THE SPORT EDUCATION MODEL IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

: This study is an updated review of the most recent implementations of the Sport Education Model (SEM) from 1st to 12th grades (ages 6-18), including the newest research trends for future studies. A systematic review conducted from 2013 to 2017 used the main reference databases and original articles including information about instances of SEM implementation in any school grade. Results showed that SEM implementation has expanded enormously over the last five years to include all learning domains: physical, social, cognitive, and affective. However, such implementation is not easy and it demands specific teacher training. SEM seems to be a proper pedagogical approach for sports practice while developing motor skills, tactical-technical knowledge, and values. Resumo: Este estudo consistiu em oferecer uma revisão atualizada das implementações mais recentes do Modelo de Sport Education (SEM) do primeiro ao 12º ano (6-18 anos), incluindo as mais novas tendências de pesquisa para estudos futuros. Uma revisão sistemática de 2013 a 2017 foi realizada utilizando os bancos de dados de maior referência e os artigos originais que incluíam informações sobre as implementações do SEM em qualquer grau escolar. A implementação do SEM expandiu-se enormemente nos últimos cinco anos para incluir todos os diferentes domínios de aprendizagem: físico, social, cognitivo e afetivo.


INTRODUCTION
Sport Education is a pedagogical model (SEM) designed to provide authentic sport experiences in Physical Education (PE), and to develop competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspersons (SIEDENTOP; HASTIE; VAN DER MARS, 2011).It is probably one of the most widely implemented and researched instructional approach all over the world.The goal of the current article is to review the existing SEM scientific literature, building on previous reviews (ARAÚJO; MESQUITA; HASTIE, 2014;HASTIE;MARTÍNEZ;CALDERÓN, 2011;HASTIE;WALLHEAD, 2016;WALLHEAD;O'SULLIVAN, 2005).There has been an exponential increase around the world (mainly in Portugal or Spain) of SEM studies from 2013 to 2017, written in English, Spanish or Portuguese, many of them not collected in previous reviews.Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005) built their review around the development of the five main aims of PE (ALEXANDER; LUCKMAN, 2001): motor skill development, tactical knowledge and performance, fitness, social development and student attitudes and values.Hastie, Martínez and Calderón (2011) organized their review around the main aims of PE: fitness, skill development, game play, tactical awareness, personal/social development, and students' attitudes and values.Araújo, Mesquita and Hastie (2014) structured their review around four ideas: the effects of time on the students' learning outcomes, the control of the teaching-learning process, the dynamics of the peer-teaching tasks and the content selected.Finally, Hastie and Wallhead (2016) shaped their review around students' competence, literacy and enthusiastic participation.
The present systematic review has been organized around SEM's impact on the four learning outcomes of PE: cognitive, social, affective and physical.These are considered legitimate learning outcomes of PE, and they should be addressed (KIRK, 2013).For all the above, the aim of this article was to provide an updated international systematic review on the SEM implementation from 1 st to 12 th grade (6-18 years; elementary, middle and high school) to find new trends of research.

METHOD
A systematic review has been conducted to summarize the available evidence around the SEM over the last five years.This type of review focus on the key elements of the specific studies that implemented the topic under review (SEM) to recap the existing information, and subsequently, analyse and compare the studies with similar ones (MANTEROLA et al., 2013).
SEM literature produced from 2013 to 2017 was searched systematically using seven electronic databases: EBSCO host, ERIC, Google Scholar, Medline, SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science; which included journal papers found in scientific journals related to sports and education.The following descriptors were used: "Sport Education (Model)", "(elementary, middle and high) school" and "young students".Additionally, both English Boolean data type "and" and "or" were used.
Initially, as it is showed in Figure 1, 6.856 publications were found using the mentioned keywords at the databases cited above.4.317articles were excluded because: (I) they were duplicated; (II) they were not published in peer reviewed journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) or the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR); and/or (III) they were not implemented in any school.

933
Figure 1 -The flow diagram of the systematic review process.

Final inclusion criteria n = 38
Source: prepared by authors.
Finally, 2.539 articles were considered potential studies, but only 38 were included according to the following criteria: (I) they implemented the SEM as a pedagogical approach; (II) they included information about SEM implementation in elementary (1 st to 5 th grade -6 to 10 years), middle (6 th to 8 th grade -11 to 13 years) and/or high school (9 th to 12 th grade -14 to 18 years); and (III) they included information about the SEM in several countries to observe the adaptations performed in the model based on the cultural and geographical context.
The summary of the 38 articles selected (Table 1) includes: author (s) and year of publication; country, grade (s) and length (s); content (s) and analysis (conducted); purpose (s) of the study; results; and learning outcomes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results have been discussed around the key elements used to categorize the articles included in this review (country; students' grade/length; sport/content; analysis) and SEM' impact on the learning outcomes of PE (personal/social development: social and affective outcomes; game performance/tactical knowledge: cognitive and physical outcomes).Table 1 summarizes the studies included in the review from the last five years (2013-2017).

Country
Results showed that most published research was conducted in the USA, Spain and Portugal.However, new countries have emerged in this research field.SEM, which originated in the USA and later moved to Australia and Europe (HASTIE; MARTÍNEZ; CALDERÓN, 2011;WALLHEAD;O'SULLIVAN, 2005), has expanded to countries such as Singapore (CHONG;PENNEY, 2013), Finland (ROMAR;SARÉN;HASTIE, 2016) and Brazil (GINCIENE;MATTHIESEN, 2017).This means that SEM can be implemented in many different educational contexts.However, some aspects of the model (i.e., number of sessions or roles performed by the students) had to be adapted to facilitate its implementation in different countries (GINCIENE;MATTHIESEN, 2017).

Students' grade/ length
Studies conducted in students of all elementary, middle and high school grades (1 st -12 th ; 6-18 years) were observed: 26,32% were conducted in several grades, 28,95% in elementary schools (most at 4 th -5 th grade), 26,32% in middle schools (most at 6 th grade), 26,32% in high schools (most at 10 th grade), and 18,42% at various educational levels.Results showed that SEM implementation was larger in elementary school (4 th -5 th grade), followed by 10 th grade of high school.
Previous reviews (HASTIE; MARTÍNEZ; CALDERÓN, 2011; ARAÚJO; MESQUITA; HASTIE, 2014) identified middle school and 6 th grade as the most frequent years, followed by high school, but only two studies (QUILL; CLARKE, 2005; CALDERÓN; HASTIE; MARTÍNEZ, 2010) focused on the early grades (earlier than 4 th grade).Over the last 4 years, there has been a shift in SEM implementation and assessment to elementary school.These years are considered a sensitive period in the individuals' development and game learning has been recommended (EVANGELIO et al., 2016).
The present review has showed that the SEM can be implemented in early grades in Spain and the USA (earlier than5 th grade) (GUTIÉRREZ et al., 2014;LAYNE;HASTIE, 2014a;CALDERÓN et al., 2016;MARTÍNEZ;MÉNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ;VALVERDE, 2016).However, SEM implemented in very young students required greater teacher preparation (LAYNE; HASTIE, 2014a).Regarding the length of the studies, the majority lasted from 10 to 15 lessons (47,36%), followed by interventions from 16 to 20 lessons (42,10%).12-lessons length was the most popular intervention framework (21,05%).Finally, one implementation was conducted in only four lessons, other in six lessons, and two different studies were conducted in 20-25 and 28 lessons each.

Portugal
Volleyball Assess the evolution of content knowledge from the teacher to student-coaches in a hybrid SEM-SGA season.

Analysis (type)
The majority of the studies used a mixed methods research methodology (47,36%), followed by quantitative or qualitative methods alone (26,31% each one).Among the quantitative methods used to assess the SEM impact on the students there were performance tasks, tests or questionnaires such as the "Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale" (VLACHOPOULOS; MICHAILIDOU, 2006) used by Gil-Arias et al. (2017), or the "Sport Education benchmark observation instrument" (SINELNIKOV, 2009) used by Romar, Sarén and Hastie (2016).Among the qualitative methods used, there were interviews (ARAÚJO et al., 2017), discussion groups (GUTIÉRREZ et al., 2013) or drawings (MÉNDEZ-GIMÉNEZ; MARTÍNEZ, 2017).

Personal/social development: social and affective learning outcomes
Results of the present review have showed the SEM' impact on social and affective learning outcomes, which connect with students' personal and social development (i.e., responsibility, social relationships, emotional learning, basic psychological needs, physical self-concept).Social learning outcomes were assessed in 21,05% of the studies, while affective learning outcomes in 18,42%.Previous reviews indicated that SEM implementation can fulfil students' basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness (MACPHAIL; KINCHIN, 2004), and new studies included in the present review supported this Movimento, Porto Alegre, v. 24, n. 3, p. 931-946, jul./set.de 2018.

Game performance/tactical knowledge: cognitive and physical learning outcomes
Cognitive and physical learning outcomes of PE are connected to game performance and tactical knowledge.Cognitive learning was the outcome most frequently assessed (39, 47%), while physical learning was assessed in fewer studies (13,16%).Previous and current reviews showed that the SEM favoured students' game performance and tactical knowledge through an increase in their competence (PRITCHARD et al., 2008;HASTIE;SINELNIKOV;GUARINO, 2009;CALDERÓN;MARTÍNEZ;HASTIE, 2013); specially, when SEM was hybridized with other models such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) (HASTIE; CURTNER-SMITH, 2006), or the Invasion Games Competence Model (IGCM) (FARIAS; MESQUITA; HASTIE, 2015).However, such a complex framework can also cause negative outcomes in the students' understanding of tactical principles (GUTIÉRREZ et al., 2014).
Some studies highlighted that SEM can increase students' skill level, perceived competence and tactical knowledge (PRITCHARD et al., 2008;PEREIRA et al., 2015), as well as their participation and enthusiasm (CALDERÓN; MARTÍNEZ; MARTÍNEZ, 2013) more than other instructional framework such as DI.Nonetheless, some studies showed similar improvements in sports learning in both structures (HASTIE et al., 2013;PEREIRA et al., 2016).When considering students' skill level and the effects of the SEM in their improvements, research has been inconclusive: (1) less-participant students increased motivation and inclusion (PILL, 2008;PERLMAN, 2012); (2) medium-level students had bigger improvements (MAHEDERO et al., 2015); and (3) boys and girls of all skill levels improved (PEREIRA et al., 2015).In all cases, high skill level or leader students seemed to play a very important role to help other students (HASTIE; CURTNER-SMITH, 2006;CALDERÓN;MARTÍNEZ;MARTÍNEZ, 2013).
Regarding gender, studies included in previous reviews showed that girls obtained higher levels of success, emphasizing the length of the seasons as an essential factor in these results (CARLSON 1995).In accordance with this finding, more recent research emphasised the improvements in skill execution and tactical decisions in girls (MESQUITA; FARIAS; HASTIE, 2012).Nevertheless, other studies found better results in skill development and tactical knowledge in boys (HASTIE; SINELNIKOV; GUARINO, 2009).Furthermore, girls showed more commitment with the roles (GARCÍA-LÓPEZ et al., 2012) and developed higher levels of responsibility and autonomy (FERNÁNDEZ-RÍO; MENÉNDEZ-SANTURIO, 2017).Finally, other studies showed less participation opportunities for boys (GUTIÉRREZ et al., 2013;HASTIE;WARD;BROCK, 2017).Again, results are contradictory and inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS
The present review of the SEM literature from 2013 to 2017 showed that its implementation has expanded over the last five years to include all school grade levels and all continents to assess its impact in the four learning outcomes of PE (physical, social, cognitive and affective), and to join forces with other pedagogical frameworks to maximize their effects.SEM implementations have showed positive impacts on participants' learning (game performance and tactical-technical knowledge) regardless of their skill level and gender, in their social skills and values (empathy, assertiveness or fair play), and in their enthusiasm, enjoyment and preference for practising sports with this model.SEM also helped fulfil students' basic psychological needs, developing more competence, autonomy and relatedness.Finally, it is necessary to examine the possibilities of the SEM with other pedagogical models because it is a new trend of research.
in peer reviewed journal -Not implemented in the three educative levels -SEM implementation as pedagogical approach -SEM implementation in the three educative levels -SEM implementation in several countries -