Fostering Competence and Autonomy in High School Physical Education Classes: An Exploration of Intricate Relationships

Abstract

This study addresses concerns surrounding the assessment of competence through various fitness tests in physical education, specifically assessments misaligning with the conceptualization of physical literacy. The study aimed to deductively analyze student assessment experiences with principles of self-determination theory, focusing on the role of competence in supporting autonomy. Particular instruments, such as the vertical jump and 30 m sprint tests, observed high levels of student preference and perceived significance. Interestingly, while the multistage fitness test was identified by students as a reliable indicator of physical fitness, it garnered limited student selection. While specific movement recommendations are not outlined, the findings underscore several noteworthy considerations. Notably, various factors influence student choices in student-selected fitness assessments, and purpose-driven fitness assessments can contribute to student motivation. The study’s insights provide valuable guidance for structuring physical education programs to foster engagement and autonomy among students.

1. Introduction

High school physical education (PE) courses can provide students with opportunities to develop physical literacy. Although the measurability of physical literacy is contested and frequently re-examined [1,2,3], an assessment of both competence and self-efficacy could support the shift to delivering a more autonomous PE experience for high school students. Robinson and Randall [2] note that there is tension that arises from efforts to standardize physical literacy assessments for the purpose of summative assessments, suggesting that it is a multidimensional construct and therefore requires greater consideration in the notion of physical literacy as a personal journey—what criteria are to be assessed? The objective of this research is to determine ways that competence and self-efficacy can be assessed to support a level of autonomy in high school PE.

Whitehead [4] introduced the concept of physical literacy from a philosophical standpoint. In doing so, Whitehead identified physical literacy from a phenomenological and monist perspective and “includes aspects concerned with being able to perceive intelligently and respond appropriately” [4] (p. 130). Whitehead moved the concept of physical literacy beyond physical movement. The International Physical Literacy Association [5] adopted a relatively recent physical literacy definition: “physical literacy is the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge, and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life” (para. 1).

Self-determination theory (SDT) highlights interventions to motivate individuals, emphasizing the need for competence, relatedness, and autonomy [6]. SDT, proposed by Ryan and Deci [7], provides a framework for understanding the social and environmental factors that either facilitate or undermine intrinsic motivation. It aligns with contemporary motivational theories, which share and borrow key concepts [8]. For instance, concepts such as expectancy and self-efficacy overlap with the notion of competence, while autonomy connects with locus and control from attribution theory [9]. Physical literacy aligns with the competence component of SDT by fostering individuals’ sense of mastery and effectiveness in physical activities. As individuals develop physical literacy, they acquire the skills, knowledge, and confidence needed to engage in a wide range of physical pursuits. This increased competence enhances individuals’ motivation and self-perception, leading to a greater likelihood of sustained engagement in physical activities.

In the domain of PE, SDT has gained increasing attention as an intervention to enhance intrinsic motivation and engagement in physical activity [10]. Understanding and applying motivational theories, including SDT, can provide valuable insights into how to foster intrinsic motivation, competence, and autonomy in the context of physical education.

1.1. Competence

Competence can be observed across different scenarios within a gymnasium, field, or fitness center setting. Previous studies on effective interaction with the environment [11] align with current endeavors to enhance competence and achieve desired outcomes [12]. Competence, as defined by Ryan and Deci [13], refers to feeling effective in one’s ongoing interactions with the social environment and having opportunities to express and exercise one’s abilities. In PE, fostering competence serves various purposes, such as enhancing performance and cognition [12], regulating effort [14], and promoting sustained engagement [15].

Conversely, participating in activities that lack opportunities for mastery may lead to perceived incompetence and feelings of helplessness [13]. PE plays a crucial role in overcoming perceived incompetence and feelings of helplessness by providing experiences for students who may lack prior exposure to various sports activities [12]. Tremblay and Lloyd [16] emphasize the importance of knowledge as “a critical component of skilled motor performance, physical activity participation, and physical fitness” [16] (p. 29). Competence in PE encompasses not only skills and a sense of confidence and effectiveness in action [13], but also social interactions that support feelings of competence, such as positive feedback [6]. Ntoumanis [12] highlights the significance of creating a motivational climate that utilizes self-referenced criteria to assess student improvement and foster perceived competence, thereby reducing the reliance on interpersonal ability comparisons. When students struggle to link their actions with desired outcomes due to a lack of understanding, it can lead to amotivation [6,12].

1.2. Autonomy

When judging the presence of autonomy, students may feel that the teacher provides options and choices in PE [17], and thus “reduces the controlling pressures for uniform behavior” [12] (p. 227). In other words, students can regulate themselves to some extent [6]. A high level of autonomy will cause students to be less controlled by external factors, such as rewards [7]. Ntoumanis [12] suggests students benefit from an increased capacity to design tasks and make decisions within the learning process—creating an environment where students are responsible for their own learning. When this level of autonomy is achieved, Ryan and Deci [13] note that “individuals experience their behavior as an expression of the self, such that, even when actions are influenced by outside sources, the actors concur with those influences, feeling both initiative and value with regard to them” [13] (p. 8). Goal setting and goal commitment, without external controls [13], help identify student effort regulation [14].

Autonomy-oriented environments, as highlighted by Deci and Ryan [7], offer opportunities for self-determination and choice, allowing students to perceive activities as affirmations of their competence [7]. Dam’s [18] insights into promoting autonomy within the classroom further contribute to understanding this process, as her efforts involved empowering students to create plans and make decisions about their learning, ultimately leading to increased student motivation. However, it is important to note that deadlines, imposed goals, competition, and evaluation can all diminish intrinsic motivation by fostering a sense of heightened external control [13]. Wielenga-Meijer et al. [19] found that a moderate level of autonomy was beneficial in enhancing students’ willingness to learn compared to environments with no autonomy. Interestingly, the study also revealed that moderate autonomy was preferred over full autonomy, as it did not result in a significant increase in learning motivation and required greater student exploration behavior. In summary, autonomy-oriented environments that strike a balance between providing choice and structure can foster motivation and engagement in students’ learning experiences.

2. Materials and Methods

Students were to self-select and perform three of eleven possible fitness test options to ensure an individualized assessment of students’ fitness levels. The list of 11 fitness test options, including the vertical jump test (VJT), SLJ, 30 m sprint (30 m), press-up test (PUT), sit-up test (SUT), MSFT, rotary stability (FMS™) (RS), deep (overhead) squat (FMS™) (DS), hurdle step (FMS™) (HS), inline lunge (FMS™) (IL), and stork test (ST), was provided to students. The rationale behind selecting only 11 fitness tests was driven by the need to create a manageable environment for two educators with the available equipment. By limiting the number of tests, the educators could effectively conduct the assessments within the given resources and provide adequate attention to each student’s performance. This allowed for guidance and feedback throughout the assessment process, increasing the accuracy and reliability of the collected data.

By allowing students to choose the tests they felt most comfortable with or interested in performing, the self-selected approach provided a degree of autonomy and flexibility. Students were able to align the assessments with their individual preferences and interests, which can contribute to higher levels of engagement and motivation.

Questionnaires were employed to align with the theoretical principles of SDT, and three instruments were administered during the second unit at different time points, incorporating the principles of SDT as outlined by Gunnell et al. [20] and Standage et al. [21]. Some prompts were modified to better suit the students’ ages. Questionnaire 1 (

Table 1. Questionnaire 1: competency, competence, and perceived meaningfulness.

Item Number	Item
1.	When it comes to performing this activity, I think I am pretty good.
2.	If I worked at this activity for a while, I feel that I can do it pretty well.
3.	I believe that this activity is meaningful for evaluating my fitness.

Note: items 1 and 2 are based on the work of Gunnell et al. [20], and item 3 is not.

) administered concurrently with the selection, performance, and recording of fitness tests, assessed competency, competence, and perceived meaningfulness. Questionnaire 2 (

Table 2. Questionnaire 2a: hypothetical selection and supporting knowledge.

Item Number	Item
4.	If you were to create a physical fitness evaluation for yourself, what would it include?
5.	Which components of fitness does your fitness evaluation measure?
6.	How would you improve your performance on this fitness evaluation?

) was completed approximately one month later and focused on hypothetical selections for future fitness tests, knowledge of tests, and performance improvement.

3. Analysis

The categorization for analysis was predicated on the three tenets of SDT—competence, relatedness, and autonomy. The deductive analysis mapped the range and nature of intrinsic motivational factors, created typologies, and found links between themes with a view to providing explanations for the findings [22].

The quantitative data collected in this study was analyzed using descriptive statistics, which offered a systematic way to summarize and depict the data’s behavior. Descriptive statistics were employed to examine students’ perceptions of each tenant of SDT and their attitudes towards various fitness testing instruments. Both mean and mode were used to represent the central tendency of the data. Through the analysis of descriptive statistics, relationships between students’ perceptions of each tenant of SDT and their attitudes towards the fitness testing instruments were examined. This analysis helped identify potential patterns or trends in the data, shedding light on how students’ beliefs about motivation, competence, relatedness, and autonomy may relate to their attitudes towards the different testing instruments.

4. Results

4.1. Participants

Data were collected from 21 self-selecting ninth and tenth grade students in physical education classes at a non-profit international school in East Africa. Of the 21 participants, 5 were female and 16 were male. Within our graduation requirements, physical education is mandatory for all students until eleventh grade.

4.2. Codes

The three tenets of SDT, autonomy, competence and relatedness, provide pre-determined codes for the data collected, and were used throughout the deductive analysis. Competence was subdivided into both competence and perceived competence.

4.3. Autonomy

Students made three selections on a set of predetermined in-class fitness tests. Each test was set up and ready to use, and the students were briefed on where each test was located and provided instructions for scoring each test.

Figure 1 identifies the real choices students made in class, relative to what their selected choices would be for a hypothetical, annual fitness evaluation. Among the various fitness tests, the VJT was chosen by students 52.94% of the time, making it the most popular selection. The SLJ, 30 m, and SUT were all chosen as the second most frequently selected tests for their fitness evaluations, with each test being selected 41.18% of the time. The top four selections for hypothetical fitness tests were the 30 m (82.35%), VJT (64.71%), MSFT (64.71%), and deep squat (DS) (52.94%). Although students could choose from any physical fitness test in their hypothetical selection, students did not make a single selection outside of the previously identified list, which were the lists prepared for their actual selections.

In the ninth and tenth grade PE classes, students were observed engaging in the process of self-selecting fitness tests, often seeking the input of their friends during the selection process. This collaborative decision-making approach seemed to generate a mix of excitement and concern among students as they considered various test options. Notably, the VJT garnered significant attention and interest from the students, becoming the popular initial choice for many. Throughout the fitness test period, the VJT drew a growing audience of observers. Conversely, the MSFT appeared to elicit some apprehension among students, displayed by students initially electing to participate, then withdrawing. Students also expressed reservations or hesitance when considering the MSFT as an assessment option. The reasons for this apprehension were not explored in detail during the observations. Zhu et al. [23] identified that the MSFT creates an environment of direct competition with peers, which could provide an explanation for student reluctance towards this test.

During class discussions, students exhibited a strong sense of autonomy in their responses regarding fitness evaluations and their perceived relevance to personal goals. When prompted to identify the most reliable indicator of physical fitness, a student confidently asserted that the “beep test” (MSFT) deserved this distinction. Moreover, the student provided compelling reasoning for their choice, emphasizing the test’s effectiveness in measuring endurance. This response showcased the student’s ability to independently assess various fitness assessments and choose the one they deemed most suitable for evaluating their physical fitness. Furthermore, the basketball team fitness test included an additional three students who underwent the MSFT, contributing to a total of four students reflecting on their experiences with the test. These three students were also a part of ninth and tenth grade PE. Each student completed the questionnaire, aiming to gain valuable insights into their perceptions of the MSFT and its relevance to their physical fitness assessment.

In discussions about fitness tests suitable for evaluating individual fitness levels in relation to desired lifestyles, a student provided a comprehensive response. When asked to identify the most appropriate tests for assessing fitness levels aligned with a desired basketball player lifestyle, the student suggested a combination of assessments, specifically mentioning the MSFT, VJT, and DS. This response exemplified the student’s autonomy in selecting specific tests that aligned with their personal aspirations and goals.

These observations suggest that students in PE exercised autonomy in their understanding and decision-making processes related to fitness evaluations. They demonstrated the capacity to critically evaluate different assessment options and make informed choices based on their perceived relevance and alignment with personal objectives. Instances of autonomy within the context of class discussions indicate a growing sense of self-determination and independence among the students in shaping their own fitness journeys. During discussions on the topic of fitness activities that serve as the best evaluation of student fitness, a student identified the MSFT as the optimal choice, emphasizing its ability to measure endurance. Another student supported this response by adding that the MSFT also measures the aerobic system. The agreement among other students was evident as they nodded in approval of both answers. When questioned about the reasons for not engaging in the MSFT, students offered various explanations within the group setting. Some students cited commitments to football practice, inadequate sleep the previous night, and religious observance during Ramadan as factors influencing their decision not to select the MSFT as an assessment option. These findings demonstrate that students actively participate in class discussions, expressing their preferences and opinions while displaying a level of autonomy in evaluating fitness assessments. The observations highlight the students’ ability to critically analyze different options, make informed decisions based on perceived relevance, and consider personal circumstances when selecting fitness evaluation activities. Such instances of autonomy within class discussions underscore the students’ growing sense of self-determination and independence in shaping their fitness journeys.

4.4. Competence

As a part of this study, students were given concise demonstrations and written instructions on the usage and scoring of each fitness test. However, they did not receive coaching or guidance on improving their performances.

To assess students’ competence in accordance with self-determination theory, data were gathered through two distinct approaches: prompting for perceived competency and competence and prompting for meaning. Students responded to prompts related to perceived competency, stating their belief in their proficiency with the statement: “When it comes to performing this activity, I think I am pretty good.” Additionally, they provided responses regarding perceived competence, indicating their confidence in their ability to perform well after practice, with the statement: “If I worked at this activity for a while, I feel that I can do it pretty well”. Both prompts were responded to using a five-point Likert scale, ascending from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The results of these prompts, capturing perceived competency and competence, are presented in Figure 2. Furthermore, following the selection, performance, and recording of fitness test results, students were asked to rate their perception of the meaningfulness of each activity in evaluating their fitness, using a five-point Likert scale. The responses to this prompt are also displayed in Figure 2. It is important to note that students included in the data represented in Figure 2 actively chose to perform and record their scores in specific tests.

The absence of the RS, HS, IL, and ST in Figure 2 signifies that no specific frequency was identified, indicating the lack of a mode. The PUT measurement of perceived meaning was bimodal, as was the DS measurement of perceived competence and meaning.

These findings provide insights into the relationship, including discrepancies between competence, as defined in self-determination theory, and the various fitness tests employed in this study. While the analysis of fitness test results may be limited due to student-recorded scores, the data collected on perceived competency, competence, and perceived meaningfulness of fitness activities offer valuable insights. The specific tests identified as having high meaning to students align with their perceptions of competence and their belief in their ability to perform well. These findings support the notion that activities deemed meaningful by students can contribute to their perceived competence and engagement in fitness-related endeavors, as postulated by the self-determination theory.

Students demonstrated competence throughout the fitness test experience by executing various active tasks, modeling correct technique and form, providing feedback for other students, and reflecting on their own performance. In various situations, students collaborated to assess their classmates, often using the benefit of multiple perspectives to score their partners. Some groups of students sought clarifying questions for scoring each movement, whereas others remained independent throughout.

5. Discussion

Factors influencing students’ choices of fitness tests, attitudes towards fitness tests, and the impact on self-reporting of fitness test results are considered. Furthermore, comparisons with past evaluations provide insights into students’ progress and growth over time in physical education. Based on the findings and discussions, future research directions are proposed to expand upon the interventions, assessments, and strategies explored in this study. The theoretical implications of the research findings, particularly in relation to SDT, shed light on the interaction between competence and autonomy. The practical implications of the research offer recommendations for educators to enhance student engagement and motivation in both elective and mandatory PE courses.

5.1. Student Selections

During the assessment process, the VJT, 30 mS, SJT, SUT, MSFT, DS, and PUT were all chosen more than three times in either the actual or hypothetical testing selections, or in some cases, both. It is noteworthy that there were significant differences in the number of selections for certain tests between their actual and hypothetical choices. The VJT and 30 mS stood out as they received a relatively high number of selections in both scenarios. The VJT test primarily measures power, while the 30 mS focuses on speed, making them valuable for assessing the training qualities within a brief period. Similarly, the SLJ was frequently chosen, aligning with the power category. On the other hand, the SUT and PUT, both involving muscular endurance movements, were consistently selected four or more times in both the actual and hypothetical scenarios. The only mobility movement to be consistently chosen four or more times was the DS, which received nine selections during the hypothetical choices. However, the ST, HS, RS, and ILL were all chosen less than four times in either situation. These tests focus on balance, mobility, and stability, and despite requiring minimal time to complete, they were not as frequently selected as others. Interestingly, the MSFT was chosen only once during the allotted class testing session. Student participants performed and reflected on the test during a separate basketball fitness session. The MSFT was the second most common hypothetical selection. This discrepancy in MSFT selections can be attributed to various factors, which will be discussed in detail in the sections that follow.

5.2. Influences on Attitude

The results indicated that the choice of tests on the day of fitness testing reflected students’ willingness to engage in specific assessments, while hypothetical selections revealed their perceived meaning in particular tests. Factors influencing students’ willingness to engage in certain physical fitness tests encompassed their interests, perceived competencies in effectively performing the activities, environmental influences, and the test configuration.

It is important to note that students were instructed to select three of ten fitness tests. Of the tests selected, student selections differed from their hypothetical selections. A reason why this is the case could be attributed to aligning required performance competencies with areas of higher relative skill. Kahneman and Tversky’s [24] prospect theory examines how individuals make decisions under conditions of risk and uncertainty, and it considers how people evaluate potential gains and losses. In the context of a student’s decision making, relative skill can influence their perception of potential gains and losses associated with different activities in a public domain, for example, completing the MSFT in a gymnasium as a PE class. The presumed risk of a negative outcome or embarrassment throughout test performance may influence the selections made. The student’s assessment of their own skills and abilities relative to other options may impact their decision-making process as well. According to prospect theory, individuals tend to exhibit risk aversion when facing potential gains and risk-seeking behavior when facing potential losses. Applying prospect theory to the students’ decision, if they perceive themselves as having a higher level of skill or expertise in a particular activity compared to other possible options, they may be more inclined to select that activity. The potential gain, such as success, recognition, or positive outcomes, associated with their perceived relative skill may outweigh the potential loss, such as failure, embarrassment, or negative outcomes, in their decision-making calculus. On the other hand, if the students perceive themselves as having lower relative skill compared to other possible options, they may be more risk-averse and less likely to choose those activities. They may anticipate a higher potential loss, such as failure, negative evaluation, or unfavorable outcomes, compared to the potential gain, leading them to opt for activities where they perceive their relative skill to be higher.

Interpersonal factors within the public domain present opportunities for social comparison, influencing student experiences during fitness testing. Drawing on the research conducted by Crocker et al. [25], evidence supports the notion that social comparison processes occur in physical education, impacting students’ perceptions of competence. Students who perceive themselves as less competent than their peers tend to experience lower self-esteem and reduced motivation, whereas those perceiving themselves as more competent tend to experience higher self-esteem and increased motivation. Moreover, the presence of varying number of students at testing stations on the day of testing raises the possibility that the number of peers present could positively or negatively influence choices in the immediate aftermath. Disentangling the complexities of social comparison within this context holds promise for providing insights into the justification of differing selections made on the day of testing compared to hypothetical scenarios.

When considering test configuration, it is crucial to acknowledge that the specific fitness component being measured plays a significant role in determining the appropriate testing approach. For instance, when assessing power, a brief and intense burst of effort is necessary to accurately capture the intended quality. Conversely, evaluating cardiovascular endurance demands a more extended duration of testing to adequately evaluate an individual’s capacity to engage in exercises that activate large muscle groups and elevate heart rate over time. Considering the decision-making process of students in selecting activities, it is reasonable to assume that the duration of effort required becomes a critical consideration. In general, students appeared more inclined to prefer activities with shorter durations over longer ones due to various factors associated with increased participation time and potential physical discomfort. These factors, including time constraints and the potential for fatigue or discomfort during prolonged exertion, can influence students’ preferences when choosing among different fitness tests or activities.

5.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications

According to Bandura’s [26] theory of self-efficacy, individuals derive their sense of self-efficacy from various sources of information, with performance accomplishments being one of the most influential factors. The more reliable and successful the past experiences, the greater the impact on perceived self-efficacy. Limiting students’ opportunities for performance, particularly in physical tasks and challenges, may hinder their overall development. It is important to note that “performance” in this context not only refers to individual instances but also encompasses the ongoing process of performing tasks and activities. This may relate to students implementing and executing a plan to improve a fitness test result. As an educator or practitioner in the learning process, it is essential to carefully curate the learning experiences to create positive outcomes through appropriately challenging tasks. Providing opportunities for students to engage in meaningful and successful performances can boost their self-efficacy and foster their overall development. Considering the concerns and support for fitness testing, each instance of testing should have a clear purpose. When implemented purposefully, fitness testing can contribute to enhancing students’ self-efficacy.

The concepts and theories explored in the research are depicted in Figure 3, which illustrates the complex range of relationships influencing behavior. This conceptual diagram provides insights into addressing the research question of how competence can be utilized to support autonomy in high school physical education electives. It highlights the multitude of factors that influence competence, perceived competence, and autonomy. The student, environment, and behavior must all be taken into account when aiming to enhance competence and promote interaction with the physical environment. It is important to note that while competence is often assessed in educational environments, the manner in which these assessments are carried out can potentially undermine autonomy and agency. When given the chance to choose their own fitness tests, this research has shown that students may not select the most appropriate tool to assess their fitness accurately. The connection between actual and hypothetical selections of fitness tests highlights this finding.

The three corners of the triangle in the figure, rooted in Badura’s [27] triadic model of reciprocal determinism, depict the reciprocal causation between these three factors. Together, these findings contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationships involved in fostering competence and autonomy in high school physical education classes.

6. Conclusions

When exploring their relevance within autonomy-supportive pedagogy, competence and self-efficacy emerge as distinct yet interconnected concepts. While they share a fundamental relationship, competence assumes the role of a measure, whereas self-efficacy represents the coveted outcome. Within the domain of physical education, competence finds its quantifiable expression through instruments assessing awareness, skills, and abilities, while self-efficacy embodies the culmination of experiences garnered through such pursuits. Both concepts play pivotal roles in nurturing autonomy, yet they differ in their nature and manifestation.

Self-efficacy stands as a higher-order objective, reflecting a student’s belief of ultimately attaining knowledge, physical capacity, and experience. The cultivation of self-efficacy may or may not be an intentional outcome within a PE environment, while many practitioners and academics would agree that it should be. On the other hand, competence can be evaluated through a spectrum of methods. Primarily, fitness testing emerges as a versatile tool, offering avenues for gauging proficiency in various domains. Purpose-driven assessments serve as indicators of present capabilities, which can be dissected through an array of selected instruments aligned to reflect awareness, skills, and abilities. Moreover, fitness tests, when strategically executed, serve as evaluative tools for goal-driven behavior. In this light, they harbor the potential to contribute significantly to a sense of self-efficacy, particularly when the experience is deemed favorable and empowering.

7. Future Research Directions

In today’s digital age, where social media plays an increasingly pivotal role, students may become inundated with health and wellness-related information, often provided to them through algorithms. Investigating these influences presents an opportunity to unravel the intricacies of their environment. Examining the influence of these trends on students’ perceptions offers practitioners an avenue to better tailor physical education interventions that resonate with the evolving needs and aspirations of the modern student.