The influence of the Sport Education Model on amotivated students’ in-class physical activity

Abstract

The Sport Education Model (SEM) was designed by Siedentop to provide students with a holistic sport-based experience. As research on the SEM continues, an aspect that has gained interest is the influence on (a) students with low levels of motivation and (b) opportunities to engage in health-enhancing levels of physical activity. The purpose of this study was to examine the physical activity differences between amotivated students engaged in the SEM compared with a traditional sport-based physical education class. Sixty-nine amotivated students were engaged in a unit of basketball taught using the SEM or traditional (skill–drill–game) approach. Accelerometers were used to collect daily in-class physical activity levels. Physical activity data were averaged into three phases (five lessons per phase) and analysed using repeated measures ANOVAs. As a result engagement within the SEM provided amotivated students with an increased opportunity to engage in higher levels of physical activity.

Keywords

amotivation sport education model physical activity

Introduction

The US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS, 2010) and the Crawford Report in Australia (Crawford, 2009), indicate that physical education is foundational to students engaging in and adopting a physically active lifestyle. People who are physically active tend to have a decreased risk for heart disease, diabetes and some forms of cancer (USDHHS, 2008). An issue that arises is that some physical education programmes are not engaging students in adequate levels of health-enhancing physical activity (McKenzie, et al., 2000, 2006) and adolescent students are not exhibiting the motivation to participate in physical activity both inside and outside the class setting (Ntoumanis et al., 2004). Of particular importance are amotivated students who demonstrate extremely low levels of motivation (Ntoumanis et al., 2004).

Grounded in the self-determination theory (SDT) of motivation (Deci and Ryan, 1985), amotivation is the concept whereby a student possesses an extremely low level of motivation. As such, an amotivated physical education student will be more likely to be late for or miss class (Ntoumanis et al., 2004). Furthermore, Ntoumanis et al. (2004) indicated that when such an amotivated student attends class, they put forth a high level of effort toward non-engagement in activity by making excuses or standing in the middle of the gymnasium floor.

A key strategy for improving physical activity participation during physical education is to ‘implement a well-designed curriculum’ (USDHHS, 2010: p. 2). Key aspects of a well-designed curriculum should (a) be based on national or state curricula, syllabus or standard(s) and (b) be designed to provide students with 50% of class time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (USDHHS, 2010). A model of instruction that has been aligned with key elements of a well-designed curriculum and positively influenced amotivated students is the Sport Education Model (SEM; Hastie and Trost, 2002; Siedentop et al., 2004; Perlman, 2010).

Sport Education Model

The original premise of the SEM was to provide students with a sport-based experience that was deemed appropriate, both pedagogically and developmentally, for physical education (Siedentop, 1994). Accordingly, students would be exposed to a pedagogical approach that educated in regards to all aspects (e.g. setting up fields, keeping score, officiating, playing within the unwritten rules of the game, etc.) needed to facilitate game play. In order to achieve these goals, Siedentop (1994) stated that students engaged in the SEM would become ‘literate, enthusiastic and competent sportspeople’ (p. 4), through the infusion of six SEM features: culminating events, festivity, record keeping, affiliation, formal competition and seasons. Kinchin (2006), within the text Handbook of Research in Physical Education, outlines the extensive research illustrating the goals and features of the SEM. Of relevance to this study was research aligning the SEM with criteria of a well-designed curriculum and changes in the amotivated student.

Sport education, well-designed curriculum and amotivation

There is a wealth of literature that has aligned the SEM with national, state and regional curriculum across the world (Kinchin, 2006). For instance, the SEM has been aligned with the United States’ national content standards, physical education syllabi in Australia and the national curriculum of the United Kingdom (Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005). The inherent flexibility of the SEM (e.g. prioritizing the aspect of fair play to focus on the affective learning domain) allows teachers and curriculum coordinators to align the model with the diverse needs of their student populations and guiding educational documents (Siedentop et al., 2004).

Research grounded within motivational theories and frameworks has illustrated positive changes when engaging students within units of the SEM (Wallhead and Ntoumanis, 2004; Perlman, 2010; Perlman and Goc Karp, 2010). For instance, Perlman and Goc Karp (2010) indicated that students engaged within the SEM progressed toward more self-determined forms of motivation. Furthermore, students reported higher levels of motivationally based responses such as enjoyment (Perlman, 2010) and success (Wallhead and Ntoumanis, 2004). While alignment with Department of Education curriculum documents/national standards and positive psychological development is well articulated in the current literature, it is unclear whether the SEM provides students with opportunities to spend at least 50% of class time in MVPA and data on the effects of SEM on amotivated students’ physical activity are limited. To date, one study has examined the SEM from a physical activity perspective (Hastie and Trost, 2002). Hastie and Trost (2002) investigated the influence of the SEM on adolescent males’ abilities to meet the 50% MVPA threshold during a unit of floor hockey. Results of this study illustrated that even during times of high managerial tasks students were able to meet the MVPA threshold requirements throughout the lessons. Examination of the amotivated student within the SEM is relegated to one study conducted by Perlman (2010). In this study, it was found that amotivated students significantly changed their perceptions of enjoyment and psychosocial support during a SEM invasion unit.

While the studies by Hastie and Trost (2002) and Perlman (2010) illustrate promise for meeting physical activity benchmarks and behaviour changes among amotivated students through the SEM, there are some gaps in the current research. A primary limitation within the Hastie and Trost (2002) study was that it examined a relatively small homogenous group of male students. Furthermore, the Perlman (2010) study investigated only psychological changes without any inquiry into actual behaviour changes. As such, this study attempts to extend the SEM and physical activity (PA) research by examining a population low in motivation and desire to be physically active (i.e. amotivated) during a unit using the SEM. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the physical activity differences between amotivated students engaged in the SEM compared with a traditional (skill–drill–game) sport-based physical education class. Specifically, this study was guided by the following research questions:

Do amotivated students involved in the SEM engage in higher levels of total physical activity compared with a traditional physical education class?

Do amotivated students involved in the SEM engage in higher levels of MVPA compared with a traditional physical education class?

Method

Participants and settings

A total of 69 (male = 24; female = 45) Year 9 physical education students from a secondary school in the United States were categorized as amotivated using the protocol outlined by Ntoumanis et al. (2004). Year 9 physical education was a compulsory course that engaged students in a semester long sport-based class. Classes were based on a rotating schedule (2–3 days per week) meeting 60 minutes each day. It is important to note that actual class time was decreased to 50 minutes per day due to regular administrative aspects of the course (e.g. providing students with time to dress for class). The school mandated sport-based physical education programme adopted a skill–drill–game approach (SDG) and exposed students to an array of invasion games (e.g. soccer and basketball). Each unit of study was scheduled to last an average of 14–15 lessons. For the purpose of this study, the researcher utilized a single unit of study (i.e. basketball) due to a higher perceived teacher confidence and content knowledge. In addition, the researcher and teacher believed the basketball may provide an enhanced opportunity to be physically active due to (a) quick restart of play and (b) high levels of off-the-ball movements (e.g. physical activity). One physical education teacher delivered both models of instruction during the basketball unit. He possessed adequate basketball specific knowledge (e.g. varsity basketball coach), educational experience (e.g. eight years within the same school) and knowledge of teaching both the SDG and SEM (e.g. implemented SEM with his elective Year 11 and 12 classes).

Measures

Protocol for classifying amotivated students

All Year 9 students (N = 1176) completed the self-regulation questionnaire for physical education and academic motivation scale (amotivation subscale only) for physical education (Goudas et al., 1994). Both questionnaires required students to rate their level of agreement on 12 items using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 = ‘strongly agree’). Results of the questionnaires provided each student with an overall score for two measures of high levels of motivation (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation) and one for amotivation. Amotivated students were classified as those who scored >4.5 for amotivated and <3.5 on both the autonomous subscales (Ntoumanis et al., 2004).

Physical activity

PA data were collected using the ActiGraph GT1M Accelerometer (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, Florida). The ActiGraph GT1M is placed on the waist at the right hip and supported by an elastic band and provides a measure of activity intensity and duration measured in counts. Data were downloaded into ActiWeb Software (ActiGraph LLC, Pensacola, Florida) and calculated into metabolic equivalents (METs). METs are a measure of activity and categorized into time spent in total physical activity (TPA) (≥1 METs) and MVPA (≥3 METs) (Trost et al., 2002). Trost et al. (2002) indicate that accelerometers provide an objective and valid assessment of physical activity.

Assignment of amotivated students to treatment

Randomization conducted by a research student blind to the study utilized classes instead of students due to pre-existing academic schedules before the beginning of the study. As a result of randomization, amotivated students were distributed as follows: N = 32 (male = 10; female = 22) in the SDG and N = 37 (male = 14; female = 23) for the SEM.

Teaching models

The SEM and SDG models followed three phases: (1) skill/tactical development, (2) inter/intra team games with practices and (3) postseason. Each teaching model was conducted in three phases lasting five lessons each for consistency in analysis of PA data. Within each approach, similar learning objectives were provided (e.g. passing), yet the primary differences between both models were (a) students engaged in the SEM were taught principles that infused the six key features of sport education. For example, engagement in the SEM provided students with unit or season long roles (e.g. coach, scorekeeper) and infused the concept of fair-play/sportspersonship. The SDG approach provided students with different team members throughout phase 1 and 2, as well as focused on the concept of winning during game play. On the contrary, the SEM evaluated success based on the quality of game play (winning), completion of roles and degree of fair-play and sportspersonship. Conclusion of each unit (SEM and SDG) utilized postseason tournament (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Basketball unit plan.

Day	SEM	SDG
1	Introduction to basketball	Introduction to basketball
	Needs assessment	Needs assessment
	Identified team coaches
2	Team selection and team name	Dribbling
	Dribbling	Skill practice
	Introduce game play (3 vs. 3)	Game play (5 vs. 5)
	Duty team
3	Team practice	Passing
	Passing	Skill practice
	Intra-team games	Game play (5 vs. 5)
	Student roles
4	Team practice	Shooting
	Shooting	Skill practice
	Intra-team games	Game play (5 vs. 5)
5	Team practice	Offence/defence
	Offence/defence	Skill practice
	Intra-team games	Game play (5 vs. 5)
	Fair play/sportspersonship
6	Team practice	Class warm-up/practice
	Regular season (3 vs. 3)	Game play (5 vs. 5)
7	Team practice	Class warm-up/practice
	Regular season (3 vs. 3)	Game play (5 vs. 5)
8	Team practice	Class warm-up/practice
	Regular season (3 vs. 3)	Game play (5 vs. 5)
9	Team practice	Class warm-up/practice
	Regular season (3 vs. 3)	Game play (5 vs. 5)
10	Team practice	Class warm-up/practice
	Regular season (3 vs. 3)	Game play (5 vs. 5)
11	Team practice	Class warm-up
	Post-season tournament	Tournament
12	Team Practice	Class warm-up
	Post-season Tournament	Tournament
13	Team practice	Class warm-up
	Post-season tournament	Tournament
14	Team practice	Class warm-up
	Post-season tournament	Tournament
15	Team practice	Class warm-up
	Championship games	Tournament championships
	Awards ceremony

SEM: Sport Education Model: SDG: skill–drill–game

Model verification

Based on the work of Perlman (2010) and Ko et al. (2006), both models of instruction were verified at two time points: (a) planning and (b) implementation. During the planning phase, two independent experts in the field of physical education teacher education with specific expertise in curriculum and instruction evaluated block plans and lesson plans for each approach. Each expert evaluated the unit and daily lessons using a combined check sheet designed from the work of Perlman (2010) and Browne et al. (2004) (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Model verification check sheet.

SEM	SDG
Unit possesses different season phases	High degree of time spent on sport specific skills
Infusion of student completed roles	Much of the administrative aspects are teacher-centred
Uses a formal schedule	Lessons follow a skill–drill–game format
Mixed-ability teams throughout the unit	Teams randomly selected
Games are modified from elite form	Games represent ‘real’ format

SEM: Sport Education Model: SDG: skill–drill–game

Examination of implementation was conducted through videotape analysis. Each lesson was independently observed and evaluated by the same physical education teacher education experts. Observation of each lesson was assessed using the same template used for the planned materials. Inter-rater reliability calculations were conducted using Cohen’s kappa coefficients and deemed acceptable for both planned materials (.96) and implementation (.92). In addition, fidelity of implementation was assessed and deemed acceptable, since 98% and 96% of identified aspects of the SDG and SEM were implemented respectively.

Data collection and analysis

Before beginning this study university approval and participant/guardian consent were obtained. During the five-minute dressing period, each student was asked to wear an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer. While data from amotivated students were used within this study, all students were asked to wear an activity monitor to alleviate any inclusivity issues. Upon completion of each day, activity data were downloaded into a password-protected laptop for later analysis.

Each student’s activity for each lesson was collected at 15-second epochs and uploaded into ActiWeb for determination of activity time spent in TPA and MVPA. Daily lesson time spent in TPA and MVPA were established using age-related cut points (Trost et al., 2002). As a result, each student’s times spent in TPA and MVPA per lesson were derived. Data were further condensed into the three phases of implementation by averaging time spent in each of the dependent variables.

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviations) were calculated for all dependent variables (minutes spent in TPA, minutes spent in MVPA) for each phase of implementation. Due to the use of multiple classes, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to decide whether the individual or group should be the unit of analysis (Kenny and La Voie 1986). ICC results revealed negative correlations on all pretest and posttest dependent variables; thus following the recommendations of Kenny and La Voie (1986) the individual was utilized as the unit of analysis.

The primary research questions were to investigate whether amotivated students involved in the SEM would engage in higher levels of physical activity (i.e. TPA and MVPA) when compared with the traditionally taught course. As such, two separate (2 × 3) (Group × Time) repeated measures ANOVAs were calculated. Follow-up pairwise calculations were entered into SPSS syntax to identify where the significance occurred for significant ANOVAs. Due to the use of multiple ANOVA calculations, a Bonferoni adjustment was calculated (p ≤ .025).

Results

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviations) for all dependent variables are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation (SD)) of time in minutes spent in each physical activity category.

	SEM		SDG
	M	SD	M	SD
TPA – Phase 1	4.54	1.62	4.31	1.42
TPA – Phase 2	5.37	1.87	4.68	1.71
TPA – Phase 3	21.00	6.90	13.21	3.37
MVPA – Phase 1	2.08	0.98	1.96	0.78
MVPA – Phase 2	2.45	1.07	2.18	0.89
MVPA – Phase 3	10.41	3.56	6.09	1.77

Each lesson provided the opportunity for 50 minutes of activity time.

SEM: Sport Education Model: SDG: skill–drill–game; TPA: total physical activity; MVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

Repeated measures ANOVA calculations revealed significant main and interaction effects for both TPA (Time) F (2,66) = 184.62, p = .000, η² = .848, (Time × Treatment) F (2,66) = 18.08, p = .000, η² = .354 and MVPA (Time) F (2,66) = 153.23, p = .000, η² = .823, (Time × Treatment) F (2,66) = 17.21, p = .000, η² = .343. Results of significant interaction ANOVAs were plotted (see Figures 1 and 2) and follow-up pairwise comparisons indicate significant between-group differences and are displayed in Table 4.

Figure 1.

Average time spent in total physical activity per phase.

Figure 2.

Average time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per phase.

Table 4.

Test of simple main effect for significant interaction ANOVAs.


TPA			Mean diff.	Standard		Confidence interval
Phase	(I)	(J)	(I-J)	error	Sig.	Lower	Upper
1	SEM	SDG	0.228	0.371	0.541	-0.512 to	0.968
2	SEM	SDG	0.691	0.435	0.117	-0.177 to	1.60
3	SEM	SDG	8.00*	1.341	0.000	5.324 to	10.68

MVPA			Mean diff.	Standard		Confidence interval
Phase	(I)	(J)	(I-J)	error	Sig.	Lower	Upper
1	SEM	SDG	0.112	0.216	0.605	-0.319 to	0.514
2	SEM	SDG	0.272	0.240	0.261	-0.207 to	0.750
3	SEM	SDG	4.312*	0.694	0.000	2.927 to	0.569

I = SEM; J = SDG; SEM: Sport Education Model: SDG: skill–drill–game; TPA: total physical activity; MVPA: moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; diff.: difference; Sig.: * significant at or below .025.

Discussion

The primary focus of this research was to examine the influence of the SEM on amotivated students’ physical activity inside a sport-based physical education unit. Results of this study indicated that engaging amotivated students within the SEM elicited significantly higher levels of overall (TPA) and health-enhancing levels (MVPA) of physical activity. In particular, amotivated students within the final phase (i.e. postseason) of the SEM showed significantly higher time spent in both TPA and MVPA.

Engagement within the SEM brought about significant changes in in-class physical activity patterns of amotivated students during the final phase (i.e. lessons 11–15) of the unit. These results support and extend previous SEM studies that identified the positive changes in amotivated students (Perlman, 2010). In addition, this study further supports the research of Hastie and Trost (2002) that using the SEM as a framework of instruction may provide an increased level of physical activity especially within invasion-type units.

There were many interesting results associated with students’ PA during all three phases of the unit. During the initial phases (lessons 1–10) of implementation, both approaches engaged students in similar amounts of TPA and MVPA. These results can be viewed as counter-intuitive since engagement within the SEM inherently has students spending time in learning experiences that do not engage students in physical activity (e.g. developing sportspersonship rubric). A plausible reason for these results may have been that students were taught similar content and may not have maximized opportunities for students to engage in PA. For instance, much of the initial lessons was teacher-led, whereby the differences between the SEM and SDG could be viewed as minimal. In addition, aspects of the SEM that were implemented within the initial phases may not have been supportive or provided opportunities to engage in higher levels of PA. In particular, students were taught about their season roles (e.g. captain, duty team, etc.) and how fair play would be implemented and scored throughout the season. From an educational perspective, phases 1 and 2 may have emphasized an increased level of learning that could be viewed as foundational to students engaging in PA later within the unit. While students in the SDG were not taught the SEM elements, there equally low levels of PA may have been caused by the amotivated students’ lack or desire to engage in any behaviour whether it is activity oriented or not. This claim is supportive of Perlman (2010) and Perlman and Goc Karp (2010), who found that effecting changes in motivation within the SEM requires time and that engaging the amotivated student would not be evident within the initial lessons.

The significant difference between the SEM and SDG approach during the last phase was also interesting. Hastie and Trost (2002) identified within their study that students during all three phases were engaged in a high level of time spent in MVPA and TPA, yet this study reveals that using a quasi-control group illustrated that differences were only evident within the last phase. A plausible reason for the differences in MVPA and TPA during the final phase could be attributed to (a) infusion of accountability measures that provided students with an avenue to demonstrate a level of competence and (b) opportunities to contribute beyond effective game play. For example, the use of a holistic scoring system may have provided students with an opportunity to demonstrate competence. Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest that providing students with a way to demonstrate competence can be a powerful motivator and in turn facilitate higher levels of physical activity. Accordingly, unlike the SDG approach, which placed a high value on winning, amotivated students could find an area to excel (e.g. completion of roles, following fair play guidelines) and be involved (e.g. or more active) within the SEM class. It may have been the holistic version of teaching sport espoused by Siedentop (1994) that assisted in engagement (i.e. higher levels of PA) of the amotivated students.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that it is possible to provide amotivated students with a sport-based experience that facilitates changes in students’ physical activity. Results of the study indicated that amotivated students were more physically active within the SEM when compared with the SDG class. Although the SEM within this study demonstrated a degree of change, this study was not without limitations and needs for further inquiry. First, both groups did not meet the gold standard of 50% of class time engaged in MVPA. While significant changes did occur, further inquiry may need to investigate how the SEM can be manipulated (e.g. roles that are inherently active) in a way to increase the PA opportunities for students without detracting from the learning goals of a physical education class. Second, the use of multiple classes and a single basketball unit limited this study whereby much of the results lack the potential for generalization. Future studies are needed to examine (a) the potential of the SEM on PA among students with diverse motivational profiles and (b) in different games classifications (e.g. target, net/wall), and (c) the influence of specific SEM features that influence PA during daily lessons.

References

Browne

TBJ

Carlson

Hastie

(2004) A comparison of Rugby seasons presented in traditional and sport education formats. European Physical Education Review 10: 199–214.

Crawford

(2009) The Future of Sport in Australia. Canberra, NSW: Australian Government.

Deci

Ryan

(1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

Goudas

Biddle

SJH

Fox

(1994) Perceived locus of causality, goal- orientations, and perceived competence in school physical education classes. The British Journal of Educational Psychology 64: 453–463.

Hastie

Trost

(2002) Student physical activity levels during a season of sport education. Pediatric Exercise Science 14: 64–75.

Kenny

D A

Lavoie

(1985) Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 339–348.

Kinchin

(2006) Sport education: a view of the research. In: Kirk

O'Sullivan

Macdonald

(eds) Handbook of Research in Physical Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 596–609.

Wallhead

Ward

(2006) Chapter 4: Professional development workshops – what do teachers learn and use? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25: 397–412.

McKenzie

Catellier

Conway

(2006) Girls’ activity levels and lesson contexts in middle school PE: TAAG baseline. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercises 38: 1229–1235.

10.

McKenzie

Marshall

Sallis

Conway

(2000) Student activity levels, lesson context, and teacher behavior during middle school physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71: 249–259.

11.

Ntoumanis

Pensgaard

Martin

Pipe

(2004) An Idiographic analysis of amotivation in compulsory school physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 26: 197–214.

12.

Perlman

(2010) Change in affect and needs satisfaction for amotivated students within the sport education model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 29: 433–445.

13.

Perlman

Goc Karp

(2010) A self-determined perspective of the sport education model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 15: 401–408.

14.

Siedentop

(1994) Sport Education: Quality P.E. Through Positive Sport Experiences. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

15.

Siedentop

Hastie

van der Mars

(2004) Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

16.

Trost

Pate

Sallis

(2002) Age and gender differences in objectively measured physical activity in youth. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise 34: 350–355.

17.

USDHHS (2008) Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

18.

USDHHS (2010) Strategies to Improve the Quality of Physical Education. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

19.

Wallhead

T L

Ntoumanis

(2004) Effects of a sport education intervention on students’ motivational responses in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 23: 4–18.

20.

Wallhead

O’Sullivan

(2005) Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10: 181–210.