Students physical activity assessed by accelerometers and motivation for physical education during class: Should we consider lessons as a whole or only active periods?

Abstract

BackgroundThis study explores the links between measures of motivation based on Self-Determination Theory, and physical activity (PA) indicators assessed with accelerometers during physical education lessons. MethodsQuestionnaires about motivation and psychological needs on the context of physical education were completed by 319 middle high school students, up to 5 times within a 2-year period; they were equipped with an accelerometer and videotaped during a physical education lesson. PA-related indicators were computed considering the entire duration of the lessons (strategy 1), but also retaining only active times during the lesson (strategy 2). ResultsWhen the first strategy was used very few correlations emerged between motivation constructs and PA-related indicators. On the other hand, the second strategy was more effective to detect the link between motivation and students activity during class-time, in particular with sedentary time, moderate and vigorous PA. ConclusionsThis study shed light on the importance of considering how the sequences of PA sessions should be coded, in order to link psychological phenomena with PA levels, as well as to provide a meaningful support for motivational hypotheses. PLOS ONEPLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.

Objectively measured physical activity during primary school physical education predicts intrinsic motivation independently of academic achievement level

“…The results of our study underline the importance of not only using MVPA as a measure of PA‐intensity, but also LPA. Previous studies mainly focused on relations of motivation with MVPA, despite the fact that children spend most of their day in SED or LPA (Van Stralen et al, 2014; Verloigne et al, 2012), and despite the commonness of SED and LPA in PE (e.g., Boiché et al, 2020; Fairclough & Stratton, 2006; Fröberg et al, 2017; Slingerland et al, 2011). Our results on the relation between LPA and motivation are promising, since beneficial effects of LPA on children's health have been reported (Kwon et al, 2011; Poitras et al, 2016).…”

“…As the present study did not look into intervention effects or clustering, a post‐hoc power analysis was conducted as well. Previous studies have reported effect sizes between .10 and .15 when examining relations between motivation and PA (e.g., Boiché et al, 2020; Johnson et al, 2017; Owen et al, 2013). Using an alpha of .05, sample size of 891 and three predictors, our study was found to be sufficiently powered, having a power of 1.0 (for both effect sizes .10 and .15).…”

“…It is argued that putting in more effort and participating at higher intensity levels contributes to a more positive attitude towards PA by resulting in more positive affective responses immediately after a PE‐lesson (Guérin & Fortier, 2012; Reed & Ones, 2006). Repeated exposure to these positive affective experiences resulting from PA is thought to foster PE‐motivation (Kwan & Bryan, 2010), which in turn facilitates children's effortful PA‐behaviour during PE (e.g., Boiché et al, 2020; Johnson et al, 2017; Owen et al, 2013). It can thus be hypothesized that the relation between PE‐motivation and PA‐behaviour comprises a reinforcing cycle in which behaviour and motivation are bidirectionally related.…”

“…Objective assessment methods for PA-related behaviour are seen as the gold standard for providing objective, reliable and accurate measures of PA-behaviour (Chanal et al, 2019;Shephard, 2003). Inconsistent results have been reported in the few studies using objective measures of primary school students' PA-behaviour (i.e., accelerometers or pedometers), finding relations between PE-motivation and PA-behaviour in some studies (Boiché et al, 2020;Johnson et al, 2017;Owen et al, 2013), but not in others (Bryan & Solmon, 2012;Erwin et al, 2013).…”

“…Although MVPA is the recommended intensity level for enhancing fitness and health (da Costa et al, 2019; Grgic et al, 2018), the focus on MVPA leaves the potential positive contribution of light‐intensity physical activity (LPA), and the negative effects of sedentary behaviour (SED) underexposed. Yet, most of children's waking time consists of LPA and SED (Van Stralen et al, 2014; Verloigne et al, 2012), and LPA and SED are common intensity levels during PE (e.g., Boiché et al, 2020; Fairclough & Stratton, 2006; Fröberg et al, 2017; Slingerland et al, 2011). Research suggests that LPA provides benefits for children's fitness and body composition as well, by contributing to the total daily energy expenditure (Kwon et al, 2011; Poitras et al, 2016).…”