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

R2 = .29 (see Table 2). The results showed that the inclusion of students’ gender, age, and edu- cational type in Step 1 did not significantly contribute to the prediction of autonomous moti- vation (R2 = .00). After controlling for these variables, autonomous motivation was significantly predicted by higher student-perceived application of the task (β = .32), evaluation (β = .14). authority (β = .08) and recognition (β = .07) teaching strategies. The level of student- perceived grouping strategies (β = .02) was not a significant predictor for autonomous motivation. The overall model predicting controlled motivation (Table 3) was also significant, F(9, 3140) = 10.679, p < .001, R2 = .03 (see Table 3). The analysis revealed that Step 1 did not explain any variance in the outcome variable (R2 = .00). After controlling for gender, age, and educational type, controlled motivation was significantly predicted by higher levels of student- perceived application of the authority (β = .20), and grouping teaching strategies (β = .05), and lower perceived application levels of the recognition strategies (β = -.09). The task and evalua- tion strategies were not significant predictors. The overall model predicting amotivation (Table 4) was significant, F(9, 3140) = 62.220, p < .001, R2 = .15 (see Table 4). The inclusion of students’ gender, age, and educational type in Step 1 predicted a significant amount of variance (R2 = .01), with gender, and educational type as significant predictors. The addition of the mastery climate teaching strategies in Step 2

improved the model predicting students’ amotivation. This dependent variable was signifi- cantly predicted by lower levels of student-perceived task (β = -.26), evaluation (β = -.13), and recognition (β = -.10) teaching strategies, and higher levels of the authority teaching strategies (β = .10). The level of student-perceived application of grouping strategies (β = .00) was not a significant predictor. Table 3. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting controlled motivation. Variables B SE β R2 ΔR2 Step 1 .00 Gender (boys = 1, girls = 2) -.01 .03 -.01 Age .00 .01 .00 Educational Type 1 ref. ref. ref. Educational Type 2 -.02 .04 -.01 Educational Type 3 .03 .03 .02 Step 2 .03 .03 Gender (boys = 1, girls = 2) -.01 .03 -.01 Age .00 .01 .00 Educational Type 1 ref. ref. ref. Educational Type 2 -.01 .03 -.01 Educational Type 3 .03 .03 .02 Task -.05 .03 -.04 Authority .18 .02 .20�� Recognition -.09 .03 -.09�� Grouping .05 .02 .05� Evaluation -.04 .03 -.04 Note. N = 3150; B = Unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = Standard error; β = Standardised regression coefficient; R2 = Amount of variance explained; Educational Type 1 = pre-vocational, Educational Type 2 = senior general, Educational Type 3 = university preparatory �p < .05. ��p < .01. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274964.t003 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 8 / 14