Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2026
Physical Activity Measurement in Children Accepting Table Tennis Training
Published on: July 27, 2022
Comparative effects of physical education teaching models on motor skill development in school-aged children and
Qi Tian1, Yaowen Liu2, Ziyu Wang3
1College of Physical Education, Chengdu University, Chengdu, China.
Background:
Motor skill development is a central objective of school physical education, yet the comparative effectiveness of teaching models remains unclear.
Objective:
This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared physical education teaching models for motor skill development in school-aged children and adolescents.
Methods:
Records were identified from Scopus (n = 300), Web of Science (n = 41), OpenAlex (n = 63), and PubMed (n = 33). After removal of 42 duplicates, 395 records were screened, 65 full texts were assessed, and 21 studies were retained in the systematic review. Thirteen studies contributed to the under-18 primary network restricted to school-based physical motor execution or sport-specific performance outcomes; 19 contributed to a broader sensitivity network. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261417609). Random-effects models estimated standardized mean differences (SMD) relative to Control and P-score rankings.
Results:
The primary network contained nine treatment nodes. Hybrid Teaching Games for Understanding-Sport Education (TGfU-SE), Nonlinear pedagogy, and Functional games showed the most favorable relative effect estimates in the primary network. However, the treatment ordering was sensitive to outcome definition, participant age, and individual studies, while substantial heterogeneity, network inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias remained. In the broad sensitivity network, Cooperative had the highest P-score and estimated effect only while the single Akil visual-motor integration study was included; the node disappeared when that study was removed.
Conclusion:
Restricting the primary network to participants younger than 18 years improved population and outcome comparability and reduced heterogeneity, but significant inconsistency, sparse comparisons, and risk of bias preclude a definitive hierarchy. The P-score ordering should therefore be interpreted as a set of conditional effect estimates rather than proof that one teaching model is universally superior. In practice, physical education teachers should select and implement structured teaching models according to student age, learning objectives, sport content, and teaching context.
Systematic Review Registration:
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261417609, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420261417609).
