The Effect of Sport Education Model (SEM) and Conventional
Learning Model on the Active Learning Time
Nana Sutisna
1,2
, Adang Suherman
2
, Amung Ma’mun
2
and Mulyana Mulyana
2
1
FKIP Universitas Galuh, Jl. RE. Martadinata No.150, Ciamis, Indonesia
2
Faculty of Sport and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No.229, Bandung, Indonesia
Keywords: Sport Education, Active Learning Time.
Abstract: The research was intended to identify the effect of Sports Education Model (SEM) on the students’ active
learning time in healt and physical education subject. The method was quasi experimental using randomized
control grup posttest only design. The sample was 40 students of SMP Negeri 1 Baregbeg. 20 students were
included in SEM gropu and the other 20 students wre included in conventional method using cluster random
sampling. The research adopted the instrument developed by Suherman. The results of this study indicate that
1) There is a significant influence on the implementation of SEM model to increase the active learning time
in health and phyisical education, 2) There is a significant effect of the application of conventional learning
model to the increase of active learning time. 3) There is a significant effect difference between SEM and
conventional model on the increase of active learning time of students in health and physical education.
1 INTRODUCTION
Sport Education Model (SEM) is a physical education
learning model (W.Alexander & Curtner-Smith,
Matthew, 2015). This model focuses more on
competition and games. Students experience various
roles, such as coaches, athletes, managers, referees or
match devices, and even some as a team supporter.
(Toogood & Allison, 2014)
The use of learning meodel is an effort to improve
students' active learning time. All learning models are
basically all good, but sometimes the teacher does not
look at the concept of the curriculum goals, the
availability of infrastructure, and also the motivation
of the students.
SE is one of the learning model that can be used
as one solution in order to increase students’ active
learning time. Learners are given their respective
roles, so that every student is expected to be
responsible for their respective roles. The most
important goal of physical education is to provide
students with an understanding of the importance of
lifelong physical activity. Another purpose of
physical education is to influence the physical,
psychological and social development. Development
of intrinsic motivation, strengthen self-concept, learn
for responsibility. (M.Mosston & Ashworth, 2008).
Based on the author's exposure, it is necessary to
prove that the SE model in the learning process of
physical education can increase the active learning
time for every learner. Various teacher's efforts are
done based on the character of each subject including
in the application of physical education learning
process(Adang Suherman, n.d.). However, the
research on SEM has not much been conducted
(Deenihan, McPhail, & Young, 2011)
2 THEORETICAL REVIEWS
Sport Education Model (SEM) is a learning model.
Siedentop discusses this model on his book “Quality
PE through Positive Sport Experiences: Sport
Education”. Daryl Siedentop initially discusses SE in
Commonwealth Games Conference in Brisbane,
Australia in 1982
The Sport Education Model (SEM) is a learning
model that is able to provide a broad experience in
the learning process to learners so that they become
more enthusiastic in learning, better understanding
Sutisna, N., Suherman, A., Ma’mun, A. and Mulyana, M.
The Effect of Sport Education Model (SEM) and Conventional Learning Model on the Active Learning Time.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 1, pages 277-279
ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
277

of sports values, and more competent in Sports
(Hartono, Suherman, & Rusdiana, 2014).
The SE learning model provides many
opportunities for discussion among students.
Teachers do not directly interfere with students in the
field. (W.Alexander & Curtner-Smith, Matthew,
2015) Learners get a direct chance to discuss, as well
as provide the widest experience to experience how
real sports are. The program is planned as if the
students were facing one season until the celebration
of the competition.
When this type of goal is given, students learn to
be independent, to make decisions about their
learning process, and feel responsible for themselves
and others. This is one of the basic ideas of the
Spectrum, which is to divert decision-making and
responsibility, step by step, from teacher to
student.(M.Mosston & Ashworth, 2008).
The SE model has six key features that give sports
meaning and make it an authentic experience in the
context of physical education. These include:
seasons, affiliations, formal competitions, peak
events, notes and celebrations (Maija-kallio, 2013).
Conventional model or often referred to as the
traditional model is a model of learning that is used
for a long time in the physical education subject. This
traditional model was also called direct instruction
Teachers play an important role during the learning
process, so the impression that this model arises in the
field is the teacher's dominance is very clear during
the learning process.
Kholik (2011) said that: "The traditional approach
is characterized by teachers teaching more about non-
competence concepts, the goal is that students know
something rather than being able to do something, and
the students listen more during the learning process.
Traditional model is as a process of learning that is
dominated by more teachers as a process of
transferring knowledge from a teacher to students,
teachers play a more active role and students tend to
be more passive that acts only limited to the recipient
of science only.
2.1 Model Comparison Table
Harotno (2014) details the difference between SEM
and Conventional as in Table 1 below.
Table 1: The difference between SEM and Conventional
Model.
SEM
CONVENTIONAL
Learning with
skill/tactical development
Learning done through
team activities and closed
by small game activities
Warming up done by the
team members
Form and Application
Skill/tactical Learning
done by formal practice
team
the game was played
either in team or
individually
The students and the
teacher form the fair play
value altogether
Role/assignment
distribution,
role/responsibility
distribution
The learning process is
closed by the
competition/tournament
The celebration and award
are given after the
competition ends
Learning approach Skill -
drill - game
Teachers as the learning
sources as the facilitators
Warming up is developed
and implemeted in the
class
Learning with skill and
drill training patterns
(exercise rehearsal)
The form of the game
leads to the real sport and
the pattern of competition
There is no imprint of
fair play values
There is no division of
students’ roles and rules
Learning ends with win
and lose
No celebration
2.2 Active Learning Time Figure
Lutan (2002, p.10) said that physical education
learning process succeedes if:
a. There are more motion learning intensity in the
amount of active learning time that students
devote.
b. The time interval is relatively short so that the
students can actively participate
c. The learning process involves all stude nts’
participation and,
d. The teachers directly involve in the learning
process
3 METHODS
The population was 40 students of SMP Negeri 1
Baregbeg divided into two groups (20 students in the
experimental group and the others are in the control
group). The experimental group employed SEM and
the control group used traditional model. The method
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
278

used in this study was experimental using randomized
control group posttest only design.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As t observed is higher than the t critical, the test has
been convincingly proven significant. It means that
Group A and B significantly affect the active learning
time. The next test is the average test of two parties to
see whether or not the results of the two groups
exercise have significant differences. The firts thing
to do is to find out the means and standard deviation
of the difference from the respective groups. Based
on the analysis, it was revealed that the t observed is
higher than the t critical in α = 0.05 df (n1 + n2 – 2)
= 18 in which t (1 – ½ α) is 2.07. As a result, it can be
concluded that there is no significant effect
differences.
REFERENCES
Adang Suherman. n.d. The Analysis Of Character
Education In Teaching Physical Education.
Deenihan, J. T., McPhail, a., Young, a.-M. 2011. “Living
the curriculum”: Integrating sport education into a
Physical Education Teacher Education programme.
European Physical Education Review, 17(1), 51–68.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11402262.
Hartono, R., Suherman, A., Rusdiana, A. 2014. Pengaruh
Model Sport Education Terhadap Motivasi, (motivasi
dan intensitas gerak siswa pada penjasorkes), 213–
226.
Kholik, M. 2011. Metode Pembelajaran konvensional.
[online]. Tersedia:
http//wordpress.com/2011/11/08/metode pembelajaran
konvensional. [Diakses 27 September 2014].
M.Mosston., Ashworth, S. 2008. Teaching Physical
Education. First Online Edition Muska, 32.
https://doi.org/10.17226/18314.
Maija-kallio. 2013. Soccer Unit Plan to Finnish P . E
teachers using Sport Education Model.
Siedentop, D. 1998. What Is Sport Education and How
Does It Work? JOPERD–The Journal of Physical
Education Recreation Dance, 69(4). Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&
amp;d=5002285529.
Toogood, J., Allison, P. 2014. Analysing Constraints to
Participation in Snowsports for Pre-service Teachers:
A Qualitative Study of Tourism for Alpine (Downhill)
Skiing.
W. Alexander, Z., Curtner-Smith, Matthew, O. 2015.
Influence of a purposefully negotiated season of sport
education on one teacher and his pupils. European
Physical Education Review, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X15619123.
The Effect of Sport Education Model (SEM) and Conventional Learning Model on the Active Learning Time
279