By Alexander Gil Arias
Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
Twitter: @agilarias
Mail: alexander.gil@urjc.es
Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain.
Twitter: @agilarias
Mail: alexander.gil@urjc.es
Studies examining student motivation suggest that fostering high levels of autonomous motivation in students has a positive effect on their propensity to engage in physical education (PE; Chanal et al., 2019). A theoretical framework that examines student motivation in the educational context is self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2020). The proposed SDT sequence suggests that social factors (e.g., autonomy support from the teacher) nurture the basic psychological needs (BPNs) of the students that, in turn, will positively develop more self-determined behaviours and various cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). A unifying construct within SDT relates to the degree to which a social agent (e.g., PE teacher) satisfies the three innate, universal, and essential BPNs for human behaviour of autonomy (student’s need to experience a sense of willingness in their actions, which is satisfied when they perceive that their actions are consistent with their integrated sense of self), competence (students’ need to develop a feeling of mastery through interacting with their environment to reinforce their sense of being capable individuals) and relatedness (student’s need to interact with, be connected to, and cared for, by other individuals and is fulfilled when students experience positive interactions with their classmates) (Ryan & Deci, 2017). If these innate needs are satisfied, the students become more autonomously motivated and this, in turn, gives rise to high quality motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Different systematic reviews have claimed that students taught via TGfU are more autonomously motivated in PE lessons (Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Miller, 2015; Stolz & Pill, 2014). In this sense, we can establish the following question: How can we satisfy these three needs by using TGfU in PE? In terms of competence, the PE teacher can design authentic learning tasks based on TGfU pedagogical principles (e.g., representation, exaggeration, and tactical complexity) to adapt to students’ needs and levels of competence. For example, in basketball smaller formats such as 1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 3 can be used to increase the students’ game involvement. Numerical superiority (e.g., 2 vs. 1 and 3 vs. 2) tasks can also be presented so that tactical complexity was increased based on the developmental progression of the students. Moreover, modification exaggeration principle can be employed by PE teacher to modify game rules to emphasize specific tactical learning objectives and help students learn the tactics and strategies of game play in tandem with technique development. Related to autonomy, the PE teacher can employ questioning to facilitate the exchange of ideas among group members. Thus, for example, students can be empowered to solve specific tactical problems with the teacher providing additional support when needed to help facilitate students’ learning. Even so, it should be noted that the provision of greater autonomy support to students by teachers within units of TGfU must be continuous and progressive throughout the duration of the unit to foster a teaching–learning process that encourages personal effort and progress. Finally, and regarding relatedness, questioning can be also a relevant strategy to stimulate within-group exchanges and the discussion of ideas among group members to solve tactical problems in collaboration with peers, which can potentially increase students’ sense of unity and engagement in cooperative group dynamics. In this learning environment, students work in small groups and the PE teacher stepped back to observe the group discussions, providing them with positive feedback, and prompting them with more questions (Harvey & Light, 2015).
In short, it can be noted that TGfU is a decisive and effective strategy to empower needs-supportive behavior from PE, and consequently, generate positive dispositions in the students, which are strongly related to enjoyment and autonomous motivation.
Different systematic reviews have claimed that students taught via TGfU are more autonomously motivated in PE lessons (Harvey & Jarrett, 2014; Miller, 2015; Stolz & Pill, 2014). In this sense, we can establish the following question: How can we satisfy these three needs by using TGfU in PE? In terms of competence, the PE teacher can design authentic learning tasks based on TGfU pedagogical principles (e.g., representation, exaggeration, and tactical complexity) to adapt to students’ needs and levels of competence. For example, in basketball smaller formats such as 1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 2 and 3 vs. 3 can be used to increase the students’ game involvement. Numerical superiority (e.g., 2 vs. 1 and 3 vs. 2) tasks can also be presented so that tactical complexity was increased based on the developmental progression of the students. Moreover, modification exaggeration principle can be employed by PE teacher to modify game rules to emphasize specific tactical learning objectives and help students learn the tactics and strategies of game play in tandem with technique development. Related to autonomy, the PE teacher can employ questioning to facilitate the exchange of ideas among group members. Thus, for example, students can be empowered to solve specific tactical problems with the teacher providing additional support when needed to help facilitate students’ learning. Even so, it should be noted that the provision of greater autonomy support to students by teachers within units of TGfU must be continuous and progressive throughout the duration of the unit to foster a teaching–learning process that encourages personal effort and progress. Finally, and regarding relatedness, questioning can be also a relevant strategy to stimulate within-group exchanges and the discussion of ideas among group members to solve tactical problems in collaboration with peers, which can potentially increase students’ sense of unity and engagement in cooperative group dynamics. In this learning environment, students work in small groups and the PE teacher stepped back to observe the group discussions, providing them with positive feedback, and prompting them with more questions (Harvey & Light, 2015).
In short, it can be noted that TGfU is a decisive and effective strategy to empower needs-supportive behavior from PE, and consequently, generate positive dispositions in the students, which are strongly related to enjoyment and autonomous motivation.
References:
Chanal, J., Cheval, B., Courvoisier, D. S., & Paumier, D. (2019). Developmental relations between motivation types and physical activity in elementary school children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 233-242.
Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300.
Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175-190.
Miller, A. (2015). Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(1), 36-58.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (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. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
Stolz, S., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36-71.
Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., ... & Lonsdale, C. (2020). Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1444-1469.
Chanal, J., Cheval, B., Courvoisier, D. S., & Paumier, D. (2019). Developmental relations between motivation types and physical activity in elementary school children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 43, 233-242.
Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300.
Harvey, S., & Light, R. L. (2015). Questioning for learning in game-based approaches to teaching and coaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 6(2), 175-190.
Miller, A. (2015). Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34(1), 36-58.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (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. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860.
Stolz, S., & Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20(1), 36-71.
Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., ... & Lonsdale, C. (2020). Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1444-1469.
