ارتباط بین رفتار کنترلی معلم، ناکامی از نیازهای روان‌شناختی اساسی و بدرفتاری در کلاس تربیت‌بدنی

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، واحد ارومیه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ارومیه، ایران

2 باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و نخبگان، واحد ارومیه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، ارومیه، ایران

چکیده

هدف از پژوهش حاضر، آزمون مدل ارتباطی بین رفتارهای کنترلی معلم، ناکامی از نیازهای روان‌شناختی اساسی و بدرفتاری در کلاس تربیت‌بدنی، بر اساس نظریه خودمختاری بود. نوع پژوهش توصیفی-همبستگی بود که به روش مقطعی انجام گردید. تعداد 585 دانش‌آموز پسر دوره دوم متوسطه، یک سری پرسش‌نامه خود‌گزارشی که رفتارهای کنترلی معلم، ناکامی از نیازها، و بدرفتاری در تربیت‌بدنی را می‌سنجید، تکمیل کردند. نتایج تحلیل عامل تاییدی و مدل‌یابی معادلات ساختاری نشان داد اثر مستقیم دو بعد استفاده کنترلی از جوایز و پاداش، و رفتار کنترلی بیش از حد بر بدرفتاری در تربیت‌بدنی، به ترتیب به طور منفی و مثبت، معنادار می‌باشد. علاوه‌بر‌این، اثر غیر‌مستقیم دو بعد دیگر شامل ملاحظات شرطی منفی و تهدید، از طریق نقش میانجی ناکامی از نیازها، بر بدرفتاری در تربیت‌بدنی معنادار می‌باشد. درکل، این یافته‌ها بیانگر آن است که رفتارهای کنترلی معلم عاملی مهم در پیش‌بینی بدرفتاری دانش‌آموزان در کلاس تربیت‌بدنی است. معلم تربیت‌بدنی می‌تواند با اجتناب از رفتارهای ملاحظات شرطی منفی، تهدید، و رفتارهای کنترلی بیش از حد، و با استفاده کنترلی از جوایز و پاداش میزان بدرفتاری در تربیت‌بدنی را کاهش دهد.  

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The relationship among teacher controlling behavior, basic psychological needs thwarting and misbehavior in Physical Education classes

نویسندگان [English]

  • malek Ahmadi 1
  • Farzad Amirrezaiyeh 2
  • safa Asgari 2
  • Mehdi Moradzadeh 2
1 Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Urmia Branch,, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran.
2 Young Researchers and Elite Club, Urmia Branch, Islamic Azad University, Urmia, Iran
چکیده [English]

Purpose: According to self-determination theory (SDT), the aim of this study was to examine the relationship model of teachers controlling behavior, basic psychological needs thwarting and misbehavior in physical education classes. Method: The research was correlational-descriptive with cross-sectional way. A number of 585 male students from secondary schools (age range: 15-17 years old) completed a series of self-reported questionnaires which assess teachers controlling behavior, need thwarting and misbehavior in physical education. Results: The results of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling, showed that the direct effect of controlling use of praise and rewards, and excessive controlling behavior was negatively and positively significant on misbehavior respectively. In addition, the indirect effect of negative conditional regards and intimidation, via mediating role of needs-thwarting, on misbehavior in physical education was significant. Conclusion: Overall, these findings suggest that teachers controlling behavior is an important factor in anticipation of student's misbehavior is physical education. Physical education teachers could avoid negative conditional regards, intimidation and excessive controlling behavior, and apply controlling use of praise and rewards, in order to reduce misbehavior in physical education.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Teachers controlling behavior
  • Self-determination theory
  • Psychological needs
  • Misbehavior
  • Physical education
1. Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SS. Health
benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Cmaj.
2006 Mar 14;174(6):801-9.
2. Malina RM. Physical fitness of children and
adolescents in the United States: status and
secular change. InPediatric Fitness 2007 (Vol. 50,
pp. 67-90). Karger Publishers
3. Sallis JF, Owen N. Physical activity and
behavioral medicine: SAGE publications; 1998.
4. Chen A ,Ennis CD. Goals, interests, and
learning in physical education. The Journal of
Educational Research. 2004;97(6):329-39 .
5. Kirk D, MacDonald D, O'Sullivan M. Handbook
of physical education: Sage; 2006 .
6. Tertemiz N. Sınıf Yönetimi ve Disiplin, Sınıf
Yönetimi, Editör: L. Küçükahmet, Ankara, Nobel
Yayın Dağıtım. 2000 .
7. Vogler EW, Bishop P. Management of
disruptive behavior in physical education.
Physical Educator. 1990;47(1):16 .
8. McCormack A. Classroom management
problems, strategies and influences in physical
education. European physical education review.
1997;3(2):102-15 .
9. Hein V, Koka A, Hagger MS. Relationships
between perceived teachers' controlling
behaviour, psychological need thwarting, anger
and bullying behaviour in high-school students .
Journal of adolescence. 2015;42:103-14 .
10. Kulinna PH, Cothran D, Regualos R.
Development of an instrument to measure
student disruptive behavior. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science.
2003;7(1):25-41 .
11. Assor A, Kaplan H, Kanat-Maymon Y, Roth G.
Directly controlling teacher behaviors as
predictors of poor motivation and engagement
in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety.
Learning and Instruction. 2005;15(5):397-413 .
12. Cheon SH, Reeve J, Ntoumanis N. A needssupportive intervention to help PE teachers
enhance students' prosocial behavior and
diminish antisocial behavior. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise. 2018;35:74-88.
13. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The" what" and" why" of
goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological
inquiry. 2000;11(4):227-68 .
14. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL, Culverhouse T,
Biddle SJ. The processes by which perceived
autonomy support in physical education
promotes leisure-time physical activity intentions and behavior: a trans-contextual
model. Journal of educational psychology.
2003;95(4):784 .
15. Reeve J. Autonomy-supportive teaching:
What it is, how to do it. InBuilding autonomous
learners 2016 (pp. 129-152). Springer,
Singapore.
16. Reeve J. Why teachers adopt a controlling
motivating style toward students and how they
can become more autonomy supportive.
Educational psychologist. 2009;44(3):159-75 .
17. Bartholomew K, Ntoumanis N, ThøgersenNtoumani C. Self-determination theory and the
darker side of athletic experience: The role of
interpersonal control and need thwarting. Sport
and Exercise Psychology Review. 2011;7(2):23-7 .
18. Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, The gersenNtoumani C. A review of controlling motivational
strategies from a self-determination theory
perspective: Implications for sports coaches.
International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 2009;2(2):215-33 .
19. Reeve J, Jang H. What teachers say and do to
support students' autonomy during a learning
activity. Journal of educational psychology.
2006;98(1):209 .
20. Assor A, Roth G, Deci EL. The emotional costs
of parents' conditional regard: A Self‐
Determination Theory analysis. Journal of
personality. 2004;72(1):47-88 .
21. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Conceptualizations of
intrinsic motivation and self-determination.
InIntrinsic motivation and self-determination in
human behavior 1985 (pp. 11-40). Springer,
Boston, MA.
22. Cheon SH, Reeve J, Moon IS. Experimentally
based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused
intervention to help physical education teachers
be more autonomy supportive toward their
students. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. 2012;34(3):365-96.
23. Tessier D, Sarrazin P, Ntoumanis N. The effect
of an intervention to improve newly qualified
teachers’ interpersonal style, students
motivation and psychological need satisfaction
in sport-based physical education.
Contemporary Educational Psychology.
2010;35(4):242-53 .
24. Jang H, Kim EJ, Reeve J. Longitudinal test of
self-determination theory's motivation
mediation model in a naturally occurring
classroom context. Journal of Educational
psychology. 2012;104(4):1175.
25. Jang H, Kim EJ, Reeve J. Why students
become more engaged or more disengaged
during the semester: A self-determination
theory dual-process model. Learning and
Instruction. 2016;43:27-38 .
26. Deci EL, Ryan RM, Gagné M, Leone DR,
Usunov J, Kornazheva BP. Need satisfaction,
motivation, and well-being in the work
organizations of a former eastern bloc country:
A cross-cultural study of self-determination.
Personality and social psychology bulletin.
2001;27(8):930-42 .
27. Pavey L, Greitemeyer T, Sparks P.
Highlighting relatedness promotes prosocial
motives and behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 2011;37(7):905-917
28. Cheon SH, Reeve J. A classroom-based
intervention to help teachers decrease students’
amotivation. Contemporary educational
psychology. 2015;40:99-111.
29. Reeve J, Tseng C-M. Cortisol reactivity to a
teacher’s motivating style: The biology of being
controlled versus supporting autonomy.
Motivation and Emotion. 2011;35(1):63-74 .
30. Krech PR, Kulinna PH, Cothran D.
Development of a short-form version of the
Physical Education Classroom Instrument:
measuring secondary pupils' disruptive
behaviours. Physical Education and SportPedagogy. 2010;15(3):209-25 .
31. Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, Ryan RM,
Thøgersen-Ntoumani C. Psychological need
thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the
darker side of athletic experience. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2011;33(1):75-
102.
32. Aghdasi M, Ahmadi A. The Relationships
among Controlling Coach Behaviors,
Psychological Needs Thwarting, Sport
Devaluation and Intention to Continue Sport
Participation in Adolescent Athletes. Journal of
Sport Psychology Studies. 1395; 17, 57-70. (In
Presian)
33. Bartholomew KJ, Ntoumanis N, ThøgersenNtoumani C. The controlling interpersonal style
in a coaching context: Development and initial
validation of a psychometric scale. Journal of
sport and exercise psychology. 2010;32(2):193-
216.
34. Akin-Little KA, Eckert TL, Lovett BJ, Little SG.
Extrinsic reinforcement in the classroom: Bribery
or best practice. School Psychology Review.
2004;33:344-62 .
35. Hoffmann KF, Huff JD, Patterson AS, Nietfeld
JL. Elementary teachers' use and perception of
rewards in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher
Education. 2009;25(6):843-9.
36. Roth G, Assor A, Niemiec CP, Ryan RM, Deci
EL. The emotional and academic consequences
of parental conditional regard: Comparing
conditional positive regard, conditional negative
regard, and autonomy support as parenting
practices. Developmental psychology.
2009;45(4):1119 .
37. Tilga H, Hein V, Koka A, Hamilton K, Hagger
MS. The role of teachers’ controlling behaviour
in physical education on adolescents’ healthrelated quality of life: Test of a conditional
process model. Educational Psychology.
2019;39(7):862-80 .
38. Baker J, Côté J, Hawes R. The relationship
between coaching behaviours and sport anxiety
in athletes. Journal of science and medicine in
sport. 2000;3(2):110 -9
39. Chen B, Vansteenkiste M, Beyers W, Boone L,
Deci EL, Van der Kaap-Deeder J, et al. Basic
psychological need satisfaction, need
frustration, and need strength across four
cultures. Motivation and Emotion.
2015;39(2):216-36 .
40. Haerens L, Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M,
Soenens B, Van Petegem S. Do perceived
autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching
relate to physical education students'
motivational experiences through unique
pathways? Distinguishing between the bright
and dark side of motivation .Psychology of sport
and exercise. 2015;16:26-36