The Impact of Learning Task Design On Students' Situational Interest in Physical Education

“The Impact of Learning Task Design on Students’ Situational Interest in Physical Education” by Roure C, Pasco D]
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

© 2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. The article appears here in
its accepted, peer-reviewed form, as it was provided by the submitting
author. It has not been copyedited, proofread, or formatted by the
publisher.
Article Title: The Impact of Learning Task Design on Students’ Situational Interest in
Physical Education
Authors: Cedric Roure1 and Denis Pasco2
Affiliations: 1Faculty of Motor Sciences, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-

Neuve, Belgium. 2Department of Technology-Enhanced Learning, Conceptual Change, Value
Orientations, University of Burgundy – Franche-Comte, Besancon, France.
Running Head: Learning task design
Journal: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
Acceptance Date: May 15, 2017
©2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0046
Abstract
Purpose: Based on the framework of interest, studies have shown that teachers can enhance
students’ situational interest (SI) by manipulating the components of learning tasks. The
purpose of this study was to examine the impact of learning task design on students’ SI in
physical education (PE). Method: The participants were 167 secondary school students (Mage
= 13.21, SD = 2.24, 59% boys, range 12-16) who evaluated the SI of two learning tasks in
badminton, designed to promote either instant enjoyment and exploration intention, or novelty
and challenge. Students responded to the French 19-item SI scale immediately after completing
Downloaded by Grand Valley St Univ on 07/27/17, Volume 0, Article Number 0
the two learning tasks, with a 3-week interval between the tasks. Results: The results showed
that students were receptive to the SI sources on which each task was designed. According to
the total interest scores, they also perceived significant differences between both tasks.
Moreover, the cluster analysis revealed three different students’ profiles based on their SI
scores and their receptivity to the design of both tasks. Conclusion: Findings indicated that SI
is a function of learning task design in PE.
Keywords: Situational Interest; Learning task; Physical Education; Badminton

When participating in a learning task, students differ in the level of intensity, attention
and enjoyment that characterizes their engagement. Such differences may reflect the
fluctuation of situational interest, which is an affective state that is aroused by the
characteristics of the environment (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). In fact, a student’s choice to
engage in a particular learning task reflects neither personality nor ability, but is dependent on
the student’s environmental stimuli and his perception of situational interest (Renninger &
Hidi, 2016). Situational interest (SI) has been used to interpret motivation in task engagement
since it has been shown that high learning achievement results from a high level of student
motivation and a learning environment that nurtures high motivation (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
Different from that of adults, adolescent motivation is highly situational, characterized by
spontaneity derived from the interaction between an individual and a specific situation. Chen,
Chen and Zhu (2012) for example, revealed through a meta-analysis that SI was a primary
motivator for K-12 students to engage in physical education.
Situational Interest in Physical Education
The theory further postulates that SI is assumed to be transitory, environmentally
activated, and context-specific. It is a kind of spontaneous interest that appears to fade as
rapidly as it emerges, and is almost always place-specific. Triggered by situational conditions
or information, SI elicits and, at times, maintains focused attention and a positive affective
reaction to the content. Its content specificity not only distinguishes SI from other motivational
variables that focus on more general aspects of learning (e.g., achievement goals), but it also
provides educators with information on how students’ motivation could be increased through
SI development (Renninger & Hidi, 2016). Defined in the physical education (PE) context as
“the appealing effect of the characteristics of an activity on an individual” (Chen et al., 2006,
p. 3), SI has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct including, a task’s “total
interest element”, and five specific sources: instant enjoyment, exploration intention, attention
demand, novelty and challenge. According to Chen, Sun, Zhu and Chen (2014), these sources
are defined as the following. Novelty relates to the difference between information known and
unknown. Challenge refers to the difficulty of the task, as perceived by students, in relation to
their ability. Attention demand corresponds to a student’s cognitive involvement within a
learning task. Exploration intention represents the characteristics of the learning tasks that
encourage a student to discover and explore his environment. And instant enjoyment is defined
as a positive feeling experienced by a student when participating in a learning task. In contrast
to individual or personal interest, which refers to an individual’s psychological disposition and

develops over time through interactions with certain activities, SI tends to be shared by
individuals and is content-dependent. These characteristics make SI particularly relevant for
teachers when designing their learning tasks (Ding, Sun & Chen, 2013). Educational
researchers consider that SI possesses stronger motivational potential than individual interest
in daily teaching-learning settings, because teachers can enhance SI in learning tasks by
manipulating their components (Chen & Ennis, 2008; Hogheim & Reber, 2015; Patall, 2013).
Effects of Learning Tasks Characteristics on Students’ Situational Interest
Despite the theoretical connection between SI and the characteristics of the learning
tasks, only one study in PE has investigated the effects of learning tasks design on students’
SI. Based on the idea that physical and cognitive demands represent two main components of
PE lessons, Chen and Darst (2001) examined the extent to which these demands influenced
students’ SI. Seventh-to-ninth grade students participated in four basketball learning tasks
representing various physical (high vs low) and cognitive (high vs low) demands. Immediately
after experiencing these four learning tasks, students responded to the SI scale. Results
indicated that learning task design had a significant effect on students’ SI. The two tasks
including a high cognitive demand received the highest scores among the measures, whereas
the task with low physical and cognitive demands received the lowest scores in all sources.
This study revealed that cognitive demand is a key element in promoting student’s SI when
designing learning tasks. Nevertheless, differences have been found between the task including
high cognitive and physical demands and that centred only on high cognitive demand. Even if
the scores for instant enjoyment, exploration intention and attention demand were similar in
both learning tasks, it emerged that the high cognitive and physical demands task received
significantly higher scores in terms of challenge and novelty. In conclusion, in order to generate
SI among students, the authors recommended that teachers should design learning tasks that
are both cognitively and physically demanding.

Measurement of SI in Physical Education
Based on previous studies (Chen, Darst & Pangrazi, 1999; 2001), Roure, Pasco and
Kermarrec (2016) recently adapted and validated a French SI scale. This scale was used with
secondary-aged students to measure their SI in PE lessons, which resulted in identifying a
structural model of SI in the French PE context (Roure & Pasco, 2016). Since this model,
depicted in fig. 1, maps out the relationships between SI sources and total interest, it could be
useful for PE teachers in understanding how to generate SI when designing learning tasks
[Figure 1 near here]. Focusing on the effects of SI sources on total interest, the model revealed
two statistically significant direct paths from instant enjoyment and exploration intention
toward total interest. Indirect effects were also observed from exploration intention toward total
interest, mediated by instant enjoyment, and from attention demand and challenge toward total
interest, mediated by exploration intention and instant enjoyment respectively. Additionally,
novelty had direct effects on challenge and attention demand, indirect effects on exploration
intention via attention demand, and on instant enjoyment mediated by challenge. According to
this model, instant enjoyment and exploration intention appear to be two major motivating
sources. Thus, PE teachers are not only encouraged to promote positive feelings and enjoyment
when students are engaged in physical activities, but also higher-order cognitive processes
demanding active exploration. Finally, designing exploration-oriented situations can be
associated with instant enjoyment which may result in a high level of SI.
Although Roure and Pasco (2016) clearly established differences between American
and French PE contexts, there remain similarities on how to generate high SI in PE. That is,
instant enjoyment appears to be a key source of SI as well as exploration intention, which has
a direct effect on total interest in the French context and an indirect effect in the American
context. This is congruent with the results revealed by Chen and Darst (2001) that highlighted
the critical role of cognitive and physical demands. This shows that designing exploration-
oriented tasks may refer to the cognitive demand and provided students with instant enjoyment
could be reached by the physical demand.
Purpose of the Study
Considering the theoretical model of SI and the impact of learning task design on
students’ SI, it appears that PE teachers can enhance students’ SI by manipulating the
characteristics of their learning tasks. Studies from Chen et al. (2001) and Roure and Pasco
(2016) provide relevant information, for PE teachers to promote students’ SI. However, to date,
learning task design has only been considered through the lens of cognitive and physical
demands (Chen & Darst, 2001). Hence, researchers have argued for the need for further
investigation into the role of SI sources in motivating students (Sun, Chen, Ennis, Martin &
Shen, 2008). In the practical implications of their study, Sun et al. (2008, p. 68) even proposed
that “teachers may choose one or two of the dimensional sources instead of incorporating all
five to develop interest in learning tasks”. By demonstrating a structural model of SI as used in
the French PE context, Roure and Pasco (2016) offer an opportunity to reconsider current
learning task design by focusing on SI sources.
The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of learning task design on students’
SI. Two learning tasks were designed in badminton to promote students’ SI either through
instant enjoyment and exploration intention, or through novelty and challenge. Badminton was
chosen because the Chen and Darst (2001) study was focused on a team sport (i.e. basketball)
which has limited the relevance of their results when it is applied to other activities, such as
dual sports. According to Chen et al. (2001) and the model built in the French context by Roure
and Pasco (2016), two assumptions were made: (1) it was hypothesized that students would
give higher scores to the sources on which the learning tasks were designed; and (2) the learning
task based on instant enjoyment and exploration intention would generate higher total interest
scores in comparison to the other based on novelty and challenge. This is taking into
consideration their differing relationships to total interest, as instant enjoyment and exploration
intention have direct effects on total interest whereas challenge and novelty only have indirect
effects. Overall, we expected to find significant differences in the SI scores among students in
both learning tasks, revealing differences in students’ perception of SI.
Method
Participants
The sample of the present study consisted of 167 students (Mage = 13.21, SD = 2.24,
59% boys, aged 12-16) from seven PE classes taken from two middle-schools, located in the
Northwest region of France. The two teachers involved in this study were male, full-time
certified PE teachers and had teaching experience ranging from 10 to 15 years. The teachers
belonged to schools identified as “socially mixed, relatively underprivileged” according to the
French department of education classification (Ministère de l’Education Nationale [French
Ministry of Education] (MEN), 2005). Students were in 7th (30.5%), 8th (40.1%) or 9th (29.4%)
grade. Class sizes ranged from 21 to 26 students per class. Pre-intervention data collected
during the first lesson of the badminton-unit revealed that most of the participants were at an
intermediate level in this activity, which means that they had already mastered basic skills (high
clear, drop shots, smash and drive) and that they could apply game tactics such as rallying, use
various shuttlecock trajectories and speeds, and create opportunities to win a point. Permission
to conduct the study was granted by the ethical board of the host university and agreement was
also obtained from the principals of the participating schools. Students’ parents were informed
about the scope of the study and consent was requested from all of them. All parents allowed
their children to participate in the study.
Design of Learning Tasks
The first author of the study, a specialist in PE teaching and racket sports, designed the
learning tasks in collaboration with the two PE teachers of the classes. These three people
formed a “design group” who selected the SI sources involved in the design of the two learning
tasks. First, the teachers were informed by the researcher about the definitions of the five SI
sources. However, to avoid bias and unintentional influence, they were not made aware of the
model of SI established by Roure and Pasco (2016), and were not informed about the theoretical
strength of some SI sources on others. Second, to negate any influence on the design of the two
learning tasks, the teachers and the researcher worked together with the aim of developing
motivating tasks for their students. The teachers decided to choose novelty and challenge as
the two SI sources that would motivate their students whereas the researcher chose the sources
of instant enjoyment and exploration intention, based on his knowledge of the French SI model.
Third, this “design group” built the two learning tasks in collaboration to promote SI either
through novelty and challenge, or through instant enjoyment and exploration intention. The
definition of each SI source (according to Chen et al., 2014) was translated into two criteria
which were taken into account. Defined as the characteristics that lead the learner to an instant
positive feeling of being satisfied, instant enjoyment was translated to real game play for
students and the possibility for them to influence the scoring system (e.g. bonus points).
Exploration intention, conceptualized as the learning aspects that drive the learner to explore
and discover, corresponded to discover various tactics and to explore and use these tactics to
win the game. Referring to information deficiency between information known and unknown,
the novelty component was implemented through a task that students were experiencing for
the first time and which introduced the concept of team practice as opposed to playing in
singles. Finally, the source of challenge, defined as the level of difficulty relative to one’s
ability, referred to the use of students’ skill levels in badminton to create fair opposition and
the experience of a physical challenge induced by the intensity of the game.
Description of Learning Tasks
The goal of the first learning task, designed to promote instant enjoyment and
exploration intention, was to strike a winning point. A winning point can be scored according
to the usual rules of badminton (i.e., when the shuttlecock hits the opponent’s ground or when
the opponent makes a fault by striking the shuttlecock into the net or outside the limits of the
court). During this task, students were placed in a single match and played a 20 point-game
under the supervision of a student referee. Based on the principle of the “Banco” task (Leveau,
2005), students were able to score three points (rather than one) if they shouted “Banco” clearly
before taking the shot they believed would score. In concrete terms, to score three points,
students have to shout “Banco” and to win a point in the same action. The “Banco” task is often
used in the French PE curriculum, and consequently most students are familiar with it. In
addition to these “Banco” points, students were informed, before each game, that there were
three extra points available: one for a smash that immediately reaches the floor on the
opponent’s side, one for a drop shot that falls straight to the floor, and one for a strike that lands
directly within an 60 cm wide area located at the far end of the court. When a player scores all
of these three types of extra points, he immediately wins the game whatever the score. Between
each point, the referee keeps the players informed of their extra points. In conclusion, students
have two ways of winning the single match: either by scoring 20 points, or by scoring all of
the three types of extra points.

This learning task, referred throughout the manuscript as the “Banco” task, was
designed to promote the sources of instant enjoyment and exploration intention. It generated
instant enjoyment by creating the opportunity to score “Banco” points and playing a
competitive game. Exploration intention was experienced through the “Banco” points scored,
because each player had to explore their opponent’s strategy and find tactical solutions to score
three points. For example, players had to identify when their opponent was not optimally placed
to cover his side and try to smash the shuttlecock into a free space. Finally, the possibility of
winning the game outright by scoring the three extra points, engaged students in tactical
exploration, as they had to find the most suitable opportunities to score each type of the extra
points.
The second learning task, referred throughout the manuscript as the “3-in-a-row” task,
was new to the students (for the novelty source) and was designed to promote challenge. Its
goal was to score three successive points against three different opponents. In this task, the
students were grouped into teams of three players, according to their skill levels, and played
individual single games. The main challenge of this task was to score a point for their team by
winning three points in a row against three different opponents. The teams were selected
according to the students’ skill levels in badminton to ensure that each player had chance to
win three points in a row, and consequently experienced a sense of challenge. The goal for each
team was to reach six points. The student who wins a point remains on the court whilst the one
who loses switches with one of his team-mates, who then serves, starting with a zero score. In
other words, students take turns on the court according to the principle that the winner stays
and the loser switches with a team-mate. The goal for the students was to stay on the court as
long as they could by winning points against several opponents and therefore scoring for their
team. This was considered as the second challenge of this task because players had to switch
places many times throughout the game, resulting in periods of intense physical activity
interrupted by short breaks. Once a player has won three successive points and therefore scored
a point for his team, he had to leave the court and swapped with one of his team-mates. This
was to avoid any student staying on the court for an indefinite length of time, and allowed all
team-players to participate fairly.
Fidelity of Intervention
Since the two learning tasks were built in collaboration between the researcher and the
two PE teachers, content fidelity was ensured in so far as the teachers shared the same learning
task benchmarks. These benchmarks included the following elements for each task: goal for
students, task presentation, demonstration, activity description, equipment, material and a list
of feedbacks that the teachers could provide to their students. Prior to conducting the study,
three training sessions were organized for the two teachers. These training sessions consisted
of teaching the two learning tasks to similar classes that the teachers had in their schools.
During these sessions, a researcher observed the teachers using the benchmarks built by the
“design group” and a coding system which evaluated the fidelity of each element of the
benchmarks (goal, task presentation, demonstration, students’ organization and, positive and
corrective feedbacks). This coding system was composed of three letters indicating the fidelity
of intervention (A = high fidelity, B = good fidelity or C = low fidelity). The three training
sessions allowed the teachers to reach a minimum of A and a few B ratings on the relevant
benchmarks. Following the training sessions, the researcher was present at the two PE lessons
in which the “Banco” task and the “3-in-a-row” task were implemented, to assess the teachers’
fidelity to the benchmarks (using the same coding system as in the training sessions). Prior to
these PE lessons taking place, the teachers informed students that the researcher would be
present during lessons. The researcher was positioned within view of the lesson but was seated
strategically to avoid any disruption.

Measures
Situational interest. The French 19-item SI Scale (Roure et al., 2016) was used to
measure students’ SI during both learning tasks. The scale includes five SI sources: novelty
(e.g, “what we did today was new to me”), instant enjoyment (e.g., “what we did was enjoyable
for me”), exploration intention (e.g., “I wanted to analyze and have a better handle on what we
were learning today”), attention demand (e.g., “what we were learning demanded my high
attention”), and challenge (e.g., “what we were learning was hard for me to do”). Each source
of SI consists of three items. Total interest was also measured and consists of four items. The
items were randomly arranged and each was rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1
= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Roure et al., (2016) established the construct validity
of the French SI Scale using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (Goodness of fit
index (GFI) = 0.93, Normed fit index (NFI) = 0.93, Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.96, Root
mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06). They also reported internal
consistency (Cronbach‘s alpha) for novelty (0.83), instant enjoyment (0.84), exploration
intention (0.79), attention demand (0.76), challenge (0.77), and total interest (0.85) among
middle and high school students.
Data collection
This study took place during the students’ regularly scheduled PE class which is held
once a week in the French context. The length for each task was set at 20 minutes. To avoid
proximity between the two learning tasks, students participated with a 3-week interval between
tasks. They started with the “Banco” task during the third lesson, followed by the “3-in-a-row”
task during the sixth lesson. Immediately after practising each task, students responded to the
French SI scale (Roure et al., 2016). The data were collected by the researchers under the
supervision of the students’ own PE teacher. Researchers administered the questionnaire and
collected it directly after completion. To minimize students’ tendency to give socially desirable
responses, students were encouraged to answer honestly and were assured that their responses
would remain anonymous and confidential.
Data analyses
Students’ responses were aggregated respectively to the five sources of SI (instant
enjoyment, exploration intention, attention demand, challenge and novelty) and to the total
interest. To address research assumptions, data were analysed in two stages, the first using a
variable-centred approach and the second using a person-centred approach. The variable-
centred approach was conducted with a one-way repeated measures multivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) with learning tasks as within-subjects factor, to establish any significant
differences between the learning tasks for the five SI sources and total interest. As the
dependent variables (the five SI sources and total interest) are correlated with each other, a
repeated measures MANOVA was used to avoid inflated alpha. Pairwise comparisons on SI
sources within each learning task were also conducted to test differences, between the sources
on which each task was designed and the other sources. The person-centred approach was
developed with cluster analyses in order to generate SI profiles. The analysis required two
steps, thereby using a combination of hierarchical and nonhierarchical clustering methods
(Gore, 2000). In the first step, a hierarchical cluster analysis was employed using Ward’s
method based on squared Euclidean distances. The hierarchical method was used as a
preliminary step in identifying the cluster solutions, which then provided the input for the
nonhierarchical procedure. In the second step the initial number of cluster, determined
previously, was used for the non-hierarchical clustering procedure. A log-likelihood to measure
the distance between the clusters and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) for the
classification criterion were used (Gore, 2000). After establishing the different groups through
cluster analysis, a MANOVA was performed to analyze the statistical significance of the group
differences in the sources of SI. Version 23.0 of SPSS (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) was used for
all statistical analyses.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Analysis of the skewness (-.34 to .71) and kurtosis (-.78 to -.14) values revealed that
the data were normally distributed and no problem of multicollinearity between variables was
found. Internal consistencies of the SI scale were good with Cronbach’s alphas of .82 for total
interest, .82 for instant enjoyment, .81 for exploration intention, .84 for attention demand, .79
for challenge and .88 for novelty, respectively. Due to the hierarchical nature of the data (i.e.
students data nested in classes), the amount of variance explained by classes-level variance was
analyzed. Results showed that the intraclass correlation (ICC) for students’ total interest was
.041, meaning that between-classes variability accounted for 4.1% of the variance of students’
total interest. Similarly, the ICC for the five SI sources ranged between .011 and .038,
indicating a low between-classes variance. Under those circumstances and according to
Preacher, Zhang and Zyphur (2011), multilevel analysis would have been less efficient as ICCs
are lower than .10 for all study variables. Therefore, we proceeded with student level analysis
in the analyses.
To test the construct validity of SI in this study, we performed a confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA). The measurement model of all six latent constructs and 19 indicators (15
indicators for the five SI sources and 4 indicators for total interest) yielded good fit to the data
in both learning task: “Banco” task, [χ2 (129) = 226.02; χ2/df = 1.75; CFI = .95; NFI = .92; TLI
= .95; RMSEA = .054 with CI90 = .047-.061]; and “3-in-a-row” task, [χ2 (129) = 263.39; χ2/df
= 2.04; CFI = .93; NFI = .90; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .062 with CI90 = .054-.071]. The factor
loadings of the indicators ranged between .67 and .89, indicating a good construct validity.
Results from the coding system, used to ensure the fidelity to the benchmarks, revealed
a high fidelity of intervention with A-ratings for all elements for both PE teachers. The results
of this study are presented according to the two stages of data analyses. First, students’ SI when
experiencing the learning tasks is reported in line with the variable-centred analysis. Second,
students’ SI profiles are revealed through the person-centred analysis, which has allowed the
researchers to understand the interpersonal differences between students’ SI while taking into
consideration the effect of learning task design.
Students’ Situational Interest when Experiencing the Learning Tasks

The results from MANOVA revealed a significant main effect in SI and total interest
scores for the learning task design (Wilks’ Lambda = .48, F(6,161) = 29.49, p < .001, η2 = .52).
A repeated measures MANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that mean
scores for SI sources and total interest significantly differed between the two learning tasks,
with the exception of attention demand. Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations and
differences between the two tasks based on SI measures [Table 1 near here]. Follow-up
ANOVAs revealed that the “Banco” task received higher scores for instant enjoyment (12.47
vs 10.16, p < .01) and exploration intention (12.11 vs 8.75, p < .01), whereas the “3-in-a-row”
task received higher scores for novelty (9.29 vs 6.88, p < .01) and challenge (8.00 vs 6.54, p <
.01). Pairwise comparisons between students’ responses on these four sources of SI for the
“Banco” task indicated that they reported significantly higher scores for instant enjoyment and
exploration intention, the sources underlying its design (instant enjoyment - challenge, t =
25.49, p < .01; instant enjoyment - novelty, t = 22.77, p < .01; exploration intention - challenge,
t = 25.41, p < .01; exploration intention - novelty, t = 22.01, p < .01). Contrasting results were
found for the “3-in-a-row” task in terms of pairwise comparisons on these four sources
(challenge - instant enjoyment, t = -6.00, p < .01; challenge - exploration intention, t = -2.57, p
< .05; novelty - instant enjoyment, t = -2.26, p < .05; novelty - exploration intention, t = 1.56,
p = .12). In comparison to the “Banco” task, students scored significantly higher on novelty
and challenge, but the differences within the “3 in row” task between SI sources were
significantly weighted in favour of instant enjoyment and exploration intention. Ultimately,
students’ total interest was significantly higher for the “Banco” task when compared to the “3-
in-a-row” task (16.24 vs 15.20, p < .01). These results, considered as being derived from a
variable-centred approach, do not take into account possible interpersonal differences between
the students. Consequently, the analyses were pursued by adding a person-centred approach to
gain an understanding into the different students’ perceptions of SI for the two learning tasks.
Students’ Situational Interest Profiles
Prior to conducting cluster analyses, we checked for univariate and multivariate
outliers. No values of more than three standard deviation above or below the mean, and no
individuals with high Mahalanobis values were found. Three clusters were retained using
Ward’s cluster analyses, for both learning tasks. Means of the five SI sources and total interest
by cluster are presented in Table 2 [Table 2 near here]. The results from MANOVA revealed a
significant main effect for SI and total interest scores for the clusters profiles in each task
(Wilks’ Lambda = .12, F(12,318) = 48.78, p < .001, η2 = .65 for the “banco task”; Wilks’
Lambda = .13, F(12,318) = 46.96, p < .001, η2 = .64 for the “3-in-a-row task”). These results
indicated that students perceived the learning tasks differently. Total interest score for each
profile ranged from 13.07 to 17.44 indicating a high level of total interest in comparison to
students’ total interest previously measured in the following learning tasks which were
designed to promote a high level of SI: basketball (13.42; Chen & Darst, 2001), dance (14.02;
Shen, Chen, Tolley & Scrabis, 2003), volleyball (15.30; Shen & Chen, 2006) and softball
(15.06; Shen & Chen, 2007). The significant differences between these profiles can be
compared by taking into account the total interest score and the sources on which the tasks
were designed. The between cluster differences are displayed in fig. 2. The Y-axis represents
the z-scores [Figure 2 near here]. Three groups of profiles can be identified based on these
results.
The first group included students from profile 1 in the “Banco” task and profile 4 in the
“3-in-a-row” task. Referred throughout the manuscript as the “Low design receptive group”,
these students were sensitive neither to the tasks nor to the SI sources underlying their design.
They recorded the lowest total interest scores for the tasks (13.96 for the “Banco” task and
13.17 for the “3-in-a-row” task). Follow-up ANOVAs revealed that students in profile 1 (N =
51) reported significantly lower scores for instant enjoyment and exploration intention than
students in profiles 2 and 3 (10.80 vs 13.35 and 13.07 for instant enjoyment, p < .01; 9.78 vs
12.73 and 13.49 for exploration intention, p < .01). Students in profile 4 also reported lower
scores in terms of novelty and challenge (N = 29) when compared to profiles 5 and 6 (5.10 vs
10.49 and 9.88 for novelty, p < .01; 4.52 vs 9.09 and 8.41 for challenge, p < .01).
The second group encompassed profile 3 in the “Banco” task and profile 5 in the “3-in-
a-row” task. Referred throughout the manuscript as the “Design receptive group”, these
students were receptive to the SI sources on which each task was designed. Students in profile
3 (N = 61) reported the highest total interest score in the sample (17.44). These students
recorded significantly higher scores for instant enjoyment and exploration intention than profile
1 (13.07 vs 10.80 for instant enjoyment, p < .01; 13.49 vs 9.78 for challenge, p < .01). The
difference between profile 3 and profile 2 was based on the lowest scores for novelty (5.56 vs
9.13, p < .01) and challenge (5.49 vs 7.87, p < .01). Students in profile 5 (N = 65) notified
significantly higher scores for novelty (10.49 vs 5.10 for novelty, p < .01) and challenge (9.09
vs 4.52 for challenge, p < .01) than students in profile 4.
Finally, the third group included students from profile 2 in the “Banco” task and from
profile 6 in the “3-in-a-row” task. Referred throughout the manuscript as the “High SI group”,
these students were responsive to all the SI sources when practising these tasks. Students in
profile 2 (N = 55) reported a high total interest score (17.02) and significantly higher scores for
instant enjoyment and exploration intention than profile 1 (13.35 vs 10.80 for instant
enjoyment, p < .01; 12.73 vs 9.78 for exploration intention, p < .01). However, these students
also recorded higher scores for novelty and challenge in comparison to profile 1 and 3 (9.13 vs
6.04 and 5.56 for novelty, p < .01; 7.87 vs 6.35 and 5.49 for challenge, p < .01). Students in
profile 6 notified the highest level of total interest (17.03) and also significantly higher scores
for instant enjoyment, exploration intention and attention demand than profiles 4 and 5 (12.92
vs 9.48 and 7.35 for instant enjoyment, p < .01; 11.29 vs 6.28 and 7.02 for exploration
intention, p < .01; 11.89 vs 7.24 and 10.72 for attention demand, p < .01).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to identify the impact of learning task design on students’
SI in badminton. In collaboration with teachers in charge of the classes, two learning tasks were
designed to promote students’ SI through instant enjoyment and exploration intention (the
“Banco” task), or through novelty and challenge (the “3-in-a-row” task). According to previous
studies, two assumptions were made: (1) students would give higher scores to the sources on
which the learning tasks were designed; and (2) the learning task based on instant enjoyment
and exploration intention would generate higher total interest scores in comparison to the
learning task based on novelty and challenge, due to their different relationships to total interest
(direct sources vs indirect sources). We also expected to find significant differences in the SI
scores among students in both learning tasks, revealing interpersonal differences in students’
perception of SI.
Students’ Situational Interest as a Function of Learning Task
The results from the variable-centred analysis are consistent with the first assumption.
They indicated that students were sensitive to the sources on which each task was designed.
The “Banco” task received the highest scores on instant enjoyment (12.47) and exploration
intention (12.11), both sources underlying its design. Even if the novelty and challenge do not
represent the highest scores for the “3-in-a-row” task, the differences between the two tasks on
these sources were significant. As expected, the sources on which both tasks were designed
have an impact on students’ perceptions of SI. In addition, the “Banco” task received higher
total interest score in comparison to the “3-in-a-row” task, which validate the second
assumption. These results confirm the impact of learning task design on students’ SI. They are
congruent with the results obtained by Chen and Darst (2001) investigating students’ SI in a
team sport (i.e. basketball). However, this study goes beyond their distinction between
cognitive and physical components of learning tasks. Based on a theoretical model of SI (Roure
& Pasco, 2016), the learning tasks were designed through specific sources of instant enjoyment
and exploration intention, or novelty and challenge. This study reveals that students perceive
the SI sources on which the learning tasks were designed. Therefore, teachers may be able to
design learning tasks based on SI sources they would like to promote with students. This study
also demonstrates that students’ SI can be promoted through a dual activity. All things
considered, this study reveals that instant enjoyment and exploration intention have a greater
impact on students’ SI than novelty and challenge. These findings are congruent with studies
in PE which have demonstrated that higher-order cognitive processes demanding active
exploration and enjoyment represent key factors underlying the motivation for students to
maintain a positive engagement in PE (Agbuga, Xiang, McBride & Su, 2016; Baena-
Extramera, Gomez-Lopez, Granero-Gallegos & Ortiz-Camacho, 2015; Jaakkola, Wang, Soini
& Liukkonen, 2015).
The results of the variable-centred analysis are also consistent regarding the theoretical
model of SI identified in the French PE context (Roure & Pasco, 2016). This model revealed
that instant enjoyment and exploration intention have direct effects on total interest whereas
novelty and challenge have indirect effects, being mediated by exploration intention and instant
enjoyment. Congruent with Chen and Darst (2001), the results indicated that students’ SI is a
function of learning task. The sources on which the learning tasks are designed should be taken
into consideration according to the SI construct. It would be interesting to further test the impact
of instant enjoyment and exploration intention on total interest in other activities to eventually
confirm their critical role. The particular role of challenge in the theoretical model could
explain why the “3-in-a-row” task had received a lower total interest score. In fact, challenge
is the only source of SI that relates negatively to instant enjoyment. Since challenge is defined
as the level of difficulty relative to one’s ability, interpretations of the relationship between
challenge and instant enjoyment have to be made in light of students’ perception of ability or
competence. According to Fairclough (2003), children experience enjoyment and motivation
when a task they are involved in is comparable to their level of perceived ability. Under those
circumstances, the negative relationship between challenge and instant enjoyment has to be
interpreted as the need to find an optimal challenge in learning tasks, to promote students’
instant enjoyment. PE teachers are thus encouraged to create learning tasks that are optimally
challenging, which in turn can contribute to maintain students’ perceived ability (Scrabis-
Fletcher, Rasmussen & Silverman, 2016). In this study, it could be possible that some students
perceived the “3-in-a-row” task as too challenging, resulting in a lower total interest score.
Students’ Situational Interest Profiles in Learning Task
The present study extends the research on the effects of learning task design on
students’ SI in PE. Chen and Darst’s (2001) previous study referred to a variable-centred
approach, whereas this study associated a person-centred approach with a variable-centred one.
Consequently, this study investigated the impact of learning task design on students’ SI by
taking into account their interpersonal differences. The results from the person-centred analysis
are consistent with the first assumption. According to students included in the “Design
receptive” and “High SI” groups, it is clear that students were sensitive to the sources on which
each task was designed. Although most of the students were sensitive to the sources used in
the design process, interpersonal differences among students emerge according to the three
groups of profiles identified in the results.
These three groups of profiles highlight students’ differences regarding the second
assumption. For the “Low design receptive” group, no significant differences were found in
students’ total interest between the two tasks, invalidating the second assumption. In this group,
students who were involved in the “Banco” task could be characterized as being driven only
by a feeling of enjoyment, even if their score on this source is lower than the other students’
scores. According to the pre-intervention data, they should have used one or two basic skills or
tactics to try to score some banco points, but were not interested in exploring the different
options available to score the extra points which would have led to an immediate victory. In
the “3-in-a-row” task, students from the “Low design receptive” group only experienced some
instant enjoyment when they were competing with various opponents or playing badminton in
teams.
For the “Design receptive” group, significant differences were found in students’ total
interest between the two tasks, validating the second assumption. By being sensitive to the
sources underlying the design of each task, students were found to be more interested in the
“Banco” task than in the “3-in-a-row” task. Students involved in the “Banco” task, experienced
a high level of instant enjoyment and exploration intention simultaneously. This could mean
that they were completely motivated by the learning task, trying to identify the different options
available to score the extra points. Their lower scores on novelty and challenge could also
indicate that they were already familiar with the “Banco” task, and so built on their experience
by exploring the various tactics which could lead to winning the match. Judging by their scores
on novelty and challenge in the “3-in-a-row” task, students from this group were discovering
the task and were sensitive to the challenge proposed. These students tried to focus their
attention on their opponents’ position or on the rally preceding their entrance onto the court. In
fact, in terms of being receptive to the sources underlying the design of the “3-in-a-row” task,
these students stayed at a discovery and challenge stage.
For the “High SI” group, no significant differences were found in students’ total interest
between the two tasks, invalidating the second assumption. In this group, students were
interested by both learning tasks regardless of the SI sources involved in their design. Students
who practiced the “Banco” task were completely immersed in the learning task. They might
have tried to score the three extra points and enjoyed the tactical exploration of the task.
Moreover, their high score on attention demand shows that they needed to concentrate on
relevant cues within the match to score a “Banco” point. Judging by their high scores on instant
enjoyment, exploration intention and attention demand in the “3-in-a-row” task, the students
were also deeply involved in the task. They focused their attention on their opponents’ tactics
in order to win three consecutive points against three different opponents. They surpassed the
“Design receptive” group which were in the discovery and challenge stage, to reach a further
immersion-like stage.
Conclusions, Limitations and Future Directions
Although this study did not follow the framework of an action-research, teachers’
preconceived ideas on learning task design were affected. The teachers realized that instant
enjoyment and exploration intention were the two SI sources that motivated their students, even
if they had initially thought that novelty and challenge would have been more efficient. As
Christianakis (2010) stated, it seems difficult, and may be ethically objectionable, to conduct
practice research without practitioners. Beyond this, these results emphasize the useful and
increasing importance of collaboration between teachers, students, administrators, and
academics in that kind of study (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). These results can also offer
development prospects in teacher education in helping preservice teachers navigate the

complexity of practice and theory, and by providing educators with the necessary tools to
support them.
Some limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting or generalizing
our findings. Firstly, according to the theoretical model of SI identified in the French PE
context (Roure & Pasco, 2016), we paired two sources that have direct effects on students’ total
interest (i.e. instant enjoyment and exploration intention) and two sources that have indirect
effects on it (i.e. novelty and challenge) to design two badminton-related learning tasks. This
choice could have facilitated the differences observed between the tasks, even if the SI sources
were chosen without referring to the theoretical model (Roure & Pasco, 2016). Further
investigations are needed to examine the impact of learning tasks design on students’ SI. Future
studies may consider associating, in the design process, sources that have both a direct and an
indirect effect on students’ total interest. For example, a learning task in badminton which is
designed to promote challenge (indirect effect), attention demand (indirect effect) and
exploration intention (direct effect) could be investigated. In this task, two players are opposed
in a single game in which two lateral zones are identified along the length of the badminton
court. The goal would be to win the point by taking into account the opponent's position, and
the winner of the game would be the first player to win three points in these lateral zones using
three different strikes (a smash, a drop shot, and a clear shot). A student located at the edge of
the court would provide continuous supply of shuttlecocks to the players until a player wins
the game. This learning task would provide: (1) a personal and physical challenge for the
students, (2) attention demand through the need to keep track of the opponent's position in
relation to the lateral zones and shuttlecock trajectories, and (3) exploration intention through
the choice of three different strikes to score points.

References
Agbuga, B., Xiang, P., McBride, R.E., & Su, X. (2016). Student perceptions of instructional
choices in middle school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 35, 138-148.
Baena-Extremera, A., Gomez-Lopez, M., Granero-Gallegos, A., & Ortiz-Camacho, M.
(2015). Predicting satisfaction in physical education from motivational climate and
self-determined motivation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34, 210-224.
Chen, A., Darst, P.W., & Pangrazi, R. (1999). What constitutes situational interest?
Validating a construct in physical education. Measurement in Physical Education and
Exercise Science, 3(3), 157-180.
Chen, A., & Darst, P.W. (2001). Situational interest in Physical Education: a function of
learning task design. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72, 150-164.
Chen, A., Darst, P.W., & Pangrazi, R. (2001). An examination of situational interest and its
sources. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 385-400. doi:
10.1348/0007099901158578
Chen, A., & Ennis, C. (2008). Motivation and Achievement in Physical Education. In K. R.
Wentzel, & A. Wigfield (Eds), Handbook on Motivation at School (pp. 553-574).
New York: Routledge.
Chen, A., Ennis, C., Martin, R., & Sun, H. (2006). Situational interest – A curriculum
component enhancing motivation to learn. In S.A Hogan (Ed.), New development in
learning research (pp. 235-261). New York, NJ: Nova Science Publishers.
Chen, S., Sun, H., Zhu, X., & Chen, A. (2014). Relationship between motivation and learning
in physical education and after-school physical activity. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 85(4), 468-477. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2014.961054
Christianakis, M. (2010). Collaborative research and teacher education. Issues in teacher
education, 19(2), 109-125.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the
next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ding, H., Sun, H., & Chen, A. (2013). Impact of expectancy-value and situational interest
motivation specificity on physical education outcomes. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 32, 253-269.
Fairclough, S. (2003). Physical activity, perceived competence and enjoyment during
secondary school physical education. The European Journal of Physical Education, 8,
5-18.
Gore, P.A. (2000). Cluster analysis. In H.E.A Tinsley & S.D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of
Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Modeling (pp. 297–321). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review, 1(2),
69–82. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2006.09.001
Hogheim, S., & Reber, R. (2015). Supporting interest of middle school students in
mathematics through context personalization and example choice. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 42, 17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.03.006.
Jaakkola, T., Wang, J., Soini, M. & Liukkonen, J. (2015). Students’ perceptions of
motivational climate and enjoyment in Finnish physical education: A latent profile
analysis. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14, 477-483.
Leveau, C. (2005). Le badminton en situation [The badminton through learning tasks]. Paris :
Revue EPS.
Ministère de l’Education Nationale. (2005). Typologie des collèges publics [Public middle-
schools typology]. Education & Formation, 71, 117-135.
Patall, E.A. (2013). Constructing motivation through choice, interest, and interestingness.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 522-534. doi: 10.1037/a0030307.
Preacher, K.J., Zhang, Z. & Zyphur, M.J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing
mediation in multilevel data: the advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(2), 161-182. doi:
10.1080/10705511.2011.557329.
Renninger, K.A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and
generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168-184.
Renninger, K.A., & Hidi, S. (2016). The power of interest for motivation and engagement.
New York: Routledge.
Roure, C., Pasco, D., & Kermarrec, G. (2016). Validation de l’échelle française mesurant
l’intérêt en situation, en éducation physique [French validation of the situational
interest scale in physical education]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 48(2),
112-120.
Roure, C., & Pasco, D. (2016). Exploring situational interest sources in the French physical
education context. European Physical Education Review. Advance Online
Publication. doi: 10.1177/1356336X16662289
Scrabis-Fletcher, K., Rasmussen, J., & Silverman, S. (2016). The relationship of practice,
attitude, and perception of competence in middle school physical education. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 35, 241-250.
Shen, B., Chen, A., Tolley, H., & Scrabis, K. (2003). Gender and interest-based motivation in
learning dance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 22, 396-409.
Shen, B., & Chen, A. (2006). Examining the interrelations among knowledge, interests, and
learning strategies. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25, 182-199.
Shen, B., & Chen, A. (2007). An examination of learning profiles in physical education.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 145-160.
Sun, H., Chen, A., Ennis, C., Martin, R., & Shen, B. (2008). An examination of the
multidimensionality of situational interest in elementary school physical education.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79(1), 62-70.
Figure 1. The structural model of situational interest in the French PE context. Adapted from
“Exploring situational interest sources in the French physical education context” by C. Roure
and D. Pasco, 2016, European Physical Education Review, Advance Online Publication.
1.5
High SI th
0.5
Design
Receptive
ba
High SI ba
0
Design
Receptive
-0.5 th
Low
Design
receptive
-1 th
Low
Design
receptive
ba
-1.5
Instant Exploration Attention Novelty Challenge Total interest
enjoyment intention demand
Figure 2. Between cluster differences in sources of situational interest and total interest.
Note. The Y-axis represents the Z-scores, which give the relative position of the cluster average in the total
sample for each variable listed on the X-axis; th: the 3-in-a-row task; ba: the Banco task.
Table 1: Descriptive data of situational interest measures and differences between the two
learning tasks
Banco 3-in-a-row
Range M SD M SD F(1, 166) η2
Total interest 4 - 20 16.24 2.88 15.20 3.34 9.37* .05
Instant enjoyment 3 - 15 12.47 2.03 10.16 3.16 55.02** .25
Exploration intention 3 - 15 12.11 1.98 8.75 3.05 113.02** .40
Attention demand 3 - 15 10.16 2.22 10.63 2.97 2.8 .02
Novelty 3 - 15 6.88 2.45 9.29 3.66 50.22** .23
Challenge 3 - 15 6.54 2.07 8.00 2.89 26.57** .14
Note. F: test value; * p < .01; ** p < .001; η2: effect size.
Table 2: Students’ situational interest profiles
Banco 3-in-a-row
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
F(2,164) η2 F(2,164) η2
(n=51) (n=55) (n=61) (n=29) (n=65) (n=73)
INT 13.96 17.02 17.44 32.01* .28 13.17 14.05 17.03 26.24* .24
ENJOY 10.80 13.35 13.07 34.92* .30 9.48 7.35 12.92 152.31* .65
EXPLO 9.78 12.73 13.49 140.74* .63 6.28 7.02 11.29 98.53* .54
ATT 8.73 11.87 9.80 41.32* .33 7.24 10.72 11.89 36.30* .31
NOV 6.04 9.13 5.56 60.17* .42 5.10 10.49 9.88 32.22* .28
CHA 6.35 7.87 5.49 25.05* .23 4.52 9.09 8.41 38.35* .32
Note. P: Profile; F: test value; * p < .001; η2: effect size; INT: Total interest; ENJOY: Instant enjoyment; EXPLO:
Exploration intention; ATT: Attention demand; NOV: Novelty; CHA: Challenge.

The Impact of Learning Task Design On Students' Situational Interest in Physical Education

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Impact of Learning Task Design On Students' Situational Interest in Physical Education

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

“The Impact of Learning Task Design on Students’ Situational Interest in Physical Education” by Roure C, Pasco D]

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Note. This article will be published in a forthcoming issue of the

Authors: Cedric Roure1 and Denis Pasco2

Affiliations: 1Faculty of Motor Sciences, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-

Running Head: Learning task design

Journal: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Acceptance Date: May 15, 2017

©2017 Human Kinetics, Inc.

is a function of learning task design in PE.

Keywords: Situational Interest; Learning task; Physical Education; Badminton

fluctuation of situational interest, which is an affective state that is aroused by the

Different from that of adults, adolescent motivation is highly situational, characterized by

motivator for K-12 students to engage in physical education.

Situational Interest in Physical Education

The theory further postulates that SI is assumed to be transitory, environmentally

activated, and context-specific. It is a kind of spontaneous interest that appears to fade as

rapidly as it emerges, and is almost always place-specific. Triggered by situational conditions

p. 3), SI has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct including, a task’s “total

their ability. Attention demand corresponds to a student’s cognitive involvement within a

as a positive feeling experienced by a student when participating in a learning task. In contrast

to individual or personal interest, which refers to an individual’s psychological disposition and

individuals and is content-dependent. These characteristics make SI particularly relevant for

in daily teaching-learning settings, because teachers can enhance SI in learning tasks by

Effects of Learning Tasks Characteristics on Students’ Situational Interest

are both cognitively and physically demanding.

Measurement of SI in Physical Education

secondary-aged students to measure their SI in PE lessons, which resulted in identifying a

interest, mediated by exploration intention and instant enjoyment respectively. Additionally,

demanding active exploration. Finally, designing exploration-oriented situations can be

could be reached by the physical demand.

Purpose of the Study

five to develop interest in learning tasks”. By demonstrating a structural model of SI as used in

learning task design by focusing on SI sources.

both learning tasks, revealing differences in students’ perception of SI.

belonged to schools identified as “socially mixed, relatively underprivileged” according to the

French department of education classification (Ministère de l’Education Nationale [French

their children to participate in the study.

Design of Learning Tasks

the experience of a physical challenge induced by the intensity of the game.

Description of Learning Tasks

the three types of extra points.

team-players to participate fairly.

strategically to avoid any disruption.

middle and high school students.

would remain anonymous and confidential.

Students’ responses were aggregated respectively to the five sources of SI (instant

steps, thereby using a combination of hierarchical and nonhierarchical clustering methods

all statistical analyses.

indicating a low between-classes variance. Under those circumstances and according to

To test the construct validity of SI in this study, we performed a confirmatory factor

consideration the effect of learning task design.

Students’ Situational Interest when Experiencing the Learning Tasks

A repeated measures MANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that mean

significantly weighted in favour of instant enjoyment and exploration intention. Ultimately,

Students’ Situational Interest Profiles

Prior to conducting cluster analyses, we checked for univariate and multivariate

vs 4.52 for challenge, p < .01) than students in profile 4.

Students’ Situational Interest as a Function of Learning Task

in PE which have demonstrated that higher-order cognitive processes demanding active

Extramera, Gomez-Lopez, Granero-Gallegos & Ortiz-Camacho, 2015; Jaakkola, Wang, Soini

& Liukkonen, 2015).

competence. According to Fairclough (2003), children experience enjoyment and motivation