Do goal clarification and process feedback positively affect students’ need-based experiences? A quasi-experimental study grounded in Self-Determination Theory

Figures & data

Table 1. Design of the standardised experimental condition: absence of goal clarification and process feedback.

Lesson phase
Introduction	Practise	Lesson closure
1. The teacher informed the students that the lesson was about handstand.	10. The teacher interrupted each group on a minimum of two occasions and said (1) ‘come on, get back to your exercises’ or ‘well done’ depending on the actual situation in that group and requested to look at the video-example once again.	13. The teacher thanked the students and informed them that the university researcher would now take over to conduct the questionnaires.
2. Students were asked ‘Are you a novice in handstand? Please sit on the bench with the green sticker. Are you a bit familiar with the handstand? Please sit on the ‘blue bench’. Can you already perform the handstand? Go to the ‘red bench’. Are you an expert in the handstand? Go to the ‘black bench’.’	11. Teachers’ verbal instruction towards the class: Switching between levels is possible. Practise two or three new exercises during the last five minutes of the lesson.
3. Students did a warm-up.
4. Homogeneous groups of approximately four students were made. There were four levels of difficulty: green – blue – red – black.
5. The teacher told the students that they were expected to work self-sufficiently.
6. The teacher explained how they would work during the lesson: Each group receives one iPad with instructional videos on it. Watch the first exercise of your level of difficulty; Practise this specific exercise exactly as shown in the video; Successfully performed? Watch and practise the next exercise; Not successfully? Practise again.
7. The teacher indicated that the gym was divided in four quarters: one quarter per level of difficulty.

Note. See Appendix A for more information on the three manipulated conditions.

Table 2. Goodness of fit indices for measurement invariance model.

	Chi-square test	SRMR	RMSEA 90% CI	CFI	TLI	AIC	BIC
	Need satisfaction and frustration
Configural invariance	χ^2 (474) = 1146.54***	0.06	.06 [.05, .06]	0.92	0.91	52,687	53,531
Metric invariance	χ^2 (492) = 1218.86***	0.07	.06 [.05, .06]	0.92	0.90	52,723	53,480

Note: SRMR = Standardised Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion.

***p < .001.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of all study variables at baseline and post-experimental, check of comparability of conditions and manipulation check.

	No GC, No PF; n = 121		Yes GC, No PF; n = 117		No GC, Yes PF; n = 126		Yes GC, Yes PF; n = 128
	Baseline	Post	Baseline	Post	Baseline	Post	Baseline	Post
	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
1. Goal clarification		3.22 (0.90)^a		4.20 (0.64)^b		3.67 (0.83)^c		4.17 (0.63)^b
2. Process feedback		2.82 (1.03)^a		3.61 (0.89)^b		4.45 (0.61)^c		3.99 (0.90)^d
3. Competence satisfaction	3.85 (0.70)^a	3.57 (0.84)^a	3.89 (0.64)^a	3.50 (0.91)^a	3.84 (0.64)^a	3.54 (0.88)^a	3.81 (0.59)^a	3.60 (0.84)^a
4. Autonomy satisfaction	3.52 (0.61)^a	3.28 (0.97)^a	3.73 (0.56)^a	3.29 (0.95)^a	3.52 (0.65)^a	3.35 (0.93)^a	3.53 (0.58)^a	3.30 (0.97)^a
5. Relatedness satisfaction	4.13 (0.55)^a	3.91 (0.78)^a	4.03 (0.67)^a	3.90 (0.79)^a	3.94 (0.73)^a	3.84 (0.78)^a	4.00 (0.57)^a	3.85 (0.83)^a
6. Competence frustration	1.80 (0.85)^a	1.93 (0.76)^a	1.89 (0.66)^a	2.08 (0.85)^a	1.85 (0.72)^a	2.04 (0.78)^a	1.85 (0.71)^a	1.92 (0.71)^a
7. Autonomy frustration	2.36 (0.83)^a	2.16 (0.90)^a	2.15 (0.73)^a	2.19 (1.00)^a	2.29 (0.74)^a	2.16 (0.90)^a	2.33 (0.71)^a	2.22 (0.77)^a
8. Relatedness frustration	1.58 (0.51)^a	1.77 (0.47)^a	1.63 (0.42)^a	1.79 (0.57)^a	1.70 (0.50)^a	1.75 (0.50)^a	1.66 (0.42)^a	1.85 (0.49)^a
9. Anticipated competence satisfaction handstand	2.99 (1.09)^a		2.81 (1.11)^a		2.97 (1.05)^a		2.93 (1.13)^a
	% boys		% boys		% boys		% boys
10. Gender	51.20^a		45.30^a		50.80^a		44.50^a
r GC – PF	.36***		.54***		.37***		.51***
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
% variance class-level	.26**	.36**	.00	.03	.05*	.00	.04	.03	.04
% variance student-level	.74***	.64***	.20***	.09	.10*	.34***	.19***	.03	.96***
% variance occasion-level			.80***	.88***	.85***	.66***	.78***	.94***

Note: M and SD calculated with measurements not controlled for nesting in classrooms and students. No GC, No PF: absence of both goal clarification and process feedback; Yes GC, No PF: presence of goal clarification, absence of process feedback; No GC, Yes PF: absence of goal clarification, presence of process feedback; Yes GC, Yes PF: presence of both goal clarification and process feedback. To calculate comparability of conditions: Regression equations, controlled for nesting in classrooms and students, were repeated several times by changing the reference category to obtain coefficients for all combinations of conditions. Conditions with dissimilar superscripts are significantly different. Differences in the extent to which students experienced that goal clarification was provided by the teacher were significant at least at the p < .01 level, for process feedback at least at the p < .05 level.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4. Pearson correlations between measured variables at post-test.

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Goal clarification		.44***	.30***	.35***	.35***	−.10*	−.22***	−.19***
2. Process feedback			.29***	.36***	.33***	−.13**	−.21***	−.21***
3. Competence satisfaction				.56***	.49***	−.55***	−.44***	−.27***
4. Autonomy satisfaction					.66***	−.29***	−.54***	−.40***
5. Relatedness satisfaction						−.25***	−.47***	−.46***
6. Competence frustration							.45***	.35***
7. Autonomy frustration								.45***
8. Relatedness frustration

Note: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1. Comparability of conditions. Conditions with dissimilar superscripts are significantly different.

Table 5. Effect of teaching behaviour regarding goal clarification and process feedback on students’ feelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness satisfaction and frustration.

Parameter	Competence satisfaction			Autonomy satisfaction			Relatedness satisfaction
	M0a	M1a	M2a	M0b	M1b	M2b	M0c	M1c	M2c
	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
	Fixed part
Intercept	3.70(.03)	3.57(.07)	3.59(.08)	3.44(.04)	3.29(.08)	3.15(.10)	3.96(.04)	3.92(.09)	3.82(.10)
Occasion level
Time: baseline^a		.28(.09)**	.28(.09)**		.24(.10)*	.23(.10)*		.22(.09)*	.21(.09)*
Student level
Students’ gender^b			−.05(.06)			.30(.05)***			.20(.05)***
Class level
Condition^c
Yes goal clarification, no process feedback	−.06(.10)	−.06(.10)		.00(.13)	−.02(.13)		−.01(.13)	−.03(.13)
No goal clarification, yes process feedback	−.03(.10)	−.03(.10)		.06(.13)	.05(.13)		−.08(.13)	−.09(.13)
Yes goal clarification, yes process feedback	.04(.10)	.05(.10)		.01(.13)	−.01(.13)		−.06(.13)	−.08(.13)
Cross-level interaction
YesGC noPF X baseline		.11(.12)	.11(.12)		.21(.14)	.22(.14)		−.08(.12)	−.08(.12)
NoGC yesPF X baseline		.03(.12)	.03(.12)		−.06(.14)	−.05(.14)		−.12(.12)	−.11(.12)
YesGC yesPF X baseline		−.08(.12)	−.08(.12)		.01(.13)	.01(.13)		−.06(.12)	−.06(.12)
	Random part
${\sigma }_e^2$ (Occasion)	.48(.03)***	.43(.03)***	.43(.03)***	.58(.04)***	.53(.04)***	.53(.04)***	.44(.03)***	.43(.03)***	.43(.03)***
${\sigma }_{v0}^2$ (Student)	.12(.03)***	.15(.03)***	.15(.03)***	.06(.03)	.08(.03)**	.06(.03)*	.05(.02)*	.06(.02)*	.05(.02)*
${\sigma }_{u0}^2$ (Class)	.00(.00)	.00(.00)	.00(.00)	.02(.01)	.02(.01)	.02(.01)	.03(.01)*	.02(.01)*	.02(.01)*
−2*log likelihood (df)		47.09(7)***	0.87(1)		36.37(7)***	30.1(1)***		14.78(7)*	17.70(1)***
Parameter	Competence frustration			Autonomy frustration			Relatedness frustration
	M0d	M1d	M2fd	M0e	M1e	M2e	M0f	M1f	M2f
	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
	Fixed part
Intercept	1.92(.03)	1.94(.07)	1.90(.08)	2.23(.05)	2.16(.10)	2.26(.10)	1.72(.03)	1.77(.06)	1.83(.06)
Occasion level
Time: baseline^a		−.15(.08)	−.15(.08)		.19(.10)*	.20(.10)*		−.19(.06)**	−.19(.06)**
Student level
Students’ gender^b			.08(.06)			−.21(.06)***			−.12(.03)***
Class level
Condition^c
Yes goal clarification, no process feedback		.13(.10)	.12(.10)		.03(.14)	.05(.14)		.02(.08)	.03(.08)
No goal clarification, yes process feedback		.10(.10)	.09(.10)		.00(.14)	.01(.14)		−.02(.08)	−.01(.08)
Yes goal clarification, yes process feedback		−.03(.10)	−.04(.10)		.06(.14)	.08(.14)		.08(.08)	.09(.08)
Cross-level interaction
YesGC noPF X baseline		−.03(.12)	−.03(.12)		−.23(.14)	−.24(.14)		.02(.09)	.02(.09)
NoGC yesPF X baseline		−.04(.11)	−.04(.11)		−.07(.13)	−.07(.13)		.13(.09)	.13(.09)
YesGC yesPF X baseline		.08(.11)	.08(.11)		−.08(.13)	−.08(.13)		−.01(.09)	.01(.09)
	Random part
${\sigma }_e^2$ (Occasion)	.38(.03)***	.37(.02)***	.37(.02)***	.53(.04)***	.52(.04)***	.52(.04)***	.23(.02)***	.21(.01)***	.21(.01)***
${\sigma }_{v0}^2$ (Student)	.20(.03)***	.20(.03)***	.20(.03)***	.13(.03)***	.13(.03)***	.12(.03)***	.01(.01)	.02(.01)	.01(.01)
${\sigma }_{u0}^2$ (Class)	.00(.00)	.00(.00)	.00(.00)	.02(.01)	.02(.01)	.02(.01)	.01(.00)	.01(.00)	.01(.00)
−2*log likelihood (df)		16.85(7)*	2.20(1)ns		8.4(7)ns	12.61(1)***		28.08(7)***	13.85(1)***

Note: Values in parentheses are standard errors. Reference category = 0: ^a0 = posttest, 1 = baseline; ^b0 = boy, 1 = girl; ^c0 = No goal clarification, no process feedback, 1 = Yes goal clarification, no process feedback, 2 = No goal clarification, yes process feedback, 3 = Yes goal clarification, yes process feedback.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 6. Examples of students’ reactions to the open questions about the experimental lesson.

Student number	Slope	Key concept	Comment
31007	red	Competence satisfaction	‘I liked it, because I could participate on a level that is not too easy and not too difficult.’
51801	green		‘I liked the exercises. It feels like I’ve improved my handstand.’
31009	green		‘A handstand with support from the box, this was exciting.’
51706	green		‘When I performed the handstand against the wall. It made me feel really good.’
10407	red		‘We learned more. I really liked that.’
10307	blue		‘It is nice when others in your group can do the same as you can.’
51908	blue	Autonomy satisfaction	‘I really liked it, because I could ask for feedback and I could give feedback to my classmates.’
51911	blue		‘This way, we did not need to wait for students that were not so good at it.’
31121	red		‘Working on your own with the group. It gives a feeling of independency.’
20614	red	Relatedness satisfaction	‘I liked working in groups. We had a nice atmosphere in our group and we could help each other.’
31104	green		‘I felt free and the teacher’s instructions and help were very clear. The teacher was friendly.’
20707	blue	Competence frustration	‘I don’t like the handstand. I can’t do it.’
31106	blue		‘I totally suck at it. I was afraid of falling.’
51722	blue	Lesson subject	‘I enjoyed everything! It’s just so much more fun than soccer or something like that.’
41609	blue		‘I don’t like handstand. It’s boring.’
31124	blue	Didactical approach	‘I liked it. It’s something else. We never do this.’
20714	blue		‘I didn’t like it. It was too much of the same thing. It became rather boring.’
30922	blue	IPad	‘Working with videos was nice. We could replay the example.’
41608	black		‘The exercises and the videos on the iPad were nice. The videos gave clear instructions and an iPad is fun.’

Table A1. Goal clarification and process feedback manipulations: additional steps.

Conditions with goal clarification: additional steps

Conditions with process feedback: additional steps

Step 1: Students watched a one-minute video displaying the expected beginning and end level for all levels of difficulty (i.e. creating insight in expectations). Based on this video, they were asked to make an informed choice. Step 2: The teacher informed the students about the general lesson goal (i.e. ‘do a straight handstand on your own level of difficulty’).Step 3: The teacher emphasised that there was one specific main focus per level of difficulty (e.g. main focus of the easiest level: ‘keep shoulders above your hands and/ or elbows’), which was written above every video. Step 4: During the practise phase, the teacher asked each group of students which main focus was written in the video that they were practising. When students could not recall the main focus, they were asked to look at the video again. When they could recall the main focus, they were instructed to pay attention to that specific aspect and then immediately, the teacher left that group to avoid questions about ‘how am I doing’.Step 5: When pausing the class’ exercising, the teacher emphasised a main focus that was important for a lot of students (i.e. ‘belly tucked in, bottom tight’) and asked them to pay attention to this aspect. Step 6: When pausing the class’ exercising for a second time, the teacher asked the students to recall the main focus for their level of difficulty and allowed responses from two students. Step 7: During the lesson closure, the teacher asked two students to recall their main focus and encouraged the students to remember this when practising the handstand in future PE lessons.

Step 1: At the start of the lesson, the teacher informed the students that, while practising, they would receive feedback that would help them improve. Step 2: During the prastice phase, the teacher informed students (in person or in a group of students when applicable) about one strong element and one suggestion for improvement (see supplemental online material for the standardised feedback). Step 3: When pausing the class’ exercising, the teacher provided the students with a strong element and a suggestion for improvement that was applicable for almost the whole group. Step 4: When pausing the class’ exercising for a second time, the teacher asked the students to recall one personal strong element and suggestion for improvement. Step 5: During the lesson closure, the teacher asked two students to recall their suggestion for improvement and encouraged the students to remember this when practising the handstand in future PE lessons.