Article

European Physical Education Review

2022, Vol. 28(1) 78–99
The effect of the Sport ª The Author(s) 2021

Education Model on basic Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
needs, intrinsic motivation DOI: 10.1177/1356336X211017938
journals.sagepub.com/home/epe

and prosocial attitudes:

A systematic review and
multilevel meta-analysis
Mika Manninen
Dublin City University, Ireland

Sara Campbell
University of Georgia, USA

Abstract
This study aimed to provide a quantitative synthesis on the effect of the Sport Education Model
(SEM) on basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial attitudes in physical education
(PE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on experimental studies conducted
before August 2020. The initial search yielded 6061 articles, with 25 articles (n ¼ 2937) meeting
the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed using five separate analyses using two- and three-
level random-effects models and Hedges’ g effect size. The study showed the SEM to have a
positive heterogeneous medium effect on autonomy (g ¼ 0.43; CI 95% [0.12, 0.74]), competence
(g ¼ 0.42; CI 95% [0.17, 0.67]) and relatedness (g ¼ 0.57; CI 95% [0.28, 0.85]) need satisfaction,
intrinsic motivation (g ¼ 0.63; CI 95% [0.37, 0.89]), and prosocial attitudes (g ¼ 0.46; CI 95%
[0.09, 0.83]). All a priori categorical moderators were statistically insignificant. The analyses
indicate that the SEM is more need-supportive and promotes intrinsic motivation and prosocial
attitudes more compared to the skill-drill, direct, and traditional instructional styles used in PE.
However, high-quality experimental and comparative trials testing the efficacy of the SEM on broad
outcomes are needed. Specifically, the concept of novelty, potential negative outcomes, and
essential behavioral outcomes, such as physical activity, should be included in the future. Further,
the fidelity of the interventions should be measured and reported with more transparency
and detail.

Corresponding author:
Mika Manninen, School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Collins Avenue Extension, Whitehall,
Dublin 9, Ireland.
Email: mika.manninen@dcu.ie
Manninen and Campbell 79

Keywords
Models, teaching, physical education, self-determination theory

Introduction
To provide youth with an authentic sport experience in schools, physical education (PE) teachers
often adopt the Sport Education Model (SEM) (Siedentop, 1994). In the model, students are placed
into teams where they compete for the entirety of the learning unit (season), which usually is at
least 12 lessons long. In their teams, students serve in various roles throughout the season, such as
referee, coach, athlete, or scorekeeper. In addition to organizing the learning unit as a sport season
(a), the SEM has the five other key characteristics of (b) affiliation, (c) formal competition, (d)
record keeping, (e) festivity, and (f) a culminating event (Siedentop, 1994).
The teaching strategies in the SEM are not clearly specified and can vary with different con-
textual factors of the learning unit (see e.g. Garcı́a López and Kirk, 2021). However, according to
Siedentop (1994), PE teachers use mainly three instructional strategies in the SEM: direct
instruction, cooperative learning, and peer teaching. Direct instruction is usually used in the first
lessons of the model, as students are still becoming familiar with the model. Cooperative learning
typically occurs as students become more comfortable with the model. For example, after the first
lessons, students have the opportunity to make decisions within their teams regarding practice
strategies and playbook. In addition, peer learning takes place, for example, as students share the
responsibility of their teams’ success. While a range of teaching strategies can be used, the SEM is
generally viewed as a student-led approach (Hastie, 2016; Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005).
The goal of the SEM is to develop “competent, literate, and enthusiastic sportspersons”
(Siedentop, 1994: 4). Competence refers to the ability to discern and execute skills and strategies of
games (Siedentop et al., 2011). Literacy is defined as a student’s ability to implement good and bad
practices of sports culture (Siedentop et al., 2011). Enthusiasm refers to a student’s “desire to
participate because they have come to value the experiences and enjoyment derived from
participation” (Siedentop et al., 2011: 5). Although best measured via behavior, scholars have
commonly examined these desired student outcomes through established social and psychological
constructs, such as motivation, enjoyment, and prosocial attitudes, with self-report questionnaires.
Specifically, the desired outcomes of competence and enthusiasm are associated with constructs
established in self-determination theory (SDT) (competence and intrinsic motivation), while the
literacy outcome is often assessed through sport-specific prosocial attitudes (Chu and Zhang, 2018;
Hastie, 2016; Perlman and Karp, 2010).

Self-determination theory
SDT is arguably the most used theory to examine motivation in education (Deci and Ryan, 1985,
2000; Ryan and Deci, 2020). The theory posits that students are naturally inclined to learn, grow,
and become connected with others, but that these processes require supporting conditions (Ryan
and Deci, 2017, 2020). Specifically, SDT argues that the satisfaction of the three basic psycho-
logical needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are vital for desirable human development
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Autonomy refers to engaging in behaviors with a full sense of volition,
ownership, and initiative (Deci and Ryan, 2000). The need for competence concerns the experience
of mastery and efficacy, while the need for relatedness refers to a sense of feeling belonging with
80 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

other people in a meaningful way (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2000). Educational research based on
SDT primarily focuses on how different educational environments support or thwart the three basic
needs (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2020). In general terms, need-supportive conditions
satisfy students’ basic needs and promote intrinsic motivation, while need-thwarting conditions
frustrate basic needs and lead to amotivation or extrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan
and Deci, 2017). From the view of SDT, intrinsic motivation is the most optimal form of moti-
vation, as it relates to activities done for inherent interest and enjoyment without the presence of
external forces (Deci and Ryan, 2000). In the PE context, research has shown need satisfaction and
intrinsic motivation to be strongly linked with various desirable student outcomes, such as physical
activity and engagement (Vasconcellos et al., 2020; Xiang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2011).
SDT constructs of competence need satisfaction and intrinsic motivation are conceptually
associated with the competence and enthusiasm learning outcomes of the SEM, and are hence
widely researched outcomes of the SEM (e.g. Cuevas et al., 2016; Wallhead and Ntoumanis,
2004). Further, the SEM has several characteristics that can be seen to support the needs for
relatedness and autonomy. Namely, the SEM’s focus on student affiliation, peer teaching, and
student responsibility compared to traditional PE teaching have been hypothesized to support these
needs (Perlman, 2010; Wallhead and Ntoumanis, 2004). On the other hand, some have argued that
the SEM’s emphasis on formal competition can be detrimental for students’ need for competence
and intrinsic motivation (Cuevas et al., 2016; Wallhead and Ntoumanis, 2004).

Prosocial attitudes
The term “prosocial behaviors” refers to voluntary acts intended to help or benefit another indi-
vidual or group of individuals (Eisenberg and Fabes, 1998). In PE, helping, encouraging, and
respecting classmates are examples of prosocial behaviors (Jennings and Greenberg, 2009).
Examples of prosocial behaviors in sports include acts of sportspersonship such as shaking hands
after a competition or showing respect toward teammates, referees, opponents, or the laws of the
game (Kavussanu et al., 2013). Notably, prosocial behaviors have the potential to benefit others
and improve sport experience (Grusec et al., 2002). Relating to the SEM specifically, prosocial
behaviors can be viewed as part of the literacy learning outcome. While these outcomes are best
measured at a behavioral level, PE research has mainly employed self-report instruments to tap
into students’ prosocial attitudes (see Cheon et al., 2018, for an exception).

Purpose of the study

The SEM is one of the most extensively studied instructional models in PE. The plethora of
systematic reviews of the SEM literature speak to the model’s popularity (Bessa et al., 2019; Chu
and Zhang, 2018; Evangelio et al., 2018; Hastie, 2011, 2014, 2016; Kinchin, 2006; Wallhead and
O’Sullivan, 2005). When looking across all of the reviews, a number of trends emerge: (a) research
on the SEM is expanding; (b) the expansion of research has produced more sophisticated research
designs across various contexts; (c) scholars display a propensity to measure the student outcomes
of competence, literacy, and enthusiasm through basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and
prosocial attitudes; (d) the SEM generally promotes social and psychological well-being when
compared to traditional models, such as skill-drill and technique-based models.
Given these trends, a meta-analysis offers a logical step forward for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the narrative reviews (e.g. Bessa et al., 2019) have established that the SEM promotes the
Manninen and Campbell 81

social and psychological well-being of students, but a meta-analysis is necessary to reveal the
magnitude and detail of those effects. Secondly, meta-analysis is able to consider how study
characteristics such as country, gender, season length, and fidelity impact the relationship between
the SEM and student outcomes. Thirdly, a comprehensive and systematic quantification across
studies allows researchers and practitioners to better understand the generalizability of the SEM.
Fourthly, a meta-analysis has the ability to uncover trends related to research design and reporting
that can be used to guide future research. Lastly, to our knowledge, scholars are yet to perform
a focused meta-analysis on SEM studies (see Sierra-Dı́az et al., 2019, for a meta-analysis of
PE instructional models and motivation). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to provide a
quantitative synthesis on the effect of the SEM on basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and
prosocial attitudes in PE. To this end, this study had two broad research questions: (a) what is the
effect of the SEM on basic need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial attitudes compared
to traditional PE instruction?; (b) what study features moderate the effects detailed in research
question one?

Methods
Article identification
This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). The process of
article identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion can be seen in Figure 1.
To begin, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to avoid reporting bias. The
inclusion criteria required articles to: (a) be written in English or Spanish; (b) be peer-reviewed
research publications from academic journals, unpublished manuscripts, conference publications,
book chapters, or dissertations; (c) be published before August 2020; (d) be placed in a PE setting;
(e) be intervention studies using control and experimental groups with pre- and post-measures; (f)
be intervention studies testing the effect of the SEM; (g) statistically report one or more of the
following outcomes: autonomy, competence, relatedness, intrinsic motivation or enjoyment, and
prosocial outcomes (e.g. respect and fair play). Articles were excluded if the control and experi-
mental groups were incompatible (e.g. control group: traditional instruction, experimental group:
the SEM combined with teaching personal and social responsibility).
The first phase of data collection was article identification. In this phase, the following data-
bases were used to perform the search: Web of Science, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, ERIC,
SportDISCUS, GreyLiterature, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database, and Google Scholar.
The search was performed between July and August 2020 using the following keyword combi-
nations: sport education, model, instruction, teach*, motivation, self-determination, basic need*,
autonomy, competence, relatedness, prosocial, friendship, collaboration, support, sportsmanship,
respect, physical, education, school, experimental, trial, comparison. The exact keyword com-
binations are listed in the supplemental files. Filters were applied to meet the inclusion criteria.
Duplicates were identified and removed.
The next phase of data collection was article screening. During this phase, the first and second
authors scanned the title and abstract of each article and removed articles if they did not meet the
inclusion/exclusion criteria. At this stage the authors also set aside any literature reviews on the
SEM to be reviewed for additional studies in the next stage.
82 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

Identification

Records identified through database Additional records identified

searching through other sources
(n = 6039) (n = 27)

Records after duplicates removed

(n = 5263)
Screening

Records screened Records excluded

(n = 5263) (n = 5062)

Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded,

Eligibility

for eligibility with reasons

(n = 201) (n = 176)

• Wrong intervention = 81
• Nonexperimental = 51
• Wrong outcomes = 40
Studies included in • Wrong language = 3
• Inadequate reporting = 1
qualitative synthesis
(n = 25)
Included

Studies included in
quantitative synthesis
(n = 25)

Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection.

In the third phase of data collection, the first and second authors read the full text of the
remaining articles to assess their eligibility. Articles were removed if they did not meet the
inclusion/exclusion criteria. During this phase, the authors also used a number of strategies to
expand the search to locate any missing studies. Firstly, the reference list of the fully reviewed
articles was scanned for missing studies. Secondly, the literature reviews saved in the previous
phase were read in their entirety to identify any missing studies. Additional articles were identified
through reference lists and literature reviews (n ¼ 20). These articles were also read in their
entirety and were included in the meta-analysis if they met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. In total,
the first and second authors read the full text of 201 articles identified through the database search,
reference lists, and literature reviews.
Manninen and Campbell 83

Out of all the fully reviewed papers (n ¼ 201), initial interrater agreement in applying the
inclusion and exclusion criteria (Cohen’s unweighted kappa from R [version 4.0.0)]; R Core Team,
2020) was high (.97, CI 95% [.93, 1], z ¼ 13.8, p < .001; rough percentage agreement 99%). The
few disparities in applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria between the authors were resolved
via discussion. Both authors deemed one article eligible if additional information could be
obtained from the author (no success). Moreover, the author of an already eligible article was
contacted to seek more detailed information on the unreported scores relating to autonomy,
competence, and relatedness satisfaction (success).
The first authors of all the included articles were contacted through publicly available email
addresses to acquire unpublished data. If the email address of the author was not working or it was not
publicly available, the private message function of the ResearchGate website was used as the method
of contact. These authors were contacted a maximum of three times with one week between the contact
efforts. Only one author could not be contacted due to failure of finding current contact information.
In total, after all the search and reliability procedures, 25 articles were deemed eligible. Lastly,
the cited by and related articles functions in Google Scholar were used to identify additional
studies corresponding to the 25 articles included in the quantitative analysis. No additional studies
were located using this feature. The complete flowchart representing the article identification
process is provided in Figure 1.

Effect size calculation

Hedges’ g was used as the measure of the effect size (Hedges and Olkin, 1985). The effect sizes
were calculated by subtracting the mean change in the control condition from the mean change in
the intervention condition and dividing the difference by the pooled standard deviation of the pre-
and post-test scores (Hedges and Olkin, 1985; Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). As the correlation of pre-
and post-test scores was not available in the studies, a recommended estimate of 0.5 was used
instead (Follmann et al., 1992). The analyses with alternative correlations of 0.7 and 0.9 did not
have a substantial influence on the results.
All the studies included in the quantitative analysis reported group means for pre- and post-
scores and their standard deviations for an experimental and a control group. In the studies
reporting only a total number of participants, an even split of participants was assumed to the
different conditions (k ¼ 4). An increase in the need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and pro-
social attitudes resulted in a positive effect size.
The reliability of the outcome scores (k ¼ 79) was assessed with an unweighted Cohen’s kappa
for all extracted rough data (means, standard deviations, and number of participants in each group),
which were used to compute the individual and pooled effect sizes. The preliminary unweighted
Cohen’s kappa of the two authors for all the extracted data was high (.92, CI 95% [.90, .94],
z ¼ 402, p < .001; rough percentage agreement 91.9%). Before transforming the rough data into
effect sizes and variance estimates with the esc-package (Lüdecke, 2019) in R (version 4.0.0) (R
Core Team, 2020), a full rater agreement was achieved by locating and resolving dissimilarities,
which were mainly due to typing errors and other minor mistakes.

Selection and coding of the moderators

An a priori moderator selection based on reason and logic was conducted to explain the expected
variation in the effect sizes (Rosenthal and DiMatteo, 2001). A total number of six moderators
84 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

were categorized as age (under 15 years or 15 years and over), length (below 13 lessons or 13
lessons and more), sport (one or multiple sports included in the intervention), control condition
(skill-drill game approach or direct instruction, or traditional), fidelity (not reported or reported),
and study quality (below average or average and above), using the Medical Education Research
Study Quality Instrument [MERSQI] (Reed et al., 2007). As only one study did not have mixed
gender class groups, an a priori moderator of gender distribution was not analyzed. See supple-
mental file for the moderator table.
The agreement of moderator coding between the two authors was initially almost perfect
(Cohen’s unweighted kappa ¼ .98, CI 95% [.95, 1]; 98.8% rough percentage agreement). The two
differences in coding, which were due to typing errors, were reconciled before the analyses.

Study quality assessment

The quality of all included studies was analyzed with the widely used MERSQI tool (Reed et al.,
2007). The MERSQI has been used previously in educational studies outside of medical education
and has been reported to be a valid instrument to assess the quality of experimental research
(Bai et al., 2020; Reed et al., 2008). The MERSQI assesses the quality of a study via 10 items
organized into the six categories of study design, sampling, type of data, validity of evaluation
instrument, data analysis, and outcomes. The possible scores of study quality range normally from
5 to 18, but to fit the PE context, the tool was slightly modified by excluding potential/health care
outcome as a possible outcome from the tool, restricting the maximum score of the tool to 17. The
total quality score of each study is shown in Table 1.

Statistical analysis
Two different approaches were used to analyze the pooled effect sizes for the five outcomes. Two-
level random-effects models (Hedges and Olkin, 1985; Hunter and Schmidt, 2000), weighting by
the inverse of the variance of each effect and restricted information maximum likelihood (REML)
estimation of heterogeneity, were carried out separately for autonomy and relatedness using R
(version 4.0.0) (R Core Team, 2020) and the Metafor package (Viechtbauer, 2010). For compe-
tence satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial attitudes, separate three-level random-effects
models with the REML method and the Metafor package were used to cluster the individual effect
sizes at study level, as in some cases multiple effects coming from the same study were analyzed.
The three-level approach has been shown to adequately deal with the dependency (i.e. correlations)
of the effect sizes in simulation studies (Van den Noortgate et al., 2015). Models excluding both
the second or the third level at a time were also tested and, although the three-level model did not in
all cases outperform the simpler models (see supplemental file for sensitivity analyses), the more
complex modeling was applied to keep with the recommended practices of dealing with non-
independence of the effect sizes (Van den Noortgate et al., 2015).
The parameters Q and I2 were used to test the heterogeneity of the effects (Higgins et al., 2003).
The precision of effect sizes (g) was indicated by 95% CIs. A significant Q statistic indicates
heterogeneity between the effects and I2 indicates the non-sampling error variance of heterogeneity
between studies. For the three-level models, the heterogeneity was assessed separately at levels
two and three. The sum of the heterogeneity in those levels is the non-sampling error variance in a
three-level model. Heterogeneity of the effect sizes was indicated if the Q total reached a
 Table 1. Study features of the analyzed studies.
Study n (sex) Age Country Sport Teach exp with SEM Outcomes Length Phases SEM Fidelity Control Q

Burgueño and Medina- 148 (47% M) 17.04 Spain BB Experienced & trained 1. Sportsmanship 16 (8) All Monitoring. No data. SDG 10
Casaubón, 2020
Burgueño et al., 2018 44 (50% M) 16.32 Spain BB Experienced & trained
1. Basic needs 12 (6) All Monitoring. No data. SDG 9
Burgueño et al., 2017* 44 (50%) M 16.32 Spain BB Experienced & trained
1. IM 12 (6) All Monitoring. No data. SDG 9
Casado-Robles et al., 2020 114 (54%M) 14 Spain BB & Futsal Experienced & trained
1. Sportsmanship 12 (6) All Data reported. DI 9
Cuevas et al., 2016 86 (43% M) 15.65 Spain VB Experienced & trained
1. IM 19 (10) All Monitoring. No data. DI 9.5
2. Enjoyment
Cuevas et al., 2015* 86 (43% M) 15.65 Spain VB Experienced & trained 1. Basic needs 19 (10) All Monitoring. No data. DI 9.5
Fernandez-Rio et al., 2017 217 (52% M) 12–17 Spain UF Trained 1. Basic needs 12 (6) All Monitoring. No data. DI 9
2. IM
3. Enjoyment
4. Several PS
Gil-Arias et al., 2020 55 (51% M) 15.45 Spain VB & UF Trained 1. Enjoyment & 8 (4) All þ tgfu Data reported. DI 9
competence
Gil-Arias et al., 2017* 56 (51% M) 15.45 Spain VB & UF Trained 1. Autonomous 8 (4) All þ tgfu Data reported. DI 9
motivation
2. Basic needs
Hernández-Andreo et al., 93 (54% M) 13.32 Spain Alternative NA 1. IM 12 (6) NA No data. Trad. 8
2020
Kao, 2019 117 (35% M) 20.36 Taiwan BB NA 1. Team cohesion 20 (10) All No data. DI 10
Layne, 2015 26 (58% M) Uni. USA Jogging Experienced 1. Enjoyment 42 (14) All Data reported. DI 8.5
Luna et al., 2019 113 (57% M) 13.82 Spain Ringo Trained 1. EQ 16 (6) All Monitoring. No data. Trad. 9
Méndez-Giménez et al., 2017 94 (53% M) 11.62 Spain Multiple Experienced 1. Basic needs 12 (6) All Monitoring. No data. Trad. 9
2. EQ
Méndez-Giménez et al., 2015 295 (54% M) 12–17 Spain UF Experienced & trained 1. Social goals 12 (6) All Monitoring. No data. Trad. 9
2. Sportsmanship
3. Basic needs
Pan et al., 2019 133 (51% M) 16.8 Taiwan VB Trained 1. Several PS 32 (16) All þ TPSR Data reported. Trad.þ TPSR 10
Perlman, 2010 78 (31% M) Y. 9–12 USA Invasion Experienced 1. Enjoyment 16 All Data reported. SDG 9
2. Basic needs
Perlman, 2011 182 (50% M) Y. 9 USA VB Experienced 1. IM 20 (5) All Data reported. Trad. 9
2. Basic needs
Puente-Maxera et al., 2020 133 (50% M) 12.14 Spain Multiple Experienced 1. Friendship goals 18 (9) All Data reported. Trad. 10
Rocamora et al., 2019 88 (50% M) 11.16 Spain HB Trained 1. Friendship goals 15 (5) All Data reported. DI 9

(continued)

85
86
Table 1. (continued)

Study n (sex) Age Country Sport Teach exp with SEM Outcomes Length Phases SEM Fidelity Control Q

Spittle and Byrne, 2009 115 (84% M) 13-14 Australia Invasion Experienced 1. IM & Competence 10 (10) All No data. Trad. 9
Sun, 2016 60 (50% M) 16.0 China BB Experienced 1. Enjoyment 10 (10) Unclear Monitoring. No data. Trad. 9
2. Basic needs
Wallhead and Ntoumanis, 51 (100% M) 14.3 UK BB Experienced 1. Enjoyment 8 (8) All No data. Trad. 9
2004 2. Basic needs
Wallhead et al., 2014 568 (45% M) 14.75 USA Several Experienced 1. Enjoyment 100 (2 yrs.) All Data reported. Trad. 9.5
2. Basic needs
Viciana et al., 2020 109 (49% M) 14–15 Spain VB Experienced & trained 1. IM 12 All Monitoring. No data. DI 10.5
2. Satisfaction
3.Competence
4. Basic needs
5. Cooperation

Note. Studies marked with * report different findings from the same experiment listed above.
SEM: Sport Education Model. BB: Basketball; DI: Direct Instruction; HB: Handball; IM: Intrinsic Motivation; SDG: Skill-Drill Game; tgfu: Teaching Games for Understanding; TPSR:
Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility; Trad: Traditional; UF: Ultimate frisbee; VB: Volleyball.
Manninen and Campbell 87

significance level of p < .05, and the sampling error contributed to the observed variance less than
75% (Hedges and Olkin, 1985; Lipsey and Wilson, 2001).
A priori determined moderators were used in a linear regression analysis as univariate inde-
pendent variables to explain the possible heterogeneous effects of the outcomes. The level of
different moderators was limited to two (except for three for the control group) and the interactions
of the moderators were not tested because of inadequate numbers of effects for each outcome
(Deeks et al., 2011).
Egger’s test (Egger et al., 1997) using the standard error of the observed outcomes as a predictor
and the rank correlation test (Begg and Mazumdar, 1994) were used to detect publication bias via
asymmetry in the funnel plots. In the case of the three-level models, instead of a standard Egger’s
test, the inverse of the variances of the observed outcomes was used to detect funnel plot asym-
metry. Further, an analysis of Cook’s distances (studies greater than the median plus six times the
interquartile range of the Cook’s distances or significant visual differences as seen in plots) were
used to determine overly influential studies and to evaluate the need for the sensitivity analyses
(Viechtbauer and Cheung, 2010). The number of unpublished null effects that could reduce the
significance of the observed effects to <.05 was estimated as the random-effects fail-safe Nþ for all
the outcomes. The value of fail-safe Nþ signifies the minimal number of additional null effects
from multiple studies of the average sample size required to reach a non-significant value of the
mean effect size (Rosenberg, 2005). The results of the publication bias and sensitivity analyses are
in the supplemental file.

Results
Effects of the SEM on need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial attitudes
The 13 observed outcomes for competence need satisfaction ranged from –.14 to .87, with 85% of
the effects being positive. Based on the three-level random-effects model, the mean change
of competence satisfaction followed by the analyzed SEM interventions was .42 (CI 95%
[.17, .67], t ¼ 3.62, p ¼ .003). The average mean change differed significantly from zero but was
strongly heterogeneous (Q ¼ 47.6, df ¼ 12, p < .001, total I2 ¼ 75.7%).
For autonomy need satisfaction, the outcomes of 11 studies ranged from –.06 to 1.68, with 82%
of the studies having positive estimates. The mean change based on the random-effects model was
.43 (CI 95% [.12, .74], z ¼ 2.72, p ¼ .007). The Q-test indicated the true outcomes to be het-
erogeneous (Q ¼ 56.74, df ¼ 10, p < .001, I2 ¼ 86.9%).
The nine outcomes for relatedness need satisfaction were between .03 and 1.47, with all esti-
mates being positive. The mean change based on the random-effects model was .57 (CI 95% [.28,
.85], z ¼ 3.88, p < .001). According to the Q-test, the true outcomes are heterogeneous (Q ¼ 43.97,
df ¼ 8, p < .001, I2 ¼ 82.7%).
The 19 observed outcomes from 14 studies for intrinsic motivation ranged from –.19 to 1.42,
with 84% of the effects being positive. The three-level random-effects model indicated the
mean change of intrinsic motivation followed by the SEM interventions was .63 (CI 95% [.37, .87],
t ¼ 5.11, p < .001). The average mean change was strongly heterogeneous (Q ¼ 89.6, df ¼ 18,
p < .001, total I2 ¼ 81.8%).
For prosocial attitudes, the 27 observed outcomes from 11 studies were between –.33 and 2.34,
with 70% of the effects being positive. According to the three-level random-effects model,
the mean change of prosocial attitudes followed by the analyzed SEM interventions was .46
88 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

(CI 95% [.09, .83], t ¼ 2.56, p ¼ .017). The average mean change was strongly heterogeneous (Q ¼
280.3, df ¼ 26, p < .001, total I2 ¼ 92.1%). Forest plots of the five outcomes are presented in
Figures 2 and 3. Detailed descriptions of the study characteristics are in the supplemental files.

Moderator analyses
The significant Q statistics and high values of I2 for all the outcomes indicated that the variability
in the outcomes in SEM interventions was not only due to sampling errors of the independent
studies. The initial moderator analyses with regression analyses were conducted using six a priori
determined moderators: participant age, length of intervention, fidelity reporting, quality of study
(MERSQI), control group type, and sport (single sport, multiple sports) (see supplemental file).
None of the a priori moderators were significant for any of the outcomes. Therefore, we decided to
test for one exploratory moderator effect of the country Spain, as several studies were conducted in
Spain. Like the other moderators, this moderator did not have significantly different effects for any
of the outcomes.

Discussion
Our results indicate that the SEM is on average more need-supportive and promotes intrinsic
motivation and prosocial attitudes when compared to other widely used PE instructional styles,
namely direct instruction, the skill-drill game approach, and the “traditional style” of teaching.
More specifically, the study showed the SEM to have a positive heterogeneous medium effect on
autonomy (g ¼ 0.43; CI 95% [0.12, 0.74]), competence (g ¼ 0.42; CI 95% [0.17, 0.67]) and
relatedness (g ¼ 0.57; CI 95% [0.28, 0.85]) need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation (g ¼ 0.63; CI
95% [0.37, 0.89]), and prosocial attitudes (g ¼ 0.46; CI 95% [0.09, 0.83]). Despite the average
positive effect of the SEM on all the examined outcomes, it is important to note that except for
relatedness, in some contexts the outcome of the SEM can be negative.
In relation to the three psychological needs, the most relevant finding concerns competence.
The SEM has several characteristics that are likely to contribute to helping students feel more
competent in relation to the comparison models. Firstly, in the SEM, students serve in a variety of
roles (athlete, coach, referee, team manager), which gives them the opportunity to display their
personal strengths in a valued social setting. Secondly, the systematic record keeping feature of the
SEM provides each student an opportunity to receive feedback on their performance throughout
the learning unit (De Muynck et al., 2017; Mouratidis et al., 2008). Thirdly, the peer teaching
component of the SEM might allow students to engage more fully with the content because they
are required to observe their peers, demonstrate skills, and provide feedback (Hastie, 2016).
Fourthly, the SEM lessons in the analyzed studies were clearly structured and planned, which in
itself is a feature of a competence supporting learning environment (Aelterman et al., 2019).
Although the overall effect of the SEM on competence was significant and positive, it should be
noted that in some studies the effect was actually negative when compared to the other models (see
Perlman, 2011; Perlman and Karp, 2010). This variability could be attributed to the fact that the
SEM does not prescribe teachers or student coaches specific instructional strategies for developing
skill and tactical knowledge (Hastie, 2016). These differences may be exacerbated by the fact that
some teachers are untrained and, therefore, limited in their content and pedagogical content
knowledge, which may hinder their ability to teach higher order skills and tactics (Hastie, 2011,
2016; Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005).
Manninen and Campbell 89

Figure 2. Forest plots for competence, autonomy, and relatedness need satisfaction.
90 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

Figure 3. Forest plots for intrinsic motivation and prosocial attitudes.

Manninen and Campbell 91

The SEM also had a large effect on autonomy and relatedness need satisfaction when compared
to traditional models. One explanation for improvements in student autonomy could be the student-
led feature of the SEM. Most of the studies included in this analysis reported a third of the lessons
were student led. Student-led lessons promote a sense of volition (Bechter et al., 2019). Specifi-
cally, the ability for students to make their own choices (e.g. select team names, colors, roles) has
been shown to foster autonomy in PE (De Meester et al., 2020). The formal competition stage of
the SEM unit may be particularly important, as it requires students to organize their own practices
and prepare for festive activities. This requires creativity, experimentation, and self-regulation of
behaviors, all key characteristics of autonomy (Teixeira et al., 2019). Autonomy was not uniformly
improved by the SEM, suggesting that under certain conditions the model may not be as autonomy
supportive as the comparison models.
The only outcome having all positive effects was relatedness need satisfaction. The inherent
characteristics of the SEM, especially the pursuit of affiliation, are well-aligned with a relatedness
supporting environment. The teams the students work in from the beginning until the end of the
unit are likely to foster a deep sense of connection (Cox et al., 2009; Perlman and Karp, 2010).
Furthermore, the activities teams engage in also promote relatedness. Throughout the season,
students encounter challenges (e.g. losses) that require them to collaborate, devise strategies, and
problem solve together (Chu and Zhang, 2018). Previous literature has indicated that the SEM may
promote discrimination and exclusion based on student gender, skill level, or social status (Hastie,
2016), but our findings support more recent literature that indicates the SEM is generally an
inclusive model if implemented correctly (Harvey et al., 2020). Beyond the scope of this study, it is
also interesting to consider how broadly the SEM facilitates relatedness. For example, does the
SEM promote feelings of relatedness between teams or just within teams? Does the SEM promote
relatedness between students and teachers or just between students? These are questions that
researchers may look to pursue.
The effect of the SEM on intrinsic motivation was most pronounced out of all the examined
outcomes. According to SDT, the satisfaction of the three basic needs (competence, autonomy, and
relatedness) leads to more intrinsic motivation (Cox et al., 2009; Ryan and Deci, 2017; Vascon-
cellos et al., 2020). This offers one explanation for the larger effect on intrinsic motivation.
However, there might be other contributing factors. For example, the festive element of the SEM is
by definition fun and links directly with intrinsic motivation. In addition, students may feel more
intrinsically motivated by the SEM over other models due to the increased ownership they have
over the learning process. Interestingly, our results indicate the SEM promotes students’ intrinsic
motivation more than interventions designed to support students’ basic needs and motivation by
different communication strategies (Manninen et al., in review). This finding suggests that factors
such as the unit design, peer relationships, values, and novelty (Hassandra et al., 2003) may be
more important for student motivation than teachers’ communication strategies.
According to the analyses, the SEM promoted prosocial attitudes more than the traditional
models. Certain features of the SEM might play a role in facilitating prosocial attitudes. For
example, formal competitions, team practices, and festive activities present students with
numerous opportunities to practice their prosocial skills (fair play, respect, cooperation). In
addition, many teachers expand the record keeping feature of the SEM beyond the tracking of in-
game statistics and win–loss records to include displays of sportspersonship or teamwork. Lastly,
like intrinsic motivation, a need-supportive environment has been shown to increase students’
prosocial behavior in PE (Cheon et al., 2018).
92 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

Out of all the five outcomes included in this meta-analysis, prosocial attitudes were the most
affected by the contextual features. Only 70% of the effects were positive and the Egger’s test and
the rank correlation test indicated that publication bias may influence prosocial attitudes. Incon-
sistent findings may be explained by the model’s emphasis on competition and affiliation, which
has the potential to increase students’ engagement in antisocial behaviors (Graupensperger et al.,
2018). For example, students with a “win at all cost” attitude may cheat or show disrespect to
teammates who are less skilled. Ultimately, prosocial outcomes are highly dependent upon a
teacher’s ability to foster a cordial environment and clarify student roles (Guijarro et al., 2020;
Hastie, 2016). As such, the SEM should include features that promote students’ reflection on ethics
and morals surrounding sports.
To our surprise, none of the a priori moderators reached statistical significance. In addition, the
exploratory moderator of Spain as a country was not a significant moderator. However, a large
heterogeneity is typical in educational meta-analyses (e.g. Braithwaite et al., 2011; Lazowski and
Hulleman, 2016). The large heterogeneity together with a relatively small effect on each moderator
category resulted in limited power to detect statistically significant differences between the groups.
To confront this, more experimental research should be done to increase the power to detect the
possible influencing factors. Moreover, there might be factors influencing between-study het-
erogeneity that the moderators could not detect. For example, the study by Perlman (2010) had
only amotivated students as participants, whereas the other studies were done with typical classes.
We argue that more steps should be taken ensure model fidelity. Less than half of the studies
included in this report provided measures of objective model fidelity. The studies that did report
model fidelity were limited to reporting a binary (yes/no) use of different features of the SEM.
These structural features do not detail the specific characteristic of how students were taught sports
skills and tactics. For example, were the lessons primarily student led, or teacher led? How did
student coaches teach their peers sports skills? The SEM does not prescribe these characteristics,
which allows for teachers’ flexibility, but the vague fidelity reporting undermines the validity of
the results of the SEM research.

Unresolved issues and future studies

Although the SEM increased all the analyzed outcomes, a substantial number of questions persist
regarding the effectiveness of the SEM. Firstly, in all but one study, the students had not been
taught using the SEM before. Thus, it might be that some of the effects are due to the novelty of the
SEM compared to traditional lessons (González-Cutre and Sicilia, 2019). However, without
measuring novelty as a concept, it is difficult to claim that the effects of the SEM might have been
different if the students had had prior experience with the SEM.
Another characteristic of the interventions that needs addressing is the relatively long duration
of the learning units. On average, the intervention lasted for about 10 weeks and included 20
lessons. The extended length of the model may be difficult for teachers to implement, since some
national PE curriculums simply do not allow teachers to dedicate long periods of time to one or two
sports (see Finnish National Board of Education, 2014) (Harvey et al., 2020). In addition, in the
majority of the analyzed studies, the control group practiced only one or two sports during the
study duration. Practicing one sport for this long could be perceived as less motivating or need-
supportive than usual in a direct instruction format.
Need support, intrinsic motivation, and prosocial attitudes are commonly examined outcomes
of the SEM (e.g. Cuevas et al., 2016; Wallhead et al., 2014). However, we recommend that other
Manninen and Campbell 93

key outcomes also be included, namely physical activity inside and outside of PE (Hastie, 2011;
Rocamora et al., 2019). Lifetime physical activity is a main outcome of PE (e.g. NASPE, 2004),
yet physical activity levels were only measured in a few of the studies included in this analysis
(Hastie and Trost, 2002; Rocamora et al., 2019). The limited studies that have measured physical
activity in the SEM have shown promising results (Hastie and Trost, 2002). Nevertheless, there are
features of the SEM that have the potential to reduce physical activity levels. For example, students
may be less physically active if they are serving in the role of referee, team manager, or spectator
(during the culminating event).
To further pinpoint the usefulness of the SEM, we argue that negative PE outcomes should also
be considered in the future. Examples of such measures would be amotivation or aggression. The
inclusion of positive and negative outcomes as well as behavioral outcomes (e.g. physical activity
but also competence, literacy, and enthusiasm) would provide a clearer picture of the benefits and
limitations of the SEM.

Limitations
Although the study employed detailed procedures, there are limitations that should be taken into
account. Firstly, the small number of effects for most of the outcomes is an obvious limitation. In
addition, the results of the analyses are rooted in the methodological features of the included
studies, which lacked randomized allocation of participants to the conditions, proper fidelity
procedures, and various control conditions. Together these factors leave too much room for
speculation about the validity of the study results of the original articles.
The Egger’s tests, rank correlation tests, and fail-safe N metric suggested that there is a limited
possibility for publication bias with the retrieved studies, especially for prosocial attitudes.
However, caution regarding the publication bias results should be taken, as the number of analyzed
studies was relatively small, and the heterogeneity among effects high (Sterne et al., 2000).

Conclusions
This meta-analysis suggests that the SEM is more effective in promoting basic need-satisfaction,
intrinsic motivation, and prosocial attitudes compared to other more traditional PE instructional
styles. The models seem to especially improve students’ relatedness need satisfaction and intrinsic
motivation toward PE. The heterogeneity of the effects as well as the shortcomings in study
reporting and methods, however, prevent firm conclusions and highlight the relatively low quality
of SEM research. Further, we argue that physical activity as well as potential negative outcomes
should always be measured in models-based research. Excluding essential outcomes such as these
makes it difficult to balance the pros and cons of using the SEM in PE.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
94 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

ORCID iD
Mika Manninen https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5281-7309
Sara Campbell https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1628-4442

Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References
*Asterisk indicates studies were used in the meta-analysis
**indicates references are available in the supplemental material
Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, Haerens L, et al. (2019) Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in
motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational
Psychology 111(3): 497–521.
**Arias-Estero JL, Alonso JI and Yuste JL (2013) Psychometric properties and results of enjoyment and
perceived competence scale in youth basketball. Universitas Psychologica 12(3): 945–956.
Bai S, Hew KF and Huang B (2020) Does gamification improve student learning outcome? Evidence from a
meta-analysis and synthesis of qualitative data in educational contexts. Educational Research Review 30:
1–20.
**Balaguer I, Atienza FL, Castillo I, et al. (1997) Factorial structure of measures of satisfaction/interest in
sport and classroom in the case of Spanish adolescents. In: Abstracts of fourth European conference of
psychological assessment, September, Lisbon, Portugal, 76.
Bechter BE, Dimmock JA and Jackson B (2019) A cluster-randomized controlled trial to improve student
experiences in physical education: Results of a student-centered learning intervention with high school
teachers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 45(101553).
Begg CB and Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias.
Biometrics 50(4): 1088–1101.
Bessa C, Hastie P, Araújo R, et al. (2019) What do we know about the development of personal and social
skills within the sport education model: A systematic review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
18(4): 812–829.
Braithwaite R, Spray CM and Warburton VE (2011) Motivational climate interventions in physical education:
A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12(6): 628–638.
*Burgueño R, Cueto-Martı́n B, Morales-Ortiz E, et al. (2018) Clarifying the influence of sport education on
basic psychological need satisfaction in high school students. Motricidade 14(2-3): 8–58.
*Burgueño R and Medina-Casaubón J (2020) Sport education and sportsmanship orientations: An interven-
tion in high school students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(3):
837.
*Burgueño R, Medina-Casaubón J, Morales-Ortiz E, et al. (2017) Sport education versus traditional teaching:
influence on motivational regulation in high school students. Cuadernos de Psicologia Del Deporte 17(2):
87–97.
*Casado-Robles C, Mayorga-Vega D, Guijarro-Romero S, et al. (2020) ¿Es efectivo el Modelo de Educación
Deportiva para mejorar la deportividad y actividad fı́sica en escolares? RICYDE. Revista Internacional de
Ciencias del Deporte 16(60): 180–198.
Cheon SH, Reeve J and Ntoumanis N (2018) A needs-supportive intervention to help PE teachers enhance
students’ prosocial behavior and diminish antisocial behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 35:
74–88.
Chu TL (Alan) and Zhang T (2018) Motivational processes in Sport Education programs among high school
students: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 24(3): 372–394.
Manninen and Campbell 95

Cox AE, Duncheon N and McDavid L (2009) Peers and teachers as sources of relatedness perceptions,
motivation, and affective responses in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
80(4): 765–773.
*Cuevas R, Garcı́a-López LM and Serra-Olivares J (2016) Sport education model and self-determination
theory: An intervention in secondary school children. Kinesiology: International Journal of Fundamental
and Applied Kinesiology 48(1): 30–38.
*Cuevas R, López LG and Contreras O (2015) Influencia del modelo de Educación Deportiva en las nece-
sidades psicológicas básicas. Cuadernos de Psicologı́a del Deporte 15(2): 55–162.
De Meester A, Van Duyse F, Aelterman N, et al. (2020) An experimental, video-based investigation into the
motivating impact of choice and positive feedback among students with different motor competence
levels. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25(4): 361–378.
De Muynck GJ, Vansteenkiste M, Delrue J, et al. (2017) The effects of feedback valence and style on need
satisfaction, self-talk, and perseverance among tennis players: An experimental study. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology 39(1): 67–80.
Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York:
Plenum Press.
Deci EL and Ryan RM (2000) The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of
behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.
Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT and Altman DG (2011) Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In:
Higgins JPT and Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.
The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from: handbook.cochrane.org.
Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.
BMJ 315(7109): 629–634.
Eisenberg N and Fabes R (1998) Prosocial development. In: Eisenberg N (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychol-
ogy: Social, Emotional and Personality Development. Vol 3. New York: Wiley, 701–778.
Evangelio C, Sierra-Dı́az J, González-Vı́llora S, et al. (2018) The sport education model in elementary and
secondary education: A systematic review. Movimento 24(3): 931–946.
**Fernández-Berrocal P, Extremera N and Ramos N (2004) Validity and reliability of the Spanish modified
version of the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. Psychological Reports 94(3): 751–755.
*Fernandez-Rio J, Mendez-Gimenez A and Méndez Alonso D (2017) Effects of two instructional approaches,
sport education and direct instruction, on secondary education students’ psychological response. Sport TK:
Revista Euroamericana de Ciencias del Deporte 6(2): 9–20.
Finnish National Board of Education (2014) National core curriculum of Finnish basic education. Available
at: https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/perusopetuksen_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_
2014.pdf (accessed 30 September 2020).
Follmann D, Elliott P, Suh IL, et al. (1992) Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with con-
tinuous response. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 45(7): 769–773.
Garcı́a López LM and Kirk D (2021) Empowering children from socially vulnerable backgrounds through the
use of roles in sport education. Sport, Education and Society 1–13. Advance online publication.
**Garn A and Sun H (2009) Approach-avoidance motivational profiles in early adolescents to the PACER
fitness test. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 28(4): 400–421.
*Gil-Arias A, Claver F, Práxedes A, et al. (2020) Autonomy support, motivational climate, enjoyment and
perceived competence in physical education: Impact of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport
education unit. European Physical Education Review 26(1): 36–53.
*Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, Cárceles A, et al. (2017) Impact of a hybrid TGfU-Sport Education unit on student
motivation in physical education. Plos One 12(6): 1–17.
**Glass JS and Benshoff JM (2002) Facilitating group cohesion among adolescents through challenge course
experiences. Journal of Experiential Education 25(2): 268–277.
**González-Cutre D, Martı́nez Galindo C, Alonso N, et al. (2007) Las creencias implı́citas de habilidad y los
mediadores psicológicos como variables predictoras de la motivación autodeterminada en deportistas
96 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

adolescentes. In: Castellano J y Usabiaga O (eds) Investigación en la Actividad Fı́sica y el Deporte II.
Vitoria: Universidad del Paı́s Vasco, 407–417.
González-Cutre D and Sicilia Á (2019) The importance of novelty satisfaction for multiple positive outcomes
in physical education. European Physical Education Review 25(3): 859–875.
**Goudas M, Biddle S and Fox K (1994) Perceived locus of causality, goal orientations, and perceived
competence in school physical education classes. British Journal of Educational Psychology 64(3):
453–463.
Graupensperger S, Jensen C and Blair E (2018) A meta-analytic review of studies using the Prosocial and
Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale: Associations among intergroup moral behaviors. Sport, Exercise, and
Performance Psychology 7(2): 186–204.
Grusec JE, Davidov M and Lundell L (2002) Prosocial and helping behavior. In: Smith P and Hart C (eds)
Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development. Oxford: Blackwell, 457–474.
**Guan J, McBride RE and Xiang P (2006) Reliability and validity evidence for the Social Goal Scale-
Physical Education (SGS-PE) in high school settings. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25(2):
226–239.
**Guay F, Vallerand RJ and Blanchard C (2000) On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion 24(3): 175–213.
Guijarro E, MacPhail A, González-Vı́llora S, et al. (2020). The relationship between personal and social
responsibility and the roles undertaken in a Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
40(1): 76–85.
Harvey S, Pill S, Hastie P, et al. (2020) Physical education teachers’ perceptions of the successes, constraints,
and possibilities associated with implementing the sport education model. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy 25(5): 555–556.
Hassandra M, Goudas M and Chroni S (2003) Examining factors associated with intrinsic motivation in
physical education: a qualitative approach. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 4(3): 211–223.
Hastie P (2011) A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy 16(2): 103–132.
Hastie P (2014) Review of the status of learning in research on sport education: Future research and practice.
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 13(4): 846–858.
Hastie P (2016) Models-based practice in physical education: The case for sport education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education 35(4): 390–399.
Hastie P and Trost S (2002) Student physical activity levels during a season of Sport Education. Pediatric
Exercise Science 14: 64–74.
Hedges LV and Olkin I (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Academic Press.
*Hernández-Andreo L, Gómez-Mármol A and Cifo-Izquierdo MI (2020) Effects on motivation and implicit
beliefs about self ability using the sports education model and the traditional style in secondary education.
Sustainability 12(9): 3843.
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ
327(7414): 557–560.
**Hsu WT, Pan YH, Chou HS, et al. (2014) Measuring students’ responsibility in physical education
instrument development and validation. International Journal of Sport Psychology 45(5): 487–503.
Hunter JE and Schmidt FL (2000) Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for
cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 8(4): 275–292.
Jennings PA and Greenberg MT (2009) The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence
in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research 79(1): 491–525.
*Kao CC (2019) Development of team cohesion and sustained collaboration skills with the sport education
model. Sustainability 11(8): 2348.
Kavussanu M, Stanger N and Boardley ID (2013) The prosocial and antisocial behaviour in sport scale:
Further evidence for construct validity and reliability. Journal of Sports Sciences 31(11): 1208–1221.
Manninen and Campbell 97

**Kendzierski D and DeCarlo KJ (1991) Physical activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology 13(1): 50–64.
Kinchin G (2006) Sport education: A review of the research. In: Kirk D, MacDonald D and O’Sullivan M
(eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. London: SAGE, 596–611.
*Layne T (2015) Analysis of instructional impact on the running performance of university students. JTRM in
Kinesiology 4: 1–14.
Lazowski R and Hulleman C (2016) Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review
of Educational Research 86(2): 602–640.
Liplsey M and Wilson D (2001) Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Lüdecke D (2019) esc: Effect Size Computation for Meta Analysis (Version 0.5.1). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.
1249218, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package¼esc.
*Luna P, Guerrero J and Cejudo J (2019) Improving adolescents’ subjective well-being, trait emotional
intelligence and social anxiety through a programme based on the sport education model. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(10): 1821.
Manninen M (2019) An Examination of the Efficacy of Need-supportive Instruction on Motivation, Skill
Performance, and Affect. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
**Marsh HW, Richards GE, Johnson S, et al. (1994) Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psychometric
properties and a miiltitrait-meltimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology 16(3): 270–305.
**McAuley E, Duncan T and Tammen VV (1989) Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation
Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport 60(1): 48–58.
*Méndez-Giménez A, Fernández-Rı́o J. and Méndez-Alonso D (2015) Modelo de educación deportiva versus
modelo tradicional: Efectos en la motivación y deportividad. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Cien-
cias de la Actividad Fı́sica y del Deporte 15(59): 449–466.
*Méndez-Giménez A, de Ojeda-Pérez DM and Valverde-Pérez JJ (2017) Inteligencia emocional y media-
dores motivacionales en una temporada de Educación Deportiva sobre mimo. A´gora para la Educación
Fı́sica y el Deporte 19(1): 52–72.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine 6(7): 1–6.
Mouratidis A, Vansteenkiste M, Lens W, et al. (2008) The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and
physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 30(2):
240–268.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE] (2004) Moving into the Future: National
Standards for Physical Education, 2nd ed. Reston, VA.
**Newton M, Duda JL and Yin Z (2000) Examination of the psychometric properties of the Perceived
Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences
18(4): 275–290.
*Pan YH, Huang CH, Lee I, et al. (2019) Comparison of learning effects of merging TPSR respectively with
Sport Education and Traditional teaching model in high school physical education classes. Sustainability
11(7): 2057.
**Pelletier LG, Tuson KM, Fortier MS, et al. (1995) Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology 17(1): 35–53.
*Perlman D (2010) Change in affect and needs satisfaction for amotivated students within the sport education
model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29(4): 433–445.
*Perlman D (2011) Examination of self-determination within the Sport Education Model. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education 2(1): 79–92.
Perlman D and Karp GG (2010) A self-determined perspective of the Sport Education Model. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy 15(4): 401–418.
98 European Physical Education Review 28(1)

**Petrides KV, Sangareau Y, Furnham A, et al. (2006) Trait emotional intelligence and children’s peer
relations at school. Social Development 15(3): 537–547.
*Puente-Maxera F, Méndez-Giménez A and Martı́nez de Ojeda D (2020) Games from around the world:
Promoting intercultural competence through Sport Education in secondary school students. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 75: 23–33.
R Core Team (2020) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing.
Reed DA, Beckman TJ, Wright SM, et al. (2008) Predictive validity evidence for medical education research
study quality instrument scores: Quality of submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue.
Journal of General Internal Medicine 23(7): 903–907.
Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, et al. (2007) Association between funding and quality of published medical
education research. JAMA 298(9): 1002–1009.
*Rocamora I, González-Vı́llora S, Fernández-Rı́o J, et al. (2019) Physical activity levels, game performance
and friendship goals using two different pedagogical models: Sport Education and Direct Instruction.
Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 24(1): 87–102.
Rosenberg MS (2005) The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe
numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 59(2): 464–468.
Rosenthal R and DiMatteo MR (2001) Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for
literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 59–82.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Devel-
opment and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Ryan RM and Deci EL (2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective:
Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology. Epub ahead
of print. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860.
**Sánchez-Oliva D, Marcos FML, Amado D, et al. (2012) Desarrollo de un cuestionario para valorar la
motivación en educación fı́sica. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicologı́a del Ejercicio y el Deporte 7(2):
209–226.
Siedentop D (1994) Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign: Human
Kinetics.
Siedentop D, Hastie P and van der Mars H (2011) Complete Guide to Sport Education. 2nd ed. Champaign:
Human Kinetics.
Sierra-Dı́az MJ, González-Vı́llora S, Pastor-Vicedo JC, et al. (2019) Can we motivate students to practice
physical activities and sports through models-based practice? A systematic review and meta-analysis of
psychosocial factors related to physical education. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1–24.
*Spittle M and Byrne K (2009) The influence of sport education on student motivation in physical education.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(3): 253–266.
Sterne J, Gavaghan D and Egger M (2000) Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical
tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53(11): 1119–1129.
*Sun Z (2016) The advantage of using sport education instead traditional approach in physical education.
Journal of Research & Method in Education 6(2): 13–16.
Teixeira PJ, Marques MM, Silva MN, et al. (2019) Classification of techniques used in self-determination
theory-based interventions in health contexts: An expert consensus study. Motivation Science 6(4):
438–445. DOI: 10.1037/mot0000172.
**Vallerand RJ, Brière NM, Blanchard C, et al. (1997) Development and validation of the multidimensional
sportspersonship orientations scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 19(2): 197–206.
Van den Noortgate W, López-López JA, Marı́n-Martı́nez F, et al. (2015) Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes:
A multilevel approach. Behavior Research Methods 47(4): 1274–1294.
Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM and Soenens B (2020) Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical
themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion 44(1): 1–31.
Manninen and Campbell 99

Vasconcellos D, Parker PD, Hilland T, et al. (2020) Self-determination theory applied to physical education:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000420.
*Viciana J, Casado-Robles C, Pérez-Macı́as L, et al. (2020) A Sport Education teaching unit as a citizenship
education strategy in physical education: A group-randomized controlled trial. Retos 38: 44–52.
Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical
Software 36(3): 1–48.
Viechtbauer W and Cheung MW (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research
Synthesis Methods 1(2): 112–125.
**Vlachopoulos SP and Michailidou S (2006) Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Measurement
in Physical Education and Exercise Science 10(3): 179–201.
*Wallhead T, Garn A and Vidoni C (2014) Effect of a Sport Education program on motivation for physical
education and leisure-time physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 85(4): 478–487.
Wallhead T and O’Sullivan M (2005) Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical
Education & Sport Pedagogy 10(2): 181–210.
*Wallhead TL and Ntoumanis N (2004) Effects of a sport education intervention on students’ motivational
responses in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 23(1): 4–18.
**Wu CC (2014) Effects of adventure education mountaineering courses on undergraduates’ life-
effectiveness and group cohesion. Sports and Exercise Research 16: 1–13.
Xiang P, Ağbuğa B, Liu J, et al. (2017) Relatedness need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and engagement in
secondary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36(3): 340–352.
Zhang T, Solmon MA, Kosma M, et al. (2011) Need support, need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and
physical activity participation among middle school students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
30(1): 51–68.

Author biographies
Mika Manninen is an Assistant Professor of Physical Education at the School of Health and Human
Performance, Dublin City University, Ireland. His current research interests revolve broadly around effective
teaching practices and, in particular, their meaning for student motivation and behaviour.

Sara Campbell is a PhD candidate and research assistant in the Kinesiology Department at University of
Georgia. Her research interests are in coaching, coach learning, and coach education programs.