Equipment
The equipment used was 5 sets of cones in rows of 5, one tennis ball to each row and 2 sets of questionnaires to both group 1 and 2.
Procedure
Participants was told what the task they will be participating in was and then given the equipment in which to do it, the cones were already set out by the tutors. They was then given a few minutes in which to rehears the task, after the reversal the students were then instructed to do two sets of the dribbling task and then told to record the times in minutes and seconds, which was then followed by a question air consisting of 5 questions on enjoyment. Then two sets of instructions were given out group 1 given task involving instructions (told to do your best in the task) and group 2 given ego involving instruction (told to try and perform better then other students to see which one is the best). The students then had to do another two sets of the dribbling task and record there results on the questionnaire given out, which was the followed by two sets questionnaire, one being of enjoyment and the other being perceived competence. Once all the data was recorded the students were then instructed to enter the data on spss in no specific order.
Experimental task
Dribbling a ball with the use of their feet around five cones set out in a straight line, they had to go around five cones and come back again.
Results
The results of the most interest was the ones that indicate weather or not to reject or accept the hypothesis. The two variables were entered into independent samples T-Test (Table 1), the variables was mean post test performance for group one and two. The leyenes test for equality of variances was significant at the p<.01 which then results in the second assumption being met. This indicates that the correlation coefficient was .005. There was a significant difference between performance with ego and task involving instructions (t (173) = .005, p<0.01)
Table 1.
Task and ego involving groups enjoyment of the task was not significant (t(173)= .16, p<.01), this was found doing a independent samples T-Test with a mean of 3.3 for task involving students and 3.2 for ego involved students. Their overall perceived competence results were (t (173) =. 67, p<0.1) with a mean of for 2.93 task involving students and 2.96 for ego involved students, indicating that the there is no significance.
Graph 1. Baseline performance (mean) trail 1(red bar) and trial 2 (blue bars). Post test performance (Mean) trial 1 (yellow bar) trial 2 (green bar). The results indicate a linearity to the left indicating the sampling time go down.
Graph 2. Baseline performance (mean) trail 1(red bar) and trial 2 (blue bars). Post test performance (Mean) trial 1 (yellow bar) trial 2 (green bar). The results indicate a linearity to the left indicating the sampling time go down.
Table 2. The mean and stranded deviation for both groups and then for group as a whole, the number of the size of the group changes and this is a result in an error when students were instructed to enter the data onto spss.
The relationship between post test performance and post test enjoyment was a weak negative; this was indicated through a scatter graph. It showed the linearity to go down to the right bottom corner, but many of the scatter was all over the lace which lead to the fining that it is a negative but a weak negative. But it does show that as enjoyment goes up the performance goes down
Graph 3. The relationship between post test performance and post test enjoyment (r (173) =.017, p< .05) indicates that there is a significant relationship.
Discussion
Over the years researchers have tried many ways to be able to come to figure out what motivates athletes in physical activity, one way to do this it to find what motivates us subconsciously without over thinking it. If the know how of what motivates us was there then it could be applied and improved on, and help an athlete to get the best from there teachers or coaches or possibly to train. This study focused on students with some take part in sports and some that don’t, where as normally researchers tend to focus on people who just take part in sports. The reason for the study was to set aside what motivates people best, and how this could contribute to further research, to expand the field of applied coaching. The findings of this study showed that the ego involving group had higher sampling times then the task involving group, and that as enjoyment goes up the time in which to perform the task gets quicker. Individuals tend to care more about comparing themselves to other people’s performance rather then their own performance resulting in bad performance, when one should just concentrate the best orientation to adopt and theta task involving. As when an athlete is just thinking about enjoying the physical activity there is little room left to be thinking of other this then results in raised performance. Roberts (1986) argued that individuals who have a high task orientation view achievement as something for them, they tend no to fear social failure, then they can just focus on their performance. Where as individuals that has a high ego orientation and low task orientation will be concerned with their performance and others resulting in not being focused.
There was a significant difference between performance with ego and task involving instructions (t (173) = .005, p<0.01), this then coincide with out hypothesis and there for we will accept the research hypotheses and reject the null hypothesis. Although the finding in this research supports the hypothesis they are still limitations in the study, when collecting the data individuals will put things down on questionnaires that they might not be feeling or thinking, resulting in incorrect data. But with every research there are limitations, and the purpose of this was not to be a 100% correct but to help support past research and help future research. This research could pave the way and also help others to limit error in data and also get a more controlled experiment.
In conclusion it supported that it is better to try and applied task orientation to coaching and teaching in physical activity as it helps a athlete perform better and be able to make room for improvement and to set goals, where as ego orientation athletes will improve on others performance and not reach their full potential.
Reference list
Alistar, W,. Keer,. Howard, K,. Hall,. And Julie, Matthews.1998, Precometition anxiety in sport: The contribution of achievement goals and perfectionism, Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 20, 194-217
Carolyn, M,. Jagacinski,. And John, G,. Nicholas, 1987. Competence and affect in task involvement and ego involvement: The impact of social comparison information, Journal of education psychology, 79(2), 107-114.
Gould, Daniel. And Weinberg,. S, Robert. 2007. Foundations of sport and exercise psychology: Motivation. 4th ed.Leeds
Jack K. Nelson,. Jerry, R., Thomas., and Stephen J. Silverman.2005. Research methods in physical activity. 5th ed.Leeds.
McLellan, Ros,. Remedios, Richard, 2009, Can current theories of motivation inform
Practice in educational contexts? [Online], Cambridge University.avalible at :< . [08.02.2010].
