Tibor Balga

Enhancing the quality of physical education and increasing physical activity among primary school children remains a key academic and policy concern. Tandem teaching is widely recognized as a promising strategy. However, its effectiveness depends on the specific implementation framework. Previous research highlights differences between tandem models, limited evidence exists on how these structures influence active school practices. This study aimed to compare two national tandem teaching systems, namely an external coach-led model (Slovakia) and an integrated PE specialist-led model (North Macedonia), to determine how professional background and systemic structure affect the implementation of active school practices. A comparative cross-sectional design was employed; data were collected from 618 primary classroom teachers (Slovakia, n = 314; North Macedonia, n = 304) using a validated digital questionnaire assessing the frequency of active school practices and collaborative dynamics. Statistical analyses included Pearson’s Chi-square tests and Cramer’s V coefficients to identify national differences. Significant differences were identified in 8 of 9 practices (p < .05). Notably, interdisciplinary content was regularly implemented by 75.6% of North Macedonian teachers, while 33.1% of Slovak teachers did not use it (V = .549). Collaborative dynamics differed significantly across all activities (V = .391–.743), whereas active breaks showed no significant difference in implementation by classroom teachers (p = .261). The findings indicate that the integrated PE specialist-led model promotes stronger pedagogical cohesion and interdisciplinary practice, while the coach-led model is associated with fragmented roles and classroom teacher autonomy. Long-term, school-based partnerships appear more effective than short-term external arrangements for supporting active school implementation.

Background/Objectives: To address the inconsistent provision of specialist physical education (PE) in primary schools, this study investigated the comparative efficacy of distinct team teaching configurations. The objective was to compare these instructional models’ impact on students’ basic motor competencies (MC) and self-reported physical literacy (PL). Methods: This cluster-randomized trial involved N = 266 students (grades 1–4) in Slovakia, assigned to one of five instructional models (PE teacher; GT+PET; PET+AT; GT+C; and GT+AT). The five-month intervention included two 45 min PE lessons weekly. Given the cluster design and non-normal data, the Wilcoxon singed-rank test and Kruskal–Wallis H-test were applied to assess the differences, and Cohen’s r was applied to determine effect size. Results: Comparative analysis showed no significant differences across teaching models for Self-Movement (p = 0.544), Object-Movement (p = 0.138), or PL (p = 0.219). Significant within-group MC gains were found in 4 teaching models, yet the practical effect size was generally weak to moderate (r ranging from 0.21 to 0.69). The strongest practical improvement was observed in the AT+PET Self-Movement group (r = 0.69). In contrast, the GT+PET configuration achieved no significant MC gain. For PL, only the AT+PET and GT+PET models showed significantly positive but moderate changes (r = 0.32 and 0.37). Conversely, the GT+C model resulted in a moderately significant decline in PL (Δ = −9.16, r = 0.43). A positive but practically weak correlation emerged between the MC subscales and PL (ρ ranging from 0.135 to 0.238, p < 0.05), with the highest limited association for Catching (ρ = 0.377, p < 0.01). The frequency of organized out-of-school physical activity was positively correlated with MC subscales (ρ = 0.195–0.282, p < 0.01) but not significantly correlated with PL. Conclusions: No single teaching model proved superior for improving overall motor competence or self-perceived physical literacy. While most effective configurations yielded moderate practical gains, the GT+C model presents a key paradox: while effective for objective skills, it proved detrimental to self-perceived physical literacy. These findings lead to explicit policy and implementation recommendations focused on strengthening collaborative instruction. Policymakers should consider strategies to support the integration of specialist PE teachers (PETs), such as establishing co-teaching as a recommended practice and allocating dedicated resources for funding and collaborative planning time to leverage the specialized knowledge they bring. Furthermore, schools are encouraged to focus on the effective implementation of PET-involved team teaching approaches (e.g., AT+PET and GT+PET). These models are not only effective but also support the co-professionalization of the generalist teacher, which is essential for ensuring that high-quality, evidence-based PE practices are consistently embedded.

Background/Objectives: To address the inconsistent provision of specialist physical education (PE) in primary schools, this study investigated the comparative efficacy of distinct team-teaching configurations. The objective was to compare these instructional models' impact on students' basic motor competencies (MC) and self-reported physical literacy (PL). Methods: This quasi-experimental, cluster-randomized study involved N=266 students (grades 1-4) assigned to one of five instructional models: single PE teacher or four team-teaching configurations (Generalist Teacher + PE Teacher [GT+PE T], Generalist Teacher + Assistant Teacher [GT+AT], Generalist Teacher + Sports Coach [GT+C], and PE Teacher + Assistant Teacher [PE T+AT]). The five-month intervention included two 45-minute PE lessons weekly. Motor competence (MC, MOBAK) and perceived physical literacy (PL, PLAYSelf) were assessed pre- and post-intervention. Given the cluster design and non-normal data, non-parametric tests were used; Kruskal-Wallis H-test compared change scores between groups, complemented by Spearman’s rank-order correlations for construct alignment and covariate analysis. Results: Statistically significant within-group overall MC gains were achieved exclusively by configurations including a qualified PE teacher (GT+PE T and PE T+AT; p < 0.05). The GT+PE T model showed the largest positive change, including significant PL improvement (Δ = +5.65). Conversely, the GT+C model resulted in a significant decline in self-reported PL (Δ = -9.16). A small but significant positive correlation (ρ = 0.149) emerged between Object-Movement skills and Perceived Physical Literacy post-intervention. Conclusions: The effectiveness of collaborative PE instruction is highly dependent on the explicit inclusion of a qualified PE teacher, reinforcing the crucial role of specialized pedagogical content knowledge. Models lacking this core expertise may be detrimental to both motor skill development and the affective components of physical literacy. These findings highlight the need for policy focused on high-quality, PE teacher-led primary PE.

Quality Physical Education (QPE) is crucial, yet its delivery at the primary level is often challenged by generalist teachers’ inadequate preparedness, a deficit that collaborative tandem teaching can address. This study compared the perceived preparedness of 618 generalist teachers with varied tandem teaching experience in Slovakia and North Macedonia, examining differences linked to the structural model type. Data were collected via a questionnaire assessing self-perceived preparedness across 11 PE domains and the need for continuous professional development. A Chi-square test compared responses between the Slovakian model (rotational sports coaches, co-teaching 1 of 3 weekly lessons) and the North Macedonian model (consistent PE teachers, co-teaching all 3 weekly lessons). Generalist teachers in both countries reported overall high preparedness, but a significant deficiency was identified in working with children with diverse learning needs (p < 0.01). North Macedonian teachers, who experience a long-term partnership with a dedicated PE teacher in all weekly PE lessons, reported being significantly better prepared across most domains (e.g., selection of equipment, p = 0.000) than Slovakian teachers, who utilize short, rotational partnerships in 1 of 3 weekly lessons. The findings suggest that the structure of the tandem teaching model is a key factor in enhancing generalist teachers’ preparedness and professional growth in QPE.