Exploring the Impact of Choice and Variety on Adolescents’ Motivation to Participate in High-Intensity Interval Training During Physical Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose : The purpose of this study is to investigate whether variety and choice affect adolescents’ motivation in high-intensity interval training during physical education. Method : We conducted a four-armed randomized controlled trial involving 206 students from one school (aged 12.6 ± 0.5 years), who participated in a 6-week high-intensity interval training program, delivered twice weekly during physical education. Students were randomized by class to the low- or high-varieties, choice, or control (standard warm-up) conditions. Results : Group-by-time effects resulted for the low- and high-variety groups on intrinsic motivation ( d = 0.43, 0.47) compared with the control group; high-variety and choice groups had higher enjoyment than the low-variety group, and the high-variety group showed greater positive affect than low-variety and choice groups ( d = 0.68, 0.61). Low-variety and choice groups had significant improvements for cardiorespiratory and lower body muscular fitness (respectively). Conclusion : Offering variety or choice in high-intensity interval training during physical education may enhance intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, positive affect, and/or fitness outcomes in adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".