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.

Project-based learning (PBL) combines student-centred learning with motor practice, but evidence on physical activity and motor performance in school physical education remains limited. This exploratory pilot study compared PBL with teacher-led instruction in two non-randomised cohorts comprising 53 girls: 27 fifth-grade pupils in basketball and 26 seventh-grade pupils in aerobics. Each cohort included one intact class per condition. Outcomes included pre–post basketball motor tests, final aerobics performance and physical activity records from subsets of pupils. Motor comparisons were exploratory, and wearable outcomes were summarised descriptively at the class and lesson levels. The baseline-adjusted obstacle dribble test comparison favoured the control class (experimental-minus-control difference: +4.01 s; 95% CI: 1.88 to 6.14; Holm-adjusted p = 0.002); the other two basketball comparisons remained inconclusive. The final aerobics score difference was −0.49 points on a 0–16 scale (95% CI: −3.75 to 2.78). Recorded running and walking differed little between basketball classes, while mean heart rate was lower in the experimental classes, especially in aerobics. Class membership was confounded with an instructional approach, preventing attribution of differences to PBL. The findings do not establish superior motor performance, equivalent outcomes or preservation of overall physical activity volume. Studies with multiple classes per condition and more complete measurement are needed.