Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

ISSN: 1740-8989 (Print) 1742-5786 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

Impact of a pedometer-based goal-setting

intervention on children’s motivation, motor
competence, and physical activity in physical
education

Xiangli Gu, Yu-Lin Chen, Allen W. Jackson & Tao Zhang

To cite this article: Xiangli Gu, Yu-Lin Chen, Allen W. Jackson & Tao Zhang (2017): Impact
of a pedometer-based goal-setting intervention on children’s motivation, motor competence,
and physical activity in physical education, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, DOI:
10.1080/17408989.2017.1341475

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2017.1341475

Published online: 23 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 38

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpes20

Download by: [University of North Texas] Date: 16 July 2017, At: 07:51
PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2017.1341475

Impact of a pedometer-based goal-setting intervention

on children’s motivation, motor competence, and physical activity
in physical education
Xiangli Gu, Yu-Lin Chen, Allen W. Jackson and Tao Zhang
Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion, and Recreation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background: School physical education (PE) programs provide a prime Received 7 June 2016
environment for interventions that attempt to develop school-aged Accepted 18 April 2017
children’s motor competence and overall physical fitness, while also
KEYWORDS
stimulating competence motivation to engage in physical activity during Goal-setting theory;
childhood. It is generally recognized that a pedometer-based achievement motivation;
intervention strategy combined with a goal-setting strategy may be school health; physical
effective in increasing physical activity participation among school-aged education
children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of an 8-
week pedometer-based goal-setting intervention on children’s
motivation in PE, motor competence, and physical activity.
Methods: A pretest–posttest comparison group design was used with the
8-week intervention (3 days/week for 24 sessions). Participants were 273
(boys = 136, girls = 137) students recruited from 3 elementary schools in
the US. Classes in each school were randomly allocated to three
experimental conditions: (1) an intervention group with a personalized
pedometer weekly target to reach in their PE class (N = 110), (2) an
intervention group with the fixed pedometer target range to reach in
each PE class based on the recommended criteria (N = 90), or (3) a
control group without intervention (N = 73).
Analysis/results: The factorial repeated measures MANOVA indicated
significant multivariate effects for the group [F(6, 528) = 12.954, p < .001].
Post hoc analyzes showed that both experimental groups had
significantly higher expectancy-value beliefs, motor competence, and
physical activity compared to the control group (p < .001).
Conclusions: Health practitioners should be aware that goal-directed
action can contribute to school students’ PE-related achievement
motivation, motor competence, and achieving the recommended
60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

Introduction
Although it is well documented that physical inactivity increases health risk, only about half of the
youth in the US meet physical activity guidelines (IOM 2013; WHO 2014). Physical inactivity and
obesity are often related, and pediatric obesity is an epidemic with negative physical and psychosocial
health implications (WHO 2014). Epidemiological research suggests that there are dramatic
decreases in youth physical activity during early adolescence (Sallis 2000; USDHHS 2010). The
causes of obesity among school-aged children have been attributed, in part, to decreases in motiv-
ation for physical activity participation (Ntoumanis, Barkoukis, and Thøgersen-Ntoumani 2009)

CONTACT Xiangli Gu Xiangli.Gu@unt.edu University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle # 310769, Denton, TX 76203, USA
© 2017 Association for Physical Education
2 X. GU ET AL.

and insufficient motor competence (Stodden et al. 2008). Given the trend in obesity among US youth
(IOM 2013), initiatives of early detection and targeted interventions should be a high priority since
the early school years are the most cost-effective time to intervene (Campbell et al. 2001).
School physical education (PE) programs provide a prime environment for interventions that
attempt to develop school-aged children’s motor competence and overall physical fitness, while
also stimulating competence motivation to engage in physical activity during childhood (Frömel
et al. 2016; Logan et al. 2012; SHAPE America 2014). It was indicated that motivated students by
internal or external factors were more active (Hardman, Horne, and Fergus Lowe 2011), and showed
better motor competence than unmotivated students (Valentini and Rudisill 2004). Children who
are less skilled are often physically awkward or cognitively unprepared for learning, lack competence,
and lack motivation and positive attitudes toward physical activity (Stodden et al. 2008; Valentini
and Rudisill 2004). Furthermore, national standards and grade-level outcomes for elementary
schools focus on fostering the maturation of motor competence and developing the positive attitudes
and competence toward physical activity (SHAPE America 2014).
Research indicated that PE-based motivation plays an important role in understanding school-
age students’ physical activity participation and skill learning in PE (Gu and Solmon 2016; Hardman,
Horne, and Fergus Lowe 2011; Valentini and Rudisill 2004). Unfortunately, research has shown that
many children’s motivation to participate in physical activity during PE declines steadily over the
remaining school years (Ntoumanis, Barkoukis, and Thøgersen-Ntoumani 2009). Furthermore,
research reported that children don’t have adequate motor competence when they exit elementary
school (Erwin and Castelli 2008; Gu, Thomas, and Chen, 2017). Specifically, Erwin and Castelli
(2008) indicated that only 7% of the children (fourth- and fifth-grade) meet the US national PE stan-
dards and less than 50% of the children attained motor competence (basketball, gymnastics, and
throwing) according to the South Carolina Physical Education Program. Thus, PE-based interven-
tion programs are needed to address those issues because PE provides formal/structured educational
ways to motivate children and help them to achieve PE standards in terms of skill acquisition and
regular physical activity participation.
A potentially more successful approach to physical activity interventions involves targeting social-
cognitive variables such as goal setting that are correlates of physical activity participation (e.g.
engagement) and are putative influences on achievement motivation (see reviews: Locke and Latham
2002; Pearson 2012). Historically, motivation means ‘to move/action’; hence, achievement motiv-
ation focuses more specifically on the relationship of beliefs, values, and goals with move/action
(Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Both reviews (Locke and Latham 2002; Pearson 2012) documented
that the effects of goal setting are very reliable in the adult population whether the goals are assigned
(individualized goals), self-set, or set in a participatory manner (general goals). Specifically, goal-set-
ting theory is founded on a number of core findings (Locke and Latham 1990, 2002), and the positive
effect of goals on performance is strongest when individuals are committed to the goals they set
through four mechanisms: (1) goals direct effort and attention toward activities that are goal-relevant;
(2) goals have an energizing capacity (i.e. high goals lead to greater effort and better performance than
low goals); (3) goals impact persistence; and (4) goals can affect actions indirectly (moderated by task-
related strategies and perceived competence).
It is generally recognized that a pedometer-based intervention strategy combined with a goal-set-
ting strategy may be effective in increasing physical activity participation among school-aged chil-
dren (see reviews: Kang et al. 2009; Lubans, Morgan, and Tudor-Locke 2009). Specifically, those
two meta-analysis studies suggested that setting pedometer goals is one of the key motivational com-
ponents for increasing physical activity, especially for elementary-school children. Pedometers are
the small electronic devices that measure the number of steps a person takes, which are considered
as effective tools to assess and stimulate physical activity (Gu and Solmon 2016; Scruggs 2007). Ped-
ometers provide immediate visual feedback of cumulative step counts, which increases an individ-
ual’s awareness of how one’s behavioral choice affects physical activity (Duncan, Birch, and
Woodfield 2012). For example, an earlier study in Australian adolescents showed that girls receiving
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY 3

a 12-week pedometer intervention increased their physical activity while there was no change over
time in the control group (Schofield, Mummery, and Schofield 2005). A recent case study (Robinson
and Wadsworth 2010) also showed that integrating pedometers into a school physical activity pro-
gram allowed young children to become more aware of their own activity level (quantify the number
of steps) and enjoy all the activities. In addition, researchers found that adults that received self-refer-
enced goals (individualized goals) might be more effective in increasing their physical activity and
self-efficacy than encouraging them to reach a fixate number of steps (general goals; Croteau
2004; Rooney et al. 2003). As purported in a qualitative study (Heesch et al. 2005), pedometers
seem to assist in goal setting (e.g. a 10,000 step/day goal) and increase women’s motivation to engage
in physical activity.
Motivation researchers argue that development of specific motivational strategies (i.e. goal-set-
ting; mastery motivational climate) in the content area could impact students’ motivation at a con-
textual level such as in PE classes (Gu and Solmon 2016; Solmon 2015). As a consequence, students
may demonstrate higher levels of effort and skill competence during PE classes. Valentini and Rudi-
sill (2004) provided the initial support that a mastery skill learning environment (e.g. emphasizing
self-referenced success and focusing on developing competence) positively influenced perceived
competence and motor-skill development among developmental delayed kindergarteners. Likewise
there is scant evidence on how pedometer deployment combined with a step-goal type in PE may
impact children’s motivation and physical activity (see review: Lubans et al. 2015). Only one
study has focused on the impact of different step-goal conditions (individual-based and group-
based steps goals) on children’s school-based physical activity (Kang and Brinthaupt 2009). They
found that children’s (N = 99, fourth graders) overall step counts increased over time, and different
step-goal conditions produced similar effect on children’s physical activity levels across time. How-
ever, that study did not have a control group and only focused on the changes of daily school-based
physical activity without investigating other potential outcomes such as motor competence and
motivation in PE setting.
To date, numerous studies (see review: Lonsdale et al. 2013) have concluded that school-based
interventions (i.e. teaching method and curriculum changing) may improve students’ physical
activity and motivation. However, limited research has focused on the relative impact of different
goal types in elementary PE program to examine its effectiveness on school children’s motivation,
motor competence, and physical activity (see review Lubans et al. 2015). Thus, this study was
grounded in the goal-setting theory and examined the impact of types of pedometer-based goal set-
ting on children’s motivation, motor performance, and physical activity in PE.
Specifically, researchers designed an 8-week pedometer-based goal-setting intervention to inves-
tigate its impact on children’s motivation (i.e. expectancy-value beliefs in PE), motor competence,
and pedometer-based physical activity in PE (steps/class). It was hypothesized that children who par-
ticipated in two goal-based conditions (Individualized-Steps or General-Steps Goal [ISG/GSG] con-
dition) would demonstrate better PE-based motor competency, higher expectancy beliefs, and higher
step counts across time, compared with their counterparts who were in the control condition.

Method
Study design and participants
A pretest–posttest comparison group research design was used with the 8-week pedometer-based
goal-setting intervention in PE (3 days/week for 24 sessions). Participants were 273 fourth- and
fifth-grade (Mage = 10.89 ± 0.80; boys = 136, girls = 137) students recruited from elementary schools
in the southwest region of the US. Five schools were contacted by the research team with similar
backgrounds such as geographical location (i.e. same school district), socioeconomic status, and
PE provision. Eventually three schools agreed to participate in the study. The three schools were
recruited from the same school district with similar socioeconomic status (see Table 1), and each
4 X. GU ET AL.

Table 1. Number of students, gender and race at each school.

School Groups Ethnicity distribution and SES
Mowery Elementary School ISG = 51 34.6% Economically disadvantage
GSG = 37 68.6% White
CG = 21 10.1% Black
13.8% Hispanic-American
7.5% Other
Wonder Elementary School ISG = 32 46.4% Economically disadvantage
GSG = 33 63.9% White
CG = 32 12.4% Black
13.4% Hispanic-American
10.3% Other
Sedar Elementary School ISG = 27 30% Economically disadvantage
GSG = 20 56.7% White
CG = 20 20.9% Black
7.5% Hispanic-American
14.9% Other
Notes: Three schools located in the same school district. SES: socioeconomic status. ISG: Individualized-Steps Goal; GSG: Group-
Steps Goal; CG: Control group.

school had two PE teachers with at least 5 years of teaching experiences. The PE curriculum is based
on state-mandated grade-level expectations focusing on developing physically literate individuals
who have the skills, knowledge, and motivation to enjoy a physically active lifestyle (SHAPE America
2014). To control possible school effects in this field experiment, classes were randomly assigned to
three experimental conditions within each school. Thus, each school was equally represented in the
conduct of the study. This random assignment strategy resulted in three groups: (1) a group with a
personalized pedometer weekly target to reach in their PE class based on the baseline measures (ISG
Group; N = 110), (2) a group with the fixed pedometer target range to reach in each PE class based on
the research recommended step goals (58–63 steps/min; GSG Group; N = 90), or (3) a control group
(N = 73).
According to Latham and Locke (2006), the use of a goal-setting strategy throughout the inter-
vention can stimulate children’s adaptive motivation during PE by encouraging children to reach
their goals monitored by pedometers. Several intervention strategies were used in two experimental
groups including (a) wearing pedometers (i.e. self-awareness and monitoring); (b) instructions/
monitoring during the intervention only related to the protocol of the pedometers (i.e. decreasing
the measurement errors); and (c) reinforcing the goal setting (i.e. encouraging students to reach
goals). Specifically, in the experimental group 1 (ISG), children were given a personalized pedometer
target in their PE class to reach a weekly (3 classes/week) goal and asked to record the steps on a
personal weekly log. In the experimental group 2 (GSG), children received a fixed pedometer target
range to reach in each PE class in 8-week intervention and were also asked to record the steps on a
personal weekly log. A third group acted as the control condition without intervention. The ethnicity
distribution of the sample included 64.1% Caucasian, 13.6% African American, 12.1% Hispanic, and
10.2% others.

Intervention procedures
Before this study was conducted, informed parental consent and student assent were obtained in
accordance with the University Institutional Review Board and school administration. Before the
intervention, students were provided one session of orientation related to the pedometer such as
introducing the function of the pedometer, demonstrating proper wear, reading, and recording
the pedometer counts. Each student was assigned a numbered pedometer and personal weekly log
before the intervention in both ISG and GSG groups. Students’ pre- and post-average steps/class
(in three PE classes/time) in both experimental groups were measured before and right after the
intervention. Participants in the control group were also measured for the baseline and posttest
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY 5

(steps/class) in three PE classes before and after the intervention, but there was no intervention effect
following the baseline testing.
During the 8-week intervention researchers monitored PE classes (3 days/week for 24 sessions)
for both ISG and GSG groups to ensure that students understood the protocol, used pedometers
appropriately, and recorded their steps on their weekly log (self-monitoring). Before the interven-
tion, PE teachers were told that every PE class during the intervention should be representative of
the typical PE classes since this study did not focus on a curriculum-based intervention. Specifically,
a research assistant provided 5-min instructions before each PE class to inform students about
proper wearing of the assigned pedometer in each scheduled PE class, as well as encouraged them
to reach their goals. In the ISG group, students received their personal weekly step goal based on
the baseline assessment prior to the intervention. Each student’s step goal (steps/class) was deter-
mined by the baseline measure in three PE classes and was adjusted weekly with 5% higher incre-
ments or maintenance according to their performance. For example, a child who averaged 1500
steps/class during baseline would be expected to reach the target in at least two classes in the first
intervention week (3 classes/week). Then, a target of 1575 steps/class was assigned as the second
week’s goal. If the child could not reach the initial assigned 1500 steps goal, the goal was maintained
for one more week. In order to increase the awareness of their personal-step goal in the ISG group,
the researchers labeled and updated personal-step goal inside of the pedometer weekly.
Participants in the GSG group were instructed and encouraged to reach the research rec-
ommended step goals (58–63 steps/min; general goal range) during PE. Combining the findings
from Scruggs et al. (2003; Scruggs 2007), a cut point interval of 58–63 steps/min has been rec-
ommended which provide an accurate and tight 10-min moderate-to-vigorous physical activity
(MVPA) interval for fourth through sixth-grade PE. Children in the GSG group were expected to
take approximately 1740–1890 steps (∼30-min MVPA) within a typical 45-min PE class. Such
steps ranges/goals correspond to 30-min of MVPA (at least 50% of time) during PE on the basis
of Scruggs et al. (2003; Scruggs 2007 Quantifying - b38). The recommended steps goal for a PE
class was provided in the form of a poster which was placed in the gym during the 8-week interven-
tion for the GSG group only. At the end of each class, students in both ISG and GSG groups were
asked to record their own step counts to their personal weekly log as the self-monitoring approach.
In the control group, students attended their regular PE classes without pedometer and goal-setting
strategies. At the end of the intervention, all participants received a free pedometer as an appreciation
gift.

Instrumentation
All study variables were repeatedly measured at pre- and post-intervention. These variables includ-
ing expectancy-value beliefs in PE, motor competence (gymnastic and soccer), and pedometer-based
physical activity were measured at baseline (Time 1) and immediately post-intervention (Time 2).

Demographic information
Students responded to demographic questions including gender, age, and ethnicity.

Expectancy-value beliefs
Expectancy-value beliefs have been one of the most important views in terms of achievement motiv-
ation (Wigfield and Eccles 2000). It is posited that individuals’ expectancies for success and the value
they have for succeeding are important determinants of their motivation to perform different
achievement tasks in PE (Gu and Solmon 2016; Wigfield and Eccles 2000). Eleven items were
used to assess students’ expectancy-value beliefs related to their PE class on a 5-point Likert scale
(Xiang, McBride, and Guan 2004). The sample items include: ‘How good are you at activities and
skills in PE?’ (1 = very bad, 5 = very good); ‘For me, being good at activities and skills in PE is?’
(1 = not very important, 5 = very important); and ‘How much do you like activities and skills in PE?’
6 X. GU ET AL.

(1 = don’t like it at all, 5 = like it very much). The 11-item expectancy-value beliefs scale is valid and
reliable for using in this age group (Gu and Solmon 2016), and in the present study Cronbach’s α
value was .85 for this scale.

Motor competence
PE MetricsTM (2010) was used to evaluate students’ PE-related motor competence including gym-
nastics and soccer skills. The PE curricula offered in the three participating schools followed the
SHAPE America national standards. The PE Metrics was specifically developed and validated by
measurement experts to assess the extent to which students of various grade levels attain these
standards. All the assessment procedures/criteria of the PE MetricsTM are consistent with children’s
developmental pattern (considering age and sex). A recent research study (Chen, Mason, Hypnar,
and Bennett 2016) supported that PE MetricsTM rubrics are feasible and valid tools to assess chil-
dren’s skill competency in PE. All motor-skill assessments were scored by a well-trained researcher.
Students were asked to perform a gymnastics sequence with seven components, which contain a
starting shape, rolling, transfer of weight from feet to hands, balance, leap or jump, turn, and end-
ing shape. They were assessed on their ability to perform all the required components with good
technique and smooth transitions on a 20 × 20 tumbling mat. The movement sequence was scored
separately based on a 4-level scoring rubric within three categories: composition, technique, and
transitions during the performance. The soccer skills including dribbling, passing, and receiving
categories were also evaluated based on a 4-level scoring rubric. Students were asked to dribble
a score ball with control while moving at a slow consistent jog, send a receivable lead pass to a
partner at least three times, and move forward to meet the ball while receiving at least three recei-
vable passes in a space with 15 feet wide and 60 feet long. They completed a total of four passes
(two going up, two coming back) and four receptions (two going up, two coming back). The scores
from both skill assessments were summed to acquire a motor competency index ranging from a
minimum score of 0 to a maximum of 24. The PE MetricsTM is a valid and reliable national stan-
dards-based assessment tool for measuring students’ PE-related motor competence (gymnastics,
intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .92; soccer, ICC = .90 in this study; Dyson et al. 2011;
Zhu et al. 2011).

Pedometer-based physical activity

Pedometers were used to measure students’ physical activity participation in PE classes in this study
(Accusplit, Inc., Livermore, CA). Pedometers have been established as a reliable and valid tool for
measuring physical activity for both adults and children (Rowlands and Eston 2005; Scruggs et al.
2003). Three days of pedometer measurement in PE were conducted in pre- and posttests, respect-
ively. The dependent variable for physical activity participation was the average steps taken per class
(ICC = .81 in this study).

Data analysis
All statistical analyzes were conducted using SPSS (version 22.0). First, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients
were used to examine the internal consistencies of the self-reported measures. Second, baseline
descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables and a multivariate analysis of variance (MAN-
OVA) was conducted to determine the gender and group differences at the baseline. Third, time and
group effects (intervention effect) on all variables were analyzed in the 2 (pre and post measures) × 3
(experimental-1, experimental-2, control) factorial repeated measures MANOVA. Finally, the
paired-samples t-tests for group comparisons were conducted when there were significant time ×
group interactions. Follow-up post hoc tests were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Bon-
ferroni adjustment. An alpha level of .05 was used for all the data analyzes.
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY 7

Table 2. Descriptive data for boys and girls in the baseline measures.
Variables Expectancy-value beliefs Physical activity (steps/class) Motor competence
Baseline
Groups Gender M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
ISG (N = 110)
Boys (n = 62) 4.26 (0.49) 1984 (290.48) 13.66 (3.61)
Girls (n = 48) 3.99 (0.55) 1905 (314.99) 13.20 (3.39)
GSG (N = 90)
Boys (n = 40) 4.15 (0.58) 1939 (217.37) 12.86 (3.54)
Girls (n = 50) 4.04 (0.59) 1937 (272.71) 12.14 (3.74)
CG (N = 73)
Boys (n = 34) 4.28 (0.41) 1959 (183.70) 12.84 (3.84)
Girls (n = 39) 4.20 (0.47) 1930 (214.22) 13.17 (3.66)
Notes: ISG: Individualized-Steps Goal group, Intervention group 1; GSG: Group-Steps Goal group, Intervention group 2; CG: Control
group; M: Mean; SD: standard deviation.

Results
Baseline characteristics of the included sample are shown in Tables 1 and 2. There were 110 children
(62 boys, 48 girls) in the experimental group 1 (ISG group), 90 children (40 boys, 50 girls) in the
experimental group 2 (GSG group), and 73 children (34 boys, 39 girls) in the control group. The
results of the MANOVA demonstrated that there were no main significant between-group differ-
ences on study variables at baseline (Wilks’ λ = .98, F(6, 530) = .94, p = .46, η 2 = .011). Overall,
there were no gender differences at baseline (Wilks’ λ = .98, F(3, 265) = 2.27, p = .081, η 2 = .025),
and no gender differences by group interaction as well at baseline (Wilks’ λ = .99, F(6, 530) = .498,
p = .81, η 2 = .006). Thus, gender was not included in the following data analyzes.
The factorial repeated measures MANOVA indicated significant multivariate effects for the group
(Wilks’ λ = .76, F(6, 528) = 12.954, p < .001, η 2 = .13), time (pre/post; Wilks’ λ = .78, F(3, 264) =
24.38, p < .001, η 2 = .22) and the group by time interaction (Wilks’ λ = .54, F(6, 528) = 31.30, p
< .001, η 2 = .26). Follow-up ANOVAs indicated the group, time, and group by time interaction
effects were significant for each dependent variable (p < .001). Post hoc analyzes showed that at fol-
low-up the two experimental groups (ISG and GSG) had significantly higher expectancy-value
beliefs (p < .01), PE-related motor competence (p < .001), and physical activity (p < .001) compared
to the control group (Table 3 and Figure 1).

Discussion
It is well documented that using pedometers with a goal-setting approach is an effective strategy for
increasing physical activity in the adult population and serves as a critical self-monitoring tool in

Table 3. Analysis of the effects of the intervention from factorial repeated measures ANOVA.
Groups ISG group (110) GSG group (n = 90) CG group (n = 73) Contrast within-subjects
Variables
Baseline M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Follow-up M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F (1, 270) η2 P
Expectancy-value 4.14 (0.53) 4.09 (0.58) 4.24 (0.45)
Beliefs 4.22 (0.56) 4.18 (0.64) 3.55 (0.57) 31.39 .10 <.001
Motor 13.46 (3.51) 12.46 (3.65) 13.00 (3.72)
Competence 15.41 (3.91) 13.45 (4.28) 12.01 (3.44) 8.58 .03 <.01
Physical activity (steps/class) 1949 (302.57) 1938 (248.29) 1943 (199.76)
2339 (653.90) 2396 (555.91) 1702 (204.46) 30.58 .10 <.001
Notes: ISG: Individualized-Step-Goal group, Intervention group 1; GSG: Group-Step-Goal group, Intervention group 2; CG: Control
group; M: Mean; SD: standard deviation.
Time × group interaction for expectancy-value beliefs: F (2, 270) = 62.71, p < .001, η 2 = .32.
Time × group interaction for motor performance: F (2, 270) = 14.57, p < .001, η 2 = .10.
Time × group interaction for steps/class: F (2, 270) = 33.31, p < .001, η 2 = .20.
8 X. GU ET AL.

Figure 1. The time and group effects for expectancy-value beliefs (panel a), motor competence (panel b), and physical activity
(panel c).

their daily life (Bravata et al. 2007). However, the application of such research directions is limited in
pediatric health intervention programs, especially among school-aged children (Lubans et al. 2015).
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of an 8-week pedometer-based goal-
setting intervention on elementary-school students’ PE-related motor competence, motivation
(expectancy-value beliefs), and physical activity. As suggested by Pardo et al. (2013), the most effec-
tive PE-based interventions should implement multi-component strategies (i.e. pedometers and goal
setting) into the class content which may raise the awareness and motivation for behavioral changes.
In this study, it was confirmed that the 8-week pedometer-based goal-setting intervention proved to
be effective in maintaining positive expectancy-value beliefs, significantly increasing students’ motor
competence, and physical activity participation in PE.
It is evident that students’ motivation in PE and their physical activity participation decline stea-
dily from elementary school to higher school years (Aelterman et al. 2012; Biddle, Gorely, and Stensel
2004; Ntoumanis, Barkoukis, and Thøgersen-Ntoumani 2009; Petlichkoff 1996). As predicted, chil-
dren in both experimental groups (ISG vs. GSG) showed significantly higher steps per class at follow-
up to the 8-week interventions than their counterparts in the control group (mean increases of 390–
457 steps per class, respectively). Specifically, it was found that the increased rates of the steps per
class in the experimental groups increased more than 5 min of MVPA in their PE classes with
large effect sizes ranging from d = 1.3 to d = 1.8. Also of note was the large decrease in steps per
class in the control group in terms of effect size (d = −1.2). The possible reason of this decrease
may be the significant drop off of children’s expectancy beliefs towards PE among this group. Con-
sistent with Kang and Brinthaupt (2009)’s findings, our study indicated no difference in school phys-
ical activity (steps/day) between individual-based and group-based goal conditions. There was no
control group in Kang and Brinthaupt’s study and both experimental groups also used a 5% incre-
ment over individual or group baseline for each week of the intervention. Expanding generalizability
to the PE setting, our study demonstrated preliminary evidence that setting a step goal (whether a
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY 9

general step goal or an alternative personalized step goal) in PE for the students who use the ped-
ometers will significantly and meaningfully increase their in-class physical activity participation.
According to Scruggs et al.’s (2003; Scruggs 2007) recommendation, children in the GSG group
were expected to take approximately 1740–1890 steps (∼30-min MVPA) within a typical 45-min PE
class. Such steps ranges/goals correspond to 30-min of MVPA (at least 50% of time) during PE. It
was also noted in the GSG group that some of the very active students received group goals that
were set below than their baseline step levels in PE because of the way the group goal was calculated.
Tudor-Lock and Lutes (2009) also suggest that the setting of any step goal for an individual to reach
may benefit to increase physical activity. This intervention provided insights that using technology
such as pedometers with goal-setting strategies in PE could make contributions to help children to
achieve daily recommended physical activity (9000 steps/day; Adams, Johnson, and Tudor-Locke
2013; Frömel et al. 2016; Scruggs et al. 2003).
Although there were no significant decreases between pre- and post-intervention on students’
expectancy-value beliefs motivation in both experimental groups, students’ motivation beliefs
towards PE in the control group significantly decreased. This is consistent with the goal-setting pre-
diction (Latham and Locke 2006), which states that goal attainment leads to a greater effort and a
sense of achievement within a specific time period. Despite the use of a goal-setting strategy, attempts
were made throughout the intervention to stimulate their adaptive motivation during PE by
encouraging children to reach their goals on their own by using pedometers. This is important
because research indicated that providing flexibility and positive learning experiences (i.e. fostering
competence beliefs, emphasizing enjoyable physical activity among children) can help students
develop knowledge, positive attitudes, and competence toward PE (Gu and Solmon 2016). On the
other hand, significant decreases of the expectancy-value beliefs observed in the control group are
consistent with the theoretical perspective, especially as transitioning from elementary to middle
school (Fredricks and Eccles 2002; Jacobs et al. 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000).
The findings demonstrated that the 8-week pedometer-based goal-setting intervention helped students
prevent a decline on their motivation toward PE, and the effectiveness of the intervention was equally
effective for both experimental groups (ISG and GSG). Pedometer implementation in PE settings may
affect how children are motivated and the way that a teacher structures the learning environment,
which consequently may promote a specific state of achievement involvement (Lubans et al. 2015). Specifi-
cally, by using pedometers to monitor their activities in the PE classes, children may become more respon-
sible and pay more attention to what they are doing instead of relying on PE teachers’ monitoring and
motivating. To this end, we argue that the strategies developed in the 24 intervention sessions generated
a significant influence on children’s motivational processes during PE classes in the experimental groups.
From school health perspective, it suggests that PE classes may become more interesting and valuable for
all students if they are provided the knowledge (i.e. how to assess physical activity by using pedometer), and
the opportunity to measure their own behaviors (i.e. self-monitoring physical activity in the PE class).
Although research (see review: Locke and Latham 2002; Pearson 2012) supports the effects of goal
setting mainly among adult populations, this study makes a unique contribution to the literature by
showing how a PE-based intervention that integrated goal-setting strategies with technology (i.e. ped-
ometer) can affect children’s PE-related motor competence. Recently, researchers recognized that
motor competence is not only an important aspect of achievement in PE, but also provides the foun-
dation for an active lifestyle (Gu 2016; SHAPE America 2014). It has also been suggested that physical
activity and motivation (i.e. competence beliefs) are the important correlates of motor competence
during middle childhood (Gu 2016; Stodden et al. 2008). Since there were large decreases of the expect-
ancy-value beliefs and steps/class in the control group at the follow-up measures, as expected the chil-
dren in the control group reached a significant level of decreases in their motor performance at follow-up
tests. Subsequent to the intervention, children in the two experimental groups demonstrated higher
PE-related motor competence compare to their counterparts in the control group.
Consistent with Lubans et al. (2015) assumption that utilizing pedometers in school setting (i.e.
PE classes) provide children with up-to-minute information (i.e. self-monitoring, set goals in both
10 X. GU ET AL.

experimental groups), and children then become more aware of their own movement and physical
engagement. More importantly, children learned to quantify the number of steps obtained in each
PE class through the intervention. Given the structured nature of the PE, proving step goals to children
using pedometers as a motivational tool may be more effective in monitoring and providing incentives
for increasing physical activity levels and expectancy beliefs toward the PE program. This was one of
the first studies to examine how the pedometer-based goal-setting intervention in PE impacted chil-
dren’s motor competence. Additional research is needed to test the mechanism underlying the changes
in physical activity, PE-motivation, and motor competence (i.e. mediation analysis).
Our study has some strengths and limitations. Although a significant effect of the 8-week inter-
vention was observed in this study, the long-term maintenance (follow-up measures) of the behav-
ioral changes is not clear and should be further investigated in order to control the confounding
variables. It is possible that the intervention was not of sufficient length (within 24 sessions) for pro-
moting children’s PE-motivation, although students’ expectancy beliefs did not significantly decrease
in the experimental groups after the 8-week intervention. Researchers (Lai et al. 2014) suggest that
longer exposure to an experimental contingency may result in better maintenance of an effect. Kang
et al. (2009) also suggest that the effects of the intervention are moderate to high for studies that last
between 8 and 15 weeks. In this study physical activity and expectancy beliefs were only assessed
within the PE context, thus, the impacts of the intervention may only apply to PE-based physical
activity and motivation. Last but not least, some circumstances were beyond the researchers’ control.
For example, objective measurement of motor competence is one of the strengths in this study. How-
ever, only soccer (manipulative skill) and gymnastics skills (coordinative skill) were assessed in this
study to represent PE-related motor competence. Given the wide range of motor skills taught in school
PE, it was impossible to measure every skill. Instead, we chose to assess motor skills in two sports that
were taught in the PE programs which follow standard-based instruction. Soccer and gymnastics were
previous taught in these programs, hence recommended by the PE teachers for assessment.

Conclusions
Improving physical activity participation has become a major issue in pediatric public health and
also serves as a major goal of Healthy People 2020 (USDHHS 2010). The current intervention pro-
vides evidence about how to promote physical activity participation during PE and related PE-motiv-
ation by implementing affordable motivational tools for the schools such as the use of pedometers. It
was noticed that the children enjoyed the integration of pedometers in their PE classes and became
more aware of their own activity level. More importantly, children became able to quantify the num-
ber of steps they obtained in each PE class during the intervention. Knowledge of the pedometer-
based goal-setting intervention could help direct resources to individuals, communities, or health
issues most in need in the schools. Accordingly, health practitioners and pediatricians should be
made aware that goal-directed action combined with motivational tools such as pedometers in PE
classes could potentially motivate children to actively engage in class activities and practices, conse-
quently may improve their skills and achieve the recommended 60 min of MVPA on a daily basis
(WHO 2014). This initial research effort demonstrated the first step toward development of a posi-
tive learning and physical activity intervention program for elementary school PE aimed to prevent
physical and psychosocial impairment in later childhood.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Tao Zhang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8963-336X
 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORT PEDAGOGY 11

References
Adams, M. A., W. D. Johnson, and C. Tudor-Locke. 2013. “Steps/Day Translation of the Moderate-to-Vigorous
Physical Activity Guideline for Children and Adolescents.” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 10: 49–60.
Aelterman, N., M. Vansteenkiste, H. Van Keer, L. Van den Berghe, J. De Meyer, and L. Haerens. 2012. “Students’
Objectively Measured Physical Activity Levels and Engagement as a Function of Between-class and Between-
student Differences in Motivation Toward Physical Education.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 34:
457–480.
Biddle, S. J. H., T. Gorely, and D. J. Stensel. 2004. “Health-enhancing Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour in
Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Sports Sciences 22: 679–701.
Bravata, D. M., C. Smith-Spangler, V. Sundaram, A. L. Gienger, N. Lin, R. Lewis, Christopher D. Stave, Ingram Olkin,
and J. R. Sirard. 2007. “Using Pedometers to Increase Physical Activity and Improve Health: A Systematic Review.”
JAMA 298: 2296–2304.
Campbell, K., E. Waters, S. O’meara, and C. Summerbell. 2001. “Interventions for Preventing Obesity in Childhood. A
Systematic Review.” Obesity Reviews 2: 149–157.
Chen, W., S. Mason, A. Hypnar, and A. Hammond-Bennett. 2016. “Assessing Manipulative Skill Competency in
Elementary School Students: A Three-year Study.” Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 15: 102–110.
Croteau, K. A. 2004. “A Preliminary Study on the Impact of a Pedometer-based Intervention on Daily Steps.”
American Journal of Health Promotion 18: 217–220.
Duncan, M., S. Birch, and L. Woodfield. 2012. “Efficacy of an Integrated School Curriculum Pedometer Intervention
to Enhance Physical Activity and to Reduce Weight Status in Children.” European Physical Education Review 18:
396–407.
Dyson, B., J. H. Placek, K. C. Graber, J. L. Fisette, J. Rink, W. Zhu, and Y. Park. 2011. “Development of PE Metrics
Elementary Assessments for National Physical Education Standard 1.” Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science 15: 100–118.
Erwin, H. E., and D. M. Castelli. 2008. “National Physical Education Standards: A Summary of Student Performance
and Its Correlates.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79: 495–505.
Fredricks, J. A., and J. S. Eccles. 2002. “Children’s Competence and Value Beliefs from Childhood Through
Adolescence: Growth Trajectories in Two Male-Sex-typed Domains.” Developmental Psychology 38: 519–533.
Frömel, K., Z. Svozil, F. Chmelík, L. Jakubec, and D. Groffik. 2016. “The Role of Physical Education Lessons and
Recesses in School Lifestyle of Adolescents.” Journal of School Health 86: 143–151.
Gu, X. 2016. “Fundamental Motor Skill, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behavior in Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged Kindergarteners.” Psychology, Health & Medicine 21: 871–881.
Gu, X., and M. A. Solmon. 2016. “Motivational Processes in Children’s Physical Activity and Health-related Quality of
Life.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 21: 407–424. doi:10.1080/17408989.2015.1017456.
Gu, X., K. Thomas, and Y. Chen. 2017. “The Role of Perceived and Actual Motor Competency on Children’s Physical
Activity and Cardiorespiratory Fitness During Middle Childhood.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0192.
Hardman, C., P. Horne, and C. Fergus Lowe. 2011. “Effects of Rewards, Peer-modelling and Pedometer Targets on
Children’s Physical Activity: A School-based Intervention Study.” Psychology & Health 26: 3–21.
Heesch, K. C., M. K. Dinger, K. R. McClary, and K. R. Rice. 2005. “Experiences of Women in a Minimal Contact
Pedometer-based Intervention: A Qualitative Study.” Women & Health 41: 97–116.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2013. Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to
School. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Jacobs, J. E., S. Lanza, D. W. Osgood, J. S. Eccles, and A. Wigfield. 2002. “Changes in Children’s Self-competence and
Values: Gender and Domain Differences Across Grades One Through Twelve.” Child Development 73: 509–527.
Kang, M., and T. M. Brinthaupt. 2009. “Effects of Group- and Individual-based Step Goals on Children’s Physical
Activity Levels in School.” Pediatric Exercise Science 21: 148–158.
Kang, M., S. J. Marshall, T. V. Barreira, and J. O. Lee. 2009. “Effect of Pedometer-based Physical Activity Interventions:
A Meta-analysis.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 80: 648–655.
Lai, S. K., S. A. Costigan, P. J. Morgan, D. R. Lubans, D. F. Stodden, J. Salmon, and L. M. Barnett. 2014. “Do School-
based Interventions Focusing on Physical Activity, Fitness, or Fundamental Movement Skill Competency Produce a
Sustained Impact in These Outcomes in Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review of Follow-up Studies.”
Sports Medicine 44: 67–79.
Latham, G. P., and E. A. Locke. 2006. “Enhancing the Benefits and Overcoming the Pitfalls of Goal Setting.”
Organizational Dynamics 35: 332–340.
Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 1990. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., and G. P. Latham. 2002. “Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation: A 35-
year Odyssey.” American Psychologist 57: 705–717.
12 X. GU ET AL.

Logan, S. W., L. E. Robinson, A. E. Wilson, and W. A. Lucas. 2012. “Getting the Fundamentals of Movement: A Meta-
analysis of the Effectiveness of Motor Skill Interventions in Children.” Child: Care, Health and Development 38:
305–315.
Lonsdale, C., R. R. Rosenkranz, L. R. Peralta, A. Bennie, P. Fahey, and D. R. Lubans. 2013. “A Systematic Review and
Meta-analysis of Interventions Designed to Increase Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity in School Physical
Education Lessons.” Preventive Medicine 56: 152–161.
Lubans, D. R., P. J. Morgan, and C. Tudor-Locke. 2009. “A Systematic Review of Studies Using Pedometers to Promote
Physical Activity among Youth.” Preventive Medicine 48: 307–315.
Lubans, D. R., R. C. Plotnikoff, A. Miller, J. J. Scott, D. Thompson, and C. Tudor-Locke. 2015. “Using Pedometers for
Measuring and Increasing Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents the Next Step.” American Journal of
Lifestyle Medicine 9: 418–427.
NASPE (National Association for Sport and Physical Education). 2010. PE Metrics: Assessing National Standards 1–6
in Secondary School. Reston, VA: NASPE (National Association for Sport and Physical Education).
Ntoumanis, N., V. Barkoukis, and C. Thøgersen-Ntoumani. 2009. “Developmental Trajectories of Motivation in
Physical Education: Course, Demographic Differences, and Antecedents.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101:
717–728.
Pardo, B. M., E. G. Bengoechea, E. G. Lanaspa, P. L. Bush, J. Z. Casterad, J. A. J. Clemente, and L. G. González. 2013.
“Promising School-based Strategies and Intervention Guidelines to Increase Physical Activity of Adolescents.”
Health Education Research 28: 523–538.
Pearson, E. S. 2012. “Goal Setting as a Health Behavior Change Strategy in Overweight and Obese Adults: A Systematic
Literature Review Examining Intervention Components.” Patient Education and Counseling 87: 32–42.
Petlichkoff, L. M. 1996. “The Drop-out Dilemma in Youth Sports.” In The Child and Adolescent Athlete: Encyclopedia
of Sports Medicine, edited by O. Bar-Or, 418–432. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Robinson, L. E., and D. D. Wadsworth. 2010. “Stepping Toward Physical Activity Requirements: Integrating
Pedometers into Early Childhood Settings.” Early Childhood Education Journal 38: 95–102.
Rooney, B. L., K. Smalley, J. Larson, and S. J. Havens. 2003. “Is Knowing English? Increasing Physical Activity by
Wearing a Pedometer.” Wisconsin Medical Journal 102: 31–36.
Rowlands, A. V., and R. G. Eston. 2005. “Comparison of Accelerometer and Pedometer Measures of Physical Activity
in Boys and Girls, Ages 8–10 Years.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 76: 251–257.
Sallis, J. F. 2000. “Age-related Decline in Physical Activity: A Synthesis of Human and Animal Studies.” Medicine and
Science in Sports and Exercise 32: 1598–1600.
Schofield, L., W. K. Mummery, and G. Schofield. 2005. “Effects of a Controlled Pedometer-intervention Trial for Low-
active Adolescent Girls.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 37: 1414–1420.
Scruggs, P. W. 2007. “Quantifying Activity Time via Pedometry in Fifth-and Sixth-grade Physical Education.” Journal
of Physical Activity & Health 4: 215–227.
Scruggs, P. W., S. K. Beveridge, P. A. Eisenman, D. L. Watson, B. B. Shultz, and L. B. Ransdell. 2003. “Quantifying
Physical Activity via Pedometry in Elementary Physical Education.” Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
35: 1065–1071.
SHAPE America. 2014. National Standards & Grade-level Outcomes for K-12 Physical Education. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Solmon, M. A. 2015. “Optimizing the Role of Physical Education in Promoting Physical Activity: A Social-ecological
Approach.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86: 329–337.
Stodden, D., J. D. Goodway, S. Langendorfer, M. A. Roberton, M. E. Rudisill, C. Garcia, and L. Garcia. 2008. “A
Developmental Perspective on the Role of Motor Skill Competence in Physical Activity: An Emergent
Relationship.” Quest 60: 290–306.
Tudor-Locke, C., and L. Lutes. 2009. Why do Pedometers Work? A Reflection Upon the Factors Related to Successfully
Increasing Physical Activity.” Sports Medicine 39: 981–993.
USDHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2010. Healthy People 2020. Accessed February 16, 2011.
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/.
Valentini, N., and M. Rudisill. 2004. “Motivational Climate, Motor-skill Development, and Perceived Competence:
Two Studies of Developmentally Delayed Kindergarten Children.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 23:
216–234.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2014. Childhood Overweight and Obesity. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/
childhood/en/
Wigfield, A., and J. S. Eccles. 2000. “Expectancy-value Theory of Achievement Motivation.” Contemporary Educational
Psychology 25: 68–81.
Xiang, P., R. McBride, and J. Guan. 2004. “Children’s Motivation in Elementary Physical Education: A Longitudinal
Study.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 75: 71–80.
Zhu, W., C. Fox, Y. Park, J. L. Fisette, B. Dyson, K. C. Gräber, and J. H. Placek. 2011. “Development and Calibration of
an Item Bank for PE Metric Assessment: Standard 1.” Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 15:
119–137.