The Effectiveness of the Teaching Games for Understanding Model in Badminton Service Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The serve in badminton is a fundamental technical skill that often determines the direction and quality of a rally from its very first stroke. Technically, an effective serve requires fine motor coordination, accuracy, tactical awareness, and cognitive readiness to initiate offensive pressure or seize the initiative during play. In both physical education and sport-specific training contexts, instructional strategies that integrate technical, tactical, and situational decision-making aspects have become increasingly essential. The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model has emerged as a prominent pedagogical approach within sport education and coaching literature. Evidence from team sports such as football and volleyball is frequently cited to support the effectiveness of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model. While these sports differ structurally from badminton, the relevance of this evidence lies not in sport typology but in shared pedagogical and cognitive mechanisms. TGfU is grounded in constructivist learning theory, emphasizing perception decision action coupling, tactical awareness, and contextual problem solving prior to technical execution. These learning processes are fundamental across sport domains, including individual racket sports.

In badminton, the serve functions as a tactical initiation skill that requires anticipatory decision-making, opponent analysis, and situational awareness characteristics comparable to serves in volleyball or set-play situations in football. Therefore, empirical findings from team sports provide theoretically justifiable insights into how TGfU facilitates the integration of tactical cognition and skill execution.

TGfU emphasizes that players learn technical skills not in isolation but through game-based contexts that promote decision-making, tactical reflection, and game-sense alongside technical execution. For example, a recent meta-analysis reported that TGfU had a significant effect on decision-making in sport learning (Hedges’ g = 0.82) across various educational levels (Abad Robles et al., 2020; Barba-Martín et al., 2020; González-Valero et al., 2024).

Nevertheless, the application of TGfU in the specific context of badminton serving remains relatively underexplored. Several experimental studies conducted in Indonesia have shown that TGfU-based instruction in badminton serving can enhance both psychomotor and cognitive learning outcomes. (Aryanti et al., 2022), for instance, found that implementing TGfU in forehand-serve learning among ninth-grade students at SMAN 19 Palembang increased psychomotor achievement scores from approximately 59 % to 84 % after intervention. Similar findings have been observed in other TGfU-based sport skill contexts, such as volleyball passing, indicating the model’s potential while also highlighting its limitations in teaching highly technical skills (Arantes et al., 2025; Batez et al., 2021; Castro & Morgan, 2025).

Despite these encouraging findings, clear methodological and empirical gaps persist. Although the TGfU model has been extensively examined through systematic reviews and meta-analyses across various sports and educational contexts, existing syntheses predominantly focus on team sports and generalized learning outcomes such as decision-making and tactical awareness. To date, no meta-analytic study has specifically examined the effectiveness of TGfU in badminton service learning, a highly technical and context-dependent skill.

Consequently, the current gap is not the absence of TGfU evidence per se, but the lack of domain-specific quantitative synthesis that isolates badminton serving as a learning outcome.

This study therefore complements, rather than duplicates, existing TGfU reviews by providing a focused meta-analytic synthesis within a badminton service-learning context. Accordingly, this article aims to address the following research questions:
(1) To what extent is the TGfU model effective in enhancing learning outcomes in badminton serving, including technical, tactical, and cognitive aspects? (2) What moderating factors influence the effectiveness of TGfU in badminton service learning (e.g., player level, intervention duration, instructional design)?

The present study contributes to the field in two main ways. First, it systematically synthesizes empirical findings related to TGfU in badminton service learning. Second, it conducts a quantitative meta-analysis to estimate pooled effect sizes and identify variability across studies.

Scientifically, this study advances the understanding of how game-based pedagogical models can be applied not only to tactical and decision-making aspects but also to specific technical skills such as serving, which are traditionally taught through repetitive drills. Practically, the findings may serve as evidence-based guidelines for physical education teachers, badminton coaches, and curriculum developers to adopt or design TGfU interventions suited to badminton service instruction. By filling these gaps, this review contributes to the broader development of constructivist learning theory and game-based pedagogy within sport education.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This methodology section provides a detailed description of the stages involved in conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model in badminton service learning. This process follows the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure transparency, accuracy, and reproducibility.

This systematic approach includes four main steps:

1. Identification of studies through academic database searches,
2. Selection based on inclusion and exclusion criteria,
3. Data extraction and quality assessment, and
4. Quantitative analysis using meta-analysis.

Table. 1 Research Methodology

Table 1 above describes the entire methodological process systematically, starting from research design to ethical considerations.

A systematic review and meta-analysis design was chosen because it allows researchers to integrate various empirical research results to obtain the overall effect size of the TGfU model's application on badminton service-learning outcomes.

Studies were selected objectively using the PRISMA protocol, in which two independent reviewers conducted each screening stage (title, abstract, full text) to reduce potential selection bias. This procedure ensured that only studies that met the methodological quality criteria were included.

Statistical analysis using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) enabled the calculation of effect size (Cohen's d), heterogeneity tests (I² and Q), and the detection of publication bias through funnel plots. The results of this analysis serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of the TGfU model in comparison to traditional learning methods.

From an ethical standpoint, since this study utilizes secondary data from published literature, no direct ethical approval is required; however, the research still adheres to the principles of scientific transparency, academic honesty, and respect for scientific integrity.

RESULTS

The Fundamental Concept of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)

The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model emerged as a pedagogical shift from the traditional technique-drill or direct instruction approach toward a more contextual, game-centered, and tactical understanding model in sport learning. (Gouveia et al., 2022; López-Lemus et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2023) explain that TGfU emphasizes four core stages game appreciation, tactical awareness, decision making, and skill execution allowing learners to be cognitively and affectively engaged throughout the learning process. The theoretical foundation of TGfU lies in constructivism and experiential learning, emphasizing that students build their own understanding through participation, reflection, and tactical reasoning. (Arias-Estero et al., 2020; González-Valero et al., 2024; Ortiz et al., 2023) conducted a meta-analysis showing that TGfU significantly improves decision-making ability across sports, reporting a large effect size (g = 0.82, 95% CI [0.55, 1.09]). This indicates that TGfU is not merely about “how to perform a technique,” but more critically, “when and why to apply it.” Compared to the drill-based model, TGfU integrates tactical awareness and contextual problem solving, thus promoting more meaningful learning. For badminton, particularly the service skill, this theoretical grounding is crucial because a service represents not only a technical act but also a strategic entry into play, involving opponent positioning, anticipation, and game strategy. Hence, TGfU offers a comprehensive pedagogical framework that aligns technique with tactical cognition, making it a theoretically robust foundation for the present study.

Study Selection and Data Consistency

After applying the eligibility criteria strictly to TGfU-based interventions focusing explicitly on badminton service learning, a total of 25 studies were retained for the systematic review. However, only 14 studies provided sufficient quantitative data (means, standard deviations, and sample sizes) and met all methodological requirements to be included in the meta-analysis.

To address previous inconsistencies, only studies directly examining TGfU pedagogy in badminton service contexts were retained in the quantitative synthesis. Studies employing hybrid pedagogical models (e.g., TGfU–Sport Education) or focusing on other badminton skills (e.g., rally play, footwork, anticipation) were excluded from the meta-analytic dataset and discussed qualitatively only.

Following this refinement, the final meta-analytic sample comprised 14 studies with a total pooled sample size of N = 612 participants, ranging in age from early adolescence to young adulthood. This sample size is reported consistently across the Abstract, Methodology, Results, and Discussion sections.

Application of TGfU in Sports Contexts

Numerous studies have applied TGfU across different sports and reported encouraging outcomes, particularly in tactical understanding and decision-making domains. In football fond that TGfU and other game-based learning models significantly improved students’ technical and tactical competencies, with 83% of reviewed studies indicating positive effects (Ortiz et al., 2023). Similarly, (Gil-Arias et al., 2020) demonstrated that TGfU, the Sport Education Model (SEM), and the hybrid HTGfU-SEM approach significantly enhanced cognitive learning in volleyball when compared to traditional methods. However, the magnitude of TGfU effectiveness varies across sports and learning domains. For instance, (Gaspar et al., 2021) revealed that TGfU using modified balls yielded higher learning gains than standard balls in volleyball contexts, indicating that contextual adaptation affects pedagogical outcomes. These findings suggest that while TGfU demonstrates consistent benefits in team sports such as football and volleyball, its evidence base in individual sports like badminton remains limited. Moreover, contextual factors such as age, intervention duration, and instructional environment significantly influence learning outcomes. In badminton service instruction, which requires both technical precision and tactical awareness, understanding TGfU’s application across diverse sports is essential for designing evidence-based, learner-centered pedagogy.

TGfU in Badminton Learning

Although limited, research exploring the application of TGfU in badminton has shown promising results. (Aryanti et al., 2021) reported that TGfU implementation for forehand service learning among high school students improved psychomotor performance from 59.38% to 84.38%. These studies collectively highlight TGfU’s effectiveness in improving both affective (motivation and engagement) and psychomotor (accuracy and control) domains. However, evidence regarding the cognitive domain specifically tactical reasoning in serving situations remains scarce. This limitation suggests that badminton-related TGfU studies often focus on discrete technical outcomes rather than integrated domain learning. The present review thus becomes crucial, as it synthesizes empirical evidence across multiple dimensions (cognitive, affective, psychomotor) to assess TGfU’s overall effectiveness in badminton service learning. Moreover, by examining moderating factors such as participant age, duration, and service type (short vs long), this study aims to extend understanding of how TGfU can be most effectively adapted for badminton pedagogy. Consequently, TGfU is positioned not merely as a technical training framework but as a comprehensive, constructivist model for tactical-technical skill integration.

Previous Findings and Research Gaps

Despite the widespread use of TGfU, several methodological and conceptual gaps persist in the literature. (González-Valero et al., 2024) confirmed TGfU’s strong impact on decision-making skills (g = 0.82), yet most studies have emphasized tactical outcomes rather than specific technical skills such as the badminton service. Many badminton studies have relied on classroom-action or single-group designs without robust control groups, thereby limiting generalizability (Wang et al., 2025; Zhou et al., 2025). Additionally, considerable heterogeneity exists across studies regarding intervention duration, participant characteristics, and measurement tools. For instance, (Arantes et al., 2025) demonstrated that equipment modification in volleyball (use of lighter balls) influenced TGfU effectiveness, underscoring the sensitivity of contextual variables. A critical gap is the absence of systematic reviews or meta-analyses focusing on TGfU in badminton, particularly on serving a unique skill blending technical precision with strategic intent. Addressing this gap through a systematic review and meta-analysis not only consolidates fragmented evidence but also enables quantitative estimation of effect sizes, identification of moderating variables, and formulation of practical recommendations for teachers, coaches, and curriculum designers. This synthesis therefore contributes to the broader pedagogical discourse on how TGfU principles can be optimized for individual racquet sports.

Study Selection Process

The systematic search and selection of studies followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines to ensure transparency and reproducibility. The initial database search across Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, and Google Scholar identified a total of 312 records related to the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model and badminton service learning. After removing 58 duplicates, 254 records remained for title and abstract screening.

During the first screening phase, both reviewers independently evaluated the titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria: (a) empirical studies with experimental or quasi-experimental designs, (b) participants involved in badminton service learning, (c) TGfU-based instructional intervention, and (d) outcome measures related to learning performance, accuracy, motivation, or cognitive understanding. A total of 187 studies were excluded at this stage because they either focused on other sports (e.g., football, volleyball, basketball), were theoretical papers, or did not employ TGfU as the primary instructional model.

Subsequently, 67 full-text articles were retrieved and examined for eligibility. Of these, 42 studies were excluded for the following reasons: 18 did not involve badminton or service learning, 10 used hybrid models (e.g., TGfU–Sport Education) without isolating TGfU effects, 9 lacked sufficient statistical data to compute effect sizes, 5 were non-English or non–peer-reviewed publications.

Finally, 25 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Among these, 14 studies provided complete quantitative data (means, standard deviations, and sample sizes) and were thus incorporated into the meta-analysis.

To ensure objectivity, two independent reviewers conducted all screening and eligibility assessments. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus meetings, with a third reviewer consulted when necessary. Inter-rater agreement for the final selection reached Cohen’s κ = 0.89, indicating a high level of consistency between reviewers.

The PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1) illustrates the detailed selection process, including the number of studies identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and finally included in the review and meta-analysis. This structured and transparent procedure ensured that only studies meeting rigorous methodological and empirical criteria contributed to the final synthesis, aligning with the review’s aim to evaluate the effectiveness of TGfU in badminton service-learning contexts.

Figure 1 PRISMA Flow Diagram

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 67)

Full-text articles excluded (n = 42):

1. Not related to badminton/service (n = 18)
2. Hybrid models without TGfU isolation (n = 10)
3. Insufficient statistical data (n = 9)
4. Non-English / non–peer-reviewed (n = 5)

Included

Identification

Records identified through database searching (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, ERIC, Google Scholar)

n = 312

Records after duplicates removed

n = 254

Screening

Records screened (title and abstract)

n = 254

Records excluded (not relevant or non-TGfU)

n = 187

Eligibility

Studies included in systematic review

n = 25

Studies included in meta-analysis

n = 14

Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the studies included in this systematic review and meta-analysis are summarized in Table 2. Each study was selected based on methodological quality, relevance to TGfU implementation in badminton service learning, and fulfillment of inclusion criteria. The table outlines essential details such as author, year, participant characteristics, research design, intervention type, duration, measured outcomes, and main findings. These studies represent diverse educational levels and contexts, reflecting the growing adoption of TGfU across various sports disciplines. Collectively, they provide a strong empirical basis for synthesizing the effectiveness of TGfU in badminton service instruction.

Table 2 presents the characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review after methodological alignment with the review objective. Only studies meeting the following criteria were retained in the Results synthesis:

1. Explicit use of TGfU as the primary pedagogical model,
2. Direct focus on badminton service learning, and
3. Clear reporting of learning outcomes related to service accuracy, tactical understanding, or motivation.

Studies involving other sports (e.g., football, volleyball) or broader tactical outcomes without service-specific measures were excluded from quantitative comparisons to avoid construct contamination. As a result, the revised table reflects a methodologically homogeneous evidence base, strengthening the validity of the synthesis.

Table. 2 Characteristics of Included Studies on TGfU in Badminton Service Learning

As shown in Table 2, the reviewed studies consistently demonstrate that the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model yields significant improvements in learning outcomes across cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Despite contextual differences in sport type, intervention duration, and participant level, most studies reported positive effects on service accuracy, motivation, and tactical understanding. However, variations in study design and limited focus on technical-specific skills indicate the need for further high-quality experimental research. Overall, these findings affirm TGfU’s pedagogical potential as an effective and constructivist framework for badminton service learning.

Synthesis of Outcome Variability

Across the included studies, considerable variation was observed in outcome measures, intervention duration, and participant expertise. Outcome variables were categorized into three analytically coherent domains: Psychomotor outcomes (e.g., service accuracy, consistency, control), Cognitive outcomes (e.g., tactical understanding, decision-making during service), and, Affective outcomes (e.g., motivation, engagement).

Intervention duration ranged from 3 to 8 weeks, while participant expertise varied from novice secondary school students to university-level learners. To address this variability, subgroup analyses were conducted based on learning domain, intervention duration (≤4 weeks vs. >4 weeks), and participant age group (adolescents vs. young adults).

Quality Assessment / Risk of Bias

To ensure the methodological rigor of the studies included in this meta-analysis, a comprehensive assessment of potential biases was performed across six main domains: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and overall bias. The evaluation combined the PEDro scale for quasi-experimental and experimental designs and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials. The summarized results of the bias assessment are presented in Table 3. This synthesis provides a clear overview of the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the included studies, thereby supporting the interpretability and credibility of the subsequent meta-analytic findings.

Table. 3 Summary of Risk of Bias Assessment

As shown in Table 3, the overall methodological quality of the included studies was acceptable, with 60% classified as low risk and 40% as moderate risk across key bias domains. The majority of studies demonstrated robust randomization procedures and complete reporting of outcome data, minimizing the likelihood of systematic error. However, moderate risks were primarily observed in blinding and allocation concealment, reflecting the inherent challenges of implementing full blinding in educational or sport-based interventions. Despite these minor limitations, the absence of any high-risk studies and the consistency of results across independent assessors indicate that the included evidence base is both reliable and valid for quantitative synthesis. Consequently, the risk of bias is unlikely to have significantly influenced the meta-analytic estimates reported in the subsequent section.

Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis Results)

The quantitative synthesis stage of this meta-analysis aimed to estimate the overall effect size of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model on badminton service learning outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model to account for variations among included studies. Data were extracted from eight empirical investigations published between 2020 and 2024 that met the inclusion criteria. The outcomes analyzed encompassed psychomotor performance, cognitive understanding, and affective engagement. The following table presents the aggregated statistical results, including overall effect size, heterogeneity indices, subgroup analyses, and publication bias testing, providing a comprehensive summary of TGfU’s empirical impact on badminton service learning.

Table. 4 Quantitative Synthesis (Meta-Analysis Results) of TGfU Effectiveness in Badminton Service Learning

As summarized in the table, the meta-analysis demonstrated that the TGfU model exerts a significant and practically meaningful influence on badminton service-learning outcomes. The pooled effect size of 0.74 indicates a moderate-to-large magnitude, reflecting consistent advantages across cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. Subgroup results emphasize that longer interventions and adolescent populations benefit the most from TGfU-based instruction. The absence of publication bias and stable sensitivity results reinforce the robustness of these findings. Overall, the quantitative synthesis confirms TGfU’s pedagogical superiority over traditional drill-based teaching methods in fostering integrated skill development and learning engagement.

DISCUSSION

Interpretation of Findings in the Context of Literature

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model exerts a moderate-to-large positive effect (Cohen’s d = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.52–0.96) on badminton service-learning outcomes across cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. This result signifies that learners exposed to TGfU-based instruction achieve better performance in service accuracy, tactical understanding, and learning motivation compared to those taught through traditional drill-based methods. These results align with previous studies in broader sport education contexts, which consistently report TGfU’s strong effect on decision-making and tactical cognition (Arias-Estero et al., 2020; González-Valero et al., 2024; Ortiz et al., 2023).

From a theoretical standpoint, TGfU’s effectiveness can be attributed to its foundation in constructivist and experiential learning theory. Unlike direct instruction models, TGfU situates skill acquisition within game-like contexts, allowing learners to construct understanding through interaction, reflection, and problem-solving. In the case of badminton serving a skill that blends technical execution with tactical anticipation TGfU’s emphasis on contextualized decision-making enhances not only motor coordination but also cognitive readiness to perform strategically. The current findings thus affirm that learning technical skills through TGfU does not compromise precision; rather, it enhances it by embedding the skill within meaningful play scenarios, facilitating transfer of learning from practice to real competition.

These results are also consistent with the theoretical model proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982), where game appreciation and tactical awareness precede skill execution. The significant effect on psychomotor performance (d = 0.82) supports the argument that TGfU’s tactical framing promotes implicit motor learning, where technical improvements emerge through engagement and contextual repetition rather than rote drills. The moderate heterogeneity (I² = 47.6%) observed in the analysis further suggests that TGfU’s impact is stable across varied populations and instructional environments.

Addressing Potential Confounding Factors

Although the meta-analytic findings indicate a moderate-to-large positive effect of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model on badminton service-learning outcomes, several potential confounding factors must be carefully considered when interpreting these results. One important factor is the novelty effect, whereby learners may demonstrate short-term performance improvements simply due to exposure to a new and engaging instructional approach rather than the pedagogical mechanism itself. Game-based and student-centered models such as TGfU are often perceived as more enjoyable than traditional drill-based instruction, which may temporarily elevate motivation and engagement, particularly during early intervention phases.

In addition, teacher expertise and pedagogical fidelity may have influenced the observed outcomes. TGfU requires instructors to possess a strong understanding of tactical questioning, game modification, and scaffolding techniques. Variability in teacher experience across studies may therefore contribute to differences in intervention effectiveness. Studies in which TGfU was implemented by instructors with prior pedagogical training or research involvement may report stronger effects than those conducted in typical school settings, introducing potential implementation bias.

Motivational bias also warrants attention. Many included studies relied on self-reported motivation or engagement measures, which may be susceptible to social desirability or expectancy effects. Consequently, part of TGfU’s observed advantage particularly in the affective domain may reflect learners’ positive perceptions of autonomy-supportive environments rather than enduring pedagogical impact.

Methodological Constraints of Included Studies

The strength of the conclusions drawn from this meta-analysis is also constrained by methodological limitations inherent in the included studies. A substantial proportion of the empirical evidence is derived from quasi-experimental or single-group pre–post designs, which limit causal inference and increase vulnerability to selection bias. The absence of random allocation and, in some cases, control groups reduces the certainty that observed improvements can be attributed exclusively to the TGfU intervention.

Furthermore, short intervention durations, commonly ranging from three to six weeks, may not adequately capture the long-term effects of TGfU on technical skill consolidation or learning transfer to competitive performance. While subgroup analyses suggested that longer interventions yielded stronger effects, the overall evidence base remains dominated by short-term implementations. As a result, the reported effect sizes should be interpreted as indicators of short- to medium-term learning benefits rather than sustained pedagogical impact.

Reconsidering Claims of Pedagogical Superiority

In light of these considerations, claims regarding the pedagogical superiority of TGfU over traditional instructional approaches should be interpreted with caution. While the present findings demonstrate that TGfU is an effective and promising pedagogical framework for badminton service learning, the evidence does not justify definitive claims of superiority across all contexts, learner populations, or instructional conditions. Rather than outperforming traditional methods in all circumstances, TGfU appears to offer contextual advantages, particularly in promoting integrated cognitive–psychomotor engagement and learner motivation.

Accordingly, TGfU should be viewed not as a universally superior model, but as a pedagogically valuable alternative that may be especially effective when instructional goals emphasize tactical understanding, decision-making, and meaningful learning experiences. Future research employing randomized controlled trials, longer intervention periods, and standardized outcome measures is required to more rigorously compare TGfU with direct instruction and hybrid pedagogical models.

Contributions and Limitations

This study makes several notable contributions to the field of sport pedagogy and physical education research. Theoretically, it extends the evidence base for TGfU beyond team-sport settings—such as football and volleyball into the domain of individual racket sports like badminton, where precision and timing are critical. By demonstrating TGfU’s effectiveness in teaching a highly technical skill such as serving, this review broadens the pedagogical scope of game-based learning and reinforces the model’s relevance for both tactical and technical instruction.

Methodologically, this study represents the first quantitative meta-analysis synthesizing empirical data on TGfU in badminton service learning, thus filling a major gap in the literature identified by (González-Valero et al. (2024). The inclusion of studies spanning different educational levels and intervention durations enhances generalizability, while the rigorous adherence to PRISMA standards ensures transparency and replicability.

Practically, these findings provide evidence-based guidance for teachers, coaches, and curriculum designers. TGfU should be integrated as a core pedagogical framework for badminton instruction, particularly at the school and youth levels, to foster holistic learning that connects technique, cognition, and motivation.

Despite these contributions, some limitations should be acknowledged. The moderate heterogeneity across studies indicates variability in instructional design, sample characteristics, and duration of interventions. Many studies relied on quasi-experimental designs, limiting the strength of causal inference. Blinding of assessors was rarely feasible in educational contexts, potentially introducing observer bias. Furthermore, although publication bias was statistically non-significant (Egger’s p = 0.284), the literature may still be subject to selective reporting favoring positive outcomes. Future primary studies should adopt randomized controlled designs, larger samples, and standardized outcome measures to strengthen evidence reliability.

Implications and Future Research Directions

The meta-analytic evidence confirms that TGfU is not only an effective approach for cognitive and affective development but also significantly enhances technical mastery in badminton serving. Teachers and coaches are therefore encouraged to design contextualized drills and modified games that simulate real serving situations such as variable opponent positioning or score-based tasks to cultivate tactical decision-making and accuracy simultaneously. Integrating reflective questioning, peer feedback, and small-sided games can further support players’ understanding of when and why to employ specific service strategies. Moreover, curriculum developers in physical education should embed TGfU principles within instructional sequences for racket sports, ensuring that learning outcomes encompass the full spectrum of cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains.

The findings reinforce constructivist principles, suggesting that meaningful learning in sport emerges through engagement, reflection, and contextual practice. TGfU’s success in improving service skills challenges the long-standing dichotomy between technical and tactical learning, demonstrating that these domains are interdependent. This supports the integrationist perspective of sport pedagogy, where technical execution gains depth when embedded in tactical reasoning. Consequently, this review advances the theoretical argument that TGfU should be viewed not merely as a tactical model but as a comprehensive learning framework applicable to both individual and team sports.

Several research avenues emerge from this study. First, future meta-analyses should include moderator analyses examining variables such as gender, competitive level, and teacher expertise, which may influence TGfU’s effectiveness. Second, longitudinal research is needed to determine whether TGfU-induced improvements in serving persist over time and transfer to competitive performance. Third, future studies could explore hybrid pedagogical designs combining TGfU with digital or technological tools (e.g., video-based feedback, virtual tactical simulations) to enhance cognitive engagement and feedback accuracy. Finally, comparative investigations between TGfU and other constructivist models, such as the Sport Education Model or Game Sense Approach, could provide deeper insight into the pedagogical mechanisms that drive learning outcomes in badminton and other racquet sports.

In sum, this meta-analysis provides robust empirical evidence that TGfU enhances badminton service learning by integrating technical execution with tactical and cognitive understanding. The model’s constructivist foundations make it a powerful pedagogical tool capable of transforming traditional skill instruction into a more meaningful, engaging, and contextually relevant learning process. While further research is warranted to refine implementation strategies and expand empirical coverage, the present findings strongly support TGfU’s continued adoption and adaptation within both educational and coaching environments.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model in badminton service learning across cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains. The synthesized evidence from the included studies suggests that TGfU is associated with moderate to large improvements in badminton service-learning outcomes (pooled effect size d = 0.74). The strongest effects were observed in psychomotor performance, followed by cognitive understanding and affective engagement. However, these findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution, given that a substantial proportion of the included studies employed quasi-experimental designs and exhibited moderate methodological limitations, particularly regarding randomization procedures and blinding.

While the results indicate that TGfU has the potential to support more integrated learning by combining technical execution with tactical understanding, the evidence does not warrant absolute or universal conclusions regarding its superiority over traditional instructional approaches in all contexts. The observed effectiveness appears to be context-dependent, influenced by factors such as participant age, intervention duration, instructional setting, and study design. In particular, stronger effects were more consistently reported in adolescent populations and in interventions lasting longer than four weeks, suggesting that sufficient exposure and developmental readiness may be critical conditions for successful TGfU implementation.

From a practical perspective, TGfU may be considered a promising pedagogical alternative for badminton service instruction in school-based physical education and structured training environments where instructional time, teacher expertise, and learner characteristics align with game-based learning principles. Nevertheless, practitioners should avoid assuming that TGfU will automatically yield optimal outcomes in all instructional settings. Adaptation to local curriculum demands, learner skill levels, and available resources remains essential.

Future research should prioritize high-quality randomized controlled trials, standardized outcome measures, and longitudinal designs to strengthen causal inferences and examine the long-term retention and transfer of service skills. Until such evidence is available, conclusions regarding TGfU’s effectiveness in badminton service learning should be viewed as supportive but not definitive, reflecting the current state of the empirical literature rather than conclusive pedagogical proof.

Authors’ Contributions

Khairul Hamsyah conceptualized the study, designed the research framework, coordinated the systematic review and meta-analysis process, and served as the corresponding author. Soni Nopembri contributed to the development of the research methodology, PRISMA protocol implementation, and critical revision of the manuscript. Hedi Ardiyanto Hermawan was responsible for data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis using meta-analytic procedures. Fadli Ihsan contributed to literature synthesis, interpretation of findings, and drafting of the discussion and conclusion sections. Bekir Erhan Orhan provided expertise in pedagogical theory, contributed to the interpretation of results in an international context, and reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration

The authors declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published previously, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission to the journal. The study was conducted in accordance with accepted academic and ethical standards.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all researchers whose studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis for their valuable contributions to the field of sport pedagogy. Appreciation is also extended to academic colleagues who provided constructive feedback during the manuscript preparation process. No other individuals or institutions contributed directly to this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article. The research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ethical Considerations

This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis based exclusively on previously published research. Therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. Nevertheless, all procedures adhered to principles of research integrity, transparency, and responsible reporting, including proper citation of original sources and compliance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The study was conducted independently by the authors without financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit funding agencies.