Transcript SS218 - University of Strathclyde

Scottish Educational Research Association; 27.11.09
Factors that Impact on Participation in Physical Education.
Stuart Forsyth, University of Strathclyde;
Dr. Ross Deuchar, University of Strathclyde;
Professor Nanette Mutrie, University of Strathclyde.
With support from:
Dr. Ruth Lowry, University of Chichester;
Dr. David Rowe, University of Strathclyde.
Background
Personal
Political
Theoretical
Self-Determination Theory
Put simply self-determination theory
maintains that an individual’s level of selfdetermination is created by the meeting of 3
innate psychological needs described as;
1. autonomy,
2. competence and
3. relatedness.
Ryan and Deci (2002)
AUTONOMY
The autonomy need relates to an
individual’s desire to be in control of what
they want to do (Vallerand and Losier
1999).
COMPETENCE
The competence need suggests that an
individual desires to take part effectively
with their surroundings, striving both to
attain worthwhile results and to
experience mastery (White 1959; Harter
1978).
RELATEDNESS
The need for relatedness refers to an
individual wanting to feel connected with
significant others (Ryan and Deci 2000).
 Self-determination can be upheld when
the social environment supports these
three (basic psychological) needs.
 When these needs are met then we are
likely to have more intrinsically motivated
behaviour.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
Participation for fun and for the activity
itself;
 Examples:
 I play and train because it is really fun;
 Gymnastics feels like I am playing.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Longevity in sustaining participation in
the physical domain is more likely when
intrinsic motivation is present within
individuals, (Dishman 1987; McAuley,
Wraith et al. 1991; Wankel 1993;
Ingledew, Markland et al. 1998).
EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
Participation as a result of the influence
of an external factor or factors;
 Examples:

I go to the gym to lose weight;
 I take part in PE because I want to pass the
exam.

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION
Initially motivation is likely to have it’s
genesis in extrinsic factors, (Ingledew,
Markland et al. 1998);
 Even committed exercisers are
motivated by some extrinsic factors,
(Markland, Ingledew et al. 1992).

MULTI DIMENSIONAL
MOTIVATION?

The notion of simply positioning extrinsic
motivation against intrinsic motivation
however may not be a true interpretation
and self-determination theory suggests a
range of sub-regulations exist.
The Continuum of Self-Determination,
(Biddle & Mutrie, 2008).
Extrinsic Motivation
Amotivatio
n
Negative
External
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Self-determination
Intergrated
Regulation
Intrinsic
Motivation
Positive
AMOTIVATION

This is when an individual possesses a
complete lack of motivation with consequent
absence of self-determination; neither
(perceived) intrinsic nor extrinsic reasons exist
for the individual to engage in the activity,
(Vallerand 2001).
 Examples:

Training is a waste of time;

There is no point in doing PE!
Behavioural Regulations
External regulation: behaviour is
controlled by rewards, threats and
possible coercion;
 Examples:

Doctor suggests you should take exercise;
 PE teacher tells you to take part in class.

Behavioural Regulations
Introjected regulation: the individual is
acting out of avoidance of negative
feelings, such as guilt;
 Examples:

I must use my gym membership;
 I need to take part in PE or my class mates
will moan at me.

Behavioural Regulations
Identified regulation: action motivated
by an appreciation of valued outcomes of
participation;
 Examples:

I want to exercise to get fitter;
 I take part in PE because I want to get in
the school team.

Behavioural Regulations

Integrated regulation: the behaviour is
performed to satisfy important personal goals
that are symbolic of the person’s self identity
(i.e., they are ‘integrated’ with the self);
 Examples:
 I go the gym because I am a healthy
person;
 I take part in PE because I am good at
sport.
Factors that Impact on Participation
in Physical Education.
This study formed the first part of a wider
schedule of research aimed at
understanding and creating autonomy
supportive environments in physical
education and as such had a clear
strategic purpose illustrated by the
following aims:
Research Aims
To quantify pupils’ levels of selfdetermination in relation to their
participation in physical education;
 To use this evidence as a basis for
creating second study pupil focus
groups.

Recruitment
Large secondary school identified, (roll
≥1500);
 Letter to Local Education Authority;
 Letter to Head Teacher;
 Staff briefing;
 Student briefing;
 Parental assent;
 Student consent.

Participants
The 3rd year cohort in the school made
up of both genders with an age range
from 14 to 15 inclusive;
 The research initially targeted 334 pupils.
Obtaining parental assent and pupil
consent plus absentees on the data
collection days resulted in 268 pupils
participating in the research.

Data Collection

A cross-sectional survey design with
participants completing a 21 item
questionnaire online;
 This took between 10 and 15 minutes;
 Data collection (during the 3rd week in May,
2009) occurred during a scheduled “Personal
and Social development” class which was
conducted in the school Library/Information
Technology suite.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was made accessible
for pupils through specialist software
called ‘Survey Monkey’ via a web link set
up by the chief researcher with the help
and cooperation of the school’s
Information Technology Coordinator;
 Completed in groups of approximately
20 due to availability of computers in the
school.

Questionnaire

The Behavioural Regulation in Exercise
Questionnaire (Mullan, Markland &
Ingledew, 1997) was modified for use in
a Physical Education setting by (Hein &
Hagger, 2007) to quantify levels of
participant self-determination.
Piloting


Piloting of the questionnaire had indicated some
accuracy issues for pupils using Mullen, Markland et
al’s original 3 phrases/5 point numerical scale;
Personal communication (Markland 2009a) resolved
this and the following likert scale with numerical values
was subsequently adopted for use; not at all true for
me (0), slightly true for me (1), about halfway true for
me (2), mostly true for me (3) and completely true for
me (4).
Example Questionnaire Item.

I take part in physical education because
other people say I should.
not at all true for me (0)
slightly true for me (1)
about halfway true for me (2)
mostly true for me (3)
completely true for me (4)
The Relative Autonomy Index

The responses were collected following advice
from Hein and Hagger (2007) and other
researchers (Guay, Mageau et al. 2003) using
a Relative Autonomy Index created by
Vallerand and Ratelle (2002);
 This provided an overall index (with a possible
range of values from -24 to 20) for each
participant’s level of self-determination to
participate in physical education classes.
The Relative Autonomy Index (RAI)

Amotivation (-3), external regulation (-2),
introjected regulation (-1), identified regulation
(2) and intrinsic motivation (3);
 Each behavioural regulation had 4
questionnaire items apart from introjected
regulation which had 3;
 The RAI was calculated by adding participants’
mean scores (each one multiplied by the
appropriate weighting factor) for each of the 5
behavioural regulations.
The Relative Autonomy Index (RAI)

There are no items for integrated
regulation on this version of the
questionnaire due to the difficulty of
distinguishing empirically between
integrated and identified regulation on
the one hand and intrinsic regulation on
the other, (Markland 2009b).
In addition……….
2 extra questions were asked of
participants;
 What is your gender?
 Have you opted for a certificate course in
physical education?

Research Questions

3 related but independent research
questions were set and the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences 17 (SPSS)
software was used for all aspects of data
analysis.
Research Question 1
To determine if the established ordered
pattern of inter-relationships shown by
the Self-Determination Theory continuum
(Mullan, Markland & Ingledew, 1997;
Markland & Tobin, 2004; Hein & Hagger,
2007), is evident in a Scottish context?
Descriptive Statistics for Sub-Scale
Items from Self-Determination Theory
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Skewness
Kurtosis
Amotivation
0.97
1.21
0.40
1.21
External Regulation
0.53
0.68
1.76
3.80
Introjected
Regulation
0.62
0.89
1.77
2.83
Identified Regulation
1.72
1.11
0.14
-0.98
Intrinsic Motivation
2.01
1.28
-0.12
-1.19
Correlations of Sub-Scales Items
from Self-Determination Theory.
Amotivation
External
regulation
Amotivation
1.0
External
regulation
0.31
Introjected Identified
regulation regulation
Intrinsic
motivation
1.0
Introjected -0.32***
regulation
0.18**
1.0
Identified
regulation
-0.68***
-0.13*
0.58***
1.0
Intrinsic
motivation
-0.73
-0.20***
0.43***
0.82***
*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
1.0
Correlations with Intrinsic Motivation
1.2
1
1.0
0.8
0.82
0.6
0.4
0.43
0.2
0
-0.2
1
-0.2
2
3
4
Extrinsic
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
5
-0.4
-0.6
-0.73
-0.8
-1
Amotivation
Behaviour Regulations
Intrinsic
Motivation
Research Question 1
From the results of this study it is
concluded that the Behavioural
Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire
supported the inter-relationships
between Self-Determination Theory’s
multi-dimensional view of motivation and
thus worked in Scotland as it has done
elsewhere.
Research Question 2.
Are there differences in pupil levels of
self-determination by gender and by
choice of Standard Grade Physical
Education?
Findings?
A two (boys/girls) by two (opted for
SGPE/did not opt for SGPE) between
groups ANOVA showed two main effects
and no interaction; F (1,264) = 1.856,
p = .174, eta = .007)
First Main Effect
Standard Grade physical education on
RAI Score (t (256.89) = 12.769, p <
.001).
Standard Grade PE and RAI
Pupils who opted for Standard Grade
physical education had a significantly
higher RAI score (mean =11.61; SD =
4.80; skewness = -0.68; kurtosis = -0.21)
than those who did not (mean = 1.20; SD
= 8.53; skewness = -0.14; kurtosis = 0.95).
Standard Grade PE and RAI
20
15
11.61
RAI Score
10
5
1.2
0
SGPE
Non SGPE
-5
-10
SGPE Group
Second Main Effect
Gender on RAI Score (t (253.16) = 7.721,
p < .001).
Gender and RAI
Male pupils had a significantly higher
RAI score (mean = 8.84; SD = 7.04;
skewness = -0.88; kurtosis = 0.32) than
female pupils (mean = 1.23; SD = 8.99;
skewness = -0.13; kurtosis = -1.07).
Gender and RAI
16
14
12
RAI SCORE
10
8.84
8
6
4
1.23
2
0
-2
Boys
Girls
-4
-6
GENDER
Importantly
Interaction (2 x 2 between groups
ANOVA; F (1,264) = 1.856, p = .174, eta
= .007) indicated that there was no
interaction between gender and the
selection of physical education at
Standard Grade in terms of differences
in pupils’ Relative Autonomy Index
scores.
Research Question 3.
Is there an association between gender
and the selection of physical education
at Standard Grade?
Selection of Physical Education at
Standard Grade by Gender.
Chi Square Result
(2 (1) = 38.203, p < .001)
Gender of
Respondent
Do you take Standard Grade physical
education at your school?
No
Yes
Total
Female
Count
110 (81%)
25(19%)
135
Male
Count
60(45%)
73(55%)
133
Total
Count
170
98
268
Conclusions
•
The Behavioural Regulation in Exercise
Questionnaire supports the interrelationships between SelfDetermination Theory’s multidimensional view of motivation and
thus provides a valid measurement of
Scottish pupils’ levels of selfdetermination to participate in physical
education classes.
Conclusions
Pupils who opted for Standard Grade
physical education have higher levels of
self-determination than those pupils who
did not;
 Male pupils have higher levels of selfdetermination for physical education than
female pupils.

Conclusions

There is an association between
gender and the selection of additional
certificated provision in physical
education.
Limitations?
Findings are from only one age group;
 Findings are from only one school;
 Is the school typical?
 Self-Determination Theory indicates
what motivates but does not offer
solutions to create intrinsically motivated
individuals.

Future Research?

The evidence collected in this study has
enabled the identification of groups of pupils.
 Focus group interviews will be employed with
the aim of identifying the pedagogical and
experiential issues that surround low levels of
self-determination in physical education. The
focus group interviews with those pupils with
higher levels of self-determination will provide
counter evidence.
 The data collection phase for this second
study is scheduled for late 2009.
End of Presentation
Questions?
References










Biddle, S. J. H., & & Mutrie, N. (2008). Psychology of Physical Activity (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 227-268.
Dishman, R. K. (1987). Exercise adherence and habitual physical activity. In W. P. Morgan &
S. E. Goldston (Eds.), Exercise and mental health (pp. 57-83). Washington: Hemisphere.
Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of selfdetermined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal and horizontal effects.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992-1004.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model.
Human development, 21(1), 34-64.
Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Global self-esteem, goal achievement orientations, and selfdetermined behavioural regulations in a physical education setting. Journal of sports sciences,
25(2), 149-159.
Ingledew, D., Markland, D., & Medley, A. (1998). Exercise motives and stages of change.
Journal of health psychology, 3(4), 477.
Markland, D. (2009a). RATIONALE FOR RESPONSE SCALE; STUDY 1. In S. Forsyth (Ed.).
Markland, D. (2009b). from
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~pes004/exercise_motivation/breq/breq.htm
Markland, D., Ingledew, D., Hardy, L., & Grant, L. (1992). A comparison of the exercise
motivations of participants in aerobics and weight watcher exercisers. J Sports Sci, 10, 609610.
References (continued)










Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise
questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of sport & exercise
psychology, 26(2), 191-196.
McAuley, E., Wraith, S., & Duncan, T. (1991). Self-Efficacy, perceptions of success, and
intrinsic motivation for exercise Journal of applied social psychology, 21(2), 139-155.
Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. (1997). A graded conceptualisation of selfdetermination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure using
confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and individual differences, 23(5), 745-752.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismicdialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Scottish Executive. (2004). The Report of the Review Group on Physical Education.
Edinburgh.
Vallerand, R., & Losier, G. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
in sport. Journal of applied sport psychology, 11(1), 142-169.
Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical
model. In R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 205232). Rochester: University of Rochester.
Wankel, L. (1993). The importance of enjoyment to adherence and psychological benefits
from physical activity. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 151-151.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
review, 66(5), 297-333.