Examination of elementary students’ emotions and personal and social responsibility in physical education

Abstract

This study examined the relationships between student emotions in elementary physical education (PE) and their self-reported personal and social behaviors. Additionally, self-reported emotion and personal and social behavior differences were tested between students receiving a traditional multiactivity and games PE curriculum and those experiencing a Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model curriculum. Participants were 2nd and 3rd grade students (n=222) from two schools in the United States. Both schools had similar student demographics, school needs, and community characteristics. For secondary comparison analysis, school one (n=87) served as the comparative school receiving a traditional multiactivity curriculum and school two (n=135) received the TPSR model. Results showed that enjoyment and anger were predictors of students’ behavioral engagement. Findings also disclosed a significant positive effect for enjoyment, perceived responsibility, and behavioral engagement favoring the TPSR group. The TPSR model may be positively associated with elementary students’ beliefs about responsible behaviors, student enjoyment, and training students in positive ways to deal with anger. Overall, investigating the relationship between students’ emotions and their personal and social development, as it relates to PE, may provide intervention to reduce some negative experiences students report in these environments. Likewise, positive emotional experiences may increase in-class engagement and the adoption of adaptive personal and social responsibilities within PE and potentially into other areas in and out of school.

Keywords

Anger enjoyment perceived responsibility teaching personal and social responsibility model urban schools

Introduction

Students’ subjective experiences and affective skills related to social and emotional learning have been highlighted as important, yet often disregarded, outcomes in physical education (PE) (Hellison, 2011; Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE) America, 2014). Traditionally, PE settings in the United States (US) have focused on sport-specific skills and competition (Ennis, 2014). These foci may limit students’ development of personal, social, and emotional skills (Wright and Walsh, 2018). Therefore, a movement for PE and physical activity (PA) programmes to utilize positive youth development as a central tenet, particularly in urban environments in the US, has evolved (Hellison, 2011; Mowling et al., 2011). Encompassed within the US PE standard recommendations, teachers are implored to develop students’ physical skills/abilities and build personally responsible individuals who find enjoyment and value in PE (SHAPE America, 2014). SHAPE America (2014) specifically highlights these critical outcomes, including exhibiting personal and social responsibility and recognizing the value of PA for health and enjoyment. The development of personal and social skills, such as putting in effort, practicing engagement, being responsible for personal actions, helping others in class and transferring these skills to other settings outside of school (Jacobs and Wright, 2018), is embedded in the PE curriculum (Hemphill and Richards, 2016). To understand if these outcomes are reached, it is important to evaluate students’ affective experiences.

In addition, for students to reap the full benefits and goals of PE, it is important for them to have positive emotional and motivating experiences (Cox et al., 2008; Simonton and Garn, 2019). Specifically, intrinsic forms of motivation experienced by students appear to have the most beneficial effects on outcomes like activity time (Kalajas-Tilga et al., 2020). Student emotions have also been identified as a source for understanding personal and social outcomes such as in-class engagement and disruptive behavior; however, there is limited quantitative evidence evaluating student emotions in PE overall (Simonton and Garn, 2019). Little work has been done on the connection between emotions/affect and personal and social outcomes, particularly at the elementary level. Discrete student emotions, such as enjoyment, boredom, and anger, are commonly reported which produce specific and predictable thoughts and behaviors called action tendencies (Fredrickson, 2001). Student emotions are an ideal psychosocial construct to evaluate in PE as they represent students’ well-being and are prerequisites to attaining engaged and willing learners (Pekrun et al., 2009). Given the connection found between emotion and personal and social skills in other school arenas (Farahmand et al., 2011; Jackson and Cunningham, 2015), more research is needed on how class emotions are related to social-emotional learning and positive behavioral development within PE.

Overall, evaluating the relationship between student emotions in PE and their personal and social behavior may be particularly important at the elementary level, which has been identified as a crucial time for social and cognitive development (Collins and van Dulmen, 2006; Opstoel et al., 2020). Students experience rapid increases in social engagement with peers and begin to recognize social norms in and out of school. For example, studies have shown that peer teasing and social exclusion of obese students in elementary school can create negative long-term emotional consequences and implications on well-being (Jackson and Cunningham, 2015). In settings like PE where students are engaging in physical learning in front of one another, students need to be taught social skills that lead to positive interactions with their peers (Hellison, 2011). Understanding the development of these social and emotional behaviors may allow researchers and teachers to proactively curtail negative experiences and promote positive behaviors (Jacobs and Wright, 2018). Evaluating emotions like enjoyment as well as personal and social responsibility behaviors are essential to several key components of the PE standards and of a physically literate student. Additionally, emotions appear to be a precursor to motivated/unmotivated behavior and likely serve as predictors of student behavior (Simonton and Garn, 2019); however, more research is needed on student perceptions in these areas.

Student emotions

Student emotions are defined as coordinated processes that influence physiological, psychological, and motivational responses of individuals (Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2016). The emotional experience of youth plays a particularly meaningful role and can solidify short- and long-term belief systems and social competencies (Jackson and Cunningham, 2015). The present study focused on three emotions, namely enjoyment, boredom, and anger. These three emotions were selected due to the frequency they have been reported in elementary education settings (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012) and because they represent a diverse classification of emotions (Pekrun, 2006). Emotions are categorized by valence (positive/negative), activation (activating/deactivating), and object focus (in-activity or outcome focused; Pekrun, 2006). Measuring emotions discretely as opposed to measuring students’ general affect is preferred because each discrete emotion has unique action tendencies or behaviors (Fredrickson, 2001) that can be masked within affect (Simonton and Garn, 2019). For example, students who are bored have very different resulting actions/behaviors than those who experience anger (Simonton and Garn, 2020). However, if negative affect is used, both emotions would be captured within one construct, preventing the ability to see their unique tendencies.

All three emotions are considered in-activity emotions, meaning they are associated with the learning process, irrespective of outcomes (Pekrun, 2006). Enjoyment (positive/activating) has received the most attention in PE (Cox et al., 2008) and results in high perceived control and value for learning and often in engagement. In addition, enjoyment is seen as highly related and often representative of positive intrinsic motivation (Pekrun, 2006; Ryan and Deci, 2020). Research shows that while elementary students often report enjoyment in PE, a steady decrease across the grade spans is common (Bryan and Solmon, 2012). Boredom (negative/deactivating) can result from uneasy feelings about control and limited task value (Daschmann et al., 2014). Students experiencing boredom often demonstrate amotivation characteristics (Ryan and Deci, 2020; Simonton and Garn, 2020) and may disengage from the environment, take part in off-task behaviors, and fail to reach learning outcomes (Simonton and Garn, 2019). Lastly, anger can result from varying levels of control, finding little value in the task, and misalignment between their ability and task demands (Pekrun, 2006). Students experiencing anger may be frustrated with limited success and/or relevance, leading to disruptive behavior (Cothran et al., 2009; Simonton and Garn, 2020; Webster et al., 2011). Thus, anger is considered a negative intrinsic motivator that decreases the likelihood of experiencing enjoyment and reduces adaptive thoughts and behaviors (Simonton and Garn, 2020). Across the grade span, boys report higher levels of interest and enjoyment in PE as compared with girls (Bryan and Solmon, 2012). Female students have additionally reported that most content selected in PE is perceived as male-dominant and feel of low competence in these PE skills/activities (Shen et al., 2012). These experiences and feelings are particularly important as they can affect female students’ engagement in PE and connection to lifelong PA. Overall, understanding emotions in PE provides insight into affective connections with that experience and associated behaviors.

Although emotions have received more attention in other academic subjects (Pekrun, 2006) and at the secondary levels of PE (Garn et al., 2017; Simonton et al., 2018), there is a dearth of evidence exploring discrete emotions at the elementary level (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012). However, it is likely that enjoyment will enhance experiences and positively impact personal and social development as it relates to PE and content being taught. Boredom will likely undercut the progression of this development, and anger may have a negative influence by causing students to feel susceptible, vulnerable, and find little value in responsibility skills (Collins and van Dulmen, 2006; Jackson and Cunningham, 2015; Varni et al., 2001).

Personal and social behavior outcomes

For this study, personal, social, and transfer of responsibility outcomes were examined and represented by perceived responsibility, behavioral engagement, and general school function behaviors. Perceived responsibility has been defined and measured as one’s desire to adhere to rules and expectations as well as striving to do better for others (Guan et al., 2006). Students with strong perceived responsibility often reach higher academic performance, see the importance of personal improvement, and reflect adaptive patterns of motivation (Shen et al., 2012). Responsibility is a pillar of personal development and has been deemed essential for daily interactions, PA and school settings, and long-term well-being (Hellison, 2011; Opstoel et al., 2020).

Behavioral engagement is summarized as the general effort and attention one gives during the learning activity (Skinner et al., 2008). Links between students’ behavioral engagement and teaching personal and social responsibility skills may be of importance within PE, given the physical and social interactions of most tasks (Garn et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2012). It would be anticipated that for students to learn any physical, cognitive, or personal and social skills and then transfer them, a high level of behavioral engagement would be necessary. Students must find the learning environment interesting and enjoyable to be engaged (Shen et al., 2012). Lastly, emotions have been identified as a prerequisite for students’ engagement/lack of engagement in PE/PA settings (Garn et al., 2017; Simonton and Garn, 2019).

Another behavior of interest in this study is that of school functioning problems. School functioning has been a key component of students’ health-related quality of life; components include keeping up with schoolwork and focus during class sessions (Gu and Solmon, 2016; Varni et al., 2001). The frequency of missing school is also investigated as it can be associated with the loss of interest, feeling isolated in class, and lower feelings of school well-being (Daschmann et al., 2014; Varni et al., 2001). Positive student affect within the learning environment is hypothesized to reduce student-reported school functioning problems. An interconnection between emotional experience and personal and social skill development and behavior exists, but more research within elementary PE grounded in emotional theory is needed.

Control-value theory of achievement emotions

The control-value theory of achievement emotions (CVTAE) (Pekrun, 2006) provides a systematic framework to evaluate emotions and their outcomes within education settings. Specifically, CVTAE has been used to explore how emotions are formed and how they relate to behavior and achievement (Pekrun et al., 2009). The theory has also been used successfully to explore emotions within PE (Garn et al., 2017; Simonton et al., 2018). The four constructs of CVTAE include the environment, control-value appraisals, emotions, and outcomes/behaviors. Theoretically, the environment influences control-value appraisals and control-value appraisals predict emotional experiences in the education setting. Resulting emotions trigger action tendencies (Fredrickson, 2001) such as behaviors and perceptions. This theory can help explain how emotions are formed and how they lead to specific behaviors. Previous research shows that CVTAE can also be used to evaluate teaching and learning strategies that influence and/or change students’ emotional experiences, subsequently impacting their behaviors as well (Pekrun, 2006; Simonton and Garn, 2019).

Given the potential impact of the educational environment on students’ emotions and personal and social responsibility in PE, it is important to investigate the relationships between emotions as predictors of personal and social development. Additionally, the CVTAE theory would suggest that a purposeful and well-designed learning environment can change and influence emotions and resulting behaviors. Therefore, this study also explored the potential differences in traditional PE curriculum and delivery and the Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility (TPSR) model (Hellison, 2011), which has been designed to target the social, emotional, and personal responsibility development of students in PE.

Teaching personal and social responsibility

The TPSR model focuses on developing social and emotional learning through the promotion and practice of five goals: respecting the rights and feelings of others, participation and effort, self-direction, caring for others, and transferring the previous four goals to settings like the classroom, recess, home, or community (Hellison, 2011). The model emphasizes that each TPSR goal (i.e. affective skills) must be explicitly defined and practiced, like the learning progression for any physical skill, for learning to occur in PE (Richards et al., 2019). It is likely that learning these skills during child development in the mid to late elementary years can increase positive social engagement which will enhance child well-being (Hemphill et al., 2015; Jackson and Cunningham, 2015). The TPSR model has been particularly successful for developing youth personal and social skills in communities affected by poverty and those prone to high bouts of sedentary behavior (Gordon et al., 2016).

The TPSR lesson structure was developed to help teachers target the personal and social learning domain (Hellison, 2001; Hemphill et al., 2015). Specifically, Hellison (2001) provides a lesson framework in which each lesson begins with relational time, where teachers make the effort to connect with their students and allow their students to connect with one another. This time is planned for in advance, though elements of relationship building will be present throughout each lesson. Next, the awareness talk is a brief conversation in which the teacher introduces and defines the goal of the day (e.g. self-direction). The third component and the bulk of the lesson is the lesson focus: the movement-based content in combination with practice of the daily goal. As the lesson closes, the class takes part in group time and self-reflection. During group time, the students discuss overall goal performance, identify peers who performed the goal successfully, provide suggestions for lesson improvement, and discuss transfer. Self-reflection is more personal as students consider their own performance of the goal.

Prior studies in PE have found that TPSR was influential in changing students’ personal behaviors (Pozo et al., 2018). Enriched behavior changes were noted as reduced aggression and disruption, improved caring for others, self-control, sportspersonship, enjoyment, and confliction resolution (Cecchini et al., 2007). Female students have reported increased interest and value in PE time when given the opportunity to reflect and discuss responsible behaviors (Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019; Mowling et al., 2011). Boys also favored TPSR but may be resistant at first when PE class does not mimic their previous views of traditional masculine PE time. Boys are challenged to alter their mindset to the inclusive and reflective TPSR model when PE has traditionally been rooted for decades in males being dominant and competitive, including physical confrontations, and other aspects of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 2008); opposing this norm may be uncomfortable and risk their physical and emotional safety. However, results show that both genders reach positive learning and find value in PE which may represent leveling the playing field between genders (Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019). In terms of emotional-related outcomes, findings have indicated that students are better able to understand and discuss their feelings and have improved self-confidence and self-esteem (Mowling et al., 2011). Also, findings show that relatedness to the group was an important intrinsic motivator for students and altering personal responsibility for positive social change (Ward et al., 2012).

With only a few studies related to student emotion based on the TPSR model, further work is needed to fully understand the connection between the two. Beyond the call for more emotion-based research, a recent systematic review of literature based in TPSR found only five studies that had a quantitative approach out of a total of 22 (Pozo et al., 2018). This area of concern was highlighted nearly 20 years ago by Hellison and Walsh (2002), indicating that work must be done utilizing quantitative designs to provide further insight into the effectiveness of the model in altering student behaviors and emotions. Yet, disparities in methodology continue to persist. Lastly, a recent review by Opstoel and colleagues (2020) showed a limited number of studies evaluating multiple aspects of personal and social responsibility particularly at the elementary level. From an international perspective, in the last 25 years only 18 articles were identified at the elementary grade level, and of those only nine cross-sectional studies were targeting student perceptions of their responsibility behaviors (Opstoel et al., 2020). Researchers suggested more research is needed internationally on this topic within PE, with the central aim of understanding students’ perceptions of their personal and social development in elementary school. Lastly, given the onset of social-emotional learning foci in schools (Gordon et al., 2016), this study may provide key insight into how students interpret their emotions and how it may translate to their perceptions and engagement into personally responsible behaviors.

Purpose

Guided by the CVTAE, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between student emotions and key personal and social behavior outcomes in elementary PE. Specifically, we explored the relationships between student enjoyment, boredom, and anger with their perceptions of responsibility, behavioral engagement, and general school function problems. We hypothesized that enjoyment would share a positive relationship with responsibility and engagement and a negative relationship with school functioning problems, while boredom and anger would share the opposite relations. Additionally, in respect to the TPSR model’s potential to positively impact personal and social responsibilities, researchers utilized a one-time, end-of-the-year cross-sectional data collection to compare the students from two schools. This snapshot explored potential differences in emotions and personal and social behaviors between students that received one year of traditional multiactivity PE curriculum and a group that was taught using a TPSR-focused curriculum. We hypothesized that students would report higher levels of enjoyment, perceived responsibility, and engagement in the TSPR group and higher levels of boredom, anger, and school function problems in the traditional curriculum school.

Methods

Participants and settings

Participants were 2nd and 3rd grade students (n=222; Male=56%; Female=44%; Mage=8.42, SD=.96) from two elementary schools in the southeastern United States. Students reported as Black/African-American (62.8%), Hispanic/Latino/Mexican-American (19.5%), White/Caucasian (10.7%), Asian/Asian-American (2.3%), and Other (4.7%). Overall, there were more 3rd graders (55%); however, 2nd and 3rd graders shared PE at several points during the year, so groups were combined for analysis. Each school received Title One funding with 100% free and reduced lunch costs and approximately 20% of students used English as a second language. The schools were approximately three miles apart and both were classified as urban schools. Surveys were completed regarding students’ PE emotions (enjoyment, boredom, and anger) and perceived responsibility, behavioral engagement, and school functioning. School one (n=87) served as a control school and received a traditional multiactivity curriculum, whereas school two (n=135) students experienced the TPSR curriculum. All data were collected at the end of the school year.

Teachers and curriculum

The teacher delivering the TPSR curriculum was part of a larger study on TPSR professional development. The control school was a convenience selection based on similar demographic population and geographical location. Both teachers recruited for this study were certified physical educators. The control school’s teacher delivered the multiactivity programme and was in his second year teaching at his current school, fourth year overall. His units at the K-2 grade levels (data collected through self-report and observation) focused on a traditional warm-up of running laps and line stretching, fundamental skill-for-drill practices (e.g. jumping, kicking, throwing, striking, etc.), while 3rd–5th grade focused on sport-related game play including basketball, flag football, soccer, kickball, etc. Units frequently changed, typically lasting two weeks, with a focus on quantity of activities as opposed to quality over time.

The intervention teacher was in her second year at the current school and third year of teaching, overall. She delivered the TPSR curriculum and taught 1st through 4th grade. Lessons were created using daily TPSR procedures in which the activity portion of the lesson was based on teaching fundamental skills and movement concepts within and combined with the five goals of TPSR. Units were not sport specific and instead focused on combining skill themes (e.g. locomotion, non-manipulative, and manipulative skills; Graham et al., 2013) and movement concepts for 3–4 weeks at a time, often revisiting skills and combining skills at different points in the semester. The array of skill progressions and tasks were taught specifically as a vehicle to practice, demonstrate, and understand the five TPSR goals. For students in 3rd–4th grade, higher-level thinking and application skill tasks were pursued via dance, gymnastics, and small-sided games (e.g. net/wall, invasion, and target lead-up games). These activities were more developmentally appropriate for students, as opposed to large-sided team games, and provided appropriate levels of challenge for learning and practicing the TPSR goals. Both schools had PE two times per week for approximately 35 minutes each session. Classes were held in an auditorium or outdoor grass space of similar size at both schools.

Procedures

In accordance with Institutional Review Board requirements, permission to conduct the study was obtained from the researchers’ institution. The lead researcher recruited two elementary PE teachers to participate, one of whom was a part of a larger study on the professional development (PD) experience of implementing the TPSR model during the upcoming school year. After gaining administrative and teacher permission, researchers collected parent consent forms and returned to the school to administer surveys. Data were collected from both schools at the end of the school calendar year. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The researcher read each question-and-answer option aloud to students. Translators were provided for students who did not speak English fluently. Each translator was employed in the school district for that purpose. They met with researchers to review survey items to check for accuracy, and each translator was fluent in English or spoke English as their first language. All students were reminded that there were no correct answers and to be as honest as possible. Researchers and assistants were present to answer any questions. Teachers were asked to step out during data collection so as to not influence student answers.

Measures

Emotions

Enjoyment, boredom, and anger were measured using the subcomponent scales from the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire – Elementary School (AEQ-ES) (Lichtenfeld et al., 2012) adapted for PE as has been done previously (Simonton et al., 2018). All items were prompted by asking students to think about how they feel in PE. Each emotion was measured using four items. Example items include, “I enjoy being in PE,” “I get bored in PE,” and “I feel frustrated in PE.” Gender-specific (i.e. male and female) faces along with words were used to depict the five-point responses ranging from, not at all (1) to very much (5). Previous research showed acceptable validity and reliability scores for 2nd and 3rd graders (Cronbach’s Alpha for the three emotions in 2nd and 3rd grade ranged from .71 to .93; Lichtenfeld et al., 2012).

Perceived responsibility

To measure perceived responsibility in PE the responsibility subscale from the social-goal scale (Guan et al., 2006) was used. The scale was prompted to students with “In my PE class.” An example item included, “I try hard to do what the teacher asks me to do.” All five items were measured using a seven-point scale ranging from, not at all true for me (1) to very true for me (7). Items have previously been identified as valid and reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha ranging from .76 to .84; Guan et al., 2006).

Behavioral engagement

Students’ engagement was measured using the behavioral engagement subscale created by Skinner et al. (2008). Behavioral engagement refers to students’ actions related to effort and involvement in class activities. Students were prompted by “In my PE class.” An example item includes, “I try hard to do well in this class.” All five items were measured on a five-point scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Items have been previously identified as valid and reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha of .72; Skinner et al., 2008).

General school functioning problems

Perceptions of general school functioning were collected using a subscale from the pediatric quality of life inventory (PedsQL) (Varni et al., 2001). These items were selected due to PE’s role in overall health and its contributions to student alertness in other school settings. Items were prompted by, “in the past week (7 days) how much of a problem has this been for you?” Examples include, “I had a hard time concentrating in school,” and “I missed school because I didn’t feel good.” All items were measured on a five-point scale ranging from never a problem (1) to almost always a problem (5). Items have previously been identified as valid and reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha of .75; Varni et al., 2001).

Model fidelity

As part of the larger study the teacher offering TPSR engaged in six hours of training and 12 hours of curriculum preparation. The teacher had monthly meetings with a researcher for continued PD on TPSR. Researchers collected 28 lesson plans and video recorded 10 lessons. Each lesson plan and lesson recording were coded using the TPSR checklist (Gordon et al., 2016) for the five components of lesson structure and goals. The research team coded lessons and found that all lesson plans (100%) showed activities directed toward one or more of the five TPSR goals. The Tool for Assessing Responsibility-based Education (TARE) (Wright and Craig, 2011) was also used. The teacher provided consistently high scores (scoring a three or higher) on five of the nine behaviors, similar to previous findings on teachers participating in continuous PD within TPSR (Hemphill et al., 2015). The interrater reliability between the researchers reached an acceptable level (ICC=.88). Per recommendations of Gordon et al. (2016), the TARE was viewed as a complementary tool in triangulating data fidelity and it was determined the teacher was offering TPSR properly.

Data analysis

All data were screened for input accuracy, missing data, normality, and outliers. A total of 222 participants were used in the final analysis. Descriptive statistics and internal reliability estimates for each factor were analyzed using composite variables with SPSS version 25. Next, bivariate correlations were calculated to evaluate relationships among all the variables. Analysis to test the initial research hypotheses focused on relationships between emotion (enjoyment, boredom, and anger) and behavioral outcomes (perceived responsibility, behavioral engagement, and general school functioning) while accounting for school context differences (TPSR and multiactivity). Given the sample size and number of constructs under investigation, the PROCESS function (Hayes, 2018) within SPSS was used to evaluate potential pathways from all independent variables to each dependent variable simultaneously. Regression analysis and nonparametric bootstrapping techniques were used to generate test statistics including beta relationships and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The alpha level of .05 was set for determining statistical significance. Additionally, any CIs that did not straddle zero were used to make statistical inferences (Hayes, 2018).

Secondly, a 2×2 (gender×school) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to explore any potential main effects or interactions among the independent variables (gender and school curriculum) and the dependent variables (enjoyment, boredom, anger, perceived responsibility, behavioral engagement, and general school functioning). Any significant interactions were followed up using Sidak post-hoc univariate tests to specify where group differences occurred (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2014). Adjusted mean scores and plots were used to probe interaction effects and partial eta squared (η_p ²) was used to determine effect size.

Results

All bivariate correlations and reliability scores can be found in Table 1. As anticipated, mean scores showed student enjoyment, perceived responsibility, and behavioral engagement were all above the scale midpoint for each respective scale, while many of the negative emotions and behaviors were lower. All variables also showed acceptable reliability scores (α range: GSFP=.705 to anger=.819).

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics, coefficient alphas, and bivariate correlation estimates.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. ENJ	1
2. BOR	–.561**	1
3. ANG	–.534**	.658**	1
4. RES	.306**	–.235**	–.289**	1
5. ENG	.594**	–.470**	–.493**	.579**	1
6. GSFP	–.298**	.313**	.349**	–.318**	–.324**	1
M	4.26	1.99	1.71	6.34	4.57	2.38
SD	.92	1.10	1.01	1.08	.62	1.03
α	.803	.803	.819	.751	.793	.705
Scale	1–5	1–5	1–5	1–7	1–5	1–5

Emotions: ENJ, enjoyment; BOR, boredom; ANG, anger. Outcomes: RES, perceived responsibility; ENG, behavioral engagement; GSFP, general school functioning problems.

α: Cronbach alpha estimates of internal consistency. **p <.01.

To test CVTAE’s theory regarding emotion action tendencies, regression analysis was conducted between emotions and behavior outcomes, while controlling for the different schools. Significant relationships were found between school and perceived responsibility (β=.446) and general school function problems (β=–.548), but not with behavioral engagement (see Table 2). Emotions showed significant relationships as well. Anger was significantly associated with all three behaviors: perceived responsibility (β=–.193), engagement (β=–.212), and general school functioning problems (β=.221). Enjoyment was a significant contributor for behavioral engagement (β=.392) but did not show significant relationships with other outcomes. Boredom was also not significantly related to the three outcomes. Overall, the regressions accounted for moderate amounts of variance for students’ perceived responsibility (15%), behavioral engagement (40%), and general school functioning problems (20%).

Table 2.

Direct effects from emotion to behavior outcomes.

Direct Effects	B	SE	p-value	β	95% CI	R²
RES						.151
ENJ	.115	.099	.118	.133	–.039, .335
BOR	.023	.089	.799	.023	–.153, .198
ANG	–.205	.096	.034	–.193	–.395, –.016
School	.446	.152	.004	.414	.146, .746
ENG						.398
ENJ	.256	.047	<.001	.392	.163, .349
BOR	–.040	.042	.343	–.072	–.124, .043
ANG	–.132	.046	.005	–.212	–.224, –.040
School	.128	.073	.079	.211	–.015, .271
GSFP						.200
ENJ	–.036	.093	.698	–.032	–.218, .147
BOR	.080	.084	.339	.084	–.085, .245
ANG	.229	.090	.011	.221	.052, .405
School	–.548	.144	<.001	–.527	–.832, –.263

Emotions: ENJ, Enjoyment; BOR, Boredom; ANG, Anger. Outcomes: RES, perceived responsibility; ENG, behavioral engagement; GSFP, general school functioning problems.

B: unstandardized beta coefficient; SE: standard error; β: Standard beta coefficient; 95% CI: Bootstrap confidence intervals; R² : variance accounted for.

Table 3.

Mean differences between schools.

	TPSR	Control
ENJ	4.56 (.08)	3.85 (.98)
BOR	1.79 (.10)	2.27 (.12)
ANG	1.54 (.09)	1.92 (.11)
RES	6.65 (.09)	5.93 (.11)
ENG	4.74 (.05)	4.33 (.06)
GSFP	2.13 (.09)	2.77 (.11)

Emotions: ENJ, enjoyment; BOR, boredom; ANG, anger. Outcomes: RES, perceived responsibility; ENG, behavioral engagement; GSFP, general school functioning problems.

Results from the 2×2 MANOVA did not show significant effects for gender (Wilk’s Λ=.939, F(6, 190)=2.052, p=.061, η_p ²=.061), but did show main effects between the two schools regarding reported emotions and behaviors (Wilk’s Λ=.779, F(6, 190)=9.005, p<.001, η_p ²=.22). Specifically, Sidak post-hoc analysis on main effects between schools showed significant differences for all three emotions: enjoyment (F(1, 95)=31.016, p<.001, η_p ²=.14), boredom (F(1, 95)=9.755, p=.002, η_p ²=.05), and anger (F(1, 95)=7.259, p=.008, η_p ²=.04). The TPSR group reported higher scores for enjoyment and lower scores for boredom and anger compared with the control group (see Table 3). Analysis also showed significant differences between groups for each behavior variable, including perceived responsibility (F(1, 95)=24.953, p<.001, η_p ²=.11), behavioral engagement (F(1, 95)=23.382, p<.001, η_p ²=.11), and general school functions (F(1, 95)=20.155, p<.001, η_p ²=.09). Statistically, students who experienced TPSR expressed higher levels of perceived responsibility and behavioral engagement and lower general school function problems compared with the control group.

Discussion

The emotional, personal, and social development of youth within the mid to late elementary school years has several important implications in terms of general well-being (Jackson and Cunningham, 2015) and for PE (SHAPE America, 2014; Simonton and Garn, 2019). For example, students who experience emotions like enjoyment during the curriculum are more likely to take ownership and show appreciation for the content (Cox et al., 2008; Webster et al., 2011). In addition to gaining a positive attitude toward PE and active behavior, PE can be used as a vehicle to develop essential personal and social responsibility skills that impact both PE experiences and beyond (Hellison, 2011). However, the relation between students’ emotional experiences and their perceptions of the responsibilities has received limited attention, particularly at the elementary level in a quantitative manner. The purpose of this study was focused on exploring the predictive relationships between emotional experiences and personal and social behaviors. Specifically, researchers evaluated the relationships between students’ perceived enjoyment, boredom, and anger in PE with their beliefs about their perceived responsibility levels, behavioral engagement, and general school functioning abilities. In addition, this study evaluated potential differences in students’ emotions and behaviors based on gender and style of curriculum (TPSR or multiactivity).

First, findings were mixed when exploring the relations between the three discrete emotions and the outcome behaviors. For enjoyment, the present study aligned with previous research as enjoyment predicted behavioral engagement. When students enjoy activities, they are more likely to feel engaged during class (Skinner et al., 2008). The results of this study indicated that enjoyment did not relate to responsibility or school functioning problems. One reason could be that students do not connect enjoyment of PE to their everyday behavior; they connect it only to tasks experienced within PE. It is important for teachers to highlight moments of correct responsible behavior in PE as representative of having an enjoyable experience. These steps will foster messages for students on the importance of building positive relationships with others, which is needed in all areas of life. In addition, teachers need to continually promote personal value and relevance of affective skills for students to reap the benefits (Simonton and Garn, 2019; Webster et al., 2011). However, more research is needed on the potential disconnect between enjoyment and exhibiting personal and social responsibility. The TPSR model and its key instructional strategies could help bridge this gap and target the transfer of enjoyment alongside personal and social skills learned in PE to day-to-day life (Gordon et al., 2016).

Anger was found to be a significant predictor for all three behaviors that were investigated. Our findings suggest that reducing anger in students may increase perceptions of responsibility and engagement. In addition, anger in PE was linked to increases in general school function problems. Interestingly, boredom was not a significant predictor of any of the three outcomes. The deactivating nature of boredom (Dashmann et al., 2014) and limited reports of elementary students feeling bored in PE (Gu and Solmon, 2016) likely contributed to these results.

In terms of anger, former research shows less angry students are more likely to be engaged and less likely to be disruptive in class (Cothran et al., 2009; Simonton and Garn, 2020). Although results showed that anger in PE was associated with poor school functioning, it is likely that anger in other subjects contributes as well. Perpetual feelings of anger and limited coping skills may severely reduce student well-being (Varni et al., 2001). As students develop, they are building cognitive and social relationships with their learning environments and if they find limited value in the material and/or feel unable to perform tasks they may feel anger (Simonton and Garn, 2019). While anger and frustration are a part of all students’ personal and social school experiences, teachers need to intervene to provide social-emotional skills and reflection techniques that either deter anger or teach students how to recognize, accept, and use anger appropriately (Cecchini et al., 2007; Gordon et al., 2016). Based on our results, these steps of intervention are likely to not only impact students’ development in PE but in their general school lives as well.

The second major investigation in this study was to explore potential emotional and behavior differences between students in a school that received a more traditional multiactivity curriculum as opposed to a personal and social responsibility curriculum, in TPSR. In this study, the TPSR model was investigated as it is a framework to target social-emotional learning and personal and social development in PE (Wright and Walsh, 2018). While research has shown positive behavioral trends in students who experience this model (Pozo et al., 2018), less has been done on students’ perspectives of their affective behavior (Ward et al., 2012). Additionally, analysis compared emotional and behavioral reports by gender given previous findings on differences between male and female experiences in PE. Like other findings from elementary students (Manzano-Sánchez et al., 2019), as compared with middle or high school aged students, emotional and behavioral differences were not found between boys and girls.

When comparing schools that experienced different curricula, results showed that students in the TPSR group reported higher levels of positive emotions and behaviors and lower negative emotions and behaviors as compared with the multiactivity curriculum group. Enjoyment can often result from feeling that tasks in PE are controllable and challenging with bouts of success (Simonton and Garn, 2019). Importantly, students who enjoy PE often feel as part of the group and safe in class (Ward et al., 2012). TPSR constructs not only promote a positive and safe environment, but also specifically and directly teach children to show persistence and effort in the face of adversity or challenge (Hellison, 2011). These characteristics are synonymous with becoming more intrinsically motivated and feeling enjoyment. Our results suggest that enjoyment may likely be an indicator of personal or social ability and awareness. Although students in the TPSR group did not engage in traditional PE class structure and games/activities (i.e. running laps for warm-ups, full-sided basketball, soccer, kickball, etc.) they still reported high levels of enjoyment. This may be particularly meaningful as research continues to show that more is needed for achieving student enjoyment in PE than simply providing daily physical stimulation (i.e. highly active, “fun” activities that may have limited to no learning goals intended; Hemphill and Richards, 2016). These results and previous research on TPSR implementation (Hemphill et al., 2015) suggest that teachers who spend class time in discussion, self-reflection, and prioritizing the affective domain also maintain positive student results. In other words, lesson structure can deviate from a traditional routine of warm-ups, large-sided games, and simple activities that target PA time (i.e. what students are typically used to), to instead focus on social-emotional learning and personal responsibility development via discussions and targeted tasks and still be highly enjoyable for students.

Boredom was reported significantly less for the TPSR group. This could be due to the multiactivity curriculum of the control school limiting developmentally appropriate tasks and progressions, as is commonly found in PE (Ennis, 2014). Instead, students in TPSR, who experienced dedicated time spent on relational talks, discussions, and personal accountability reported less boredom. Despite simply playing activities that students like, it is possible that students who are challenged to enhance their personal and social responsibility may also experience reduced boredom in class. Also, this may highlight that students who feel bored as a result of limited interest and challenge in traditional sports and games, may in fact feel more interested in physical social-emotional learning challenges within TPSR. Thus, this finding may be particularly meaningful for the connection between TPSR and social-emotional learning (Cecchini et al., 2007; Gordon et al., 2016). Students are taught to discuss and express their feelings (positive or negative), develop conflict resolution skills, and empathy recognition which allow them to address issues within the curriculum (Hellison, 2011). For example, students are taught to make suggestions about improving the lesson, making changes to their environment, and/or expressing their frustrations to their peers and teacher. It stands to reason that students in TPSR will feel less anger or, at least, disperse of anger in a responsible way. In other words, affective skills taught in the TPSR curriculum may reduce anger and increase responsibility. These findings may be especially revealing as they pertains to traditional PE curriculum in which students are not given time to learn skills regarding coping and expression. The concept that the TPSR model reduces poor responses to anger is particularly useful in urban communities affected by poverty, as youth within these environments face conflict-related stressors at school, at home, and in surrounding neighborhoods (Farahmand et al., 2011).

As anticipated, each of the personal and social behaviors under investigation was also reported in favor of the TPSR group. Perceived responsibility behaviors are viewed as a natural extension of learning within TPSR. The present study sought to understand the relationship between student learning about responsibility and students’ perceptions of their level of responsibility. This perspective is unique as it does not question the learning of responsibility skills alone, but instead considers personal perceptions of responsibility, as personal ability perceptions influence actual performance. Two of the SHAPE America (2014) National PE standards specifically reference personal and social responsibility. Thus, students need to be taught in a curriculum that focuses on developing these skills and behaviors.

Although the students who received the TPSR model reported lower general school functioning problems, the differences were small. One major goal of TPSR is that students can transfer the skills learned to other areas of their lives. Considering positive actions regardless of actual performance is a learning advancement attributed to the explicit practice of personal and social responsibility through the TPSR model (Jacobs and Wright, 2018). The thought process associated with making a virtuous choice will likely lead to action if practice continues. The ability to consider making the responsible choice should not be discounted, as it indicates progress even if the actions associated appear to be irresponsible. Over time, those thoughts will likely result in action if feedback, reflection, practice, and other components of the TPSR model are maintained.

Behavioral engagement was reported as relatively high for both groups but still statistically higher for those who received the TPSR model. Students tend to feel excitement about PE during the elementary years, but that feeling slowly declines as students get older (Bryan and Solmon, 2012; Gu and Solmon, 2016). One important note from this study was that students reported higher engagement in TPSR, which tends to focus on and prioritize cognitive learning and personal accountability in PE. It appears that younger students were interested in the TPSR curriculum although it varied greatly from the typical psychomotor-based approach. This is an important note for TPSR adopters who may be concerned about student interest and engagement with less emphasis on PA time (Hemphill et al., 2015; Wright and Walsh, 2018).

Limitations and directions for future research

Readers should consider several limitations within the present study. First, this study takes a preliminary look at student emotional experiences and affective behaviors relying on self-reported data. Observational or teacher-reported data should be included in future studies. Second, this study was cross-sectional in nature, thus we were not able to account for prior experiences or perceptions before the curriculum was delivered. Though we focused on two schools with very similar demographics, a longitudinal analysis would provide temporal relations between these constructs in the future.

Third, this was the first year of TPSR implementation at school two. The model varies greatly from traditional multiactivity PE and it takes time for both the teacher and students to adjust. Results may vary if the study were to be replicated with an expert TPSR teacher as opposed to a beginner. Fourth, the sample was collected in one specified area in the southeast US, limiting generalizability. Finally, although measurement of TPSR-related outcomes has been performed at the middle school level (Li et al., 2008) and above, less is known about student perceptions regarding responsible behavior at the elementary level, using quantitative analysis. Thus, it is important to validate and extend personal and social quantitative tools to include younger age groups.

Future research should consider both pre/post evaluation of these constructs and longitudinal analysis to expand and evaluate the five major goals of TPSR. It may be necessary to create simplified self-report tools that capture students’ knowledge of and belief in their ability to execute said goals to truly evaluate relations between emotional, personal, and social development. In addition, the array of discrete emotions and their subsequent action tendencies evaluated in studies such as this one has been very limited to this point. Other emotions that represent a more diverse set of motivating factors including different extrinsic motivators, and both process and product emotions, need further consideration.

Conclusions

This study provides preliminary evidence that elementary students’ enjoyment and boredom in PE are related to their perceptions of in-class engagement, responsibility, and general school functioning. Student anger emerged as a predictor of maladaptive behaviors in and out of PE and may be the most informative initial step in evaluating these relationships. The connection between emotional experiences in PE during youths’ personal and social development phases may be important for reaching PE goals as well positive personal and social responsibility beliefs. The TPSR model is designed to develop and foster students’ social-emotional development; however, less work has been conducted quantitatively on elementary students’ perceptions within these models.

Students who experienced the TPSR model tended to report enjoyable experiences and perceive high personal and social responsibility skills as compared with students in a traditional multiactivity programme. Additionally, those in the TPSR curriculum reported fewer general school functioning problems, which may suggest that students who are taught and gain personal and social skills in PE may be more likely to positively function throughout the school day. The TPSR model may be suited to train students on how to deal with anger in a safe and effective way. Overall, more research is needed to establish temporal relations between the TPSR curriculum, emotional experiences, and affective behaviors.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kelly L. Simonton

References

Bryan

Solmon

(2012) Student motivation in physical education and engagement in physical activity. Journal of Sport Behavior 35: 267–285.

Cecchini

Montero

Alonso

, et al. (2007) Effects of personal and social responsibility on fair play in sports and self-control in school-aged youths. European Journal of Sport Science 7: 203–211.

Collins

van Dulmen

(2006) The significance of middle childhood peer competence for work and relationships in early adulthood. In: Huston

Ripke

(eds) Developmental Contexts in Middle Childhood: Bridges to Adolescence and Adulthood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–40.

Connell

(2008) Masculinity construction and sports in boys’ education: A framework for thinking about the issue. Sport, Education and Society 13: 131–145.

Cothran

Kulinna

Garrahy

(2009) Attributions for and consequences of student misbehavior. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14: 155–167.

Cox

Duncheon

McDavid

(2008) Peers and teachers as sources of relatedness perceptions, motivation, and affective responses in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80: 765–773.

Daschmann

Goetz

Stupnisky

(2014) Exploring the antecedents of boredom: Do teachers know why students are bored? Teaching and Teacher Education 39: 22–30.

Ennis

(2014) What goes around comes around…or does it? Disrupting the cycle of traditional, sport-based physical education. Kinesiology Review 3: 63–70.

Farahmand

Grant

Polo

, et al. (2011) School-based mental health and behavioral programs for low-income, urban youth: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 18: 372–390.

10.

Fredrickson

(2001) The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden and build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist 56: 218–226.

11.

Garn

Simonton

Dasingert

, et al. (2017) Predicting changes in student engagement in university physical education: Application of control-value theory of achievement emotions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 29: 93–102.

12.

Gordon

Jacobs

Wright

(2016) Social and emotional learning through a teaching personal and social responsibility based after-school program for disengaged middle-school boys. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35: 358–369.

13.

Graham

Holt/Hale

Parker

(2013) Children Moving: A Reflective Approach to Teaching Physical Education (9th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Solmon

(2016) Motivational processes in children’s physical activity and health-related quality of life. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21: 407–424.

15.

Guan

McBride

Xiang

(2006) Reliability and validity for the social goal scale-physical education in high school settings. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 25: 226–238.

16.

Hayes

(2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach (2nd edn). New York: The Guildford Press.

17.

Hellison

(2011) Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility Through Physical Education (3rd edn). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

18.

Hellison

Walsh

(2002) Responsibility-based youth programs evaluation: Investigating the investigations. Quest 54: 292–307.

19.

Hemphill

Richards

KAR

(2016) “Without the academic part, it wouldn’t be squash”: Youth development in an urban squash program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 35: 263–276.

20.

Hemphill

Templin

Wright

(2015) Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based continuing professional development protocol in physical education. Sport, Education, and Society 20: 398–419.

21.

Jackson

Cunningham

(2015) Social competence and obesity in elementary school. American Journal of Public Health 105: 153–158.

22.

Jacobs

Wright

(2018) Transfer of life skills in sport-based youth development programs: A conceptual framework bridging learning to application. Quest 70: 81–99.

23.

Kalajas-Tilga

Koka

Hein

, et al. (2020) Motivational processes in physical education and objectively measured physical activity among adolescents. Journal of Sport and Health Science 9: 462–471.

24.

Wright

Rukavina

, et al. (2008) Measuring students’ perceptions of personal and social responsibility and the relationship to intrinsic motivation in urban physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27: 167–178.

25.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

Patall

Pekrun

(2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in education: Research and principles for instructional design. Climate, Motivation, and Emotion 3: 228–236.

26.

Lichtenfeld

Pekrun

Stupnisky

, et al. (2012) Measuring students’ emotions in the early years: The achievement emotions questionnaire-elementary school (AEQ-ES). Learning and Individual Differences 22: 190–201.

27.

Manzano-Sánchez

Valero-Valenzuela

Conde-Sánchez

, et al. (2019) Applying the personal and social responsibility model-based program: Differences according to gender between basic psychological needs, motivation, life satisfaction and intention to be physically active. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 1–10.

28.

Mowling

Brock

Hastie

(2011) African-American children’s representation of personal and social responsibility. Sport, Education and Society 16: 89–109.

29.

Opstoel

Chapelle

Prins

, et al. (2020) Personal and social development in physical education and sports: A review study. European Physical Education Review 26: 797–813.

30.

Pekrun

(2006) The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review 18: 315–341.

31.

Pekrun

Elliot

Maier

(2009) Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 101: 115–135.

32.

Pozo

Grao-Cruces

Pérez-Ordás

(2018) Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 24: 56–75.

33.

Richards

KAR

Ivy

Wright

, et al. (2019) Combining the skill themes approach with teaching personal and social responsibility to teach social and emotional learning in elementary physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 90: 35–44.

34.

Ryan

Deci

(2020) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 61: 101860.

35.

Shen

McCautry

Martin

, et al. (2012) Urban high school girls’ sense of relatedness and their engagement in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 31: 231–245.

36.

Simonton

Garn

(2019) Exploring achievement emotions in physical education: The potential for the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Quest 71: 434–446.

37.

Simonton

Garn

(2020) Negative emotions as predictors of behavioral outcomes in middle school physical education. European Physical Education Review 26: 764–781.

38.

Simonton

Mercier

Garn

(2018) Development of the Discrete Emotions in Physical Education Scale (DEPES). Paper presented at the National Conference of the Society of Health and Physical Educators: Nashville, TN.

39.

Skinner

Furrer

Marchand

, et al. (2008) Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology 100: 765–781.

40.

Society of Health and Physical Educators [SHAPE] America (2014) National Standards and Grade-Level Outcomes for K-12 Physical Education. Reston: SHAPE.

41.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2014) Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed). Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.

42.

Varni

Seid

Kurtin

(2001) PedsQL 4.0: Reliability and validity of the pediatric quality of life inventory version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Medical Care 39: 800–812.

43.

Ward

Parker

Henschel-Pellet

, et al. (2012) Forecasting the storm: Students perspectives throughout a teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR)-based positive youth development program. Agora para la Educacion Fısica y el Deporte 14: 230–247.

44.

Webster

Mîndrilă

Weaver

(2011) The influence of state motivation, content relevance and affective learning on high school students’ intentions to use class content following completion of compulsory physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 30: 231–247.

45.

Wright

Craig

(2011) Tool for assessing responsibility-based education (TARE): Instrument development, content validity, and inter-rater reliability. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 15: 204–219.

46.

Wright

Walsh

(2018) Teaching personal and social responsibility. In: Li

Ward

Sutherland

(eds) Curricular/Instructional Models for Secondary Physical Education: Theory and Practice. Beijing: Higher Education.