Psychological Needs and The Quality of Student Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers As Key Facilitators

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2017, 36, 262 -276
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0065
© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc. ARTICLE
Psychological Needs and the Quality of Student

Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers
as Key Facilitators
Thomas Curran and Martyn Standage
University of Bath
Motivation research is central to understanding why certain students exhibit high levels of behavioral, cogni-
tive, and emotional engagement with learning, and why others lack interest, display boredom, and withdraw
effort (i.e., are disaffected). In this review, tenets within self-determination theory (SDT) are used to provide
a theoretically-informed account of student engagement and disaffection in the context of school physical
education (PE). Our review centers on the proposition within SDT that the satisfaction of basic psychological
needs (i.e., for autonomy, competence, and relatedness) provide the energizing basis for optimal motivational
functioning and wellness. Teacher strategies and class structures are reviewed in the context of whether they
satisfy or frustrate these psychological needs. To amalgamate the reviewed literature, a mediated model
depicting a ‘student-teacher dialectical’ framework is presented. Several practitioner recommendations for
supporting student engagement in PE are then offered. Lastly, findings of past interventions within the school
context are presented and discussed.
Keywords: PE, motivation, adolescent, teaching
Physical inactivity is a global health issue, iden- school as unmotivated, uninterested, and disengaged
tified now as the fourth leading risk of mortality from PE (e.g., Cardinal, Yan, & Cardinal, 2013; Enright
worldwide (World Health Organization, 2010). Faced & O’Sullivan, 2010; Tischler & McCaughtry, 2011).
with lifestyles rich in technological advancement and In the absence of engagement, instrumental efforts
sedentary pursuits, children are increasingly seeing to increase the amount of PE, or train teachers in the
physical activity opportunities engineered out of their provision of new pedagogical materials, are unlikely to
lives due to demographic and economic shifts. Indeed, be sustainable in the long-term (Cleland, Tully, Kee, &
self-report data from 105 countries show 80.3% of Cupples, 2012).
adolescents aged 13–15 years to achieve less than The promotion of engagement, then, should be
60-minutes of moderate-to-vigorous activity per day a central focus of PE intervention. In this review, we
(Hallal et al., 2012). Although the determinants of provide a comprehensive theoretical and empirical
physical activity are multifaceted and reside at differ- overview of the engagement construct using self-
ent levels of influence (e.g., Sallis, Bauman, & Pratt, determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan
1998), physical education (PE) is uniquely positioned & Deci, 2017) as a guiding framework. SDT is a meta-
to address children and adolescents’ physical inactivity theory of human motivation and is especially applicable
as the setting affords all children with physical activity because it elucidates not only the “what” (i.e., goal)
opportunities. This said, existing reviews indicate that and “why” (i.e., reason) of PE motivation, but also the
PE interventions committed to enhancing physical activ- engagement that arises out of that motivation (Reeve,
ity have had mixed results—with maintenance of behav- 2012). We begin our review with a description of
ior change a particularly elusive outcome (Dobbins, engagement and its conceptual opposite, disaffection,
Husson, DeCorby, & LaRocca, 2013). One plausible in PE. Next, we embed engagement and disaffection
reason for this is that far too many children commence within the purview of SDT and, using the framework,
describe how classroom conditions at times support, but
at other times thwart, students’ underlying motivational
The authors are with the Centre for Motivation and Health resources and engagement. Lastly, we present several
Behaviour Change, Department for Health, University of Bath, practical recommendations to assist PE teachers in sup-
Bath, United Kingdom. Address author correspondence to porting student engagement and conclude with a review
Martyn Standage at [email protected]. of pertinent interventions.
262
Engagement and Disaffection: An SDT Approach 263
Engagement and Disaffection emotions that typically accompany high-quality forms of

participation motivation (Curran, Hill, Hall, & Jowett,
in Physical Education 2015). Numerous studies have employed measures of
positive affect (e.g., Duncan, 1993; Standage, Duda, &
Engagement Ntoumanis, 2005; Vlachopoulos & Biddle, 1997), enjoy-
Conceptual approaches to engagement may help ment (e.g., Fairclough, 2003; Goudas & Biddle, 1993;
researchers and practitioners to better understand the psy- Prochaska, Sallis, Slymen, & McKenzie, 2003), vitality
chological processes that underpin proactive, energetic, (e.g., Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideridis, 2008;
and sustained participation in PE. Numerous reviews Taylor & Lonsdale, 2010; Vlachopoulos, 2012), happi-
have been conducted on the topic of school engagement ness (e.g., Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Natvig, Albrektsen,
(e.g., Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Fredricks, & Qvarnstrøm, 2003; Uusitalo-Malmivaara, 2012), and
Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). One notable approach that satisfaction (e.g., Baena-Extremera, Gómez-López,
is particularly well-studied is Skinner and colleagues’ Granero-Gallegos, Ortiz-Camacho, 2015; Danielsen,
model (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Skinner & Belmont, Samdal, Hetland, & Wold, 2009; Suldo, Riley, & Shaffer,
1993; Skinner, Kindermann, & Furrer, 2009). In their 2006), typically under the umbrella term of ‘well-being,’
bipartite model, Skinner and her colleagues describe two to demarcate aspects of children’s emotional engagement
important dimensions of engagement, namely behavioral in school and PE (for a review see Langford et al., 2014).
Downloaded by Bibliotheque De L'Univ Laval on 07/27/17, Volume 36, Article Number 3
and emotional. As will become clear, each of these dimen- Yet emotional engagement is more than just an
sions has distinct implications for PE participation. experiential outcome for children. It also has important
implications for children’s long-term persistence in PE.
Behavioral Engagement. According to Skinner and In this regard, emotional engagement compliments the
colleagues (Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Skinner et al., behavioral aspects of engagement in the bipartite engage-
2009), behavioral engagement entails active involvement framework because it provides the psychological
ment in learning activities. It encompasses an array of energy that gives rise to, and sustains, engaged behavior
behaviors including effort, exertion, and persistence as (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Studies in school and PE
well as mental efforts such as concentration, attention, support this notion. For instance, aspects of children’s
asking questions, and contributing to classroom discus- emotional engagement (e.g., enthusiasm and positive
sions. Behavioral engagement is important to understand affect) predict increased effort and persistence in school
because children’s efforts and persistence correspond to over time (Pinxten, Marsh, De Fraine, Van Den Noortgate,
their skill development and performance in achievement & Van Damme, 2013). Likewise, it is also well understood
contexts such as PE (Duda, 2001). These competencies, that enjoyment and satisfaction are central to children’s
in turn, support persistence in the face of challenge or decisions to persist in sport and PE (Calvo, Cervelló,
failure and, hence, promote long-term participation in Jiménez, Iglesias, & Murcia, 2010; Ryska, Hohensee,
physical activities (Harter, 1978; Kirk, 2005). Cooley, & Jones, 2002; Ullrich-French & Smith, 2009;
Research on the consequences of behavioral engage- see also Weiss & Petlichkoff, 1989). Accordingly, chil-
ment in school supports these ideas. For instance, studies dren’s expressions of enjoyment, interest, happiness,
show high behavioral engagement to underpin children’s and satisfaction can be considered important emotional
adaptability to achievement demands in the classroom, prerequisites of their long-term participation in PE.
and is therefore a key contributor to academic perfor-
mance (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007; Guthrie, Schafer, & A Brief Comment on Cognitive and Agentic Engage-
Huang, 2001; Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999). In contrast, ment. Work by Reeve and colleagues (e.g., Reeve,
low behavioral engagement has been shown to undermine 2012, 2013; Reeve & Lee, 2014) has led to a proposed
children’s classroom task persistence and, therefore, extension of bipartite models of school engagement.
inhibits academic accomplishment (Furrer, Skinner, These scholars purport that, alongside behavioral and
Marchand, & Kindermann, 2006). As such, behavioral emotional elements, engagement includes cognitive and
engagement appears to be an important motivational agentic dimensions. Cognitive engagement refers to
source of efficacy for children, which promotes positive students’ desire to seek conceptual, rather than surface
development and adherence to challenging domains knowledge in the classroom. It encapsulates several deep
such as PE. learning (e.g., elaboration) and self-regulatory strategies
(e.g., planning, goal setting, and monitoring). Agentic
Emotional Engagement. Emotional engagement engagement, on the other hand, refers to the extent of a
entails cognitive and affective reactions in the classroom. child’s contribution to his/her own learning, for instance,
Such reactions include (among others) interest, concen- by asking questions, expressing opinions, and instruct-
tration, enjoyment, happiness, and satisfaction (Skinner ing the teacher in one’s preferences and needs (Reeve,
& Belmont, 1993). Parallels can be drawn between these 2013). This dimension of school engagement is unique
aspects of school engagement and other models of general because whereas behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
engagement in work and sport (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, engagement emerge reactively from interactions with
& Taris, 2008; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Raedeke, 2007). This the classroom, agentic engagement reflects children’s
is because both address the positive thought patterns and proactivity in engaging themselves to render their social
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

264 Curran and Standage
context to be more engagement supportive. This pro- & Weiss, 1982; Klint & Weiss, 1986). Disaffection in PE
cess, of course, is facilitated by engagement supporting is likely to result from several factors that are inhibitive
provisions from the teacher and, as such, agency likely of participation motivation. These include perceptions of
encapsulates a mutually reinforcing set of teacher-student incompetence, social isolation, and a lack of challenge
engaging behaviors. Results from factor analyses indicate (Bennie & O’Connor, 2006; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet,
that cognition and agency are indeed important common Pelletier, & Cury, 2002). As such, behavioral disaffec-
causes in the higher-order engagement factor, positively tion’s examination alongside behavioral engagement as
loading alongside behavioral and emotional components a behavioral indicator of children’s enervation in PE is
(Reeve, 2013; Reeve & Tseng, 2011). The outcomes of necessary and, indeed, more research is warranted.
cognitive and agentic engagement are less well-studied
than those of behavioral or emotional engagement but Emotional Disaffection. Disaffected emotions reflect
initial research indicates that it is an important criterion exhaustion (mental tiredness, sadness, and boredom),
of children’s persistence and achievement in school (Jang, alienation (frustration and anger), and negative cogni-
Kim, & Reeve, 2012; Reeve & Lee, 2014). tion (anxiety and worry). Accordingly, these aspects of
emotional disaffection encompass a constellation of nega-
Disaffection tive thoughts and feelings in the classroom. In PE, many
studies have examined aspects of emotional disaffection
Children do not always express engagement in school such as negative affect (e.g., Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste,
but, instead, show signs of disaffection (Connell & Well- Lens, & Auweele, 2009; Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et
born, 1991). Disaffection occupies the negative pole of al., 2005), boredom (e.g., Carpenter & Morgan, 1999;
the engagement continuum. It refers to predisengaged Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2005), anxiety, and
behaviors and emotions exhibited by children who are worry (e.g., Barkoukis, Koidou, & Tsorbatzoudis, 2010;
experiencing helplessness or whose motivation has been Cox, Duncheon, & McDavid, 2009; Goudas & Biddle,
damaged by coercion (Deci & Ryan, 1985), over-com- 1993). Typically, such studies consider these aspects of
petitiveness (Ames, 1992), pressure (Amorose & Horn, emotional disaffection as outcomes variables that reflect
2000), and/or conditional regard (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), children’s negative experiences or ‘ill-being’.
as well as by boredom or apathy. When the opportunity As with emotional engagement, though, emotional
for activity withdrawal is restricted, as is the case in disaffection also describes those thoughts and feelings
school, disaffected behaviors may manifest that reflect that give rise to children’s behavioral disaffection in
mental or emotional, but not behavioral, withdrawal such the classroom (Skinner et al., 2009). This is because
as passivity, lack of initiation, the absence of effort, and disaffected emotions reflect a lack of personal interest
giving up (Skinner et al., 2009). Disaffection is therefore in learning activities and thus precipitate passive behav-
an important motivational source of helplessness in chil- ior. In PE, this interplay is supported by studies that
dren, which impedes achievement in PE. have documented negative associations between a lack
Behavioral Disaffection. According to Skinner and col- of enjoyment and effort (e.g., Mouratidis et al., 2008;
leagues (Skinner & Belmont, 1993; Skinner et al., 2009), Ntoumanis, 2001; Taylor, Ntoumanis, Standage, & Spray,
disaffected behaviors include those prototypically asso- 2010). Consequently, emotional disaffection might be
ciated with predisengagement namely, passivity, lack of considered an important emotional indicator of children’s
initiation, lack of effort, and giving up. Further, they also enervation and disengagement in PE.
include indicators of mental withdrawal and ritualistic
participation such as a lack of attention and concentration Summary
(Skinner et al., 2009). In essence, these aspects of behav-
ioral disaffection reflect passive involvement (Connell & The importance of the engagement construct in underpin-
Wellborn, 1991). Unlike behavioral engagement, then, ning high-quality participation in PE is clear. According
behavioral disaffection does not contribute to the develop- to Skinner (Skinner et al., 2009) and others (e.g., Reeve,
ment of competence in PE (Duda, 2001; Kirk, 2005). As 2012), engaged children are active participants who
such, alongside other factors, disaffected behaviors are exhibit high levels of positive emotionality and behavioral
likely to reflect those associated with helplessness and intensity. Disaffected children, by contrast, are passive
enervated functioning (Skinner et al., 2009). participants who exhibit high levels of negative emotion-
Studies show that disaffection is associated with poor ality and mental withdrawal. These concepts reflect well
quality coping, motivational deficits, low achievement, documented motivational processes that are conducive
and diminished resilience in school (see Skinner, 2016, to children and adolescents’ long-term engagement
for a review). To date, though, researchers have made little (i.e., personal satisfaction, enjoyment, and competence;
attempt to examine behavioral disaffection in the specific Calvo et al., 2010; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere,
context of school PE. Nonetheless, disaffected behaviors 2001; Ryska et al., 2002; Sarrazin et al., 2002; Ullrich-
such as mental withdrawal and giving up are evident in French & Smith, 2009) and ongoing disaffection (i.e.,
such settings and qualitative studies indicate that they lack of interest, boredom, and incompetence; Bennie
are symptomatic of predropout across several physical & O’Connor, 2006; Enoksen, 2011; Woods, Tannehill,
activities (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2002; Gould, Feltz, Horn, Quinlan, Moyna, & Walsh, 2010).
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Given the strong link between children’s engagement integration. In doing so, SDT offers useful recommenda-
and long-term participation, it is important to understand tions regarding how teachers might evoke inherent moti-
how and why PE becomes engaging or disaffecting. To vational resources in children to facilitate engagement or
do so, it may be useful to set children’s engagement circumvent disaffection in PE (Reeve, 2012).
and disaffection within the purview of a theoretical
framework. In doing so, specific phenomena and test- Basic Psychological Need Theory
able hypothesizes can be generated regarding the origins
of engagement and disaffection in PE and thereby the The role of inherent motivational resource in self-actu-
salient points of intervention. To this end, SDT is one alization and engagement is formalised within a mini-
theoretical framework that has notable explanatory utility theory of SDT known as basic psychological need theory
in children’s engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; (BPNT). As with the over-arching tenets of SDT, BPNT
Deci & Ryan, 1985; Reeve, 2012). Indeed, SDT provides has its roots in organismic psychology. Here, needs are
a conceptual approach to understanding the quality of defined as organismic necessities of healthy functioning,
children’s motivation and, importantly, it affords an development, and wellness. Psychological needs, then,
identification of the salient antecedents of engagement represent a subset of these necessities that are essential
and disaffection that arise out of that motivation. for the physical, psychological, and social health of the
organism (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Three psychological needs
are described within BPNT that are purported to act as

A SDT Perspective on Engagement sources of children’s intrinsically motivated tendency to
and Disaffection be curious, seek novelty, and master challenges. The first,
autonomy, is the need to experience behavior as originat-
SDT ing from within the self. It represents the inner endorse-
ment and self-determination of one’s behavior (Deci &
SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017) is a conceptual framework Ryan, 1985). The second, competence, is the need to feel
of human motivation with applications to PE (e.g., see that one can effectively negotiate their interactions within
Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009; Standage, Gillison, & the environment (White, 1959). It reflects the innate desire
Treasure, 2007; Standage & Ryan, 2012). Whereas other to approach and master achievement-oriented tasks (Deci,
motivational frameworks describe how children’s beliefs, 1975). The third, relatedness, is the need to create close
goals, and cognitions influence their school experiences bonds and attachments with significant others. It embodies
(e.g., achievement goal theory; Nicholls, 1989, the theory the will to be immersed in warm, caring, and reciprocally
of planned behavior; Ajzen, 1991), SDT is distinctive responsive interpersonal relationships (Ryan, 1995).
because it emphasizes children’s innate motivational Three important contributions to the broader SDT
resources (Reeve, 2012). Within SDT, the philosophical framework are offered within BPNT (Reeve, 2012). First,
starting point is an organismic-dialectic paradigm, which the mini-theory describes the specific antecedents of
purports that human beings have several proactive innate children’s behavioral integration and optimal functioning.
motivational resources that interact with social environ- As such, BPNT represents a unifying principle—link-
ments to promote optimal human thriving and wellness ing social-contextual factors, facilitative or inhibitive
(Ryan & Deci, 2017). Accordingly, humans are oriented of psychological need satisfaction, to the cognitive,
toward behavioral integration, via a fulfillment of these affective, and behavioral experiences that these needs
motivational resources, and hence are active (as opposed catalyze (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Second, basic
to passive) participants in shaping their own motivation— psychological needs describe why some children exhibit
to be, as the theory states, self-determined. engagement in PE contexts and others exhibit disaffection
SDT’s organismic approach to motivation emerged in PE, because psychological need satisfaction leads to
from earlier work in psychoanalytical (Freud, 1960), psychological, social, and behavioral wellness whereas
humanistic (Rogers, 1963) and developmental (Piaget, psychological need frustration results in psychological,
1971) traditions of human nature. Each of these tradi- social, and behavioral ill-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
tions extolls the importance of internal developmental Third, the psychological needs allow for hypotheses to be
process in self-actualisation and optimal psychological specified with regard to which specific aspects of the PE
functioning. Yet SDT extends such meta-theorizing in an classroom environment will be supportive versus thwart-
important way. According to SDT, organismic tendencies ing of children’s optimal functioning and engagement in
toward self-actualization and psychological wellness PE, that is, the conditions which support or thwart student
are triggered and nurtured within social contexts that perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
provide support for feelings of autonomy, competence, (viz., need supportive vs. need thwarting contexts; cf.
and relatedness—motivational resources (viz., basic Ryan & Deci, 2017).
psychological needs) that we discuss in detail later. In
the same vein, humans are also vulnerable to feelings of The Empirical Basis of BPNT in PE
being controlled, criticized, and alienated, particularly
when the social context is actively thwarting of their basic A central assumption of BPNT is that opportunities for
psychological needs and a tendency toward behavioral autonomy, competence, and relatedness directly confer
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

optimal psychological, social, and behavioral function- investigated the role of psychological need frustration in
ing in humans. As such, the psychological needs, and PE disaffection, but studies in youth sport are suggestive.
the environmental provisions that support them, should In a series of studies, Curran and colleagues found that
positively predict adaptive outcomes such as engagement. young athletes psychological need frustration positively
In support of BPNT, psychological need satisfaction has predicts their levels of behavioral disaffection (Curran,
been shown to positively predict optimal functioning in a Hill, Hall, & Jowett, 2014; Curran, Hill, Ntoumanis, Hall,
number of life’s domains, including sport (e.g., Curran, & Jowett, 2016). Similarly, in a separate series of studies
Hill, & Niemiec, 2013; Gaudreau, Amiot, & Vallerand, among young athletes, Bartholomew et al. (Bartholomew,
2009; Podlog, Lochbaum, & Stevens, 2010), work (e.g., Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thogersen-Ntoumani,
Baard, Deci & Ryan, 2004; Deci et al., 2001; Van den 2011; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, & Thogersen-
Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008), and Ntoumani, 2011) showed psychological frustration to
healthcare (e.g., Halvari, Halvari, Bjornebekk & Deci, be positively associated with emotional indicators of
2013; Ng et al., 2012; Williams, Niemiec, Patrick, Ryan engagement such as negative affect and burnout.
& Deci, 2009). Similarly, supports for the psychological
needs have also been found to predict increases in optimal Supporting Psychological Need
functioning in the same domains (e.g., Deci et al., 2001;
Halvari et al., 2013; Jang et al., 2012). Satisfaction
Germane to the focus of this review, a growing body SDT is not only concerned with the consequences of psy-
of evidence also attests to the importance of the psycho- chological need satisfaction, but also the key antecedents
logical needs and their supports for aspects of engagement of these basic needs. Within SDT, children’s proactive
in PE. Positive associations between psychological need pursuit of the basic psychological needs occurs within
satisfaction and several positive PE-related outcomes social contexts that can either support or thwart them.
including positive affect (Standage et al., 2005), vitality As such, environmental factors—particularly teaching
(Taylor & Lonsdale, 2010), concentration (Ntoumanis, behaviors—are understood to interact with the psycho-
2005; Standage et al., 2005), and enjoyment (e.g., Cox, logical needs children bring to the classroom. Hence
Smith, & Williams, 2008; Cox & Williams, 2008) have children’s motivations, and the behaviors of the teacher,
been documented in PE students. The psychological share a reciprocal relationship. As children immerse
needs have also been shown to positively predict adap- themselves in pursuit of autonomy, competence, and
tive behavioral outcomes such as persistence and effort in relatedness, they simultaneously receive and internalize
PE across both self-reported measures (e.g., Barkoukis, sources of motivation from teachers.
Hagger, Lambropoulos, & Tsorbatzoudis, 2010; Taylor This reciprocal relationship, between children’s
& Lonsdale, 2010; Zhang, Solmon, Kosma, Carson, & inherent motivational resources and the behaviors
Gu, 2011) and via teacher ratings of motivated behav- exhibited by teachers, resides at the center of the student-
ior (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2006). Similarly, teacher dialectical framework within SDT (Reeve, 2012).
the basic needs have predicted students’ objectively To the extent that children can develop competencies, be
estimated physical activity engagement outside of the curious, express opinion, and pursue their interests, the
classroom (Standage, Gillison, Ntoumanis, & Treasure, consequence of the student-teacher interaction will be
2012), participation in optional PE lessons (Ntoumanis, synergistic (i.e., teacher behaviors are concordant with
2005; Sanchez-Oliva, Sanchez-Miguel, Leo, Kinnafick, children’s psychological needs), resulting in elevated
& Garcia-Calvo, 2014), and more global markers of well- engagement. However, the degree to which teacher
being such as general self-esteem (Standage & Gillison, behaviors inhibit children’s ability to be curious, self-
2007), physical self-concept, and health-related quality express, and pursue their interests, the consequence of
of life (Standage et al., 2012). In an important exten- the student-teacher interaction will be antagonistic (i.e.,
sion to these findings, McDavid, Cox, and McDonough teacher behaviors are incongruent with children’s psy-
(2014) and Taylor et al. (2010) demonstrated that higher chological needs), resulting in disaffection. It is not only
psychological need satisfaction not only corresponds the teacher who can influence children’s psychological
with higher PE engagement at the between-person level need satisfaction in PE. Interactions with parents, peers,
but also contributes to increases in within-person PE and more macro-level factors (e.g., social norms, school
engagement and physical activity over time. values, and school organization) have an influence. How-
Just as high psychological need satisfaction con- ever, the student-teacher bond is particularly important
tributes to engagement in PE, low psychological need in the PE-context and, indeed, special attention has been
satisfaction has been found to contribute to disaffection. paid to understanding its dynamic from the perspective
Here, numerous studies document negative associations of SDT (see Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009).
between psychological need satisfaction and negative
affect (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2005; Ntoumanis, Pensgaard, Teacher Structure and Motivational Styles
Martin, & Pipe, 2004; Standage et al., 2005), enervation
(e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, The fundamental role of PE teachers (and other instruc-
2003; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007), and boredom (Ntou- tors) is to develop competencies. They typically do so
manis, 2001; Standage et al., 2005). Less research has with the use of clear expectations, rewards, goals, help,
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

support, and feedback (among other levers). Within SDT, and, hence, cultivate their psychological needs—resulting
one important environmental source of this competence in engagement.
support is structure, which is defined as “the extent to The second motivational style purported to moder-
which [socialisers] provide clear and consistent guide- ate the effects of structure on children’s PE engagement
lines, expectations, and rules for behaviors, without is a controlling motivational style. Controlling teachers
respect to the way in which they are promoted” (Grolnick pressure children to meet demands, solve problems for
& Ryan, 1989, p. 144). Structure is thus a standalone con- them, and take the teacher, rather than students’ perspec-
cept within SDT encompassing a provision of resources tive (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani,
necessary to cultivate achievement related competencies. 2009; Grolnick, 2003; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).
Structured contexts are logical and consistent such that Teacher control has been operationalized to include
in these settings children understand what is expected of the demonstration of highly controlling behaviors (e.g.,
them, and can anticipate the way in which others will react rewards, pressure, and harsh punishment) in addition to
to their actions. In doing, structure provides children with the exhibition of psychological control (e.g., guilt induce-
internal schemata of how their actions and outcomes are ment and conditional regard; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis,
linked. In the absence of structure, learning is experienced & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2010). These provisions block
as chaotic (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, 2010) and children feel students’ ability to make a connection between structur-
incompetent, isolated, and helpless (Soenens et al., 2007). ing events and the personal relevance of such events and,
Accompanying aspects of structure in the student- in so doing, frustrate children’s psychological needs—
teacher dialectical framework are motivational styles. resulting in disaffection.
Motivational styles refer to the degree to which the PE
teacher confers opportunities to receive rewards, feed- A Mediation Model of Student
back, and evaluation (i.e., structure) in a context that is
Engagement and Disaffection
facilitative or inhibitive of psychological need satisfac-
tion. The teacher motivational style, according to the The student-teacher dialectical framework has been
student-teacher dialectical framework, is the single most described previously (Reeve, 2012) and similar frame-
important aspect of the classroom environment (Reeve, works have been outlined in sport (Mageau & Vallerand,
2012). This is because teachers’ motivational styles 2003), parenting (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997), and
determine the manner and degree by which structuring healthcare (Patrick & Williams, 2012) literatures. Within
events in the classroom are internalized by students and PE, as in other domains, the broad ideas contained within
thereby behaviorally integrated within their self-concept. this framework have been supported by an extensive
body of research that has examined how motivational
Autonomy Support and Interpersonal climates (Standage et al., 2003), feedback (Mouratidis
et al., 2008), competition (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999),
Control
and teacher motivational style (e.g., Cheon, Reeve,
Although contemporary research within SDT is moving Yu, & Jang, 2014; Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste,
toward understanding ‘need-supportive’ and ‘need- Soenens, & Van Petegen, 2015; Hein, Koka, & Hagger,
thwarting’ social contexts, two specific motivational 2015) influence students’ psychological needs. Recently,
styles have traditionally been purported to moderate the researchers have begun to integrate motivational style
effect of structure on children’s motivation and engage- research in tests of an overall student-teacher dialectical
ment. The first, autonomy support, refers to the degree framework (e.g., Jang et al., 2012; Jang, Kim, & Reeve,
to which teachers encourage children to take initiative 2016; Reeve & Lee, 2014). These tests, broadly, resemble
in PE, be active problem solvers and take a child, rather the mediation model shown in Figure 1. Children’s per-
than teacher perspective (Grolnick, 2003; Mageau & ceptions of their teacher’s autonomy support and control
Vallerand, 2003). Several researchers have described are reported alongside their perceptions of psychological
the key components of autonomy support. For example, need satisfaction and frustration and indicators of engage-
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) and Reeve (2006) highlight the ment and disaffection. The horizontal lines in Figure 1
importance of valuing children’s thoughts and feelings represent hypothesized causal relationships, in which
by acknowledging negative affect. This psychological teacher motivational style is assumed to cause changes
component of autonomy support is linked to the notion in the psychological needs that, in turn, are assumed to
of teacher empathy (cf. Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, cause changes in students’ levels of engagement and
1984). Another component of autonomy support includes disaffection.
the provision of desired choice and joint-decision making In education settings, research has reported support
(Marbell & Grolnick, 2013; Reeve, 2006), which are for a mediation model of engagement and disaffection
purported to facilitate perceptions of volition. Finally, grounded within SDT. In Korean high school students,
Assor, Kaplan and Roth (2002) similarly assert that an for instance, Jang, Reeve, Ryan, and Kim (2009) found
important aspect of autonomy support is to cultivate that autonomy support from teachers positively corre-
children’s independence by allowing them to feel free to lated with classroom autonomy and competence which,
express their thoughts and opinions. Together, these pro- in turn, correlated positively with classroom behavioral
visions allow children to self-endorse structuring events engagement. Similar findings have been reported in work
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Figure 1 — An SDT-informed mediation model of PE engagement and disaffection.

with Belgian PE students. Here, Haerens et al. (2015) Practitioner Recommendations

found that perceptions of PE teachers’ autonomy support
were positively associated with a linear composite of all The Provision of Autonomy Support
three psychological needs that, in turn, correlated posi-
tively with integrated forms of motivation. In the same As we have seen, structuring PE environments to be
study, perceptions of PE teacher control were positively autonomy supportive is a means of creating and sup-
correlated with composite need frustration, which posi- porting motivationally adaptive conditions for the
tively predicted students’ enervated functioning. These development of student engagement. Effective provision
pathways, from teacher motivational style to student of autonomy support, then, is an important skill for PE
psychological needs and engagement, have further sup- teachers to develop. To this end, Su and Reeve’s (2011)
port in longitudinal classroom research (e.g., Jang et al., meta-analysis of 19 intervention studies designed to assist
2012; Jang et al., 2016) and experimental studies (e.g., people to support autonomy substantiates the effective-
Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, et al., 2013; Perlman, 2013; ness of such an approach (i.e., d =.63). Moreover, modera-
Tessier, Sarrazin, & Ntoumanis, 2010). tor effect analyses across the 11 interventions delivered
In one especially illuminating study, Jang et al. to teachers showed the effect to be especially large in
(2012) found longitudinal support for the mediated effect the school setting (d = 1.16). To guide this empirically-
of semester start teacher autonomy support on children’s supported means of intervention, Reeve (2006) provided
semester end classroom engagement through midsemes- five guidelines for supporting teachers to be autonomy
ter psychological need satisfaction. Several reciprocal supportive. Here, we describe each of these recommen-
effects were also noted by these authors that substantiate a dations in turn to provide a practical overview of how
mediation model couched within SDT several ways. Most PE teachers might develop their autonomy supportive
notably, the relationship between psychological need sat- provision.
isfaction and engagement was reciprocal—an effect that Reeve’s (2006) first recommendation is that teachers
has subsequently been replicated in school (Reeve & Lee, should attempt to nurture children’s inner resources. Put
2014) and sport (Curran et al., 2016). However, not only simply, this means that teachers should find ways to co-
do psychological needs and engagement share recipro- ordinate children’s instruction (i.e., structure) in such a
cal relations, but so do motivational styles and engage- way that supports their interests, sense of enjoyment, and
ment. To this latter effect, Jang et al. (2016) showed that preference for volition. This may be achieved by support-
increases in student engagement and disaffection respec- ing children’s initiative taking in competitive situations,
tively predict increases in teacher autonomy support and or by making sure that tasks in PE, where possible, are
control. Collectively, these relationships are suggestive of fun and exciting. For example, PE teachers could give
a positive upward spiral, whereby increases in autonomy children the opportunity to decide the team formation
support yield heightened psychological need satisfaction before a game, or choose which activities they would like
that, in turn, supports gains in behavioral engagement to participate in. Providing support for children’s inner
which feed back into heightened autonomy support, and resources is an important building block for their sense of
so on. Importantly, though, these data show that just as self-determination (viz., psychological need satisfaction).
this upward spiral may be triggered by autonomy sup- Reeve’s (2006) second recommendation for auton-
port, it can also be reversed by the provision of control. omy supportive instruction is to rely on informational,
Taking heed of these findings, research is now needed to noncontrolling language. That is, teachers should flex-
examine the reciprocal interplay among agentic engage- ibly relay messages to their students with information
ment, need-supportive contexts, and students’ behavioral rich, competence-affirming statements that describe
and emotional engagement in PE contexts. why they are doing well or making progress (e.g., Good
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

effort! Because you’re striking the ball with your laces, effort, (f) praising development and mastery, (g) offering
your shooting is improving). Communicating feedback progress-enabling feedback, (h) responding consistently
in this manner allows problems to be met with construc- to subordinates’ questions and queries, and (i) communi-
tive solutions through language that is encouraging cating a clear acknowledgment of subordinates perspec-
and nondemeaning. In doing, children can identify the tives. While one could perhaps quibble with the inclusion
underlying cause of their poor technique or performance of some of these behaviors as autonomy supports (e.g.,
and take adaptive action to remedy the problem. The use f and g are more reflective of competence support), they
of informational and noncontrolling language has clear nevertheless provide a useful framework from which
and positive implications for children’s sense of owner- teachers can ground their motivational style. The data
ship over their development (autonomy), efficacy and we have reviewed clearly show that such behaviors have
goal progress (competence), and relationship with the the beneficial outcome of supporting engagement in PE
teacher (relatedness). students via elevated psychological need satisfaction.
The third guideline that Reeve (2006) offers for
teachers seeking to be more autonomy supportive is to The Provision of Structure
communicate value and provide meaningful rationales.
In other words, teachers should seek to make sure stu- As can be seen in Figure 1, structure and autonomy sup-
dents are aware of the use, value, importance, or other- port are orthogonal such that they interact in a synergistic
wise unapparent personal relevance of engaging in PE manner to predict greater psychological need satisfac-
tasks. This might be achieved, for instance, by giving tion and thereby engagement. Although there is ample
a meaningful rationale when uninteresting tasks are research and recommendation on autonomy support,
required (e.g., Cross-country is not the most fun activ- much less attention has been devoted to the components
ity, I know, but it is really important for people to have of structure within SDT. This said, Reeve (2006) has
good health so they can achieve in other areas of life). provided a framework for understanding what structure
Such a rationale allows children to internalize the task might look like in practice. Here, Reeve argues that there
as personally meaningful. Consequently, communicat- are three subcomponents of structure that occur at dif-
ing value and a meaningful rationale, generates greater ferent stages of the learning process. These components
self-determination. include: (a) presenting clear goals, rules, and expectations
The penultimate recommendation that Reeve (2006) before a learning activity, (b) offering help, guidance,
provides for autonomy support is to, acknowledge and and supervision during a learning activity and (c) giving
accept negative affect. Acknowledging and accepting positive, constructive, and task-focused information
negative affect serves to counter the motivational prob- feedback after a learning activity. Defined this way,
lem that teachers often encounter when they negotiate structure has the primary role of cultivating children’s
conflicts between what students want to do, and what fundamental need for competence because students who
teachers need students to do. A teacher may, for instance, receive structure should feel able to effectively interact
require students to work on their passing when they may with their PE environments (Skinner & Belmont, 1993).
want to practice their shooting. Instead of combatting this It is important to remember, at this point, that these
conflict with controlling measures (e.g., Just get on with elements of structure encompass those behaviors that
it.), autonomy supportive teachers show an understanding teachers would consider central to their teaching, and
of the students’ perspective and accept the negative feel- this might explain why relatively less research has been
ings (e.g., I understand that passing might seem boring, devoted to the concept (i.e., unlike autonomy support,
so I appreciate how you feel when we practice it.). This teachers already provide it). Yet the findings of several
acknowledgment may be followed by a rationale to studies in school (e.g., Jang et al., 2010; Hospel & Galand,
change the student’s frame of reference for the task they 2016; Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, &
display a resistance to (e.g., taking shots can only happen Dochy, 2009) and sport (Curran et al., 2013) suggest that
when the ball is passed to the right area). Acknowledging such behaviors are insufficient to keep children engaged.
and accepting negative affect has the dual benefit of help- In addition, coaches should be aware of the way in
ing children internalize otherwise uninteresting activities which this structure is conveyed as it can produce either
(autonomy), as well as cultivating secure bonds between attentive, effortful, and persistent students, or passive,
the coach and athlete (relatedness). apathetic, and disinterested students. That is, as we have
In the final recommendation that Reeve (2006) seen, engagement is produced when teachers provide
makes, specific behaviors are presented that subsume rules and expectations, support, supervision, instruction,
the four aspects of autonomy support above. Such and feedback with an abiding sense of support for student
autonomy-supportive behaviors, according to Reeve choicefulness and volition. By contrast, disaffection
(Reeve, 2006; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999) and others (e.g., appears to be produced when teachers provide this same
Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981), include: (a) structure with an abiding sense of coercion and control.
listening carefully, (b) creating opportunities for curiosity To some, elements of structure (such as rules) may
and self-initiation, (c) providing opportunities for peer seem antagonistic to certain aspects of autonomy sup-
learning and co-operation, (d) arranging learning environ- port (such as choice provision). However, it is possible
ments that encourage active participation, (e) encouraging for teachers to provide a sense of structure without
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

compromising autonomy. This might be achieved, for sessions (separated by 6-weeks) can yield increased
instance, by introducing rules and limits with a meaning- student engagement, and decreased student disaffection,
ful rationale (see above), or by organizing the content over the course of a Korean high school semester. These
of goals, learning activities, and competition strategies authors also show that, in support of an SDT-informed
in concordance with student ideas and suggestions. As mediation model, changes in student engagement and
Jang et al. (2010) articulated, providing expectations and disaffection are attributable to the increased student psy-
limits (structure) in a context that encourages choice and chological need satisfaction and lowered psychological
volition (autonomy support) enables children to maintain need frustration that follow the intervention enhanced PE
a sense of autonomy while fostering their competence. teacher autonomy support.
Research has shown that socializers can be trained to
provide support for both autonomy and competence but,
in line with the central role of autonomy in behavioral Conclusion
integration, autonomy has been the central focus of
these interventions (see Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; For millions of children worldwide, PE is an important
Ntoumanis, 2012).1 Hence, in what follows, we focus source of physical activity. As such, engagement in PE
on the, results of interventions committed to supporting carries great potential as a vehicle for children’s enhanced
student autonomy. health and well-being. The intention of this review was
to help researchers and practitioners realize this poten-

tial by describing the salient components of engage-
Interventions ment and, using SDT as a guiding framework, proving
Implementing SDT in the classroom, a handful of an overview of how they are cultivated in PE. Within
researchers have developed interventions committed SDT, psychological needs for autonomy, competence,
to enhancing high school teacher autonomy support. and relatedness are especially influential to engage-
These interventions involve informational sessions (i.e., ment because their satisfaction promotes behavioral
presentations) and/or independent study resources (e.g., integration and, by extension, associated emotions (e.g.,
websites, workbooks, etc.) that, using the recommenda- enjoyment, vitality, positive affect) and behaviors (e.g.,
tions outlined in the previous section, educate teachers in persistence, concentration, effort). Ensuring that children
how to be autonomy supportive. Broadly, such sessions perceive that they have adequate opportunity to develop
and resources appear effective both in the enhancement of competencies, self-direct behaviors, and be connected
teacher autonomy support, as well as student motivation to others is therefore of paramount importance. These
and engagement. For example, Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, opportunities are replete in PE when teachers provide
and Barch (2004) showed that a one-hour information ses- students with structure (e.g., rules, limits, and feedback)
sion supplemented by web-based resources on autonomy in a context of autonomy support (e.g., voice, choice, and
supportive teaching yielded increases in observed teacher initiative). By contrast, such opportunities are thwarted
autonomy supportive classroom behaviors over a con- by conveying the same structure in a context of control
trol group with no treatment. In turn, increased teacher (e.g., coercion, reward, and conditional regard). We hope
autonomy support generated increased effort and persis- that our practical recommendations on the provision of
tence among their students (i.e., engagement). Analogous autonomy support offer a useful starting point for teach-
effects have also been elucidated for teacher autonomy ers in the development of children’s engagement in PE.
supportive interventions on the reduction of Korean high
school student disaffection (Cheon & Reeve, 2015). Note
Within the sphere of PE, autonomy supportive
interventions have been equally successful. In one such 1. Within SDT, teachers can also provide supports for related-
intervention, guided by the work of Reeve et al. (2004), ness (see Emm-Collison, Standage, & Gillison, 2016). However,
Tessier et al. (2010) used an informational session to many of these behaviors are encapsulated within autonomy
educate French high school PE teachers on the imple- support so we have omitted a discussion of relatedness support
mentation of autonomy support and followed this with here.
an individualized-guidance program during an 8-week
teaching cycle. Results of this program indicated that
teachers in the experimental group, relative to a no treat- References
ment control group, employed more autonomy-supportive
behaviors. Similar training programs have been observed Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van den Berghe, L., De
to yield commensurate effects on PE teacher autonomy- Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2014). Fostering a need-sup-
supportive behaviors and (favorable) beliefs about portive teaching style: Intervention effects on physical
autonomy support (Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Van den education teachers’ beliefs and teaching behaviors. Journal
Berghe, De Meyer, & Haerens, 2014). Finally, extending of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 36, 595–609. doi:10.1123/
these findings, Cheon and colleagues (Cheon, Reeve, & jsep.2013-0229
Moon, 2012; Cheon, Reeve, & Song, 2016) show that at Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J.,
least two PE teacher autonomy supportive instructional Van den Berghe, L., & Haerens, L. (2013). Development
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

and evaluation of a training on need-supportive teach- experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33,
ing in physical education: Qualitative and quantitative 75–102. doi:10.1123/jsep.33.1.75
findings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 64–75. Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani,
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.001 C. (2009). A review of controlling, motivational
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organi- strategies from a self-determination theory perspec-
zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, tive: Implications for sports coaches. International
179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 215–233.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student doi:10.1080/17509840903235330
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 (2010). The controlling, interpersonal style in a coaching
Amorose, A.J., & Horn, T.S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: context: Development and initial validation of a psycho-
Relationships with collegiate, athletes’ gender, scholar- metric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32,
ship status, and perceptions of their coaches’ behavior. 193–216. doi:10.1123/jsep.32.2.193
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 63–84. Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2006). Athletic transition: A quali-
doi:10.1123/jsep.22.1.63 tative investigation of elite, track and field participation in
Appleton, J.J., Christenson, S.L., & Furlong, M.J. (2008). the years following high school. Change: Transformations
Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and in Education, 9, 59–68.
methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Blair, C., & Razza, R.P. (2007). Relating effortful control,
Schools, 45, 369–386. doi:10.1002/pits.20303 executive function, and false belief, understanding to
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten.
relevance is excellent: Autonomy‐enhancing and sup- Child Development, 78, 647–663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
pressing teacher behaviors predicting students’ engage- 8624.2007.01019.x
ment in schoolwork. The British Journal of Educational Calvo, T.G., Cervelló, E., Jiménez, R., Iglesias, D., & Murcia,
Psychology, 72, 261–278. doi:10.1348/000709902158883 J.A.M. (2010). Using self-determination theory to explain
Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Intrinsic need sat- sport persistence and dropout in adolescent athletes. The
isfaction: A motivational, basis of performance and well‐ Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 677–684. doi:10.1017/
being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psy- S1138741600002341
chology, 34, 2045–2068. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004. Cardinal, B.J., Yan, Z., & Cardinal, M.K. (2013). Negative
tb02690.x experiences in physical education, and sport: How much
Baena-Extremera, A., Gómez-López, M., Granero-Gallegos, do they affect physical activity participation later in life?
A., & Ortiz-Camacho, M.D.M. (2015). Predicting satis- Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84,
faction in physical education from motivational climate 49–53. doi:10.1080/07303084.2013.767736
and self-determined motivation. Journal of Teaching in Carpenter, P.J., & Morgan, K. (1999). Motivational cli-
Physical Education, 34, 210–224. doi:10.1123/jtpe.2013- mate, personal goal perspectives, and, cognitive and
0165 affective responses in physical education classes.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Taris, T.W. European Journal of Physical Education, 4, 31–44.
(2008). Work engagement: An, emerging concept in doi:10.1080/1740898990040103
occupational health psychology. Work and Stress, 22, Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations,
187–200. doi:10.1080/02678370802393649 and self-confidence as predictors, of happiness and loneli-
Barkoukis, V., Hagger, M.S., Lambropoulos, G., & Tsorbat- ness. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 327–339. doi:10.1006/
zoudis, H. (2010). Extending the, trans‐contextual model jado.2002.0475
in physical education and leisure‐time contexts: Examin- Cheon, S.H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based interven-
ing the role of basic psychological need satisfaction. The tion to help teachers decrease, students’ amotivation.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 647–670. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111.
doi:10.1348/000709910X487023 doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004
Barkoukis, V., Koidou, E., & Tsorbatzoudis, H. (2010). Effects Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I.S. (2012). Experimentally
of a motivational climate, intervention on state anxiety, based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused interven-
self-efficacy, and skill development in physical education to help physical education teachers be more autonomy
tion. European Journal of Sport Science, 10, 167–177. supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport & Exer-
doi:10.1080/17461390903426634 cise Psychology, 34, 365–396. doi:10.1123/jsep.34.3.365
Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R.M., Bosch, J.A., Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y.G. (2016). A teacher-focused
& Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). Self-determination intervention to decrease PE, students’ amotivation by
theory and diminished functioning: The role of interper- increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustra-
sonal control and psychological need thwarting. Person- tion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 217–235.
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1459–1473. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0236
doi:10.1177/0146167211413125 Cheon, S.H., Reeve, J., Yu, T.H., & Jang, H.R. (2014). The
Bartholomew, K.J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R.M., & Thøgersen- teacher benefits from giving, autonomy support during
Ntoumani, C. (2011). Psychological need thwarting in physical education instruction. Journal of Sport & Exercise
the sport context: Assessing the darker side of athletic Psychology, 36, 331–346. doi:10.1123/jsep.2013-0231
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Cleland, C.L., Tully, M.A., Kee, F., & Cupples, M.E. (2012). The Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Gagné, M., Leone, D.R., Usunov,
effectiveness of physical, activity interventions in socio- J., & Kornazheva, B.P. (2001). Need satisfaction, moti-
economically disadvantaged communities: A systematic vation, and well-being in the work organizations of a
review. Preventive Medicine, 54, 371–380. doi:10.1016/j. former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of
ypmed.2012.04.004 self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology
Connell, J.P., & Wellborn, J.G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, Bulletin, 27, 930–942. doi:10.1177/0146167201278002
and relatedness: A, motivational analysis of self-system Deci, E.L., Schwartz, A.J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R.M. (1981).
processes. In M. Gunnar and L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minne- An instrument to assess adults’, orientations toward
sota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43-77). control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of
Cox, A., Duncheon, N., & McDavid, L. (2009). Peers and teachers Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650. doi:10.1037/0022-
as sources of relatedness, perceptions, motivation, and affec- 0663.73.5.642
tive responses in physical education. Research Quarterly Dobbins, M., Husson, H., DeCorby, K., & LaRocca, R.L.
for Exercise and Sport, 80, 765–773. doi:10.1080/027013 (2013). School-based physical activity, programs for
67.2009.10599618 promoting physical activity and fitness in children and
Cox, A.E., Smith, A.L., & Williams, L. (2008). Change in physi- adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database of System-
cal education motivation and, physical activity behavior atic Reviews, 2, CD007651.
during middle school. The Journal of Adolescent Health, Duda, J.L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: push-
43, 506–513. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.020 ing the boundaries and clarifying, some misunderstand-
Cox, A., & Williams, L. (2008). The roles of perceived teacher ings. In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation
support, motivational climate, and psychological need satis- in sport and exercise (pp. 129–182). Champaign, IL:
faction in students’ physical education motivation. Journal Human Kinetics.
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 222–239. doi:10.1123/ Duncan, S.C. (1993). The role of cognitive appraisal and
jsep.30.2.222 friendship provisions in adolescents’, Femmaffect and
Curran, T., Hill, A.P., & Niemiec, C.P. (2013). A conditional motivation toward activity in physical education. Research
process model of children’s, behavioral engagement and Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 314–323. doi:10.1
behavioral disaffection in sport based on self-determination 080/02701367.1993.10608816
theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 35, 30–43. Emm-Collison, L.G., Standage, M., & Gillison, F.B. (2016).
doi:10.1123/jsep.35.1.30 Development and validation of the adolescent psycho-
Curran, T., Hill, A.P., Hall, H.K., & Jowett, G.E. (2014). Perceived logical need support in exercise questionnaire. Journal of
coach behaviors and, athletes’ engagement and disaffection Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 505–520. doi:10.1123/
in youth sport: The mediating role of the psychological jsep.2015-0220
needs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 45, Enoksen, E. (2011). Drop-out rate and drop-out reasons among
559–580. promising Norwegian track and, field athletes. Scandina-
Curran, T., Hill, A.P., Hall, H.K., & Jowett, G.E. (2015). Relation- vian Sport Studies Forum, 2, 18-43.
ships between the coach-created motivational climate and Enright, E., & O’Sullivan, M. (2010). ‘Can I do it in my pyja-
athlete engagement in youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exer- mas?’ Negotiating a physical, education curriculum with
cise Psychology, 37, 193–198. doi:10.1123/jsep.2014-0203 teenage girls. European Physical Education Review, 16,
Curran, T., Hill, A.P., Ntoumanis, N., Hall, H.K., & Jowett, G.E. 203–222. doi:10.1177/1356336X10382967
(2016). A three-wave, longitudinal test of self-determination Fairclough, S. (2003). Physical activity, perceived competence
theory’s mediation model of engagement and disaffection and enjoyment during high, school physical education.
in youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, European Journal of Physical Education, 8, 5–18.
15–29. doi:10.1123/jsep.2015-0016 Fredricks, J.A., Alfeld-Liro, C.J., Hruda, L.Z., Eccles, J.S.,
Danielsen, A.G., Samdal, O., Hetland, J., & Wold, B. (2009). Patrick, H., & Ryan, A.M. (2002). A qualitative explo-
School-related social support and, students’ perceived life ration of adolescents’ commitment to athletics and
satisfaction. The Journal of Educational Research, 102, the arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 68–97.
303–320. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.4.303-320 doi:10.1177/0743558402171004
Deci, E.L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004).
doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9 School engagement: Potential of the, concept, state of the
Deci, E.L., Connell, J.P., & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Self-determina- evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–104.
tion in a work, organization. The Journal of Applied Psychol- doi:10.3102/00346543074001059
ogy, 74, 580. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.580 Freud, S. (1960). The ego and the id. New York, NY: Norton.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self- Furrer, C., Skinner, E., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T.A.
determination in human, behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. (2006, March). Engagement versus, disaffection as central
doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 constructs in the dynamics of motivational development.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The” what” and” why” of Paper presented at the Society for Research on Adoles-
goal pursuits: Human needs and the, self-determination of cence, San Francisco, CA.
behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/ Gaudreau, P., Amiot, C.E., & Vallerand, R.J. (2009). Trajec-
S15327965PLI1104_01 tories of affective states in, adolescent hockey players:
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Turning point and motivational antecedents. Develop- a naturally occurring classroom context. Journal of Educa-
mental Psychology, 45, 307–319. doi:10.1037/a0014134 tional Psychology, 104, 1175–1188. doi:10.1037/a0028089
Goudas, M., & Biddle, S.J.H. (1993). Pupil perceptions of Jang, H., Kim, E.J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become
enjoyment in physical, education. Physical Education more engaged or more, disengaged during the semester:
Review, 16, 145–150. A self-determination theory dual-process model. Learn-
Gould, D., Feltz, D., Horn, T., & Weiss, M. (1982). Reasons ing and Instruction, 43, 27–38. doi:10.1016/j.learnin-
for attrition in competitive youth, swimming. Journal of struc.2016.01.002
Sport Behavior, 5, 155–166. Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E.L. (2010). Engaging students in
Grolnick, W.S. (2003). The psychology of parental control: learning activities: It is not, autonomy support or structure
How well-meant parenting, backfires. Mahwah: Psychol- but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational
ogy Press. Psychology, 102, 588–600. doi:10.1037/a0019682
Grolnick, W.S., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1997). Internaliza- Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R.M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-
tion within the family: The self-determination theory determination theory explain what, underlies the produc-
perspective. In J. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting tive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically
and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychol-
contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). New York, NY: Wiley. ogy, 101, 644–661. doi:10.1037/a0014241
Grolnick, W.S., & Ryan, R.M. (1989). Parent styles associ- Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong
ated with children’s self-regulation, and competence in participation: The importance of, early learning experi-
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154. ences. European Physical Education Review, 11, 239–255.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143 doi:10.1177/1356336X05056649
Guthrie, J.T., Schafer, W.D., & Huang, C.W. (2001). Benefits Klint, K.A., & Weiss, M.R. (1986). Dropping in and dropping
of opportunity to read and, balanced instruction on the out: Participation motives of, current and former youth
NAEP. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 145–162. gymnasts. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences,
doi:10.1080/00220670109599912 11, 106–114.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Set-
& Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do, perceived autonomy- ting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects
supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motiva-
education students’ motivational experiences through tion and, creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233–248.
unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00879.x
dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Ladd, G.W., Birch, S.H., & Buhs, E.S. (1999). Children’s
16, 26–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013 social and scholastic lives in, kindergarten: Related
Hallal, P. C., Andersen, L. B., Bull, F. C., Guthold, R., Haskell, spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.
W., Ekelund, U., & Lancet, Physical Activity Series doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00101
Working Group. (2012). Global physical activity levels: Langford, R., Bonell, C.P., Jones, H.E., Pouliou, T., Murphy,
Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet, 380, S.M., Waters, E., . . . Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO Health
247–257. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1 Promoting School framework for improving the health and
Halvari, A.E., Halvari, H., Bjørnebekk, G., & Deci, E.L. (2013). well‐being of students and their academic achievement. The
Oral health and dental well‐being: Testing a self‐determi- Cochrane Library, 4, CD008958.
nation theory model. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Raedeke, T.D. (2007). Athlete
ogy, 43, 275–292. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00996.x engagement: I. A qualitative, investigation of relevance
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered. Toward and dimensions. International Journal of Sport Psychol-
a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 34–64. ogy, 38, 451–470.
doi:10.1159/000271574 Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach–athlete
Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M.S. (2015). Relationships relationship: A motivational, model. Journal of Sports Sci-
between perceived teachers’, controlling behavior, psy- ences, 21, 883–904. doi:10.1080/0264041031000140374
chological need thwarting, anger and bullying behavior Marbell, K.N., & Grolnick, W.S. (2013). Correlates of paren-
in high-school students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, tal control and autonomy support, in an interdependent
103–114. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.003 culture: A look at Ghana. Motivation and Emotion, 37,
Hewitt, P.L., & Flett, G.L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self 79–92. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9289-2
and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and McDavid, L., Cox, A.E., & McDonough, M.H. (2014). Need
association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality fulfillment and motivation in, physical education predict
and Social Psychology, 60, 456–470. doi:10.1037/0022- trajectories of change in leisure-time physical activity in
3514.60.3.456 early adolescence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15,
Hospel, V., & Galand, B. (2016). Are both classroom autonomy 471–480. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.006
support and structure equally, important for students’ Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Auweele, Y.V.
engagement? A multilevel analysis. Learning and Instruc- (2009). Beyond positive and, negative affect: Achievement
tion, 41, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001 goals and discrete emotions in the elementary physical
Jang, H., Kim, E.J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of education classroom. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
self-determination theory’s, motivation mediation model in 10, 336–343. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.11.004
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. expenditure. The British Journal of Educational Psychol-
(2008). The motivating role of, positive feedback in sport ogy, 84, 152–174. doi:10.1111/bjep.12028
and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model. Podlog, L., Lochbaum, M., & Stevens, T. (2010). Need satisfac-
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 240–268. tion, well-being, and perceived, return-to-sport outcomes
doi:10.1123/jsep.30.2.240 among injured athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychol-
Natvig, G.K., Albrektsen, G., & Qvarnstrøm, U. (2003). Associ- ogy, 22, 167–182. doi:10.1080/10413201003664665
ations between psychosocial, factors and happiness among Prochaska, J.J., Sallis, J.F., Slymen, D.J., & McKenzie, T.L.
school adolescents. International Journal of Nursing Prac- (2003). A longitudinal study of, children’s enjoyment
tice, 9, 166–175. doi:10.1046/j.1440-172X.2003.00419.x of physical education. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15,
Ng, J.Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, 170–178. doi:10.1123/pes.15.2.170
E.L., Ryan, R.M., Duda, J.L., & Williams, G.C. (2012). Reeve, J. (2006). Teachers as facilitators: What autonomy-
Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A supportive teachers do and why their students ben-
meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, efit. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 225–236.
325–340. doi:10.1177/1745691612447309 doi:10.1086/501484
Nicholls, J.G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. on student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly,
Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self‐determination approach to the & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student
understanding of motivation in, physical education. The engagement (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Springer.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225–242. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7
doi:10.1348/000709901158497 Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive
Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in learning environments for, themselves: The concept of
optional school physical education, using a self-determi- agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
nation theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychol- 105, 579–595. doi:10.1037/a0032690
ogy, 97, 444–453. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.444 Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive
Ntoumanis, N. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective teachers: How they teach and, motivate students. Journal of
on motivation in sport and, physical education: current Educational Psychology, 91, 537–548. doi:10.1037/0022-
trends and possible future research directions. In G.C. 0663.91.3.537
Roberts & D.C. Treasure (Eds.), Motivation in sport and Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004).
exercise (pp. 91–128). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Enhancing students’ engagement by, increasing teachers’
Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S.J. (1999). A review of motivational autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.
climate in physical, activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, doi:10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f
17, 643–665. doi:10.1080/026404199365678 Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’ classroom engagement
Ntoumanis, N., Pensgaard, A.M., Martin, C., & Pipe, K. (2004). produces longitudinal changes in, classroom motiva-
An idiographic analysis of, amotivation in compulsory tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 527–540.
school physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise doi:10.1037/a0034934
Psychology, 26, 197–214. doi:10.1123/jsep.26.2.197 Reeve, J., & Tseng, C.M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect
Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2009). Motivation in physical of students’ engagement during, learning activities.
education classes: A self-determination theory perspec- Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257–267.
tive. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
doi:10.1177/1477878509104324 Rogers, C. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to
Patrick, H., & Williams, G.C. (2012). Self-determination theory: “motives” and to consciousness. In M.
Its application to health, behavior and complementarity Ryan, R.M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of
with motivational interviewing. The International Jour- integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.
nal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x
doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-18 Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2017). Self-determination theory:
Pelletier, L.G., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J., & Briere, N.M. Basic psychological needs in, motivation, development,
(2001). Associations among, perceived autonomy sup- and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
port, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A pro- Ryska, T.A., Hohensee, D., Cooley, D., & Jones, C. (2002).
spective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279–306. Participation motives in predicting, sport dropout among
doi:10.1023/A:1014805132406 Australian youth gymnasts. North American Journal of
Perlman, D. (2013). The influence of the social context on Psychology, 4, 199–210.
students in-class physical, activity. Journal of Teaching in Sallis, J., Bauman, A., & Pratt, M. (1998). Environmental
Physical Education, 32, 46–60. doi:10.1123/jtpe.32.1.46 and policy interventions to promote, physical activity.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge. Chicago, IL: Uni- American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15, 379–397.
versity of Chicago Press. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00076-2
Pinxten, M., Marsh, H.W., De Fraine, B., Van Den Noortgate, Sanchez-Oliva, D., Sanchez-Miguel, P.A., Leo, F.M., Kinnafick,
W., & Van Damme, J. (2013). Enjoying mathematics or F.E., & García-Calvo, T. (2014). Physical education les-
feeling competent in mathematics? Reciprocal effects sons and physical activity intentions within Spanish,
on mathematics achievement and perceived math effort secondary schools: A self-determination perspective.
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33, 232–249. processes to support and maintain health and well-being.
doi:10.1123/jtpe.2013-0043 In G.C. Roberts & D.C. Treasure (Eds.), Advances in
Skinner, E.A. (2016). Engagement and disaffection as central to motivation in sport and exercise (3rd ed., pp. 233–270).
processes of motivational, resilience and development. In Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
K.R. Wentzel & D.B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motiva- Standage, M., Gillison, F., & Treasure, D.C. (2007). Self-
tion at school (pp. 145–168). New York, NY: Routledge. determination and motivation in, physical education. In
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. M.S. Hagger & N.L.D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic
(2002). Motivation and dropout, in female handballers: A motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport
21‐month prospective study. European Journal of Social (pp. 71–85). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Psychology, 32, 395–418. doi:10.1002/ejsp.98 Su, Y.L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effec-
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & tiveness of intervention programs, designed to support
Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic, relationship of per- autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159–188.
ceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7
self‐regulated learning. The British Journal of Educational Suldo, S.M., Riley, K.N., & Shaffer, E.J. (2006). Academic
Psychology, 79, 57–68. doi:10.1348/000709908X304398 correlates of children and, adolescents’ life satisfac-
Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the class- tion. School Psychology International, 27, 567–582.
room: Reciprocal effects of, teacher behavior and student doi:10.1177/0143034306073411
engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Taylor, I.M., & Lonsdale, C. (2010). Cultural differences in the
Psychology, 85, 571–581. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571 relationships among autonomy, support, psychological
Skinner, E.A., Kindermann, T.A., & Furrer, C.J. (2009). A need satisfaction, subjective vitality, and effort in British
motivational perspective on, engagement and disaffection: and Chinese physical education. Journal of Sport & Exer-
Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral cise Psychology, 32, 655–673. doi:10.1123/jsep.32.5.655
and emotional participation in academic activities in the Taylor, I.M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational
classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, strategies and student self-determination in physical edu-
69, 493–525. doi:10.1177/0013164408323233 cation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747–760.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.747
L., Beyers, W., & Ryan, R.M. (2007). Conceptualizing Taylor, I.M., Ntoumanis, N., Standage, M., & Spray, C.M.
parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of (2010). Motivational predictors of, physical education
promotion of independence versus promotion of volitional students’ effort, exercise intentions, and leisure-time physi-
functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43, 633–646. cal activity: A multilevel linear growth analysis. Journal
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.633 of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 99–120. doi:10.1123/
Standage, M., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model jsep.32.1.99
of contextual motivation in physical, education: Using Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). The effect
constructs from self-determination and achievement goal of an intervention to improve, newly qualified teachers’
theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of interpersonal style, students motivation and psychologi-
Educational Psychology, 95, 97–110. doi:10.1037/0022- cal need satisfaction in sport-based physical education.
0663.95.1.97 Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 242–253.
Standage, M., Duda, J.L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.05.005
self‐determination theory in school, physical education. The Tischler, A., & McCaughtry, N. (2011). PE is not for me: When
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 411–433. boys’ masculinities are, threatened. Research Quarterly
doi:10.1348/000709904X22359 for Exercise and Sport, 82, 37–48. doi:10.1080/027013
Standage, M., Duda, J.L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students’ 67.2011.10599720
motivational processes and their relationship to teacher Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A.L. (2009). Social and
ratings in school physical education: A self-determination motivational predictors of continued youth, sport par-
theory, approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise and ticipation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 87–95.
Sport, 77, 100–110. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.06.007
Standage, M., & Gillison, F. (2007). Students’ motivational Uusitalo-Malmivaara, L. (2012). Global and school-related hap-
responses toward school physical, education and their piness in Finnish, children. Journal of Happiness Studies,
relationship to general self-esteem and health-related qual- 13, 601–619. doi:10.1007/s10902-011-9282-6
ity of, life. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 704–721. Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens,
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.004 W. (2008). Explaining the, relationships between job
Standage, M., Gillison, F.B., Ntoumanis, N., & Treasure, D.C. characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of
(2012). Predicting students’ physical activity and health- basic, psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress,
related well-being: A prospective cross-domain investiga- 22, 277–294. doi:10.1080/02678370802393672
tion of motivation across school physical education and Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R.M. (2013). On psychological
exercise settings. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, growth and vulnerability: Basic, psychological need
34, 37–60. doi:10.1123/jsep.34.1.37 satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle.
Standage, M., & Ryan, R.M. (2012). Self-determination theory Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280.
and exercise motivation: Facilitating self-regulatory doi:10.1037/a0032359
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Vlachopoulos, S.P. (2012). The role of self-determination perceived competence in facilitating long-term tobacco
theory variables in predicting middle, school students’ abstinence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 315–324.
subjective vitality in physical education. Hellenic Journal doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9090-y
of Psychology, 9, 179–204. Woods, C., Tannehill, D., Quinlan, A., Moyna, N., & Walsh, J.
Vlachopoulos, S., & Biddle, S.J. (1997). Modeling the relation (2010). The Children’s Sport, Participation and Physical
of goal orientations to, achievement-related affect in physi- Activity Study (CSPPA). Research Report No 1. Dublin,
cal education: Does perceived ability matter? Journal of Ireland: School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 169–187. doi:10.1123/ City University and The Irish, Sports Council.
jsep.19.2.169 World Health Organization. (2010). World health statistics
Weiss, M.R., & Petlichkoff, L.M. (1989). Children’s motivation 2010. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, Press.
for participation in and, withdrawal from sport: Identifying Zhang, T., Solmon, M.A., Kosma, M., Carson, R.L., & Gu, X.
the missing links. Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 195–211. (2011). Need support, need, satisfaction, intrinsic moti-
doi:10.1123/pes.1.3.195 vation, and physical activity participation among middle
White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept school students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educa-
of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. tion, 30, 51–68. doi:10.1123/jtpe.30.1.51
doi:10.1037/h0040934
Williams, G.C., Niemiec, C.P., Patrick, H., Ryan, R.M., & Deci,
E.L. (2009). The importance, of supporting autonomy and
JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Psychological Needs and The Quality of Student Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers As Key Facilitators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Needs and The Quality of Student Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers As Key Facilitators

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Psychological Needs and The Quality of Student Engagement in Physical Education: Teachers As Key Facilitators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 2017, 36, 262 -276

Psychological Needs and the Quality of Student

Keywords: PE, motivation, adolescent, teaching

Engagement and Disaffection emotions that typically accompany high-quality forms of

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

are described within BPNT that are purported to act as

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

Figure 1 — An SDT-informed mediation model of PE engagement and disaffection.

with Belgian PE students. Here, Haerens et al. (2015) Practitioner Recommendations

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

to help researchers and practitioners realize this poten-

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

E.L. (2009). The importance, of supporting autonomy and

JTPE Vol. 36, No. 3, 2017

You might also like