The Effect of Teacher’s Instructional Language Types on Intrinsic Motivation, Self- Efficacy, and Performance Accuracy in A Darts Throwing Skill

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Fatemeh Ghanaatian Jahromi
• Saeed Arsham
• Rasoul Yaali

Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: Features of the environment where practice takes place may influence performance, learning as well as the quality of experienced motivation. This study was performed with the aim of investigating the effect of teacher’s instructional language on students’ intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and performance accuracy while they were involved in performing a darts throwing skill. Methods: Forty-eight female students were randomly divided into three instructional language groups (autonomy supportive, controlling, neutral). All three groups watched the same silent clip about darts throwing. They performed 21 throws (as pre-test) and subsequently, each group watched a specific clip prepared for them. Instructions in the second clip provided learners with different degrees of choice or control in performing the task in spite of similar technical information. Then, each group performed 51 throws as their post-test. On the second day, all groups performed 21 throws without any instruction as retention test. All participants completed the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory by McAuley et al. (1991) before the pre-test and after the post- and retention tests. To test the research results, the statistical procedure ANOVA with repeated measures test with Bonferroni post-hoc test were used (P≤0.05). Results: The results revealed that the instructional language used in the autonomy-supportive group facilitated learning significantly through its effect on intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy (P≤0.05). In addition, on the acquisition and retention tests, the autonomy supportive group showed a significant better accuracy in throwing darts towards targets relative to the other two groups (P≤0.05). Conclusions: Giving choice to learners is a useful way in acquiring motor skills. Teachers must try to provide situations which promote learners’ sense of competence (self-efficacy) which in turn, improves learning. These situations can include information which is effective on the learners’ perception of their abilities. Giving autonomy to learners during practice and changing the instructional language to improve intrinsic motivation are different ways for creating such situations.

Keywords

• Instructional Language
• Intrinsic Motivation
• self-efficacy
• Performance Accuracy

---

References

1. Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2014; 36: 190- 198.‏
2. Sanli EA, Patterson JT, Bray SR, Lee TD. Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Front Psychol. 2013; 3: 611.
3. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self- determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Pract Innov (Wash DC). 2000; 55 (1): 68.‏
4. Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Grand challenge for movement science and sport psychology: embracing the social-cognitive–affective–motor nature of motor behavior. Front Psychol. 2010; 1: 42.‏
5. Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Motor learning through a motivational lens, in skill acquisition in sport: lit research, 2nd Edn, eds. Williams (London: Routlegde). 2012.
6. Lemos A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R, Chiviacowsky S. Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies, positive affect, and motor learning. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2017; 31: 28- 34.‏
7. Chiviacowsky S. Self- controlled practice: autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2014; 15 (5): 505- 510.‏
8. Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Drews R. External focus and autonomy support: two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Hum Mov Sci. 2015; 40: 176- 184.‏
9. De Muynck GJ, Vansteenkiste M, Delrue J, Aelterman N, Haerens L, Soenens B. The effects of feedback valence and style on need satisfaction, self-talk, and perseverance among tennis players: An experimental study. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017; 39 (1): 67- 80.‏
10. Deci EL, Schwartz AJ, Sheinman L, Ryan RM. An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 1981; 73 (5): 642.‏
11. Chen D, Singer RN. Self- regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 1992; 23 (4): 277- 300.
12. Leiker AM, Bruzi AT, Miller MW, Nelson M, Wegman R, Lohse KR. The effects of autonomous difficulty selection on engagement, motivation, and learning in a motion-controlled video game task. Hum Mov Sci. 2016; 49: 326- 335.‏
13. Lewthwaite R, Chiviacowsky S, Drews R, Wulf G. Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015; 22 (5): 1383- 1388.
14. Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 23 (5): 1382- 1414.
15. Leotti LA, Delgado MR. The inherent reward of choice. Psychological Science. 2011; 22 (10): 1310- 1318.‏
16. Abe M, Schambra H, Wassermann EM, Luckenbaugh D, Schweighofer N, Cohen LG. Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains. Curr Opin Syst Biol. 2011; 21 (7): 557- 562.
17. Delavar A. The theoretical and practical fundamentals of research in humanities and social sciences. Roshd Publications. 2017.
18. Reeve J, Tseng CM. Cortisol reactivity to a teacher’s motivating style: the biology of being controlled versus supporting autonomy. Motiv Emot. 2011; 35 (1): 63- 74.‏
19. McAuley E, Wraith S, Duncan TE. Self‐ efficacy, perceptions of success, and intrinsic motivation for exercise. E J Appl Psychol. 1991; 21 (2): 139- 155.
20. Hancock GR, Butler MS, Fischman MG. On the problem of two- dimensional error scores: Measures and analyses of accuracy, bias, and consistency. J Mot Behav. 1995; 27 (3): 241- 250.‏
21. Deci E, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. Springer Sci Business Media. 1985.
22. Wulf G, Iwatsuki T, Machin B, Kellogg J, Copeland C, Lewthwaite R. Lassoing skill through learner choice. J Mot Behav. 2018; 50 (3): 285- 292.‏
23. Bernardi G, Ricciardi E, Sani L, Gaglianese A, Papasogli A, Ceccarelli R, Pietrini P. How skill expertise shapes the brain functional architecture: an fMRI study of visuo-spatial and motor processing in professional racing-car and naïve drivers. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (10): e77764.‏
24. Buckner RL. The serendipitous discovery of the brain's default network. Neuroimage. 2012; 62 (2): 1137- 1145.‏
25. Bandura A. Self- efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Sex Rev. 1997; 84 (2): 191.

1.      Hooyman A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Hum Mov Sci. 2014; 36: 190- 198.‏

2.      Sanli EA, Patterson JT, Bray SR, Lee TD. Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Front Psychol. 2013; 3: 611.

3.      Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self- determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Pract Innov (Wash DC). 2000; 55 (1): 68.‏

4.      Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Grand challenge for movement science and sport psychology: embracing the social-cognitive–affective–motor nature of motor behavior. Front Psychol. 2010; 1: 42.‏

5.      Lewthwaite R, Wulf G. Motor learning through a motivational lens, in skill acquisition in sport: lit research, 2nd Edn, eds. Williams (London: Routlegde). 2012.

6.      Lemos A, Wulf G, Lewthwaite R, Chiviacowsky S. Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies, positive affect, and motor learning. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2017; 31: 28- 34.‏

7.      Chiviacowsky S. Self- controlled practice: autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2014; 15 (5): 505- 510.‏

8.      Wulf G, Chiviacowsky S, Drews R. External focus and autonomy support: two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Hum Mov Sci. 2015; 40: 176- 184.‏

9.      De Muynck GJ, Vansteenkiste M, Delrue J, Aelterman N, Haerens L, Soenens B. The effects of feedback valence and style on need satisfaction, self-talk, and perseverance among tennis players: An experimental study. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017; 39 (1): 67- 80.‏

10.  Deci EL, Schwartz AJ, Sheinman L, Ryan RM. An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Int J Sch Educ Psychol. 1981; 73 (5): 642.‏

11.  Chen D, Singer RN. Self- regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 1992; 23 (4): 277- 300.

12.  Leiker AM, Bruzi AT, Miller MW, Nelson M, Wegman R, Lohse KR. The effects of autonomous difficulty selection on engagement, motivation, and learning in a motion-controlled video game task. Hum Mov Sci. 2016; 49: 326- 335.‏

13.  Lewthwaite R, Chiviacowsky S, Drews R, Wulf G. Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015; 22 (5): 1383- 1388.

14.  Wulf G, Lewthwaite R. Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016; 23 (5): 1382- 1414.

15.  Leotti LA, Delgado MR. The inherent reward of choice. PsychologicalScience. 2011; 22 (10): 1310- 1318.‏

16.  Abe M, Schambra H, Wassermann EM, Luckenbaugh D, Schweighofer N, Cohen LG. Reward improves long-term retention of a motor memory through induction of offline memory gains. Curr Opin Syst Biol. 2011; 21 (7): 557- 562.

17.  Delavar A. The theoretical and practical fundamentals of research in humanities and social sciences. Roshd Publications. 2017.

18.  Reeve J, Tseng CM. Cortisol reactivity to a teacher’s motivating style: the biology of being controlled versus supporting autonomy. Motiv Emot. 2011; 35 (1): 63- 74.‏

19.  McAuley E, Wraith S, Duncan TE. Self‐ efficacy, perceptions of success, and intrinsic motivation for exercise. E J Appl Psychol. 1991; 21 (2): 139- 155.

20.  Hancock GR, Butler MS, Fischman MG. On the problem of two- dimensional error scores: Measures and analyses of accuracy, bias, and consistency. J Mot Behav. 1995; 27 (3): 241- 250.‏

21.  Deci E, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. Springer Sci Business Media. 1985.

22.  Wulf G, Iwatsuki T, Machin B, Kellogg J, Copeland C, Lewthwaite R. Lassoing skill through learner choice. J Mot Behav. 2018; 50 (3): 285- 292.‏

23.  Bernardi G, Ricciardi E, Sani L, Gaglianese A, Papasogli A, Ceccarelli R,

Pietrini P. How skill expertise shapes the brain functional architecture: an fMRI study of visuo-spatial and motor processing in professional racing-car and naïve drivers. PLoS One. 2013; 8 (10): e77764.‏

24.  Buckner RL. The serendipitous discovery of the brain's default network. Neuroimage. 2012; 62 (2): 1137- 1145.‏

25.   Bandura A. Self- efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Sex Rev. 1997; 84 (2): 191.