A Motivational Training Program for Secondary Physical Education Teachers Based on the Circumplex Model: A Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial
Phase: NA
Conditions: Teaching Program
Sponsor: Universidad de Zaragoza

07/06/2024 
 
1 
A Motivational Training Program for Secondary Physical Education Teachers Based on 
the Circumplex Model: A Study Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial. 
Abstract 
Introduction: In most Self-Determination Theory (SDT) research, improving (de)motivating 
teaching styles enables numerous benefits for students and teachers, although there is less 
evidence on the latter. Although the recent circumplex model provides a fine-grained picture 
of the different (de)motivating teaching styles (i.e., autonomy support, structure, control, and 
chaos) that physical education (PE) teachers can use in their lessons, no previous motivational 
training programs have been based on this model. Moreover, all SDT-training programs have 
been implemented through different group sessions, but individual sessions have not also been 
delivered. 
Objective: This study outlines the protocol of a motivational training program, derived from 
the circumplex model, designed to enhance (de)motivating teaching styles among PE teachers. 
Consequently, this program seeks to improve motivational variables and influence 
(mal)adaptive outcomes in both teachers and students.  
Design: A randomized controlled trial design with a mixed-method approach. 
Participants: At least 16 secondary PE teachers will be assigned to either an experimental 
group or a control group, together with part of their students.  
Intervention: The training program comprises four face-to-face group sessions and two 
follow-up sessions (one individual and one group sessions). PE teachers will learn how to 
support autonomy and provide structure, as well as to be less controlling and chaotic towards 
students. Over a period of approximately five months, teachers will implement these 
motivational strategies during their PE classes. 
Outcome measures: Different (de)motivating teaching styles, motivational variables, and 
(mal)adaptive outcomes will be assessed in both PE teachers and their students at three distinct 

07/06/2024 
 
2 
points: before the training program (T1), during the intervention (T2) and at the end of the 
intervention (T3). Additionally, two discussion groups involving all experimental PE teachers 
will be held (one following the training program and another at the end of the intervention).  
Conclusion: The results from this study could be useful for developing motivational training 
programs for in-service PE teachers. 
Trial registration: (AÑADIR) 
Keywords: circumplex approach, motivating styles, professional development, self-
determination theory, psychological needs, motivation. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

07/06/2024 
 
3 
Introduction 
Physical Education (PE) teachers hold a pivotal role in guiding students through their 
learning process. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2020), 
teachers’ (de)motivating style, referred to as “the interpersonal sentiment and behaviour that 
teachers rely on during instruction to motivate students to engage in and benefit from learning 
activities” (Reeve et al., 2014, p. 94), is a crucial element in the teaching process. Recent 
research suggests that PE teachers employ a diverse array of teaching behaviours in their 
educational practice (Burgueño, García-González, et al., 2024). Autonomy, competence, and 
relatedness-supportive teaching behaviours (i.e., need-supportive teaching behaviours) have 
been positively related to students’ autonomous motivation and adaptive outcomes in PE, 
while the opposite is true for autonomy, competence, and relatedness-thwarting behaviours 
(i.e. need-thwarting behaviours) (Vasconcellos et al., 2020; White et al., 2021). Consequently, 
continuous development teaching (CDT) programs, based on SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), has 
increased in the last years. These SDT-training programs, mainly focused on autonomy-
supportive strategies, revealed positive effects on students’ perceptions of (de)motivating 
teaching behaviours and motivational outcomes (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). Over the past 
decade, SDT-training programs have also demonstrated positive effects on teachers’ self-
perceptions of certain antecedents, support for autonomy and structure, and various 
motivational and (mal)adaptive outcomes (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). However, additional 
research is required, as most studies have not focused on reducing need-thwarting behaviours. 
Recently, grounded in SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), the circumplex model (Aelterman et 
al., 2019) offers a detailed view of the different (de)motivating teaching styles (i.e., autonomy 
support, structure, control, and chaos) that teachers can adopt in their classes. This 
circumplex model delineates eight teaching approaches across these four teaching styles 
(Aelterman et al., 2019; Escriva-Boulley et al., 2021). To develop the most effective 

07/06/2024 
 
4 
interventions, it is crucial for researchers to understand the effectiveness of motivational 
training programs, not only in terms of the four (de)motivating teaching styles but also across 
the eight specific teaching approaches. Yet, no existing motivational training programs have 
incorporated this new circumplex approach. This mixed-method study sets out to expand 
existing knowledge by describing a protocol for a motivational training program based on the 
circumplex model, aimed at enhancing (de)motivating teaching styles, as well as 
(mal)adaptive outcomes among PE teachers and their students. 
Self-Determination Theory: The Importance of Basic Psychological Needs in Teaching 
According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), PE teachers need to satisfy the three basic 
psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) in teaching to experience 
well-being and feel fulfilled in their job. However, it has been established that these needs 
can also be frustrated (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Autonomy satisfaction is linked with PE 
teachers’ sense of making their own decisions and implementing their ideas in lessons, while 
autonomy frustration arises from feelings of compulsion to teach in prescribed ways and 
experiencing pressure in work-related tasks. Competence satisfaction involves PE teachers’ 
perception of success and effectiveness in their PE lessons, whereas competence frustration 
refers to experiencing feelings of ineffectiveness and failure in their teaching-related tasks. 
Lastly, relatedness satisfaction is experienced by PE teachers when they feel connected and 
integrated with colleagues and students, while relatedness frustration occurs when they feel 
isolated and excluded in their work environment (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 
2020). According to SDT, teachers’ need satisfaction and frustration can be influenced by 
several antecedents including contextual factors, personal factors, and perceptions of others’ 
behaviours and motivation (Haerens et al., 2016; Matosic et al., 2016). Moreover, in 
alignment with SDT, these PE teachers’ need-based experiences significantly influence their 
well-being and play a crucial role in the (de)motivating teaching styles they adopt during PE 

07/06/2024 
 
5 
lessons. Previous SDT-based research (Slemp et al., 2020), indicates that teachers’ need 
satisfaction is positively associated with different adaptive outcomes (e.g., well-being, job 
satisfaction, engagement, etc.), and need-supportive teaching behaviours towards students. 
However, teachers’ need frustration has been positively related to maladaptive outcomes 
(e.g., distress, burnout, etc.) and need-thwarting teaching behaviours towards students. 
Therefore, addressing certain antecedents of (de)motivating teaching styles could enhance 
teachers’ need satisfaction and reduce their frustration, consequently facilitating the adoption 
of motivating teaching behaviours. 
A Fine-Grained Picture of (De)Motivating Teaching Styles: A Circumplex Model  
The circumplex model offers a deeper and detailed perspective of the four teaching 
styles that a PE teacher can employ in his/her lessons (Aelterman et al., 2019). These styles 
are categorized along two axes: one horizontal, indicating whether the style supports or 
thwarts students’ needs, and one vertical, reflecting the degree of the directiveness exhibited 
by the PE teachers. Each teaching style is further divided into two distinct approaches, 
culminating in a total of eight specific teaching approaches (Aelterman et al., 2019).  
On the one hand, the first motivating teaching style, characterized by low 
directiveness and high need-supportive, is termed autonomy support. PE teachers who 
demonstrate a tone of receptivity and flexibility to accommodate the preferences and interests 
of their students provide an autonomy-supportive environment (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). 
Autonomy support can emerge by a participative (i.e., PE teacher provides students with 
choices and decision-making power) and an attuning teaching approach (i.e., PE teacher 
fosters students’ interests, accepts expressions of negative affect, and explains the relevance 
of each activity performed). The second motivating teaching style, characterized by high 
directiveness and high need-supportive, is termed structure (Aelterman et al., 2019). Structure 
involves PE teachers adopting attitudes oriented towards progress and process, always 

07/06/2024 
 
6 
considering the ability levels and the needs of each student (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). The 
structuring style is displayed by a guiding (i.e., PE teacher provides students with helpful 
guidelines and encouragement for successful task completion) and a clarifying teaching 
approach (i.e., PE teacher communicates the goals and expectations of the lessons to the 
students) (Escriva-Boulley et al., 2021).  
On the other hand, the first demotivating teaching style, characterized by high 
directiveness and high levels of need-thwarting, is termed control. It refers to those PE 
teachers who exert pressure on students to think, feel, and behave in specific ways 
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). This controlling style can be expressed by a demanding (i.e., PE 
teacher imposes mandatory actions on their students and administer punishment or threats if 
they fail to comply) and a domineering teaching approach (i.e., PE teacher uses manipulative 
strategies such as inducing shame, disapproval, or even humiliation to comply with their 
requests) (Burgueño, Abós, et al., 2024). The second demotivating teaching style, 
characterized by low directiveness and high levels of need-thwarting, is termed chaos. It 
refers to those PE teachers who adopt a laissez-faire approach, characterized by their 
unpredictable and inconsistent behaviour (Vansteenkiste et al., 2019). Chaotic style is 
expressed by an abandoning (i.e., after multiple failed attempts, the PE teacher resigns and 
leaves the students to fend for themselves) and an awaiting teaching approach (i.e., PE 
teachers do not plan lessons extensively as they prefer to wait and see how things unfold) 
(Aelterman et al., 2019). 
Previous studies based on SDT and the circumplex model (Burgueño, Abós, et al., 
2024; García-Cazorla et al., 2024) have shown that teachers who have their needs satisfied 
implement autonomy-supportive (i.e., participative and attuning approaches) and structuring 
styles (i.e., guiding and clarifying approaches) in their PE, while those teachers who have 
their needs frustrated, use controlling (i.e., demanding and domineering approaches) and 

07/06/2024 
 
7 
chaotic styles (i.e., abandoning and awaiting approaches). According to SDT, the adoption of 
these (de)motivating teaching styles/approaches by PE teachers may elicit various 
motivational consequences for students. 
Influence of (De)Motivating Teaching Approaches on Students’ Motivational Outcomes 
Grounded in the circumplex model, a growing body of research examines the 
relationship between (de)motivating teaching styles/approaches and students’ motivational 
outcomes. For example, Burgueño, Abós, et al. (2024) demonstrated that students’ 
perceptions of autonomy-supportive (i.e., participative and attuning) and structuring (i.e., 
guiding and clarifying) styles from PE teachers are positively related to students’ needs 
satisfaction, but also the clarifying approach is negatively associated with students’ need 
frustration. Diloy-Peña et al. (2024) also showed that those students who perceived 
autonomy-supportive and structuring styles and approaches reported higher values in positive 
PE experiences, learning in PE, and intention to participate in physical activity (PA). 
Conversely, Burgueño, Abós, et al. (2024) showed that controlling (i.e., demanding and 
domineering approaches) and chaotic (i.e., abandoning and awaiting approaches) styles are 
positively associated with students’ needs frustration, but also the domineering and 
abandoning approaches are negatively associated with students’ need satisfaction. 
Additionally, comprehensive SDT-based research in PE indicates that students’ need 
satisfaction is positively related to autonomous motivation and positive behavioral, affective, 
and cognitive outcomes, while students’ need frustration is positively related to controlled 
motivation, amotivation, and various maladaptive outcomes (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). 
Consequently, given the associated benefits for students, SDT-training programs aimed at 
improving PE teachers’ motivating teaching syle have increased in recent years. 
Previous SDT-Training Programs for PE Teachers and Added Value of this Study. 

07/06/2024 
 
8 
SDT-training programs have predominantly concentrated on autonomy-supportive 
strategies, revealing positive effects on students’ perceptions of their PE teachers’ 
(de)motivating teaching styles/approaches, as well as on motivational outcomes in PE lessons 
(Vasconcellos et al., 2020). A previous review of SDT-training programs also suggested that 
PE teachers can benefit from participating in these programs, although more research is 
needed to examine their effects on a wide range of outcomes (Reeve & Cheon, 2021). 
However, there are very few SDT-training programs that examine their effects on both 
students and teachers. For example, Cheon et al. (2020), showed that PE teachers who 
participated in an eight-hour, three-session face-to-face SDT-training program, focused on 
provided structure in an autonomy-supportive way, showed improvements across all assessed 
variables (i.e., teacher-reported autonomy support and structure, teaching efficacy, intrinsic 
instructional goals, harmonious passion, job satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction with 
students). Moreover, students also perceived improvements in autonomy and structure 
support, autonomy and competence satisfaction, and outcomes such as classroom 
engagement, skill development, anticipated PE performance, and future intention to do PA. It 
is noteworthy that in most of these SDT training programs, the effects on teachers have only 
been assessed after they implemented the strategies with the students (Aelterman et al., 
2013). Gaining insight into teachers’ perspectives both before the training, immediately after 
the SDT-training program, and upon completion of the entire intervention, could also enhance 
the acceptance, sustainability, and scalability of the program. To achieve this, employing a 
qualitative methodology could build on existing findings, providing greater justification for 
the results obtained (in addition to quantitative). 
To the best of our knowledge, no previous motivational training programs have been 
designed based on the circumplex model. This model can guide the teaching approaches 
associated with each of the (de)motivating styles and provide a better understanding of the 

07/06/2024 
 
9 
potential effects of the program on each of the eight teaching approaches. In the educational 
domain, only three programs to date have examined the effects of SDT-training programs on 
(de)motivating teaching styles using the Situations-in-School Questionnaire (SIS; an 
instrument to assess the eight teaching approaches proposed by the circumplex model) 
(Cheon et al., 2020; Conesa et al., 2023; Jang et al., 2023). However, none of these programs 
have specifically examined the effects of all the eight teaching approaches proposed by the 
circumplex model. In addition, few SDT-training programs have focused on reducing 
controlling and chaotic teaching styles. Since teachers may combine need-supportive and 
need-thwarting approaches (Burgueño, García-González, et al., 2024), it seems necessary for 
these programs to also focus on reducing these behaviors. 
The characteristics, content, and implementation mode of the SDT-training programs 
also appear to be crucial factors to consider. To date, all SDT-training programs have been 
implemented through different group sessions with PE teachers. However, different person-
centered studies have indicated that each PE teacher may exhibit a very different 
(de)motivating teaching style profile (Burgueño, García-González, et al., 2024). For instance, 
one teacher might employ both autonomy-supportive and structuring styles, alongside a 
controlling style. Conversely, another teacher might use autonomy-supportive behaviours 
while lacking structure, resulting in a chaotic classroom environment. Therefore, it seems 
necessary that at least part of the motivational training program be individualized to the 
(de)motivating teaching profile and personal characteristics of each teacher. The use of 
observational methodology in teacher’ own classes has emerged in recent years as a solution 
to provide constructive and individual feedback through videos (Bouten et al., 2023). 
However, to date, it has only been used in SDT-training programs to examine intervention 
fidelity and/or to assess possible changes in the (de)motivating teaching styles (Reeve & 
Cheon, 2021). Combining a brief initial theoretical component with a more extensive 

07/06/2024 
 
10 
practical part (i.e., microteaching) has been previously identified as essential for applying 
what has been learned in contexts as close to reality as possible (Aelterman et al., 2013). 
Ultimately, the adoption of a congruent style, where trainers implement the program using 
(de)motivating teaching styles has also been positively perceived by PE teachers. This 
approach allows them to observe real-life examples of how to implement these strategies 
effectively (Aelterman et al., 2013). Moreover, in line with SDT, it could lead to an 
immediate effect on the teachers’ need satisfaction during the training that has been positively 
associated with effectiveness and feasibility beliefs in terms of autonomy support and 
structure, as well as teachers’ intentions to apply the proposed strategies (Aelterman et al., 
2016).  
Finally, while previous studies have considered gender as a covariate to analyze the 
effects of SDT-based interventions, gender differences in study variables are seldom reported 
for both teachers and students. Given prior SDT-related research indicating that 
(de)motivating teaching behaviours may be perceived differently by boys and girls students 
(White et al., 2021) and male and female teachers (García-Cazorla et al., 2024), it is crucial to 
determine whether the intervention is equally effective for both genders to mitigate any 
potential gender-related inequities. 
To extend previous knowledge, this mixed-method study describes the protocol of a 
motivational training program, based on the circumplex model, aimed at improving 
(de)motivating teaching styles/approaches among PE teachers. The first hypothesis suggests 
that the features of the motivational training program will be positively perceived by PE 
teachers (H1). We also hypothesize that experimental school female and male teachers will 
perceive improvements in several antecedents, autonomy and competence 
satisfaction/frustration at work, (de)motivating teaching styles/approaches, and (mal)adaptive 
outcomes at least at the end of the intervention implementation toward students (H2). Finally, 

07/06/2024 
 
11 
both boys and girls from experimental groups will perceive improvements in their PE 
teachers’ (de)motivating teaching styles/approaches, autonomy and competence 
satisfaction/frustration in PE, and adaptive outcomes in PE lessons (H3).  
Materials and methods  
Context, design, and randomization  
This study will be carried out in a northeast region of Spain [details masked for review 
process]. PE is mandatory for every secondary school student in Spain. Each student receives 
two 50-minute coeducational PE lessons per week. Spanish Secondary PE teachers are 
expected to teach between 18 and 21 hours per week. Typically, the annual teaching plan of 
PE teachers includes approximately six to eight distinct teaching units per year. These units 
encompass various content types such as individual, cooperative, and interactive sports and 
games, as well as body expression, health-related fitness, and outdoor activities, all of which 
are outlined in the PE curriculum. The academic year lasts from September to June, divided 
into three terms, each separated by a holiday period (i.e., Christmas and Easter). 
A randomized controlled trial design with a mixed-method approach will be carried 
out. PE teachers agreeing to participate in the trial will be randomly assigned to either the 
experimental or the control group. Randomization will be conducted using the digital tool 
available at https://echaloasuerte.com/. To prevent contamination of the experimental 
condition, schools will only participate in one group (i.e., experimental or control). 
Subsequently, at least two groups of students from each PE teacher will be randomly selected. 
This study will comprise two phases: 1) a teacher-training phase and 2) an 
implementation phase with students. It should be noted that the training program will 
continue with some individual and group sessions during the implementation phase. Since 
teachers’ and students’ perceptions of (de)motivating teaching styles and approaches and 
other study variables require several months for greater accuracy in their perceptions, the 

07/06/2024 
 
12 
training program will not start until the second term of the academic year (for more details 
see Figure 1). 
 
Figure 1. Characteristics of the training program and timeline for data collection 
 
Notes: *the variables assessed in PE teachers and students are detailed in the corresponding section; **the 
training program has two follow-up sessions (individual and group). 
The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of [details 
masked for review process] and follows all ethical procedures established in the Declaration 
of Helsinki. 
Sample size calculation  
The sample size for this intervention-based study was calculated using R Studio to 
ensure adequate power in the detection of potential statistically significant effects. 
Considering a multi-level design nesting center, PE teacher and group, the sample size 
calculation was grounded on an anticipated effect size of 0.5, reflecting a moderate impact of 
the intervention. The power of the study was set at 80% with a significance level (alpha) of 
0.05, aligning with common practices in educational research (McConnell et al., 2019). 
February
Focal group 
(qualitative 
measure)
Only for PE 
teachers
Intermediate 
test
(quantivative 
measure)
Teachers and 
students
Experimental 
group
Control 
group 
November - December
Teacher 
recruitment
Approximately 
16 PE teachers 
and, at least, 
two groups of 
students from 
each PE 
teacher will be 
collectted and 
randomly 
assigned to 
either the 
experimental or 
control group
Pre-test
(quantivative 
measure)
Teachers and 
students
Pre-test
(quantivative 
measure)
Teachers and 
students
January
Face-to-fase 
group 
session 1
Part 1
(2 hours)
Face-to-fase 
group 
session 2
Part 2
(2 hours)
Face-to-face 
group 
sessions 3 
and 4
Part 3
(2 hours each 
of one)
March
Observation 
of one 
PE lesson of 
each teacher
Intermediate 
test
(quantivative 
measure)
Teachers and 
students
May-June
Observation 
of one 
PE lesson of 
each teacher
Post-test
(quantivative 
measure)
Teachers and 
students
Post-test
(quantivative 
measure)
Teachers and 
students
Individual follow-
up session
Group follow-up 
session
Focal group 
(qualitative 
measure)
Only for PE 
teachers
At the end of each face-to-face session, a brief 
questionnaire will be completed by the PE teachers.

07/06/2024 
 
13 
Acknowledging the inherent structure of this study, an Intra-Class Correlation (ICC) of 0.1 
was assumed based on similar educational settings (Hedges & Hedberg, 2007). This ICC 
estimate accounted for the expected homogeneity within the three levels (class group within 
PE teacher, PE teacher within center). To accommodate potential participant dropout, 
particularly among students, we incorporated a 40% anticipated dropout rate into our 
calculations (e.g., Meerits et al., 2022). The minimum sample size was adjusted to 210 
students across 15 PE teachers, averaging 14 students per teacher. This adjustment ensures 
that our study maintains sufficient statistical power even in the face of anticipated losses, 
thereby safeguarding the integrity and validity of our findings. 
Participants and recruitment 
At least 16 secondary PE teachers, eight in the experimental group and eight in the 
control group, along with their respective students, will be expected to participate in this 
study. The maximum number of participating teachers will be capped at 20, due to the limited 
human resources of the research team. PE teachers will select at least two classroom groups 
comprising at least 14 students each to invite to participate in this study. Eligible students will 
be those aged 12 to 17 years in secondary schools. Participation will be voluntary and 
anonymous.  
Various social media platforms (i.e., Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp) and other 
communication methods (i.e., email) will be used for teachers’ recruitment. An informative 
poster will be launched, detailing the target sample, content, aims, and training program 
dates. This poster will also include two links (QR code): one with a document providing 
further information and another to registration through a brief Google Forms questionnaire. 
Regarding the additional information document, it is important to note that it will detail a 
more comprehensive overview of the objectives, the different phases of the program, 
inclusion criteria, the requirements that each teacher must accept to participate, and the 

07/06/2024 
 
14 
teaching skills that will be developed during the training program. Teachers with further 
inquiries can contact the research team via email or phone. The registration period will last 
approximately 21 days.  
Once the interested PE teachers have registered, various inclusion criteria will be 
considered for the final selection: 1) Being an in-service PE secondary school teacher for the 
entire academic year; 2) Attending 100% of the training program sessions; 3) Fill in a short 
questionnaire at the end of each session of the training program, as well as fulfilling 
questionnaires of the study variables three times; 4) Allowing the recording of two PE 
lessons; 5) Participating in two focus groups, one at the end of the training program and one 
at the end of the study, and 6) Not participating in other training sessions related to PE 
instruction during the program. Moreover, the inclusion criteria for students will be: 1) 
Authorization from parents or legal guardians; 2) Completion of questionnaires of the study 
variables three times; 3) Regular participation in PE lessons. 
Measures 
Questionnaires 
The following PE teachers’ variables will be measured using Google Forms before the 
training program (T1), as well as during (T2) and at the end of the implementation of the 
intervention with their students (T3) (see Figure 1): 
Socio-demographic variables. Age, gender, teaching experience, type of school 
(public or private), and school location (rural or urban) will be self-reported by teachers. 
(De)motivating teaching styles and approaches towards students. To assess self-
reported (de)motivating teaching styles toward students, the Spanish version of the SIS in 
Physical Education (SIS-PE; (Burgueño, Abós, et al., 2024) will be used. The SIS-PE 
comprises 12 typical teaching situations consisting of four items each (i.e., 48 items). 
Autonomy-supportive items are categorised into participative (four items) and attuning (eight 

07/06/2024 
 
15 
items) approaches. Structure items are operationalised into guiding (seven items) and 
clarifying (five items) approaches. Control items are divided into demanding (seven items) 
and domineering (five items) approaches. Chaos items are operationalised into abandoning 
(eight items) and awaiting (four items) approaches. For instance, this situation “At the start of 
class…” is followed by four items: you can explore students’ prior knowledge of the topic 
(attuning), set up a class clearly and straightforwardly (clarifying), demand application of 
what’s taught (demanding), or just begin and let the class evolve (awaiting)”. It should be 
noted that, since teachers’ perceptions of their (de)motivating teaching styles could be 
different according to the classroom group, teachers will have to answer the questionnaire 
taking into account the groups of students selected for the study. Teachers’ responses will be 
assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Does not describe me at all”) to 7 
(“Describes me perfectly”).  
Autonomy and competence satisfaction and frustration at work. To assess PE 
teachers’ perceptions of autonomy and competence satisfaction and frustration at work, the 
Spanish version of the Basic Psychological Needs at Work Scale for in-service teachers 
(Abós Catalán et al., 2018) and the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration 
Scale (Chen et al., 2015), will be used, respectively. Four of the six factors of these scales 
will be assessed, except relatedness satisfaction and frustration. Both scales are preceded by 
the stem “In my job as a PE teacher…” assessing autonomy satisfaction (Four items; e.g., 
“My job allows me to make decisions”), autonomy frustration (Four items; e.g., “I feel that 
most of the things I do in my job, I do them because I have to do them”), competence 
satisfaction (Four items; e.g., “I have the ability to do my job well”), and competence 
frustration (Four items; e.g., “I have serious doubts that I can do well in my job”). Teachers’ 
responses will be assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) 
to 5 (“strongly agree”).  

07/06/2024 
 
16 
Job satisfaction at work. Teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction at work will be 
assessed using a Spanish translation (Abós et al., 2019) of the Teacher Job Satisfaction Scale 
(TJSS; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). This four-item scale includes one single factor (e.g. “I 
enjoy working as a teacher”). Teachers’ responses will be registered on a 6-point Likert scale 
from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 6 (“strongly agree”).  
 
Emotional exhaustion at work. Teachers’ emotional exhaustion will be assessed 
using the Spanish version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (Gil-Monte, 
2002). In line with other studies on PE teachers (Richards et al., 2019), only the five items 
assessing the exhaustion factor will be used in the present study (e.g., “I feel burned out from 
my work”). Teachers’ responses will be reported on a 7-point Likert scale from 0 (“never”) to 
6 (“every day”).   
Job performance. Teachers’ perceptions of their professional performance will be 
assessed using the following sentence: “Rate your satisfaction with your professional 
performance this academic year”, which has been previously used in other studies (Barrick et 
al., 2002). Teachers’ responses will be provided on a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 
("non-existent") to 9 ("excellent").  
Quality of the training program. Consistent with previous studies (Aelterman et al., 
2013; Cheon & Reeve, 2015; Slingerland et al., 2017), a short paper-and-pencil questionnaire 
will also be measured immediately after each session of the training program carried out to 
gain insight into their content. Questions will be related to: (1) Interaction, (2) innovation, (3) 
interest, (4) intelligibility, (5) essentiality, (6) practical usefulness, (7) feasibility of the 
motivating strategies, (8) intention to implement the motivating strategies, (9) the extent to 
which one would recommend the training to others, (10) perceived changes in their 
(de)motivating styles, and (11) overall satisfaction. This questionnaire will be rated on a 5-
point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree), except for the last question, in 

07/06/2024 
 
17 
which teachers will rate the overall satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 10. Lastly, in an open-
ended question, teachers will be able to detail the strengths and areas for improvement in 
each of the sessions to make slight adjustments to the training program in their future 
implementation. 
Like their teachers, students will fill out the following questionnaires before the training 
program (T1), as well as during (T2) and at the end of the implementation of the intervention 
by the PE teachers (T3) (See Figure 1). Depending on the protocol of each school, these 
questionnaires will be completed in paper-and-pencil format or using Google Forms in a 
quiet classroom environment. The PE teacher will not be present when their students 
complete the questionnaires to avoid bias in the responses. In this sense, a member of the 
research will help the students with any doubts that may exist.  
Socio-demographic variables. Age, gender, and school grade level will be self-
reported by students. 
(De)motivating teaching styles and approaches. To assess students’ perceptions of 
(de)motivating teaching approaches of their PE teachers, the Spanish version of students of 
the Situations-in-School Questionnaire in Physical Education (SIS-PE; (Burgueño, Abós, et 
al., 2024) will be used. The only change in the instrument compared to the teachers’ 
instrument is the structure of the sentences, as they are written from the students’ perspective 
(e.g., "Your teacher invites you to suggest a set of norms or rules"). 
Autonomy and competence satisfaction and frustration in PE. To assess students’ 
perceptions of autonomy and competence satisfaction in PE, the Spanish version (Zamarripa 
et al., 2020) of the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Chen et al., 
2015) will be used. Four of the six factors of these scales will be assessed, except relatedness 
satisfaction and frustration in PE. Preceded by the stem “In mi PE lessons…”, the 16 items 
(four items per factor) assessing autonomy satisfaction (e.g., “I feel I have been doing what 

07/06/2024 
 
18 
interests me”), autonomy frustration (e.g., “I feel pressured to do too many tasks”), 
competence satisfaction (e.g., “I feel I can complete difficult tasks”), and competence 
frustration (e.g., “I feel like a failure because of the mistakes I make”). Items will be assessed 
using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).  
PE experiences. In line with previous research (Diloy-Peña et al., 2024), students’ 
perceived experiences in PE classes will be assessed using the question: “What are your 
experiences in PE lessons like?” The response possibilities were: (1) “very bad”, (2) “bad”, 
(3) “neutral”, (4) “good”, and (5) “very good”.  
Perceived learning in PE. In line with previous research (Diloy-Peña et al., 2024), 
students’ perceptions of learning in PE will be assessed using the question: “How much do 
you learn in PE?” The response possibilities will be on a scale from 1 (“nothing”) to 5 (“a 
lot”). 
Intention to be physically active. Students’ perceptions of intention to participate in 
PA will be assessed using three items (e.g. “I intend to do active sports and/or physical 
activities during my leisure time in the next 5 weeks…”) of the Spanish version of the Theory 
of Planned Behaviour Questionnaire (Tirado-González et al., 2012). This is a 5-point Likert 
scale from 1 (“strongly agree”) to 7 (“strongly disagree”).  
Observation 
Observed (de)motivating teaching styles and approaches. Before the study, two 
raters with expertise in PE teaching instruction and the circumplex model will be trained in 
how to code (de)motivating teaching styles and approaches during PE using a Spanish 
translation of the SIS-PE-Coder, a new observation instrument that showed good reliability 
and internal validity (Van Doren et al., 2023). Following Van Doren et al. (2023) procedure, 
two randomly selected five-minute videos will be coded, trying to represent the beginning, 
middle or end of the lesson during six meetings. Before the final meeting, each expert 

07/06/2024 
 
19 
independently will code an entire lesson. Interobserver reliability was determined through 
Cohen’s Kappa, using the following formula: agreements / (agreements + disagreements) × 
100. 
Consistent with the teachers’ version of the SIS-PE, the SIS-PE-Coder consists of 41 
items of which four items represent the participative approach, five items the attuning 
approach, six items the guiding approach, five items the clarifying approach, five items the 
demanding approach, seven items the domineering approach, five items the abandoning 
approach, and five items the awaiting approach. The coder will be prompted to assess each 
teaching behaviour from students’ perspective, as specified by the statement: "If you were a 
student in this PE class, you would believe that the PE teacher...". Each item will be coded on 
a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (does not display this behaviour) to 6 (perfectly 
displays this behaviour). Two classes per experimental group teacher will be recorded by 
these two raters at two different moments of the implementation phase (before the second and 
third quantitative measures; See Figure 1). Items will be coded at 5-minute intervals 
(Aelterman et al., 2013). For every lesson, interval scores will be added together to create a 
sum score for each teaching behaviour throughout the entire duration of the lesson. This sum 
will be divided by the number of coded 5-minute intervals. Subsequently, scores for 
(de)motivating teaching styles, as well as the eight approaches, will be generated by 
averaging the scores of the individual items corresponding to each of the four styles and eight 
teaching approaches. The aim of the recordings will be not only to assess the fidelity of the 
intervention but also to provide opportunities for teachers to self-assessment, as well as co-
assessment by a member of the study. 
For the observational analysis recordings, various professional video cameras will be 
used, as well as microphones connected to both the camera and the PE teacher who will be 

07/06/2024 
 
20 
conducting the lessons. For digitizing the video from the start to the end of the PE class, the 
iMovie (IOS) program will be used.  
Focus groups 
Two discussion groups with all PE teachers will be held throughout the study (See 
Figure 1). Firstly, one focus group will be done immediately after the end of the fourth 
session of the training program. The main themes covered in the focus groups will be (1) the 
content of each session of the program (i.e., theoretical background, design of motivational 
strategies in different teaching units, and implementation of different PE lessons), (2) the 
didactical approach (e.g., images, videos, practical examples, formative assessment, and 
interactive exercises) and their perception of (de)motivating teaching style from de trainers 
(i.e., congruent teaching), (3) perceived changes in beliefs about (de)motivating teachers 
styles, the satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, and (de)motivating teaching styles 
towards students, and (4) overall assessment of the training (e.g., innovation, practical 
usefulness, feasibility of the motivating strategies, intention to implement the motivating 
strategies, satisfaction, etc.). This last question will complement the short questionnaire 
completed by the PE teachers at the end of each training program session (see above). 
The second focus group will take place at the end of the intervention, coinciding with 
the completion of the teachers’ and students’ questionnaires in the post-test (T3). This will 
make it possible to find out the teachers’ perception of the implementation phase, as well as 
of the different study variables. The main themes covered in the focus groups will be (1) the 
follow-up of the training program (e.g., individual and group sessions), (2) perceived changes 
in beliefs about (de)motivating teachers’ styles, satisfaction of their basic psychological 
needs, (de)motivating teaching styles towards students, and job satisfaction, emotional 
exhaustion, and job performance.  

07/06/2024 
 
21 
Both focus group will be facilitated by a female with expertise in PE teaching 
instruction, the SDT framework, and qualitative methodology. To encourage open 
communication among PE teachers, the trainers will not be present during the group 
discussions. Focus group sessions will be started with an overview of both the aim and the 
procedure. The moderator will be supported by a co-moderator, tasked with managing 
logistics, recording notes, and overseeing the recording equipment. Furthermore, to conclude 
the focus group, the co-moderator will provide a summary of the primary viewpoints and will 
ask PE teachers whether these perceptions accurately reflect their views or if they wish to 
contribute additional insights. 
Focus groups will take place in an empty, comfortable, and neutral room, lasting 
approximately 50 minutes. All sessions will be videotaped and transcribed to draw 
conclusions from the discussions. 
Teachers’ Training Program and Intervention Implementation Towards Students 
The intervention will comprise two phases in the experimental group: 1) a teacher-
training phase (four face-to-face sessions and two follow-up sessions) and 2) an 
implementation phase where teachers will implement the strategies to the students (see 
Figure 1). 
Teachers’ Training Program in the Experimental Group 
The first part of the training program will last four weeks and eight hours in total. All 
PE teachers will participate in four weekly face-to-face group sessions, each two hours long, 
scheduled from 17:00 to 19:00. Grounded in the circumplex model, the sessions will aim to 
increase autonomy support and structure, while reducing controlling and chaotic approaches 
towards students. The training will be delivered by two members of the research team 
experienced in SDT-training programs for PE teachers.  

07/06/2024 
 
22 
The program incorporates strategies from established SDT-based teacher training 
programs (Aelterman et al., 2013; Cheon et al., 2020; Reeve et al., 2022; Reeve & Cheon, 
2021). For example, to lead by example (i.e., congruent teaching), trainers provided 
autonomy support and structure and avoided control and chaos during all sessions of the 
training program. It is worth noting that the pre-test values on teachers’ and students’ 
perceptions of teaching approaches will allow the design of the training program to be 
individualized to the needs of the participants, particularly in the individual follow-up 
session. 
The first two-hour face-to-face training session will unfold in a hybrid theoretical-
practical workshop format. It will commence with an introductory presentation by the 
trainers, followed by a brief review of the objectives and contents of the training program. 
The session will then transition into an autonomy-supportive exercise, where PE teachers 
will select a “getting-to-know-you” activity (15 min). Teachers should individually identify 
on a green sticky note some teaching behaviours of a good PE teacher they have had (e.g., 
“he/she allowed us to choose some tasks”) and on a red sheet those of a bad PE teacher (e.g., 
“he/she constantly punished us”). Afterwards, once these sticky notes have been stuck on the 
board, teachers will have the opportunity to read and explain their experiences to the rest of 
the group (15 min). This activity will be linked to the theoretical background (i.e., SDT and 
circumplex model) that will be used throughout this training program. Thus, through ongoing 
collaboration and involvement of PE teachers (e.g., “What do you think the need for 
competence refers to?”), a concise overview of the SDT framework and circumplex model 
will be provided. This will be done using real-life examples and personal anecdotes shared 
by both the trainers and the teachers themselves (30 min). Finally, teachers will be 
encouraged to individually design a series of generic strategies to support autonomy and 

07/06/2024 
 
23 
provide structure, as well as to be less controlling and chaotic towards students in PE lessons 
(15 min). They will share these strategies with another teacher (15 min) and, finally, in pairs,  
with the entire group and trainers. This will lead to a collective reflection on the strategies 
themselves (e.g., “Why do you think this strategy might satisfy the need for autonomy?”, 
“Could it satisfy or frustrate some other basic psychological need?”) (25 min). At the end of 
the session, a brief explanation of the next steps and the objectives for upcoming sessions will 
be given to foster a positive disposition among the teachers. They will also be asked about the 
teaching units in their annual teaching plans that they still have to teach in each of the 
classroom groups involved in the study (5 min). 
 
The second two-hour face-to-face training session will involve the design of 
motivational strategies in a practical workshop. In the first part of this session, a brief review 
of the previous session will be made, recalling theoretical background, identifying 
(de)motivating teaching behaviours, and reviewing the implementation in their PE lessons of 
the strategies proposed by PE teachers in the last session. For this, teachers will actively 
engage in the explanation process to assess the acquired learning (15 min). Afterwards, some 
videos of (de)motivating teaching strategies implemented by other secondary PE teachers 
will be shown. The videos will be selected based on teaching behaviours that have not been 
detailed by PE teachers in the previous training session (e.g., autonomy support; “provide an 
explanatory rationale”). Teachers will need to identify (de)motivating teaching behaviours 
depicted in the videos and consider their potential consequences on students’ basic 
psychological needs satisfaction or frustration (25 min). Subsequently, the teaching units 
mentioned by the PE teachers in the previous training session will be listed. At least two of 
these teaching units will be chosen among all of them to design motivational strategies for 
small working groups (30 min). A coordinator of each group will present the different 
(de)motivating teaching strategies of the teaching unit and trainers and the rest of the teachers 

07/06/2024 
 
24 
will conduct a formative assessment of the co-created strategies (30 min). Finally, one teacher 
from each group will be offered the opportunity to teach one of the lessons of these teaching 
units to his/her colleagues, integrating at least two strategies from each (de)motivating 
teaching behaviour. The other teachers in the group will undertake to assist the volunteer 
teacher in designing the class. 
The third two-hour face-to-face training session will involve applying and receiving 
the strategies learned throughout the training program in a simulated real-life situation (i.e., 
PE lesson) with the other participating teachers and other volunteers. One teacher from each 
group will teach one of the lessons of these teaching units using (de)motivating teaching 
behaviours (45 min per teacher). Afterwards, the trainers and the other PE teachers provided a 
formative assessment of positive strengths and areas for improvement (15 min after each 
class). Finally, another teacher will be encouraged to implement a lesson from the teaching 
unit of his or her annual teaching plan, with the help of the research team via Google Meet, in 
the last session of the training program. 
The fourth face-to-face training session will focus on continuing the practical 
application of (de)motivating teaching strategies in a simulated real-life situation. This last 
session will be intended to be an example for the rest of the teachers in which a wide variety 
of (de)motivating teaching strategies appeared frequently. This last session will follow the 
same procedure as the previous class (45 min of class and 15 min of reflection). In the second 
part of the class, a final in-depth reflection on the first part of the training program will take 
place, focusing on synthesizing all the key concepts covered in the initial phase of the 
training program across the four sessions. Finally, teachers will receive a dossier of 
(de)motivating teaching behaviours organized in styles and approaches in line with the 
motivational behaviour change techniques (MBCTs) identified by themselves and the trainers 
in the training (see in the section on intervention implementation). Finally, the possibility of 

07/06/2024 
 
25 
creating a WhatsApp group will be offered to facilitate the follow-up of the training program. 
Teachers will be able to share their progress, ask questions about the implementation of 
strategies, etc. 
During the implementation phase, there will be one individual and one group follow-
up sessions of the training program (see Figure 1) to monitor the implementation of 
strategies, give feedback on positive aspects and areas for improvement, and identify 
potential barriers or challenges encountered in the implementation of motivational strategies 
during this period. For the first follow-up session, the individual one, the trainers will visit 
each school to observe one PE class by each teacher. Subsequently, a detailed report of their 
teaching performance will be provided. The report will include: 1) a series of motivational 
strategies that the teacher used in their class, 2) a proposal of motivational strategies that the 
teacher could have used in their class, 3) a report of their teaching profile based on the pre-
test questionnaire values, including both the teachers’ self-perception and the students’ 
perceptions, and 4) advice and motivational strategies to improve their teaching profile in that 
specific class. For the second follow-up session, the group session, the objective will be to 
analyze the videos (taken from the first observational measure) of each teacher. The trainers 
will thoroughly review each video to extract clips showing each teacher using motivating 
and/or demotivating strategies. After each strategy is presented, a brief discussion will be 
held with the other teachers to identify strengths and possible improvement suggestions for 
these strategies. These follow-up sessions will be individualized and adapted to the needs of 
each teacher.  
Table 1. Summary of the program training sessions.  
Face-to-face 
session 1 
Face-to-face 
session 2 
Face-to-face 
session 3 
Face-to-face 
session 4 
Follow-up 
session 1 
Follow-up 
session 2 
The entire 
group of PE 
teachers 
The entire 
group of PE 
teachers 
The entire 
group of PE 
teachers 
The entire 
group of PE 
teachers 
Individual 
The entire 
group of PE 
teachers 

07/06/2024 
 
26 
1. Presentation 
and getting-to-
know-you 
activity 
2. Teaching 
behaviours of 
good/bad 
teachers. 
3. Explanation 
of the 
theoretical 
backgrounds. 
4. Design of 
motivational 
strategies in PE 
lessons. 
1. Summary of 
the previous 
lesson 
2. Identifying 
(de)motivating 
teaching 
behaviours with 
real videos. 
3. Design of 
specific 
motivational 
strategies in 
different 
teaching units 
1. Application 
of the 
motivational 
strategies in 
two PE lessons 
of a simulated 
real-life 
situation and 
subsequent 
reflection. 
 
1. Application 
of the 
motivational 
strategies in 
one PE lesson 
of a simulated 
real-life 
situation and 
subsequent 
reflection. 
2. Summary of 
the key points 
of the four 
previous 
sessions 
1. Observation 
of the PE 
teachers’ real 
classes and 
subsequent 
constructive 
feedback. 
 
1. Observation 
of the PE 
teachers’ real 
classes and 
subsequent 
constructive 
feedback. 
 
 
Intervention Implementation Towards Students in the Experimental Group 
It should be noted that, although teachers will begin to apply some of the 
(de)motivating teaching styles and approaches from the first day they attend the training 
program, they will be implemented with greater variety, frequency, and intensity after the first 
part of the training (first four face-to-face sessions). The implementation phase will therefore 
last approximately five months, from January to the end of May. The training program that 
will be received by PE teachers will be focused on the motivational strategies proposed by 
Ahmadi et al. (2023). Teachers will be encouraged to implement as many MBCTs as possible 
in variety, frequency, and intensity in each of their PE classes.  
Control group 
Control group teachers will not initially receive the training program and, as a result, 
will not intentionally implement any motivational strategy. They will only complete the 
questionnaires at the same times as experimental group teachers (See Figure 1). Control 
group teachers will receive the training program after the last study measurement, as well as 
an extensive final report on their teaching profile, and a series of motivational strategies 
aimed at enhancing their (de)motivating teaching style.  
Analysis plan 
Quantitative analyses 

07/06/2024 
 
27 
 
Firstly, the effects of the four sessions of the training program on the study variables 
assessed in teachers will be examined. The overall mean for each of the 11 variables 
perceived by PE teachers about the quality of the training program (e.g., interaction, 
innovation, interest, intelligibility, etc.) will also be calculated, representing the mean across 
the different sessions. A repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVA) will be used to 
assess PE teachers’ global appreciation of 11 variables related to the quality of the training 
program (e.g., interaction, innovation, interest, intelligibility, etc.) across the sessions of the 
training (i.e. within-subject analyses). Accordingly, each of the training sessions will be 
introduced as an independent variable (i.e. within-subject factor) and repeated measures of 
the PE teachers-related variables will be entered sequentially as dependent variables.  
Secondly, the effects of the intervention implementation in PE lessons on study 
variables for both teachers and students will also be examined. Levene and Kolmogorov–
Smirnov tests will be used to ensure the equality of variances and normal data distribution, 
respectively (p > .05). Cronbach’s coefficient will be calculated for each study variable across 
the three measurements. To examine the effects of the intervention on study variables, a 3 x 2 
(time x condition) repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) will 
be performed for both teachers and students. Age, gender, teaching experience, type of school 
(public or private), and school location (rural or urban) will be introduced as covariates 
among teachers, while age, gender, and school grade level will be introduced as covariates 
among students. Subsequently, to examine intragender differences of the intervention on 
study variables, a 3 x 2 x 2 (time x condition x gender) repeated measures MANCOVA will 
be performed for both teachers and students. The same covariates will be entered as 
previously analysis, excluding gender. Multiple paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction will 
be calculated to determine between-group (i.e., experimental-control group) and within-group 
(i.e., pre-post) differences. Cohen’s criteria will be used as indicators of small (.01), moderate 

07/06/2024 
 
28 
(.06), and large (.14) effect sizes (Field, 2017). All statistical analyses will be conducted using 
IBM SPSS Statistics v.25.0. Finally, a longitudinal structural equation model will be used to 
analyze the predictive relationships between the study variables, allowing for observation of 
potential differences at the three specific times (i.e., pre-test, middle, and post-test) when data 
are collected. 
Qualitative analyses 
With respect to the qualitative data, both focus groups will be transcribed and 
analysed using NVivo Version 11.0 software to organize and classify data efficiently. The 
data will be analysed following a thematic analysis following the Braun & Clarke (2019) 
phases. First, three researchers independently will review all the transcriptions to gain 
familiarity with the data. Second, these researchers will select text fragments related to 
teachers’ perceptions of the effects of the training program and subsequent implementation 
toward students. Finally, after the code review, the final themes and subthemes, containing 
the relevant meanings extracted from the dataset, will be further refined. It is expected that a 
deductive thematic analysis underpinned by the circumplex approach and SDT will be 
conducted because most of the questions are related to these frameworks. The other two 
researchers will supervise and share their viewpoints and interpretations to facilitate 
agreement during the data analysis process. 
Discussion  
 
One of the challenges faced by teachers and researchers is the difficulty of replicating 
interventions that have shown promising results. This endeavor is often hampered by 
inadequate reporting of intervention protocols and content. Providing a detailed description of 
the training program and the subsequent intervention may facilitate scalability to other areas, 
countries, and contexts. To fill this gap, the present study aims to comprehensively describe 
the protocol of a motivational training program, based on the circumplex model, aimed at 

07/06/2024 
 
29 
improving the autonomy-supportive and structuring teaching approaches and minimizing 
controlling and chaotic styles among PE teachers.  
This study will provide a unique contribution to knowledge in ten key areas: (1) it will 
be the first motivational training program based on the recent circumplex model, due to the 
recent and innovative nature of this approach, and the eigth teaching approaches proposed by 
the circumplex model will be assessed using real-life educational situations thought the SIS-
PE instrument; (2) the quality of each face-to-face training session and follow-up sessions of 
the training program will be examined through short questionnaires at the end of each class, 
as well as a focus group with the entire PE teachers; (3) the effects of the intervention on a 
wide range of study variables will be evaluated using a mixed-method approach (i.e., 
questionnaires and focus groups) in both teachers and students; (4) the effects of the 
intervention on boys and girls students and male and female teachers will be examined; (5) 
not only a post-test, but also an intermediate measure will be used to examine how the study 
variables vary throughout the program; (6) the training program will not only take place 
before the implementation of the intervention, but also during the intervention; (7) the 
training program will include two individual and group follow-up sessions in which 
constructive feedback will be provided, as well as an individualized report; (8) promising 
strategies that have been shown to be effective in previous SDT-training programs (e.g., 
congruent style, brief theoretical part, real videos of PE teachers, microteaching, co-creation 
of teaching strategies, etc.) will be used; (9) the assessment of intervention fidelity through a 
new validated observational instrument in line with the circumplex model (i.e., SIS-PE-
Coder) will be used; (10) MBCTs provided by Ahmadi et al. (2023) will be used in the 
development of the intervention implementation to find out to which behaviour change 
techniques are attributed to the intervention effects. 

07/06/2024 
 
30 
Likewise, some of the expected results for both teachers and students about the 
development of this training program will be presented according to the three hypotheses. 
Regarding the first hypothesis, as promising strategies used in previous SDT-training 
programs will be used (e.g., Aelterman et al., 2013), experimental group teachers will 
positively perceive the training program (e.g., innovation, practical usefulness, feasibility of 
the motivating strategies, intention to implement the motivating strategies, satisfaction, etc.). 
Teachers’ feedback will help to make changes to the training program before it is 
disseminated to other areas, countries or contexts. This could enhance the acceptability, 
sustainability, and scalability of the training program. 
Concerning the second hypothesis, experimental school female and male teachers are 
expected to perceive improvements in several antecedents, autonomy and competence 
satisfaction/frustration at work, (de)motivating teaching styles/approaches, and (mal)adaptive 
outcomes at least at the end of the intervention implementation toward students. According to 
SDT, teachers are expected to improve malleable antecedents such as (de)motivating teaching 
style beliefs due to scientific evidence or viewing videos of real classrooms of PE teachers. 
According to SDT, the improvement of the different antecedents could, in turn, improve 
autonomy and competence satisfaction/frustration at work (Aelterman et al., 2016; Matosic et 
al., 2016). The larger repertoire of teaching strategies learned during the training program 
may also enhance teachers’ autonomy and competence satisfaction at work, as well as reduce 
teachers’ autonomy and competence frustration at work, as they feel they have more 
resources to cope with their teaching. Finally, according to previous studies in PE teachers, 
autonomy and competence satisfaction at work could favour greater job satisfaction and job 
performance (Abós et al., 2018), as well as greater use of autonomy-supportive (i.e., 
participative and attuning) and structuring styles (i.e., guiding and clarifying) (Burgueño, 
Abós, et al., 2024; García-Cazorla et al., 2024). Conversely, reduction of autonomy and 

07/06/2024 
 
31 
competence frustration at work could favour lower emotional exhaustion (Abós et al., 2018), 
as well as a lower use of controlling (i.e., demanding and domineering approaches) and 
chaotic styles (i.e., abandoning and awaiting approaches) toward students (Burgueño, Abós, 
et al., 2024; García-Cazorla et al., 2024). 
Finally, regarding the third hypothesis, it is expected that both boys and girls from the 
experimental groups will perceive improvements in (de)motivating teaching 
styles/approaches because of the implementation of strategies by their PE teachers over 
approximately five months (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). According to SDT, when students 
perceive that their PE teachers use autonomy support and structure, they are likely to feel 
autonomy and competence satisfied. Conversely, if they perceive controlling and chaotic 
teaching styles, they are likely to feel autonomy and competence frustrated (Vasconcellos et 
al., 2020). Finally, it is expected that through the improvement of need-based experiences, 
students will achieve improvements in affective (i.e., PE experiences), cognitive (i.e., 
learning in PE), and behavioural (i.e., intention to be physically active) outcomes 
(Vasconcellos et al., 2020). 
Limitations  
 
Some of the limitations in the development of the teacher training program are as 
follows. Firstly, the training duration could be kept brief to ensure that PE teachers grasp and 
internalize the motivational strategies, enabling them to effectively integrate these techniques 
into their PE classes. Acquiring new knowledge necessitates dedicated time for learning and 
assimilation, as well as opportunities for practice and self-and co-assessment. Nevertheless, 
an excessively lengthy training program might risk discouraging participation from PE 
teachers. In the scientific literature, these programs typically range from three to 12 hours, 
but there is no consensus regarding the ideal duration. If all teachers express a willingness to 
continue the training program, the possibility of slightly increasing the number of hours can 

07/06/2024 
 
32 
be considered. Secondly, observation will be used twice to ensure intervention fidelity and 
provide constructive feedback to teachers during the intervention but will not be used as a 
complementary measure of students’ and teachers’ perception of (de)motivating teaching 
styles in the three measures of the study due to lack of human resources. Thirdly, teachers’ 
perceptions of their beliefs regarding (de)motivating teaching styles will not be assessed by 
means of questionnaires due to their length, as well as the absence of validated instruments of 
control and chaos styles. Additionally, relatedness satisfaction and frustration at work will not 
be assessed because the training program will not target teachers within the same school. 
Additionally, teachers’ perceptions of depersonalization and reduced personal 
accomplishment (i.e., burnout factors) will not be assessed using questionnaires due to their 
length. However, all these variables will be assessed through the focus groups to obtain more 
information on the effects of the training program and the subsequent intervention carried 
out. Finally, students’ perceptions of relatedness satisfaction and frustration in PE will not be 
assessed employing questionnaires due to their length and because the teacher training 
program was based on the circumplex model, which does not address the need for 
relatedness. As a final limitation, it is very likely that a post-intervention follow-up measure 
cannot be carried out the following academic year because in Spain it is very common for 
teachers to change schools every year. Therefore, it will only be possible to assess students’ 
perception of the study variables if the teacher is the same. Similarly, the perception of 
(de)motivating teaching style might change with different classroom groups. 
Conclusions  
 
The present study presents a comprehensive overview of the protocol for a training 
program designed for in-service PE teachers, based on the circumplex model, to maximize 
transparency and replicability. It is hoped that the motivational training program will help PE 
teachers in supporting autonomy and structure while minimizing the use of controlling and 

07/06/2024 
 
33 
chaotic teaching styles. This in turn may lead to an improvement in motivational-related 
variables and adaptive outcomes not only in students, but also in teachers. If the results are 
promising, this study can drive the professional development of motivational training 
programs for in-service PE teachers. 
 
Funding statement 
This manuscript is part of the project "Assessing and improving teaching behaviors in 
Physical Education to improve students' motivational processes and Physical Activity levels 
(PE&PA project)" (PID2021-127897NA-I00) founded by MCIN /AEI 
/10.13039/501100011033 / FEDER, UE) and by “ERDF A way of making Europe”. Javier 
García-Cazorla was specifically supported by a grant from the Government of Aragon. 
Authors’ contributions: 
Javier García-Cazorla1*, Javier Sevil-Serrano2, Luis García González1 and Ángel Abós1 
1 Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences. EFYPAF “Physical Education and Physical Activity Promotion” 
Research Group, University of Zaragoza, Huesca, Spain.  
2 Faculty of Educational Science. Department of Education. University of Almeria, Andalucía, Spain. 
 
*Corresponding author: j.garcia@unizar.es 
Javier García-Cazorla https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8245-349X       j.garcia@unizar.es  
Luis García-González https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-0649       lgarciag@unizar.es  
Sergio Diloy-Peña https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1357-9771             sdiloy@unizar.es 
Rafael Burgueño https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2354-0037               rburgueno@uma.es 
Ángel Abós https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1543-5109                       aabosc@unizar.es  
 
 
 
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare. 
 
 

07/06/2024 
 
34 
References 
Abós, Á., Haerens, L., Sevil, J., Aelterman, N., & García-González, L. (2018). Teachers’ 
motivation in relation to their psychological functioning and interpersonal style: A 
variable- and person-centered approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 21–34. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.010 
Abós, Á., Haerens, L., Sevil-Serrano, J., Morbée, S., Julián, J. A., & García-González, L. 
(2019). Does the level of motivation of physical education teachers matter in terms of 
job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion? A person-centered examination based on self-
determination theory. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 
Health, 16(16), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16162839 
Abós Catalán, Á., Sevil Serrano, J., Julián Clemente, J. A., Martín-Albo Lucas, J., & García-
González, L. (2018). Spanish validation of the Basic Psychological Needs at Work 
Scale: A measure to predict teachers’ well-being in the workplace. International Journal 
for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 18(2), 127–148. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-017-9351-4 
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Reeve, J. 
(2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating 
teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 111(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293 
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., De Meyer, J., Van den Berghe, L., & 
Haerens, L. (2013). Development and evaluation of a training on need-supportive 
teaching in physical education: Qualitative and quantitative findings. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 29, 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.09.001 
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., & Haerens, L. (2016). Changing teachers’ 
beliefs regarding autonomy support and structure: The role of experienced psychological 

07/06/2024 
 
35 
need satisfaction in teacher training. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 64–72. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.10.007 
Ahmadi, A., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Ryan, R. M., Ntoumanis, N., Reeve, J., Beauchamp, M., 
Dicke, T., Yeung, A., Ahmadi, M., Bartholomew, K., Chiu, T. K. F., Curran, T., Erturan, 
G., Flunger, B., Frederick, C., Froiland, J. M., González-Cutre, D., Haerens, L., … 
Lonsdale, C. (2023). A classification system for teachers’ motivational behaviors 
recommended in self-determination theory interventions. Journal of Educational 
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000783 
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: 
Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of 
Applied Psychology, 87(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.43 
Bouten, A., Haerens, L., Van Doren, N., Compernolle, S., & De Cocker, K. (2023). An online 
video annotation tool for optimizing secondary teachers’ motivating style: Acceptability, 
usability, and feasibility. Teaching and Teacher Education, 134, 104307. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104307 
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative 
Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 
Burgueño, R., Abós, Á., Sevil-Serrano, J., Haerens, L., De Cocker, K., & García-González, L. 
(2024). A Circumplex Approach to (de)motivating Styles in Physical Education: 
Situations-In-School–Physical Education Questionnaire in Spanish Students, Pre-
Service, and In-Service Teachers. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise 
Science. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2023.2248098 
Burgueño, R., García-González, L., Abós, Á., & Sevil-Serrano, J. (2024). Students’ 
motivational experiences across profiles of perceived need-supportive and need-

07/06/2024 
 
36 
thwarting teaching behaviors in physical education. Physical Education and Sport 
Pedagogy, 29(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2022.2028757 
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., 
Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, 
B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need 
frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–
236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1 
Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers decrease 
students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004 
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2020). When teachers learn how to provide 
classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their 
students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90, 103004. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004 
Conesa, P. J., Duñabeitia, J. A., Onandia-Hinchado, I., & González-Cutre, D. (2023). 
Satisfying students’ psychological needs in the classroom: Benefits of an online 
intervention to help primary school teachers during a pandemic academic year. Teaching 
and Teacher Education, 133, 104281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104281 
Diloy-Peña, S., Abós, Á., Sevil-Serrano, J., García-Cazorla, J., & García-González, L. (2024). 
Students’ perceptions of physical education teachers’ (de)motivating styles via the 
circumplex approach: Differences by gender, grade level, experiences, intention to be 
active, and learning. European Physical Education Review. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X241229353 
Escriva-Boulley, G., Guillet-Descas, E., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Doren, N., 
Lentillon-Kaestner, V., & Haerens, L. (2021). Adopting the situation in school 

07/06/2024 
 
37 
questionnaire to examine Physical Education teachers’ motivating and demotivating 
styles using a circumplex approach. International Journal of Environmental Research 
and Public Health, 18(14), 7342. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147342 
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE 
Publications. 
García-Cazorla, J., García-González, L., Burgueño, R., Diloy-Peña, S., & Abós, Á. (2024). 
What factors are associated with physical education teachers’ (de)motivating teaching 
style? A circumplex approach. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X241248262 
Gil-Monte, P. R. (2002). Validez factorial de la adaptación al español del Maslach Burnout 
Inventory-General Survey. http://www.insp.mx/salud/index.html 
González, S. T., López, M. C. N., Marcos, Y. Q., & Rodríguez-Marín, J. (2012). Development 
and Validation of the Theory of Planned Behavior Questionnaire in Physical Activity. 
The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 801–816. 
https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38892 
Haerens, L., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., & Van den Berghe, L. (2016). Toward a 
Systematic Study of the Dark Side of Student Motivation: Antecedents and 
Consequences of Teachers’ Controlling Behaviors. In Building Autonomous Learners 
(pp. 59–81). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-630-0_4 
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass Correlation Values for Planning Group-
Randomized Trials in Education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 
60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706 
Jang, H.-R., Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Song, Y.-G., & Lee, Y. (2023). Two ways teachers can 
develop greater harmonious passion. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–16. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2023.2206832 

07/06/2024 
 
38 
Matosic, D., Ntoumanis, N., & Quested, E. (2016). Antecedents of Need Supportive and 
Controlling Interpersonal Styles From a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: A 
Review and Implications for Sport Psychology Research. In Sport and Exercise 
Psychology Research (pp. 145–180). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
803634-1.00007-8 
McConnell, M. M., Monteiro, S., & Bryson, G. L. (2019). Sample size calculations for 
educational interventions: principles and methods. In Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 
(Vol. 66, Issue 8, pp. 864–873). Springer New York LLC. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-019-01405-9 
Meerits, P. R., Tilga, H., & Koka, A. (2022). Fostering Need-Supportive Behaviors in 
Physical Education Teachers and Parents: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial Study 
Protocol of a Web-Based Intervention on Secondary School Students’ Physical Activity. 
Methods and Protocols, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5050083 
Richards, K. A., Washburn, N. S., & Hemphill, M. A. (2019). Exploring the influence of 
perceived mattering, role stress, and emotional exhaustion on physical education 
teacher/coach job satisfaction. European Physical Education Review, 25(2), 389–408. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17741402 
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, 
and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657 
Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., Cheon, S. H., Matos, L., & Kaplan, H. (2022). Supporting Students’ 
Motivation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003091738 
Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A. et al. The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive 
and controlling teaching: A multinational investigation. Motiv Emot 38, 93–110 (2014). 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9367-0  

07/06/2024 
 
39 
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in 
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806 
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the 
teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and emotional 
exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001 
Slemp, G. R., Field, J. G., & Cho, A. S. H. (2020). A meta-analysis of autonomous and 
controlled forms of teacher motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 121, 103459. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103459 
Slingerland, M., Borghouts, L., Jans, L., Weeldenburg, G., van Dokkum, G., Vos, S., & 
Haerens, L. (2017). Development and optimisation of an in-service teacher training 
programme on motivational assessment in physical education. European Physical 
Education Review, 23(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X16639212 
Van Doren, N., De Cocker, K., Flamant, N., Compernolle, S., Vanderlinde, R., & Haerens, L. 
(2023). Observing physical education teachers’ need-supportive and need-thwarting 
styles using a circumplex approach: how does it relate to student outcomes? Physical 
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2023.2230256 
Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Soenens, B. (2019). Seeking Stability in 
Stormy Educational Times: A Need-based Perspective on (De)motivating Teaching 
Grounded in Self-determination Theory. In Advances in Motivation and Achievement 
(Vol. 20, pp. 53–80). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320190000020004 
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: 
Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–
31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1 

07/06/2024 
 
40 
Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., Lee, J., 
Antczak, D., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & Lonsdale, C. (2020). Self-determination 
theory applied to physical education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of 
Educational Psychology, 112(7), 1444–1469. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000420 
White, R. L., Bennie, A., Vasconcellos, D., Cinelli, R., Hilland, T., Owen, K. B., & Lonsdale, 
C. (2021). Self-determination theory in physical education: A systematic review of 
qualitative studies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, 103247. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103247 
Zamarripa, J., Rodríguez-Medellín, R., Pérez-Garcia, J. A., Otero-Saborido, F., & Delgado, 
M. (2020). Mexican Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale in 
Physical Education. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00253