Creating Instructional Environments that Keep Students on TARGET B Ann Boyce. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. Reston: Jan 2009. Vol. 80, Iss. 1; pg. 49, 8 pgs

Abstract (Summary)

When the motivational climate was studied in physical education settings, relational research (e.g., Carpenter & Morgan, 1999; Papaioannou, 1995; Parish & Treasure, 2003; Solmon, 1996; Treasure, 1997) indicated that students' perceptions of a mastery climate led to greater feelings of satisfaction, less boredom, higher perceived ability, increased intrinsic motivation, and increased persistence, especially at higher levels of task difficulty. In sharp contrast, the features of the mastery climate (1) use a variety of class activities based on differing student abilities that challenge individual students to excel at their own level, (2) let students make some of the instructional decisions and assume leadership roles, (3) deliver rewards privately and base these rewards on the individual's improvement, (4) group students heterogeneously to promote cooperative learning and peer interactions, (5) evaluate students based on individual improvement and mastery of tasks, and (6) vary the pace of the class time based on students' differing time requirements for mastery of a given task.\n The observational checklist was based on observational tools that had been created for use within the classroom setting (Curtner-Smith & Todorovich, 2002; Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Xiang, McBride, & Solmon, 2003) and built upon the TARGET framework introduced by Ames (1992c), which outlined aspects of the climate that could foster either a mastery or performance climate.

» Jump to indexing (document details)

Full Text

(3648 words) Copyright American Alliance for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Jan 2009

[Headnote] Does your class encourage a performance climate or a mastery climate?

Teachers' instructional decisions, such as lesson goals, how students are grouped, or how students are recognized and evaluated, can affect their students' level of motivation related to physical activity. A physical educator's primary responsibility is to create a classroom environment that enhances motivation and encourages students to become fit and to learn motor skills. If the long-term goal in physical education is to help students become physically active throughout life, then one way to achieve this goal is to create instructional environments that foster positive attitudes and behaviors regarding healthy lifestyle choices.

This article describes the central role of the instructional situation (class climate) and how the structuring of this environment can influence the motivation processes of students. The information presented here is meant to encourage teachers to adopt a mastery climate in their classroom. The first portion of this article discusses two types of motivation climates (mastery and performance) used by teachers in their classroom, as well as the research findings associated with the impact of each of these climates on students' motivational and behavioral processes. The second part introduces a classroom structural framework (Epstein's [1989] TARGET), which can be used to help teachers organize their learning environments. The third part uses the TARGET framework to contrast mastery and performance climates. The fourth section describes strategies that teachers can use to design and implement a mastery climate in their classes. Fifth, student perceptions about the classroom climate, student skill level, role models, and media will be discussed, because these variables also affect the classroom setting. Lastly, this article provides a brief checklist that can help teachers to gauge their classroom environment (mastery, performance, or a combination of the two).

Motivational Climates and Research Findings

Teachers should pay close attention to the type of instructional environment they implement, because it will convey what they value and it will have motivational consequences for their students. According to Ames (1992c) there are two distinct types of motivational climates - mastery (task-involving) and performance

(egoinvolving) - and teachers can organize classroom activities to reflect one or both of these climate types. An arrangement of the classroom teaching environment (or motivational climate) that emphasizes effort, improvement, cooperation, and selfreferenced comparisons constitutes a task-involving or mastery climate. In this type of setting, students adopt positive achievement strategies, which include hard work, persistence at tasks, and the pursuit of challenging tasks (Ames & Archer, 1988). In contrast, when a classroom teaching environment stresses social comparison among competing students, then this setting is referred to as ego-involving or a performance climate. This type of setting produces students who have lower motivation levels, attribute failure to lack of ability, and choose to work only on tasks at which they can be successful (Ames & Archer, 1988).

When the motivational climate was studied in physical education settings, relational research (e.g., Carpenter & Morgan, 1999; Papaioannou, 1995; Parish & Treasure, 2003; Solmon, 1996; Treasure, 1997) indicated that students' perceptions of a mastery climate led to greater feelings of satisfaction, less boredom, higher perceived ability, increased intrinsic motivation, and increased persistence, especially at higher levels of task difficulty. Further, students in the mastery climate believed that both effort and ability contributed to success, as well as a positive attitude about physical education (Morgan, Sproule, Weigand, & Carpenter, 2005; Roberts, Treasure, & Conroy, 2007). In contrast, perceptions of a performance climate produced less enjoyment, greater boredom, belief that success was linked to ability and not to effort, and less positive attitudes about physical education (Morgan et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2007).

Epstein's TARGET Framework

How should teachers organize their learning environment, and what structural features influence the motivational climate? Epstein (1989) identified six structural features (task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation, and time) that can help teachers organize their instructional environments. These six features are known by the acronym TARGET. Basically, teachers can manipulate these six features to influence the motivational climate (teaching environment) in their classes to reflect either a mastery and/or a performance climate. The role of the teacher in these six structural features is to (1) identify the task(s) that their students will perform during class (task), (2) decide who will make the instructional decisions - the teacher, the students, or both (authority), (3) determine how rewards will be given (recognition), (4) designate how students will be grouped for activity (grouping), (5) determine how students will be assessed (evaluation), and (6) decide on the lesson's pace and the amount of time devoted to task completion (time).

TARGET and Motivational Climates

By contrasting the mastery and performance climates as these relate to the TARGET structural framework presented by Epstein (1989), teachers can begin to realize the differences that these two opposing climates present and the potential impact on student motivational levels (table 1; Ames, 1992b). Briefly, the six structural features of the performance climate (1) present the same tasks regardless of differing student capabilities, (2) are teacher centered and directed, (3) reward students publicly based on social comparisons, (4) use homogenous grouping of students according to skill level, (5) evaluate student performance based solely on the outcome, and (6) pace the class activities and decide on the time allotted for skill or fitness practice in accordance with an inflexible curriculum plan. In sharp contrast, the features of the mastery climate (1) use a variety of class activities based on differing student abilities that challenge individual students to excel at their own level, (2) let students make some of the instructional decisions and assume leadership roles, (3) deliver rewards privately and base these rewards on the individual's improvement, (4) group students heterogeneously to promote cooperative learning and peer interactions, (5) evaluate students based on individual improvement and mastery of tasks, and (6) vary the pace of the class time based on students' differing time requirements for mastery of a given task.

Strategies for Implementing a Mastery Climate

Given the substantial research supporting the notion that teachers should structure their instructional environments to reflect a mastery climate, what strategies can teachers use to implement a mastery climate in their classes? Using the TARGET framework as an organizational tool, the following strategies are suggested for each structural feature (table 2).

Task. In the task variable, teachers could use a variety of tasks within a class session and vary those tasks according to students' ability levels. The use of a variety of tasks within a class session would afford practice opportunities on multiple skills and might increase students' interest; it could also decrease the possibility of social comparison because classmates would be involved in their own task performances and too busy to watch and compare their performances with those of others. Also, single tasks could be modified to address individual differences by adding task extension, which can make the task more difficult or easier to perform (Graham, Holt/Hale, & Parker, 2007; Rink, 1998). This task-extension strategy would engage students at appropriate levels of difficulty so that they could improve task performance at their own level. When teachers select tasks, they should consider task difficulty and challenge. Basically, the task should require effort and challenge students to work in order to master the task. The development of long- and short-term goals should help students to achieve the task.

Introducing novel tasks (e.g., Ultimate, juggling, Pilates, rollerblading) would be a great way to increase student interest in physical activity by exposing them to a variety of new movement forms. New or novel activities may also challenge students to broaden their experience. An important part of the task variable is the articulation of the task's goal (Ames, 1992a); this explanation should be accomplished in a clear and concise manner using the KISS (keep it short and simple) principle. The goal should be stated at the start of the class, so that students clearly understand what is expected of them and to help foster perceptions of a mastery climate that focuses on student self-evaluation in terms of their own personal improvement and effort towards achieving the task (Ames, 1992b).

Authority. The authority feature addresses who makes the instructional decisions in the class setting. From a mastery standpoint, decisions should be shared among the teacher and their students, with students taking responsibility for class roles and leadership. There are several teaching approaches or styles that allow for shared decision making in physical education classes. Some of Mosston and Ashworth's (2001) teaching styles (e.g., reciprocal, inclusion, self check, student design) focus on student decision making and cooperation. Additionally, the less direct teaching approaches (peer, cooperative learning, child design) espoused by Graham et al. (2007) and Harrison, Blakemore, and Buck (2001) enhance cooperation among classmates and allow students to engage in class decision making. The choice of teaching styles or approaches (e.g., the sport education model) should also afford students opportunities to self-regulate their own activities, as well as assume different roles as a part of completing the task.

Recognition. This feature describes how rewards (e.g., teacher praise, feedback) are delivered to students. The teacher's delivery of individualized feedback should be tailored to the performances of individual students and help student improve their skills and fitness level. These feedback and praise incidences should be given privately, and comparisons with other classmates or classes should be avoided. Teachers should strive to deliver feedback to all students and reinforce effort.

Grouping. Students should be placed in small heterogeneous groups for practice rather than in large or homogenous groups, in which social comparisons are likely to occur. Ames and Ames (1984) pointed out that students who work in small, goal-directed, heterogeneous groups that emphasize cooperation among group members focus more on effort and experience positive instructional episodes. There are other practical formats or group methods that can help alleviate social comparison. These include the following: (1) avoiding waiting in line, which not only limits student wait time and increases student practice opportunities but also lessens opportunities for social comparison; (2) giving everyone their own equipment so they can practice on their own; and (3) using small-sided games (fewer students on a team), which gives more practice opportunities and keeps students focused on their game.

Evaluation. In a mastery climate, evaluation of students should be formative (ongoing) and based on self-improvement. Similar to recognition, the communication of progress should be done privately, without comparing students to one another. Student effort should not only be recognized but rewarded, and students should be given the opportunity to make decisions regarding how they will be evaluated (e.g., determine type of evaluation used, evaluation weighting). Lastly, mistakes should also be regarded as a part of the learning process, and opportunities for revaluation should be presented (e.g., Graham et al., 2007, advocated the use of exit slips, which require students to decide when they are ready to be evaluated and gives the opportunity for retesting as well).

Time. The last of Epstein's structural features addresses the time allotted for skill and fitness practice. The pace of the lesson and the time required for mastery of skills should be flexible and based on individual need. The use of alternative activities for early completers (those who finish the task early) gives those students time to practice additional skills while allowing less-skilled students the time they need to master the primary task. Teachers should allow students to decide how long to spend on activities (Mosston & Ashworths's [2001] practice style).

From an examination of the suggested strategies, it appears that the mastery climate falls in line with many effective teaching practices, such as focusing on individual improvement, adjusting lesson pace and content to address individual differences, and not comparing students to their peers. If teachers make a conscious effort to create instructional environments that focus on a mastery climate, then they and their students can reap the benefits of greater feelings of satisfaction, less boredom, higher perceived ability, increased intrinsic motivation, increased persistence, belief that both effort and ability can contribute to success, and a positive attitude toward physical education.

Impact of Other Variables on the Establishment of a Mastery Climate

A variety of other variables can affect the climate that a teacher implements in his or her classroom setting. Variables such as student perceptions about their classroom climate, student skill level, role models, and media all influence the classroom climate in either positive or negative ways.

While it is recognized that students come to physical education with their own ideas about how the class should be conducted (i.e., games where social comparison [ego] is the standard as opposed to cooperative games [task]), it is important to point out that it is the teacher who structures the environment and the learning activities. The research of Spray (2000) found that the perceived instructional environment (e.g, motivational climate - mastery or performance) is more influential than an individual's goal orientation (task-where students seek to improve their performances-versus ego-where students seek to prove themselves through social comparison; Duda, 2004). Additionally, Spray (2000) noted that students' perception of a mastery climate in physical education classes would help foster feelings of fun and enjoyment and would more likely promote ongoing voluntary participation.

The influence of the outside environment (e.g., sport role models, media) also contributes to students' view of the world of athletes and probably affects their view of physical education. It is hard to combat the super star who receives two million dollars in a signing bonus and espouses "a win at all cost attitude" when we are trying to help students sort out their priorities related to lifelong physical activity. The media and the supposed athletic role models who behave badly do not contribute to the well-being of our students, and these external factors need to be considered when planning and implementing a mastery climate.

Another consideration is that the students' perceptions of the climate may differ from the teacher's. Just because the teacher implements strategies that contribute to a mastery climate, these do not necessarily translate into students perceiving the environment as mastery (Morgan et al., 2005). Therefore, teachers must consider their students' perceptions and how they perceive the instructional environments.

One question that arises relates to the role that student skill level plays in a mastery climate. Solmon (1996) reported that lower-skilled students seemed to benefit from the mastery climate, in which emphasis was placed on improvement and effort was reinforced. It was also noted that the practice habits of these lower-skilled students were better. If low-skill students adopt a performance-climate belief that success depends solely on ability, then why should they continue to persist at a given task? However, if students believe that effort and ability work together for task achievement (mastery climate), they are more likely to persist when the task is challenging. The mastery environment may also benefit the more skilled students if they are also motivated to improve their respective performances. The use of the "personal best" can drive even the most skilled students to continue to improve their performances regardless of their given skill level.

Checklist to Evaluate Class Environment

To evaluate a teacher's class environment (mastery performance climate), an observational checklist was created to enable teachers to assess different aspects of the motivational climate during class sessions (figure 1). The observational checklist was based on observational tools that had been created for use within the classroom setting (Curtner-Smith & Todorovich, 2002; Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001; Xiang, McBride, & Solmon, 2003) and built upon the TARGET framework introduced by Ames (1992c), which outlined aspects of the climate that could foster either a mastery or performance climate. The checklist includes observable behaviors that correspond to each of the TARGET areas (i.e., task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation, and timing) and represent either a mastery or performance climate. A few questions ask about the teacher's role (designated by "D") and the students' role (designated by "O"). The observable behaviors of both teachers and students play a part in the determination of the type of climate implemented by the teacher.

The checklist is scored by tallying the number of yes marks. With the exception of question four under the "Recognition/ Evaluation Dimension," a yes response to all other questions indicates a mastery climate. For example, an equal number of yes and no responses would indicate a climate that has both mastery and performance components present in the class setting.

Summary

Two final thoughts are offered by Sayor (2002) in his "Lessons from Skateboarders":

What if I start each day armed with the evidence of the best that I have accomplished to date-my personal record? What if I continue putting forth effort while getting continual, credible and non judgmental feedback [and evaluation] on my progress? In such a situation, wouldn't I be much more likely to leave my classroom every day feeling competent? (p. 36)

We must help students measure performance by rate of improvement, not by comparisons to a mythical Lake Wobegon. We must develop classrooms where students feel part of the community, where classmates benefit from one another's presence.... (p. 38)

Many of the attributes expressed in Sayor's work embody the construct of a mastery climate (e.g., effort leading to achievement, continuous non-judgmental feedback, self-improvement, benefits of cooperation and community). The mastery climate as delivered through the TARGET framework (Epstein, 1989) with the accompanying strategies outlined in this article (Patrick et al., 2001; Xiang et al., 2003) can help students to adopt positive achievement strategies, which include hard work, persistence at tasks, and the pursuit of challenging tasks (Ames & Archer, 1988), while focusing on their skill and fitness progress. Inherent in the TARGET framework is the notion of developmental appropriateness, whereby many instructional choices made by the teacher in a mastery climate are tailored to the individual needs of the students (Valentini, Rudisill, & Goodway, 1999). In contrast, the performance climate can have a debilitating influence (e.g., less enjoyment, greater boredom, belief that success is linked to ability and not to effort, and less positive attitudes about physical education [Morgan et al., 2005; Roberts et al., 2005]) on students' skill and fitness development. The choice between these two climates may have significant repercussions for students.

[Reference] » View reference page with links References Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece & D. Schunck (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327-384). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ames, C. (1992c). Classrooms: Goals, structures and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Ames, C, & Ames, R. (1984). Systems of student teacher motivation: Toward a qualitative definition, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 535-557. Ames, C, & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. Carpenter, J. P., & Morgan, K. (1999). Motivational climate, personal goal perspectives and cognitive and affective responses in physical education classes. European journal of Physical Education, 4, 31-41.

Curtner-Smith, M. D., & Todorovich, J. R. (2002). The physical education climate assessment instrument Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 652-660. Duda, J. L (2004). Goal setting and achievement motivation in sport. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied

psychology (vol. 2, pp. 109-120). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Epstein, J. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research in motivation in education: Vol. 3 (pp. 259-295). New York: Academic Press. Graham, G., Holt/Hale, S. A., & Parker, M. (2007). Children moving: A reflective approach to teaching physical

education (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Harrison, J. M., Blakemore, C. L., & Buck, M. M. (2001). Instructional strategies for secondary school physical

education (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2001). Teaching physical education (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Morgan, K., Sproule, J., Weigand, D., & Carpenter, P. (2005). A computer-based observational assessment of the teaching behaviors that influence motivational climate in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 83-105. Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activity. Iournal of Sport Sciences, 17, 643-665. Papaioannou, A. (1 995). Differential perceptual and motivational patterns when different goals are adopted, journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 18-34. Parish, L., & Treasure, D. C. (2003). Physical activity and situational motivation during free-choice activity in physical education: Influence of perceptions of the motivational climate and perceived ability. Research Quarterly in Exercise and Sport, 74, 173-182. Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C, & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers' communication of goal orientations in four fifthgrade classrooms. The Elementary School journal, 102, 35-58.

Rink, J. E. (1998). Teaching physical education for learning (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: WCB /McGraw-Hill. Roberts, G. C, Treasure, D. C, & Conroy, D. E. (2007). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity. In G. Tenenbaum St R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 3-30). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Sayor, R. (2002). Lessons from skateboards. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 34-38. Solmon, M. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students' behaviors and perceptions in a physical education setting, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731-738. Spray, C. M. (2000). Predicting participation in noncompulsory physical education: Do goal perspectives matter? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90,207-1215. Treasure, D. C. (1997). Perceptions of the motional climate and elementary school children's cognitive and affective responses, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 278-290. Valentini, N. C, Rudisill, M. E., & Goodway, J. D. (1999). Incorporating a mastery climate into physical education: It's developmentally appropriate! Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(7), 28-33. Xiang, P., McBride, R. E., & Solmon, M. A. (2003). Motivational climates in ten teachers' elementary physical education classes: An achievement goal theory approach. The Elementary School Journal, 704, 71-91.

[Author Affiliation] B. Ann Boyce (bab6n@virginia.edu) is an associate professor in the Kinesiology Program at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, VA 22904.

References

References (25)

Cited by (2)

Indexing (document details)

Subjects: Physical education, Students, Teaching methods, Teachers, Cooperative learning, Behavior, Attitudes

Author(s): B Ann Boyce

Author Affiliation: B. Ann Boyce (bab6n@virginia.edu) is an associate professor in the Kinesiology Program at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, VA 22904.

Document types: Feature

Document features: Tables, References

Publication title: Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. Reston: Jan 2009. Vol. 80, Iss. 1; pg. 49, 8 pgs

Source type: Periodical

ISSN: 07303084

ProQuest document ID:

1633655901

Text Word Count 3648

Document URL: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1633655901&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientId=11263&RQT=309&VName=PQD