40
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2014), 84, 40–57 © 2012 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Outside-school physical activity participation and motivation in physical education Bo Shen* Division of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA Background. Experience in non-school contexts can shape and reshape students’ motivation and mediate their learning in school. Outside-school physical activity may provide students with an extensive cognitive and affective foundation and influence their motivation in physical education. Although a trans-contextual effect of physical education has been explored, very little empirical research has examined the impact from outside-school context to physical education. Aims. Using self-determination theory and a hierarchical model of motivation, this study was designed to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. Sample. Participants included 545 9th graders (305 males and 240 females, age range = 14–16 years, mean age = 14.66 years) enrolled in required physical education classes in three suburban high schools in a large Midwest metropolitan area in the United States. Methods. Self-determination variables were measured using relevant instruments, and information on organized outside-school physical activity experiences was gathered in a survey. Structural equation modelling analyses were conducted. Results. Students who participated in organized outside-school physical activity programmes displayed overall higher motivation; however, the strength of associations among the self-determination variables (i.e., pathways from perceived autonomy support to relatedness, from autonomy to competence, and from self-determined motivation to in-class physical activity engagement) was stronger for their non-participant counterparts. Conclusion. There are dynamic relationships between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. Physical educators need to identify, appreciate, and instructionally address individual students’ differences during teaching and learning.
Outside-school experiences shape and reshape students’ motivation in school by impacting their values about school subjects (Jacobs & Eccles, 2000). With the unique learning context in physical education, in which students are expected to learn physical activity knowledge and skill through both cognitive understanding and physical performance, participation in outside-school physical activities could be a valuable asset *Correspondence should be addressed to Bo Shen, Division of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48103, USA (email: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/bjep.12004
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
41
influencing students’ motivation and learning in physical education (Lee, 1997). Experiences in outside-school physical activities provide students with an extensive cognitive and affective foundation to comprehend, interpret, and internalize movement-based learning (Ennis, 2000) and foster specific motivational characteristics in physical education classes (Chen & Shen, 2004). Using self-determination theory (SDT) and a hierarchical model of motivation as theoretical frameworks, this empirical study was designed to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education.
Self-determination theory Self-determination theorists (Deci & Ryan, 2000) distinguished autonomous forms of motivation from controlling in terms of degrees of self-determined motivation. This distinction is often viewed on a continuum reflecting the cause of an individual’s motivated behaviour in a given context – known as the perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Connell, 1989). At the autonomous or internal end of the continuum, intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and identified regulation lie adjacent to each other. Behaviours that are spontaneously engaged in, for enjoyment and interest alone, without external reinforcement or perceived contingency, are characterized as intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation represents the highest degree of self-determined motivation. Behaviours that are valued and have been incorporated into the individual’s concept of self are characterized as integrated. Behaviours that are positively valued, but are not necessarily enjoyed, are characterized as being identified. In contrast, at the controlling or external end of the continuum, behaviours are conducted as a result of significant others forcing the enactment, known as external regulation, which represents the lowest degree of self-determined motivation. Adjacent to external regulation lies introjected regulation, which reflects participation in behaviour due to perceived demand or pressure such as avoiding negative affective states. The antecedents and outcomes of the different forms of motivation have been described (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2005). It is proposed that the nature of social contexts (e.g., autonomy-supportive or controlling teaching styles) can impact on the various forms of motivation via the satisfaction of the innate psychological needs of autonomy (the belief that one is the origin and regulator of his or her actions), competence (the belief that one can efficaciously interact the environment), and relatedness (the seeking and development of secure and connected relationships with others). Social environment factors that satisfy these needs will promote autonomous forms of motivation while social environment factors that undermine these needs result in controlling motivation. In turn, the various forms of motivation can predict a number of cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes. Generally, intrinsic motivation and identified regulation predict positive outcomes but external and introjected regulations predict negative outcomes (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage, Duda & Ntoumanis, 2005). Many studies on the effects of perceived social and environmental factors in need satisfactions have been conducted using autonomy (Black & Deci, 2000; Ntoumanis, 2005). Autonomy-supportive contexts are those that provide choice and opportunity for self-direction with a minimal amount of pressured evaluations, externally imposed goals, or demands. Autonomy-supportive environments provide greater positive informational feedback and a context in which the learner’s opinion is considered (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, an autonomy-supportive teacher might provide students with necessary
42
Bo Shen
information while encouraging them to use this information to solve a problem in their own way. Self-determination theory has been applied in physical education. Ntoumanis (2005) hypothesized a self-determination process model to examine the influence of contextual and personal motivational variables on student cognitive and affective experiences in school physical education. Using structural equation modelling with a sample of 302 British adolescents, the author found that motivational support provided by physical education teachers was related to students’ need satisfaction, which in turn predicted self-determined motivation. Self-determined motivation predicted in-class engagement and intentions to participate in future physical education. Standage et al. (2005) confirmed the self-determination process model and revealed that students who perceived an autonomy-supportive environment experienced great levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and had high scores on self-determined motivation. Similarly, Shen, McCaughtry, Martin and Fahlman (2009) investigated the effects of students’ autonomous motivation and perceived teacher autonomy support on need satisfaction adjustment and learning achievement over a 4-month physical education personal conditioning unit. They found that perceived teacher autonomy support significantly predicted students’ need satisfaction adjustment and led to learning achievement, especially for students who were not autonomously motivated to learn in physical education. Despite these promising achievements, prior research in SDT in physical education has rarely addressed the differences between school and non-school physical activity experiences in the effects of self-determination process in physical education. The theoretical understanding and proposed recommendations based on SDT are still contingent upon the presence of no individual differences. There is a need to examine the relationships between school and non-school contexts as a new direction for SDT in physical education.
A hierarchical model of motivation Drawing from SDT, Vallerand (2007) proposed a hierarchical model of motivation and hypothesized that the forms of motivation from the perceived locus of causality could be conceptualized as operating at three levels of generality: global, contextual, and specific. Global motivation represents generalized tendencies to be autonomously motivated and is expected to have an effect on behavioural engagement across a number of contexts. It is similar to a personality trait according to which one is predominantly intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Motivation at the contextual level reflects autonomous motivation to engage in a variety of behaviours in a specific given context or a distinct sphere of human activity (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Finally, motivation at the situational level refers to autonomous motivation towards specific conditions of a given behaviour in time. It refers to a motivational state. Vallerand (2007) argued that motivation could be considered an intrapersonal phenomenon. There are top-down effects of motivation in the hierarchy. For example, when one is engaging in a physical activity, the task and other cues associated with this context can trigger one’s usual (contextual) motivation towards the physical activity. Further, Vallerand and Ratelle (2002) hypothesized that there is a cross-contextual interplay of different contextual motivations, suggesting that motives in one context can affect motivation in others and the interplay has significant implications for situational motivation and outcomes. When the homogeneity between two contextual motivations takes place, the lower levels of psychological adjustments and behaviour will be influenced.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
43
Students’ specific motivational characteristics in a context outside of school (e.g., outside-school physical activities) are associated with their formation of motivation in another related educational context (e.g., physical education; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002).
Organized outside-school activities Organized outside-school activities are adult-sponsored activities that fall outside the regular school curriculum at diverse contexts, such as school-based extracurricular activities, community organizations, and youth development programmes (Bohnert, Fredricks & Randall, 2010). According to Mahoney, Larson and Eccles (2005), there are several common characteristics shared in organized outside-school activities: generally voluntary, supervised by adults, and organized around particular competencies. Research has shown that participation in a variety of organized outside-school activities has many positive academic and social outcomes. For example, Marsh and Kleitman (2002) found that participation in organized outside-school activities was positively associated with school belonging, higher grades, psychological resilience, and positive peer relationships, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are least well served by the traditional educational curriculum. Fredricks and Eccles (2006) reported that participation in organized outside-school activities could foster school identification/commitment and benefit diverse academic outcomes. Weiss (2008) summarized a broad range of relationships between participation in sport activities and well-being, such as self-perceptions, social relationships, and efficacy. Organized outside-school physical activities were considered a major ‘field of dream’ for youth development. Chen and Shen (2004) examined the relationships between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and goal orientations and interest in different physical education units (i.e., contact sport, rhythmic activity, and alternative games) in American middle school students. The authors found that most students tended to be task oriented (i.e., learning for the purpose of mastering knowledge and skills) and shared similar levels of personal interest in rhythmic activities and/or alternative games. However, those who participated in organized outside-school physical activity programmes had higher ego goals (i.e., conceptualizing physical education as be a place to show competitiveness and physical superiority) and more physically active during classes than their non-participant counterparts. To date, Chen and Shen’s (2004) study might be one of few that have intentionally addressed the specific connection between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and motivation in physical education. With the common goal between physical education and outside-school physical activity programmes for nurturing adolescents’ physically active lifestyle, it is important to further investigate their dynamic relationships. Exploring this line of inquiry allows us to gain additional understanding about individual students’ learning behaviour in physical education and help design holistic strategies to enhance their physical activity involvement.
Purpose of this study The purpose of this study was to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. Based on Ntoumanis (2005) and Standage, Duda and Ntoumanis (2003), a hypothesized self-determination process model in physical education was established (Figure 1). There were two specific questions: (1) to what extent could
44
Bo Shen
RNS
Intentions
Autonomy support
ANS
Selfdetermination index
In-class PA engagement CNS
Figure 1. Hypothesized self-determination process model. Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction.
participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes predict the self-determination process in physical education? It was hypothesized that participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes would be related to the whole self-determination process (Figure 2). And (2) how was participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes associated with the self-determination Outside-school PA participation
Intentions
RNS
Autonomy support
ANS
Selfdetermination index
In-class PA engagement
CNS Figure 2. Hypothesized outside-school physical activity participation and self-determination process model. Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
45
process in physical education? It was hypothesized that interrelations among the self-determination variables in the model would be varied between the students with and without the outside-school participation.
Method Participants This study was conducted in three high schools chosen from a pool of suburban high schools in a large Midwest metropolitan area in the United States. Besides student demographic representativeness, two criteria were used to establish the pool of schools: (1) the physical education curriculum should be in line with both national and state standards and (2) learning outcome (skill and knowledge) assessments are used in each unit. Among the three schools, each enrolled approximately 1,800 students in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade with a majority of the students from lower-middle to middle class socio-economic backgrounds. The student body consisted of 83.1% Caucasian and 16.9% minorities. The newly adopted state high school graduation requirements stipulated that all students in the state take one-half credit (one semester) of physical education to graduate. In this district, students met this requirement during their first year of high school (ninth grade). After that, they could elect to enrol in additional physical education classes if they wished to continue their involvement. Participants included 545 ninth graders (305 males and 240 females, age range = 14– 16 years, mean age = 14.66 years) who were recruited while participating in their required high school physical education classes. I chose the ninth graders to avoid possible confounding effects due to class type differences (required verse elective; Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000) and grade-related changes (Xiang, McBride & Guan, 2004). During the recruitment, students were informed that the purpose of the study was to understand their motivational characteristics in physical education and participating in the study would not influence their grades in physical education and/or any other content areas. Also, the duration of this study and the data collection procedures were introduced. Permission to conduct the study was obtained prior to the investigation from the university review board, the school district, the participants, and their parents. The schools used a 90-min rotating block schedule. Students had physical education classes every other day throughout the semester. The curriculum of the physical education classes was focused on lifetime fitness activities. With the exception of swimming as a mandatory unit, students were offered the opportunity at the beginning of the semester to choose one physical activity from each team sport (e.g., basketball, volleyball, soccer, etc.) and each individual sport (e.g., weight training, dance, aerobics, etc.) category. In each school, instructional space included a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a fitness laboratory equipped with exercise machines, and several outdoor fields and facilities for other physical activities and sports.
Variables and measures Perceived teachers’ autonomy support The 6-item Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996) was used to assess student perceptions of autonomy support provided by physical education teachers. The wording of the items was adapted to be applicable to physical
46
Bo Shen
education classes (Shen et al., 2009). The measure addressed students’ perceptions about whether physical education teachers provided choice and rationale about physical education, acknowledged personal perspectives, and conveyed confidence in students’ personal abilities in physical education. An example item from the scale is ‘I feel that my physical education teacher gives me choice and options.’ Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Williams and Deci (1996) revealed that the LCQ has a single underlying factor with high internal consistency (a = .96). In this study, the internal consistency coefficient alpha was .82.
Basic need satisfaction Perceptions of competence, relatedness, and autonomy need satisfaction in physical education were assessed using the 21-item Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (Deci et al., 2001). The scale was initially developed for workplace contexts, but was modified to assess the three basic need satisfactions in physical education (Ntoumanis, 2005). Example items are ‘I feel that I can make a lot of inputs to deciding what to do in physical education’ (autonomy), ‘I really like the students I exercise with in physical education’ (relatedness), and ‘I think I am pretty good at physical education’ (competence). Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (not at all true) and 5 (very true). The internal consistency coefficient alphas in the present study ranged from .73 to .82.
Self-determined motivation A perceived locus of causality questionnaire adapted from Ryan and Connell (1989) was used to assess students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. Based on the degrees of self-determination of participation in physical education, each of the four fundamental motivators (i.e., external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic) was measured with three items using 5-point scales. Each item followed the stem ‘I take part in physical education…’ Example items are ‘because physical education is fun’ (intrinsic motivation), ‘because physical education is important to me’ (identified regulation), ‘because I want the teacher to think I am a good student’ (introjected regulation), and ‘because I will get in trouble if I do not’ (external regulation). The internal consistency coefficient alphas in this study ranged from .70 to .88.
Motivational outcomes Students’ motivational outcomes were assessed using self-reported in-class physical activity engagement and intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses. For the physical activity engagement, an adapted item from the Godin Exercise Questionnaire (Godin & Shephard, 1985) was used. Students responded to ‘In an average week of physical education classes how often do you do any physical activity long enough to make you sweat (make your heart beat quickly)?’ by checking one of three boxes labelled ‘often’, ‘sometimes’, or ‘never/rarely’, which were scored 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Although the single-item adapted scale has been used in previous physical education research (Martin, Oliver & McCaughtry, 2007), it is worthwhile to notice that using a single item to measure physical activity made it impossible to evaluate the scale psychometric properties. In the future research, a more comprehensive evaluation
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
47
including self-reports with multiple items, objective measures, and behavioural observations is recommended to reflect students’ physical activity engagement. To measure students’ intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses, three items adapted from Ajzen (2004) were used. Those items included: ‘I intend to take another physical education class next school year;’ ‘I will try to take another physical education class next school year;’ and ‘I plan to take another physical education class next school year.’ Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Many physical education researchers (e.g., Shen, Winger, Li, Sun & Rukavina, 2010; Standage et al., 2005) have used similar scale to measure students’ intentions. In the present study, the internal consistency coefficient alpha was .88. Outside-school participation Information on outside-school physical activity experiences was gathered in a survey by asking the participants specifically (e.g., where, what, when, paid, or unpaid) to indicate whether they took part in organized after-school physical activity programmes (Chen & Shen, 2004). In this study, ‘participation in organized outside-school programmes’ was used as a grouping indicator for data analyses.
Data analyses Students’ data were collected during regular physical education classes in the three schools. A data collection team included the author and three undergraduate students majoring in physical education. In a preliminary analysis, all data were subjected to descriptive analyses and statistical assumption tests. Reliability of the questionnaire data was examined using Cronbach’s (1951) approach for internal consistency. The factor analytic-structural equation modelling (FASEM) approach in the EQS programme (Version 6.1, Bentler, 2004) was used to analyse the data. The FASEM approach usually starts with estimating a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) or measurement model that tests whether or not each proposed latent factor could explain the covariances among its observed items. After the adequacy of the measurement model is confirmed, structural equation models are estimated to test hypothesized structural relations among the latent variables. To make the hypothesized model consistent with past work (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2003), I created partially aggregated indicators (i.e., parcels). With the focus of this study on understanding the nature of a set of theoretical constructs, using parcels provided advantages to obtaining a parsimonious model by reducing parameters and increasing the reliability of indicators (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005; Little, Cunningham, Shahar & Widaman, 2002). Three aggregate parcels were generated for each latent variable, except intentions, which had a total of three indicator items. Specifically, a random assignment technique was used to create three parcelled indicators for the latent variables of teachers’ autonomy support, need satisfactions of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Based on Vallerand (2007) and Standage et al. (2003), an overall self-determination index with three indicators1 1 The three composite indicators were created by weighting each item with its underlying level of self-determination in the 12-item perceived locus of causality questionnaire. Specifically, all three intrinsic items were given a weight of +2, followed by the items representing identified regulation, which were all given a weight of +1. The items reflecting introjected regulation were given a weight of – 1, and the items reflecting external regulation were given a weight of – 2 (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Each composite indicator was computed as: Indicator = (2 9 Intrinsic) + (Identified) (Introjected) (2 9 External).
48
Bo Shen
was created. Higher scores on this index reflect higher levels of self-determined motivation. Given the fact that outside-school physical activity participation status is a binary variable, the multivariate normality assumption for model testing was violated. As such, I used the robust Satorra-Bentler v2 (S-B v2) and associated indices to prevent erroneous interpretations: the Satorra-Bentler scaled statistic (S-B v2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Bentler (2004) reported that the S-B v2 outperforms v2 in modelling as it provides an adjustment to avoid potential deviations from the assumption of multivariate normality. Based on previous studies (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002), values of CFI above 0.90 were considered acceptable while the values close to 0.95 or higher to be good. Due to the sensitivity to model parsimony in RMSEA and SRMR, I followed Bentler (2007) who suggested that the values of RMSEA and SRMR smaller than .08 are considered reasonable fits.
Results Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics and internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are presented in Table 1. According to Table 1, the alpha coefficients for all of the subscales were satisfactory. Overall participation rate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes was 53.4%. Specifically, basketball, soccer, swimming, and softball/baseball were the most popular outside-school physical activity programmes among the participants. To examine content effect or whether the participants’ responses to the study variables differed simply because they were in different outside-school programmes, a MANOVA was conducted. The results revealed that there were no significant Table 1. Cronbach’s alphas and descriptive statistics by participation status Variable Autonomy support ANS CNS RNS External regulation Introjected regulation Identified regulation Intrinsic motivation Intentions In-class PA Engagement
a
Skewness
Kurtosis
Total (n = 545) M/SD
Participants (n = 291) M/SD
Non-participant (n = 254) M/SD
.82
.08
.60
2.95/1.00
3.06/.93
2.83/1.06
.73 .79 .81 .83
.04 .70 .26 .17
.49 .00 .72 .77
2.98/.94 3.33/1.16 3.82/.89 3.22/1.12
3.13/.92 3.67/1.07 3.92/.79 3.17/1.11
2.82/.95 2.94/1.14 3.72/.97 3.27/1.13
.70
.72
.37
2.21/1.11
2.36/1.13
2.05/1.07
.81
.11
.89
2.87/1.12
2.97/1.10
2.76/1.14
.88
.58
.78
3.64/1.26
3.89/1.16
3.37/1.32
.88 –
.23 .54
1.27 .69
2.75/1.63 2.50/.65
3.01/1.65 2.72/.53
2.46/1.56 2.24/.67
Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
49
overall differences. Therefore, the data for the students who participated in organized outside-school programmes were grouped together for further analyses. Prior to analysis of the hypothesized self-determination process model, a CFA was conducted to test the construct validity of the latent variables. This measurement model comprised six factors representing autonomy support, need satisfactions of autonomy, relatedness, competence, self-determination index, and intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses. The fit indexes indicated that the measurement model adequately described the data: Satorra-Bentler v2 (120, N = 545) = 198.5, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05. Also, the standardized factor loading of the indicators on their respective latent factors in the model was significantly positive and exceeded the widely accepted minimum of 0.40 (Ford, MacCallum & Tait, 1986). Finally, all correlations among the latent constructs in the measurement CFA model did not exceed .60, suggesting that all factors were significantly different from unity and the discriminant validity of the model construct was acceptable (Bentler, 2004). Following the adequate fit of the measurement model, the hypothesized self-determination process model shown in Figure 1 was tested. The results of the analysis revealed that the hypothesized model fits the data well: Satorra-Bentler v2 (142, N = 545) = 275.2, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.07. It is supported that students’ perception of teachers’ autonomous support predicted the three need satisfactions. Need satisfactions directly contributed to greater self-determined motivation. In turn, self-determined motivation was related to motivational outcomes, as reflected by in-class physical activity engagement and intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses. An alternative model was also tested; it included covariance links among the errors of the need satisfactions of autonomy, relatedness, and competence instead of direct paths from autonomy to relatedness and competence need satisfactions. Additionally, the model postulated a direct path from perceived teachers’ autonomy support to self-determination index. The rest of the model was similar to the one presented in Figure 1. Except the paths from autonomy support and relatedness need satisfaction to self-determination index, all other paths were significant. However, the model did not fit the data well: Satorra-Bentler v2 (149, N = 545) = 435.7, CFI = 0.85, SRMR = 0.11, RMSEA = 0.10. There were no changes suggested by the modification indices with theoretical sense. Therefore, the model was not investigated further.
Predictive role of participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes To address the first research question: the extent to which participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes predicted the self-determination process in physical education, I tested a structural equation model with outside-school physical activity participation status as an exogenous variable (See Figure 2). The model fits the data well: Satorra-Bentler v2 (153, N = 545) = 305, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.07. Findings revealed that participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes had direct relationships with both intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses (b = .12, p < .05) and in-class physical activity engagement (b = .12, p < .05). Also, there were connections between the participation status and the three need satisfactions: autonomy (b = .17, p < .05), competence (b = .22, p < .05), and relatedness (b = .11, p < .05). However, participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes was not related to perceived teachers’ autonomy support (b = .05, p > .05) and self-determination index (b = .05,
50
Bo Shen
Outside-school PA participation
.12* .11*
.22*
.12*
.17* .05
Intentions
RNS
.05
.46*
.10* .33* .13* Autonomy support
.55*
ANS .31*
.12*
Selfdetermination index
.30*
.35*
In-class PA engagement
.18*
CNS Figure 3. Final outside-school physical activity participation and self-determination process model with standardized coefficients. *p < .05; Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction. (- - - - - - - - - -) Non-significant path.
p > .01). Overall, the model accounted for 24% of the variance in the intentions and 13% of the variance in physical activity engagement (Figure 3).
Interrelation consistency across the students with and without outside-school participation To address the second research question: how participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes was associated with the self-determination process in physical education, I used the statistical measure of multi-sample structural equation modelling (Kline, 1998) to evaluate whether the theoretical paths among the self-determination variables were consistent across the students with and without outside-school participation. As the first step of the modelling, the self-determination model was tested separately for both participants and non-participants. There were significant indices of model fit for both samples (Satorra-Bentler v2 (142, N = 291) = 293.7, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.07 for the sample of participants; Satorra-Bentler v2 (142, N = 254) = 275.3, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.05 for the sample of non-participants). Then, a multi-sample structural equation modelling was conducted by adding the two groups’ model structures simultaneously in a system of equations (Byrne, 2008). The overall model fit for the multi-sample was adequate (Satorra-Bentler v2 (284, N = 545) = 553.7, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.07) suggesting that there was invariance of the model structure across participation status. The significant pathways with standardized path coefficients for the both samples are shown in Figure 4. With established model structure invariance, all equal parameters in the equation across groups in the multi-sample model were constrained to increase the model’s v2 from the original. The model modification indices (Lagrange multiplier tests) were
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
51
RNS .03/.13*
Intentions
.03/.21* .40*/.22*
Autonomy support
.57*/.54*
.14*/.04
ANS
.47*/.38* .31*/.27*
.18*/.48*
Selfdetermination index .15*/.35*
.18*/.19*
In-class PA engagement
CNS
Figure 4. Self-determination process model with standardized coefficients for both participants and non-participants in organized outside-school programmes. Note. Path coefficients are presented in the order: participants and non-participants. *p < .05. Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction. Table 2. Results of Lagrange multiplier test for the multisample Estimated Cross-group constraint Autonomy Support?ANS Autonomy Support?RNS Autonomy Support?CNS ANS?CNS ANS?RNS ANS?Self-Determination Index CNS?Self-Determination Index RNS?Self-Determination Index Self-Determination Index?Intentions Self-Determination Index?In-class PA Engagement
v2 Decrease
p-Value
1.29 6.48* .91 10.82* .26 .02 .08 .89 3.39 8.10*
.26 .01 .34 .00 .61 .90 .78 .35 .07 .00
Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction. *Parameters whose constraints were released. One-directional arrows indicate the directional influence of a variable on others.
calculated to estimate the benefit of releasing each individual’s equality constraint (Kline, 1998). The statistical significance of the change in model data fit (model v2 decrease) was used as the criterion to release the constraints. It is inferred that when complete, the parameters whose constraints had been released would differ across populations, whereas parameters with constraints still remaining in the equation are expected to have tenable equality across the samples. Table 2 reports the results of the Lagrange multiplier test. Based on the results, three pathways in the model show significant differences between the participants and non-participants. Specifically, the pathways from perceived teachers’ autonomy support to relatedness need satisfaction (v2 Decrease = 6.48, p < .01); from autonomy need
52
Bo Shen
satisfaction to competence need satisfaction (v2 Decrease = 10.82, p < .00); and from self-determination index to in-class physical activity engagement (v2 Decrease = 8.10, p < .00) differed significantly between the two models, suggesting that the interrelations in the model were significantly stronger for the students who did not participate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes than for the students who did.
Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. The results support the utility of the self-determination process model. However, the association of participation status with the self-determination process and pathway strength differences between participant and non-participant samples indicated that there are dynamic relationships between experience in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and motivation in physical education (Chen & Shen, 2004). The moderately high mean levels of the self-determination variables reported by both samples are encouraging because they reflect a positive view towards physical education. Significant path coefficients from participation status to the self-determination process demonstrated that experience in outside-school physical activity might have influenced motivation process in physical education. Overall, students who participated in organized outside-school physical activityprogrammes reported more ‘favourable’ cognitions inmost adaptive motivation variables and higher motivation than their counterparts who did not. The results may attribute to the trans-contextual effect between physical education and outside-school physical activity experiences. With the natural linkage in terms of movement-based learning accompanied with physical activity engagement, the need satisfactions of competence, relatedness, and autonomy nurtured in outside-school programmes were able to be transferred into similar volitional behaviours in physical education contexts. Outside-school physical activity experiences might empower the students to feel competent and enjoyable in learning, form friendships, and exert effort in physical education classes. However, there was no significant pathway coefficient from participation status to perceived teachers’ autonomy support, indicating that the assumed connection between the two was not evident. Students shared similar overall perceptions of their teachers’ autonomous support, regardless of participation status. Because self-referenced criteria and opportunity for self-direction are usually promoted in task-involving motivational climates and controllable by the teachers (Papaioannou & Goudas, 1999), the result supports that autonomy-supportive social environments provided by teachers can play a major role in enhancing students’ motivation (Solmon, 2003). In the self-determination process sequence, it was first assumed that perception of teacher support for autonomy would predict student need satisfactions. Results support this point. Specifically, there was a significant pathway coefficient for both samples from perceived teachers’ autonomy support to autonomy need satisfaction. Students with high perception of teachers’ autonomy support were more likely to feel the satisfaction of autonomy (Ntoumanis, 2005). A significantly higher path coefficients pathway from autonomy support to relatedness need satisfaction was found for the students who did not participate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes. Particularly, the multi-sample structure
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
53
modelling analysis revealed that compared to the participants, non-participants’ perception of teachers’ autonomy support had stronger relationship with relatedness. Due to few opportunities to practice and learn sports and physical activity skills outside of school, physical education classes might be the only place for the non-participants to systematically learn health benefits and develop motivation and passion for lifelong physically active living. The self-determination process in physical education could be cohesive and function as a whole. Evidence from recent studies (Morgan, Beighle & Pangrazi, 2007) strongly suggests that physical education makes an immediate and unique contribution to students’ overall physical activity engagement. In contrast, participants in organized outside-school physical activity programmes had many opportunities to learn and practice a variety of sports and physical activities out of physical education. The intensive exposure in sports and physical activities fostered their unique motivational characteristics in physical education (e.g., tending to conceptualize physical education as being a place to show competitiveness and physical superiority) (Chen & Shen, 2004). Under such circumstances, students might not evaluate teachers’ autonomous support as the most important element to develop close relationship with others. Rather, they were more likely to build up their popularity in physical education by showing competitiveness in lesson contents. Further study is needed to address this result. It was hypothesized that students’ autonomy need satisfaction was related to their need satisfactions of competence and relatedness. The significant path coefficients between autonomy need satisfaction and competence need satisfaction and between autonomy need satisfaction and relatedness need satisfaction in both samples support this hypothesis. Although representing different aspects of motivation, students’ psychological needs are interrelated (Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek & Ryan, 2004). When students feel autonomous in physical education, they will strive towards competence and relatedness. However, without perceived autonomy, motivation towards competence and relatedness may suffer and not result in optimal learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Compared to the non-participant sample, the path coefficient from autonomy need satisfaction to competence need satisfaction was significantly lower for the participants, indicating relatively weaker relationships between the two. It is postulated that perceived competence in physical activities nurtured through outside-school experiences acted as a foundation for the development of competence in physical education. Because of the pre-existing foundation, autonomy need satisfaction in physical education might not be developed consistently with the competence. In accordance with SDT, the significant path coefficients from autonomy need satisfaction and competence need satisfaction to self-determination index indicated that they were predictive of self-determined motivation. High autonomy and competence need satisfactions might have directly contributed to motivation in physical education. The significant pathway coefficient from relatedness to self-determination index indicates that establishing a positive interpersonal climate between teachers and students might lead to the enhancement of self-determination in class, especially for the students who had few opportunities to participate in outside-school physical activities. Finally, significant path coefficients from self-determination index to in-class physical activity engagement and intentions for future physical education participation for both samples indicate that regardless of participation status, self-determined or intrinsically motivated students are more likely to demonstrate adaptive motivational behaviours than those who are not self-determined or extrinsically motivated. The multi-sample structure modelling analysis revealed that self-determination index had a stronger association with
54
Bo Shen
in-class physical activity engagement for the students who did not participate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes. For their counterparts with extensive outside-school experiences, the relationship between self-determined motivation and physical engagement might be complex. Combining the results shown in Table 1 that the participants reported higher intrinsic motivation, introjected regulation, and higher in-class physical activity engagement than did the non-participants, it seems reasonable to assume that obligations and other internal pressures to do well in physical education might have also regulated their in-class physical activity engagement. Participation in outside-school physical activity programmes may lead students to accept both self-determined and non-self-determined motivation in physical education. The result is consistent with Ntoumanis (2005), who specified the role of obligations and pressure in motivation outcomes in physical education. Limitations of the study should be recognized. First, as a preliminary study on the association between organized outside-school physical activity programmes and motivation in physical education, this study used general criteria to define organized outside-school physical activity programmes. Although participants in the programmes seemed to share similar motivational characters in physical education, future researchers may adopt various methodologies to explore students’ role in outside-school programmes. Particularly, important dimensions of youth organized activity involvement (e.g., breadth, intensity, duration, and engagement; Bohnert et al., 2010) should be taken into consideration. Second, although self-reports from a theoretical standpoint in SDT can adequately represent personal motivational experiences, incorporating objective measure of physical activity and learning outcome variables in future study will significantly enrich our understanding of the connection between outside-school experience and physical education. Last, with the nature of cross-sectional design in this study, the measure of participation status in outside-school programmes and motivation in physical education lacked temporal correspondence. There are possibly pre-existing differences. In the future, a prospective design with temporal correspondence and longitudinal data is recommended to better understand the contribution of outside-school physical activity programmes to motivation and learning behaviour in physical education.
Conclusion In conclusion, this study extends our understanding of the association of outside-school physical activity participation with motivation in physical education. There are dynamic relationships between the two naturally connected physical activity contexts (Chen & Shen, 2004). Physical educators should acknowledge that learning and experiencing physical activities occur outside of school. The interplay of physical education and outside-school experience may result in unique motivation characteristics in physical activity participation. Findings of this study have significant implication for educational practice in physical education. Outside-school experiences are important organizational frameworks for students’ motivation in physical education. It is clear that students take part in physical education with specific motivational characteristics as a result of outside-school physical activityparticipation.Fromabroaderperspective,thefindingsimplythatstudentsinphysical education manifest different learning experience. Physical educators need to identify, appreciate, and instructionally address students’ differences during their learning process. With different motivational characters in terms of participation status, it is important that physical education teachers provide students a meaningful rationale when
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
55
instructing a physical activity. A personally meaningful rationale could significantly help understand why autonomous self-regulation of the activity could have personal utility (Reeve, 2002). Also, physical education teachers should take the students’ individual perspective into consideration. Recognizing individual students’ differences and behavioural feelings in physical education can show how a teacher respects their students’ inclinations and right to choose. In this way, the acknowledgement may help students to understand that the teachers’ instruction and learning tasks can harmoniously coexist with their inclinations. Last, physical education teachers may provide students with many different activities in which they can participate. Offering 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). Given the fact that some students have already experienced certain types of physical activity out of school, physical education teachers may implement a variety of teaching strategies to accommodate their special needs and enhance their effort and persistence in learning tasks. The strategies may include teaching by invitation (students make decisions about the task they prefer to work on the learning task) or intra-task variation (the teacher makes decisions to extend a task for individuals or small groups), etc.
References Ajzen, I. (2004). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved from: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/ Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS structural equations modeling software (Version 6.1) [Computer software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825–829. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024 Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:63.0. CO;2-3 Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J., & Randall, E. (2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80, 576–610. doi:10.3102/0034654310364533 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. Byrne, B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882. Chen, A., & Shen, B. (2004). A web of achieving in physical education: Goals, interest, outside-school activity and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 169–182. doi:10.1016/j.lindif. 2004.02.003 Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235–259. doi:10.1207/ s15327906mbr4002_4 Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika, 16, 267– 334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555 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. doi:10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_01 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
56
Bo Shen
country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942. doi:10.1177/ 0146167201278002 Ennis, C. D. (2000). Canaries in the coal mine: Responding to disengaged students using theme-based curricula. Quest, 52, 119–130. doi:10.1080/00336297.2000.10491705 Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267–279. Ford, J., MacCallum, R., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of factor analysis in psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986. tb00583.x Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes: Concurrent and longitudinal relations? Developmental Psychology, 42, 698–713. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.698 Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 141–146. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Parents, task values, and real-life achievement-related choices. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 405–439). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Lee, A. M. (1997). Contributions of research on student thinking in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 262–277. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study based on SDT. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68–84. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68 Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi: \10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.) (2005). Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school, and community programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2002). Extracurricular school activities: The good, the bad, and the non-linear. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 464–514. Martin, J., Oliver, K., & McCaughtry, N. (2007). The theory of planned behavior: Predicting physical activity in Mexican American children. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 225–238. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64 Morgan, C. F., Beighle, A., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2007). What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 407–412. doi:10.5641/193250307X13082505158507 Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444–453. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.444 Papaioannou, A., & Goudas, M. (1999). Motivational climate of the physical education class. In Y. Vanden Auweele, F. Bakker, S. Biddle, M. Durand & R. Seiler (Eds.), Psychology for physical educators (pp. 51–68). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
57
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.5.749 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definition and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., & Fahlman, M. (2009). Effects of teacher autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 44–53. doi:10.5641/027013609X13087704027553 Shen, B., Winger, R., Li, W., Sun, H., & Rukavina, P. (2010). An amotivation model in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 72–84. Solmon, M. A. (2003). Student issues in physical education classes: Attitudes, cognition, and motivation. In S. J. Silverman & C. D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education (pp. 147–163). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 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. doi:10.1037// 0022-0663.95.1.97 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. doi:10.1348/ 000709904X22359 Vallerand, R. J. (2007). The hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 255–280). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 37–63). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Weiss, M. R. (2008). ‘Field of Dreams:’ Sport as a context for youth development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 434–449. doi:10.5641/193250308X13086832906436 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767 Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Guan, J. (2004). Children’s motivation in elementary physical education: A longitudinal study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 71–80. Received 5 September 2011; revised version received 20 June 2012
British Journal of Educational Psychology (2014), 84, 40–57 © 2012 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Outside-school physical activity participation and motivation in physical education Bo Shen* Division of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA Background. Experience in non-school contexts can shape and reshape students’ motivation and mediate their learning in school. Outside-school physical activity may provide students with an extensive cognitive and affective foundation and influence their motivation in physical education. Although a trans-contextual effect of physical education has been explored, very little empirical research has examined the impact from outside-school context to physical education. Aims. Using self-determination theory and a hierarchical model of motivation, this study was designed to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. Sample. Participants included 545 9th graders (305 males and 240 females, age range = 14–16 years, mean age = 14.66 years) enrolled in required physical education classes in three suburban high schools in a large Midwest metropolitan area in the United States. Methods. Self-determination variables were measured using relevant instruments, and information on organized outside-school physical activity experiences was gathered in a survey. Structural equation modelling analyses were conducted. Results. Students who participated in organized outside-school physical activity programmes displayed overall higher motivation; however, the strength of associations among the self-determination variables (i.e., pathways from perceived autonomy support to relatedness, from autonomy to competence, and from self-determined motivation to in-class physical activity engagement) was stronger for their non-participant counterparts. Conclusion. There are dynamic relationships between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. Physical educators need to identify, appreciate, and instructionally address individual students’ differences during teaching and learning.
Outside-school experiences shape and reshape students’ motivation in school by impacting their values about school subjects (Jacobs & Eccles, 2000). With the unique learning context in physical education, in which students are expected to learn physical activity knowledge and skill through both cognitive understanding and physical performance, participation in outside-school physical activities could be a valuable asset *Correspondence should be addressed to Bo Shen, Division of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Studies, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48103, USA (email: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/bjep.12004
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
41
influencing students’ motivation and learning in physical education (Lee, 1997). Experiences in outside-school physical activities provide students with an extensive cognitive and affective foundation to comprehend, interpret, and internalize movement-based learning (Ennis, 2000) and foster specific motivational characteristics in physical education classes (Chen & Shen, 2004). Using self-determination theory (SDT) and a hierarchical model of motivation as theoretical frameworks, this empirical study was designed to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education.
Self-determination theory Self-determination theorists (Deci & Ryan, 2000) distinguished autonomous forms of motivation from controlling in terms of degrees of self-determined motivation. This distinction is often viewed on a continuum reflecting the cause of an individual’s motivated behaviour in a given context – known as the perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Connell, 1989). At the autonomous or internal end of the continuum, intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and identified regulation lie adjacent to each other. Behaviours that are spontaneously engaged in, for enjoyment and interest alone, without external reinforcement or perceived contingency, are characterized as intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation represents the highest degree of self-determined motivation. Behaviours that are valued and have been incorporated into the individual’s concept of self are characterized as integrated. Behaviours that are positively valued, but are not necessarily enjoyed, are characterized as being identified. In contrast, at the controlling or external end of the continuum, behaviours are conducted as a result of significant others forcing the enactment, known as external regulation, which represents the lowest degree of self-determined motivation. Adjacent to external regulation lies introjected regulation, which reflects participation in behaviour due to perceived demand or pressure such as avoiding negative affective states. The antecedents and outcomes of the different forms of motivation have been described (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2005). It is proposed that the nature of social contexts (e.g., autonomy-supportive or controlling teaching styles) can impact on the various forms of motivation via the satisfaction of the innate psychological needs of autonomy (the belief that one is the origin and regulator of his or her actions), competence (the belief that one can efficaciously interact the environment), and relatedness (the seeking and development of secure and connected relationships with others). Social environment factors that satisfy these needs will promote autonomous forms of motivation while social environment factors that undermine these needs result in controlling motivation. In turn, the various forms of motivation can predict a number of cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes. Generally, intrinsic motivation and identified regulation predict positive outcomes but external and introjected regulations predict negative outcomes (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage, Duda & Ntoumanis, 2005). Many studies on the effects of perceived social and environmental factors in need satisfactions have been conducted using autonomy (Black & Deci, 2000; Ntoumanis, 2005). Autonomy-supportive contexts are those that provide choice and opportunity for self-direction with a minimal amount of pressured evaluations, externally imposed goals, or demands. Autonomy-supportive environments provide greater positive informational feedback and a context in which the learner’s opinion is considered (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, an autonomy-supportive teacher might provide students with necessary
42
Bo Shen
information while encouraging them to use this information to solve a problem in their own way. Self-determination theory has been applied in physical education. Ntoumanis (2005) hypothesized a self-determination process model to examine the influence of contextual and personal motivational variables on student cognitive and affective experiences in school physical education. Using structural equation modelling with a sample of 302 British adolescents, the author found that motivational support provided by physical education teachers was related to students’ need satisfaction, which in turn predicted self-determined motivation. Self-determined motivation predicted in-class engagement and intentions to participate in future physical education. Standage et al. (2005) confirmed the self-determination process model and revealed that students who perceived an autonomy-supportive environment experienced great levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and had high scores on self-determined motivation. Similarly, Shen, McCaughtry, Martin and Fahlman (2009) investigated the effects of students’ autonomous motivation and perceived teacher autonomy support on need satisfaction adjustment and learning achievement over a 4-month physical education personal conditioning unit. They found that perceived teacher autonomy support significantly predicted students’ need satisfaction adjustment and led to learning achievement, especially for students who were not autonomously motivated to learn in physical education. Despite these promising achievements, prior research in SDT in physical education has rarely addressed the differences between school and non-school physical activity experiences in the effects of self-determination process in physical education. The theoretical understanding and proposed recommendations based on SDT are still contingent upon the presence of no individual differences. There is a need to examine the relationships between school and non-school contexts as a new direction for SDT in physical education.
A hierarchical model of motivation Drawing from SDT, Vallerand (2007) proposed a hierarchical model of motivation and hypothesized that the forms of motivation from the perceived locus of causality could be conceptualized as operating at three levels of generality: global, contextual, and specific. Global motivation represents generalized tendencies to be autonomously motivated and is expected to have an effect on behavioural engagement across a number of contexts. It is similar to a personality trait according to which one is predominantly intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. Motivation at the contextual level reflects autonomous motivation to engage in a variety of behaviours in a specific given context or a distinct sphere of human activity (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Finally, motivation at the situational level refers to autonomous motivation towards specific conditions of a given behaviour in time. It refers to a motivational state. Vallerand (2007) argued that motivation could be considered an intrapersonal phenomenon. There are top-down effects of motivation in the hierarchy. For example, when one is engaging in a physical activity, the task and other cues associated with this context can trigger one’s usual (contextual) motivation towards the physical activity. Further, Vallerand and Ratelle (2002) hypothesized that there is a cross-contextual interplay of different contextual motivations, suggesting that motives in one context can affect motivation in others and the interplay has significant implications for situational motivation and outcomes. When the homogeneity between two contextual motivations takes place, the lower levels of psychological adjustments and behaviour will be influenced.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
43
Students’ specific motivational characteristics in a context outside of school (e.g., outside-school physical activities) are associated with their formation of motivation in another related educational context (e.g., physical education; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002).
Organized outside-school activities Organized outside-school activities are adult-sponsored activities that fall outside the regular school curriculum at diverse contexts, such as school-based extracurricular activities, community organizations, and youth development programmes (Bohnert, Fredricks & Randall, 2010). According to Mahoney, Larson and Eccles (2005), there are several common characteristics shared in organized outside-school activities: generally voluntary, supervised by adults, and organized around particular competencies. Research has shown that participation in a variety of organized outside-school activities has many positive academic and social outcomes. For example, Marsh and Kleitman (2002) found that participation in organized outside-school activities was positively associated with school belonging, higher grades, psychological resilience, and positive peer relationships, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged students who are least well served by the traditional educational curriculum. Fredricks and Eccles (2006) reported that participation in organized outside-school activities could foster school identification/commitment and benefit diverse academic outcomes. Weiss (2008) summarized a broad range of relationships between participation in sport activities and well-being, such as self-perceptions, social relationships, and efficacy. Organized outside-school physical activities were considered a major ‘field of dream’ for youth development. Chen and Shen (2004) examined the relationships between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and goal orientations and interest in different physical education units (i.e., contact sport, rhythmic activity, and alternative games) in American middle school students. The authors found that most students tended to be task oriented (i.e., learning for the purpose of mastering knowledge and skills) and shared similar levels of personal interest in rhythmic activities and/or alternative games. However, those who participated in organized outside-school physical activity programmes had higher ego goals (i.e., conceptualizing physical education as be a place to show competitiveness and physical superiority) and more physically active during classes than their non-participant counterparts. To date, Chen and Shen’s (2004) study might be one of few that have intentionally addressed the specific connection between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and motivation in physical education. With the common goal between physical education and outside-school physical activity programmes for nurturing adolescents’ physically active lifestyle, it is important to further investigate their dynamic relationships. Exploring this line of inquiry allows us to gain additional understanding about individual students’ learning behaviour in physical education and help design holistic strategies to enhance their physical activity involvement.
Purpose of this study The purpose of this study was to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. Based on Ntoumanis (2005) and Standage, Duda and Ntoumanis (2003), a hypothesized self-determination process model in physical education was established (Figure 1). There were two specific questions: (1) to what extent could
44
Bo Shen
RNS
Intentions
Autonomy support
ANS
Selfdetermination index
In-class PA engagement CNS
Figure 1. Hypothesized self-determination process model. Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction.
participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes predict the self-determination process in physical education? It was hypothesized that participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes would be related to the whole self-determination process (Figure 2). And (2) how was participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes associated with the self-determination Outside-school PA participation
Intentions
RNS
Autonomy support
ANS
Selfdetermination index
In-class PA engagement
CNS Figure 2. Hypothesized outside-school physical activity participation and self-determination process model. Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
45
process in physical education? It was hypothesized that interrelations among the self-determination variables in the model would be varied between the students with and without the outside-school participation.
Method Participants This study was conducted in three high schools chosen from a pool of suburban high schools in a large Midwest metropolitan area in the United States. Besides student demographic representativeness, two criteria were used to establish the pool of schools: (1) the physical education curriculum should be in line with both national and state standards and (2) learning outcome (skill and knowledge) assessments are used in each unit. Among the three schools, each enrolled approximately 1,800 students in the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade with a majority of the students from lower-middle to middle class socio-economic backgrounds. The student body consisted of 83.1% Caucasian and 16.9% minorities. The newly adopted state high school graduation requirements stipulated that all students in the state take one-half credit (one semester) of physical education to graduate. In this district, students met this requirement during their first year of high school (ninth grade). After that, they could elect to enrol in additional physical education classes if they wished to continue their involvement. Participants included 545 ninth graders (305 males and 240 females, age range = 14– 16 years, mean age = 14.66 years) who were recruited while participating in their required high school physical education classes. I chose the ninth graders to avoid possible confounding effects due to class type differences (required verse elective; Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000) and grade-related changes (Xiang, McBride & Guan, 2004). During the recruitment, students were informed that the purpose of the study was to understand their motivational characteristics in physical education and participating in the study would not influence their grades in physical education and/or any other content areas. Also, the duration of this study and the data collection procedures were introduced. Permission to conduct the study was obtained prior to the investigation from the university review board, the school district, the participants, and their parents. The schools used a 90-min rotating block schedule. Students had physical education classes every other day throughout the semester. The curriculum of the physical education classes was focused on lifetime fitness activities. With the exception of swimming as a mandatory unit, students were offered the opportunity at the beginning of the semester to choose one physical activity from each team sport (e.g., basketball, volleyball, soccer, etc.) and each individual sport (e.g., weight training, dance, aerobics, etc.) category. In each school, instructional space included a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a fitness laboratory equipped with exercise machines, and several outdoor fields and facilities for other physical activities and sports.
Variables and measures Perceived teachers’ autonomy support The 6-item Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996) was used to assess student perceptions of autonomy support provided by physical education teachers. The wording of the items was adapted to be applicable to physical
46
Bo Shen
education classes (Shen et al., 2009). The measure addressed students’ perceptions about whether physical education teachers provided choice and rationale about physical education, acknowledged personal perspectives, and conveyed confidence in students’ personal abilities in physical education. An example item from the scale is ‘I feel that my physical education teacher gives me choice and options.’ Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Williams and Deci (1996) revealed that the LCQ has a single underlying factor with high internal consistency (a = .96). In this study, the internal consistency coefficient alpha was .82.
Basic need satisfaction Perceptions of competence, relatedness, and autonomy need satisfaction in physical education were assessed using the 21-item Basic Need Satisfaction Scale (Deci et al., 2001). The scale was initially developed for workplace contexts, but was modified to assess the three basic need satisfactions in physical education (Ntoumanis, 2005). Example items are ‘I feel that I can make a lot of inputs to deciding what to do in physical education’ (autonomy), ‘I really like the students I exercise with in physical education’ (relatedness), and ‘I think I am pretty good at physical education’ (competence). Responses were indicated on a 5-point Likert scale anchored by 1 (not at all true) and 5 (very true). The internal consistency coefficient alphas in the present study ranged from .73 to .82.
Self-determined motivation A perceived locus of causality questionnaire adapted from Ryan and Connell (1989) was used to assess students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. Based on the degrees of self-determination of participation in physical education, each of the four fundamental motivators (i.e., external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic) was measured with three items using 5-point scales. Each item followed the stem ‘I take part in physical education…’ Example items are ‘because physical education is fun’ (intrinsic motivation), ‘because physical education is important to me’ (identified regulation), ‘because I want the teacher to think I am a good student’ (introjected regulation), and ‘because I will get in trouble if I do not’ (external regulation). The internal consistency coefficient alphas in this study ranged from .70 to .88.
Motivational outcomes Students’ motivational outcomes were assessed using self-reported in-class physical activity engagement and intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses. For the physical activity engagement, an adapted item from the Godin Exercise Questionnaire (Godin & Shephard, 1985) was used. Students responded to ‘In an average week of physical education classes how often do you do any physical activity long enough to make you sweat (make your heart beat quickly)?’ by checking one of three boxes labelled ‘often’, ‘sometimes’, or ‘never/rarely’, which were scored 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Although the single-item adapted scale has been used in previous physical education research (Martin, Oliver & McCaughtry, 2007), it is worthwhile to notice that using a single item to measure physical activity made it impossible to evaluate the scale psychometric properties. In the future research, a more comprehensive evaluation
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
47
including self-reports with multiple items, objective measures, and behavioural observations is recommended to reflect students’ physical activity engagement. To measure students’ intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses, three items adapted from Ajzen (2004) were used. Those items included: ‘I intend to take another physical education class next school year;’ ‘I will try to take another physical education class next school year;’ and ‘I plan to take another physical education class next school year.’ Responses were indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely). Many physical education researchers (e.g., Shen, Winger, Li, Sun & Rukavina, 2010; Standage et al., 2005) have used similar scale to measure students’ intentions. In the present study, the internal consistency coefficient alpha was .88. Outside-school participation Information on outside-school physical activity experiences was gathered in a survey by asking the participants specifically (e.g., where, what, when, paid, or unpaid) to indicate whether they took part in organized after-school physical activity programmes (Chen & Shen, 2004). In this study, ‘participation in organized outside-school programmes’ was used as a grouping indicator for data analyses.
Data analyses Students’ data were collected during regular physical education classes in the three schools. A data collection team included the author and three undergraduate students majoring in physical education. In a preliminary analysis, all data were subjected to descriptive analyses and statistical assumption tests. Reliability of the questionnaire data was examined using Cronbach’s (1951) approach for internal consistency. The factor analytic-structural equation modelling (FASEM) approach in the EQS programme (Version 6.1, Bentler, 2004) was used to analyse the data. The FASEM approach usually starts with estimating a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) or measurement model that tests whether or not each proposed latent factor could explain the covariances among its observed items. After the adequacy of the measurement model is confirmed, structural equation models are estimated to test hypothesized structural relations among the latent variables. To make the hypothesized model consistent with past work (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2003), I created partially aggregated indicators (i.e., parcels). With the focus of this study on understanding the nature of a set of theoretical constructs, using parcels provided advantages to obtaining a parsimonious model by reducing parameters and increasing the reliability of indicators (Coffman & MacCallum, 2005; Little, Cunningham, Shahar & Widaman, 2002). Three aggregate parcels were generated for each latent variable, except intentions, which had a total of three indicator items. Specifically, a random assignment technique was used to create three parcelled indicators for the latent variables of teachers’ autonomy support, need satisfactions of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Based on Vallerand (2007) and Standage et al. (2003), an overall self-determination index with three indicators1 1 The three composite indicators were created by weighting each item with its underlying level of self-determination in the 12-item perceived locus of causality questionnaire. Specifically, all three intrinsic items were given a weight of +2, followed by the items representing identified regulation, which were all given a weight of +1. The items reflecting introjected regulation were given a weight of – 1, and the items reflecting external regulation were given a weight of – 2 (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Each composite indicator was computed as: Indicator = (2 9 Intrinsic) + (Identified) (Introjected) (2 9 External).
48
Bo Shen
was created. Higher scores on this index reflect higher levels of self-determined motivation. Given the fact that outside-school physical activity participation status is a binary variable, the multivariate normality assumption for model testing was violated. As such, I used the robust Satorra-Bentler v2 (S-B v2) and associated indices to prevent erroneous interpretations: the Satorra-Bentler scaled statistic (S-B v2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Bentler (2004) reported that the S-B v2 outperforms v2 in modelling as it provides an adjustment to avoid potential deviations from the assumption of multivariate normality. Based on previous studies (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho, 2002), values of CFI above 0.90 were considered acceptable while the values close to 0.95 or higher to be good. Due to the sensitivity to model parsimony in RMSEA and SRMR, I followed Bentler (2007) who suggested that the values of RMSEA and SRMR smaller than .08 are considered reasonable fits.
Results Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics and internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) are presented in Table 1. According to Table 1, the alpha coefficients for all of the subscales were satisfactory. Overall participation rate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes was 53.4%. Specifically, basketball, soccer, swimming, and softball/baseball were the most popular outside-school physical activity programmes among the participants. To examine content effect or whether the participants’ responses to the study variables differed simply because they were in different outside-school programmes, a MANOVA was conducted. The results revealed that there were no significant Table 1. Cronbach’s alphas and descriptive statistics by participation status Variable Autonomy support ANS CNS RNS External regulation Introjected regulation Identified regulation Intrinsic motivation Intentions In-class PA Engagement
a
Skewness
Kurtosis
Total (n = 545) M/SD
Participants (n = 291) M/SD
Non-participant (n = 254) M/SD
.82
.08
.60
2.95/1.00
3.06/.93
2.83/1.06
.73 .79 .81 .83
.04 .70 .26 .17
.49 .00 .72 .77
2.98/.94 3.33/1.16 3.82/.89 3.22/1.12
3.13/.92 3.67/1.07 3.92/.79 3.17/1.11
2.82/.95 2.94/1.14 3.72/.97 3.27/1.13
.70
.72
.37
2.21/1.11
2.36/1.13
2.05/1.07
.81
.11
.89
2.87/1.12
2.97/1.10
2.76/1.14
.88
.58
.78
3.64/1.26
3.89/1.16
3.37/1.32
.88 –
.23 .54
1.27 .69
2.75/1.63 2.50/.65
3.01/1.65 2.72/.53
2.46/1.56 2.24/.67
Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
49
overall differences. Therefore, the data for the students who participated in organized outside-school programmes were grouped together for further analyses. Prior to analysis of the hypothesized self-determination process model, a CFA was conducted to test the construct validity of the latent variables. This measurement model comprised six factors representing autonomy support, need satisfactions of autonomy, relatedness, competence, self-determination index, and intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses. The fit indexes indicated that the measurement model adequately described the data: Satorra-Bentler v2 (120, N = 545) = 198.5, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05. Also, the standardized factor loading of the indicators on their respective latent factors in the model was significantly positive and exceeded the widely accepted minimum of 0.40 (Ford, MacCallum & Tait, 1986). Finally, all correlations among the latent constructs in the measurement CFA model did not exceed .60, suggesting that all factors were significantly different from unity and the discriminant validity of the model construct was acceptable (Bentler, 2004). Following the adequate fit of the measurement model, the hypothesized self-determination process model shown in Figure 1 was tested. The results of the analysis revealed that the hypothesized model fits the data well: Satorra-Bentler v2 (142, N = 545) = 275.2, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.07. It is supported that students’ perception of teachers’ autonomous support predicted the three need satisfactions. Need satisfactions directly contributed to greater self-determined motivation. In turn, self-determined motivation was related to motivational outcomes, as reflected by in-class physical activity engagement and intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses. An alternative model was also tested; it included covariance links among the errors of the need satisfactions of autonomy, relatedness, and competence instead of direct paths from autonomy to relatedness and competence need satisfactions. Additionally, the model postulated a direct path from perceived teachers’ autonomy support to self-determination index. The rest of the model was similar to the one presented in Figure 1. Except the paths from autonomy support and relatedness need satisfaction to self-determination index, all other paths were significant. However, the model did not fit the data well: Satorra-Bentler v2 (149, N = 545) = 435.7, CFI = 0.85, SRMR = 0.11, RMSEA = 0.10. There were no changes suggested by the modification indices with theoretical sense. Therefore, the model was not investigated further.
Predictive role of participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes To address the first research question: the extent to which participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes predicted the self-determination process in physical education, I tested a structural equation model with outside-school physical activity participation status as an exogenous variable (See Figure 2). The model fits the data well: Satorra-Bentler v2 (153, N = 545) = 305, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.07. Findings revealed that participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes had direct relationships with both intentions towards enrolling in future physical education courses (b = .12, p < .05) and in-class physical activity engagement (b = .12, p < .05). Also, there were connections between the participation status and the three need satisfactions: autonomy (b = .17, p < .05), competence (b = .22, p < .05), and relatedness (b = .11, p < .05). However, participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes was not related to perceived teachers’ autonomy support (b = .05, p > .05) and self-determination index (b = .05,
50
Bo Shen
Outside-school PA participation
.12* .11*
.22*
.12*
.17* .05
Intentions
RNS
.05
.46*
.10* .33* .13* Autonomy support
.55*
ANS .31*
.12*
Selfdetermination index
.30*
.35*
In-class PA engagement
.18*
CNS Figure 3. Final outside-school physical activity participation and self-determination process model with standardized coefficients. *p < .05; Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction. (- - - - - - - - - -) Non-significant path.
p > .01). Overall, the model accounted for 24% of the variance in the intentions and 13% of the variance in physical activity engagement (Figure 3).
Interrelation consistency across the students with and without outside-school participation To address the second research question: how participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes was associated with the self-determination process in physical education, I used the statistical measure of multi-sample structural equation modelling (Kline, 1998) to evaluate whether the theoretical paths among the self-determination variables were consistent across the students with and without outside-school participation. As the first step of the modelling, the self-determination model was tested separately for both participants and non-participants. There were significant indices of model fit for both samples (Satorra-Bentler v2 (142, N = 291) = 293.7, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.07 for the sample of participants; Satorra-Bentler v2 (142, N = 254) = 275.3, CFI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.05 for the sample of non-participants). Then, a multi-sample structural equation modelling was conducted by adding the two groups’ model structures simultaneously in a system of equations (Byrne, 2008). The overall model fit for the multi-sample was adequate (Satorra-Bentler v2 (284, N = 545) = 553.7, CFI = 0.95, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.07) suggesting that there was invariance of the model structure across participation status. The significant pathways with standardized path coefficients for the both samples are shown in Figure 4. With established model structure invariance, all equal parameters in the equation across groups in the multi-sample model were constrained to increase the model’s v2 from the original. The model modification indices (Lagrange multiplier tests) were
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
51
RNS .03/.13*
Intentions
.03/.21* .40*/.22*
Autonomy support
.57*/.54*
.14*/.04
ANS
.47*/.38* .31*/.27*
.18*/.48*
Selfdetermination index .15*/.35*
.18*/.19*
In-class PA engagement
CNS
Figure 4. Self-determination process model with standardized coefficients for both participants and non-participants in organized outside-school programmes. Note. Path coefficients are presented in the order: participants and non-participants. *p < .05. Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction. Table 2. Results of Lagrange multiplier test for the multisample Estimated Cross-group constraint Autonomy Support?ANS Autonomy Support?RNS Autonomy Support?CNS ANS?CNS ANS?RNS ANS?Self-Determination Index CNS?Self-Determination Index RNS?Self-Determination Index Self-Determination Index?Intentions Self-Determination Index?In-class PA Engagement
v2 Decrease
p-Value
1.29 6.48* .91 10.82* .26 .02 .08 .89 3.39 8.10*
.26 .01 .34 .00 .61 .90 .78 .35 .07 .00
Note. ANS, autonomy need satisfaction; CNS, competence need satisfaction; RNS, relatedness need satisfaction. *Parameters whose constraints were released. One-directional arrows indicate the directional influence of a variable on others.
calculated to estimate the benefit of releasing each individual’s equality constraint (Kline, 1998). The statistical significance of the change in model data fit (model v2 decrease) was used as the criterion to release the constraints. It is inferred that when complete, the parameters whose constraints had been released would differ across populations, whereas parameters with constraints still remaining in the equation are expected to have tenable equality across the samples. Table 2 reports the results of the Lagrange multiplier test. Based on the results, three pathways in the model show significant differences between the participants and non-participants. Specifically, the pathways from perceived teachers’ autonomy support to relatedness need satisfaction (v2 Decrease = 6.48, p < .01); from autonomy need
52
Bo Shen
satisfaction to competence need satisfaction (v2 Decrease = 10.82, p < .00); and from self-determination index to in-class physical activity engagement (v2 Decrease = 8.10, p < .00) differed significantly between the two models, suggesting that the interrelations in the model were significantly stronger for the students who did not participate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes than for the students who did.
Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the association between participation in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and self-determination process in physical education. The results support the utility of the self-determination process model. However, the association of participation status with the self-determination process and pathway strength differences between participant and non-participant samples indicated that there are dynamic relationships between experience in organized outside-school physical activity programmes and motivation in physical education (Chen & Shen, 2004). The moderately high mean levels of the self-determination variables reported by both samples are encouraging because they reflect a positive view towards physical education. Significant path coefficients from participation status to the self-determination process demonstrated that experience in outside-school physical activity might have influenced motivation process in physical education. Overall, students who participated in organized outside-school physical activityprogrammes reported more ‘favourable’ cognitions inmost adaptive motivation variables and higher motivation than their counterparts who did not. The results may attribute to the trans-contextual effect between physical education and outside-school physical activity experiences. With the natural linkage in terms of movement-based learning accompanied with physical activity engagement, the need satisfactions of competence, relatedness, and autonomy nurtured in outside-school programmes were able to be transferred into similar volitional behaviours in physical education contexts. Outside-school physical activity experiences might empower the students to feel competent and enjoyable in learning, form friendships, and exert effort in physical education classes. However, there was no significant pathway coefficient from participation status to perceived teachers’ autonomy support, indicating that the assumed connection between the two was not evident. Students shared similar overall perceptions of their teachers’ autonomous support, regardless of participation status. Because self-referenced criteria and opportunity for self-direction are usually promoted in task-involving motivational climates and controllable by the teachers (Papaioannou & Goudas, 1999), the result supports that autonomy-supportive social environments provided by teachers can play a major role in enhancing students’ motivation (Solmon, 2003). In the self-determination process sequence, it was first assumed that perception of teacher support for autonomy would predict student need satisfactions. Results support this point. Specifically, there was a significant pathway coefficient for both samples from perceived teachers’ autonomy support to autonomy need satisfaction. Students with high perception of teachers’ autonomy support were more likely to feel the satisfaction of autonomy (Ntoumanis, 2005). A significantly higher path coefficients pathway from autonomy support to relatedness need satisfaction was found for the students who did not participate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes. Particularly, the multi-sample structure
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
53
modelling analysis revealed that compared to the participants, non-participants’ perception of teachers’ autonomy support had stronger relationship with relatedness. Due to few opportunities to practice and learn sports and physical activity skills outside of school, physical education classes might be the only place for the non-participants to systematically learn health benefits and develop motivation and passion for lifelong physically active living. The self-determination process in physical education could be cohesive and function as a whole. Evidence from recent studies (Morgan, Beighle & Pangrazi, 2007) strongly suggests that physical education makes an immediate and unique contribution to students’ overall physical activity engagement. In contrast, participants in organized outside-school physical activity programmes had many opportunities to learn and practice a variety of sports and physical activities out of physical education. The intensive exposure in sports and physical activities fostered their unique motivational characteristics in physical education (e.g., tending to conceptualize physical education as being a place to show competitiveness and physical superiority) (Chen & Shen, 2004). Under such circumstances, students might not evaluate teachers’ autonomous support as the most important element to develop close relationship with others. Rather, they were more likely to build up their popularity in physical education by showing competitiveness in lesson contents. Further study is needed to address this result. It was hypothesized that students’ autonomy need satisfaction was related to their need satisfactions of competence and relatedness. The significant path coefficients between autonomy need satisfaction and competence need satisfaction and between autonomy need satisfaction and relatedness need satisfaction in both samples support this hypothesis. Although representing different aspects of motivation, students’ psychological needs are interrelated (Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek & Ryan, 2004). When students feel autonomous in physical education, they will strive towards competence and relatedness. However, without perceived autonomy, motivation towards competence and relatedness may suffer and not result in optimal learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Compared to the non-participant sample, the path coefficient from autonomy need satisfaction to competence need satisfaction was significantly lower for the participants, indicating relatively weaker relationships between the two. It is postulated that perceived competence in physical activities nurtured through outside-school experiences acted as a foundation for the development of competence in physical education. Because of the pre-existing foundation, autonomy need satisfaction in physical education might not be developed consistently with the competence. In accordance with SDT, the significant path coefficients from autonomy need satisfaction and competence need satisfaction to self-determination index indicated that they were predictive of self-determined motivation. High autonomy and competence need satisfactions might have directly contributed to motivation in physical education. The significant pathway coefficient from relatedness to self-determination index indicates that establishing a positive interpersonal climate between teachers and students might lead to the enhancement of self-determination in class, especially for the students who had few opportunities to participate in outside-school physical activities. Finally, significant path coefficients from self-determination index to in-class physical activity engagement and intentions for future physical education participation for both samples indicate that regardless of participation status, self-determined or intrinsically motivated students are more likely to demonstrate adaptive motivational behaviours than those who are not self-determined or extrinsically motivated. The multi-sample structure modelling analysis revealed that self-determination index had a stronger association with
54
Bo Shen
in-class physical activity engagement for the students who did not participate in organized outside-school physical activity programmes. For their counterparts with extensive outside-school experiences, the relationship between self-determined motivation and physical engagement might be complex. Combining the results shown in Table 1 that the participants reported higher intrinsic motivation, introjected regulation, and higher in-class physical activity engagement than did the non-participants, it seems reasonable to assume that obligations and other internal pressures to do well in physical education might have also regulated their in-class physical activity engagement. Participation in outside-school physical activity programmes may lead students to accept both self-determined and non-self-determined motivation in physical education. The result is consistent with Ntoumanis (2005), who specified the role of obligations and pressure in motivation outcomes in physical education. Limitations of the study should be recognized. First, as a preliminary study on the association between organized outside-school physical activity programmes and motivation in physical education, this study used general criteria to define organized outside-school physical activity programmes. Although participants in the programmes seemed to share similar motivational characters in physical education, future researchers may adopt various methodologies to explore students’ role in outside-school programmes. Particularly, important dimensions of youth organized activity involvement (e.g., breadth, intensity, duration, and engagement; Bohnert et al., 2010) should be taken into consideration. Second, although self-reports from a theoretical standpoint in SDT can adequately represent personal motivational experiences, incorporating objective measure of physical activity and learning outcome variables in future study will significantly enrich our understanding of the connection between outside-school experience and physical education. Last, with the nature of cross-sectional design in this study, the measure of participation status in outside-school programmes and motivation in physical education lacked temporal correspondence. There are possibly pre-existing differences. In the future, a prospective design with temporal correspondence and longitudinal data is recommended to better understand the contribution of outside-school physical activity programmes to motivation and learning behaviour in physical education.
Conclusion In conclusion, this study extends our understanding of the association of outside-school physical activity participation with motivation in physical education. There are dynamic relationships between the two naturally connected physical activity contexts (Chen & Shen, 2004). Physical educators should acknowledge that learning and experiencing physical activities occur outside of school. The interplay of physical education and outside-school experience may result in unique motivation characteristics in physical activity participation. Findings of this study have significant implication for educational practice in physical education. Outside-school experiences are important organizational frameworks for students’ motivation in physical education. It is clear that students take part in physical education with specific motivational characteristics as a result of outside-school physical activityparticipation.Fromabroaderperspective,thefindingsimplythatstudentsinphysical education manifest different learning experience. Physical educators need to identify, appreciate, and instructionally address students’ differences during their learning process. With different motivational characters in terms of participation status, it is important that physical education teachers provide students a meaningful rationale when
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
55
instructing a physical activity. A personally meaningful rationale could significantly help understand why autonomous self-regulation of the activity could have personal utility (Reeve, 2002). Also, physical education teachers should take the students’ individual perspective into consideration. Recognizing individual students’ differences and behavioural feelings in physical education can show how a teacher respects their students’ inclinations and right to choose. In this way, the acknowledgement may help students to understand that the teachers’ instruction and learning tasks can harmoniously coexist with their inclinations. Last, physical education teachers may provide students with many different activities in which they can participate. Offering 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). Given the fact that some students have already experienced certain types of physical activity out of school, physical education teachers may implement a variety of teaching strategies to accommodate their special needs and enhance their effort and persistence in learning tasks. The strategies may include teaching by invitation (students make decisions about the task they prefer to work on the learning task) or intra-task variation (the teacher makes decisions to extend a task for individuals or small groups), etc.
References Ajzen, I. (2004). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Retrieved from: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/ Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS structural equations modeling software (Version 6.1) [Computer software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 825–829. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024 Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:63.0. CO;2-3 Bohnert, A., Fredricks, J., & Randall, E. (2010). Capturing unique dimensions of youth organized activity involvement: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Review of Educational Research, 80, 576–610. doi:10.3102/0034654310364533 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. Byrne, B. (2008). Testing for multigroup equivalence of a measuring instrument: A walk through the process. Psicothema, 20, 872–882. Chen, A., & Shen, B. (2004). A web of achieving in physical education: Goals, interest, outside-school activity and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 14, 169–182. doi:10.1016/j.lindif. 2004.02.003 Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235–259. doi:10.1207/ s15327906mbr4002_4 Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika, 16, 267– 334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555 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. doi:10.1207/ S15327965PLI1104_01 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
56
Bo Shen
country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942. doi:10.1177/ 0146167201278002 Ennis, C. D. (2000). Canaries in the coal mine: Responding to disengaged students using theme-based curricula. Quest, 52, 119–130. doi:10.1080/00336297.2000.10491705 Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267–279. Ford, J., MacCallum, R., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of factor analysis in psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986. tb00583.x Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes: Concurrent and longitudinal relations? Developmental Psychology, 42, 698–713. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.698 Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 141–146. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Parents, task values, and real-life achievement-related choices. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 405–439). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press. Lee, A. M. (1997). Contributions of research on student thinking in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 262–277. Levesque, C., Zuehlke, A. N., Stanek, L. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in German and American university students: A comparative study based on SDT. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68–84. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.68 Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. doi: \10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1 Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.) (2005). Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school, and community programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marsh, H. W., & Kleitman, S. (2002). Extracurricular school activities: The good, the bad, and the non-linear. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 464–514. Martin, J., Oliver, K., & McCaughtry, N. (2007). The theory of planned behavior: Predicting physical activity in Mexican American children. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 225–238. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64 Morgan, C. F., Beighle, A., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2007). What are the contributory and compensatory relationships between physical education and physical activity in children? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 407–412. doi:10.5641/193250307X13082505158507 Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 444–453. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.444 Papaioannou, A., & Goudas, M. (1999). Motivational climate of the physical education class. In Y. Vanden Auweele, F. Bakker, S. Biddle, M. Durand & R. Seiler (Eds.), Psychology for physical educators (pp. 51–68). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Outside-school physical activity and motivation
57
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.5.749 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definition and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., & Fahlman, M. (2009). Effects of teacher autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 44–53. doi:10.5641/027013609X13087704027553 Shen, B., Winger, R., Li, W., Sun, H., & Rukavina, P. (2010). An amotivation model in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29, 72–84. Solmon, M. A. (2003). Student issues in physical education classes: Attitudes, cognition, and motivation. In S. J. Silverman & C. D. Ennis (Eds.), Student learning in physical education (pp. 147–163). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 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. doi:10.1037// 0022-0663.95.1.97 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. doi:10.1348/ 000709904X22359 Vallerand, R. J. (2007). The hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport (pp. 255–280). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination research (pp. 37–63). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Weiss, M. R. (2008). ‘Field of Dreams:’ Sport as a context for youth development. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 434–449. doi:10.5641/193250308X13086832906436 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767 Xiang, P., McBride, R., & Guan, J. (2004). Children’s motivation in elementary physical education: A longitudinal study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 71–80. Received 5 September 2011; revised version received 20 June 2012
