Physical education teachers inspiring young
people towards a physically active lifestyle?!:
Motivational dynamics in physical education
Prof. Dr. L. Haerens
Department of Movement and Sports SciencesDepartment of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology
Ghent University, Belgium
Department of developmental, personal and social psychology
(Ugent)
Department of Movement and Sports Sciences
(Ugent)
Leen Haerens
Maarten Vansteenkiste Bart Soenens
PHD-student
s
Greet Cardon
IsabelTallir
1. PART I: Teaching for health based physical education: what does it mean?
2. PART II: Training teachers for health based physical education
PART I: Teaching for health based physical education: what does it mean?
Objectives
1. Stimulate evidence-based reflective thinking on the most appropriate content and pedagogy for health-based physical education (HBPE)
2. Providing an overview of Self-determination Theory and linking its key principles to HBPE
One of the stated aims of all compulsory PE programmes is to educate for lifelong engagement in physical activity for health (Puhse & Gerber, 2005)
BUT • PE = ‘the pill not taken’ (McKenzie & Lounsbery, 2009)
• Lack of evidence on effective content and pedagogies for HBPE (Haerens et al, 2011)
Elementary schools 14 min MVPA 19 min MVPA
Secondary schools=> 20 min MVPA=> 9 min MVPA
Is it really?....
1.Increasing MVPA during PE insufficient for health (e.g. Harris, 2000, Cardon et al, 2004, Aelterman et al, 2010)
2. Need to promote transfer!
3. PE has a wide range of learning goals that are all important
What is HBPE?=getting youngsters to value and enjoy physical activity for life so
that they are (autonomously) motivated to become/remain active outside physical education
Prof. Edward Deci(University of Rochester, NY)
Prof. Richard Ryan(University of Rochester, NY)
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
ÞI’m going to be put effort into PE...
‘because my teachers will punish me otherwise’
‘because I can only be proud
of myself if I do so’
‘because I feel more energetic
afterwards’
‘because I want to be
healthy’
‘because I like PE’
Process of internalisation = ownership of change
Autonomous motivationVolitional
motivation
Controlled motivationMustivation
Pleasure, passion, interest
Personal relevance, meaningful
Punishment rewardsexpectatio
ns
Shame, guilt, self-
worth
What is HBPE?=getting youngsters to value and enjoy
physical activity for life so that they are
autonomously motivated to become/remain active outside physical education
Question 4: Is motivation really an important concept to consider in the
relationship between PE and PA? What’s the evidence?
AUTONOMOUS MOTIVATION
• Increased physical activity during PE (Aelterman et al, 2012)
• Remain more active in leisure time (Haerens et al, 2010)
Autonomy Competence Relatedness
AUTONOMY SUPPORT
RELATEDNESS SUPPORT
- Sincere interest- Choice- Meaningful rationale- Minimizing controlling language- Fun elements
- Sincere concern- Warmth- Unconditional regard- Emotional support
- Optimal challenge- Positive feedback- Encouragement- Clear guidelines & expectations
STRUCTURE
Cox et al., 2008; Jang, Reeve & Deci, 2010; Mouratidis et al., 2008; Reeve & Jang, 2006; Sheldon & Filak, 2008; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
Need-supportAutonomy-support
StructureInvolvement
Perceptions of need-support
Motivation
Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
Need satisfaction
AutonomyCompetence Relatedness
Outcome
TEACHER STUDENT
Teacher benchmarks for HBPE? Increasing autonomy support: e.g. providing choice Providing structure and competence support: e.g. help,
differentiation Relatedness support: e.g. being sincerely concerned about your
pupils
Question 6:Does teachers’ need support really leads to
more autonomous motivation and higher activity
levels. What’s the evidence?
Need-supportAutonomy-support
StructureInvolvement
Perceptions of need-support
Motivation
Need satisfaction
AutonomyCompetence Relatedness
Outcome
TEACHER STUDENT
?
STUDIE 4
6a: Is need support notified by the students?
Autonomy-support
Structure
Involvement
Autonomy-support
Structure
Involvement
+
++
E.g. The teacher asks the students questions about their interests, problems, values or wishes • “Which exercises do you
find hard to do?”• “Did you understand the
instructions?”
E.g. The teacher provides a rationale for guidelines, tasks and assignments.• “A wider foot position
is important because it enhances your balance.”
E.g. The teacher takes the perspective of students into account, is empathic. • “The teacher simplifies
his language depending on the students’ development”
Need-supportAutonomy-support
StructureInvolvement
Perceptions of need-support
Motivation
Need satisfaction
AutonomyCompetence Relatedness
Outcome
TEACHER STUDENT
?
STUDIE 4
6a: Is need support notified by the students?
Yes it is!
Need-supportAutonomy-
supportStructure
Involvement
Perceptions of need-support
Autonomousmotivation
Need satisfactio
n
Activity levels
TEACHER STUDENT
6b: Does need support lead to more optimal outcomes?
Study 1 (Belgium)Physical activity during PE: accelerometers (CSA Actigraph
monitors)
Study 2 (UK)Transfer of learning => to what extent does PE stimulates
you to become more active during leisure time
Model has good fit!χ2 =2,295, df=2RMSEA=0.012CFI=1SRMR=0.008
NEED-SUPPORTIVE TEACHING BEHAVIOR
Autonomy supportStructure
Involvement
MVPA during PE
χ2 =84,24, df=18RMSEA=0.062CFI=0,98SRMR=0.022
STUDENTS’ NEED SATISFACTIONAutonomy-relatedness
Competence
MVPA during PE
χ2 =185,163, df=49RMSEA=0.054CFI=0,99SRMR=0.024
Only partical mediation, direct relationship remains significant
• Both studies point towards the importance of need support and need satisfaction
• Enhancing perceived competence might be crucial!
Teachers’ need support!
Actual motor competence?
What is HBPE in secondary schools?=getting youngsters to value and enjoy physical activity for life so
that they are (autonomously) motivated to become/remain active outside physical education
What is HBPE in preschool and elementary schools?
=providing young children with the necessary FMS to be able to feel competent when engaging in physical activities and sports in secondary schools and in later life?
AUTONOMOUS MOTIVATION
Positive outcomes
NEED SATISFACTIONAutonomy
CompetenceRelatedness
NEED-SUPPORTIVE CONTEXTS
Autonomy supportStructure
Involvement
The Bright Side of Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
Autonomous motivationControlled motivation
Amotivation
Negative outcomes
NEED FRUSTRATIONAutonomy
CompetenceRelatedness
NEED-THWARTINGCONTEXT
ControllingChaotic
Cold
Question 7:What about the Dark side of Self-
determination Theory? (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
Autonomy
AUTONOMY SUPPORT
- Sincere interest- Choice- Meaningful rationale- promoting initiative- Fun elements
Introduction
Autonomy
CONTROL
-Shouting, yelling, roaring-Exerting power-Losing patience-Controlling language-Pressuring pupils-Criticizing pupils
Autonomy support
i.e. ‘’ Lisa is there something wrong? I see you are struggeling with
catching the ball. If you want that I show it again, you can ask me.’’
Controlling
i.e. ‘‘ Come on Dean, just throw and catch (irritated). A boy of your
age schould be able to do this naturally. NO, NO, NO, … STOP, NOT
GOOD, come over here,… ’’
CONTROLLED
MOTIVATION
PERCEIVED CONTROLLING
c-path
a-path
b-path
Controlled motivation
B = .41
(0.19)*
BL2 = .60
(0.10)***BL1 = .66
(0.04)***
B = .43
(0.20)*
Indirect effect = 0.25 (0.12)*
De Meyer J.*, Tallir I.*, Soenens B., Vansteenkiste M., Speleers L., Aelterman N., Van den Berghe L. & Haerens L. (Accepted pending minor revisisons). Relation between observed controlling teaching behavior and students’ motivation in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology. *Equal contribution
AMOTIVATION
PERCEIVED CONTROLLING
c-path
a-path
b-path
Amotivation
B = .41
(0.19)*
BL2 = .54
(0.12)***BL1 = .67
(0.05)***
B = .23 (0.21)
Indirect effect = 0.22 (0.11)*
De Meyer J.*, Tallir I.*, Soenens B., Vansteenkiste M., Speleers L., Aelterman N., Van den Berghe L. & Haerens L. (Accepted pending minor revisisons). Relation between observed controlling teaching behavior and students’ motivation in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology. *Equal contribution
41
Although teachers do not engage often in controlling behavior students do notice
Controlling teaching behavior is related to less optimal forms of motivation
Controlled motivation and amotivation are related with lower levels of PA in and outside PE (Aelterman et al., 2012 and Haerens et al. 2010)
Teaching for youngsters to be more likely to value and enjoy physical activity for life so that they become/remain active outside physical education
Conclusion
INTERVENTIONS/CPD FOR TEACHERS NEEDED!
WHAT IS HBPE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS?
TEACHERS NEED TO BE STIMULATED TO TEACH IN A MORE NEED SUPPORTIVE & LESS CONTROLLING WAY!
PART I: Teaching for health based physical education: what does it mean?
Objectives
1. Stimulate evidence-based reflective thinking on the most appropriate content and pedagogy for health-based physical education (HBPE)
2. Providing an overview of Self-determination Theory and linking its key principles to HBPE
1. PART I: Teaching for health based physical education: what does it mean?
2. PART II: Training teachers for health based physical education: what is needed?
General causality orientation = The source of initiation and regulation of behavior in daily life.
E.g., you are asked to plan a picnic for yourself and your fellow employees. Your style for approaching this project could most likely be characterized as: …
A. Seek participation: get inputs from others before you make the final plans.
B. Take charge: that is, you would make most of the major decisions yourself.
Autonomy Orientation
Controlled Orientation
Controlled Orientation
Need Support
Need Thwarting
Autonomy support
Structure before activity
Structure during activity
Relatedness support
Chaos
Control
Cold interactions
Need to explore a wider range of antecedents in order to be able to design effective interventions for teachers!
Within
Above
Below
Need support / thwarting
Antecedents
Intervention need-supportive teaching style (Aelterman et al., 2013)
Content: one-day training: 3 parts•Part I: Theoretical background principles SDT•Partl II: Overview of motivating/need-supportive teaching strategies illustrated by
case studies and video images Autonomy-support Structure Relatedness-support
•Partl III: Application exercise
Method of delivery‧ ‘Teach as you preach’
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M. Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J., Van den Berghe, L., & Haerens, L. (2013). Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive teaching in physical education: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and Teacher Education .
Theoretical framing is always important. Without this information, I don’t really think you know what
you’re doing. Theoretical framing is essential
Autonomy-supportive strategies are more
innovative and useful
Opportunities for interactive discussion and
reflection
Application exercises: microteaching and role-
playing
Teach as you preach!(= congruent teaching)
Well, I think we can learn the most from autonomy-support. Structure we are already quite
familiar with. ‘I think it would be more fun to do a practical session in the gym.’
‘Wouldn’t it be interesting to have four different lesson plans to start
from?’ ‘If the training would have taken
till 4 o’clock pm, there would have been a good balance between
theory and practice.’
‘You could start from a couple of concrete class situations to
introduce the different strategies’
‘Maybe you can ask the audience for concrete
examples from their practical experience?’
Question:‣How does the teacher stimulates his pupils to
take initiative?
Fragment 2:‣6 years of teaching experience; ‣Baseball‣Girls‣Vocational education‣Final year of secondary school
Situation
Although children can not always choose the topic of the lesson or the exerices themselves, there is still a possibility to incorporate choice into your lesson.
In a series of lessons on handstand the teachers wants to provide opportunities for choice, how would you provide choice in such a lesson?
Evolution in global appreciation of the training
Workshop 1 Workshop 2 Workshop 3Global appreciation 3.61 3.8 3.97
3.45
3.55
3.65
3.75
3.85
3.95
METHOD
Sample39 PE teachers out of 19 different schools (79.5% men; M age= 38.51 ± 10.44 years)669 students (63.4% boys; M age = 14.58 ± 1.92 years)
Design
InterventionN = 15
ControlN = 24
WS 2 Pretest Intervention Posttest
Pretest Posttest
PretestWS 1 Intervention Posttest
T1 T2
Random assignment
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (in preparation). Multi-informant effects of an intervention on need-supportive teaching in physical education.
Outcomes
“Proximal” outcomes
“Distal” outcomes
Beliefs Behavior
Teacher Student ObserverEffective Feasible
Intervention effects on teachers’ perceived effectiveness of autonomy-support and structure
Pretest Posttest
Control group 4.24 4.13
Intervention group 3.86 4.1
3.65
3.85
4.05
4.25
Autonomy-support
Pretest Posttest
Control group 4.01 3.92
Intervention group 3.83 4.09
3.7253.8253.9254.0254.125
Structure
ES = .12 ES = .11
Intervention effects on teachers’ perceived feasibility of autonomy-support and structure
Pretest Posttest
Control group 3.87 3.84
Intervention group 3.49 3.76
3.353.453.553.653.753.85
Autonomy-support
Pretest Posttest
Control group 3.79 3.85
Intervention group 3.47 3.92
3.25
3.45
3.65
3.85
Structure
ES = .11 ES = .14
Intervention effects on teachers’ autonomy-support
Pretest Posttest
Control group 3.74 3.73
Intervention group 3.39 3.66
3.253.353.453.553.653.75
Teacher-reported autonomy-support
Pretest Posttest
Control group 0.28 0.24
Intervention group 0.22 0.46
0.0250.1250.2250.3250.425
Observed autonomy-support
ES = .06 ES = .24
Pretest Posttest
Control 3.28 3.18
Intervention 3.31 3.39
3.075
3.175
3.275
3.375
Student perceived autonomy-support
β = .06
Three informants
Teacher Student Observer
Effective Feasible
Autonomy-supportRelatedness support
Autonomy-support
Belief
Autonomy-support
Structure
Autonomy-support
Structure
Behavior
Structure
Behavior Behavior
Need satisfaction training
Defiance toward change
Controlled motivation to apply the strategies
Autonomous motivation to apply the strategies
-.27*
-.21*
.32**
-.22*
ns
.36**
Intention to applythe strategies
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (in preparation). Multi-informant effects of an intervention on need-supportive teaching in physical education.
• Antecedents of teaching behaviors?!
• Collaborate with experienced PE teachers in terms of research.
• TEACH AS YOU PREACH
• Authenticity to the message by maximizing PE teachers’ opportunities for basic psychological need satisfaction
What’s next?
Ongoing projects building on this work
1. Exploring motivational dynamics in vocational education
2. Motivating role of after school sport programs
3. How to translate SDT’s ideas towards motivational assessment?
4. Exploring the interplay between actual and perceived competence
5. Investigating reasons for non-engagment, defiance