This article was downloaded by: [West Virginia University]On: 15 October 2014, At: 19:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Research Quarterly for Exercise and SportPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

Effects of Teacher Autonomy Support and Students'Autonomous Motivation on Learning in Physical EducationBo Shen a , Nate McCaughtry a , Jeffrey Martin a & Mariane Fahlman aa Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies , Wayne State UniversityPublished online: 23 Jan 2013.

To cite this article: Bo Shen , Nate McCaughtry , Jeffrey Martin & Mariane Fahlman (2009) Effects of Teacher Autonomy Support andStudents' Autonomous Motivation on Learning in Physical Education, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80:1, 44-53

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2009.10599528

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

44 RQES:March2009

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport©2009 by the American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and DanceVol. 80, No. 1, pp. 44–53

Key words: cardiorespiratory fitness, learning achieve-ment, need satisfaction adjustment

In recent years, self-determination theory (SDT) has been applied in physical education (PE) to better un-

derstand students’ motivation. Researchers have found that self-determined motivation is directly associated with adaptive motivational behaviors. In particular, students who perceive a high degree of self-determination in PE demonstrate positive class behavior (e.g., put forth more effort in class; Ntoumanis, 2005), report intrinsic motivation (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2005), and exhibit strong leisure-time physical activity intentions (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003) as well as physical activity behaviors (Shen, McCaughtry, & Martin, 2007). Researchers have also found that nurturing a student’s self-determined motivation in mandatory PE may en-hance their chances of enrolling in optional PE courses in the future (Ntoumanis, 2005).

Despite these promising achievements, prior re-search in SDT has not translated well or easily into de-

veloping effective PE programs. There are two potential reasons for this. First, prior research using SDT has rarely addressed learning-achievement variables. Therefore, it is questionable whether students’ self-determined mo-tivation has any direct influence on learning. Second, SDT studies in PE (e.g., Shen et al., 2007; Standage et al., 2003) were mostly cross-sectional. Consequently, the proposed causal-effect relationships between SDT and motivational behavior lacked time correspondence. Little consideration has been given to the changes in motivation or affective factors as a result of learning. With these concerns in mind, this prospective study was designed to examine the influence of SDT on students’ learning achievement and fitness improvement in PE.

Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theorists suggest that psychologi-cal needs are essential for growth and well being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). They posit that within the educational domain, opportunities to experience autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness (each representing a basic psycho-logical need) are critical in promoting satisfaction and optimal learning (Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999). According to SDT, autonomy refers to the basic need to perceive one’s behavior as self-endorsed or volitional (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Competence is the need to experience satisfaction in exercising and extending one’s capabilities (Deci &

Effects of Teacher Autonomy Support and Students’ Autonomous Motivation on Learning in Physical EducationBo Shen, Nate McCaughtry, Jeffrey Martin, and Mariane Fahlman

Submitted: August 22, 2007 Accepted: January 21, 2008 Bo Shen, Nate McCaughtry, Jeffrey Martin, and Marianne Fahlman are with the Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies at Wayne State University.

This study applied self-determination theory to investigate the effects of students’ autonomous motivation and their percep-tions of teacher autonomy support on need satisfaction adjustment, learning achievement, and cardiorespiratory fitness over a 4-month personal conditioning unit. Participants were 253 urban adolescents (121 girls and 132 boys, ages = 12–14 years). Based on a series of multiple regression analyses, perceived autonomy support by teachers significantly predicted students’ need satisfaction adjustment and led to learning achievement, especially for students who were not autonomously motivated to learn in physical education. In turn, being more autonomous was directly associated with cardiorespiratory fitness enhancement. The findings suggest that shifts in teaching approaches toward providing more support for students’ autonomy and active involve-ment hold promise for enhancing learning.

Pedagogy

Shen.indd 44 3/6/2009 2:18:21 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

RQES:March2009 45

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

Ryan, 2000), as people seem to seek challenges that are optimal for their level of development (Harter, 1978). Fi-nally, relatedness concerns the need to seek and develop secure relationships with others. In PE, relatedness can be reflected in the relationships that students perceive they have with their classmates, such as feeling connected and accepted by peers (Standage et al., 2003).

In the extent to which these psychological needs are fulfilled, self-determination theorists propose that an individual’s behavior can be categorized as lying at some point on an intrinsic-extrinsic continuum. This continuum reflects the degree of behavioral autonomy perceived by the individual (Deci & Ryan, 2000). At the internal end of the perceived locus-of-causality spectrum, intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and identified regulation lie adjacent to one another. Behaviors engaged in spontaneously, for enjoyment and interest alone, with-out external reinforcement or perceived contingency, are characterized as intrinsically motivated. Valued be-haviors that have been incorporated into an individual’s self-concept are characterized as integrated.1 Behaviors that are positively valued, but not necessarily enjoyed, are characterized as being identified. At the external end of the perceived locus of causality spectrum, behaviors are enacted due to the perceived demands or expectations of external forces, termed introjected regulation. Behaviors are acted as a result of significant others forcing the ac-tion, known as external regulation. Specifically, external regulation stems from the perception that one “must” participate in an activity, whereas introjected regulation derives from the feeling that one “should” take part (Standage et al., 2003).

SDT makes important assumptions about the na-ture of social contexts. Social environmental factors (e.g., family, peers, school, community, etc) that meet the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness will enhance perceived need satisfaction, while social environment factors that prevent the expression of those needs will jeopardize satisfaction (Standage et al., 2003). Given the importance of school as a social con-text on children and adolescents’ development, Ryan and Deci (2000a) proposed “in schools, the facilitation of more self-determined learning requires classroom conditions that allow satisfaction of these three basic human needs—that is that support the innate needs to feel connected, effective, and agentic as one is exposed to new ideas and exercises new skills” (p. 65).

To date, most research on the effects of perceived environmental and social factors in need satisfaction have been conducted using autonomy (Black & Deci, 2000; Ntoumanis, 2005). Autonomy-supportive contexts are those that provide choice and opportunity for self-di-rection and a minimal amount of pressured evaluations, imposed goals, and demands. Autonomy-supportive environments provide greater positive informational

feedback and a context in which the learner’s opinion is considered (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). An autonomy-sup-portive teacher might, for instance, provide students with necessary information while encouraging them to use the information to solve a problem in their own way. In contrast, an individual in a position of authority (e.g., a teacher) who is controlling would pressure students to behave in particular ways, such as through coercive techniques that generally include implicit or explicit rewards or punishments (Black & Deci, 2000).

Recognizing that students depend on their teachers for information and guidance, Ryan (1993) stressed that autonomy support should not be misconstrued as per-missiveness, neglect, or independence (i.e., the teacher allows students to do whatever they want). Teachers’ instruction and their autonomy support are two inde-pendent contextual variables that can be complementary and mutually supportive (Reeve, 2002). Student motiva-tion thrives under conditions in which teachers find ways to provide optimal instruction structure and high autonomy support (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).

Specifically, self-determination theorists suggest that autonomy-supportive contexts maintain or en-hance intrinsic motivation and promote identification with external regulations, whereas controlling contexts undermine intrinsic motivation and damage internaliza-tion. For example, Black and Deci (2000) examined the effects of students’ perceptions of instructors’ autonomy support on motivation and academic performance in a college-level chemistry course. They found the students’ perceptions predicted increases in autonomous self-regu-lation, perceived competence, and interest/enjoyment, as well as decreases in anxiety over the entire semester. Furthermore, instructor autonomy support directly predicted students’ course performance. Comparable results have been found in other studies (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Williams & Deci, 1996).

In PE, researchers have also begun to address the im-portance of autonomy-supportive PE contexts. Standage and colleagues (2003) used British students as subjects when investigating the impact of learning climate in PE. They found that an autonomy-supportive learning climate positively predicted mediating variables (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness) to foster self-determined mo-tivation. Ntoumanis (2005) and Hagger, Chatzisarantis, and Harris (2006) found similar results. Nevertheless, prior research in PE has rarely taken students’ learning and their need satisfaction adjustment into consideration. Filling the void in the existing literature will help to trans-late this line of inquiry into effective PE programs.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of teachers’ autonomy-supportive learning climate and

Shen.indd 45 3/6/2009 2:18:21 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

46 RQES:March2009

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

students’ autonomous motivation on students’ need satis-faction adjustment, learning achievement, and cardiore-spiratory fitness during a 4-month personal-conditioning unit in PE. A fitness measure was included because im-proving students’ fitness is one of most important goals (National Association for Sport and Physical Education [NASPE], 2004). In terms of SDT, we hypothesized that (a) students’ perceptions of teacher autonomy support would predict increases in autonomous motivation and lead to positive need satisfaction adjustment, as reflected in greater perceived competence and relatedness during PE, and (b) both perceived teacher autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation would contribute to learning achievement in PE. In addition, because previous research (Shen et al., 2007) has suggested that self-determined motivation in PE is associated with inten-tions to exercise and leads to cardiorespiratory fitness enhancement, we also explored a possible connection between the autonomy support, autonomous motivation, and cardiorespiratory fitness levels in this PE personal-conditioning unit.

This study is one of the few that have explored the direct link between self-determined motivation and measurable learning achievement using a prospective design. It addresses an important issue in PE: can an autonomy-supportive learning climate and students’ au-tonomous motivation result in learning? In addition, the study examined a direct connection between students’ self-determined motivation in PE and their cardiorespi-ratory fitness levels. This research effort should enrich the understanding of SDT and help further validate the efficacy of SDT in PE.

Method

This study was part of a larger project to examine the effectiveness of the Michigan Exemplary Physical Educa-tion Curriculum (EPEC) in an urban school setting. The EPEC is a standards-based curriculum designed by the Michigan Governor’s Council on Physical Fitness, Health and Sports to promote the teaching of knowledge, skills, and attitudes in PE class. Built around NASPE content standards and strong on assessment, EPEC is currently being used by many schools in Michigan and other states. Detailed information regarding EPEC can be found on the web site: www.michiganfitness.org/EPEC.

The Personal Conditioning Module of the EPEC (Michigan Fitness Foundation, 2005) was implemented in this study. This module provided students with the knowledge and skills they needed to begin a personal conditioning program that included fitness objectives, knowledge of names and locations of muscles and mus-cle groups, and a variety of strengthening and flexibility

exercises. Students were expected to receive instruction on the basics of conditioning, including definitions of physical fitness and cardiorespiratory endurance, injury prevention information, and conditioning principles. In addition, the module consisted of detailed fitness-related activities to enhance students’ physical activity levels in class.

Participants and Setting

Participants included 331 students (155 girls and 176 boys, ages = 12–14 years, M age = 12.9 years) en-rolled in three middle schools from a large inner city school district in the midwestern U.S. The schools were demographically similar. A majority of the students came from low to lower middle class socioeconomic backgrounds. Minority students comprised over 90% of the participants, which was reflective of the com-munity. Specifically, the student body was 86% African American, 5% Caucasian, and 5% Hispanic American. Permission to conduct the study was obtained before the investigation from the university review board, the school district, the participants, and their parents.

Of the 331 participants who presented at Time 1 (T1), 78 students were unable to provide data at Time 2 (T2: 4 months later) due to relocation to different schools or classes. The final sample consisted of 253 students (121 girls and 132 boys) who were taught in 10 PE classes. To determine whether the students who did not provide data at T2 differed from the students in the final sample, a multivariate analysis of variance was performed on all variables. There was no significant dif-ference, F(8, 321) = 1.28, p > .05. Additionally, none of the univariate analyses of variance yielded significance, indicating that the students who completed the study (T1 & T2) did not differ from those who completed only T1 on any of the study variables.

The module, conducted during fall semester in all three schools, lasted 4 months. Similar to other shools in the district, these had a 60-min PE class every other day. During the semester, the module was taught either in specific personal-conditioning lessons or in 15–20 min segments at the beginning of a warm-up class before instruction and practice in multigame activities (e.g., basketball, volleyball, soccer). Three female full-time certified (PE) teachers taught the module. Their teaching experience ranged from 12 to 20 years. The researchers verified the teachers’ content coverage of the module by checking their lesson plans and visiting the schools once each month.

Variables and Measures

Teacher Autonomy Support. The six-item Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996) was used to assess student perceptions of their PE teach-

Shen.indd 46 3/6/2009 2:18:21 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

RQES:March2009 47

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

ers’ autonomy support. The wording of the items was adapted to be applicable to PE classes. Specifically, the measure addressed students’ perceptions about whether their physical education teachers provided choice and a rationale for physical education, as well as acknowl-edged personal perspectives and conveyed confidence in students’ personal ability in physical education. A sample item from the scale is “I feel that my PE teacher gives me choice and options.” Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Williams and Deci (1996) revealed that the LCQ has a single underlying factor of teacher autonomy support with high internal consistency (α =.96). Ntoumanis (2005) supported the reliability and validity of this scale in physical education. In this study, the internal consistency reliability coefficients (alphas) were .83 and .87 at T1 and T2, respectively.

Autonomous Motivation. A 12-item, perceived, locus-of-causality questionnaire adapted from Ryan and Con-nell (1989) was used to assess students’ autonomous motivation in physical education. Based on the degrees of autonomy, each of the four fundamental motivators (i.e., extrinsic, introjected, identified, and intrinsic) were measured with three items using 5-point scales. The questionnaire has been used in various studies in physical education and has been shown to have clear factor structure and high internal reliabilities (Shen et al., 2007; Standage et al., 2003).

For the purposes of the study, we created three com-posite indicators by weighting each item in accordance with its underlying level of self-determination (Ryan & Connell, 1989), referred to as self-determination index-es (SDI; Deci & Ryan, 2000). This method of creating composite indicators has been used in previous research to assess autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the validity of this procedure has been documented (Vallerand, 1997). Specifically, these composite indexes (SDI) were computed with the following formula:

SDI = (2 X Intrinsic) + (Identified) – (Introjected) – (2 X External)

In this study, autonomous motivation was measured by calculating the mean of the three indexes. Alphas for this measure in the current study were .85, and .88 at T1 and T2, respectively.

Need Satisfaction Adjustment. Need satisfaction adjust-ment in this study was defined as students’ adjustment in perceived competence and relatedness through the 4-month personal-conditioning unit. Specifically, per-ceived competence in physical education was assessed using the three items from the perceived competence subscale of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989). In this study, the stem was reworded to target the physical educa-

tion context, with participants responding to the stem “How good are you at PE?” An example item from the competence subscale is “I think I am pretty good at PE.” Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The competence subscale of the IMI has demonstrated acceptable reliability in PE-based research (e.g., α = .73 in Shen et al., 2007; α = .85 in Standage et al., 2003). In this study, alphas for perceived competence in T1 and T2 were .82 and .82, respectively.

Perceived relatedness in physical education was assessed using the eight items from the relatedness subscale of the Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (Deci et al., 2001). The scale was initially developed for workplace contexts, but it was modified to assess relatedness need satisfaction in physical education. Ntoumanis (2005) reported adequate alpha coefficient with a similar age sample (α = .84). An example item is “I really like the students I exercise with in PE.” Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). In this study, alphas for perceived relat-edness in T1 and T2 were .77 and .81, respectively.

Learning Achievement Learning achievement in this study was defined as the degree to which students’ knowledge of personal conditioning changed as a result of instruction. Knowledge of personal conditioning was measured using a 14-item multiple choice test. All test items derived directly from the Personal Conditioning Module assessment battery (Michigan Fitness Founda-tion, 2005), which was designed specifically to assess students’ learning about conditioning. Because the assessment is an original part of the curriculum imple-mented in this study, we believe the content validity of the test was warranted. As illustrated below, the purpose of this test was to gauge students’ cognitive understand-ing of conditioning concepts.

Question: Your heart rate measures which basic part of a personal conditioning workout? (a) frequency (b) intensity [correct answer] (c) time (d) specificity

The items in the multiple choice test were dichoto-mously scored as correct (1 point) or incorrect (0 point). The maximum score of this test was 14 points. The reliability of the knowledge test was examined using Cronbach’s internal consistency approach. Alphas in T1 and T2 were .70 and .77, respectively, indicating an acceptable level of reliability for the measure.

Cardiorespiratory Fitness (CF). Cardiorespiratory fitness was assessed with the Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER) developed by the Cooper Insti-tute (2007) for measuring adolescents’ cardiorespiratory fitness. The objective of the test is to run back and forth

Shen.indd 47 3/6/2009 2:18:21 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

48 RQES:March2009

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

across a 20-m distance as many times as possible. The PACER compact disc with beeping sound is played during the test. Students must wait for the beep before running in the opposite direction. Each succeeding minute the beeps occur at a faster interval, causing students to run faster. The score is the number of times the students can run the 20-m distance before the test is finished. Detailed test protocol appears in the FITNESSGRAM® test admin-istration manual (The Cooper Institute, 2007). The valid-ity and reliability of the PACER test are well established (Morrow, Jackson, Disch, & Mood, 2000).

Procedure

Data collection was conducted during regular physical education classes in the three schools. The T1 assessment took place during the first week of the module taught at the beginning of the semester. The T2 assessment occurred during the last week of the module at the end of the semester (about 4 months after T1). A data collection team including three retired physi-cal education teachers and two graduate students were trained to administer surveys and the PACER test. At the beginning of a class, the data collection team distributed pencils and all instruments. To control for socially desir-able responses, participants were encouraged to respond as truthfully as they could. They were ensured that their responses would not affect their grades and that their teachers would not have access to their responses. After the knowledge test and self-report instruments were col-lected and checked, students took part in the PACER test during the same class. The PACER test was administered using the same protocol throughout all schools.

For subsequent analyses, the residual gain scores between T1 and T2 in the knowledge and PACER tests for each student were used to represent learning achieve-ment and cardiorespiratory fitness in order to avoid the influence of pretest on the results (ceiling effect). The residual gain scores were computed using a linear regres-sion model in which the pretest was the predictor and the posttest was the criterion. In addition, we used the average of the T1 and T2 ratings of teacher autonomy support as an independent variable to examine the influence of learning climate on learning. Black and Deci (2001) suggested that the average of pre- and posttest ratings of perceived learning climate would be more accurate and less problematic than the pre- or posttest scores in terms of method variance. In this study, perceived teacher autonomy support at T1 and T2 were significantly cor-related (r = .63, p < .01).

Data Analysis

In a preliminary analysis, all data were subjected to (a) accuracy screening to exclude outliers, (b) descrip-

tive analyses, and (c) a series of statistical assumption tests. Reliability of all questionnaire data was examined using Cronbach’s (1951) approach for internal consis-tency. Pearson product-moment correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among teacher autonomy support, autonomous motivation, perceived competence, perceived relatedness, learning achievement, and CF enhancement. Finally, a series of multiple regression analyses was conducted to examine the proposed hypotheses.

Results

Table 1 reports descriptive analyses along with t values for T1 and T2 differences. Three variables, au-tonomous motivation, knowledge, and CF, changed significantly. Given that the curriculum was designed to enhance personal-conditioning knowledge and cardio-respiratory fitness, we believed that marked changes in the measures would be largely attributable to the instruc-tion and exercise that participants received during the 4-month physical education class.

Table 2 presents correlations among the study vari-ables. In accordance with SDT, significant correlations were found among autonomous motivation, perceived competence, and perceived relatedness at both T1 and T2. Autonomous motivation, perceived competence, and perceived relatedness in T1 moderately correlated with their correspondents in T2. Teacher autonomy support correlated with autonomous motivation and perceived relatedness. Learning achievement correlated with teacher autonomy support and T1 autonomous mo-tivation. In addition, there was a correlation between CF enhancement and T2 perceived relatedness. However, no correlation was found between learning achieve-ment and CF enhancement. Although not included in the table, gender was not significantly related to other variables, so it was excluded from further analyses.

To test the hypothesis that teacher autonomy sup-port would predict an increase in students’ autonomous motivation and need satisfaction adjustment as reflected in T2 perceived competence and relatedness, we con-ducted three hierarchical regression analyses with au-tonomous motivation (T2), perceived competence (T2), and perceived relatedness (T2) as dependent variables. The predictors, in order of entry, were the correspond-ing T1 scores and perceived teacher autonomy support. The corresponding T1 scores were entered first to con-trol their influence and create change scores. By then entering perceived teacher autonomy support, we tested its effect independent of the corresponding T1 scores. In the assumption test, we found that tolerance indexes were high (more than .90) and that variance inflation

Shen.indd 48 3/6/2009 2:18:22 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

RQES:March2009 49

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

factor (VIF) indexes were low (less than 1.15) for all regression analyses. This indicated that the assumption of noncollinearity was not violated for the regression model using below .10 for tolerance indexes and above 10 for VIF as cutoff scores (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Ai-ken, 2003). Table 3 shows the results of the regression analyses. For each variable entered, effect size and sig-nificance were the increment in variance explained on entry (R2 change) and associated t values, respectively. The direction of effect was the sign of the standardized regression coefficient in the final equation (β).

All betas (β) were in the predicted direction and significant, thus providing overall support for this hy-

pothesis. In particular, while controlling for correspond-ing scores at T1, teacher autonomy support positively predicted the change in autonomous motivation, per-ceived competence, and perceived relatedness at T2. The models predicted 32%, 20%, and 34% of the variance in T2 autonomous motivation, perceived competence, and perceived relatedness, respectively.

We next tested the hypothesis that perceived teacher autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation would predict increases in knowledge. To examine this hypothesis, a hierarchical regression analysis was created with learning achievement as the dependent variable, and with perceived teacher autonomy support, autono-mous motivation (T1), and the interaction of teacher autonomy support and autonomous motivation (T1) as predictors. We added the interaction term to explore whether students who were widely discrepant in their initial autonomous motivation would respond differently to the learning climate.

As shown in Table 4, teacher autonomy support pre-dicted significant variance in learning achievement, β(3, 249) = .19, p < .01, thus supporting the hypothesis that it would contribute to learning achievement. Autono-mous motivation, however, did not predict significant variance, β(3, 249) = .10, p > .05, thus, failing to sup-port the hypothesis that students’ initial autonomous motivation would predict learning achievement. Finally, after controlling for main effects, the interactive effect between teacher autonomy support and autonomous motivation (T1) still predicted significant variance in learning achievement, β(3, 249) = -.14, p < .05.

To clarify the interaction, we separated students on the basis of whether their autonomous motivation (T1) z scores were greater than or less than zero. Two subsequent regression analyses with teacher autonomy

Table 1. Descriptive analysis and comparisons between T1 and T2 variables (N = 253)

Variable Time 1 (T1) Time 2 (T2) t (T1 vs. T2) M SD M SD Teacher autonomy support 3.61 1.03 3.58 1.00 NsAutonomous motivation 4.88 3.98 5.53 3.95 2.25*Perceived competence 3.85 1.11 4.04 1.15 NsPerceived relatedness 4.03 .86 4.07 .81 NsKnowledge test 7.45 2.26 8.97 2.87 8.40**Cardiorespiratory fitness 18.01 9.83 27.25 13.22 10.24**

Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. *p < .05.**p < .01.

Table 2. Correlations among study variables (N = 253)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. TAS — 2. AM (T1) .51** — 3. PC (T1) .18* .27** — 4. PR (T1) .31** .23** .15* — 5. AM (T2) .48** .52** .22** .11 — 6. PC (T2) .21** .28** .28** .17* .38** — 7. PR (T2) .28** .13* .04 .57** .16* .14* — 8. LA .19** .13* .06 .00 .06 .08 .07 — 9. CFE .08 -.02 -.05 .02 .14 .06 .21** .08 — Note. TAS = the average of the Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) ratings of teacher autonomy support; AM = autonomous motivation; PC = perceived competence; PR = perceived relatedness; LA = learning achievement; CFE = cardiorespira-tory fitness enhancement.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Shen.indd 49 3/6/2009 2:18:22 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

50 RQES:March2009

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

support as a predictor were then conducted. The results showed that autonomy support was strongly related to learning achievement within the group of students who were not initially autonomously motivated for learning in physical education, β(1, 120) = .37, p < .01, but not within the group of students who had high autonomous motivation. In addition, because teacher autonomy support predicted a change in autonomous motivation during the semester, as shown in Table 3, we examined the possibility of whether or not a change in autonomous motivation would predict learning achievement with learning achievement being regressed onto the change in autonomous motivation from T1 to T2. However, this analysis was not significant.

To explore the possible connection between per- ceived teacher autonomy support and students’ auto-nomous motivation and CF enhancement, we con-

ducted another hierarchical regression analysis with CF enhancement as the dependent variable, and with perceived teacher autonomy support, autonomous mo-tivation (T1), and the interaction of teacher autonomy support and autonomous motivation (T1) as predictors. Unexpectedly, neither teacher autonomy support nor initial autonomous motivation predicted significant variance in CF enhancement. The interactive effect was weak, so it was unnecessary to separate students into groups. Nevertheless, when exploring the predictive role of change in autonomous motivation on CF en-hancement, we found it was a significant predictor of CF enhancement, β(1, 252) = .19, p < .01. The change score in autonomous motivation from T1 to T2 accounted for about 4% of the variance in CF enhancement.

Discussion

Overall, the results of this study support the impor-tance of self-determined motivation in physical educa-tion. Physical education teachers’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation can facilitate learning in physical education.

Specifically, the findings of this study demonstrate three major points that relate the motivational variables of perceived teacher autonomy support and autonomous motivation to the need satisfaction adjustment, learning achievement in physical education, and CF enhance-ment. First, as hypothesized, students’ perceptions of teacher autonomy support in physical education pre-dicted their autonomous motivation at the end of the semester. Also, as predicted, students’ perceptions of teacher autonomy support explained need satisfaction adjustment as indicated by T2 perceived competence and relatedness. These relations held even when the vari-ance attributable to their initial correspondent scores was

Table 3. Multiple regressions on autonomous motivation, perceived competence, and perceived relatedness (N = 253)

Dependent Predictors Beta t R2 changevariable

AM (T2) Step 1: AM (T1) .33 4.72** .23 Step 2: TAS .32 4.49** .09PC (T2) Step 1: PC (T1) .26 3.69** .17 Step 2: TAS .14 1.98* .03PR (T2) Step 1: PR (T1) .50 8.10** .30 Step 2: TAS .15 2.03* .04

Note. TAS = the average of the Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2) ratings of teacher autonomy support; AM = autono-mous motivation; PC = perceived competence; PR = perceived relatedness.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4. Multiple regressions on learning achievement and cardiorespiratory fitness enhancement

DV = learning achievement DV = CF enhancement Overall sample (N = 253) Low AM group (n = 120) High AM group (n = 133) Overall sample (N = 253) Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t

Step 1: TAS .19 2.62** .37 4.81** .11 1.07 -.06 -.74 AM .10 1.30 .04 .47Step 2: TAS x AM -.14 -1.99* -.10 -1.45

Note: DV = dependent variable; CF = cardiorespiratory fitness; AM = T1 autonomous motivation; TAS = the average of the T1 and T2 ratings of teacher autonomy support.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Shen.indd 50 3/6/2009 2:18:22 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

RQES:March2009 51

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

removed from the indicators, suggesting that perceived teacher autonomy support not only predicted the final self-determined need satisfactions, but directly contrib-uted to the need satisfaction adjustment through the 4-month personal-conditioning unit. A highly autonomy-supportive learning climate in physical education can improve students’ perceived autonomy, competence, and relatedness and promote greater learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000a).

The results relating teacher autonomy support to au-tonomous motivation and need satisfaction adjustment are consistent with and extend the results of previous studies in physical education. Researchers (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2003) have found that autonomy-supportive learning climates are associated with students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. The present results are important in that they confirm that teacher autonomy suport can have an impact on stu-dents’ need satisfaction adjustment in middle school physical education.

The second set of results concerns the effect of self-determined motivation on learning achievement. The results showed that students’ perceptions of teacher autonomy support accounted for significant variance in learning achievement, indicating that these perceptions could enhance student learning in physical education. However, the data failed to support our prediction that students’ initial level of autonomous motivation would predict future learning. Likewise, changes in students’ autonomous motivation during the semester did not predict achievement. The results indicate that students’ autonomous motivation in physical education may not directly contribute to learning.

We suspect that the weak predictive function of autonomous motivation on learning achievement might result from the content-specificity of physical educa-tion. School physical education has multiple objectives (NASPE, 2004). In addition to teaching knowledge and skills, physical education is expected to teach enjoyment of physical activity, promote affective development, and keep students at a high level of physical engagement in order to receive health benefits. Under such circum-stances, students’ pursuit of goals other than learning may dramatically attenuate the influence of autonomous motivation on knowledge acquisition. Future studies are needed to further address this issue.

It is important that the interaction between students’ initial level of relative autonomy in physical education and their perceptions of the teacher autonomy sup-port had a significant effect on learning achievement. Students’ initial level of relative autonomy moderated the effects of teacher autonomy support on learning. Specifically, students low in relative autonomy at the beginning of the semester learned significantly better if they perceived their teachers as more supportive of

autonomy. In contrast, the performance of students high in relative autonomy at the beginning of the semester was unaffected by their perceptions of the teachers’ autonomy support. This finding suggests that teachers’ provision of strong support for autonomy in physical edu-cation is critical for students who are not taking physical education voluntarily. In other words, compared to their autonomously motivated counterparts, students who par-ticipate in physical education for external reasons need more autonomy support from their teachers. Given the mistakes that physical education teachers often make to motivate such students, typically through the use of fear and control (Cothran & Ennis, 1997), our results clearly show that just the opposite is needed if these students are to learn. Overall, this finding is consistent with Deci and Ryan’s (2000) argument that an autonomy-supportive learning environment can enhance students’ learning over time.

The third set of results concerns the influence of teacher autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on CF enhancement. Students’ perceptions of teacher autonomy support and their initial autono-mous motivation in physical education were not associ-ated with CF enhancement. Nevertheless, the follow-up analysis did find that the change score in autonomous motivation from T1 to T2 positively predicted CF en-hancement. This result indicates that although initial levels of autonomous motivation did not predict CF enhancement, becoming more autonomous during the semester could lead to higher CF enhancement. Because teacher autonomy support explained significant increases in autonomous motivation over the semester, we suspect that teacher autonomy support exerted an indirect influence on CF enhancement by increasing autonomous motivation. Given that adolescents’ fitness development depends on multiple factors (e.g., a genetic component, age, maturation) that are usually beyond the control of physical educators (Corbin, 2002), the finding that 4% of the variance in CF enhancement was due to increasing autonomous motivation is important.

Conclusions

In summary, this study enriches our understanding of SDT in physical education. The findings confirm that physical education teachers’ autonomy support of students’ learning in physical education can signifi-cantly influence students’ need satisfaction adjustment and lead to learning achievement, especially for those who are not self-determined. In turn, becoming more autonomous in physical education will facilitate students’ achievement of health benefits.

In light of these results, it appears that shifts in teaching approaches toward providing more support for students’ autonomy and active involvement hold promise

Shen.indd 51 3/6/2009 2:18:22 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

52 RQES:March2009

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

for enhancing their learning. Autonomy support is not equivalent to independence or indifference (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Instead, researchers (Reeve, 2002; Reeve & Jang, 2006) have clarified that autonomy-supportive teachers are responsive (e.g., spend time listening), sup-portive (e.g., praise the quality of performance), and flexible (e.g., give students time to work in their own way), and they motivate by instilling interest (i.e., they support intrinsic motivation).

Based on the findings, we suggest three instruc-tional strategies physical educators may use to foster an autonomy-supportive learning climate. First, physical educators should provide students a meaningful ra-tionale when teaching a physical activity. A personally meaningful rationale could significantly aid students in understanding why autonomous self-regulation of the activity could have personal utility (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Reeve, 2002). Second, physical education teachers should take students’ perspective into consideration. Recognizing individual student dif-ferences and feelings in physical education can demon-strate a teacher’s respect for their students’ inclinations and right to choose. In this way, the acknowledgment may help students understand that the teachers’ in-struction and learning tasks can harmoniously coexist with their inclinations (Deci et al., 1994). Last, physical education teachers should provide students with many different activities in which they can participate. Offer-ing choice in terms of activity selection, difficulty of task, and other alternatives, can convey autonomy support and facilitate students’ perception of autonomy (Bryan & Solmon, 2007).

There are several limitations in this study. First, there was no control group to afford us similar classes against whom we could compare the study variables. Thus, we cannot be certain that the changes we witnessed were exclusively the result of the instructional intervention. Yet we believe that these developments cannot be simply or readily accounted for by other factors common to these participants. Second, the participants were urban adolescents, and the physical education curriculum was fitness-oriented personal conditioning. Therefore, we must be cautious in generalizing the present find-ings to other populations and other physical educa-tion programs. Finally, because the number of schools and class units (only three schools and ten class units) was too low to conduct analyses embracing class- or school-level variability within the variables under the SDT framework, measures of teachers’ instruction and motivational characteristics were excluded from this study. In future research, the application of multilevel modeling techniques (e.g., hierarchical linear models) would be useful to better understand the influences of teacher or specific motivational strategies on students’ self-determined motivation in physical education.

References

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motiva-tion on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756.

Bryan, C. L., & Solmon, M. A. (2007). Self-determination in physical education: Designing class environments to promote active lifestyles. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 260–278.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multi-regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper Institute. (2007). FITNESSGRAM®/ACTIVITYGRAM® test administration manual (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Hu-man Kinetics.

Corbin, C. B. (2002). Physical activity for everyone: What every physical educator should know about promoting lifelong physical activity. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 128–144.

Cothran, D., & Ennis, C. D. (1997). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of conflict and power. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 541–558.

Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-ture of test. Psychometrika, 16, 267–334.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human need and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 27, 930–942.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need satisfaction to intentional behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 131–148.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: To-ward a developmental model. Human Development, 1, 661–669.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychomet-ric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

Michigan Fitness Foundation. (2005). Personal conditioning module of exemplary physical education curriculum. Lansing, MI: Author.

Morrow, J. R., Jackson, A. W., Disch, J. G., & Mood, D. P. (2000). Measurement and evaluation in human performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2004). Moving into the future: National standards for physical educa-tion (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.

Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determina-tion theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444–453.

Shen.indd 52 3/6/2009 2:18:22 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014

RQES:March2009 53

Shen, McCaughtry, Martin, and Fahlman

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educa-tional settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Hand-book of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537–548.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to sup-port students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218.

Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic moti-vation, autonomy, and the self in psychological develop-ment. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motiva-tion: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 1–56). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causal-ity and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definition and new directions. Con-temporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social develop-ment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., & Martin, J. (2007). The influence of self-determination in physical education on leisure-time physical activity behavior. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 328–338.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 97–110.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 411–433.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of in-trinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol., 29, pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.

Note

1. Researchers (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Standage et al., 2005) have suggested that integrated regulation is more often encountered among adults rather than children and adolescents, because younger populations may not have experienced or achieved a sense of integration within their self. The present study followed this sug-gestion and did not further assess integrated regulation when measuring autonomous motivation.

Authors’ Note

Please address all correspondence concerning this article to Bo Shen, Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202.

E-mail: boshen@wayne.edu

Shen.indd 53 3/6/2009 2:18:22 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Wes

t Vir

gini

a U

nive

rsity

] at

19:

57 1

5 O

ctob

er 2

014