Conference Agenda

A prominent argument in physical education research advocates moving away from teacher-led instruction that emphasizes only the physical domain (Casey & Kirk, 2021; Kirk, 2013). Models-based Practice (MbP) represents a student-centred alternative to teaching physical education, challenging the traditional teacher-led, multi-activity approach that has long dominated the field (Kirk, 2013). MbP has gained increasing popularity and support, and several scholars have discussed it as a potential future for PE pedagogies. That said, there are also concerns and critical voices regarding MbP, suggesting that we do not yet know enough about pedagogical models and MbP to position them as the definitive future of PE (Landi, Fitzpatrick, & McGlashan, 2016).

A substantial body of research has been published exploring students’ experiences of learning through various pedagogical models and/or MbP over the last decades. Individually, these studies offer insight into the educational possibilities as well as challenges students experience through these approaches as reported by themselves. Despite the depth of research, no study has previously synthesised the individual studies that constitute this body of work. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to scrutinise the existing literature examining students’ experiences of pedagogical models and/or MbP. In doing so, we aim at providing a more holistic yet nuanced understanding of both the possibilities and the challenges of MbP, as heard through the voices of students themselves. In this systematic mixed studies review, we address the following research question:

How do students voice their experiences of being taught through pedagogical models and/or MbP in physical education?

The primary aim of elite sport is to achieve peak performance, which already requires substantial commitment during adolescence. Accordingly, the secondary school years are widely regarded as the investment phase of an athletic career (Stambulova et al., 2009). However, sporting excellence is shaped by numerous uncertain internal and external factors, rendering a career path based exclusively on athletic success inherently risky. Despite this uncertainty, many secondary school athletes construct their future primarily around their athletic identity, even though only a small proportion ultimately reach the adult elite level (Gulbin et al., 2010). In handball, this disparity is particularly pronounced, as only a few percent of secondary school athletes obtain professional or semi-professional contracts.

To address these challenges, the concept of the dual career was introduced to describe the need to balance elite sport participation with educational development (Stambulova & Wylleman, 2014). The student-athlete dual career framework emphasizes the integration of sporting and academic pathways, enabling athletes to achieve high performance in sport while preparing for life beyond competition. A critical stage in this process is the transition from secondary education to higher education, highlighting the strategic importance of dual career support during secondary school years (Ryba et al., 2016; Rens et al., 2018; Graczyk et al., 2018). Research indicates that young athletes often prioritize sport over other life domains, placing increased responsibility on sport clubs, schools, and support providers to facilitate all-around development (Knapp, 2012). When effectively implemented, dual career pathways promote identity development, intellectual growth, life balance, and long-term career preparedness beyond sport (Stambulova & Wylleman, 2019). Despite this, empirical research has predominantly focused on university-aged athletes, leaving the secondary school context underexplored.

Therefore, the present study examined the perceptions of secondary school handball players and their coaches regarding sport-extrinsic development, with particular emphasis on lived experiences and perceived responsibility within the dual career framework.

Physical education in lower primary education occupies a strategically important yet often underestimated position in children’s development. In Hungary, although both generalist primary teachers and specialist physical education teachers are formally entitled to teach physical education in the lower grades, the subject is most commonly delivered by generalist primary teachers in everyday practice. This places primary teacher education in a pivotal role, as it directly shapes how future teachers conceptualize, value, and implement physical education in schools. While Hungarian primary teacher education provides a relatively strong curricular presence for physical education compared to several international systems (Repond et al., 2023), the mere availability of coursework does not guarantee pedagogically effective or developmentally balanced implementation in school practice.

Teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices related to physical education are not formed in isolation but emerge through a long and complex socialization process. This process begins with early childhood movement experiences, is further shaped by teachers’ own school trajectories, and continues throughout teacher education and professional practice (Ferry & Romar, 2020). As a result, physical education in lower primary grades is influenced not only by formal curricula but also by deeply rooted personal experiences, institutional norms, and implicit expectations. Teacher education occupies a unique position in this process, as it is simultaneously embedded in the systems of public education and higher education. Consequently, it is shaped by the often divergent expectations, priorities, and constraints of both spheres (Chrappán, 2020).

The aims and content of school physical education are regulated by the National Core Curriculum, while primary teacher education is governed by nationally defined Training and Output Requirements. However, these regulatory frameworks do not operate mechanically. Their practical realization is mediated through teachers’ interpretations, institutional cultures, and available resources, which may lead to considerable variation in how physical education is understood and enacted in schools. This gap between formal regulation and lived practice highlights the importance of examining not only curricular documents but also the perspectives of those directly involved in teacher education and school implementation.

Lower primary physical education plays a crucial role in supporting children’s fitness level, physical and emotional well-being, social development, and cognitive functioning, while also transmitting lifestyle patterns that influence long-term health behaviors (Dollaway et al., 2024). Its effects are embedded in a broader ecological context in which family environments, parental attitudes, and school practices interact (Daly-Smith et al., 2020). However, recent research indicates that different stakeholder groups, such as teachers, parents, and educational institutions, often hold divergent views regarding the aims, value, and developmental priorities of physical education (Jess et al., 2024). These differences can shape both the status of the subject within schools and the directions of its pedagogical development.

Despite the recognized importance of physical education in early schooling, empirical evidence integrating the perspectives of teacher education actors, practicing teachers, and parents remains limited, particularly in the Hungarian context. Without a clearer understanding of how these stakeholder groups conceptualize the aims, implementation, and future development of lower primary physical education, efforts to improve teacher preparation and school practice risk remaining fragmented and ineffective. Addressing this gap is essential for aligning teacher education, school expectations, and parental perceptions in a coherent and developmentally grounded manner.

Therefore, the primary aim of the present study is to explore and compare the views and experiences related to physical education among key actors in primary teacher education and school practice, specifically teacher educators, primary teachers, and parents, with a focus on the aims, implementation, and potential developmental directions of physical education in the lower primary grades.