Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review

Abstract

Physical education (PE) offers a dynamic environment that can foster peer relationships but may also amplify social challenges such as exclusion and isolation. This scoping review mapped research on peer relationships in PE, focusing on their antecedents, structure, and outcomes. Following systematic screening, 51 studies were included. Data were independently charted by three researchers, capturing study characteristics, theoretical frameworks, populations, methods, quality, and key findings. Results showed substantial growth in interest, with nearly 85% of the studies published between 2011 and 2025. Most studies focused on secondary education and used cross-sectional designs. Sociometry, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups were commonly applied, whereas social network analysis was rarely used. Students perceived as more sport and physically competent generally reported more favorable peer relationships. Studies on network structure showed that peer relationships in PE form context-specific networks shaped by both the type of social ties and the attributes of the students. Outcomes were identified across physical (e.g. activity levels), affective (e.g. motivation, enjoyment, stress), social (e.g. exclusion, behavior), and cognitive domains (e.g. learning). Although positive peer relationships were generally associated with beneficial outcomes, higher social status was also linked to excluding others. These findings indicate that peer relationships should be considered an integral component of pedagogical practice in PE, particularly for students with lower sport and physical competence who may be vulnerable to social marginalization. Key gaps for future research include developing a theoretical framework, greater attention to primary education, context-specificity of findings, and the use of longitudinal and social network analysis.

Keywords

Social relationships social networks children adolescents physical education peers

Introduction

Peers play a central role in children's lives (Bukowski et al., 2018; Hay et al., 2004), and positive peer relationships are linked to academic, social, and emotional development (Rubin et al., 2008). Yet many children struggle to form or maintain such relationships, increasing their risk of exclusion and isolation and negatively affecting their development and well-being (Gifford-Smith and Brownell, 2003; Rubin et al., 2015). Recent international data underscore the scale of this issue: large proportions of young people report low levels of peer support, with perceived peer support declining as adolescents grow older (Badura et al., 2024). Understanding factors shaping peer relationships is, therefore, essential for supporting healthy development. This review contributes to this goal by examining existing research on peer relationships in physical education (PE), with a focus on their antecedents, structure, and outcomes.

Peer relationships involve voluntary interactions with same-aged non-family members (Rubin et al., 2015), typically marked by equality in status, skills, and background (Bukowski et al., 2018; Reber, 1995). Research on peer relationships is conducted at three levels (Cillessen and Marks, 2017): (1) individual, analyzing sociometric status (including constructs such as peer acceptance, social status, and social recognition); (2) dyadic, focusing on reciprocal relationships such as friendships or romantic connections; and (3) group, exploring social networks, peer cultures, and cliques. This review focuses on studies conducted at the individual and group levels, excluding the dyadic level. Dyadic relationships are often formed and maintained across multiple contexts and are therefore less specific to one particular setting, such as PE. In contrast, individual- and group-level approaches capture peer relationships as they emerge within a particular setting, ensuring greater conceptual coherence and facilitating comparability across studies.

The different settings in which children spend significant time with peers (e.g. school, sports clubs, neighborhood) have distinct social structures, rules, and dynamics that can promote or hinder social development (Littleton et al., 2010). School, in particular, provides key opportunities to form peer relationships, as school is where children spend most of their time and have early peer experiences. Within the school setting, PE presents a unique social environment where students engage in both spontaneous and guided interactions while working toward shared goals (Bailey et al., 2009). PE often requires high degrees of physical activity and interaction, which can make peer relationships more visible. The dynamic structure of PE, frequent group changes, and high background noise (Messmer, 2013) result in teachers having less oversight, giving students more freedom to interact. While PE offers opportunities for students to build strong peer relationships, it can also amplify social challenges, such as exclusion or isolation, for instance, when students’ inclusion in teams or pairs is publicly negotiated or contested during group formation (Grimminger, 2014).

In recent years, the relevance of peer relationships within PE has grown further. Educational guidelines and national curricula increasingly emphasize PE's potential to foster not only physical but also social, affective, and cognitive development (Bailey et al., 2009; McLennan, 2021; McLennan and Thompson, 2015; SLO, 2025). Consequently, teachers are expected to create inclusive, cooperative environments that foster positive peer relationships during lessons. At the same time, concerns about social safety, inequality, and peer exclusion in PE have become more prominent (Wei and Graber, 2023). These developments highlight the need to understand how peer relationships in PE are shaped and the outcomes with which they are associated.

Despite growing attention to peer relationships in PE, the existing body of research appears fragmented and conceptually diffuse. While progress has been made in understanding how PE can support social interactions and friendships, this work has largely focused on PE's broader social value rather than on peer relationships. For instance, in a review examining PE's wider educational potential, Opstoel et al. (2020) identified several studies reporting positive effects of PE on peer interaction, team relationships, and meaningful connections. More recently, a systematic review by Lacambra et al. (2025) highlighted the potential of PE to influence interpersonal relationships through motor interactions (i.e. social interactions that emerge through shared movement activities such as cooperation, opposition, and physical coordination), while also noting substantial heterogeneity in concepts, methods, and outcome measures across studies. These reviews suggest that although interest in the social dimensions of PE has increased, research has primarily examined general interpersonal or social outcomes rather than peer relationships as a theoretically grounded and systematically examined construct. Consequently, the structure of peer relationships in PE, their antecedents and outcomes have rarely been examined in an integrated manner.

Given the growing but fragmented literature, this scoping review aims to provide a structured overview of research on peer relationships in PE. To organize and interpret the literature, we adopt a social network perspective (Wäsche et al., 2017), distinguishing between antecedents (network formation), structure (network description), and outcomes (network effects) (Kim and Yim, 2017) (see Figure 1). In addition, the identified antecedents and outcomes are classified into physical, cognitive, social, and affective domains, in line with the developmental dimensions proposed by Bailey et al. (2009).

Figure 1.

Structure commonly used in research on social networks, forming the basis of the current review (based on Wäsche et al. (2017).

In this review, we address two questions:

What antecedents, structure, and outcomes of peer relationships in PE have been examined, and what are the key findings?

Which constructs, methods, designs, and instruments were used in this research?

Methods

This scoping review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Statement (Tricco et al., 2018), following the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodological framework and a review protocol based on the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (preregistered in OSF (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/EVYWT) (Aromataris and Munn, 2020; Fassaert et al., 2024)). The included studies are referenced using numbered citations, with the corresponding numbers listed in Supplemental Material S2.

Identifying relevant studies

A comprehensive search was performed in collaboration with a librarian in the bibliographic databases ERIC (EBSCO), APA PsycInfo (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, SPORTDiscus (EBSCO), and Scopus from inception to February 2024, followed by an updated search to December 2025. The following terms (including synonyms and closely related words) were used as index terms or free-text words: “physical education” and “schools” and “networks.” No language restrictions were set. Duplicate articles were excluded by the librarian in EndNote X21.5 (Clarivate^TM). The full search strategies for all databases are available in the Supplemental Materials (File S1).

Study selection

Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used (Table 1), including studies that focused on peer relationships in PE (e.g. social relationships, peer acceptance, social status, social cohesion, social networks, or other terms referring to the individual or group level of peer relationships), and describing the antecedents, structure, or outcomes of these networks.

Table 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study selection.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Conducted in PE context in primary to secondary school Students aged 4 to 18 years old Focused on aspects of peer relationships (individual and group level) Peer-reviewed articles Qualitative or quantitative study methods	Target groups with disorder or disability Conducted in general school context, special education, outdoor play, sport settings, recess, or active learning settings Conducted in university or college Focused on social-emotional skills or competencies (e.g. social skills, social competence, or social development, because these are skill-based constructs rather than relational aspects) Focused on social interactions and behaviors (e.g. direct, observable exchanges between individuals, because these are behavioral acts rather than relational aspects) Focused on the teacher–student relationship Gray literature (including opinion papers, case reports, dissertations, policy documents, and book chapters) Reviews or meta-analyses Journals on Beall's list for potential predatory journals and publishers

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Conducted in PE context in primary to secondary school

Students aged 4 to 18 years old

Focused on aspects of peer relationships (individual and group level)

Peer-reviewed articles

Qualitative or quantitative study methods

Target groups with disorder or disability

Conducted in general school context, special education, outdoor play, sport settings, recess, or active learning settings

Conducted in university or college

Focused on social-emotional skills or competencies (e.g. social skills, social competence, or social development, because these are skill-based constructs rather than relational aspects)

Focused on social interactions and behaviors (e.g. direct, observable exchanges between individuals, because these are behavioral acts rather than relational aspects)

Focused on the teacher–student relationship

Gray literature (including opinion papers, case reports, dissertations, policy documents, and book chapters)

Reviews or meta-analyses

Journals on Beall's list for potential predatory journals and publishers

PE: physical education.

Selected studies were uploaded to Rayyan for screening based on title and abstract (Ouzzani et al., 2016). The screening process consisted of two stages: screening based on title and abstract (Stage 1), followed by full-text screening (Stage 2). In both stages, one reviewer screened all articles, while the other two reviewers each screened 50% of the studies. For Stage 1, two pilot rounds were conducted to ensure consistency among reviewers. After a first pilot, during which three reviewers independently screened 25 studies, an agreement level of 85% was reached (weighted Kappas: 0.08 and 0.45, indicating slight to moderate agreement). In a second pilot, the 25 studies from the first pilot and 25 new studies were reviewed, resulting in 95% agreement (weighted Kappas: 0.47, 0.54, 0.57, indicating moderate agreement) (McHugh, 2012). Interrater reliability was considered sufficient to continue screening. Differences between reviewers were primarily caused by articles labeled as “maybe.” Throughout both stages of the screening process, all articles marked as “maybe” and any conflicts in screening outcomes were re-examined by all three reviewers. Each reviewer documented their reasoning for inclusion or exclusion of an article, and consensus was reached through a structured discussion.

Data charting

A data charting form was piloted by three reviewers using three randomly selected articles. The form was considered appropriate, and reviewers consequently used it to chart the data (100% of the studies by one reviewer and 50% of the studies by the other two reviewers). Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Charted data included: (1) characteristics (author, journal, country, publication moment); (2) aim; (3) population (sample size, gender, age, school level); (4) theoretical framework/intervention type; (5) methods (design, type of data, instruments, peer relationship level (individual/group) and setting (PE/other)); (6) methodological quality; (7) focus (antecedents, structure, outcomes); and (8) key findings.

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies (Hong et al., 2018a). This tool is considered reliable and valid for assessing the quality of various study designs: qualitative research, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized studies, quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies (Hong et al., 2018b, 2019). The tool comprises two screening questions regarding the research question and collected data, completed for all studies, followed by five questions specific to each study design (see Table 4 in Supplemental Material S2). Questions are rated as “yes,” “no,” or “cannot tell.” Since the use of a total score is not recommended, the answers to the individual questions are shown per study (Hong et al., 2018a).

Results

The literature search generated a total of 4126 references: 741 in ERIC, 402 in APA PsycInfo, 234 in MEDLINE, 840 in Embase, 724 in SPORTDiscus, and 1185 in Scopus. Removal of duplicates resulted in 2820 references. After screening titles and abstracts, 142 studies were selected. Full-text screening and inclusion of additional studies provided by colleagues resulted in a final selection of 51 studies (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

PRISMA flow diagram of the study selection process.

Study characteristics

General characteristics of included studies are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

General characteristics of included studies (n = 51).

Study characteristics and population	No. of papers (%)	Papers
Publication moment
2021–2025	19 (37.3)	1, 4, 6, 10–11, 15, 17–19, 21, 27–31, 35, 39, 43–44
2011–2020	24 (47.1)	2, 7, 9, 12–14, 20, 22, 24–25, 27, 32–34, 36–37, 40, 42, 45–49, 51
2001–2010	5 (9.8)	5, 8, 16, 23, 38
1956–2000	3 (5.9)	3, 41, 50
Continent
Europe	32 (62.8)	1, 4, 6, 11–17, 22–24, 26, 29–34, 36–40, 43–44, 46–49
America	9 (17.7)	5, 8, 9–10, 18–20, 35, 42
Asia	4 (7.9)	21, 25, 27, 45
Oceania	3 (5.9)	3, 7, 28
Not reported	3 (5.9)	2, 41, 50
School level
Primary school	15 (29.4)	1–2, 5, 10–11, 18–20, 23, 26–27, 34–35, 39–40
Secondary school	29 (56.9)	3–4, 6–9, 13, 15–17, 21–22, 24, 28–33, 38, 41, 43–44, 46–51
Primary and secondary school	7 (17.7)	12, 14, 25, 36–37, 42, 45
Sample size (students)*
<30	10 (18.9)	3, 16, 21–22, 33–34, 37, 46, 48, 51
30–99	19 (35.9)	1, 5, 10, 12, 18–20, 23, 27–28, 30–32, 36, 38–40, 49–50
100–199	13 (24.5)	2, 6–7, 9, 11–14, 24, 29, 41, 43, 48
200–1000	8 (15.1)	4, 8, 15, 17, 26, 35, 42, 44
>1000	2 (3.8)	24, 45
Not reported	1 (1.9)	47

*Studies 12 and 48 included two samples of different sizes and are therefore listed in two different categories. Hence, percentages were calculated based on 53 studies instead of 51.

Theoretical frameworks

A total of 41 studies employed a theoretical framework, while 10 studies did not specify the use of any framework. The most frequently applied frameworks were self-determination theory (n = 5, 9.8%), Bourdieu's Field Theory about social order (n = 4, 7.8%), and Vygotsky's social constructivist perspective (n = 3, 5.9%). Other frameworks (e.g. Social Network Theory, Popitz's Power Theory, and Social Interdependence Theory) were used only once or twice (see Table 1 in Supplemental Material S2).

Levels

Most studies measured peer relationships at the individual level (n = 42, 82.4%), focusing on constructs such as social status, peer acceptance, and social recognition (Table 3). Only nine studies (17.7%) examined peer relationships at the group level, investigating social networks, cliques, and peer cultures.

Table 3.

Study methods, designs and measures (n = 51).

	No. of papers (%)	Papers
Design
Cross-sectional	32 (62.8)	4, 7–22, 27–31, 33, 35–36, 41–44, 47, 49, 51
Longitudinal	19 (37.3)	1–3, 5–6, 23–26, 32, 34, 37–40, 45–46, 48, 50
Intervention studies	13
Sport Education Model	4 (30.8)	6, 34, 38, 40
Intervention focused on cooperation	4 (30.8)	2, 23, 26, 32
Other	5 (38.5)	1, 3, 24, 39, 50
Peer relationship levels
Level 1: individual	42 (82.4)	1–14, 16, 18–27, 32–37, 39–42, 45–51
Level 3: group	9 (17.7)	15, 17, 28–31, 38, 43–44
Peer relationship instrument specific to PE
Specific to PE	38 (74.5)	2–3, 5, 7–24, 27, 28, 32–33, 35–40, 43, 46–51
Not specific to PE	13 (25.5)	1, 4, 6, 25–26, 29–31, 34, 41–42, 44–45
Instruments*
Social network analysis	7 (8.9)	15, 17, 29–31, 43–44
Sociometry	14 (17.7)	2–3, 6, 11–14, 19–20, 23, 27, 34, 46, 50
Questionnaires	14 (17.7)	1, 4, 8–10, 25–26, 28, 32, 35, 40–42, 45
Interviews	14 (17.7)	5, 7, 12–14, 16, 18, 21, 30, 33, 38–39, 48–49
Focus groups	13 (16.5)	5, 7, 16, 22, 24, 27–28, 36–37, 47–49, 51
Observations	9 (11.4)	5, 16, 24, 36–38, 41, 47–48
Other	8 (10.1)	5, 12–14, 18, 22, 27, 51
Method
Quantitative	26 (51.0)	1–4, 6, 8–9, 11, 15, 17, 19–20, 23, 25–26, 29, 31–32, 35, 41–46, 50
Qualitative	17 (33.3)	5, 7, 10, 16, 18, 21–22, 24, 33, 36–39, 47–49, 51
Mixed	8 (15.7)	12–14, 27–28, 30, 34, 40

PE: physical education.

*Some studies used multiple instruments and are therefore listed in more than one category. Hence, percentages are relative to the number of instruments shown.

Methods in the included studies

Most studies (n = 32, 62.8%) utilized cross-sectional designs, whereas a smaller proportion (n = 19, 37.3%) used longitudinal designs (Table 3). Half (n = 26) of the studies used a quantitative method, 33.3% (n = 17) a qualitative method, and 15.7% (n = 8) mixed methods.

There was diversity in the instruments used to measure peer relationships, with the number of instruments per study ranging from one to five. The most frequently used instruments in quantitative and mixed methods research were sociometry (n = 14, 17.7%; nine quantitative, five mixed methods) and questionnaires, measuring aspects such as peer acceptance and social status. In qualitative and mixed methods studies, interviews (n = 14, 17.7%; 10 qualitative, four mixed methods) and focus groups (n = 13, 16.5%; 11 qualitative, two mixed methods) were the predominantly used instruments. Other studies applied social network analysis (SNA) (n = 7, 8.9%; six quantitative and one mixed methods) and observations (n = 9, 11.4%; eight qualitative, one quantitative).

The majority of studies employed instruments specifically designed to assess peer relationships within the PE context (n = 38, 74.5%). Examples include sociometric measures in which students nominate up to 10 peers for various PE situations (e.g. group work, play, warm-up) (15), and the MacArthur Scale (35), where students rate their perceived social status in PE on a ladder from least to most popular. In contrast, 13 studies (25.5%) used non-context-specific instruments, such as sociometric measures asking students to nominate three preferred classmates and Harter's Self-Perception Scale, assessing peer acceptance across everyday situations.

Structure, antecedents, and outcomes

Of the 51 studies included, one focused solely on the structure of social networks, and one addressed both network structure and antecedents. In addition, 29 studies focused solely on antecedents, eight on outcomes, and 12 on both antecedents and outcomes.

Structure

Two studies focused on the social network structure in PE (15, 43) (scoring 85.7% for quality; see Table 3 in Supplemental Material S2). The first study reported that different educational contexts (PE and mathematics) fostered subject-specific social network structures (15). They distinguished cognitive-instrumental networks (sports game network in PE and mathematics game network in mathematics), partly affective networks (warm-up networks in PE and seat neighbor networks in mathematics), and affective networks (generic sympathy networks), concluding that, despite their interconnectedness, subject-specific social networks and general sympathy networks were empirically distinguishable.

The second study demonstrated that peer relationships in PE cannot be understood solely as patterns of social ties; they are also closely intertwined with students’ individual characteristics, such as motivation and sport competence, which in this review were conceptualized as antecedents of peer relationships (43). Moreover, the study distinguished between different types of ties, showing that affective relationships (e.g. sympathy) and instrumental relationships (e.g. preferences for collaboration in PE) represent distinct but interrelated network structures. Together, these studies highlight that the structure of peer relationships in PE is shaped by both the type of social ties involved and the attributes of the students embedded within these networks.

Antecedents

Of the 42 studies examining antecedents of peer relationships in PE (Table 4), 17 studies scored 100% for quality, five studies scored 85.7%, 12 studies scored 71.4%, and eight studies scored below 60% (Table 3 in Supplemental Material S2).

Table 4.

Key findings of included studies regarding antecedents and outcome.

Levels	Instrument	Antecedent	Outcome
Level 1: individual	Specific to PE	Sport and physical competence–related factors (2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22–23, 27, 36, 51)	Physical activity–related factors (5, 19, 21, 36–37, 42, 51)
		Sports participation–related factors (5, 11, 33, 47)	Enjoyment (8, 48)
		Anthropometric factors (5, 20, 47, 51)	Motivation (8)
		Friendship outside PE (2, 14, 22, 33)	Stress-related factors (8, 9, 48, 49)
		Gender-related factors (7, 10, 18, 33, 42, 46)	General quality of life (35, 42)
		Socioeconomic status (5, 42)	Confidence (48)
		Social behavior traits (3, 5, 7, 16, 27)	Absence (10)
		Academic-related factors (27)	Social factors (5, 8, 13, 48)
		Motivation (22, 33)	Behavioral factors (14, 16, 18)
			Learning (19, 48)
	Not specific to PE	Sport and physical competence–related factors (41)	Motivation (41)
		Sports participation–related factors (25, 45)
		Gender-related factors (4)
		Enjoyment (4)
Level 3: Group	Specific to PE	Sport and physical competence–related factors (17, 28, 43)	Enjoyment (28)
		Gender-related factors (38, 43, 44)	Meaning (28)
		Friendship outside PE (43, 44)
		Achievement goal orientations (44)
	Not specific to PE	Anthropometric factors (29)
		Social behavior traits (31, 29)
		Academic-related factors (29, 30)

PE: physical education.

Physical antecedents. Sport and physical competence–related factors, including sport competence, self-perceived physical competence, and peer-perceived physical competence, were positively associated with peer relationships in PE in 17 studies. High levels of sport competence were linked to higher social status (2, 18, 23, 27, 41, 51), social recognition (13), power dynamics (7, 16), peer acceptance (10), and preferential selection as a collaboration partner in the social network (22, 43). Two studies found that the association between sport competence and social recognition was only present for boys (12, 14). Self-perceived physical competence was positively associated with perceived peer acceptance (22) and peer acceptance (11); the association with peer acceptance was observed only among children who participated in individual sports (11). Peer-perceived physical competence was also positively related to social status (20) and to students’ positions within the social network, with highly skilled and similarly performing peers being more likely to be selected as team partners (17). However, three studies found no clear relationship. One study found that sport competence did not prospectively predict social status (3), and another found no association between sport competence and peer culture (28). A third study did not identify a clear overall relationship between sport competence and social recognition; instead, this association was observed only in certain cases (36). Specifically, social recognition was also shaped by students’ peer relationships, such that highly skilled students with weak or unfavored peer relationships could still be excluded, whereas less skilled students with strong or favorable peer relationships might be accepted.

Sports participation–related factors included athletic involvement, commitment to PE and sports, frequency of sports participation, and physical activity in PE, with varying results regarding their association with peer relationships in PE. In primary school, higher athletic involvement (5) predicted a higher social status over time, and a high frequency of sports participation in sports clubs was associated with higher peer acceptance in PE (11). In secondary school, one study found that a higher commitment to PE and sports was associated with lower social status (47), whereas another study showed that being physically active outside PE was positively related to peer acceptance and helped students maintain positive peer relationships throughout their school years (33). Mixed results were observed in studies measuring physical activity in PE (25, 45) across age groups. Physical activity during PE predicted increases in children's peer acceptance in primary school, but decreases in peer acceptance in secondary school (25). One study identified gender as a moderating variable (45), indicating that among girls higher levels of physical activity in PE were associated with lower peer acceptance in primary school, but not after the transition to secondary school. This pattern was not observed for boys.

Anthropometric factors included overweight, height, a mesomorphic body, and (physical) attractiveness. In primary school, height (20) was associated with higher social status, and physical attractiveness predicted higher social status over time (5). In secondary school, overweight students were found to have a lower social status (51), whereas having a mesomorphic body was associated with higher social status (47). In addition, physical attractiveness was associated with greater social power within social networks (29).

Affective antecedents. Four studies reported that friendships outside of PE were associated with team selection and preferred collaboration during PE, with students often choosing friends when forming teams or pairs (2, 14, 22, 33, 43, 44). In two of these studies (14, 33), this association was observed only among (inactive) girls, who tended to select their closest female friends, whereas (inactive) boys’ choices were primarily based on sport and physical competence rather than friendship. Additionally, one study found a positive link between enjoyment and perceived peer acceptance (4).

Social antecedents. Social behavioral traits, such as personality, tolerance, optimism, openness, generosity, friendliness, and warmth, were positively associated with social status (27). Additionally, social attractiveness (29, 30), being socially valued (16), and dominance (during playing) (7) were positively associated with children's social network position (29, 30) and power dynamics (7, 16). Longitudinal evidence also showed that social behavioral traits, including character (3), sociability (3), and personality (3, 5), predicted increases in social status over time. In contrast, verbal aggressiveness was associated with a lower social network position (29, 31).

A higher socioeconomic status was associated with higher social status both concurrently (42) and over time (5).

Gender-related characteristics and the gender distribution of the class were associated with the structure of social networks in PE, although findings were not consistent across studies. One study reported that boys had higher social status in primary school PE (18), whereas another study found girls to have higher social status in both primary and secondary school PE (42). Mixed-gender classes changed boys’ leadership positions over time, while those remained stable for girls (46). In two studies, femininity and masculinity were related to power relationships (i.e. the dynamics of influence, dominance, and control existing within peer groups) in secondary school (7, 38). Regarding femininity, girls did not want to appear too sporty; regarding masculinity, boys often played rough and excluded girls from gameplay. A third study found that girls were rejected by boys during participation in physical activities in PE and were confronted with hostile attitudes (10). In addition, one study reported that perceived peer acceptance was linked to gender (4), two studies found that students tended to select and form relationships primarily with same-gender classmates (43, 44), and another study showed that active boys and girls did not exhibit a gender preference when engaging in PE activities (33).

The most commonly applied intervention programs (of the n = 13 in total) were the Sport Education Model (n = 4, 30.8%) and interventions focused on cooperation (n = 4, 30.8%). Intervention programs can provide information about changes in peer relationships and, as such, were considered antecedents. In 11 studies, intervention programs were found to have positive effects on peer relationships (see Table 2 in Supplemental Material S2). Four studies reported positive effects of the Sport Education Model (6, 34, 38, 40), resulting in more positive peer relationships and fewer negative peer relationships (6, 34), stronger relationships between boys and girls and less isolated children (40), and changing power dynamics in the class (38). Other interventions (e.g. focusing on cooperation, engagement, or expressive activities) also showed positive effects (1–3, 24, 32, 39, 50), but were each examined in a single study only. Two studies found no effect of the intervention on peer relationships in PE (23, 26).

Cognitive antecedents. Academic-related factors included academic achievement and scientific attractiveness (i.e. desire for task/study-related collaboration). Academic achievement was not related to a higher social status in PE (27). Higher scientific attractiveness was linked to a better position in the PE social network (29, 30). In addition, students preferred collaborating with peers in the social network who exhibited similar levels of achievement goal orientation (i.e. motivation based on striving for competence) (44) or motivation (22, 33) in PE.

Outcomes

Twenty studies examined outcomes of peer relationships in PE (Table 4), with 12 studies scoring 100% for quality, one study 85.7%, six studies 71.4%, and one study below 60% (see Table 3 in Supplemental Material S2).

Physical outcomes. Eight studies examined physical activity–related factors, including physical activity, physical engagement, playing time, sitting time, and PE participation. Higher social status was associated with less sitting time (42) and predicted more playing time in the longer term (5). Higher social status (51) and peer acceptance (21) were linked to more physical engagement in PE. One study reported positive associations between a higher social status (42) and physical activity in PE, while no significant association between social status and physical activity was found in another study (19). Higher social recognition was linked to greater participation in PE (36, 37). One study found a positive relation between social status and game performance (19).

Affective outcomes. In three studies, a positive relation between peer relationships and enjoyment was found. Specifically, higher peer acceptance (8), a positive peer culture (28), and power dynamics (48) were associated with more enjoyment in PE. Two studies found a positive relation between peer relationships and motivation, with higher social status (41) and greater peer acceptance (8) linked to increased motivation. One study found that a positive peer culture was associated with students experiencing greater meaning in PE (28). Stress-related factors were measured in four studies and included social and performance stress, fear of embarrassment, physique anxiety, and experienced worry in PE. Across all studies, peer relationships were negatively associated with stress-related outcomes. Higher social status predicted lower social and performance stress (49). Children with more peer relationships experienced less fear of embarrassment (48). Higher peer acceptance was linked to less physical anxiety (9) and worry (8). In addition, peer rejection in PE was linked to absenteeism (10), and students with more negative perceived peer acceptance reported lower quality of life (35, 42).

Social outcomes. Four studies examined relations between peer relationships in PE and social factors. Social status predicted students’ social interactions during group work over time: opinions of higher-status students were increasingly acknowledged, whereas lower-status students were progressively silenced (5). Higher perceived peer acceptance was linked to higher feelings of relatedness (8), and power dynamics influenced feelings of marginalization (48). Social recognition was related to the perception of and response to sport-related incidents occurring during PE (13). When highly recognized students were involved in such incidents, their actions were typically viewed positively or even celebrated. In contrast, when less recognized students experienced similar incidents, it tended to provoke negative reactions, including anger from peers and a diminished social position or role within the group.

Three studies found a relation between peer relationships and behavioral factors. Students positioned within stronger power dynamics more frequently demonstrated their sport and physical competence to maintain social status (16). In three studies, it was found that students with higher social status (18), more social recognition (14), and stronger power dynamics (16) were more likely to exclude other students during PE. One of these studies showed this relation specifically for girls (16).

Cognitive outcomes. One study found that a higher social status was associated with more game knowledge (19). In another study, power dynamics were found to influence task focus, with collaboration with friends being positively associated with maintaining task focus (48).

Discussion

This scoping review identified the antecedents, structures, and outcomes of peer relationships in PE, the methods and designs used to study them, and the key findings reported. Research in this context is increasing, with 84.3% of the included studies conducted between 2011 and 2025. The majority of studies were conducted in secondary education, limiting generalizability to primary school. Various methods were used, with sociometry, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups used most often, whereas fewer studies used SNA and observations. A wide range of antecedents and outcomes was identified. Antecedents were categorized across physical (sport and physical competence, sports participation, anthropometric characteristics), affective (friendship outside PE, enjoyment), social (gender, social behaviors, PE-based interventions, socioeconomic status), and cognitive (academic factors, motivation, achievement goal orientations) domains. Similarly, outcomes linked to peer relationships were observed in the physical (physical activity levels, performance), affective (enjoyment, motivation, stress, absence, quality of life, confidence), social (social and behavioral factors, exclusion), and cognitive (learning) domains.

Methodological issues

Most studies were cross-sectional, with some longitudinal work offering insight into changes in peer relationships over time. Given the dynamic nature of peer relationships during childhood and adolescence (Rubin and Ross, 2012), longitudinal studies remain essential for understanding how these relationships develop, shift, or dissolve within the PE context.

Quantitative methods dominated in this review, with sociometry being the most common method. SNA appears to be an emerging research method, having been utilized in seven studies conducted between 2021 and 2025. Compared to traditional sociometric measures, SNA allows for a more comprehensive examination of peer relationships by mapping complete network structures, identifying students’ structural positions, and statistically linking these positions to individual antecedents and outcomes (Kim and Yim, 2017). However, all SNA studies included in this review employed cross-sectional designs and primarily focused on network structure and antecedents, leaving developmental processes and outcomes largely unexplored. Future research would benefit from longitudinal SNA designs that examine how peer networks evolve and how peer relationships in PE relate to students’ physical, affective, cognitive, and social development.

Qualitative studies primarily relied on interviews and focus groups to explore students’ lived experiences of peer relationships in PE. These approaches show how students perceive, interpret, and give meaning to peer relationships. Focus groups, when used, additionally enable researchers to observe the social dynamics within the group itself, such as identifying dominant speakers, moments of disagreement, or collaborative problem-solving (Smithson, 2000).

While qualitative and quantitative methods each have their strengths, studies that combine qualitative approaches (e.g. interviews or focus groups) with SNA are particularly promising. This mixed methods approach enables researchers to link the structural patterns observed in peer relationships and networks to the subjective experiences and meanings expressed by students themselves. Integrating both methods allows for a deeper, more holistic understanding of the mechanisms underlying peer relationships in PE and how they shape students’ experiences.

Structure of peer relationships in PE

The structure of social networks in PE was examined in only two studies, both highlighting that peer relationships in PE consist of different types of relationships (e.g. affective and instrumental ties). The first study reported similarities and differences between social networks in PE and mathematics classes. Although these networks shared some general characteristics, the findings suggest that social network structures in PE are not simply reflections of general classroom networks but rather follow distinct, context-specific patterns. This highlights the importance of examining PE as a unique social context. In addition, the second study showed that social networks in PE cannot be understood solely as patterns of social ties, but emerge from the interplay between different types of relationships and students’ individual attributes. Together, these findings indicate that PE-specific social networks are shaped by both contextual features of the PE setting and characteristics of the students embedded within these networks. Further research is needed to understand how PE and classroom networks differ, how they evolve over time, and to what extent classroom networks shape PE networks and vice versa.

Antecedents of peer relationships in PE

Antecedents of peer relationships can be categorized into four broad domains, following Bailey et al. (2009) and their framework on the benefits of PE: physical, social, affective, and cognitive. Yet, although this review identified antecedents across all developmental domains, most included studies focused on physical antecedents. The emphasis on physical factors may stem from the assumption that these uniquely characterize peer relationships in PE compared to those in general classroom settings. Future research should take a more comprehensive approach by examining potential antecedents from all four domains simultaneously and comparing their influence on peer relationships across different school contexts.

Physical antecedents. Regarding physical antecedents, children exhibiting higher levels of sport and physical competence generally had more positive peer relationships. Sport and physical competence may specifically hold social value in the context of PE, where collaboration and competition are emphasized (Hardman et al., 2013). The inherently competitive nature, in particular in secondary school, of many PE activities elevates the social significance of sport and physical competence, as the skill level of teammates directly impacts group performance (Passos et al., 2016). Future research could investigate the context-specificity of this relation to determine whether similar associations exist in the general classroom setting.

We identified various terms and concepts referring to or associated with sport and physical competence, which we merged under a single construct. However, studies often lacked clarity about what was precisely meant by these terms, in many cases referring to proficiency in sports and games. In younger children (under eight years), fundamental motor skills may play a more central role in peer relationships, as these children primarily engage in modified games with a low emphasis on competition and performance (Estevan and Barnett, 2018). Notably, the included studies primarily focused on children aged 10 and older, leaving the role of developing motor skills on peer relationships in younger age groups relatively unexplored. It also remains unclear whether peer relationships are mainly based on actual competence or on (peer) perceived competence; children may choose peers based on how skilled they seem, rather than how skilled they actually are (Holler and Schüßler, 2024). Future research should address these age-related differences and the distinction between actual and (peer) perceived competence.

Anthropometric factors appeared to play a role in shaping peer relationships within the context of PE. For instance, one study found a negative association between being overweight and social status in secondary school, aligning with broader findings that overweight children are often less accepted by peers and may experience difficulties forming friendships (Di Pasquale and Celsi, 2017; Harrist et al., 2016). Given its physical nature, such factors may be even more salient in PE than in general classroom settings. Some studies showed that specific anthropometrics, such as height in primary school or muscular build in adolescence, were linked to social status, possibly reflecting differences in physical maturity (Özdemir et al., 2016). To better understand these patterns, future research should explore which anthropometric characteristics are relevant in different developmental stages, how these associations evolve, and whether similar dynamics occur in non-PE classroom settings. Moreover, previous research has demonstrated that children with obesity often exhibit lower motor competence (D’Hondt et al., 2009), raising the question of whether anthropometric factors and motor skills independently or interactively influence peer relationships in PE. Investigating these relations could clarify how anthropometric factors shape peer relationships throughout childhood and adolescence.

The relation between sports participation and peer relationships also appeared age-dependent. In primary school, participation was generally linked to more positive peer relationships, while in secondary school, particularly among girls, this link was often negative. These findings reflect broader trends of declining participation during adolescence, a period marked by shifting social dynamics and motivations (Findlay et al., 2009). Future research should examine how the relation between sport participation and peer relationships evolves, particularly during the transition from primary to secondary school, to better understand when and how peer relationships influence continued sports participation.

Affective, social, and cognitive antecedents. While most studies in this review focused on physical antecedents, there appears to be limited attention given to social, affective, and cognitive antecedents. Nevertheless, several findings suggest that these dimensions play a meaningful role in shaping peer relationships in PE. For instance, four studies showed that friendships formed outside of PE influenced team selection and preferred collaboration, with children frequently choosing friends when forming groups or pairs. Additionally, the Sport Education Model emerged as a positive antecedent for fostering peer relationships in PE, a finding consistent with broader research showing that its emphasis on collaboration and team affiliation supports social and affective development (Bessa et al., 2019). These findings indicate that peer relationships in PE are shaped not only by physical factors but also by social, affective, and cognitive antecedents. This underscores the need for a broader and more integrative approach to understand the full range of antecedents shaping peer relationships in PE.

Outcomes of peer relationships in PE

Again, outcomes were found across the four domains distinguished by Bailey et al. (2009).

Physical outcomes. Children with positive peer relationships tended to be more physically active during PE. This association is relevant, as physical activity is a core objective of PE and closely linked to students’ overall health (Chaput et al., 2020; Hardman et al., 2013). Supportive and collaborative dynamics of peer relationships may enhance participation in (group) activities, resulting in increased physical activity levels. This is consistent with earlier findings suggesting that social acceptance is an important motivator for participating in physical activities and sports (Smith, 2003). Yet, the validity of previous results is limited by the use of subjective measures. Accelerometers are considered the gold standard for measuring physical activity behavior (Lynch et al., 2019), yet they were only used in one study. Future research should employ these tools to better understand how peer relationships relate to physical activity levels in PE.

Affective outcomes. Positive peer relationships were associated with more motivation and enjoyment, aligning with self-determination theory, identifying relatedness, the sense of connection, acceptance, and support from others, as one of the three core psychological needs driving intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Patrick, 2009). Smith et al. (2003) mentioned peer relationships as facilitators of enjoyment in physical activity contexts. In addition, aligning with the literature review by Prinstein and Giletta (2020), positive peer relationships predicted lower stress levels. A limitation of these results is that most of these studies focused on adolescents, despite the formative role of primary education in shaping long-term attitudes toward and engagement in physical activity (Hardman et al., 2013). Thus, future research should prioritize examining these relations in younger age groups as well.

Social outcomes. Students with higher social status or recognition seem to be more likely to exclude peers during PE. According to social-cognitive domain theory (Killen et al., 2009), such exclusion may stem from different reasoning perspectives: moral (e.g. fairness and justice), social-conventional (e.g. traditions and group norms), and psychological (e.g. autonomy or personal choice). The included studies primarily cited social-conventional reasons for exclusion, for example, low sport and physical competence, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, or academic performance, which were perceived as contributing to weaker team performance. Exclusion can have significant consequences for the excluded students, including depression, loneliness, and heightened anxiety (Killen et al., 2009). To promote inclusivity in PE, future research should examine the underlying reasons for peer exclusion, as well as approaches (like the Sport Education Model) for creating more inclusive social environments.

Cognitive outcomes. Evidence regarding cognitive outcomes of peer relationships in PE is limited. Only one study reported that students with a higher social status demonstrated greater game knowledge, suggesting that peer relationships may play a role in learning processes in PE. Possibly, students with better peer relationships receive more learning opportunities, encouragement, or leadership roles, fostering their learning (Sun et al., 2017). However, given that this association was examined in a single study, any conclusion is tentative, and the underlying mechanisms remain largely speculative. Previous research in regular classroom settings has shown that peer relationships, such as having more friends, can have a positive effect on academic outcomes across various subjects (Lavy and Sand, 2019). These findings highlight the need for further research to examine whether and how peer relationships in PE contribute to cognitive outcomes, such as game understanding and tactical knowledge.

Strengths and limitations

This scoping review has several strengths. Firstly, a structured and preregistered review protocol was followed, ensuring consistency and transparency throughout the review process. Secondly, an extensive search strategy was designed and implemented with the expertise of a librarian. Thirdly, screening and data charting were conducted independently by three reviewers, mitigating subjectivity and enhancing reliability. Fourthly, antecedents and outcomes were interpreted using an established framework in research on social networks, facilitating an organized presentation and interpretation of findings. Lastly, the quality of included studies was assessed using the MMAT, offering an overview of study quality and reliability.

This scoping review also has several limitations. Firstly, although no language restrictions were set, articles in languages other than English may be left unnoticed due to database indexing limitations. Secondly, a key challenge in interpreting and synthesizing the findings was the inconsistent use of terminology and constructs across studies. Although we organized the literature according to the individual and group levels of peer relationships (Cillessen and Marks, 2017), substantial variation remained in how peer-related constructs were defined and operationalized within these levels. Only social status was relatively consistently conceptualized and measured across studies, whereas other constructs differed considerably in scope and meaning. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive theoretical framework that goes beyond level-based distinctions and is specifically tailored to capture the complexity of peer relationships and social networks in PE.

This review's quality largely depends on the quality of the included studies. Almost half (n = 21) of the reviewed studies scored 100% on quality, 17 of which were qualitative studies. Only eight studies scored lower than 60%, with the lowest scoring 28.6%. Studies were not excluded due to low quality, but their quality appraisal shows that caution should be taken in interpreting the findings. Low-quality studies may overestimate or underestimate true relations. To strengthen conclusions, high-quality quantitative research and replication studies are needed.

Implications

PE's interactive and cooperative nature provides a unique context in which peer relationships are continuously formed and negotiated (Bailey et al., 2009; Smith, 2003). This review shows that peer relationships in PE are shaped by multiple antecedents, with sport and physical competence emerging as particularly influential. Across 17 studies, higher levels of sport and physical competence were consistently associated with more favorable peer relationships, suggesting that students with lower sport and physical competence may be at increased risk of social marginalization in PE. In line with current curricular expectations that position PE as an educational context for fostering social, affective, and cognitive development, these findings indicate that attention to peer relationships should be an explicit component of pedagogical practice in PE, alongside physical development (McLennan, 2021; McLennan and Thompson, 2015). Accordingly, PE teachers should attend not only to motor skill development but also to the social learning environment, particularly for students with lower sport and physical competence. Learning situations that reduce social comparison, emphasize cooperation over competition, and offer diverse roles for participation may help promote inclusion (Pla-Pla et al., 2024). Intervention programs such as the Sport Education Model, which emphasize collaboration and shared responsibility, appear promising in this regard.

Conclusion

This scoping review provides an overview of research on peer relationships in PE, examining antecedents, structure, and outcomes of peer relationships, and the methods used to study them. Although research on peer relationships in PE has grown, the field remains limited by a focus on secondary education, cross-sectional designs, inconsistent terminology, and the absence of a unifying theoretical framework. Future research should include younger age groups, adopt longitudinal designs, and further explore the promise of SNA to capture the structure and development of peer relationships in PE more comprehensively.

The findings highlight important implications for practice. PE's interactive and cooperative nature offers a context in which peer relationships are continuously shaped, with sport and physical competence functioning as key antecedents. This underscores the importance of attending not only to motor skill development but also to the social learning environment, particularly for students with lower sport and physical competence. Pedagogical approaches that emphasize cooperation and inclusion, such as the Sport Education Model, appear promising in this regard. Such approaches can help ensure that PE provides a positive learning environment for all students and supports their long-term social development.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-epe-10.1177_1356336X261445057 - Supplemental material for Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-epe-10.1177_1356336X261445057 for Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review by Ilona MM Fassaert, Linda J Schoonmade, John van der Kamp and Anne GM de Bruijn in European Physical Education Review

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-epe-10.1177_1356336X261445057 - Supplemental material for Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-epe-10.1177_1356336X261445057 for Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review by Ilona MM Fassaert, Linda J Schoonmade, John van der Kamp and Anne GM de Bruijn in European Physical Education Review

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-epe-10.1177_1356336X261445057 - Supplemental material for Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-epe-10.1177_1356336X261445057 for Peer relationships and social networks in physical education: A scoping review by Ilona MM Fassaert, Linda J Schoonmade, John van der Kamp and Anne GM de Bruijn in European Physical Education Review

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ilona MM Fassaert

Linda J Schoonmade

John van der Kamp

Anne GM de Bruijn

Ethical approval and informed consent

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Ilona MM Fassaert: investigation, conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, and writing—original draft; Linda J Schoonmade: methodology, and writing—review and editing; John van der Kamp: conceptualization, formal analysis, supervision, and writing—review and editing; and Anne GM de Bruijn: conceptualization, funding acquisition, formal analysis, supervision, and writing—review and editing.

Funding

This work was funded by a Starter Grant provided by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science of The Netherlands.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability

Data is available upon reasonable request from the first researcher.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Ilona MM Fassaert is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Behavioral and Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her project focuses on peer relationships and social networks in PE in primary school.

Linda J Schoonmade is an Information Specialist at the University Library of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. She is an expert in designing and performing comprehensive literature searches for systematic and scoping reviews.

John van der Kamp is an Associate Professor of human movement sciences at the Faculty of Behavioral and Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Anne GM de Bruijn is an Assistant Professor of educational sciences at the Faculty of Behavioral and Human Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

References

Arksey

O'Malley

(2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8(1): 19–32.

Aromataris

Munn

(2020) JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Adelaide: JBI.

Badura

Eriksson

García-Moya

, et al. (2024) A Focus on Adolescent Social Contexts in Europe, Central Asia and Canada. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Bailey

Armour

Kirk

, et al. (2009) The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Research Papers in Education 24(1): 1–27.

Bessa

Hastie

Araújo

, 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 & Medicine 18(4): 812–823.

Bukowski

Laursen

Rubin

(2018) Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. New York: Guilford Press.

Chaput

J-P

Willumsen

Bull

, et al. (2020) WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: Summary of the evidence. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 17: 1–9.

Cillessen

Marks

(2017) Methodological choices in peer nomination research. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2017(157): 21–44.

D’Hondt

Deforche

De Bourdeaudhuij

, et al. (2009) Relationship between motor skill and body mass index in 5-to 10-year-old children. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 26(1): 21–37.

10.

Di Pasquale

Celsi

(2017) Stigmatization of overweight and obese peers among children. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 24.

11.

Estevan

Barnett

(2018) Considerations related to the definition, measurement and analysis of perceived motor competence. Sports Medicine 48(12): 2685–2694.

12.

Fassaert

IMM

Schoonmade

Van der kamp

, et al. (2024) Social relations in physical education: A scoping review. OSF. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/EVYWT.

13.

Findlay

Garner

Kohen

(2009) Children's organized physical activity patterns from childhood into adolescence. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 6(6): 708–715.

14.

Gifford-Smith

Brownell

(2003) Childhood peer relationships: Social acceptance, friendships, and peer networks. Journal of School Psychology 41(4): 235–284.

15.

Grimminger

(2014) Getting into teams in physical education and exclusion processes among students. Pedagogies: An International Journal 9(2): 155–171.

16.

Hardman

Murphy

Routen

, et al. (2013) World-Wide Survey of School Physical Education. Paris: UNESCO.

17.

Harrist

Swindle

Hubbs-Tait

, et al. (2016) The social and emotional lives of overweight, obese, and severely obese children. Child Development 87(5): 1564–1580.

18.

Hay

Payne

Chadwick

(2004) Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45(1): 84–108.

19.

Holler

Schüßler

(2024) Gauging acceptance: A multifaceted examination of physical ability and its role for peer networks in adolescent physical education. The Journal of Early Adolescence 45(9): 1124–1151. DOI: 10.1177/02724316241265459.

20.

Hong

Fàbregues

Bartlett

, et al. (2018a) The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. Education for Information 34(4): 285–291.

21.

Hong

Gonzalez-Reyes

Pluye

(2018b) Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 24(3): 459–467.

22.

Hong

Pluye

Fàbregues

, et al. (2019) Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: A modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 111: 49–59. 41.

23.

Killen

Rutland

Jampol

(2009) Social Exclusion in Childhood and Adolescence Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. New York: Guilford Press, pp.249–266.

24.

Kim

K-S

Yim

(2017) Utilizing social network analysis in social sciences in sport. Asia Pacific Journal of Sport and Social Science 6(2): 177–196.

25.

Lacambra

Fagundes

Burgués

, et al. (2025) The impact of physical education on interpersonal relationships: A systematic review. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte 20(64): 12.

26.

Lavy

Sand

(2019) The effect of social networks on students’ academic and non-cognitive behavioural outcomes: Evidence from conditional random assignment of friends in school. The Economic Journal 129(617): 439–480.

27.

Littleton

Wood

Staarman

(2010) International Handbook of Psychology in Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

28.

Lynch

Kaufman

Rajjo

, et al. (2019) Accuracy of accelerometers for measuring physical activity and levels of sedentary behavior in children: A systematic review. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 10: 1–8. DOI: 10.1177/2150132719874252.

29.

McHugh

(2012) Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica 22(3): 276–282.

30.

McLennan

(2021) Making the Case for Inclusive Quality Physical Education Policy Development: A Policy Brief. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

31.

McLennan

Thompson

(2015) Quality Physical Education (QPE): Guidelines for Policy Makers. Paris: Unesco Publishing.

32.

Messmer

(2013) Fachdidaktik Sport. Stuttgart: utb GmbH.

33.

Opstoel

Chapelle

Prins

, et al. (2020) Personal and social development in physical education and sports: A review study. European Physical Education Review 26(4): 797–813.

34.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

, et al. (2016) Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews 5: 1–10.

35.

Özdemir

Utkualp

Palloş

(2016) Physical and psychosocial effects of the changes in adolescence period. International Journal of Caring Sciences 9(2): 717–723.

36.

Passos

Araújo

Davids

(2016) Competitiveness and the process of co-adaptation in team sport performance. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 1562.

37.

Pla-Pla

Franchi

Lavega-Burgués

, et al. (2024) The influence of socio-affective relationships between adolescents in educational experiences of cooperation–opposition: A systematic review. Children 12(1): 15.

38.

Prinstein

Giletta

(2020) Future directions in peer relations research. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 49(4): 556–572.

39.

Reber

(1995) The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology. London: Penguin press.

40.

Rubin

Bukowski

Bowker

(2015) Children in Peer Groups. Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science. Hoboken: Wiley, pp.175–222.

41.

Rubin

Bukowski

Parker

, et al. (2008) Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In: Handbook of Child Psychology. Hoboken: Wiley, 141–180.

42.

Rubin

Ross

(2012) Peer Relationships and Social Skills in Childhood. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

43.

Ryan

Patrick

(2009) Self-determination theory and physical education. Hellenic Journal of Psychology 6(2): 107–124.

44.

SLO (2025) Kerndoelen primair onderwijs. Amersfoort: Ministerie van OCW.

45.

Smith

(2003) Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: A road less traveled in youth sport and exercise psychology research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 4(1): 25–39.

46.

Smithson

(2000) Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3(2): 103–119.

47.

Sun

Shen

(2017) Learning in physical education: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 36(3): 277–291.

48.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7): 467–473.

49.

Wäsche

Dickson

Woll

, et al. (2017) Social network analysis in sport research: An emerging paradigm. European Journal for Sport and Society 14(2): 138–165.

50.

Wei

Graber

(2023) Bullying and physical education: A scoping review. Kinesiology Review 12(3): 217–234.

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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB

0.12 MB

0.02 MB