Physical education teachers inspiring young people towards a physically active lifestyle?!: Motivational dynamics in physical education Prof. Dr. L. Haerens

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)

Question 1: Is Increasing MVPA during PE THE WAY to promote lifelong engagement

in PA?!

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

Question 2: Ok, but what’s the alternative?

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 3: Motivation, what is it?

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)

Question 5: How do we teach for optimal motivation?

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?




Motivation

Need satisfaction


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”




Motivation

Need satisfaction


Outcome

TEACHER STUDENT

?

STUDIE 4

6a: Is need support notified by the students?

Yes it is!

Need-supportAutonomy-

supportStructure

Involvement


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 =446.20, df=85RMSEA=0.066CFI=0,96SRMR=0.049

Full mediation!

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

Methods

Study 2

MultilevelRegressionanalyses

(MLWin)

Methods

Study 2

MultilevelRegressionanalyses

(MLWin)

• 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)


Conclusion

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!


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?

Intervention and experimental studies needed

Better insight into antecedents of teachers’ behaviors

1. Antecedents of need

supportive and need thwarting teaching behaviors?

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

2. Development of a theory driven intervention for PE

teachers

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?’

Illustration: Part 2 of the

intervention

Providing autonomy support

HINT 1: Stimulating initiative

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

HINT 1a: Try to integrate choice into your lessons to stimulate pupils to take initiative

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

3. Is the intervention effective?

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



3.7253.8253.9254.0254.125

Structure

ES = .12 ES = .11

Intervention effects on teachers’ perceived feasibility of autonomy-support and structure

Pretest Posttest



3.353.453.553.653.753.85

Autonomy-support

Pretest Posttest



3.25

3.45

3.65

3.85

Structure

ES = .11 ES = .14

Intervention effects on teachers’ autonomy-support

Pretest Posttest



3.253.353.453.553.653.75

Teacher-reported autonomy-support

Pretest Posttest



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.

Training teachers for health based physical education: what is needed?

Conclusion

• 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

Thanks to all collaborating researchers for their input for this presentation!

Thanks to you for your interest in our work!

Documents

Physical education teachers inspiring young people towards a physically active lifestyle?!: Motivational dynamics in physical education Prof. Dr. L. Haerens