TARGETing secondary school students’ motivation towards physical education: The role of student-perceived mastery climate teaching strategies
pmc-PMC9499303.pdf · Phiên bản 1 · 14 trang
35. Cortina JM. What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications. J Appl Psychol. 1993; 78(1): 98–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 36. Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences ( 4th edition). Hillsdal NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. 37. Wang JCK, Morin AJS, Ryan RM, Liu WC. Students’ Motivational Profiles in the Physical Education Context. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016; 38(6): 612–30. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0153 PMID: 28033022 38. Jaakkola T, Yli-Piipari S, Barkoukis V, Liukkonen J. Relationships among perceived motivational cli- mate, motivational regulations, enjoyment, and PA participation among Finnish physical education stu- dents. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015; 15(3): 1–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015. 1100209 39. Garcı´a-Gonza´ lez L, Sevil J, Aibar A, Murillo B, Julia´n JA. Effectiveness of ‘TARGET’ strategies on per- ceived motivational climate in physical education. South Afr J Res Sport Phys Educ Recr. 2017; 39(3): 15–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC-c3799ba13 40. Gray S, Mitchell F, Wang CKJ, Robertson A. Understanding students’ experiences in a PE, health and well-being context: a self-determination theory perspective. Curr Stud Health Phys Educ. 2018; 9(2): 1–17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/25742981.2018.1442230 41. Haerens L, Krijgsman C, Mouratidis A, Borghouts L, Cardon G, Aelterman N. How does knowledge about the criteria for an upcoming test relate to adolescents’ situational motivation in physical educa-
tion? A self-determination theory approach. Eur Phys Educ Rev. 2019; 25(4): 983–1001. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18783983 42. Morgan K, Sproule J, Weigand D, Carpenter P. A computer-based observational assessment of the teaching behaviours that influence motivational climate in Physical Education. Phys Educ Sport Peda- gogy [Internet]. 2005; 10(1):83–105. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ https://doi. org/10.1080/1740898042000334926 43. Krijgsman C, Mainhard T, van Tartwijk J, Borghouts L, Vansteenkiste M, Aelterman N, et al. Where to go and how to get there: Goal clarification, process feedback and students’ need satisfaction and frus- tration from lesson to lesson. Learn Instr. 2019; 61: 1–11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc. 2018.12.005 44. Meyer JD, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Aelterman N, Petegem SV, Haerens L. Do students with differ- ent motives for physical education respond differently to autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching? Psychol Sport Exerc. 2016; 22: 72–82. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.06.001 45. Jang H, Reeve J, Deci EL. Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure. J Educ Psychol. 2010; 102(3): 588–600. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0019682 46. Hornstra L, Stroet K, Weijers D. Profiles of teachers’ need-support: How do autonomy support, struc- ture, and involvement cohere and predict motivation and learning outcomes? Teaching Teacher Educ. 2021; 99: 103257. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103257
47. Eckes A, Großmann N, Wilde M. Studies on the effects of structure in the context of autonomy-support- ive or controlling teacher behavior on students’ intrinsic motivation. Learn Ind Diff. 2018; 62: 69–78. 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 14 / 14