Advertisement

Autonomy-supportive behaviors promote autonomous motivation, knowledge structures, motor skills learning and performance in physical education

  • Behzad Behzadnia
  • Hasan Mohammadzadeh
  • Malek Ahmadi
Article

Abstract

Previous research provides evidence as to the influence of teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviors on students’ autonomous motivation in physical education (PE). However, few studies have considered the impact of teachers’ autonomy-supportive behaviors on enhancing knowledge structures and motor skills learning in PE. The present study investigated whether an autonomy-supportive intervention designed to promote motor skills learning (experimental group), compared with conventional teaching (control group), would increase autonomous motivation, knowledge structures, skill learning, and performance and whether it decrease controlled motivation in students over a semester. Twenty-eight PE students participated in this quasi-experimental study. Badminton skills were assessed in pre and post intervention and retention sessions. Motivational regulations and knowledge structures were measured in pre and post intervention. In a session after the retention, game performance was measured on the transfer test. Overall, the experimental group and the hypothesized process model were supported. The experimental group demonstrated greater mean scores in some skills in post and retention tests. Compared to students in the control group, students in the experimental group reported greater autonomous motivation and game performance in the post-test. Furthermore, knowledge structures in both groups improved. Promoting skill learning in an autonomy-supportive way, compared with conventional teaching, has important practical implications for PE programs. We conclude that the intervention was successful in enhancing students’ autonomous motivation and performance.

Keywords

Autonomy-support Self-determination theory Constraints-led approach Skill learning Game play performance 

Notes

Funding

This study was not funded by any Institution or Company.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Behzad Behzadnia declares that he has no conflict of interest. Hasan Mohammadzaded declares that he has no conflict of interest. Malek Ahmadi declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Animal Studies

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Abernethy, B., Thomas, K. T., & Thomas, J. R. (1993). Strategies of improving understanding of motor expertise. In J. L. Starkes & F. Allard (Eds.), Cognitive issues in motor expertise (pp. 317–356). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students' Objectively Measured Physical Activity Levels and Engagement as a Function of Between-Class and Between-Student Differences in Motivation Toward Physical Education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 457–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem situations. Psychological Review, 94(2), 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anson, G., Elliott, D., & Davids, K. (2005). Information processing and constraints-based views of skill acquisition: divergent or complementary? Motor Control, 9(3), 217–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Arias, A. G., Arroyo, M. P. M., Domínquez, A. M., García-González, L., & Álvarez, F. D. V. (2011). La práctica federada como elemento de desarrollo del conocimiento: aplicación al voleibol de formación.(The federated practice as element of development of the knowledge: application to the formation volleyball). RICYDE. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 7(24), 230–245.  https://doi.org/10.5232/ricyde.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1175–1184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Behzadnia, B., Ahmadi, M., & Amani, J. (2017). The factorial structure of the self-regulation questionnaire in college physical education classes (SRQ-PE). Research on Sport Management and Motor Behavior, Article in press.Google Scholar
  8. Behzadnia, B., & Deci, E.L. (2017). Teachers’ Autonomy Support and Positive Physical-Education Outcomes Paper presented at the 10th Anniversary Meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Boston.Google Scholar
  9. 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(6), 740–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2013). Do the benefits from autonomy-supportive PE teacher training programs endure?: A one-year follow-up investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(4), 508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease students' amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(3), 365–396.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y. G. (2016). A teacher-focused intervention to decrease PE students' amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(3), 217–235.  https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Button, C. (2015). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: an introduction. Florence: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2007). The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Hristovski, R., Araújo, D., & Passos, P. (2011). Nonlinear pedagogy: Learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(2), 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chow, J. Y., Renshaw, I., Button, C., Davids, K., & Tan, C. W. K. (2013). Effective Learning Design for the Individual: A Nonlinear Pedagogical Approach in Physical Education. In O. Ovens, T. Hopper, & J. Butler (Eds.), Complexity Thinking in Physical Education: Reframing Curriculum, Pedagogy and Research (pp. 121–134). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  18. Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., Banville, D., Choi, E., Amade-Escot, C., MacPhail, A., et al. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation of the use of teaching styles. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(2), 193–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davids, K. (2012). Learning design for nonlinear dynamical movement systems. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5(1), 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Davids, K., Bennett, S.J., & Newell, K.M. (2006). Movement system variability: Human kinetics.Google Scholar
  22. Davids, K., Button, C., & Bennett, S.J. (2008). Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  23. Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Deci, E.L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: the dynamics of personal autonomy. GP Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
  25. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965pli1104_01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Del Villar, F., Iglesias, D., Moreno, M. P., Fuentes, J. P., & Cervelló, E. M. (2004). An investigation into procedural knowledge and decision-making: Spanish experienced-inexperienced basketball players differences. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 46, 407–420.Google Scholar
  29. French, K. E., & Thomas, J. R. (1987). The relation of knowledge development to children's basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. French, W., Rink, T., & Hussey. (1996). The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifihin.Google Scholar
  32. Gréhaigne, J., Richard, J., & Griffin, L.L. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Handford, C., Davids, K., Bennett, S., & Button, C. (1997). Skill acquisition in sport: Some applications of an evolving practice ecology. Journal of Sports Sciences, 15(6), 621–640.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hooyman, A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2014). Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Human Movement Science, 36, 190–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hopper, T., Butler, J., & Storey, B. (2009). TGfU-Simply good pedagogy: Understanding a complex challenge: PHE Canada.Google Scholar
  37. Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2016a). Why students become more engaged or more disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Halusic, M. (2016b). A New Autonomy-Supportive Way of Teaching That Increases Conceptual Learning: Teaching in Students' Preferred Ways. Journal of Experimental Education, 84(4), 686–701.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1083522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson, B. L., & Nelson, J. K. (1986). Practical Measurements for evaluation in physical education (4th ed.). Minneapolis: Burgess.Google Scholar
  41. Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior The MIT Press. Cambridge: Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  42. Keshtidar, M., & Behzadnia, B. (2017). Prediction of intention to continue sport in athlete students: A self-determination theory approach. PLoS One, 12(2), e0171673.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, M. C., Chow, J. Y., Komar, J., Tan, C. W., & Button, C. (2014). Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. PLoS One, 9(8), e104744.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104744.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: The motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1383–1388.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0814-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McGee, R., & Farrow, A. (1987). Test questions for Physical Education Activities. Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  47. McPherson, S. L., & Thomas, J. R. (1989). Relation of knowledge and performance in boys' tennis: age and expertise. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48(2), 190–211.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (2006). An investigation of tactical transfer in net games. European Journal of Physical Education, 4(2), 162–172.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1740898990040205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical education: evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(2), 240–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moy, B., Renshaw, I., & Davids, K. (2015). The impact of nonlinear pedagogy on physical education teacher education students’ intrinsic motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(5), 517–538.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1072506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newell, K. M. (1986). Constraints on the development of coordination. In M. G. Wade & H. T. A. Whiting (Eds.), Motor development in children: Aspects of coordination and control (pp. 341–360). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1998). The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2016). Teachers become more autonomy supportive after they believe it is easy to do. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26(3), 183–207.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021711629417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ahmad, I., Cheon, S. H., Jang, H., ... & Wang, C. J. (2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38(1), 93–110.Google Scholar
  58. Renshaw, I., Davids, K., & Savelsbergh, G.J.P. (2010). Motor learning in practice: A constraints-led approach: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Renshaw, I., Oldham, A. R., & Bawden, M. (2012). Nonlinear pedagogy underpins intrinsic motivation in sports coaching. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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(5), 749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologists, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development and wellness. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  63. Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: a 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 395–418.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmidt, R.A., & Lee, T.D. (2011). Motor control: a behavioral emphasis: Champaign IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  65. Seifert, L., Button, C., & Davids, K. (2013). Key properties of expert movement systems in sport : an ecological dynamics perspective. Sports Medicine, 43(3), 167–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-012-0011-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Seifert, L., Wattebled, L., Herault, R., Poizat, G., Ade, D., Gal-Petitfaux, N., & Davids, K. (2014). Neurobiological degeneracy and affordance perception support functional intra-individual variability of inter-limb coordination during ice climbing. PLoS One, 9(2), e89865.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089865.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Soenens, B., Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Dochy, F., & Goossens, L. (2012). Psychologically Controlling Teaching: Examining Outcomes, Antecedents, and Mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 108–120.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., Standage, M., & Spray, C. M. (2010). Motivational predictors of physical education students’ effort, exercise intentions, and leisure-time physical activity: A multilevel linear growth analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(1), 99–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Thelen, E., & Smith, L.B. (1996). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action: MIT press.Google Scholar
  70. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Wang, C. K. J., Morin, A. J., Ryan, R. M., & Liu, W. C. (2016). Students’ motivational profiles in the physical education context. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38(6), 612–630.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Williams, A. M., Davids, K., & Williams, J. G. P. (1999). Visual perception and action in sport: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  73. Williams, A. M., & Ward, P. (2003). Perceptual expertise in sport: Development. In A. Ericsson & J. Starkes (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 220–249). Champaign: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  74. Wuest, D. A., & Bucher, C. A. (1999). Foundation of physical education and sports (13th ed.). Boston: William C Brown Pub.Google Scholar
  75. Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Cardozo, P. L. (2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 12–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Motor Behaviour, Faculty of Sport SciencesUrmia UniversityUrmiaIran
  2. 2.Department of Sport SciencesIslamic Azad UniversityUrmiaIran

Personalised recommendations