Experiences of Pre-Service PE Teachers in Using Motivational Interaction Techniques in Practice

1. Changing one’s motivating style: Pre-service PE teachers’ experiences in using motivational interaction techniques in practice EHPS 2018, 24.8.2018 Elina Renko, University of Helsinki, Finland Anja Koski-Jännes, University of Tampere, Finland Pilvikki Absetz, University of Eastern Finland, Finland Taru Lintunen, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Nelli Hankonen, University of Helsinki, Finland elina.renko@helsinki.fi 24/09/15 1

2. Background • Youth all over the world engage in too little physical activity (PA) for their physical and mental health (Lee et al., 2012). • Interaction techniques (e.g., adopt the students’ perspective, rely on noncontrolling language) can be used to nurture the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Cheon, Reeve & Moon, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). • Interaction that supports psychological need satisfaction has been shown to foster autonomous motivation and autonomous motivation is strongly related to engagement in physical activity (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Su & Reeve, 2011).

3. Background • Interaction style/quality plays an important role in promoting behavior change: Compelling evidence that teachers’ interaction style influences students’ engagement in school, physical education (PE) included (Hagger & Hardcastle, 2014; Quin et al., 2017). • Evidence indicates that teachers can be trained to adopt a more need-supportive style (Su & Reeve, 2011). • We need more understanding of how to best facilitate uptake of key interaction techniques in daily professional practice.

4. Aim Investigate pre-service PE teachers’ experiences in using motivational interaction techniques during and after a training course.

5. Methods • Two university courses for students of PE teachers aimed to improve the use of need supportive interaction techniques in PE teaching. • A subsample of participants were interviewed (n=19; course 1, n=8; course 2, n=11) after the course. • Narrative analysis was used to explore the participants’ experiences in using need supportive techniques. • People ascribe sense and meaning to their lives by grasping it as a narrative (see, e.g. Polkinghorne, 1988; Hänninen & Koski-Jännes, 1999). Narratives or stories occur when interviewees engage in sharing their experience (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

6. Open questions & interest Providing structure and rationale Emphatisingand reflectivelistening Providing choice A style understanding resistance and non-controlling language Positive feedback & appreciation Advisingwithoutpressing (e.g., active listening/avoiding controlling language “should”, “got to”, “must”) (Deci & Ryan 1985; Ryan & Deci 2000; Miller & Rollnick, 1991, 2002, 2013.)

7. Results • The preliminary results suggest that the participants generally experience that techniques were beneficial for fostering pupils’ motivation and engagement in PE. • However, the experiences formed two different storylines (i.e. the basic logic of narrative was different) : • Growth story • Challenge story

8. Results • Growth story: The participants experienced that the positive professional growth and transformation occurred through learning the techniques. • Challenge story: The participants feared that motivational, need supportive techniques (especially ‘providing choice’, ‘a style understanding resistance and non-controlling language’ and ‘advising without pressing’) might contrast with the traditional PE teacher expert stance, undermine the teaching structure and lead to chaos.

9. Growth story: Positive professional growth and transformation ”It’s really good that we’ve had this course, and at the same time the practice, so I have noticed that also in the PE lessons there are so many other goals than just the official ones, there are emotional or social interaction goals as well, so I’ve been thinking: what would be more sensible and more functional way, especially from the point of view of motivation, so that it’s not just doing some exercices, but especially having been thinking the reasons behind it, why are we doing it, and also thought it from the point of view of interaction.”

10. Challenge story: Techniques might contrast with the expert stance, undermine the structure and lead to chaos “If in the lessons boys are doing their own things, and if everyone’s always positive about them clowning around, and in a non-controlling manner speaking and attempting to motivate them to end that foolishness, there are situations where I think one should stay tough, I believe there are situations where someone’s feelings might get hurt, and that’s life and the real world, it’s impossible to even aspire to the situation where everyone would have fun all the time, occasionally there are those moments when you just need to humble yourself and those are the moments of maturing for the child, as well as for the teacher, you just need to get over it to be able to develop”

11. Results • Work in progress: • Each type of narrative will be further analysed in terms of its emotional, explanatory, moral and ethical meanings (see Hänninen & Koski-Jännes, 1999) and categorized according to what they presented as the key advantages and worries related to specific techniques. • Preliminary results indicate that: • Both story types were told related to every technique. • Worries resulted partly from misunderstandings (e.g., autonomy support/providing choice vs. structure and positive feedback vs. constructive feedback).

12. Conclusions • Using the techniques may require a new conceptualisation of the teacher role and relationships with the students. • The challenge story points out barriers(e.g. difficulty to adopt a new frame of thinking, contrast with the expert approach) and the growth story enablers(e.g. structural shift in thinking, feeling, and acting and the way to translate theory into practice) for pre-service teachers’ uptake of motivating interaction. • The findings can be used to facilitate adoption of need supportive interaction techniques to promote PA.

13. Thank you! Questions? elina.renko@helsinki.fi

14. Interaction techniques (MI & SDT)