Interventions based on pedagogical models have been shown to improve various motivational variables in physical education (PE) students, but to date, need-supportive strategies grounded in self-determination theory (SDT) have not been implemented alongside these models to explore their potential added benefits. This study examines the effect of an educational project based on hybridizing the pedagogical models Sport Education (SE) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) with need-supportive strategies on PE students. The quasi-experimental design included 151 secondary PE students (Mage = 13.75, SDage = 0.81, 71 girls and 80 boys), divided into a control group (four classes; n = 74, 33 girls and 41 boys), receiving the SE/TGfU hybridization alone, and an experimental group (four classes; n = 77, 38 girls and 39 boys), receiving the SE/TGfU hybridization alongside need-supportive strategies. These strategies focused on fostering autonomy, competence, relatedness, and novelty. The intervention, conducted over 11 weeks, included 22 PE lessons. Repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance assessed effects on motivational processes (need support/thwarting, need satisfaction/frustration, and types of motivation), and cognitive (perceived learning), behavioral (engagement and physical activity intentions), and affective (self-esteem) outcomes. Both groups improved significantly in need support, need satisfaction, perceived learning, and reduced need frustration. Moreover, the experimental group showed greater increases in autonomous motivation, emotional engagement, self-esteem, and physical activity intentions, alongside larger decreases in need frustration and amotivation. The combined intervention generated additional benefits compared to the exclusive use of the SE/TGfU hybridization, suggesting that integrating need-supportive strategies can enhance students’ educational outcomes in PE.
Abella GarcíaVAusín VillaverdeVDelgado BenitoV, et al. (2018) Determining factors in the quality, satisfaction, and perceived learning in electronic learning courses taken by university professors. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa23: 733–760.
2.
AhmadiANoetelMParkerP, et al. (2023) A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational Psychology115(8): 1158–1176.
3.
American Psychological Association (2019) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th ed.Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
4.
BunkerDThorpeR (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education18(1): 5–8.
5.
CaseyAMacPhailA (2018) Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy23(3): 294–310.
6.
ChatzisarantisNLDHaggerMS (2009) Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation. Psychology and Health24(1): 29–48.
7.
CheonSHReeveJ (2013) Do the benefits from autonomy-supportive PE teacher training programs endure? A one-year follow-up investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise14(4): 508–518.
8.
CheonSHReeveJMarshHW (2023) Autonomy-supportive teaching enhances prosocial and reduces antisocial behavior via classroom climate and psychological needs: A multilevel randomized control intervention. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology45(1): 26–40.
9.
CheonSHReeveJMoonIS (2012) Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology34(3): 365–396.
10.
CheonSHReeveJSongYG (2016) A teacher-focused intervention to decrease PE students’ amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology38(3): 217–235.
11.
CheonSHReeveJSongYG (2019) Recommending goals and supporting needs: An intervention to help physical education teachers communicate their expectations while supporting students’ psychological needs. Psychology of Sport and Exercise41: 107–118.
12.
ChuTLZhangT (2018) Motivational processes in sport education programs among high school students: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review24(3): 372–394.
13.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge.
14.
DysonBGriffinLLHastiePA (2004) Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest (Grand Rapids, Mich)56(2): 226–240.
15.
FariasCMesquitaIRHastiePA (2015) Game performance and understanding within a hybrid sport education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education34(3): 363–383.
16.
Fernández-RíoJIglesiasD (2024) What do we know about pedagogical models in physical education so far? An umbrella review. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy29(2): 190–205.
17.
Fierro-SueroSAlmagroBJSáenz-LópezP, et al. (2020) Perceived novelty support and psychological needs satisfaction in physical education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17(11): 4169.
18.
García-GonzálezLAbósÁDiloy-PeñaS, et al. (2020) Can a hybrid sport education/teaching games for understanding volleyball unit be more effective in less motivated students? An examination into a set of motivation-related variables. Sustainability12(15): 6170.
19.
Gil-AriasAClaverFPráxedesA, 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 Review26(1): 36–53.
20.
Gil-AriasADiloy-PeñaSSevil-SerranoJ, et al. (2021a) A hybrid TGfU/SE volleyball teaching unit for enhancing motivation in physical education: A mixed-method approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health18(1): 110.
21.
Gil-AriasAHarveySCárcelesA, et al. (2017) Impact of a hybrid TGfU-sport education unit on student motivation in physical education. PLoS ONE12(6): e0179876.
22.
Gil-AriasAHarveySGarcía-HerrerosF, et al. (2021b) Effect of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit on elementary students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. European Physical Education Review27(2): 366–383.
23.
González-CutreDBrugarolas-NavarroMBeltrán-CarrilloVJ, et al. (2023) The frustration of novelty and basic psychological needs as predictors of maladaptive outcomes in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy30(1): 64–77.
24.
González-CutreDJiménez-LoaisaAAbósÁ, et al. (2021) Motivational strategies to include novelty and variety in physical education. In: García-GonzálezL (ed) How to Motivate in Physical Education: Practical Applications for Teachers Based on Scientific Evidence. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza, 99–116. DOI: 10.26754/uz.978-84-18321-22-1.
25.
González-CutreDRomero-ElíasMJiménez-LoaisaA, et al. (2020) Testing the need for novelty as a candidate need in basic psychological needs theory. Motivation and Emotion44(2): 295–314.
26.
González-VílloraSEvangelioCSierra-DíazJ, et al. (2019) Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review25(4): 1056–1074.
27.
HaggerMSChatzisarantisNLD (2012) Transferring motivation from educational to extramural contexts: A review of the trans-contextual model. European Journal of Psychology of Education27(2): 195–212.
28.
HarveySJarrettK (2014) A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy19(3): 278–300.
29.
HastiePACurtner-SmithMD (2006) Influence of a hybrid sport education—teaching games for understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy11(1): 1–27.
30.
HastiePAde OjedaDMCalderónA (2011) A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy16(2): 103–132.
31.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
32.
KirkD (2013) Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory45(9): 973–986.
33.
LeoFMLópez-GajardoMARodríguez-GonzálezP, et al. (2023) How class cohesion and teachers’ relatedness supportive/thwarting style relate to students’ relatedness, motivation, and positive and negative outcomes in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise65: 102360.
34.
LeoFMMouratidisAPulidoJJ, et al. (2022a) Perceived teachers’ behavior and students’ engagement in physical education: The mediating role of basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy27(1): 59–76.
35.
LeoFMPulidoJJSánchez-OlivaD, et al. (2022b) See the forest by looking at the trees: Physical education teachers’ interpersonal style profiles and students’ engagement. European Physical Education Review28(3): 720–738.
36.
LeoFMSánchez-OlivaDFernández-RíoJ, et al. (2025) Validation of the Teaching Interpersonal Style Questionnaire in Physical Education. Frontiers in Psychology.
37.
MandigoJLHoltNAndersonA, et al. (2008) Children’s motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. European Physical Education Review14(3): 407–425.
Morales-BelandoMTKirkDArias-EsteroJL (2022) A systematic review of teaching games for understanding intervention studies from a practice-referenced perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport93(4): 670–681.
40.
Moreno-MurciaJACervellóE (2005) Physical self-perception in Spanish adolescents: Effects of gender and involvement in physical activity. Journal of Human Movement Studies48: 291–311.
41.
Moreno-MurciaJAGonzález-CutreDChillónM, et al. (2008) Adaptation of the basic psychological needs in exercise scale to physical education. Revista Mexicana de Psicología25: 295–303.
42.
NtoumanisN (2001) A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology71(2): 225–242.
O’ConnorJAlfreyLPenneyD (2024) Rethinking the classification of games and sports in physical education: A response to changes in sport and participation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy29(3): 315–328.
45.
PaapHKokaAMeeritsP-R, et al. (2025) The effects of a web-based need-supportive intervention for physical education teachers on students’ physical activity and related outcomes: A randomized controlled trial. Children12(1): 56.
46.
PanYHHuangCHHsuWT (2023) A comparison of the learning effects between TGfU-SE and TGfU on learning motivation, sport enjoyment, responsibility, and game performance in physical education. Frontiers in Psychology14: 1165064.
47.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist55(1): 68–78.
48.
Sánchez-OlivaDLeoFMAmadoD, et al. (2012) Development of a questionnaire to assess motivation in physical education. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte7(2): 227–250.
49.
Sánchez-OlivaDPulido-GonzálezJJLeoFM, et al. (2017) Effects of an intervention with teachers in the physical education context: A self-determination theory approach. PLOS ONE12(12): e0189986.
50.
SiedentopD (1994) Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
51.
SparksCLonsdaleCDimmockJ, et al. (2017) An intervention to improve teachers’ interpersonally involving instructional practices in high school physical education: Implications for student relatedness support and in-class experiences. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology39(2): 120–133.
52.
StolzSPillS (2014) Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review20(1): 36–71.
53.
StranMSinelnikovOWoodruffE (2012) Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: Sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review18(3): 287–308.
54.
TriguerosRMaldonadoJJVicenteF, et al. (2020) Adaptation and validation to the context of physical education of the scale from the frustration of the psychological needs of physical exercise, with the inclusion of novelty as a psychological need. Journal of Sport Psychology29(3): 91–99.
55.
VansteenkisteMNiemiecCPSoenensB (2010) The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In: UrdanTCKarabenickSA (eds) The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, 105–166.
56.
VasconcellosDParkerPDHillandT, et al. (2020) Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology112(7): 1444–1469.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
