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

Previous research has shown that by managing the learning environment in such a way that it meets the motivational demands of students, the PE teacher is able to positively influence the engagement in and attitude towards PA within PE [4–8]. However, satisfying the motiva- tional needs of every student is a complex task given the substantial heterogeneity present in PE-classes. It is up to the PE-teacher to find ways to cater to the unique and differential needs of all students, not only regarding psychomotor skills but also to affective differences. Students differ in the ways they can be motivated for PE [6,9,10–14]. However, deliberately and system- atically creating and managing a differentiated motivational learning environment is by no means self-evident for PE teachers in the Netherlands. In order to adequately address students’ needs in PE and to better tailor the PE-context, determining the variety in motivational demands of secondary school students is relevant. The purpose of this paper is therefore to gain more insight into students’ perception of the motiva- tional learning climate in secondary school PE in the Netherlands. We explore whether differ- ent constructs of student motivation in the context of PE (i.e. perceived psychological need satisfaction and need frustration, and perceived teacher-initiated mastery climate versus per- formance climate) combine into distinct student profiles, aiming to unveil motivational simi- larities and differences between students’ experiences in PE. Motivation

Student motivation toward PE is a complex and dynamic process [11]. In order to understand and eventually influence this process, multiple perspectives should be considered. In the con- text of PE two major theoretical frameworks of motivation can be discerned: achievement goal theory (AGT) [15–17] and self-determination theory (SDT) [18]. Both theories stress the importance of the learning environment created by the teacher [19]. Achievement Goal Theory According to AGT individuals strive to perceive themselves as competent [20]. In doing so, different achievement goals can be discerned which differentially guide and influence the behaviour, cognition and emotion [21] and how an individual defines competence and success [11,19]. According to the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework [17,22] four different achievement goals are distinguished. Goals that focus on mastering the requirements of a task and on self- improvement, are defined as mastery approach goals (MAp). Mastery avoidance goals (MAv) are aimed at the avoidance of task-defined or self-defined failure [17]. Goals in which the indi- vidual demonstrates his or her ability through outperforming others are defined as perfor- mance approach goals (PAp), whereas performance avoidance goals (PAv) refer to avoiding performing worse than others [23]. In addition to the four achievement goals, AGT literature distinguishes between two moti- vational climates: mastery (i.e., task-involving) climate and performance (i.e., ego-involving) climate [24–26]. A mastery climate is characterized as an environment in which students per-

ceive they are rewarded for effort, personal development, learning, cooperation and individual improvement, whereas a performance climate promotes and facilitates social comparison between students by rewarding superior performance [5]. Overall, perceived mastery climates are positively associated with several adaptive constructs, such as higher levels of self-deter- mined regulation, greater satisfaction of the basic psychological needs and greater enjoyment [27–29], while perceptions of a performance climate have been linked to less desirable out- comes, such as boredom, anxiety and antisocial moral attitudes [27,30]. By creating a particular motivational climate, the PE teacher may influence achievement goals of students. However, students’ reasons for pursuing each of the achievement goals can Similar but different PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228859 February 10, 2020 2 / 17 Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.