Similar but different: Profiling secondary school students based on their perceived motivational climate and psychological need-based experiences in physical education

on average, were overrepresented in the cluster negative perceivers (44%) and underrepre- sented in the cluster positive perceivers (16.3%). Of the students who reported LTSP for three times or more a week on average, there were 26.4% negative perceivers, 43.3% moderate per- ceivers and 30.2% positive perceivers (see Table 6). These active students were significantly underrepresented in the cluster negative perceivers and overrepresented in the cluster positive perceivers. Also, a significant link between cluster membership and students’ valuation of PE in general was discovered (see Table 6). Negative perceivers value PE significantly less (M = 6.34/10) than moderate perceivers (M = 7.40/10), and positive perceivers (M = 8.22/10). Discussion and conclusions To gain more in-depth knowledge of how the PE-context can be tailored to the differential motivational demands of secondary school students in the Netherlands, the present study aimed to define motivational profiles of secondary school students based on their levels of per- ceived psychological need satisfaction and need frustration, as well as perceived teacher-initi- ated mastery climate versus performance climate during PE-lessons. Cluster analysis revealed three motivational profiles which differ gradually from each other. Negative perceivers report relatively high levels of psychological need frustration and relatively low levels of psychological need satisfaction during PE. These students perceive feelings of pressure and feel more insecure about their competence in PE. Although negative perceivers

score somewhat higher on relatedness satisfaction than frustration, they are not outspokenly Table 5. Group differences on motivational characteristics. Total Profile negative perceivers Profile moderate perceivers Profile positive perceivers Motivational characteristics M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) p F ω Achievement goal orientation Mastery Approach Goal 3.52 (.82) 3.13a (.86) 3.5b (.69) 4.02c (.70) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 253.05 .41 Mastery Avoidance Goal 2.34 (.90) 2.76a (.99) 2.29b (.74) 1.88c (.74) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 206.10 .37 Performance Approach Goal 2.59 (.95) 2.51a (.94) 2.61b (.88) 2.65c (1.06) p < .05a-c 4.14 .05 Performance Avoidance Goal 2.85 (.92) 3.08a (.92) 2.81b (.70) 2.61c (.79) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 66.40 .22 Motivational regulation Autonomous motivation 3.49 (.94) 2.88a (.95) 3.52b (.72) 4.20c (.70) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 495.914 .53 Controlled motivation 2.04 (.70) 2.36a (.78) 2.00b (.55) 1.70c (.62) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 193.813 .36 Amotivation 2.16 (1.02) 2.90a (1.08) 2.01b (.76) 1.45c (.63) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 555.731 .55 Note. Means and SD’s were on a 5-point Likert scale. a-b, a-c, b-c indicate significant differences between profiles based on Games-Howell post-hoc tests. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228859.t005 Table 6. Group differences on PE-related characteristics. Total Profile 1 negative perceivers Profile 2 moderate perceivers Profile 3 positive perceivers PE-related characteristics N N (%) N (%) N (%) p LTSP <1/week in average 466 204 (44%) 186 (40%) 76 (16%) p < .01

1-2/week in average 674 254 (38%) 278 (41%) 142 (21%) �3/week in average 1422 376 (26%) 616 (43%) 430 (30%) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) p F ω Valuation of PE 7.26 (1.59) 6.34a (1.94) 7.4b (1.16) 8.22c (.94) p < .01a-b, a-c, b-c 328.79 .45 Note. Percentages are row percentages. a-b, a-c, b-c indicate significant differences between profiles based on Games-Howell post-hoc tests. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228859.t006 Similar but different PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228859 February 10, 2020 10 / 17