Glasgow Caledonian University, 17.3.10Factors that Impact on Participation in Physical Education.

Stuart Forsyth, University of Strathclyde;Dr. Ross Deuchar, University of Strathclyde;Professor Nanette Mutrie, University of Strathclyde.With support from:Dr. Ruth Lowry, University of Chichester;Dr. David Rowe, University of Strathclyde.

Background

Personal Political Theoretical

Self-Determination Theory

Put simply self-determination theory maintains that an individual’s level of self-determination is created by the meeting of 3 innate psychological needs described as;

1. autonomy,

2. competence and

3. relatedness.

Ryan and Deci (2002)

AUTONOMY

The autonomy need relates to an individual’s desire to be in control of what they want to do (Vallerand and Losier 1999).

COMPETENCE

The competence need suggests that an individual desires to take part effectively with their surroundings, striving both to attain worthwhile results and to experience mastery (White 1959; Harter 1978).

RELATEDNESS

The need for relatedness refers to an individual wanting to feel connected with significant others (Ryan and Deci 2000).

Self-determination can be upheld when the social environment supports these three (basic psychological) needs.

When these needs are met then we are likely to have more intrinsically motivated behaviour.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Participation for fun and for the activity itself;

Examples:I play and train because it is really fun;Gymnastics feels like I am playing.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Longevity in sustaining participation in the physical domain is more likely when intrinsic motivation is present within individuals, (Dishman 1987; McAuley, Wraith et al. 1991; Wankel 1993; Ingledew, Markland et al. 1998).

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Participation as a result of the influence of an external factor or factors;

Examples: I go to the gym to lose weight; I take part in PE because I want to pass the

exam.

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Initially motivation is likely to have it’s genesis in extrinsic factors, (Ingledew, Markland et al. 1998);

Even committed exercisers are motivated by some extrinsic factors, (Markland, Ingledew et al. 1992).

MULTI DIMENSIONAL MOTIVATION?

The notion of simply positioning extrinsic motivation against intrinsic motivation however may not be a true interpretation and self-determination theory suggests a range of sub-regulations exist.

The Continuum of Self-Determination, (Biddle & Mutrie, 2008).

AMOTIVATION

This is when an individual possesses a complete lack of motivation with consequent absence of self-determination; neither (perceived) intrinsic nor extrinsic reasons exist for the individual to engage in the activity, (Vallerand 2001).

Examples: Training is a waste of time; There is no point in doing PE!

Behavioural Regulations

External regulation: behaviour is controlled by rewards, threats and possible coercion;

Examples:Doctor suggests you should take exercise;PE teacher tells you to take part in class.

Behavioural Regulations

Introjected regulation: the individual is acting out of avoidance of negative feelings, such as guilt;

Examples: I must use my gym membership; I need to take part in PE or my class mates

will moan at me.

Behavioural Regulations

Identified regulation: action motivated by an appreciation of valued outcomes of participation;

Examples: I want to exercise to get fitter; I take part in PE because I want to get in

the school team.

Behavioural Regulations

Integrated regulation: the behaviour is performed to satisfy important personal goals that are symbolic of the person’s self identity (i.e., they are ‘integrated’ with the self);

Examples: I go the gym because I am a healthy

person; I take part in PE because I am good at

sport.

Factors that Impact on Participation in Physical Education.

This study formed the first part of a wider schedule of research aimed at understanding and creating autonomy supportive environments in physical education and as such had a clear strategic purpose illustrated by the following aims:

Research Aims

To quantify pupils’ levels of self-determination in relation to their participation in physical education;

To use this evidence as a basis for creating second study pupil focus groups.

Recruitment

Large secondary school identified, (roll ≥1500);

Letter to Local Education Authority;Letter to Head Teacher;Staff briefing;Student briefing;Parental assent;Student consent.

Participants

The 3rd year cohort in the school made up of both genders with an age range from 14 to 15 inclusive;

The research initially targeted 334 pupils. Obtaining parental assent and pupil consent plus absentees on the data collection days resulted in 268 pupils participating in the research.

Data Collection

A cross-sectional survey design with participants completing a 21 item questionnaire online;

This took between 10 and 15 minutes; Data collection (during the 3rd week in May,

2009) occurred during a scheduled “Personal and Social development” class which was conducted in the school Library/Information Technology suite.

Data Collection

The questionnaire was made accessible for pupils through specialist software called ‘Survey Monkey’ via a web link set up by the chief researcher with the help and cooperation of the school’s Information Technology Coordinator;

Completed in groups of approximately 20 due to availability of computers in the

school.

Questionnaire

The Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (Mullan, Markland & Ingledew, 1997) was modified for use in a Physical Education setting by (Hein & Hagger, 2007) to quantify levels of participant self-determination.

Piloting

Piloting of the questionnaire had indicated some accuracy issues for pupils using Mullen, Markland et al’s original 3 phrases/5 point numerical scale;

Personal communication (Markland 2009a) resolved this and the following likert scale with numerical values was subsequently adopted for use; not at all true for me (0), slightly true for me (1), about halfway true for me (2), mostly true for me (3) and completely true for me (4).

Example Questionnaire Item.

I take part in physical education because other people say I should.

not at all true for me (0)

slightly true for me (1)

about halfway true for me (2)

mostly true for me (3)

completely true for me (4)

The Relative Autonomy Index

The responses were collected following advice from Hein and Hagger (2007) and other researchers (Guay, Mageau et al. 2003) using a Relative Autonomy Index created by Vallerand and Ratelle (2002);

This provided an overall index (with a possible range of values from -24 to 20) for each participant’s level of self-determination to participate in physical education classes.

The Relative Autonomy Index (RAI)

Amotivation (-3), external regulation (-2), introjected regulation (-1), identified regulation (2) and intrinsic motivation (3);

Each behavioural regulation had 4 questionnaire items apart from introjected regulation which had 3;

The RAI was calculated by adding participants’ mean scores (each one multiplied by the appropriate weighting factor) for each of the 5 behavioural regulations.

The Relative Autonomy Index (RAI)

There are no items for integrated regulation on this version of the questionnaire due to the difficulty of distinguishing empirically between integrated and identified regulation on the one hand and intrinsic regulation on the other, (Markland 2009b).

In addition……….

2 extra questions were asked of participants;

What is your gender?Have you opted for a certificate course in

physical education?

Research Questions

3 related but independent research questions were set and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17 (SPSS) software was used for all aspects of data analysis.

Research Question 1

To determine if the established ordered pattern of inter-relationships shown by the Self-Determination Theory continuum (Mullan, Markland & Ingledew, 1997; Markland & Tobin, 2004; Hein & Hagger, 2007), is evident in a Scottish context?

Descriptive Statistics for Sub-Scale Items from Self-Determination Theory

MeanStandard Deviation

Skewness Kurtosis

Amotivation 0.97 1.21 0.40 1.21

External Regulation 0.53 0.68 1.76 3.80

Introjected Regulation

0.62 0.89 1.77 2.83

Identified Regulation 1.72 1.11 0.14 -0.98

Intrinsic Motivation 2.01 1.28 -0.12 -1.19

Correlations of Sub-Scales Items from Self-Determination Theory.

Amotivation External

regulation Introjected regulation

Identified regulation

Intrinsic motivation

Amotivation 1.0

External regulation

0.31 1.0

Introjectedregulation

-0.32*** 0.18** 1.0

Identifiedregulation

-0.68*** -0.13* 0.58*** 1.0

Intrinsicmotivation

-0.73 -0.20*** 0.43*** 0.82*** 1.0

*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Correlations with Intrinsic Motivation

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1 2 3 4 5

Behaviour Regulations

AmotivationExtrinsic

RegulationIntrojected Regulation

Identified Regulation

Intrinsic Motivation

-0.73

-0.2

0.43

0.82

1.0

Research Question 1

From the results of this study it is concluded that the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire supported the inter-relationships between Self-Determination Theory’s multi-dimensional view of motivation and thus worked in Scotland as it has done elsewhere.

Research Question 2.

Are there differences in pupil levels of self-determination by gender and by choice of Standard Grade Physical Education?

Findings?

A two (boys/girls) by two (opted for SGPE/did not opt for SGPE) between groups ANOVA showed two main effects and no interaction; F (1,264) = 1.856,

p = .174, eta = .007)

First Main Effect

Standard Grade physical education on RAI Score (t (256.89) = 12.769, p < .001).

Standard Grade PE and RAI

Pupils who opted for Standard Grade physical education had a significantly higher RAI score (mean =11.61; SD = 4.80; skewness = -0.68; kurtosis = -0.21) than those who did not (mean = 1.20; SD = 8.53; skewness = -0.14; kurtosis = -0.95).

Standard Grade PE and RAI

11.61

1.2

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

SGPE Non SGPE

SGPE Group

RA

I Sco

re

Second Main Effect

Gender on RAI Score (t (253.16) = 7.721, p < .001).

Gender and RAI

Male pupils had a significantly higher RAI score (mean = 8.84; SD = 7.04; skewness = -0.88; kurtosis = 0.32) than female pupils (mean = 1.23; SD = 8.99; skewness = -0.13; kurtosis = -1.07).

Gender and RAI

8.84

1.23

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Boys Girls

GENDER

RA

I SC

OR

E

Importantly

Interaction (2 x 2 between groups ANOVA; F (1,264) = 1.856, p = .174, eta = .007) indicated that there was no interaction between gender and the selection of physical education at Standard Grade in terms of differences in pupils’ Relative Autonomy Index scores.

Research Question 3.

Is there an association between gender and the selection of physical education at Standard Grade?

Selection of Physical Education at Standard Grade by Gender.

Do you take Standard Grade physical education at your school?

No Yes Total

Gender of Respondent

FemaleCount

110 (81%) 25(19%) 135

MaleCount

60(45%) 73(55%) 133

TotalCount

170 98 268

Chi Square Result(2 (1) = 38.203, p < .001)

Conclusions

• The Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire supports the inter-relationships between Self-Determination Theory’s multi-dimensional view of motivation and thus provides a valid measurement of Scottish pupils’ levels of self-determination to participate in physical education classes.

Conclusions

Pupils who opted for Standard Grade physical education have higher levels of self-determination than those pupils who did not;

Male pupils have higher levels of self-determination for physical education than female pupils.

Conclusions

There is an association between gender and the selection of additional certificated provision in physical education.

Limitations?

Findings are from only one age group;Findings are from only one school;Is the school typical?Self-Determination Theory indicates

what motivates but does not offer solutions to create intrinsically motivated individuals.

Future Research?

The evidence collected in this study has enabled the identification of groups of pupils.

Focus group interviews will be employed with the aim of identifying the pedagogical and experiential issues that surround low levels of self-determination in physical education. The focus group interviews with those pupils with higher levels of self-determination will provide counter evidence.

The data collection phase for this second study is scheduled for late 2009.

End of Presentation

Questions?

References

Biddle, S. J. H., & & Mutrie, N. (2008). Psychology of Physical Activity (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 227-268.

Dishman, R. K. (1987). Exercise adherence and habitual physical activity. In W. P. Morgan & S. E. Goldston (Eds.), Exercise and mental health (pp. 57-83). Washington: Hemisphere.

Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self-determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal and horizontal effects. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992-1004.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human development, 21(1), 34-64.

Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Global self-esteem, goal achievement orientations, and self-determined behavioural regulations in a physical education setting. Journal of sports sciences, 25(2), 149-159.

Ingledew, D., Markland, D., & Medley, A. (1998). Exercise motives and stages of change. Journal of health psychology, 3(4), 477.

Markland, D. (2009a). RATIONALE FOR RESPONSE SCALE; STUDY 1. In S. Forsyth (Ed.). Markland, D. (2009b). from

http://www.bangor.ac.uk/~pes004/exercise_motivation/breq/breq.htm Markland, D., Ingledew, D., Hardy, L., & Grant, L. (1992). A comparison of the exercise

motivations of participants in aerobics and weight watcher exercisers. J Sports Sci, 10, 609-610.

References (continued)

Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 26(2), 191-196.

McAuley, E., Wraith, S., & Duncan, T. (1991). Self-Efficacy, perceptions of success, and intrinsic motivation for exercise Journal of applied social psychology, 21(2), 139-155.

Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. (1997). A graded conceptualisation of self-determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and individual differences, 23(5), 745-752.

Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.

Scottish Executive. (2004). The Report of the Review Group on Physical Education. Edinburgh.

Vallerand, R., & Losier, G. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of applied sport psychology, 11(1), 142-169.

Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 205-232). Rochester: University of Rochester.

Wankel, L. (1993). The importance of enjoyment to adherence and psychological benefits from physical activity. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 151-151.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological review, 66(5), 297-333.