The Effect of Education Model in Physical Education on Student Learning Behavior

Abstract

This research explores the effect of the sports education model implemented in physical education on college students' learning motivation and outcomes. The sports education model was compared with traditional physical education teaching as a control group. Participants were 60 college students in two classes. The ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction) Learning Motivation Scale, the Physical Education Affection Scale and a learning sheet were used for pre- and post-test comparison. Quantitative analysis was carried out on the post-test data using a dependent sample t-test and an independent sample t-test. The study found that: (1) the students in the sports education model group showed clear progress in learning motivation, affection, cognition and behavior, whereas the students in the traditional physical education group showed clear progress in cognition but no significant improvement in learning motivation, affection or behavior; (2) the sports education model group is clearly superior to the traditional physical education group in terms of learning motivation, affection, cognition, and behavior. This research shows that students are highly receptive to the sports education model, with a positive attitude and a high degree of motivation to learn to actively change their sports behavior. The sports education model brings several benefits: (1) it is an effective teaching method; (2) students' sense of responsibility, leadership and participation can be improved; (3) the preliminary homework and course structure descriptions take more time to compose, but can better guide students' motivation for learning physical education and can enhance teachers' professional growth.

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

“…The sports covered in these studies encompassed basketball, volleyball, soccer, ultimate Frisbee, table tennis, hockey, Polskie ringo, ball games, and body movements. Some studies examined two exercise programs [ 23 , 43 ], while the majority of research focused on basketball [ 44 , 52 , 53 ]. The participants in the course experiments were primarily college and high school students, with a limited number of studies investigating primary and junior high school students.…”

“…The majority of studies in the selected literature directly applied the SEM as the intervention. Five of the studies incorporated constructivism theory [ 48 ], self-determination theory [ 23 , 44 , 47 ], and ARCS learning motivation theory [ 52 ]. None of the literature investigated from the perspective of attitude theory.…”

“…Furthermore, none of the selected studies mentioned the teaching standards or syllabus used to design the course content, nor did they provide explanations for the rationale behind the experimental teaching content. The number of interventions in the trials ranged from 8 to 25, with up to half of the studies using fewer than 18 interventions [ 42 , 47 – 50 , 52 , 53 ], the recommended class hours for large unit teaching are not met [ 54 ]. The duration of each intervention was most commonly reported as 45 or 60 min [ 42 – 44 , 47 , 49 – 53 ].…”

“…The control classes in the selected literature implemented similar TT and forms, despite variations in naming used by scholars from different countries or even within the same country. The TT employed in the control classes were mainly Direct Instruction in Australia [ 43 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 52 ], Morocco [ 50 ], and Spain [ 42 – 44 ], In China, the traditional teaching models were referred to as TT [ 48 , 52 ] and Latent Growth Model [ 49 ]; Traditional Style in the United States and England [ 42 ], American Skill-drill-game [ 44 , 45 ], and multiactivity model [ 23 ].…”

“…In this literature review, it was evident that all the included studies reached a unanimous conclusion that the overall effectiveness of the SEM surpassed that of the TT. Among these studies, eight of them specifically evaluated students' cognitive performance [ 23 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 52 ]. Various assessment instruments were employed, such as the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) [ 42 , 43 , 45 ], the Amotivation subscale of the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) [ 23 ], the attitude questionnaire [ 48 ], the Spanish version of the Sport Satisfaction Instrument (SVSSI) [ 50 ], the ARCS Learning Motivation Scale, the Physical Education Affection Scale (PEAS) [ 52 ], and the ALT-PE data were collected using momentary time sampling for each team by trained coders [ 53 ].…”