TARGETing secondary school students’ motivation towards physical education: The role of student-perceived mastery climate teaching strategies

The teaching strategies within the task structure, as defined in our questionnaire, were the strongest positive predictor for autonomous motivation and the strongest negative predictor for amotivation. Consistent with the work by [39–41] these findings highlight the importance of providing alternation and variation, challenging yet achievable tasks, sufficient opportuni- ties for involvement and PA, and brief and clear instructions concerning the learning task for students’ motivation within PE. [42] argue that the recognition and evaluation structures are the most decisive for students’ perceptions of the motivational climate. However, their study did not actually statistically test the inter-relationship between the predictor (i.e., TARGET strategies) and outcome variables (i.e., perceived motivational climate). In contrast, the results of the present study indicate that the task structure is the strongest predictor of students’ moti- vation. The rationale for this could be that the learning tasks form the backbone of a PE lesson, to which the other TARGET structures are connected, and by which they are valued and become meaningful. Contrary to, for example, the strategies within the grouping structure, the students will almost constantly be confronted with the characteristics of the learning task, pos- sibly explaining why this impacts students’ experiences the most. The perceived strategies within the evaluation structure also positively predicted autono- mous motivation and negatively predicted amotivation, albeit less strong than the task struc-

ture. In line with TARGET literature and the teaching strategies outlined in our MTP-Q, PE teachers should focus on individual development and growth rather than on normative results, set reasonable and achievable goals and take the differences between students into account. More specifically related to assessment, teachers are advised to create transparency concerning learning goals and assessment criteria (feed-up), to select valid and reliable assessment tools, and to provide students with sufficient information about their current performance (feed- back) and how they can improve (feedforward). These findings reinforce prior research which has shown that evaluation or assessment activities, can play a pivotal role in students’ motiva- tion. For example, [43] found that transparency about the assessment criteria positively impacts students’ motivation. In a recent qualitative study [26], secondary school students voiced their preference for an emphasis on the individual learning process and -progress dur- ing PE evaluation/assessment, rather than on normative learning outcomes. As part of autonomy-supportive teaching behaviour, it has been suggested to facilitate and stimulate students’ involvement in the decision-making processes and have them assume lead- ership roles within PE as part of autonomy-supportive teaching behaviour [2, 5]. Our findings partially support this notion. However, the teaching strategies within the authority structure were also associated with controlled forms of motivation and amotivation. These results may

suggest that autonomy-supportive strategies such as providing students with choice, responsi- bility and opportunities to deliver input and ideas during PE, do not affect the motivation of all students in the same way. Indeed [44] demonstrated that students with different motiva- tional profiles benefited differently from need-supportive teaching strategies. Some students might feel empowered when, for example, they are actively involved in the evaluation or grouping process, while other, perhaps less competent students might experience pressure. On the other hand, studies such as [45] have suggested that autonomy-supportive teaching is ben- eficial to all students, independent of their motivational regulations. These apparently conflict- ing views may be due to the complexity of motivational teaching styles and their impact on students’ perceptions, as pointed out by [6]. Using a circumplex model, they provided a refined insight into the various dimensions of (de)motivating teaching styles (i.e., autonomy support, control, structure and chaos) and how these relate to each other. The model showed that the motivating autonomy-supportive style, and in particular its subarea termed the ‘participative approach’ (e.g., encouraging student initiative, offering choices) is adjacent to the demotivat- ing ‘chaotic’ teaching style. In this latter style, clear communication of expectations, guidelines PLOS ONE Impact of perceived teaching strategies on student motivation in secondary physical education

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274964 September 22, 2022 10 / 14