Leen Haerens - Physical Literacy

Report
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 Sciences
Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology
Ghent University, Belgium
Department of Movement and
Sports Sciences (Ugent)
Leen
Haerens
PHDstudents
Greet
Cardon
Isabel
Tallir
Department of developmental, personal
and social psychology (Ugent)
Maarten
Vansteenkiste
Bart Soenens
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?!
Is it really?....
Elementary schools
 14 min MVPA
 19 min MVPA
Secondary schools
=> 20 min MVPA
=> 9 min MVPA
1.Increasing MVPA during PE insufficient for
health (e.g. Harris, 2000, Cardon et al, 2004, Aelterman et al, 2010)
1. Need to promote transfer!
2. 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?
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
Prof. Edward Deci
(University of Rochester, NY)
Prof. Richard Ryan
(University of Rochester, NY)
I’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’
Punishment
rewards
expectation
s
Shame, guilt,
self-worth
‘because I feel
more energetic
afterwards’
‘because I like
PE’
‘because I want
to be healthy’
Personal
relevance,
meaningful
Controlled motivation
Mustivation
Process of internalisation = ownership of change
Pleasure,
passion,
interest
Autonomous motivation
Volitional motivation
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?
• Increased physical activity during PE (Aelterman et al, 2012)
• Remain more active in leisure time (Haerens et al, 2010)
AUTONOMOUS
MOTIVATION
Question 5: How do we teach for optimal
motivation?
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
AUTONOMY
SUPPORT
STRUCTURE
RELATEDNESS
SUPPORT
- Sincere interest
- Choice
- Meaningful rationale
- Minimizing controlling
language
- Fun elements
- Optimal challenge
- Positive feedback
- Encouragement
- Clear guidelines &
expectations
- Sincere concern
- Warmth
- Unconditional
regard
- Emotional support
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)
TEACHER
STUDENT
Need-support
Need satisfaction
Autonomy-support
Structure
Involvement
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Perceptions of
need-support
Motivation
Outcome
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?
STUDIE 4
6a: Is need support notified by the
students?
TEACHER
STUDENT
?
Need-support
Need satisfaction
Autonomy-support
Structure
Involvement
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Perceptions of
need-support
Motivation
Outcome
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”
Autonomysupport
Structure
Involvement
+
+
+
Autonomysupport
Structure
Involvement
STUDIE 4
6a: Is need support notified by the students?
TEACHER
STUDENT
?
Need-support
Need satisfaction
Autonomy-support
Structure
Involvement
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Perceptions of
need-support
Yes it is!
Motivation
Outcome
6b: Does need support lead to more optimal
outcomes?
TEACHER
Need-support
Autonomy-support
Structure
Involvement
STUDENT
Perceptions of
need-support
Need
satisfaction
Autonomous
motivation
Activity levels
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
NEED-SUPPORTIVE
TEACHING
BEHAVIOR
Autonomy support
Structure
Involvement
MVPA during PE
Model has good fit!
χ2 =2,295, df=2
RMSEA=0.012
CFI=1
SRMR=0.008
Full mediation!
χ2 =446.20, df=85
RMSEA=0.066
CFI=0,96
SRMR=0.049
STUDENTS’ NEED SATISFACTION
Autonomy-relatedness
Competence
MVPA during PE
χ2 =84,24, df=18
RMSEA=0.062
CFI=0,98
SRMR=0.022
Only partical mediation, direct
relationship remains significant
χ2 =185,163, df=49
RMSEA=0.054
CFI=0,99
SRMR=0.024
Methods
Study 2
Multilevel
Regression
analyses
(MLWin)
Methods
Study 2
Multilevel
Regression
analyses
(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?
The Bright Side of
Self-determination
Theory
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
NEED-SUPPORTIVE
CONTEXTS
Autonomy support
Structure
Involvement
NEED SATISFACTION
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
AUTONOMOUS
MOTIVATION
Positive outcomes
Question 7:
What about the Dark side of Selfdetermination Theory?
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2000)
NEED-THWARTING
CONTEXT
Controlling
Chaotic
Cold
NEED FRUSTRATION
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Autonomous motivation
Controlled motivation
Amotivation
Negative outcomes
Introduction
Autonomy
Autonomy
AUTONOMY
SUPPORT
CONTROL
- Sincere interest
- Choice
- Meaningful rationale
- promoting initiative
- Fun elements
-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
c-path
B = .43 (0.20)*
a-path
B = .41 (0.19)*
CONTROLLED
MOTIVATION
b-path
BL2 = .60 (0.10)***
PERCEIVED
CONTROLLING
BL1 = .66 (0.04)***
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
c-path
B = .23 (0.21)
a-path
B = .41 (0.19)*
AMOTIVATION
b-path
BL2 = .54 (0.12)***
PERCEIVED
CONTROLLING
BL1 = .67 (0.05)***
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
 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)
41
PART I: Teaching for health based physical education: what
does it mean?
Conclusion
Conclusion
WHAT IS HBPE IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS?
Teaching for youngsters to be more likely to value and enjoy physical
activity for life so that they become/remain active outside physical
education
TEACHERS NEED TO BE STIMULATED TO TEACH IN A MORE NEED
SUPPORTIVE & LESS CONTROLLING WAY!
INTERVENTIONS/CPD FOR TEACHERS NEEDED!
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?
 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. Autonomy Orientation
B. Take charge: that is, you would make most of the major
Controlled Orientation
decisions yourself.
Autonomy support
Structure before activity
Need Support
Structure during activity
Relatedness support
Control
Controlled Orientation
Need Thwarting
Chaos
Cold interactions
Antecedents
Above
Within
Need
support /
thwarting
Below
Need to explore a wider range of antecedents in order to
be able to design effective interventions for teachers!
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 .
Well, I think we can learn the most
from autonomy-support. Structure
we are already quite familiar with.
‘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?’
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)
Theoretical framing is always important.
Without this information, I don’t really
think you know what you’re doing.
‘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.’
Revisions
1
Part I: Theoretical background
After Training I
- Reduction in number of slides
- Deletion of non-essential content
After Training II
- No changes
After Training III
- Development of a pocket-sized booklet of the
handouts in which solutions are omitted and
space is provided to write down the answers
and/or personal thoughts
Part II: Overview of motivating strategies
After Training I
- Reversing the order of presentation of the strategies
from Autonomy support-Structure to StructureAutonomy support
- Addition of video-images used as ‘bad practices’
After Training II
- Reduction in number of practical examples to
increase the input from the audience
- Starting from a ‘case’ to introduce a strategy in order
to improve the interaction with and between the PE
teachers
After Training III
- Subdivision of the strategies in very concrete and
useful guidelines
- Increase in the number of case studies to stimulate
active participation and self-reflection
- Provision of concrete tools as teaching aids
- Repeatedly underlining the link between the specific
guidelines and the basic psychological needs
Part III: Application exercise
After Training I
- From paper-and-pencil exercise to role play
and microteaching in the gymnasium
- Extension of the duration of Part III from 30
minutes to one hour
- From one topic (volleyball) to different topics
(basketball, gymnastics, rope skipping)
After Training II
- From feedback by the trainer to feedback by
fellow PE teachers
After Training III
- Extension of the duration to an entire day
- From feedback by fellow PE teachers to selfreflection
- Group discussion to share ideas and voice
concerns and obstacles on how to implement
the strategies in class
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
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
Global appreciation
Workshop 1
3.61
Workshop 2
3.8
Workshop 3
3.97
3. Is the intervention effective?
METHOD
Sample
 39 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
T1
Intervention
N = 15
Random
assignment
Control
N = 24
T2
WS 1
Pretest
Intervention
Posttest
WS 2
Pretest
Intervention
Posttest
Pretest
Posttest
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
Effective
“Proximal”
outcomes
“Distal”
outcomes
Beliefs
Behavior
Feasible
Teacher
Student
Observer
Intervention effects on teachers’ perceived effectiveness of autonomy-support
and structure
Autonomy-support
4.3
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
Control group
Intervention group
Structure
4.2
4.1
4
3.9
3.8
Pretest
4.24
3.86
Posttest
4.13
4.1
ES = .12
3.7
Control group
Intervention group
Pretest
4.01
3.83
ES = .11
Posttest
3.92
4.09
Intervention effects on teachers’ perceived feasibility of autonomy-support
and structure
Autonomy-support
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
Control group
Intervention group
Pretest
3.87
3.49
Posttest
3.84
3.76
ES = .11
Structure
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
Control group
Intervention group
Pretest
3.79
3.47
Posttest
3.85
3.92
ES = .14
Intervention effects on teachers’ autonomy-support
ES = .06
Teacher-reported autonomy-support
Observed autonomy-support
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
0.5
Control group
Intervention group
0.4
ES = .24
0.3
0.2
0.1
Pretest
3.74
3.39
0
Posttest
3.73
3.66
Control group
Intervention group
Student perceived autonomysupport
β = .06
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
3
Control
Intervention
Pretest
3.28
3.31
Posttest
3.18
3.39
Pretest
0.28
0.22
Posttest
0.24
0.46
Three informants
Teacher
Belief
Behavior
Effective
Feasible
Autonomysupport
Structure
Autonomysupport
Structure
Structure
Student
Observer
Behavior
Behavior
Autonomysupport
Autonomy-support
Relatedness support
Autonomous motivation
to apply the strategies
.32**
Need satisfaction
training
-.21*
.36**
Controlled motivation
to apply the strategies
ns
Intention to apply
the strategies
-.22*
-.27*
Defiance toward
change
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 you for your interest in our work!
Thanks to all collaborating researchers for their input
for this presentation!

similar documents