. Jenkins, J.M.; Alderman, B.L. Influence of sport education on group cohesion in university physical education.
J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2011, 30, 214–230. [CrossRef]
62. Schneider, R.C.; Marriott, S.T. Applying the sport education model to basketball. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance
2010, 81, 15–17.
63. Wallhead, T.; O’sullivan, M. Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Phys. Educ.
Sport Pedag. 2005, 10, 181–210. [CrossRef]
64. Chen, C.-Y.; Lin, C.-P. The Effects of Brain-Based Learning on Students’ Knowledge Structure, Problem-Solving
Capability, and Learning Motivation in Physical Education Teaching. Bull. Educ. Res. 2016, 62, 41–84.
65. Parker, M.B.; Curtner-Smith, M.D. Comparison of the motivational climates created during multi-activity
instruction and sport education. Phys. Educator 2014, 71, 417.
66. Spink, K.S. Group cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1990, 12,
301–311. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019, 11, 2348 15 of 15

67. Rosen, M.A.; Bedwell, W.L.; Wildman, J.L.; Fritzsche, B.A.; Salas, E.; Burke, C.S. Managing adaptive
performance in teams: Guiding principles and behavioral markers for measurement. Hum. Resour.
Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 107–122. [CrossRef]
68. Maynard, M.T.; Kennedy, D.M.; Sommer, S.A. Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and
framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2015, 24,
652–677. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).