Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-11
How does knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test relate to adolescents’ situational motivation in physical education? A self-determination theory approach
Students’ knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test is a crucial component of assessment quality. Grounded in self-determination theory, we investigated whether knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test related to students’ situational motivation and experienced anxiety during physical education (PE). We also examined whether these relations were: (a) mediated by need-based experiences; and (b) moderated by teachers’ motivating style. Participants were 659 students (55.54% boys, 44.46% girls, mean age 14.72 years, standard deviation = 0.94) out of 40 classes from 32 schools taught by 39 different PE teachers. Analyses through multilevel structural equation modeling showed that students with more knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test valued and enjoyed the lesson more (i.e. autonomous motivation), and felt less aloof (i.e. amotivation). Relations between knowledge about the criteria and students’ situational motivation were mediated by experienced need satisfaction. Specifically, students who had more knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test felt more in charge of their learning process (i.e. autonomy satisfaction), felt more effective in reaching their goals (i.e. competence satisfaction) and felt more connected to the teacher (i.e. relatedness satisfaction). Although relations between knowledge about the criteria and students’ motivation were not moderated by teachers’ motivating style, teachers’ motivating style displayed independent relations with students’ motivation. Implications for assessment quality and students’ motivation in PE are discussed.
AeltermanNVansteenkisteMVan KeerH, et al. (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 Psychology34(4): 457–80.
2.
AeltermanNVansteenkisteMVan den BergheL, et al. (2014) Fostering a need-supportive teaching style: Intervention effects on physical education teachers’ beliefs and teaching behaviors. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology36(6): 595–609.
3.
AeltermanNVansteenkisteMSoenensB, et al. (in press) Towards a fine-grained insight into motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a gradual approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, DOI: 10.1037/edu0000293.
4.
AnnerstedtCLarssonS (2010) “I have my own picture of what the demands are…”: Grading in Swedish PEH-problems of validity, comparability and fairness. European Physical Education Review16(2): 97–115.
5.
AssorAKaplanHRothG (2002) Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. The British Journal of Educational Psychology72(2): 261–278.
6.
AssorAKaplanHKanat-MaymonY, et al. (2005) Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction15(5): 397–413.
7.
BelmontMSkinnerEWellbornJ, et al. (1988) Teacher as Social Context: A Measure of Student Perceptions of Teacher Provision of Involvement, Structure, and Autonomy Support. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
8.
BorghoutsLSlingerlandMHaerensL (2017) Assessment quality and practices in secondary PE in the Netherlands. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy22(5): 473–489.
9.
ChenBVansteenkisteMBeyersW, et al. (2015) Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion39(2): 216–236.
10.
De MeyerJTallirISoenensB, et al. (2014) Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students’ motivation in physical education?Journal of Educational Psychology106(2): 541–554.
11.
DeciERyanR (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry11(4): 227–268.
12.
DesrosiersPGenet-VoletYGodboutP (1997) Teachers’ assessment practices viewed through the instruments used in physical education classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education16(2): 211–228.
13.
EndersCTofighiD (2007) Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods12(2): 121–138.
14.
HaerensLAeltermanNVansteenkisteM, et al. (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 Exercise16(3): 26–36.
15.
HaggerMChatzisarantisNHeinV, et al. (2009) Teacher, peer and parent autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: A trans-contextual model of motivation in four nations. Psychology and Health24(6): 689–711.
16.
HattieJTimperleyH (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research77(1): 81–112.
17.
HayPMacdonaldD (2008) (Mis)appropriations of criteria and standards-referenced assessment in a performance-based subject. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice15(2): 153–168.
18.
HayPPenneyD (2009) Proposing conditions for assessment efficacy in physical education. European Physical Education Review15(3): 389–405.
19.
HayPPenneyD (2013) Assessment in Physical Education. New York, NY: Routlegde.
20.
HuLBentlerP (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
21.
JangHReeveJDeciE (2010) Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology102(3): 588–600.
22.
KlineR (2011) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd edition. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
23.
KoestnerRRyanRBernieriF, et al. (1984) Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality52(3): 233–248.
24.
KrijgsmanCVansteenkisteMVan TartwijkJ, et al. (2017) Performance grading and motivational functioning and fear in physical education: A self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Individual Differences55(C): 202–211.
25.
KunterMBaumertJKöllerO (2007) Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction17(5): 494–509.
26.
LeBretonJSenterJ (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods11(4): 815–852.
27.
López-PastorVMKirkDLorente-CatalánE, et al. (2013) Alternative assessment in physical education: A review of international literature. Sport, Education and Society18(1): 57–76.
28.
LüdtkeORobitzschATrautweinU, et al. (2009) Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology34(2): 120–131.
29.
MainhardTBrekelmansMWubbelsT (2011) Coercive and supportive teacher behaviour: Within- and across-lesson associations with the classroom social climate. Learning and Instruction21(3): 345–354.
30.
McDonaldA (2001) The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology21(1): 89–101.
NtoumanisN (2001) A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology71(2): 225–242.
33.
PatallE (2013) Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness. Journal of Educational Psychology105(2): 522–534.
34.
PatallECooperHWynnS (2010) The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology102(4): 896–915.
35.
Pat-ElRTillemaHSegersM, et al. (2013) Validation of assessment for learning questionnaires for teachers and students. British Journal of Educational Psychology83(1): 98–113.
36.
RedeliusKHayP (2012) Student views on criterion-referenced assessment and grading in Swedish physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy17(2): 211–225.
37.
ReeveJ (2009) Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist44(3): 159–175.
38.
ReeveJJangH (2006) What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology98(1): 209–218.
39.
RyanRDeciE (2017) Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
40.
SchaffnerESchiefeleU (2007) The effect of experimental manipulation of student motivation on the situational representation of text. Learning and Instruction17(6): 755–772.
41.
SoenensBSierensEVansteenkisteM, et al. (2012) Psychologically controlling teaching: Examining outcomes, antecedents, and mediators. Journal of Educational Psychology104(1): 108–120.
42.
StigginsR (2002) Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan83(10): 758–765.
43.
StigginsRArterJChappuisJ, et al. (2007) Assessment for and of learning. In:Classroom Assessment for Student Learning: Doing it Right – Using it Well. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc, pp.29–46.
44.
SvennbergLMeckbachJRedeliusK (2014) Exploring PE teachers’ ‘gut feelings’: An attempt to verbalise and discuss teachers’ internalised grading criteria. European Physical Education Review20(2): 199–214.
45.
TsaiY-MKunterMLüdtkeO, et al. (2008) What makes lessons interesting? The role of situational and individual factors in three school subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology100(2): 460–472.
46.
Van den BergheLVansteenkisteMCardonG, et al. (2014) Research on self-determination in physical education: Key findings and proposals for future research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy19(1): 97–121.
47.
Van der Kaap-DeederJVansteenkisteMSoenensB, et al. (2017) Children’s daily well-being: The role of mothers’, teachers’, and siblings’ autonomy support and psychological control. Developmental Psychology53(2): 237–251.
48.
VansteenkisteMSimonsJLensW, et al. (2004) Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology87(2): 246–260.
49.
VansteenkisteMSierensEGoossensL, et al. (2012) Identifying configurations of perceived teacher autonomy support and structure: Associations with self-regulated learning, motivation and problem behavior. Learning and Instruction22(6): 431–439.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
