Antecedents and consequences of students’ motivation in Physical Education: A self- determination perspective 9 th International Scientific Conference of IASK “Scientific fundaments of human movement and sport practice” RIMINI 16 th – 18 th September Pr. Philippe Sarrazin UFRAPS, BP GRENOBLE cedex 9. Web Site :

Research Question Over the last decades, students’ motivation has become one of the major issues in the educational setting Even if sport seems more “fun” for students, problems are the same in compulsory physical education (PE) courses than in other academics area. to understand why some students are not motivated and how to nourish their motivation in PE classes It seems important to understand why some students are not motivated and how to nourish their motivation in PE classes, particularly because of the multiple benefits generated by a regular physical activity.

Several theoretical frameworks on student motivation consider that the reasons for doing an activity are more important to know than the degree of motivation: why does a student do an activity at school ? According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT; e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2002), the degree to which behaviors are self-determined (i.e., autonomous or spontaneous) is important to know. The Self-Determination Theory

Intrinsic Motivation A- motivation To exp. stimul. To know To accomplish Integrated regulation External regulation Identified regulation Introjected regulation Intrinsic motivation Doing an activity for its own sake Why do you do gymnastics? “For the pleasure I feel when I practice” A continuum of motivations more or less self-determined A-motivation Lost of contingency between an action and subsequent outcomes Why do you do gymnastics? “I don’t know anymore; I have the impression that I am incapable of succeeding in this sport. ” External regulation Involvement in order to attain a tangible reward or to avoid a threatened punishment Why do you do gymnastics? “because my teacher would be mad if I didn't practice anymore. ” Introjected regulation Involvement in order to fulfill an inner strength like avoiding anxiety or experiencing ego-enhancing pride. Why do you do gymnastics? “because I would feel ashamed to be too bad. ” Identified regulation Involvement is important in order to reach valued personal goals Why do you do gymnastics? “because I think it is a useful way to stay healthy. ” Integrated regulation When activity is fully assimilated to the self and brought into congruence with other aspects of values and identity. Why do you do gymnastics? “because doing sport is an integral part of my life. ”

The higher levels of self-determined motivation are related to several positive outcomes (effort, achievement, quality of conceptual learning, retention). Results of researches in PE classes are congruent but scarce and “censurable” (e.g., utilization of self-reported measures and cross-sectional design). The different scales have been used separately or gathered into an index. We believe that it is important to examine how the different kinds of motivation combine in distinct motivational profiles and what are their consequences.

Students’ motivational profiles in PE and achievement outcomes (Boiché, Sarrazin, Pelletier, Grouzet, & Chanal, submitted) 215 students (99 fem. 116 males) from 11 to 17 years old 215 students (99 fem. 116 males) from 11 to 17 years old Prospective study over 10 weeks in a gymnastics cycle. Prospective study over 10 weeks in a gymnastics cycle. Measures at the first lesson Measures at the first lesson  Motivation toward gym  Motivation toward gym (adaptation of SMS and EMS): 28 items, 7 subscales,  >.70.  Level in gymnastics: three experts rated each student’s performance on basic exercises (from 1 to 7;  Level in gymnastics: three experts rated each student’s performance on basic exercises (from 1 to 7;  =.90). Measure at the middle of the cycle Measure at the middle of the cycle  Number of repetitions for 5 minutes recorded by a camcorder Measures at the end of the cycle Measures at the end of the cycle  Level in gymnastics: idem  Grade given by teachers (from 0 to 20)

Cluster analysis:

  =   p <.01 p <.12

Three motivational profiles seem to appear in PE classes, similar to the ones found by Ntoumanis (2002) with a British sample of students. The most self-determined profile shows the best adaptive pattern, and the less self-determined the worse one. The third profile with middle levels of motivation on each type of regulation conduces to middle outcomes. On what does self-determined motivation depend? On what does self-determined motivation depend? Conclusion:

According to SDT: The satisfaction of psychological needs of: - Autonomy - Autonomy (feeling like the ‘origin’ and not the ‘pawn’ of one’s action) competence - competence (feeling effective in one’s interactions) Relatedness - Relatedness (feeling connected to others) Self-determined motivation Teachers’ autonomy supportive vs. controlling behaviors Responsive (listening, acknowledging student’s perspective) Supportive (praising student’s endeavors) Explicative (providing rational for tasks) Provide choice and opportunities for initiative taking

What are the “typical” teaching style of PE teachers? Are the teachers’ expectations about students’ motivation related on the frequency of controlling vs. autonomy- supportive behaviors?

The effects of teachers’ expectations on teachers autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors (Sarrazin, Tessier, Pelletier, Trouilloud, & Chanal, Int. J. Sport Exercise Psy., in press) 7 PE teachers and their 172 students (98 fem. 74 males; M age = years) from 9 classes. 7 PE teachers and their 172 students (98 fem. 74 males; M age = years) from 9 classes. Prospective study over 7 weeks in a gymnastics cycle. Prospective study over 7 weeks in a gymnastics cycle. Measures at the end of the first lesson Measures at the end of the first lesson  Students’ motivation toward gym (same questionnaire study 1)  Teachers’ expectations about students’ motivation (2 items; e.g., “what level of effort do you think this student will make during the gymnastics session?”: (1) “very few” to (7) “very much”  Teachers’ expectations about students’ motivation (2 items; e.g., “what level of effort do you think this student will make during the gymnastics session?”: (1) “very few” to (7) “very much” ). Measures during all the 6 following lessons Measures during all the 6 following lessons  All the teacher-student interactions were videotaped. Only the teaching behaviors directed towards individual student and initiated by the teachers were taken into account.

Examples of behaviors which were coded: Organizational communications told “in a controlling way” “You must move into the left-hand line” Organizational communications told “in an autonomy-supportive way” “You can choose the group you want” Technical or tactical hints told “in a controlling way” “Extend the arms, I have told you that 10 times” Technical or tactical hints told “in an autonomy- Supportive way” “Maybe you could try different positions to jump over this obstacle and choose the best” Questions asked “in a controlling way” “What have I just said, Paul?” Questions asked “in an autonomy-supportive way” “Which exercise do you want to start with?” Praises “Well done!” Encouragements “Now you’re getting the hang of it; let’s go!” Perspective-talking statements “I can see that you are starting to be tired” Negative communications or criticisms “Shut up Paul!” or “You are completely numskull!”).

Results and discussion: 6,369 teaching behaviors were coded 6,369 teaching behaviors were coded Prevalent behaviors : Prevalent behaviors :  Controlling (37.22%): organizational, hints, questions told in a controlling way + negative communications  Hints and organization communications told in a neutral way (23.44%)  Praise (11.81%)  Autonomy-supportive (4.6%): organizational, hints, questions told in an autonomy-supportive way Bounds “teachers’expectations – frequency of communication” Bounds “teachers’expectations – frequency of communication”  When teachers had expectations of low motivation, they tended to initiate more interactions with their students (pr = -.30, p<.001) Bounds “teachers’expectations – type of communication” Bounds “teachers’expectations – type of communication”  When teachers had expectations of low motivation, they tended to be more controlling with their students (pr = -.40, p<.001) than autonomy supportive (pr =.12, p=.12). Ironically, these controlling behaviors would foster more compliance and less self-determined motivation among students… which would confirm the teachers initial beliefs.

Is the autonomy supportive style teachable? Is a sensitizing program on the benefits of autonomy-supportive behaviors can change teachers’ behaviors in the classroom? Do students perceive this change?

The effects of autonomy-supportive training on the teachers’ behaviors in PE (Tessier & Sarrazin, Manuscript in preparation). 5 PE teachers and their 96 students 5 PE teachers and their 96 students Study carried out during the 8 weeks of normal courses Study carried out during the 8 weeks of normal courses Two conditions : Two conditions :  Control group: 3 teachers (2 men and 1 woman) and their 62 students  Experimental group: 2 teachers (1 man and 1 woman) and their 34 students Autonomy-supportive training Autonomy-supportive training  Learn to built lessons which: (1) acknowledge and emphasize the students’ points of view, (2) encourage students’ choices and initiatives, (3) communicate the rationale underlying requests and constraints, (4) promote students’ interest in learning, and (5) use a noncontrolling communication style.  Video analyses after each lessons in order to improve the support of the students’ autonomy

The entirety of the 8 lessons was videotaped and then coded (same grille than in study 2). The entirety of the 8 lessons was videotaped and then coded (same grille than in study 2). During the last lesson, students filled out the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) intended to measure their perceptions of the autonomy- supportive climate: 15 items (e.g., “I feel that my teacher provides me choices and options.”, “My teacher tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things”).  =.82 During the last lesson, students filled out the Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ) intended to measure their perceptions of the autonomy- supportive climate: 15 items (e.g., “I feel that my teacher provides me choices and options.”, “My teacher tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way to do things”).  =.82

Results In mean frequency by hour and by student

A training program intended to help teachers to support students’ autonomy can be effective. The effects of these overt and perceived behaviors on the students’ motivation and involvement deserve to be examined in future studies. The effects of these overt and perceived behaviors on the students’ motivation and involvement deserve to be examined in future studies. SDT seems to be a heuristic and promising theory to apprehend the students’ behaviors in PE course, in particular because it (1) distinguishes the antecedents and the consequences from various types of motivation and (2) offers some perspectives for intervention. Conclusion

 On how the various motivations combine to predict the behaviors. Are there other patterns than those we found in the first study? What are their motivational consequences?  On the teachers’ behaviors intended to support the autonomy of the students. Are some behaviors more likely to nourish a particular need (autonomy vs. relatedness vs. competence)?  Is there a student need to satisfy in priority according to certain demographics (e.g., age, sex, level). A few perspectives

Thank you for your attention... Grazie mille Philippe Sarrazin UFRAPS, BP GRENOBLE cedex 9. Site web :