Impact of a technology-based physical education learning task on ninth grade students' situational interest

Abstract

Background/Purpose: In a recent report on teens, social media and technology, Anderson and Jiang (2018) found that 95% of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 have access to a smartphone and 45% say they are online “almost constantly”. Researchers have start to consider teens’ motivation to interact daily with digi- tal technology as a leverage to promote their engage- ment and learning in physical education (Bodsworth and Goodyear, 2017; Legrain et al., 2015; Palao et al., 2015). For example, Legrain et al. (2015) found that implementing digital technology integration in PE lessons have a impact on students’ motivation and cognitive skills. Because digital technologies represent an affordance for students in classrooms (i.e. an invitation to action; Conole & Dyke, 2004), situational interest may be a relevant theory to study students’ motivation related to technology integration in physical education (PE). Indeed, Chen et al. (2006) has defined situational interest as “the appealing effect of the characteristics of an activity on individuals” (Chen et al., 2006, 237). The goal of this study was to investigate in which extent a technology-based physical education learning task impacts students’ situational interest compare to a traditional learning task. We hypothesized that we may be able to pro- mote students’ situational interest through technology integration in PE. Method: Three classes of nine grade students participated in this study (N=85; 54.11% girls; Mage=15.11; SD=0.4). Two classes (N=55) practiced a learning task during the second lesson of a badminton unit. During this task, students played one against one on a badminton field and were observed by students to determine shuttlecocks spatial dispersion on their opponent field using the digital application “PE Badminton” with a tablet. One class (N=30) practice the same learning task with observers using a traditional paper and pencil sheet. Immediately after practicing the task, students responded to the Situational Interest Scale (including novelty, challenge, attention demand, exploration intention, instant enjoy- ment and total interest). Fidelity of intervention was insured through observations. Analysis/Results: Descriptive, univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted to answer the research question. Results revealed significant differences between the experimental and control group on instant enjoyment (F(1, 83) = 9.65, p < 0.003, η2= 0.104), attention demand (F(1, 83) = 16.076, p < 0.00, η2= 0.162), novelty (F(1, 83) = 95.793, p < 0.00, η2= 0.536) and, no differences on total interest (F(1, 83) = 0.33, p < 0.56, η2= 0.004), challenge (F(1, 83) = 0.456, p < 0.50, η2= 0.005) and, exploration intention (F(1, 83) = 0.08, p < 0.77, η2= 0.001). Conclusions: This study demonstrated that PE teachers can impact students’ situational interest when introducing digital technology. Data were discussed in relation to the impact of technology integration in PE on students’ situational interest, the impact of the structural model of situational interest when designing technology-based learning task in PE and, the development of an individual interest for PE through technology based on the four-phase model of interest development.