Pr. Philippe Sarrazin

1. 9th International Scientific Conference of IASK “Scientific fundaments of human movement and sport practice” RIMINI 16th – 18th September Antecedents and consequences of students’ motivation in Physical Education: A self-determination perspective Pr. Philippe Sarrazin UFRAPS, BP 53 38041 GRENOBLE cedex 9. Web Site : www.ujf-grenoble.fr/ufraps/Recherche/SENS/

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

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

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

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

6. 215 students (99 fem. 116 males) from 11 to 17 years old Prospective study over 10 weeks in a gymnastics cycle. Measures at the first lesson Motivation toward gym(adaptation of SMS and EMS): 28 items, 7 subscales, a>.70. Level in gymnastics: three experts rated each student’s performance on basic exercises (from 1 to 7; a=.90). Measure at the middle of the cycle Number of repetitions for 5 minutes recorded by a camcorder Measures at the end of the cycle Level in gymnastics: idem Grade given by teachers (from 0 to 20) Students’ motivational profiles in PE and achievement outcomes (Boiché, Sarrazin, Pelletier, Grouzet, & Chanal, submitted)

7. Cluster analysis:

8.     =  p<.01 p<.01 p<.12

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

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

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

12. 7 PE teachers and their 172 students (98 fem. 74 males; M age = 13.14 years) from 9 classes. Prospective study over 7 weeks in a gymnastics cycle. Measures at the end of the first lesson Students’ motivation toward gym (same questionnaire study 1) Teachers’ expectations about students’ motivation (2 items; e.g., “what level of effort do you think this student will make during the gymnastics session?”: (1) “very few” to (7) “very much”). Measures during all the 6 following lessons All the teacher-student interactions were videotaped. Only the teaching behaviors directed towards individual student and initiated by the teachers were taken into account. The effects of teachers’ expectations on teachers autonomy-supportive and controlling behaviors (Sarrazin, Tessier, Pelletier, Trouilloud, & Chanal, Int. J. Sport Exercise Psy., in press)

13. Examples of behaviors which were coded:

14. 6,369 teaching behaviors were coded Prevalent behaviors : Controlling (37.22%): organizational, hints, questions told in a controlling way + negative communications Hints and organization communications told in a neutral way (23.44%) Praise (11.81%) Autonomy-supportive (4.6%): organizational, hints, questions told in an autonomy-supportive way Bounds “teachers’expectations – frequency of communication” When teachers had expectations of low motivation, they tended to initiate more interactions with their students (pr = -.30, p<.001) Bounds “teachers’expectations – type of communication” When teachers had expectations of low motivation, they tended to be more controlling with their students (pr = -.40, p<.001) than autonomy supportive (pr = .12, p=.12). Results and discussion: Ironically, these controlling behaviors would foster more compliance and less self-determined motivation among students… which would confirm the teachers initial beliefs.

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

16. 5 PE teachers and their 96 students Study carried out during the 8 weeks of normal courses Two conditions : Control group: 3 teachers (2 men and 1 woman) and their 62 students Experimental group: 2 teachers (1 man and 1 woman) and their 34 students Autonomy-supportive training Learn to built lessons which: (1) acknowledge and emphasize the students’ points of view, (2) encourage students’ choices and initiatives, (3) communicate the rationale underlying requests and constraints, (4) promote students’ interest in learning, and (5) use a noncontrolling communication style. Video analyses after each lessons in order to improve the support of the students’ autonomy The effects of autonomy-supportive training on the teachers’ behaviors in PE (Tessier & Sarrazin, Manuscript in preparation).

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

18. Results In mean frequency by hour and by student

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

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

21. Thank you for your attention...Grazie mille Philippe Sarrazin UFRAPS, BP 53 38041 GRENOBLE cedex 9. Site web : www.ujf-grenoble.fr/ufraps/Recherche/SENS/annuaire/sarrazin.html