Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport

ISSN: 0270-1367 (Print) 2168-3824 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20

A Sport Education Fitness Season’s Impact on

Students’ Fitness Levels, Knowledge, and In-Class
Physical Activity

Jeffery Kurt Ward, Peter A. Hastie, Danielle D. Wadsworth, Shelby Foote,

Sheri J. Brock & Nikki Hollett

To cite this article: Jeffery Kurt Ward, Peter A. Hastie, Danielle D. Wadsworth, Shelby Foote,
Sheri J. Brock & Nikki Hollett (2017) A Sport Education Fitness Season’s Impact on Students’
Fitness Levels, Knowledge, and In-Class Physical Activity, Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport, 88:3, 346-351, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2017.1321100

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1321100

Published online: 19 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 411

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=urqe20
RESEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERCISE AND SPORT
2017, VOL. 88, NO. 3, 346–351
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1321100

A Sport Education Fitness Season’s Impact on Students’ Fitness Levels,

Knowledge, and In-Class Physical Activity
Jeffery Kurt Ward, Peter A. Hastie, Danielle D. Wadsworth, Shelby Foote, Sheri J. Brock, and Nikki Hollett
Auburn University

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which a sport education season Received 20 November 2016
of fitness could provide students with recommended levels of in-class moderate-to-vigorous Accepted 4 April 2017
physical activity (MVPA) while also increasing students’ fitness knowledge and fitness achievement. KEYWORDS
Method: One hundred and sixty-six 5th-grade students (76 boys, 90 girls) participated in a 20-lesson Elementary school; exercise;
season called “CrossFit Challenge” during a 4-week period. The Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular physical education
Endurance Run, push-ups, and curl-ups tests of the FITNESSGRAM® were used to assess fitness at
pretest and posttest, while fitness knowledge was assessed through a validated, grade-appropriate
test of health-related fitness knowledge (HRF). Physical activity was measured with Actigraph GT3X
triaxial accelerometers. Results: Results indicated a significant time effect for all fitness tests and the
knowledge test. Across the entire season, the students spent an average of 54.5% of lesson time
engaged in MVPA, irrespective of the type of lesson (instruction, free practice, or competition).
Conclusions: The results suggest that configuring the key principles of sport education within a unit
of fitness is an efficient model for providing students with the opportunity to improve fitness skill
and HRF knowledge while attaining recommended levels of MVPA.

Traditionally, research on sport education has focused on
its impact within team-sport applications (Hastie,
Martinez, & Calderón, 2011). However, sport education
has been shown to be a suitable vehicle of instruction for
many other content areas within physical education such as
dance (Graves, Craves, & Townsend, 2000), obstacle course
fitness (Hastie, Buchanan, Wadsworth, & Sluder, 2009),
and lifetime leisure activities (Mohr, Townsend, &
Pritchard, 2006). More recently, studies have begun to
showcase the potential of sport education to increase com-
petence within individual sports such as track and field
(Hastie, Calderón, Rolim, & Guarino, 2013; Pereira et al.,
2015) and swimming (Meroño, Calderón, & Hastie, 2015).
Although there is literature with respect to the ability of
the sport education model to promote physical activity (e.g.,
Hastie & Trost, 2002), there has only been one study in
which the content focus of the season was fitness-based. In a
study by Pritchard, Hansen, Scarboro, and Melnic (2015),
class time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
(MVPA) averaged 60.47% during the course of a circuit-
training fitness season.
Another foundational goal of sport education is to
develop the literate sports player, which in the case of fitness
seasons would be indicated by improvements in health-
related fitness knowledge (HRF). Given the reported
deficiencies in HRF knowledge among students at all edu-
cational levels (Keating et al., 2009) and given the lack of
content knowledge development within fitness-based les-
sons (Castelli & Valley, 2007), it could be concluded that
there is a need for physical education units that allow
students to engage in MVPA while still attaining fitness
knowledge. The fact that Pritchard et al. (2015) were able to
increase secondary students’ HRF knowledge while still
meeting the recommendation that 50% of class time be
spent in MPVA (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2010) offers a promising start. The specific
questions of this research were: (a) to what extent can a
fitness-based sport education season provide elementary
students with recommended levels of in-class MVPA? and
(b) what increases in students’ fitness knowledge and fitness
achievement occur across the span of this season?
Methods
Design
This study involved a within-subjects, pretest–posttest
design. Pretests of all variables took place before the
instruction began, while posttests took place following
completion of instruction.

CONTACT Peter A. Hastie hastipe@auburn.edu School of Kinesiology, Auburn University, 301 Wire Road, Auburn, AL 36849-5323.
© 2017 SHAPE America

Participants and setting
The participants in the intervention were 166 fifth-grade
students (76 boys, 90 girls; average age = 10.9 years) from
three physical education classes (average size = 58) in an
elementary school in the Southeastern United States. Each
class consisted of eight teams with 6 to 7 students per
team. The physical education staff consisted of 1 certified
physical education teacher and an aide. The school, which
enrolled near 500 students, of whom 16% received free/
reduced-price school meals and 89% had English as their
first language, was well resourced with ample outdoor play
spaces, a moderately sized indoor activity area, and suffi-
cient equipment to provide each student with their own
piece of equipment during skill-based and fitness lessons.
The teacher was an Asian American male in his 40s
with 20 years of experience. He had taught numerous
seasons of sport education prior to this study (at least
three classes per year during the previous 10 years), and
the students also had at least two previous experiences
with the model. By consequence, less time was spent in
the managerial task system than what might be found
with novice learners. The students did not, however,
have any previous experience with a fitness-based for-
mat of sport education. Informed consent from legal
guardians and participant assent were obtained prior to
the beginning of data collection, and the research pro-
tocol was approved by the university’s Institutional
Review Board for Human Subjects Research.
Sport education season design
During a 4-week period, the students participated in a
20-lesson (30 min, 5 days per week) season called
“CrossFit Challenge,” which followed the “event
model” format of sport education (Siedentop, Hastie,
& van der Mars, 2011, p. 111). Within this format, all
competitions were team-based and all students made
individual contributions toward a team score. (For
complete details of the season plan, with examples of
all content, please contact the authors.)
The lessons were classified into three types: instruction,
free-practice, and competition days. During the early
instruction days (Lessons 1, 2, and 4), students were pro-
vided with teacher-selected HRF knowledge through the
use of exercise stations. For example, during the second
lesson, students completed circuits of muscular strength
and endurance exercise stations and completed worksheets
about how to increase resistance. Later instruction days
(Lessons 6, 10, and 15) involved the teacher presenting
details of the next competition, as well as presenting train-
ing concepts such as progression and overload through
FITNESS SPORT EDUCATION 347
activity-based direct instruction. During free-practice days
(Lessons 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17), students were given time
to complete workouts as a team to prepare for the upcom-
ing competition. Students were able to select and participate
in any particular exercises that they believed would prepare
them best for success.
Three competitions were held during the course of
the season (Lessons 8, 9, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 20). Each
competition spanned two lessons, with the first being a
“dry-run” day to teach students the scoring protocols.
In each of these competitions, teams were matched so
that one competed while the second officiated. Teams
then exchanged responsibilities.
In the first competition called “head-to-head,” each
team designed its own exercise challenge during the
free-practice days leading up to the competition.
Teams then competed head to head against other
teams, with each team completing its own exercise
challenge as well as that of the team against which
they were competing. Teams were awarded 5 points
each time they registered the faster time.
The second challenge was labeled the “Until” chal-
lenge. As a team, students had to complete 300 jump
ropes, 200 mountain climbers, 200 box step-overs, 100
curl-ups, and 16 scooter swims (i.e., lie prone on a
scooter and “paddle” a distance of 20 feet while using
only their arms). Each team member was required to
complete at least one of each exercise as they contributed
to the total number needed to gain as a team.
The final competition was named “Everyone Across the
Gym,” and it followed the traditional CrossFit format
where students progressed from one side of the activity
area to the other by completing set exercises. This chal-
lenge involved completing, in order, 30 jump ropes before
moving onto 20 bench push-ups, 20 sitting leg extensions,
30 shuttle runs between two cones, 20 medicine ball
squats, and finishing with 20 core exercises involving
pushing a scooter using only their legs. Scores were
based on the time taken to complete each task, with points
being awarded for times in various zones. The team score
was calculated by adding individual scores.
Data collection
Health-related fitness
Students’ fitness scores were assessed according to the
procedures highlighted in the fourth edition of the
FITNESSGRAM® and ActivityGram Test Administration
Manual (Cooper Institution for Aerobic Research, 2010).
Items included were the Progressive Aerobic
Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER), push-ups, and
curl-ups tests. Students completed each test 1 week prior to
348 J. K. WARD ET AL.
the season starting and 1 week after the completion of the
season.
Fitness knowledge
One week prior to and one week after instruction, all
students completed a validated, grade-appropriate test
of HRF knowledge (Chen, Chen, Sun, & Zhu, 2013).
This test, which was administered by the research
team, has 11 multiple-choice questions that seek to
determine students’ knowledge of four areas of fitness:
(a) frequency, intensity, type, and time (FITT) princi-
ples; (b) training principles of overload, progression,
and specificity; (c) HRF components; and (d) parts of
a workout (e.g., warm-up, cool-down).
In-class physical activity
Physical activity data were collected from a randomly
selected sample of 25 students (13 girls). These students
represented a balance of boys and girls of various ethnicities
and various body mass indexes. Each of these students wore
an Actigraph GT3X triaxial accelerometer (Actigraph,
Pensacola, FL) programmed with a 15-s epoch during
each lesson of the season. Accelerometers were worn on
the right hip and were attached with an elastic belt. Minutes
of sedentary behavior, light physical activity, moderate
physical activity, vigorous physical activity, and very vigor-
ous physical activity during each lesson were quantified on
the basis of calibration studies by the Butte et al. (2014) cut-
point equation.
Data analysis
Fitness tests and knowledge
A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
across the two time points was used to compare
students’ performances on the three fitness tests as
well as the knowledge test. Data from the repeated-
measures ANOVA were subjected to Mauchley’s test
for sphericity, and where Mauchley’s sphericity
assumption was violated, the ANOVA results were
adjusted using the Geisser-Greenhouse correction.
In addition to this analysis, each student’s fitness score
was adjusted for age and sex using the standards for
Healthy Fitness Zones created for use when reporting
Fitnessgram data. Scores were categorized into three
groups, consistent with the classifications of “needs
Table 1. Comparisons for fitness test scores across time.
Pretest M (SD) Posttest M (SD)
PACER 31.95 (16.9) 37.49 (17.9)
Push-ups 13.52 (8.22) 17.16 (10.94)
Curl-ups 54.16 (25.82) 60.60 (23.72)
Note. PACER = Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run.
improvement,” “within the Healthy Fitness Zone,” and
“beyond the Healthy Fitness Zone.” The related-samples
Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine
whether there was a median difference between the
students’ fitness classification at pretest and posttest.
In-class physical activity
The percentage of lesson time spent in sedentary, light
physical activity, moderate physical activity, vigorous
physical activity, and very vigorous physical activity
was calculated for each lesson, and average scores
were calculated for each of the three lesson types as
well as the entire season.
Results
Health-related fitness
The results of the students’ fitness assessments are
presented in Table 1. For all three tests, the students
demonstrated statistically significant improvements
from pretest to posttest, ranging from an average of
12% for curl-ups to 27% for push-ups.
Students’ positions in fitness zones
Results of the Wilcoxon tests showed that for the PACER
test, students’ location in the various fitness zones was
statistically significantly different from pretest to posttest
(z = 3.27, p < .001), with more students making positive
changes than negative changes. The same outcomes were
found for the other two tests, with statistically significant
differences between pretest and posttest found for curl-
ups (z = 3.41, p < .001) and push-ups (z = 2.26, p = .024).
Fitness knowledge
A comparison of the overall means (reported as percent
correct) at pretest (M = 62.62, SD = 18.05) and posttest
(M = 74.48, SD = 15.07) showed that the season was a
highly effective tool for enhancing students’ HRF
knowledge, F(1, 156) = 118.38, p < .001, η2 = .431.
In-class physical activity
During the entire season, the students spent an average
of 54.5% of lesson time engaged in MVPA. Of this time
F (df) p η2
34.94 (1, 148) < .001 .191
52.64 (1, 146) < .001 .265
20.64 (1, 148) < .001 .112

in MVPA, 41.8% was moderate, 9.4% was vigorous, and
3.3% was very vigorous. Light physical activity
accounted for 12.3% of lesson time, while the students
were sedentary for 33.2% of the time during lessons. Of
further importance is that no matter the focus of the
lesson, students exceeded the target of 50% of lesson
time spent in MVPA (instruction = 57%, free prac-
tice = 58%, competitions = 51%). The fact that seden-
tary behaviors were most prevalent during
competition-based lessons seems plausible given that
students were occupied in officiating roles when they
were not performing the various challenges.
Discussion
Health-related fitness
Students’ fitness scores significantly improved as a result
of the sport education season. These findings are consis-
tent with the findings of Hastie et al. (2009) and Pritchard
et al. (2015), who have also highlighted the efficacy of
sport education as a viable tool for engaging students in
activities that improve HRF. While Wallhead and
O’Sullivan (2005, p. 196) reported that Australian teachers
believe that “changes in student fitness may be an elusive
outcome of the curriculum,” this feeling may well be
reflective of early opinions about sport education essen-
tially solely being a sport-based model. In part, this
sentiment is true, as indeed there are still no studies with
data on the development of various fitness indices
following participation in team-sports or individual-
sports seasons such as volleyball, badminton, or athletics
(Hastie et al., 2011).
Nonetheless, given that the majority of the students
were already classified as being within the Healthy Fitness
Zone, the ability of this season showed a particular potency
in being able to improve fitness levels of students who are
already achieving specific benchmarks. This outcome
further reinforces the need to purposefully attend to fitness
goals, rather than assume that participation in physical
education alone is sufficient to produce desired outcomes.
Fitness knowledge
As noted by Siedentop et al. (2011), one of the key goals of
sport education is to help students become literate in the
activity being taught, which in this case would be HRF
knowledge. Results from the HRF knowledge test indicate
that HRF knowledge scores of students increased as a result
of the season, suggesting that sport education might be an
efficient model to help combat the reported deficiencies in
HRF knowledge (Keating et al., 2009) and the lack of
content knowledge development within fitness-based
FITNESS SPORT EDUCATION 349
lessons (Castelli & Valley, 2007). The results also mirror
those of Pritchard et al. (2015) in their high school study. In
both cases, it could be suggested that the presentation of
fitness content knowledge was indeed pervasive, although
through different vehicles. For example, the high school
season involved student coaches who were responsible for
presenting information from a teacher-provided coaching
plan. In addition, this season provided numerous opportu-
nities for peer instruction. In contrast, knowledge presenta-
tion in the elementary setting was mostly through direct
instruction from the teacher as the students completed
circuits and associated team worksheets. Further, the chal-
lenges in the season required students to incorporate learn-
ing from earlier lessons as they planned their individual and
team training sessions.
The current findings have important implications based
on previous research that has highlighted the positive
association of HRF knowledge with physical activity
(Thompson & Hannon, 2012). If students lack sufficient
HRF knowledge, it is unlikely that they will be able to
develop an exercise program or meet their exercise goals.
In contrast, students who acquire an adequate amount of
HRF knowledge will be able to set and obtain goals using
the FITT principles and training principles (i.e., specificity,
overload, and progression) that they learned during their
physical education class. Once again, it must be noted that
there is a need for deliberate knowledge instruction, given
that it is only in specific interventions where significant
outcomes are achieved (Hodges, Kulinna, van der Mars, &
Lee, 2016).
In-class physical activity
Consistent with the high school fitness study of
Pritchard et al. (2015), this sport education season
was effective in providing students with more than
the recommended 50% of lesson time in MVPA.
Further, similar levels of vigorous activity were found
in both studies. However, what is particularly notable
in the current study is that students had the highest
rate of MVPA during lessons allocated as free practice.
Given our understanding of classroom ecology
research, one might suspect that those times when
students are actually held least accountable would be
those with the lowest levels of engagement (Hastie &
Siedentop, 2006). However, the findings in this study
are consistent with those of Wadsworth, Robinson,
Rudisill, and Gell (2013) who noted that when students
are offered choices within their activity selection, they
spend more time in MVPA. Specifically within sport
education, the findings are consistent with those of
Garcia-Lopez, Gutiérrez Díaz Del Campo, González-
Víllora, and Valenzuela (2012), who found greater
350 J. K. WARD ET AL.
engagement in the phases in which more autonomy is
given to the students. Indeed, there are now a number
of studies that suggest sport education presents stu-
dents with a task-involving and autonomy-supportive
climate, which tends to promote enjoyment, perceived
effort, and perceived competence (Hastie, Sinelnikov,
Wallhead, & Layne, 2014; Spittle & Byrne, 2009;
Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004).
It is important to note that while sedentary time
occurred during each of the three lesson types, the under-
lying source of sedentary behaviors differed. For example,
during instruction lessons, students were more sedentary
while sitting and learning about the HRF knowledge
corresponding to the weekly challenge. During free-prac-
tice days leading up to the head-to-head challenge,
students were less active during the times they
collaborated within their groups to develop a task that
played to their strengths and potentially exploited other
groups’ deficiencies. While competition days had the
highest rate of time classified as sedentary, these lessons
involved a large number of students with officiating and
scorekeeping responsibilities when not competing.
What does this article add?
This study is significant in that it provides the first
study of a fitness application of sport education within
an elementary school setting. What is more significant,
however, is that the application of this fitness season
provided multiple positive outcomes across a number
of national standards for K–12 physical education (e.g.,
content knowledge, fitness achievement, and high levels
of MVPA). This study is also the first to differentiate
physical activity levels within the lesson types typically
present during seasons of sport education (i.e., teacher-
directed, free practice, and competition). A significant
and important finding within that part of this study was
that the design of the season allowed students to reach
recommended levels across all forms of instruction.
The study is also innovative in that it examined not
only improvements in students’ fitness levels, but
changes in their achievement of criterion-referenced
fitness standards. The use of these age- and gender-
specific standards provides a more complete picture of
the effect of an intervention than the simple reporting
of pretest–posttest change scores.
References
Butte, N. F., Wong, W. W., Lee, J. S., Adolph, A. L., Puyau,
M. R., & Zakeri, I. F. (2014). Prediction of energy expen-
diture and physical activity in preschoolers. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 46, 1216–1226. doi:10.1249/
MSS.0000000000000209
Castelli, D. M., & Valley, J. A. (2007). The relationship of
physical fitness and motor competence to physical activity.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 358–374.
doi:10.1123/jtpe.26.4.358
Chen, S., Chen, A., Sun, H., & Zhu, X. (2013). Physical activity
and fitness knowledge learning in physical education:
Seeking a common ground. European Physical Education
Review, 19, 256–270. doi:10.1177/1356336X13486058
Cooper Institution for Aerobic Research. (2010). Fitnessgram
& Activitygram test administration manual (4th ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Garcia-Lopez, L. M., Gutiérrez Díaz Del Campo, D., González-
Víllora, S., & Valenzuela, A. V. (2012). Cambios en la
empatía, la asertividad y las relaciones sociales por la
aplicación del modelo de instrucción educación deportiva
[Changes in empathy, assertiveness and social relations due
to the implementation of the sport education model]. Revista
De Psicología Del Deporte, 21, 321–330.
Graves, M. A., Craves, M. A., & Townsend, J. S. (2000).
Applying the sport education curriculum model to dance.
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 71(8),
50–54. doi:10.1080/07303084.2000.10605192
Hastie, P., Sinelnikov, O., Wallhead, T., & Layne, T. (2014).
Perceived and actual motivational climate of a mastery-invol-
ving sport education season. European Physical Education
Review, 20, 215–228. doi:10.1177/1356336X14524858
Hastie, P. A., Buchanan, A. M., Wadsworth, D. D., & Sluder,
B. J. (2009). The impact of an obstacle course sport educa-
tion season on students’ aerobic fitness levels. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 80, 788–791.
doi:10.1080/02701367.2009.10599620
Hastie, P. A., Calderón, A., Rolim, R. J., & Guarino, A. J.
(2013). The development of skill and knowledge during a
sport education season of track and field athletics. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84, 336–344. doi:10.1080/
02701367.2013.812001
Hastie, P. A., Martinez, D., & Calderón, A. (2011). A review
of research on sport education: 2004 to the present.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 16, 103–132.
doi:10.1080/17408989.2010.535202
Hastie, P. A., & Siedentop, D. (2006). The classroom ecology
paradigm. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan
(Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 214–225).
London, England: Sage.
Hastie, P. A., & Trost, S. G. (2002). Student physical activity
levels during a season of sport education. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 14, 64–74. doi:10.1123/pes.14.1.64
Hodges, M. G., Kulinna, P. H., van der Mars, H., & Lee, C.
(2016). Knowledge in action: Fitness lesson segments that
teach health-related fitness in elementary physical educa-
tion. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, 16–26.
doi:10.1123/jtpe.2014-0102
Keating, X. D., Harrison, L., Chen, L., Xiang, P., Lambdin, D.
D., Dauenhauer, B., & Pinero, J. C. (2009). An analysis of
research on student health related fitness knowledge in K–
16 physical education programs. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 28, 333–349. doi:10.1123/jtpe.28.3.333
Meroño, L., Calderón, A., & Hastie, P. (2015). Effect of a
sport education season on psychological variables in youth

swimmers. Cuadernos De Psicología Del Deporte, 15(2),
35–46. doi:10.4321/S1578-84232015000200005
Mohr, D. J., Townsend, J. S., & Pritchard, T. (2006).
Rethinking middle school physical education: Combining
lifetime leisure activities and sport education to encourage
physical activity. Physical Educator, 63, 18–29.
Pereira, J., Hastie, P., Araújo, R., Farias, C., Rolim, R., &
Mesquita, I. (2015). A comparative study of students’
track and field technical performance in sport education
and in a direct instruction approach. Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine, 14, 118–127.
Pritchard, T., Hansen, A., Scarboro, S., & Melnic, I. (2015).
Effectiveness of the sport education fitness model on fitness
levels, knowledge, and physical activity. Physical Educator,
72, 577–600. doi:10.18666/TPE-2015-V72-I4-6568
Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & van der Mars, H. (2011).
Complete guide to sport education. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Spittle, M., & Byrne, K. (2009). The influence of sport educa-
tion on student motivation in physical education. Physical
FITNESS SPORT EDUCATION 351
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14, 253–266. doi:10.1080/
17408980801995239
Thompson, A., & Hannon, J. C. (2012). Health-related fitness
knowledge and physical activity of high school students.
Physical Educator, 69, 71–88.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010).
Strategies to improve the quality of physical education.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wadsworth, D. D., Robinson, L. E., Rudisill, M. E., & Gell, N.
(2013). The effect of physical education climates on ele-
mentary students’ physical activity behaviors. Journal of
School Health, 83, 306–313. doi:10.1111/josh.12032
Wallhead, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education:
Physical education for the new millennium? Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 181–210. doi:10.1080/
17408980500105098
Wallhead, T. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Effects of a sport
education intervention on students’ motivational responses
in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 23, 4–18. doi:10.1123/jtpe.23.1.4