Metodologías de enseñanza-aprendizaje y su relación con la motivación e implicación del alumnado en las clases de Educación Física (Teaching-learning methodologies and its relation with students’ motivation and engagement in Physical Education lessons)


  • Francisco M. Leo
  • Miguel A. López-Gajardo
  • José M. Gómez-Holgado
  • José C. Ponce-Bordón
  • Juan J. Pulido


Palabras clave:

Educación Física, estilos de enseñanza, participación del alumnado, metodologías docentes, procesos motivacionales (Physical Education, teaching styles, student participation, teacher methodologies, motivational processes)


Teniendo en cuenta los bajos índices de motivación y participación del alumnado durante las clases de Educación Física (EF), el objetivo del presente estudio es analizar la relación entre la percepción del alumnado sobre la metodología de enseñanza-aprendizaje empleada por los docentes (constructiva, productiva, reproductiva y de acción libre) y la motivación e implicación mostrada durante las clases de EF. Los participantes fueron 465 estudiantes de sexo masculino (n = 223) y femenino (n = 242), con edades comprendidas entre los 10 y los 14 años (M = 11.36; DT = 0.91) pertenecientes a Educación Primaria (5º y 6º curso, n = 293) y Educación Secundaria (1º y 2º curso, n = 172). A través de un estudio con un diseño correlacional y de corte transversal, el alumnado rellenó cuestionarios que medían las metodologías de enseñanza, la motivación y la implicación en las clases. A través de un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales, los resultados obtenidos mostraron que las metodologías constructiva y reproductiva se asociaron positivamente con la motivación autónoma. Además, las metodologías productiva y reproductiva se relacionaron con la motivación controlada, mientras que la metodología productiva se asoció con la desmotivación. Por último, hay que señalar que únicamente la motivación autónoma se asoció con la implicación del alumnado. Por tanto, el profesorado de EF debería apostar por metodologías más centradas en el alumnado en lugar de metodologías centradas en el docente, ya que son las que más se relacionan con una mayor calidad de la motivación e implicación en las clases de los estudiantes.===Given the low motivation and engagements of some students during the Physical Education (PE) lessons, the main aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between the learning methods adopted by teachers (constructive, productive, reproductive, and laissez-faire) from the students’ perspective, and the motivational processes and the engagement of the students during the PE lessons. Participants were 465 male (n = 223) and female students (n = 242) aged between 10 and 14 years-old (M = 11.36; SD = 0.91) belonged to Elementary Education (fifth and sixth grade, n = 293) and Secondary Education (first and second grade, n = 172). Through a study with a correlational and cross-sectional design, students fulfillment self-reported questionnaires about teaching-learning methodologies, motivation and engagement. A structural equation modelling was used. The results showed that the constructive and reproductive methodologies were associated with the autonomous motivation. In addition, the productive and reproductive methodologies were related to the controlled motivation, whereas the productive methodology were associated with the amotivation. Finally, only the autonomous motivation was significant related to the engagement for PE lessons. Therefore, due to these obtained results, PE teachers should select more student-centered methodologies instead of teacher-centered methodologies, with the aim to get a higher quality student-motivation and engagement in the development of PE lessons.


Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students’ objectively measured physical activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34, 457–480. doi:10.1123/jsep.34.4.457

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6ª Ed). Washington, DC: Autor.

Barker, D., Wallhead, T., & Quennerstedt, M. (2014). Student learning through interaction in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 20, 536-537. doi: 10.1177/1356336X14544087

Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Sage Publications.

Carroll, B., & Loumidis, J. (2001). Children’s perceived competence and enjoyment in physical education and physical activity outside school. European Physical Education Review, 7(1), 24–43. doi:10.1177%2F1356336X010071005

Casey, A., & MacPhail, A. (2018). Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23, 294-310. doi:10.1080/17408989.2018.1429588

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, in press.

Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325. doi:10.1177/1094428107300343

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.

Curran, T., & Standage, M. (2017). Psychological needs and the quality of student engagement in physical education: Teachers as key facilitators. Journal of teaching in physical education, 36(3), 262-276. doi:10.1080/17408989.2014.895803

De Meyer, J., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Van Petegem, S., & Haerens, L. (2016). Do students with different motives for physical education respond differently to autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 72–82. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.06.001

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Dyson, B., Griffin, L., & Hastie, P. (2004). Theoretical and pedagogical considerations for implementing sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning instructional models. Quest, 56, 225-239. doi:10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823.

Goodyear, V., & Dudley, D. (2015). “I’ma facilitator of learning!” Understanding what teachers and students do within student-centered physical education models. Quest, 67, 274-289. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1051236

Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, 26–36. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013

Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Relationships between perceived teachers’ controlling behaviour, psychological need thwarting, anger and bullying behaviour in high-school students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 103–114. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.003

Hein, V., Ries, F., Pires, F., Caune, A., Emeljanovas, A., Ekler, J. H., & Valantiniene, I. (2012). The relationship between teaching styles and motivation to teach among physical education teachers. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 11, 123–130.

Hoskins, B., & Crick, R. D. (2010). learning to learn and civic competences: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal of Education, 45(1), 121–137. doi:10.2788/72764

Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376–387. doi:10.1123/jtpe.17.3.376

Leo F. M., Mouratidis, A., Pulido, J. J., López-Gajardo, M. A., & Sánchez-Oliva, D. (2020). Perceived teachers' behavior and students’ engagement in Physical Education: The mediating role of basic psychological needs and self-determined motivation. Manuscrito enviado para revisión.

Leo F. M., López-Gajardo, M. A., Moreno-Domínguez, A., Pulido, J. J., & Martins, J. (2020). Initial validation of the Teaching-Learning Methods Scale in Physical Education (TLMS-PE). Manuscrito enviado para revisión.

Lowenthal, K. M. (2001). An introduction to psychological test and scales (2ª Ed). London: UCLPress.

Lyu, M., & Gill, D. L. (2011). Perceived physical competence, enjoyment and effort in same‐sex and coeducational physical education classes. Educational Psychology, 31, 247–260. doi:10.1080/01443410.2010.545105

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

Morgan, K., Kingston, K., & Sproule, J. (2005). Effects of different teaching styles on the teacher behaviours that influence motivational climate and pupils’ motivation in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 11, 257–285. doi:10.1177/1356336X05056651

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2018). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3ª Ed). Nueva York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Oliver, K. L., & Kirk, D. (2016). Towards an activist approach to research and advocacy for girls and physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21, 313-327. doi:10.1080/17408989.2014.895803

Parsak, B., & Saraç, L. (2019). Turkish physical education teachers’ use of teaching styles: self-reported versus observed. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 1, 1-10.


Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

Sánchez-Oliva, D., Leo, F. M., Amado, D., González-Ponce, I., & García-Calvo, T. (2012). Desarrollo de un cuestionario para valorar la motivación en educación física. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 7, 227–250.

Sicilia-Camacho, A., & Brown, D. (2008). Revisiting the paradigm shift from the versus to the non-versus notion of Mosston’s Spectrum of teaching styles in physical education pedagogy: a critical pedagogical perspective. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 85–108. doi:10.1080/17408980701345626

Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children’s behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493–525. doi:10.1177/0013164408323233

Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers ’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 75–94. doi:10.1123/jsep.30.1.75

Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., … Lonsdale, C. (2019). Self-Determination theory applied to physical education: A Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. doi:10.1037/edu0000420




Cómo citar

Leo, F. M., López-Gajardo, M. A., Gómez-Holgado, J. M., Ponce-Bordón, J. C., & Pulido, J. J. (2020). Metodologías de enseñanza-aprendizaje y su relación con la motivación e implicación del alumnado en las clases de Educación Física (Teaching-learning methodologies and its relation with students’ motivation and engagement in Physical Education lessons). Cultura, Ciencia Y Deporte, 15(46), 495-506.