Changes in Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs Regarding Motivational Strategies: A Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical education teachers use motivational strategies that can (positively or negatively) affect their students’ level of motivation and engagement. Indeed, according to their experiences and beliefs, some teachers may focus on strategies that thwart, rather than support, students’ psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). Effective professional development represents an excellent opportunity to help teachers use research-supported motivational strategies. Therefore, this study aimed to discover if attendance at a 2-day training course could positively affect PE teachers’ beliefs regarding empowering motivational strategies. Specifically, 11 PE teachers (experimental group = 6 [attending the training]; control group = 5 [no training]) from primary school (n = 6) and secondary school (n = 5) expressed their beliefs (effectiveness, feasibility, and normality) regarding 31 empowering motivational strategies proposed during training at the beginning (October) and the end (April) of the school year. Results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for related samples indicated no significant differences for the belief regarding effectiveness in either group. However, some positive significant changes (p ≤ .05) occurred in the experimental group for two motivational strategies supporting students’ need for autonomy and one supporting their need for competence. Given the small sample, positive trends (p ≤ .10) are also considered results of interest. In conclusion, the training appears likely to impact teachers’ beliefs. However, future professional development should provide additional feedback and follow-up time with teachers during experimentation with students to allow teachers to refine their understanding and use of the motivational strategies proposed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".