111111 11 1111111111111 3122093011031014 i 9-H. a 3% C3? aersaverssty 1 mura- 9.." MIW‘ W. -.W. gm ‘.¢ This is to certify that the thesis entitled ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN AND DROPPING OUT OF YOUTH SPORT PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY OF JORDAN presented by Ahmed Hayajneh has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts degree in Physical Education 6.0 \ Major professor Date November 14, 1986 0-7639 MS U is an Adi-motive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution RETURNING MATERIALS: MSU PIace in book drop tof remove this checkout rom w your record. FINES will be charged if 500E is returned after the date stamped below. .' ' "I y, .31. .1- - JUN n , MAY ‘0 82152217999 ez-rstogéifll ,L‘ ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATION IN AND DROPPING OUT OF YOUTH SPORT PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY OF JORDAN BY Ahmed Hayajneh A Thesis Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance 1986 We approve the thesis of Ahmed Hayajneh. Date of Signature: 53/ 7/ 95 817135 5/7/ 55 M rtha E. Ewing Thesis Advisor Assistant Professor School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance Michigan State University Wane Deborah L. Feltz Committee Chair Associate Professor School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance Michigan State University Herbert W. Olson Committee‘Member Professor School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology and Human Performance Michigan State University ABSTRACT ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATING IN AND DROPPING OUT OF YOUTH SPORT PROGRAMS IN THE COUNTRY OF JORDAN BY Ahmed Hayajneh There were two purposes to the present study. The first purpose was tn) examine the reasons children have for participating in and dropping out of sports programs in Jordan. The second purpose was to examine factors in achievement motivation that would discriminate between sport participants and sport dropouts in measures of perceived competence, perceived control, extrinsic/ intrinsic motivational orientation, and achievement goals. Questionnaires were administered to 73 male and 108 female sport participants, and 36 male and 44 female dropouts of sport programs. The subjects were between the age of 11 and 17, and were selected from both rural and urban public schools in Jordan. The most important reasons for participating in sport programs were ”liking the team spirit,” "liking to improve skills,” and “liking the action," while the most Ahmed Hayajneh important reasons for dropping out of sport programs were “didn't learn new skills,“ “didn't like to com- pete,” and “not enough team spirit.“ The only aspect of Harter's perceived control theory confirmed was 'unknown success“ as a source of motivation. Perceived physical competence was the only aspect of Harter's perceived competence theory confirmed, and the study did not support Harter's theory in terms of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. The results did not support Maehr and Nicholls' theory except in ability achievement motiva- tion. It was concluded that Jordanian children have different reasons for participation in and dropping out of sports than American children. Harter's and Maehr and Nicholls' theories were found to be not applicable to the Jordanian culture. DED ICATION To My Mother ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I feel genuinely indebted to a number of people. Without their help and support, this work either would not exist or would not be what it is. First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. M. Ewing, for her support, help, and training, especially the statistical programming and analysis, which would have been very difficult without her. Second, my thanks to my previous advisor, Dr. D. Feltz, for her guidance and advice throughout my program. My thanks also to my initial advisor, Dr. H. Olson, for his support and help, especially when I started the program. I would also like to thank the administrators, principals, teachers, and students in the district of Irbid for their cooperation in this study. I am grateful to my mother for her unending encouragement, prayers, and support, especially through the data collection process. Last, but not least, my special thanks to my best friend Barbara Markell for her continuous help, support, and inspiration throughout my program. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O C O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O 0 Vi LIST OF FIGURES O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O O Viii LIST OF APPENDICES C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 11 Questions which Guide the Study . . . . . 12 Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 12 DeliMitation O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14 Definitions in this Study . . . . . . . . 14 Limitations I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Descriptive Research in Participation Motivation in Youth Sports . . . . . . 18 Why Children Participation in Sport . . 18 Why Children Discontinue Sports Participation . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Theoretical Models for Children's Motivation in Sport . . . . . . . . . . 26 Harter's Model of Perceived Competence . . . . . . . . Maehr and Nicholls' Model of Achievement Orientations . . . . . . 34 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 III 0 METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 40 subjects I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 40 Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Personal Data Questionnaire . . . . . . 41 Reasons for Participation in Sports Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iv Page Reasons for DrOpping Out of Sports Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Cultural Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 42 Overall Ability Questionnaire . . . . . 42 Perceived Control Questionnaire . . . . 42 Perceived Competence Questionnaire . . 43 Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivational Orientation Questionnaire . . . . . . 44 Achievement Orientation Questionnaire . 45 Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . . 46 Iv. RESULTS 0 O O O O O O C C I O O O I O O O O 48 Reasons for Participation Questionnaire . SO Differences Among Participants and Dropouts . . . . . . . . . . . . SO Differences Among Gender . . . . . . . 56 Differences in Age Groups . . . . . . . 60 Differences in Rural and Urban . . . . 60 Reasons for Dropping Out Questionnaire . 62 Cultural Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 66 Differences in Sport Participation Due to Religious Values . . . . . . . . 66 Differences Among Males and Females in Regard to the Effect of Tradition on Sport Participation . . . . . . . . 69 Differences Among Males and Females in Regard to the Effect of Coaches'/ Teachers' Influence on Sport Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Overall Ability Questionnaire . . . . . . 71 Theoretical Models . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Harter's Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Perceived Control Questionnaire . . . 72 Perceived Competence . . . . . . . . 73 Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation . . . 74 Maehr and Nicholls' Model . . . . . . . 75 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 v. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 80 Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Research Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Research Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Research Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 REFERENCES I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 90 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 98 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of Subjects by Status . . . . . 49 2. Distribution of Subjects by Major Game . . . 49 3. Distribution of Subjects by Duration of Participation in Sport . . . . . . . . . 49 4. Reasons for Participation . . . . . . . . . . 51 5. Reasons for Participation by Dropouts . . . . 52 6. Reasons for Participation by Participants and Drapouts . . . . . . . . . 54 7. Reasons for Participation by Male Participants/Male Dropouts . . . . . . . . 55 8. Reasons for Participating by Female Female Participants/Female Drapouts . . . . S7 9. Reasons for Participating by Male/Female Dropouts . . . . . . . . . . . 58 10. Reasons for Participating by Male/Female Participants . . . . . . . . . 59 11. Reasons for Participating by Older/Younger Children . . . . . . . . . . 61 12. Reasons for Participating by Rural/Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 13. Reasons for Dropping Out . . . . . . . . . . 64 14. Reasons for DrOpping Out by Male/Female O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 65 15. Cultural Questionnaire (entire sample) . . . 67 vi l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Page Differences Between Males and Females and Participants and Dropouts with Regard to Religion . . . . . . . . . . 69 Differences Between Males and Females and Participants and Dropouts with Regard to Tradition . . . . . . . . . 70 Differences Between Males and Females and Participants and Dropouts with Regard to Coaches'/Teachers' Influence . . 70 overall Ability O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 71 Results of T-Tests for Differences Between Males and Females Within the Participants and Dropouts . . . . . . . . . 72 Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Control for Participants and Dromuts O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 73 Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Sources of Competence for Participants and Dropouts O C I O O O O O O O O O I O O 74 Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Motivation for Participants and Dropouts . 75 Factor Loadings of Achievement Orientation in Sport Participation . . . . . . . . . . 77 vii L IST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Harter's Model of Perceived Competence, Phase III 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 29 2. Maehr and Nicholls' Model of Sport Achievement Behavior Outcome . . . . . . . 35 viii Appendix LIST OF APPENDICES Sample Items from Harter's Perceived Competence Scale for Children . . . Personal Data Questionnaire . . . . . Reasons for Participation in Sports Questionnaire C O O O O O O O O O 0 Reasons for Dropping Out Questionnaire Cultural Questionnaire . . . . . . . . Overall Ability Questionnaire . . . . Perceived Control Questionnaire . . . Perceived Competence Questionnaire . . Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivational Orientation Questionnaire . . . . . Sports Achievement Questionnaire . . . Additional Documents Relating to the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . Arabic Versions of Questionnaires . . ix Page 98 99 100 102 104 107 108 110 114 117 120 123 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Understanding motivation in young athletes has been an important tapic of concern for youth sport leaders, parents, and coaches in North America. Recently, sport scientists have tried to understand this motivation by examining childrens' reasons for participa- tion and discontinued involvement in sport (Ewing, 1984: Feltz & Petlichkoff, 1983: Gill, Gross & Huddleston, 1983: Gould, Feltz, Weiss & Petlichkoff, 1981: Orlick, 1972, 1974: Petlichkoff, 1982: Sapp & Haubenstricker, 1978). These investigators have found that children participate in organized sports for a variety of reasons. A study conducted by the Michigan Youth Sports Institute, for example, found that males and females ranging in age from 5 to 17 years participated in sports most often to have fun, to improve their skills, to meet new friends, and to become physically fit (State of Michigan, 1978). Gill et a1. (1983) also found that fun, learning skills, affiliation, achievement, and challenge were the primary objectives young athletes had for their sport involvement. Finally, Gould, Feltz, Horn and Weiss (1982) found that young swimmers aged 8 to 19 years rated having fun, staying in shape, being physically fit, improving their skills, and liking the team spirit as the most important reasons for parti— cipating in competitive swimming. Researchers have also begun to examine why children in North America discontinue their involvement in organized sports (Ewing, 1981: Gould, Feltz, Horn & Weiss, 1982: Martens, 1978: McPherson, Marteniuk, Tihanyi & Clark, 1980: Orlick, 1974: Petlichkoff, 1982: Pooley, 1981: Sapp & Haubenstricker, 1978). Statistics have shown that the attrition rate in youth sport programs in North America is extremely high. For example, cross-sectional data collected on 103,000 young athletes in the Michigan Youth Sports study indicated that although there is an increase in participation in most youth sport programs up to the ages of 11, 12, and 13 years, there is a steady decline after these ages (State of Michigan, 1978). Orlick (1974) found that of 60 cross-country skiing, ice—hockey, soccer, baseball, and swimming drop- outs, ages 7 to 19 years, 67% quit for reasons related to the competitive emphasis of the program (i.e., seri- ousness of the program, lack of enjoyment, emphasis on being best, pushed too hard). Twenty-one percent of the dropouts discontinued their involvement because it conflicted with other non—sport interests. Other investigators have found that children discontinue their involvement in competitive sports because of work, not receiving enough playing time, fear of athletic failure, and a lack of fun associated with the sport experience (McPherson et al., 1980: Orlick, 1972: Sapp & Haubenstricker, 1978). While these preliminary studies have provided valu- able information for coaches and adult leaders involved in youth sport programs, they suffer from the lack of a theoretical model (Ewing, 1981). Much of the research has been descriptive in nature, with researchers being most critical of the contextual factors (e.g., the philo- sophy of the program). As Ewing has noted, these fac- tors alone cannot explain why some individuals achieve under the same conditions that cause others to drop out. One theoretical model that has recently been used to examine participation motivation of youth sport participants is Harter's (1978) model of competence motivation. Harter's model predicts that individuals (e.g., young athletes) who perceive themselves to be highly competent at a particular skill will persist longer at the skill and will be intrinsically motivated in mastering the skill. In contrast, individuals who perceive themselves to have low competence at a skill will not maintain task persistence and interest will be extrinsically oriented in their motivation. Harter (1978) does not view perceived competence as being a global trait or a unitary construct, but rather as having specific domains in the areas of physical, social and cognitive concerns, as well as general self-esteem. Harter (1982) found that children can differentiate among these domains by the time they reach third grade. Thus, according to Harter (1978), it is quite possible that a child at this age or older could show variations in motivation across these competence domains depending on his or her history of experiences and socialization. Harter (1978) also feels it is necessary to consider the role of socializing agents in one's environ- ment and the concept of internalization. Children learn mastery behaviors, in part, through the reinforcement of socializing agents such as parents, teachers, and coaches. Harter has hypothesized that a sufficient degree of positive reinforcement for mastery attempts is required for a child to develop and maintain the motiva- tion to continue participation in achievement activity. As children develop, they begin to internalize aspects of the evaluative feedback. Thus, through socialization processes, children begin to adept the performance standards of socializing agents in their environment. Along with internalization of performance stand- ards, children also develop a perception concerning the degree to which they can control their performance out- come. Children's perceived control is also domain speci- fic, as is their perceived competence. Harter (1981) theorized that a strong internal perception of control is dependent upon the type of internalization structure gained through socialization processes. For example, if a young athlete has been given a clear, consistent, and realistic evaluation about his or her performance, he or she will develop a consistent and realistic internaliza- tion structure and will perceive an internal source of performance control. Subsequently, a child's high degree of perceived control results in high perceptions of competence, whereas the belief that powerful others (e.g., coaches and teachers) are responsible for his or her performance leads to low perceived competence. Motivational orientation is defined by Harter (1978) as the motivational stance which a child adopts toward a specific achievement domain (e.g., intrinsic orientation regarding sport participation) and provides a measure of the underlying reason for engaging in particular achievement-related behaviors. As mentioned previously, perceived competence provides a domain- specific measure of self-esteem and perceived control provides a domain-specific measure of a child's perception of who or what is responsible for their success or failure in a particular achievement area. From these three constructs, Harter would predict that children who are oriented toward intrinsic mastery in sport, who perceive themselves as competent, and who identify themselves as primarily responsible for their success and failure are also more likely to remain in sport than children FHKD are oriented towards extrinsic mastery, have low perceived competence, and believe others are responsible for their performance. Despite the intuitive appeal of Harter's (1978) model for studying participation motivation in young athletes, few studies have actually been conducted to test its contentions in the sport domain (Feltz & Brown, 1984: Feltz & Petlichkoff, 1983: Horn, 1982: Horn & Hasbrook, 1984: Roberts, Kleiber & Duda, 1981: Weiss, Bredemeier & Shewchuk, 1984). Roberts et a1. (1981) conducted one of the first studies in sport based on Harter's (1978) model. They reported that children who participate in organized sport programs were higher in perceived physical competence than nonparticipants. Feltz &: Petlichkoff (1983) found that interscholastic sport participants were higher in perceived physical competence than dropouts. Weiss et a1. (1984), however, conducted the only study to date that has examined the relationships among all the constructs relevant to Harter's (1978) model: intrinsic/extrinsic motivational orientation: perception of competence: and perception of control. They investigated the causal relationships among variables reflecting perceived competence, perceived control, motivational orientation, and physical achievement for children aged 8 to 12 years who were participants in a 7-week summer sports camp. They found support for Harter's contention that children's perceived competence influences motivational orientation and actual compe- tence. Thus, these initial findings emphasize the powerful role that early successes in sport and approval for mastery attempts have in helping form a child's positive self-views, for it is these self-views which were found to be productive of achievement and motiva- tion in sport. However, Weiss and her colleagues (1984) have not examined these variables with children who have dropped out of sport, nor have they compared Harter's model with other models of participation motivation. A second theoretical model which holds promise for understanding and explaining such achievement behaviors as persistence in and withdrawal from sport has recently been proposed by Maehr and Nicholls (1980). Drawing upon attribution theory, Maehr and Nicholls argue that in order to understand motivation it is necessary to study achievement within a specific achievement context. Thus, to understand why some children persist in sports whereas others drop out, researchers must look at the achievement goals of the athlete within the sport context. Maehr and Nicholls (1980) hypothesized that at least three forms of achievement goals may exist. Speci- fically, they defined an ability orientation or goal, a task orientation, and a social approval orientation. Each goal interacts with an achievement situation to affect motivation. Ability Goal. A person operating from an ability orientation has a goal of maximizing the probability of attributing high ability to oneself while minimizing the subjective probability of attributing low ability to oneself (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). The primary concern of the athlete is with one's own ability and how it relates to the ability of others. As long as athletes feel that they are demonstrating ability in sport, they continue participating. However, when athletes perceive themselves to be low in ability, exposure of this low ability in sport is not very satisfying. Thus, athletes may drop out to avoid this unpleasant experience. Task Goal. Individuals Operating from a task orientation are cognizant of the importance of ability, but demonstrating ability to others is not critical. These individuals tend to focus on performance of the task and doing as well as possible, or improving or perfecting a skill or task. This orientation may be described as being intrinsically motivated (Roberts, 1984). Maehr and Nicholls (1980) argue that children operate from a task orientation when initially approach~ ing an achievement situation. Athletes operating from a task orientation would persist in sport because of the joy derived from the challenge provided by sport and the improvement of one's skills to meet the challenge. Social Approval Goal. The goal of this person is to have significant others, coaches, spectators, parents, and teammates approve of their efforts to perform the task. This form of achievement goal focuses upon effort. Athletes recognize that the approval of the coach or one's parents is dependent upon effort. Thus, to the athlete, success and failure in sport is based on obtaining the coach's approval. Persistence in 10 sport occurs when approval is obtained: withdrawal occurs when approval is not obtained. In an attempt to determine if these multiple goals existed and whether they interacted with the sport experience to affect persistence and participation, Ewing (1981) surveyed freshman and sophomore high school students who were currently participating in sport, had voluntarily dropped out of sport, or had never partici- pated in organized sport. She found that multiple goals existed and that the ability and social approval goals as proposed by Maehr and Nicholls (1980) were particu- larly strong orientations. In addition, Ewing found that children who operated from a social approval orien- tation persisted longer in competitive-oriented sports and that ability oriented children dropped out at a much higher rate. This finding was true for both males and females. In a follow-up study, Ewing, Roberts and Pemberton (1984) found that, cognitively, children did not differ- entiate among Maehr and Nicholls' (1980) achievement goals until the age of 12. Prior to age 12 children do not differentiate the concepts of ability and effort. Thus, Maehr and Nicholls' theoretical model does not appear to be appropriate to use with children until they reach age 12. 11 Although there is an accumulating body of research -—both descriptive and theoretica1--on the subject of athletes' participation motivation and their reasons for continuation and dropping out, there is a need for further investigation on this topic. Most of the current, available research has been conducted in North America (the United States and Canada). These findings may be different for children from other cultures. Due to the developing nature of the country of Jordan (having only been a modern state for less than one-half century), many programs, particularly those in sports, are in their infancy. Not only would a study of this type aid administrators, faculty, and coaches in Jordan to continue to deve10p the most positive and appropriate programs and means of education to help facilitate sports participation of all ages and sexes, but it would be useful to educational researchers in identifying the cultural boundaries of Harter's (1978) and Maehr and Nicholls' (1980) motivational theories as they apply to sport. Purpose of the Study There were two purposes to the present study. The first purpose was to determine the reasons that young athletes have for participating in and withdrawing from sports programs in the country of Jordan. The second 12 purpose of the study was to examine factors in achieve- ment motivation that would discriminate between youth sport participants and dropouts on measures of perceived competence, perceived control, extrinsic/ intrinsic motivational orientation, and achievement goals. Questions which Guide the Study 1. What are the most important reasons that children in Jordan have for participating in competitive sport? 2. What are the most important reasons that children in Jordan have for dropping out of competitive sport? 3. Do young males and females have the same reasons for participating in or dropping out of sport? 4. Do religion, tradition, coaches and teachers have an impact on participation in sports? 5. What motivational variables from Harter's (1978) and Maehr and Nicholls' (1980) theories can discriminate between sport participants and dropouts? Research Hypotheses HARTER'S THEORY: (1) PERCEIVED CONTROL: Children who perceive the control over the outcomes of performance situations as internal are more likely to maintain their participation in sport than children who 13 perceive the control over the outcomes of performance as belonging to powerful others, or as external and unknown. (2) PERCEIVED COMPETENCE: Children who scored high on physical competence and general self-esteem are more likely to maintain sport participation than children who scored low on physical competence and general self-esteem. Scores on cognitive and social competence will not have a significant effect on sport participation or dropping out. (3) EXTRINSIC/INTRINSIC MOTIVATION: Children who are intrinsically motivated are more likely to stay in sport than children who are extrinsically motivated. MAEHR AND NICHOLLS: (1) Children who score high on task orientation are more likely to persist in sport. (2) Children who score high on social approval goals are more likely to drOp out of sport. (3) Children who score high on ability orienta- tion are more likely to maintain their sport participation. ADDITIONAL HYPOTHESES: CULTURE, TRADITION AND RELIGION: (1) Misinterpretation of religion has a stronger negative effect on girls' participation in sports than on boys' participation. (2) Misinterpretation of religion has a stronger negative effect on sport dropouts than on sport participants. (3) Teachers and coaches have a stronger effect on girls' participation than on boys' participation. 14 (4) Tradition has a stronger negative effect on girls' participation than on boys' participa- tion. (5) Tradition has a stronger negative effect upon dropouts in sport. OTHER: (1) Girls' reasons for participating in sport are different. from boys' reasons for participating in sport. (2) Rural children are more likely to drop out of sport than urban children. (3) Younger children are less likely to drop out of sport than older children. Delimitation This study was limited to youth sport participants and dropouts (ages 11 to 17 years) from public school sport programs in Jordan. Definitions in this Study The following Operational definitions apply to the present study: Athlete - An athlete is a person who has completed the 1984- 1985 season in organized sport. Dro ut - A drOpout is defined as an athlete who was involved in organized sport during the 1984-1985 season and who decided not to complete the season, or who previously competed in a sport in the 1983-1984 season, was still eligible to compete, but chose not to return to competition in the 1984-1985 season. A 15 dropout is also one who did not continue in another sport after dropping out of a current sport. Government or Public School - A government/public school is one that is administered and financed by the Ministry of Education in Jordan. Organized Sports - Organized sports are competitive team and individual activities that are organized by the Ministry of Education in Jordan. Elementary School - An elementary school is one that corresponds to the American system of elementary schools, consisting of lst through 6th grades, with average student ages ranging from 5 to 11 years. Preparatory School - A preparatory school is one that corresponds to the American system of junior high school, consisting of 7th, 8th, and 9th grades, with students' average ages between 12 and 14 years. Secondary School - A secondary school is one that consists of grades that correspond to the American system of high school, consisting of 10th, 11th, and 12th grades, with the students' average ages between 15 and 18 years. I Young/Youth - These words are defined as boys and girls between the ages of 11 and 17 years. Limitations This study is limited by the questionnaires employed which have been developed within the North 16 American culture only. One cannot assume that the questionnaires will be valid and reliable for samples outside the culture. This study also includes all the limitations which are characteristic of survey studies (e.g., nonrandom assignment to groups and inability to control extraneous variables). Additionally, the Arabic questionnaire was written originally in English and translated into Arabic, which may affect the meaning of the words. Assumptions 1. Self-reports represent a true indication of respondents' motivational orientations and reasons for participation in or withdrawal from sport. 2. Subjects understood the questionnaires. 3. The intent of questions was not changed in translation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The first step in understanding the motivation in young athletes is the identification of their reasons for participation (Gill et al., 1983). Most coaches and physical educators have relied on their own intuitions and insight to determine such information in the past. Recently, sport scientists have tried to understand this motivation by examining children's reasons for partici- pation and discontinued involvement in sport (Ewing, 1981: Feltz & Petlichkoff, 1983: Gill et al., 1983: Gould et al., 1981, 1982: Orlick, 1972, 1974: Petlichkoff, 1982: Sapp & Haubenstricker, 1978). While these preliminary studies have provided valuable information for coaches and adult leaders involved in youth sport programs, they suffer from the lack of a theoretical model (Ewing, 1981). Much of the research has been descriptive. in nature, and cannot explain why some individuals achieve in sport under the same conditions in which others drop out. Two models in the achievement motivation literature that appear to have direct application to understanding participation 17 18 motivation in youth sport are Harter's (1978) model of competence motivation and Maehr and Nicholls' (1980) model of achievement orientation. Thus, the following review of literature is divided into two sections. The first section provides an in-depth examination of the descriptive research in participation motivation. This section focuses on studies that examine why children participate in sport and why they discontinue participa- tion. The second section describes the theoretical models for children's motivations in sport and reviews the sport literature based on these models. Descriptive Research in Participation Motivation in Youth Sports Why Children Participate in Sport One of the most extensive studies to date, by Sapp and Haubenstricker (1978), examined why males and females participate in sports programs. This study revealed that over 94% of the respondents competed to have fun, 80% participated to improve their skills, and just over 50% of the respondents stated that physical fitness and camaraderie were their motives for involvement. Approximately 30% of the respondents rated parental influence as important, whereas "nothing else to do” and ”feeling important" were rated by less than 29% of the respondents as being important. 19 In another study (Gill et al., 1983), participa- tion motivation was examined in 220 boys and 418 girls at a summer sports school. Responses from the question- naire revealed that improving skills was the reason considered most important for sports participation by the subjects. This reason was followed by having fun, learning new skills, being challenged, and being physi- cally fit. In the same study, Gill and her colleagues also investigated any possible differences in reasons for participation between genders. Both boys and girls rated improving their skill as the most important reason for participation. Girls rated having fun as the second most important reason for participation, followed by learning new skills, being physically fit and liking the challenge. Boys on the other hand, rated liking the challenge as second, followed by liking competition, having fun, and learning new skills. Gill et a1. (1983) also used factor analysis in an attempt to identify dimensions or general categories of participation motivation. The results of factor analy- sis in this study suggested that reasons for participa- tion can be grouped into eight categories as dimensions of participation motivation: achievement/status, team, fitness, energy release, situational factors, skill deve10pment, friendship, and fun. There were minor 20 gender differences in that boys placed more importance on the category of achievement status than did girls, but overall the responses of boys and girls were similar. Further examination of participation motivation was conducted by Gould and his colleagues (1982) to examine whether swimmers who differed in gender, age, and level of experience differed in their participation motives. Of 365 swimmers, ranging in age from 8 to 19, the general results indicated that having fun, staying in shape, wanting to be fit, and wanting to improve skills were the most important motives for participa- tion. These results were similar to those reported by Gill et a1. (1983) and Sapp and Haubenstricker (1978). Significant gender differences were found in only four of the 14 items: females rated liking fitness, liking friendship, having something to do, and having fun as being more important than males. In terms of age differ- ences, the investigators found that younger swimmers (ages 8-11 years) rated achievement reasons as more important than older swimmers (ages 12-19 years). Another study that supports the previous research finding was conducted by Griffin (1978). In a comprehen- sive study of two youth football leagues, more than 95% of the boys reported that having fun was more important 21 than winning. The boys also stated that having fun, learning to work with others, and learning sportsmanship were important values that they derived from participa- tion. Finally, a recent study in participation motiva- tion was conducted with elite ice hockey players who were invited to participate at special camps sponsored by the Amateur Hockey Association of the United States (Feltz, Ewing, Albrecht & Schultz, 1984). The players, who ranged in age from 15 to 18 years, indicated the most important reason for their participation was to go on to a higher level of competition. This reason was quite different from the previously mentioned studies. However, the remaining top four reasons were to improve skills, to compete, to have fun, and to be challenged. These reasons are very similar to other athletes at non-elite levels and at younger ages. Why Children Discontinue Sports Participation In addition to examining young athletes' motiva- tions for participation, researchers have also begun to examine why children discontinue their participation in organized sports (Ewing, 1981: Gould et a1. 1982: Orlick, 1974: Petlichkoff, 1982: Pooley, 1981: Sapp & Haubenstricker, 1978). Data from the cross-section of 103,000 young athletes in the State of Michigan (1978) 22 study showed that over 30% of the athletes surveyed did not plan to compete in the next year. Because of these findings in high attrition rates, researchers have begun to examine the reasons for young athletes dropping out of sports. In: a study by Orlick (1974), 60 athletes between the ages of 7 and 19 years were interviewed. Results indicated that 67% of the respondents dropped out for reasons related to overemphasis on winning in the program (i.e., seriousness of the program, lack of enjoy- ment, emphasis on being best, and pushed too hard). More than 50% of the respondents stated that over- emphasis on winning was their main reason for dropping out. Interview results also showed that 31% of the dropouts indicated conflict with other non-sport inter- ests as a major reason for dropping out. In addition, Orlick found that the age of the dropouts affected their reasons for discontinuing sport involvement. All elementary school-aged children cited an overemphasis on winning as a major cause for dropping out, while 60% of high school children cited their reason for dropping out as a conflict of interest. For the children who cited overemphasis on winning as their major reason for dropping out, 60% said they were not successful, while 40% said that they discontinued their involvement because they did not play. 23 Orlick (1972) also conducted an earlier study in which he interviewed younger (8-9 years) sport parti- cipants and non-participants to determine their percep- tion of sports involvement. He found that 75% of the respondents who dropped out felt they were not good enough to make the team, but they would try again if they thought they would make the team for sure. In addition, he found that all of the respondents were very aware that they had to be good to be able to make the team and actually play. Orlick concluded that the fear of disapproval or. failure has an influence on certain children in terms of the extent to which they hesitate to participate. Pooley (1981) conducted a study of 50 soccer dropouts ranging from 10 to 15 years of age and found that 30% of the respondents dropped out because of an overemphasis on winning, and almost 50% because of a conflict of interest. Additional interview questions, however, showed that conflict of interest reasons occurred most often when the boys became interested in another sport or activity. It is also possible that the conflicts occurred because a particular sport was not as enjoyable as the boys had expected. In the State of Michigan study, Sapp and Hauben- stricker (1978) found that 32% of the males and 37% of 24 the females cited that they would be discontinuing their involvement in sport. Sixty-three percent of the males and 65% of the females who were dropping out stated that their reason for doing so was being involved in other activities. Forty-three percent of the males and 44% of the females stated that they would be dropping out due to working. This study also found that the most signifi- cant gender difference in their reasons for leaving was that 34% of the males felt that they were too old to continue participation, while only 18% of the females cited this as a reason. McPherson, Marteniuk, Clark and Tihanyi (1980) also examined the attrition in youth sports by surveying over 1,000 active youth swimmers. Approximately 70% of the respondents indicated that they had one or more friends who quit the team during the year. The reasons the swimmers gave for their friends dropping out included too much pressure, too time- consuming, too much emphasis on training, overemphasis on winning, lack of fun, and too expensive. In a study by Gould, Feltz, Horn and Weiss (1982), 50 swimming dropouts ranging in age from 10 to 18 years were surveyed to discover the various importance that different reasons played in the former swimmer's decision to discontinue swimming. The results revealed that having other things to do was the major reason for 25 discontinuing swimming involvement. Other reasons rated important by the swimmers included ”I was not as good as I wanted to be,“ ”I did not have enough fun,” 'I wanted to play another sport," and ”I did not like the pres- sure.” Gould and his colleagues concluded that the majority of youth swimmers who discontinue participation do so because of interest in other activities, and not because of excessive pressure, lack of fun, and/or overemphasis on winning. The descriptive research examining why children participate in sport has indicated several common rea- sons for participation. Young athletes--even at elite levels-—participate primarily to have fun, to improve their skills, to be challenged, to be physically fit, and to be with friends. Similarly, the descriptive research on youth sport dropouts has revealed several common reasons for discontinuing participation. Young athletes drop out primarily because of interests in other sports or activities, the competitive emphasis of the program, or the increased desire to work. However, the literature also shows some differences among age groups, gender, and ability levels. Such studies cannot explain what underlying variables might cause these differences to occur. Therefore, a need exists to examine participation motivation within a theoretical framework. 26 Theoretical Models for Children's Motivation in Sport Harter's Model of Perceived Competence One theoretical model that has been used to examine participation motivation in youth sports is Harter's (1978) model of perceived competence. Several investigators have theorized that attribution of ability and the self-concept of ability play a central role in mediating motivation (Bandura, 1977: Harter, 1981: White, 1959). The concept of competence was first introduced by White (1959) as a psychological construct mediating intrinsically motivated behavior. He suggested that individuals act because they feel a need to have an effect on their environment. If performance attempts are satisfying, one feels competent, providing feelings of efficacy and inherent pleasure: in such a case, one is also likely to want to repeat the performance. Yet White's theory did not lend itself to empirical observation due to the fact that he viewed competence motivation as a global motive, directing all achievement-oriented tasks. Harter (1978) proposed a more specific model of motivation which could be empirically tested. Harter identified specific domains in which competence could be 27 measured, in addition to viewing one's perceptions of competence as the central mediator of one's motivation to achieve in a particular area. The three competence domains that Harter specified were physical, cognitive, and social perceived competence, in addition to a general area termed self-worth. She also demonstrated the importance of each domain being assessed indepen- dently rather than assessing a collection of specific and overlapping items, from which a total score is used to assess self-concept. Children may feel positive about their physical and social skills, negative about cognitive ability, but still have a generally positive feeling about themselves. This valuable information can be lost in using a composite score through neutralizing the subjects' strengths and weaknesses. (See Appendix A for a sample of Harter's Perceived Competence Scale). Harter's (1978) model provides an approach for understanding factors that cause children to choose, to achieve, and 1x: persist 1J1 achievement situations. Primarily it is available as a larger theoretical model providing some evidence for relationships among vari- ables related to achievement motivation in physical activity. Harter (1981) has conceptualized her model as a three-phased one that explains the development of motivation from infancy through the elementary years but 28 concentrates on early childhood and elementary years, with the key component in the development of motivation being perceptions of competence. Only the third phase (illustrated in Figure l) is reviewed in this chapter, since the first two stages pertain to the development of motivation for infants and very young children. During the period of Phase III, children develop the capacity for logical thought and an appreciation of cause and effect links which can be symbolized, internalized, and verbally coded. Through modeling, instruction, and direct reinforcement children adapt the standards of the significant others in their world. They internalize a system of mastery goals which defines the importance of success in a given domain. Children also internalize a set of criteria by which they can judge how successfully they have performed or mastered these tasks. The approval of the significant other becomes transformed into self-approval or self-disap- proval. 'To the extent that they are self-approving, it serves the function of self-reward. If performance does not meet the standards internalized, the self-evaluation may lead to disapproval and self-depreciation. The degree to which children internalize these mastery goals and criteria for judging their successes and failures is hypothesized to influence their sense of 29 FIGURE 1. Harter's Model of Perceive Competence, Phase III internalized evaluation of domain-specific perceived competence domain-specific competence effectance motivation evaluation of domain-specific perception of control 5L domain-specific mastery goals mastery behavior importance of I I I I in erna ize I senze oflworih) I I I I I I I I I domain independent mastery + attempts self-reward challenge seeking system I criteria for : success-failure . All others . cognitive effect acceptance of anxiety I of reaction positive effect joy over one's pride over I mastery effort competence internalization I cognitive informational I structures I I evaluation effect on the product environmental of other's k‘ success-failure approval or of product disapproval Phase III: Internalization of cognitive-informational- evaluative structure. 30 control over these events. Children may indicate that they themselves are responsible for the success and/or failure in their lives, they may see the significant others in the environment, or they may indicate that they simply do not know what or whom is responsible for what happens to them. To the extent that children have been given clear messages about what constitutes success- ful or unsuccessful behavior and have internalized these standards, one would expect a relatively internalized sense of control over behavior. IIf these messages are unclear or inconsistent, children may not internalize an understanding of why a particular success or failure occurs and either cite ignorance, or see the locus of control residing in other people. The final link in the chain involves children's internalized evaluation of perceived competence. As children internalize a system of mastery goals, criteria for success and failure, and a set of perceptions con- cerning the source of control over these events, a sense of competence begins to develop. If these perceptions of control are relatively internal so that the child feels responsible, it is likely that they will have a positive sense of competence. If children do not know who or what is in control, or view significant others as responsible, it is likely that their sense of competence 31 will be relatively negative. In addition, children lacking faith in their own competence may develop a more extrinsic orientation in which they attempt to meet the demands of significant others in their environment, not having internalized their own system of mastery goals. Yet, children who have received clear and consistent feedback, and who have an internal perception of control, are more likely to develop an intrinsic orientation in defining their successes and failures. There has been a growing body of evidence in support of the theoretical relationships between perceived competence and motivation to achieve (Barter, 1979, 1981, 1982: Lewko & Ewing, 1980: Roberts et al., 1981: Spink & Roberts, 1980). Perceived competence has most frequently been assessed by means of scales, such as Harter's (1979) Perceived Competence Scale for Children, or by having children rank themselves accord— ing to peers. In two studies, Harter (1981) examined the relationships among several components of her model as applied to the cognitive domain. She measured the relationship between intrinsic motivation, perceptions of competence, perceptions of control, and actual competence. Her study revealed that children who were intrinsically motivated perceived themselves as more 32 competent than others, were more competent, and had a greater understanding of what controlled their success or failure. Conversely, children who perceived them- selves as less competent had lower achievement, were extrinsically motivated, chose to perform easier tasks, and did not know what controlled their success or failure. In terms of the physical domain, studies have provided support for a relationship between perceived competence and motivation to participate in sports. Roberts et al. (1981) utilized Harter's perceived competence scale to test Harter's theory relative to sport. They found that participants who demonstrated higher levels of perceived competence were more persis- tent and had higher expectations of future success in addition to attributing outcomes to ability. However, in another study by Lewko and Ewing (1980), results suggested that boys perceive their ability to be high regardless of their level of involvement, while partici- pating girls perceived themselves to be significantly higher in competence than non—participating girls. Although the results are contrary to Harter's theory, the method of assessment may have affected the results; being good in sports is usually socially desirable for boys. In Roberts et al. (1981) and Harter's (1982) 33 studies, more sophisticated and psychometrically sound scales were used in support of Harter's theory. Feltz and Petlichkoff (1983) conducted a study examining the relationship between perceived competence and length of involvement in sport using Harter's (1979) Perceived Competence Scale for Children. The results suggested that there is a small but positive relation- ship between perceived competence and length of involve- ment in sport. They also found that participants had higher levels of perceived competence than dropouts. In another study by Horn (1985), 72 athletes were examined in terms of the relation between coaches' feedback and athletes' changes in perceived competence. Horn found that coaches' behavior had an effect on players' perceptions of competence. In a study by Feltz and Brown (1984), Harter's (1979) perceived competence subscale was modified to specifically apply to soccer. Two hundred seventeen soccer players between the ages of 8 and 13 years were tested in order to discover whether or not a sport- specific scale would provide additional information to Harter's questionnaire. The results showed that perceived soccer competence had higher internal consis- tency than perceived physical competence. Finally, in a study by Weiss, Bredemeier and Shewchuk (1984), results 34 showed that perceptions of one's competence in physical activity has an impact on actual competence. In all of the above studies testing aspects of Harter's model, support has been shown between perceived competence and achievement behavior. Maehr and Nicholls' Model of Achievement Orientations A second theoretical model available to research- ers interested in participation motivation is Maehr and Nicholls' (1980) model of achievement orientations. In this model (see Figure 2), perceived ability is related to achievement behavior. The two basic assumptions of this theory are that people's actions are motivated by a desire to demonstrate and/or develop high ability (a desirable characteristic) and to avoid demonstrating low ability (an undesirable characteristic), and that peOples' actions are purposeful. In addition, individ— uals can perceive their own level of ability in three ways: (a) individuals may view their competence relative to their past performance: (b) individuals may view their competence relative to their peers:'and (c) individuals may view their competence relative to a standard of excellence. Within this model Maehr and Nicholls (1980) pro- pose the existence of three achievement goals, namely, 35 FIGURE 2. Maehr and Nicholls' Model of Sport Achievement Behavior Outcome ; Behavior Arr/Izzr’zll'ontcomeS\\\\\\\\Nfl Attributed Attributed to personal to personal characteristics characteristics defined by culture defined by culture as desirable as undesirable Success Failure Experience Experience / Expectation of Consequences of subsequent behavior (subjective probability of demonstrating desirable vs. undesirable personal characteristics) I 36 ability, task, and social approval. In an ability orientation, children who perceive their ability to be greater than others around them will continue in that activity. For those who perceive their relative ability to be low, withdrawal from the activity is likely. For children who are task oriented, their motivation will be intrinsically derived because their joy is derived simply from the challenge of a task, leading to the continuance of an activity. Thirdly, children who hold a social approval goal will continue sport participation if they are obtaining approval for their performance, while dropping out will occur if they are not obtaining that. approval. Thus, through understanding an individual's achievement goal, we may understand better why some children persist while others do not. Ewing (1981) confirmed the existence of more than one dimension of achievement motivation. Using factor analytic techniques, three factors emerged which closely resembled the concepts of social approval, task, and ability achievement orientation. A fourth factor, intrinsic achievement orientation, appeared to be a variation of Maehr and Nicholls' (1980) task orienta- tion. However, it appeared that both the abililty and social approval orientations were stable and reflected the concepts as described by Maehr and Nicholls. 37 A corollary issue to the existence of achievement orientations was the age at which children were cogni- tively mature to employ the orientations. In a study by Ewing, Roberts and Pemberton (1984), 102 males and 69 females ranging from 9 to 14 years of age were tested through a questionnaire designed to assess achievement orientations. Results of the factor analysis revealed that facets of hypothesized achievement goals of sport competence, sport mastery, and social approval existed for all age groups. In terms of deve10pment, the com- bination of ability and effort statements suggests that young children are unable to distinguish between rela- tive contributions of effort and ability in determining success in sport until age 13. In another study by Duda (1981), the perceptions of high school boys and girls relative to their pre— ferred domains of achievement were assessed. She looked at contexts of both the classroom and the playing field, investigating four general categories: team versus indi— vidual contexts and competitive versus noncompetitive contexts. Students were then asked to choose one of the achievement contexts in which he or she would prefer to succeed. Across all four achievement categories, boys preferred to succeed in sport rather than the classroom context and girls preferred to do the same with the 38 exception of the individual competitive achievement context. Both boys and girls considered the achievement domain of sport an important context in which to engage. Summary The first section of this chapter examined litera- ture that approached participation motivation for both sport participants and dropouts on a descriptive level. Although there is a scarcity of research in this area, it was concluded that the major reasons young athletes participate in sport are to have fun, to be with friends, to improve their skills, and to become physi- cally fit. In addition, it was concluded that there is yet a great deal of work needed in the area of examining reasons for withdrawal from sport due to conflicting findings of what research is available to us today. The second section of this chapter examined litera- ture that attempted to apply models and theoretical constructs to participation motivation in the hopes of obtaining the ability to predict participation and with- drawal. Two major theories which hold potential for future research are Harter's Model of Perceived Compe- tence and Maehr and Nicholls' Model of Achievement Goals. Both models have found support in the sport environment. Harter's has been most successful with children under 12 and Maehr and Nicholls' appears to be 39 more applicable with children over 12 years of age. Yet, there is a great need for further research to test these theories. Finally, in the literature available to date in North America, there are no examples of how either of these models, and how reasons for participation, apply to different cultures. There is a tremendous need for research that may delineate any cultural boundaries in terms of the above cited research. CHAPTER III METHOD Subjects Subjects consisted of 261 students enrolled in the public schools from the district of Irbid, Jordan. The subjects were selected from 6 urban and 5 rural schools. These students ranged in age from 11 to 17 years. From this sample of students, 152 were female and 109 were male. Of these subjects, 108 females and 73 males were participants, and 44 females and 36 males were dropouts. The students were identified by teachers and coaches. The number of females was large, perhaps, because of the enthusiasm of females in Jordan to facilitate such studies since sport is a new movement in Jordan. Questionnaires The questionnaires used :hm this study were designed and written in English. The researcher and a team from the physical education faculty in Jordan together translated the English copies into Arabic. In those instances where translation was difficult, group consensus (2/3 of the group) was used for the final translation. 40 41 Personal Data Qruestionnaire. A personal data questionnaire was constructed to obtain basic demo- graphic and sport history information for each subject. The information obtained from the questionnaire was used to substantiate the classification of subjects as parti— cipants or dropouts. (See Appendix B for a copy of the questionnaire.) Reasons for Participation in Sports Questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed by Gill et a1. (1983) to measure reasons for participation in youth sport. The questionnaire consisted of 30 possible reasons for parti- cipating in sport. The relative importance of various reasons for participation were assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from ”very important“ (5) to "not at all important“ (1). The validity and reliability of the questionnaire have not yet been established. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix C. Reasons for Dropping Out of Sports gestionnaire. This questionnaire was a modification of the Gould et al. (1982) instrument which had been designed to assess reasons for dropping out of youth swimming. The questionnaire was modified to apply to sports in general rather than swimming specifically. The questionnaire consisted of 31 possible reasons (e.g., "I did not like to compete") for discontinuing youth sport involvement. The relative importance of various reasons for dropping 42 out were assessed on a 5-point scale similar to the questionnaire designed for participants. The validity and reliability of this questionnaire have also not yet been determined. (A copy of this questionnaire is found in Appendix D.) Cultural Questionnaire. The purpose of this questionnaire was to understand the environmental, traditional, religious, and social factors that affect participating in and dropping out of sport in Jordan. The questionnaire included 24 statements, of which each has four items to assess the attitudes that subjects have toward sport participation. These items range from ”very true” (4) to ”not at all true" (1) (See Appendix E). The researcher constructed the questionnaire based upon his knowledge of the culture in Jordan. Reliabil- ity and validity have not been determined for this questionnaire. Overall Ability Questionnaire. This questionnaire was designed to find out how children in Jordan perceive themselves in terms of their ability in sport skills. The question of perceived sport ability was rated on a nine-point scale, with 1 being "very poor" and 9 being ”excellent.“ (See Appendix F for a copy of this questionnaire.) Perceived Control Questionnaire. The purpose of the Perceived Control Questionnaire was to assess the 43 degree of responsibility children feel for both suc- cesses and failures in sport, one of Harter's four competence domains. Harter's Perceived Control Question- naire was developed to assess the degree to which a child perceived their source of control within the four competence domains. The three sources of control are self or internal, powerful others or external, and unknown. Childrens' perceptions of the extent to which each source is responsible are measured independently. The format of this instrument is very similar to that used in the perceived competence scale in that the social desirability effects are minimized. Twelve items assessing perceived control in the physical competence domain were chosen from the original questionnaire for the purposes of this (study. Items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from "very true" to "not true at all.“ (See Appendix G) Perceived Competence Questionnaire. H a r t e r ' s (l979) Perceived Scale for Children was administered to assess general self-esteem and perceived physical, cognitive, and social competence. (A copy 'of this questionnaire is given in Appendix H.) Each of the subscales consisted of seven items and was scored on a 4-point ordinal scale. A score of 1 indicated low perceived competence and a score of 4 44 indicated high perceived competence. The questionnaire used a “structural alternative format“ in which subjects were asked to decide which of two types of person they were most like. They were then asked to decide whether the description of that kind of person was "sort of true' or ”really true' for them. The reliability estimates for Harter's four sub- scales, based on a measure of internal consistency with- in the subscale, were .73 for general self—esteem, .83 for physical competence, .70 for cognitive competence, .80 for social competence, and .72 for challenge. Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivational Orientation Questionnaire. The purpose of this questionnaire was to determine how intrinsic motivation was maintained, enhanced, or attenuated with a necessary sensitivity to extrinsic motivation. The question format used was the one initially devised in the construction of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children, with the main purpose being to compensate for the tendency of many self-report measures to pull socially desirable responses. Each item was scored on a ordinal scale from 1 to 4, where a score of l is the maximum extrinsic orientation and a score of 4 is the maximum intrinsic orientation. (See Appendix I for a c0py of the question- naire.) Each of the five subscales contains 6 items. 45 Within each subscale, three of the items are worded to begin with the intrinsic orientation and three to begin with the extrinsic orientation. The average loadings for items on their designated factors is between .46 and .53, and no items systematically cross- load on other factors. In the samples taken from New York, California, and Colorado, reliabilities range from .78 to .84, .68 to .82, .70 to .78, .72 to .81, and .75 to .83 for the challenge, independent mastery, curiosity, judgment, and criteria subscales, respectively. Achievement Orientation Qtuestionnaire. The purpose of the Achievement Orientation Questionnaire was to measure each individual's achievement orientation in sport activities. This questionnaire was identical to the one used by Ewing (1981), with the exception that only one success experience was requested of the subject rather than three. (See Appendix J for a copy of the questionnaire.) Subjects were asked to briefly describe a per- ceived success they had experienced in an organized sport setting. Achievement orientations were assessed via factor analysis from subjects‘ responses concerning why they felt successful in that particular experience. Responses to statements were measured on a S-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly agree" to ”strongly 46 disagree." With American children, the reliability coefficients, based on Cronbach's alpha, were .91, .80, and .91 for the social approval, task, and ability orientations, respectively (Ewing, 1981). In addition, subjects were asked to indicate what caused them to be successful on the identified experi- ence. These attributions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from "strongly disagree“ to “strongly agree." Data Collection Procedures To facilitate the collection of data for this study, a letter requesting permission to gather the data was sent to the Ministry of Education in Jordan. After receiving this request, the Ministry of Education sent letters of facilitation to the Department of Education in Irbid, who forwarded the necessary letters to the school districts who, in turn, informed the physical education teachers. (See Appendix K for copies of the correspondence.) The researcher spoke directly with the coaches and teachers about the study and gave them further details about its nature and purpose. The teachers and coaches were asked to find volunteer subjects to participate in the study. The teachers and coaches were informed that the subjects' participation must be voluntary, and subjects who were both participating in sport and who 47 had dropped out of sport were to be selected based on their knowledge of the athletes. The schools were randomly selected. The researcher then informed the subjects that he was doing the study and that their help would aid both science and the deve10pment of Jordan. He also assured them of the survey's confidentiality: their coaches, teachers, and parents would not read their answers. The researcher then gave them the questionnaires, which had been translated from English into Arabic (see Appendix L for the Arabic versions). This was done during class time without pressure from their teachers and coaches. Administering the questionnaires required a single time frame of approximately 2 hours. All of the stu- dents from one school were tested in this time period. The students were collected in a room for administering the questionnaires, without the presence of the teacher or the coach. The directions for each questionnaire were read aloud. Students were allowed to ask questions if they had problems completing the questionnaire. When they finished, the researcher had one of the Students tell the coach or teacher so that he or she could return to their regular day. Finally, the researcher thanked the students, teachers, coaches, and administrative personnel for their help and offered a copy of the results to anyone involved. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Questionnaires were administered to 109 male and 152 female athletes ranging in age from 11 to 17 years, with the female mean age being 14.65 and the male mean age being 14.58. All subjects were students from the district of Irbid junior and senior high schools in the country of Jordan. Of these subjects, 181 with a mean age of 14.61 were athletic participants, and 80 with a mean age of 14.64 were athletic dropouts. In addition, 193 were from urban backgrounds while 68 were from rural backgrounds (see Table l). The distribution of subjects by major game is given in Table 2. As Table 2 illustrates, participation in soccer in Jordan is restricted to males. This is because of the physical interaction between players and the rough nature of the game: by custom, females are not allowed to participate in outdoor sports in an informal setting during puberty years, and no indoor soccer is available. Badminton, however, came to Jordan as a game that only females played. Table 3 shows the number of years that subjects have participated in sports. 48 49 TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY STATUS (N = 261) Status Total Participant 181 Dropout 80 Rural 68 Urban 193 11-13 years old 102 14-17 years old 159 Male 109 Female 152 TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY MAJOR GAME (N = 261) Major Game N Soccer 38 (males only) Team Handball 34 Volleyball 62 Basketball 39 Track & Field 69 Table Tennis 16 Badminton 3 (females only) TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY DURATION OF PARTICIPATION IN SPORT (N=261) Number of Years Played N l 31 2 93 3 68 4 35 5 22 6 12 50 Reasons for Participation Questionnaire This instrument was designed to measure reasons for participation in youth sport. The results of the ratings of the 30 items ranked from most important to least important are contained in Tables 4 and 5. An examination of Table 4 revealed that for parti- cipants, liking the team spirit, wanting to be popular, liking the action, wanting to go to a higher level, liking the travel, and wanting to learn new skills were the motives rated the most important. Motives rated the least important were liking the rewards, wanting to get rid of energy, wanting to have fun, wanting to have something to do, wanting to use the equipment and facilities, and liking the teamwork. As shown in Table 5, dropouts identified liking to travel, liking to stay in shape, wanting to improve skills, liking the action, liking to do something they are good at, and liking the excitement as the important reasons. Reasons rated the least important were getting rid of energy, liking the rewards, liking the action, liking the challenge, wanting to be physically fit, want- ing to gain status, and liking to have something to do. Differences Among Participants and Dropouts Multiple t-tests were performed to determine whether or not there were any significant differences in 51 TABLE 4 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION BY PARTICIPANTS Reasons Pct Most Important I like the team spirit 12.7 I want to be popular 8.3 I like the action 7.7 I want to go to a higher level 7.2 I like to travel 5.5 I like to learn new skills 5.5 I like the challenge 5.0 I want to stay in shape 5.0 I want to improve my skills 5.0 I want to be physically fit 3.9 I like to compete 3.9 I like to win 3.9 My parents and friends want me to play 3.9 I like being on a team 2.8 I like to get exercise 2.2 I like to feel important 2.2 I like to get out of the house 2.2 I like the coaches or instructors 1.7 I like to do something I am good at 1.7 I like the excitement 1.7 I like to be with my friends 1.7 I want to gain status or recognition 1.7 I want to release tension 1.1 I like to meet new friends 1.1 I like to use the equipment 0.6 I like to have something to do 0.6 I like the teamwork 0.6 I want to get rid of energy 0.0 I like the rewards 0.0 I like to have fun 0.0 52 TABLE 5 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATION BY DROPOUTS Reasons Pct Most Important HHHHHHHHHHHzHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH like like want like like like like like like like want like like like like like like want like like like like want like like want like want like to travel to stay in shape to improve my skills the action to do something I am good at the excitement to be popular to compete to feel important to meet new friends to be with my friends to get exercise the coaches or instructors being on a team to go to a higher level to get out of the house the team spirit to release tension y parents and friends want me to play to be with my friends the teamwork to have fun to use the equipment to get rid of energy the rewards the action to be physically fit the challenge to gain status or recognition to have something to do 00000000000000... OOOOOOONNNNU‘U‘U‘U‘UTU‘U‘IQQOOOOUWW03mm OOOOOOCI-‘I-‘HI-‘NNNNNNNQJMU'IUIUIUIONO\O\0mm 53 reasons for participation between participants and drop- outs. An examination of Table 6 reveals that partici- pants and dropouts differed significantly on a number of reasons for participation. Specifically, dropouts scored higher than participants on: "I like to get out of the house," "I want to be with my friends,” "I want to release tension,“ "I like to do something I am good at,‘I "I want to travel,“ "I like to meet new friends,” and "I like the rewards.” In addition, while the drop- outs ranked wanting to learn new skills, liking the team spirit, and liking the action as the most important reasons for participation (in that order), the parti— cipants ranked liking the team spirit, wanting to be popular, and being on the team as the most important reasons for participation (in that order). To further differentiate between dropouts and participants in their reasons for participation, t-tests were conducted to discover if there were any differences between male dropouts and participants and female dropouts and participants. As Table 7 reveals, male dropouts and participants differed in their reasons for participation on four items. Male dropouts rated "I want to be with my friends,” "I like to get out of the house,“ "I like the challenge," and "I like to use the equipment” higher than male participants. In addition, 54 TABLE 6 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING BY PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS Participants_ Dropouts Item x SD x SD t-value I want to improve my skill 4.68 0.68 4.63 0.79 0.57 I want to be with my friends 3.55 1.22 4.03 1.11 -2.99* I like to win 4.19 1.20 4.46 0.87 -1.84 I want to get rid of energy 3.21 1.44 3.01 1.43 1.02 I like to travel 3.17 1.50 3.60 1.41 -2.l9* I want to stay in shape 4.46 0.88 4.55 0.73 -0.82 I like team work 4.23 1.04 4.09 l.ll 0.98 I like the excitement 3.71 1.31 3.60 1.33 0.64 My parents/friends want me to play 3.19 1.53 3.40 1.43 -1.05 I want to learn new skills 4.54 0.81 4.36 1.03 1.46 I like to meet new friends 3.76 1.24 4.11 1.14 -2.l9* I like to do something I am good at 4.13 1.16 4.45 0.81 -2.22* I want to release tension 3.48 1.45 4.01 1.33 -2.71* I like the rewards 2.78 1.48 3.20 1.39 —2.13* I like to get exercise 4.22 1.15 4.25 0.99 -0.20 I like to have something to do 3.40 1.32 3.60 1.30 —l.l4 I like the action 4.67 0.78 4.59 0.85 0.75 I like the team spirit 4.73 0.83 4.58 0.97 1.32 I like to get out of the house 3.13 1.38 3.71 1.40 -3.15* I like to compete 4.22 1.16 4.16 1.07 0.35 I like to feel important 3.86 1.33 4.05 1.30 -l.09 I like being on a team 4.35 1.07 4.39 0.99 -0.28 I want to go to a higher - level 4.49 1.00 4.46 0.89 0.22 I want to be physically fit 4.54 0.83 4.58 0.78 -0.31 I want to be popular 3.90 1.32 3.94 1.29 -0.21 I like the challenge 3.72 1.47 4.06 1.18 -1.85 I like the coach/teacher 3.93 1.24 3.99 1.24 -0.36 I like to gain status 3.62 1.28 3.68 1.30 -0.29 I like to have fun 3.85 1.21 4.15 1.09 -l.89 I like to use the equipment 3.43 1.47 3.54 1.32 -0.59 *significant at O<< .05 55 TABLE 7 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING BY MALE PARTICIPANTS/MALE DROPOUTS Participants Dropouts Item 2 SD x SD t-value I want to improve my skill 4.66 0.65 4.50 0.85 —l.07 I want to be with my friends 3.53 1.12 4.31 0.95 -3.55* I like to win 4.05 1.27 4.28 1.03 -0.92 I want to get rid of energy 2.77 1.40 3.28 1.41 —l.79 I like to travel 3.12 1.41 3.53 1.34 -l.43 I want to stay in shape 4.25 0.88 4.50 0.66 -l.53 I like team work 4.16 1.07 3.86 1.27 -1.31 I like the excitement 3.58 1.24 3.50 1.23 0.30 My parents/friends want me to play 2.96 1.41 3.31 1.35 —l.23 I want to learn new skills 4.62 0.76 4.28 1.06 1.92 I like to meet new friends 3.79 1.09 4.03 1.03 -1.07 I like to do something I am good at 4.03 1.18 4.39 0.87 -1.63 I want to release tension 3.51 1.48 4.03 1.40 -l.76 I like the rewards 2.63 1.41 3.00 1.31 -1.32 I like to get exercise 4.37 0.92 4.25 0.91 0.64 I like to have something to do 3.30 1.18 3.72 1.32 -l.69 I like the action 4.63 0.66 4.50 0.78 0.92 I like the team spirit 4.62 0.88 4.61 0.90 0.03 I like to get out of the house 3.12 1.24 3.89 1.39 -2.92* I like to compete 4.15 1.16 4.28 0.94 -0.57 I like to feel important 3.81 1.35 4.11 1.26 -l.13 I like being on a team 4.36 1.02 4.28 1.06 0.37 I want to go to a higher level 4.53 0.90 4.53 0.88 0.04 I want to be physically fit 4.41 0.91 4.50 0.78 -0.50 I want to be popular 3.89 1.28 4.11 1.24 -0.86 I like the challenge 3.60 1.41 4.25 0.94 -2.49* I like the coach/teacher 3.97 1.14 3.92 1.16 0.24 I like to gain status 3.52 1.30 3.64 1.40 -0.44 I like to have fun 3.66 1.19 4.06 1.09 -1.68 I like to use the equipment 3.26 1.54 3.89 1.14 -2.17* *significant at ok< .05 56 male dropouts ranked wanting to stay in shape as the most important reason for their participation, while male participants ranked liking the team spirit as the most important reason for participation. As shown in Table 8, female dropouts and female participants differed significantly only on two items. Female dropouts rated ”I want to get rid of energy“ and "I want to release tension" higher than female parti- cipants. In addition, female dropouts ranked liking to travel as the most important reason for participation while female participants ranked liking the team spirit as the most important reason for participation. Differences Among Gender Multiple t-tests were used to determine whether or not there were any differences in reasons for participa- tion between males and females. A small (x value (.05) was used to determine significant differences because the use of multiple t-tests increase the probability of Type I error. The results of the t-tests and the associated means and standard deviations are revealed in Tables 9 and 10 for male and female dropouts and participants, respectively. As shown in Table 9, among the dropouts there were only two gender differences in reasons for participa- tion. Males scored higher on "I like to use the REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING BY 57 TABLE 8 FEMALE PARTICIPANTS/FEMALE DROPOUTS Participants Dropouts Item f SD f SD t-value I want to improve my skill 4.70 0.70 4.73 0.73 -0.26 I want to be with my friends 3.56 1.29 3.80 1.19 -1.06 I like to win 4.28 1.15 4.61 0.69 -l.81 I want to get rid of energy 3.51 1.40 2.80 1.44 2.83* I like to travel 3.29 1.57 3.66 1.48 -1.68 I want to stay in shape 4.60 0.85 4.59 0.79 0.07 I like team work 4.27 1.02 4.27 0.95 -0.01 I like the excitement 3.81 1.35 3.68 1.41 0.51 My parents/friends want me to play 3.34 1.60 3.48 1.50 -0.48 I want to learn new skills 4.48 0.85 4.43 1.02 0.31 I like to meet new friends 3.73 1.34 4.18 1.23 -l.93 I like to do something I am good at 4.20 1.14 4.50 0.76 1.58 I want to release tension 3.49 1.44 4.00 1.28 -2.04* I like the rewards 2.89 1.52 3.36 1.45 -1.77 I like to get exercise 4.12 1.28 4.25 1.06 —0.59 I like to have something to do 3.46 1.42 3.50 1.29 ~0.15 I like the action 4.69 0.85 4.66 0.91 0.23 I like the team spirit 4.81 0.79 4.55 1.02 1.68 I like to get out of the house 3.13 1.47 3.57 1.40 -1.69 I like to compete 4.26 1.16 4.07 1.17 0.92 I like to feel important 3.89 1.33 4.00 1.35 —0.47 I like being on a team 4.34 1.11 4.48 0.93 -0.71 I want to go to a higher ‘ level 4.46 1.07 4.41 0.90 0.29 I want to be physically fit 4.63 0.77 4.64 0.78 —0.05 I want to be popular 3.91 1.36 3.80 1.32 0.46 I like the challenge 3.80 1.50 3.91 1.34 -0.43 I like the coach/teacher 3.90 1.31 4.05 1.31 -0.63 I like to gain status 3.70 1.26 3.70 1.23 -0.05 I like to have fun 3.98 1.21 4.23 1.10 -l.16 I like to use the equipment 3.54 1.41 3.25 1.40 1.14 *significant at OK < .05 58 TABLE 9 REASON FOR PARTICIPATING BY MALE/FEMALE DROPOUTS Females Males Item 2 SD f SD t-value I want to improve my skills 4.73 0.73 4.50 0.85 1.29 I want to be with my friends 3.80 1.19 4.31 1.95 -2.08* I like to win 4.61 0.69 4.28 1.03 1.74 I want to get rid of energy 2.80 1.44 3.28 1.41 -1.51 I like to travel 3.66 1.48 3.53 1.34 0.41 I want to stay in shape 4.60 0.79 4.50 0.66 0.55 I like team work 4.27 0.95 3.86 1.27 1.66 I like the excitement 3.68 1.41 3.50 1.23 0.61 My parents/friends want me to play 3.48 1.50 3.31 1.35 0.53 I want to learn new skills 4.43 1.02 4.28 1.06 0.66 I like to meet new friends 4.18 1.22 4.03 1.03 0.60 I like to do something I am good at 4.50 0.76 4.39 0.87 0.61 I want to release tension 4.00 1.28 4.03 1.40 -0.09 I like the rewards 3.36 1.45 3.00 1.31 1.17 I like to get exercise 4.25 1.06 4.25 0.91 1.37 I like to have something to do 3.50 1.29 3.72 1.32 -0.76 I like the action 4.66 0.91 4.50 0.77 0.83 I like the team spirit 4.55 1.02 4.61 0.90 -0.30 I like to get out of the house 3.57 1.40 3.89 1.39 ~1.02 I like to compete 4.06 1.17 4.28 0.94 -0.87 I like to feel important 4.00 1.35 4.11 1.26 -0.38 I like being on a team 4.48 0.93 4.28 1.06 0.90 I want to go to a higher level 4.41 0.90 4.53 0.88 ~0.59 I want to be physically fit 4.64 0.78 4.50 0.78 0.78 I want to be popular 3.80 1.32 4.11 1.24 -1.09 I like the challenge 3.91 1.34 4.25 0.94 -1.29 I like the coach/teacher 4.05 1.31 3.92 1.15 0.46 I like to gain status 3.70 1.23 3.64 1.39 0.22 I like to have fun 4.23 1.10 4.06 1.09 0.70 I like to use the equipment 3.25 1.40 3.89 1.14 -2.20* *significant at 0k < .05 59 TABLE 10 REASON FOR PARTICIPATING BY MALE/FEMALE PARTICIPANTS Females Males Item f SD I SD t-value I want to improve my skill 4.69 0.70 4.66 0.65 0.36 I want to be with my friends 3.56 1.29 3.53 1.12 0.11 I like to win 4.28 1.15 4.05 1.26 1.23 I want to get rid of energy 3.51 1.40 2.77 1.40 3.50* I like to travel 3.19 1.59 3.12 1.41 0.31 I want to stay in shape 4.60 0.85 4.25 0.88 2.72* I like team work 4.27 1.02 4.16 1.07 0.67 I like the excitement 3.81 1.35 3.58 1.24 1.16 My parents/friends want me to play 3.34 1.60 2.96 1.41 1.66 I want to learn new skills 4.48 0.85 4.62 0.76 -l.10 I like to meet new friends 3.73 1.34 3.79 1.09 -0.33 I like to do something I am good at 4.20 1.14 4.03 1.18 1.01 I want to release tension 3.49 1.44 3.51 1.48 -0.07 I like the rewards 2.89 1.52 2.63 1.41 1.17 I like to get exercise 4.12 1.28 4.37 0.92 -l.43 I like to have something to do 3.46 1.42 3.30 1.17 0.80 I like the action 4.69 0.85 3.63 0.66 0.55 I like the team spirit 4.81 0.79 4.62 0.88 1.51 I like to get out of the house 3.13 1.48 3.12 1.23 0.03 I like to compete 4.26 1.16 4.15 1.16 0.62 I like to feel important 3.89 1.33 3.81 1.35 0.40 I like being on a team 4.34 1.11 4.36 1.02 .-0.08 I want to go to a higher level 4.46 0.07 4.53 0.90 -0.47 I want to be physically fit 4.63 0.77 4.41 0.91 1.74 I want to be popular 3.91 1.36 3.89 1.28 0.08 I like the challenge 3.80 1.50 3.60 1.42 0.87 I like the coach/teacher 3.90 1.31 3.97 1.14 -0.39 I like to gain status 3.69 1.26 3.52 1.30 0.90 I like to have fun 3.98 1.21 3.66 1.19 1.77 I like to use the equipment 3.54 1.41 3.26 1.54 1.25 *significant at o( < .05 60 equipment” than females, while females scored lower than males on 'I want to be with my friends." In addition, while female dropouts ranked "liking to travel" as the most important reason for participation, male dropouts ranked “wanting to stay in shape“ as the most important reason for participation. Male and female participants differed on two reasons for participation, as shown in Table 10. Speci— fically, females rated the reasons 'I want to get rid of energy“ and 'I want to stay in shape“ higher than males. Yet, both male and female participants agreed that liking the team spirit was the most important reason for participation. Differences in Age Groups Multiple t-tests were used to determine if there were any significant differences in reasons for partici- pation for children from the 11-14 year age group and the 15-17 year age group. The results are shown in Table 11. There were no significant differences in their reasons for participation. Differences in Rural and Urban To determine whether or not there were any signi- ficant differences in reasons for participation among rural and urban children, multiple t-tests were 61 TABLE 11 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING BY OLDER/YOUNGER CHILDREN Young (ll-l3) Old(l4-l7) Item x SD x SD t-value I want to improve my skill 4.61 0.80 4.70 0.64 -0.92 I want to be with my friends 3.78 1.21 3.63 1.21 0.98 I like to win 4.35 1.06 4.22 1.15 0.94 I want to get rid of energy 3.28 1.40 3.06 1.47 1.20 I like to travel 3.38 1.50 3.24 1.48 0.71 I want to stay in shape 4.46 0.86 4.51 0.82 -0.46 I like team work 4.29 0.98 4.11 1.12 1.41 I like the excitement 3.58 1.31 3.75 1.31 —1.05 My parents/friends want me to play 3.46 1.45 3.11 1.51 1.88 I want to learn new skills 4.60 0.81 4.40 0.94 1.76 I like to meet new friends 3.95 1.19 3.81 1.24 0.89 I like to do something I am good at 4.24 1.08 4.22 1.06 0.11 I want to release tension 3.64 1.43 3.66 1.44 —0.12 I like the rewards 3.03 1.45 2.83 1.47 1.08 I like to get exercise 4.25 1.06 4.22 1.14 0.22 I like to have something to do 3.55 1.28 3.39 1.34 0.34 I like the action 4.67 0.75 4.63 0.84 0.45 I like the team spirit 4.76 0.65 4.63 1.00 1.25 I like to get out of the house 3.23 1.45 3.36 1.38 -0.75 I like to compete 4.13 1.16 4.25 1.11 -0.85 I like to feel important 3.83 1.89 3.97 1.35 -0.83 I like being on a team 4.30 1.05 4.40 1.04 -0.75 I want to go to a higher ' level 4.49 1.02 4.48 0.93 0.05 I want to be physically fit 4.56 0.79 4.55 0.84 0.13 I want to be popular 3.75 1.38 4.03 1.25 -1.67 I like the challenge 3.76 1.44 3.87 1.36 -0.61 I like the coach/teacher 4.03 1.21 3.89 1.26 0.90 I like to gain status 3.47 1.34 3.75 1.23 -l.64 I like to have fun 3.83 1.16 4.03 1.19 -l.35 I like to use the equipment 3.52 1.39 3.41 1.44 0.61 *Significant at o(<.05 62 performed. The results, as shown in Table 12, indicate that there are significant differences between rural and urban children. Rural children rated 'I like the excite- ment,‘ '1 like to have fun," and ”I like to do something I'm good at' more important than the urban children. Reasons for Dropping Out Questionnaire This instrument was designed to measure reasons that children have for dropping out of sport. The results of the 31 items and their overall importance are presented in Table 13. Listed in order from highest to lowest, according to the percentage of most important reason, the highest was 'I didn't learn new skills,“ followed by 'I didn't like to compete,“ “there was not enough team spirit,” "it was not exciting enough,“ and lastly, three items that ranked equally, 'I had other things to do,” I was injured,“ and 'I didn't meet new friends." Multiple t-tests were used to determine whether or not there were significant differences in reasons for dropping out among males and females. The results in Table 14 show that there were differences in the reasons that males and females gave for dropping out of sport programs. Females scored higher than males on the fol- lowing reasons: "I didn't win enough," "I didn't feel important enough,‘ "I didn't receive enough rewards,‘I "I 63 TABLE 12 REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING BY RURAL/URBAN Rural Urban Item Y SD f SD t-value I want to improve my skill 4.69 0.65 4.56 0.87 1.40 I want to be with my friends 3.74 1.24 3.58 1.11 0.95 I like to win 4.34 1.09 4.09 1.21 1.58 I want to get rid of energy 3.25 1.44 2.87 1.41 1.89 I like to travel 3.35 1.52 3.16 1.39 0.88 I want to stay in shape 4.52 0.85 4.38 0.77 1.20 I like team work 4.18 1.06 4.22 1.08 -0.32 I like the excitement 3.83 1.26 3.23 1.36 3.30* My parents/friends want me to play 3.22 1.51 3.34 1.49 —0.54 I want to learn new skills 4.42 0.92 4.65 0.79 ~1.78 I like to meet new friends 3.93 1.24 3.68 1.14 1.49 I like to do something I am good at 4.31 0.99 3.99 1.25 2.21* I want to release tension 3.67 1.41 3.62 1.50 0.25 I like the rewards 2.98 1.44 2.71 1.51 1.35 I like to get exercise 4.19 1.15 4.34 0.96 -0.94 I like to have something to do 3.55 1.32 3.20 1.28 1.97 I like the action 4.67 0.82 4.59 0.74 0.66 I like the team spirit 4.69 0.91 4.67 0.77 0.22 I like to get out of the house 3.38 1.43 3.09 1.34 1.49 I like to compete 4.19 1.15 4.22 1.10 -0.18 I like to feel important 3.91 1.32 3.93 1.34 -0.08 I like being on a team 4.35 1.09 4.38 0.93 -0.20 I want to go to a higher level 4.48 0.96 4.49 0.98 -0.03 I want to be physically fit 4.57 0.81 4.50 0.84 0.61 I want to be popular 3.89 1.32 3.97 1.27 -0.43 I like the challenge 3.91 1.36 3.57 1.47 1.73 I like the coach/teacher 3.91 1.29 4.04 1.08 -0.76 I like to gain status 3.70 1.23 3.46 1.41 1.38 I like to have fun 4.05 1.17 3.65 1.17 2.42* I like to use the equipment 3.51 1.42 3.32 1.44 0.92 *significant at OQ < .05 64 TABLE 13 REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT Percent Most Reasons Important I didn't learn new skills 18.8 I didn't like to compete 11.2 There was not enough team spirit It was not exciting enough I was injured I had other things to do I didn't meet new friends I didn't travel enough I didn't feel important enough There was not enough challenge I didn't like the pressure I didn't have enough fun I didn't receive enough rewards I didn't like the rewards My parents/friends don't want me to play My skills did not improve I was not pepular I didn't like being on the team I was not able to be with friends It was boring I wasn't as good as I wanted to be I wasn't in good enough shape I was not able to use the equipment/facility My friends no longer play I didn't win enough The training was too hard There was no teamwork I didn't get enough recognition I didn't participate enough I was too old I wanted to play another sport H NNNUWWWUIWUIO‘O O O O O O . O NMNNU‘U'IU'UI U'IU‘U'IQQQQOOOUO l-‘l-‘I-‘l-‘NNNN 00000000 l-‘ OOOOOOOOO N 65 TABLE 14 REASONS FOR DROPPING OUT BY MALE/FEMALE Female Male Item x SD f SD t-value I didn't learn new skills 3.75 1.18 3.22 1.55 1.73 I didn't like to compete 3.57 1.27 3.33 1.43 0.78 There was not enough team spirit 3.39 1.30 3.03 1.32 1.22 It was not exciting enough 3.57 1.30 3.08 1.30 1.66 I was injured 3.43 1.21 2.83 1.49 1.99* I had other things to do 3.77 1.26 2.86 1.42 3.05* I didn't meet new friends 3.59 1.25 2.75 1.48 2.76 I didn't travel enough 3.82 1.06 3.69 1.37 0.46 I didn't feel important enough 3.61 1.47 2.89 1.55 2.15* There wasn't enough challenge 3.78 1.20 3.47 1.34 1.06 I didn't like the pressure 3.57 1.35 3.17 1.34 1.33 I didn't have enough fun 3.39 1.45 3.58 1.32 -0.63 I didn't receive enough rewards 3.33 1.34 2.56 1.28 2.60* I didn't like the rewards 3.50 1.46 2.61 1.52 2.67* My parents/friends don't want me to play 3.64 1.16 3.17 1.32 1.69 My skills did not improve 3.80 1.34 3.31 1.37 1.61 I was not popular 3.80 1.32 3.72 1.21 0.26 I didn't like being on the team 3.80 1.47 3.78 1.29 0.06 I couldn't be with friends 3.57 1.33 3.14 1.42 1.39 It was boring 3.05 1.60 2.81 1.67 0.65 I wasn't as good as I wanted to be 3.11 1.37 3.11 1.45 0.01 I wasn't in good enough shape 3.07 1.37 2.53 1.21 1.85 I was not able to use the equipment facility 2.95 1.43 2.89 1.17 0.22 My friends no longer play 3.86 1.32 3.44 1.36 1.39 I didn't win enough 3.84 1.20 3.11 1.43 2.48* The training was too hard 3.48 1.37 3.50 1.28 -0.08 There was no teamwork 3.16 1.26 3.11 1.30 0.17 I didn't get enough recognition 3.64 1.43 3.28 1.28 1.17 I didn't participate enough 2.86 1.37 2.25 1.46 1.93 I was too old 2.50 1.50 2.89 1.49 -l.16 I wanted to play another sport 2.64 1.54 2.94 1.43 -0.92 *significant at «X < .05 66 didn't meet new friends," "I didn't like the rewards,“ "I had other things to do.“ Both females and males agreed that the most important reason for dropping out of sports was 'not learning new skills.“ They disagreed on the second most important reason, with females rating 'not liking to compete“ as second and males ranking 'not enough team spirit“ as second. They agreed again that the third most important reason for dropping out of sport was that it was 'not exciting enough.“ CulturalQuestionnaire This instrument was designed to understand the environmental, traditional, religious, and social factors that affect participation in and dropout from sports in Jordan. The results of this questionnaire are shown in Table 15. Listed in order from highest to lowest, the rea- sons highest in importance were items numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The lowest item was No. 24, followed by numbers 22 and 23. Differences in Sport Participation Due to Religious Values As hypothesized, the results, as shown in Table 16, indicate that religion has a more negative effect on girls (mean of 2.78) than on boys (mean of 2.47) with respect to sport participation. Contrary to the 67 TABLE 15 CULTURAL QUESTIONNAIRE (Entire Sample) Percent Most Item Statement Important 1 When one participates in sport he/she feels proud of his/her participation 10.3 2 I like my participation in sport but some- times I have a conflict between sport parti- cipation and the traditional way of life 8.8 3 Sometimes I feel as if I can't express my opinion to the coaches and teachers because they will get angry with me 8.0 4 I like my participation in sport but sometimes I have a conflict between sport participation and religion 7.3 5 Sometimes when I come home late from a game or practice my parents get angry and sometimes punish me 6.5 6 I like sport very much but the people who organize it don't give enough support 5.7 7 I would love to continue participating in sport if my family will offer their support and encouragement 5.4 8 My parents support my participation in sports 5.4 9 I like participating in sport because it can make one famous and recognized 5.4 10 Society in general respects participation in sport 3.8 11 The coaches and teachers don't give enough support for athletes 3.8 12 I participate in sport for a better chance of getting a scholarship 3.4 68 TABLE 15 (Continued) Percent Most Item Statement Important 13 Sometimes it makes me feel bad because some people say that athletic people are not smart academically 3.4 14 I would like to participate in sport programs but the leaders and coaches don't give enough positive treatment 3.4 15 It is hard for me to ask my parents to buy any equipment for sport because they would rather spend the money on something else 3.1 16 It was very difficult for me to buy the equipment that I needed to participate because my family doesn't have enough money 3.1 17 Even though I like participating in sport, the programs have too much emphasis on winning and losing 2.7 18 Sometimes I want to quit sports because people make fun of me 2.3 19 I don't have enough time to participate in sport because I have lots of other work to do 1.9 20 My friends and neighbors encourage my participation in sport 1.9 21 Even though I participate a lot in sport, in general I feel as if I am not improving very much and will never get much better 71.5 22 Participation in sport has a negative effect on my personal reputation 1.1 23 There are not enough facilities and equipment in my school for sport use 1.1 24 I love participating in sport but sometimes I think people think that it makes girls or boys too aggressive 0.4 69 hypothesized relationship, religion also has a more nega- tive effect on dropouts (mean of 2.88) than participants (mean of 2.55) with respect to sport participation. TABLE 16 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES AND PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS WITH REGARD TO RELIGION Group N Mean S.D. t value p value Girls 152 2.78 1.12 2.44 .01** Boys 109 2.47 1.02 Participants 181 2.55 1.11 2.34 .01** Dropouts 80 2.88 1.01 **significant at 6‘ < .01 (one-tailed) Differences Among Males and Females in Regard to the Effect of Tradition on Sport Participation The results, as shown in Table 17, indicate that tradition has no effect on both boys and girls, and participants and dropouts, equally with respect to sport participation. This finding did not support the proposed hypothesis. Differences Among Males and Females in Regard to the Effect of Coaches'/Teachers' Influence on Sport Participation As hypothesized, the results, as shown in Table 18, indicated that coaches/teachers had a more negative effect on girls (mean of 2.58) as compared to boys (mean 70 of 2.12) with respect to sport participation. There was no significant difference found between participants and dropouts, which did not support the hypothesis. TABLE 17 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES AND PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS WITH REGARD TO TRADITION Group N Mean S.D. t value p value Girls 152 2.67 1.11 1.26 .10 n.s. Boys 109 2.51 1.01 Participants 181 2.56 1.08 1.09 .14 n.s. Dropouts 80 2.71 1.06 n.s. = not significant at o< = .05 (one—tailed) TABLE 18 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES AND PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS WITH REGARD TO COACHES'/TEACHERS' INFLUENCE Group N Mean S.D. t value p value Male 152 2.58 1.17 3.43 .00* Female 109 2.12 0.98 Participants 181 2.31 1.10 1.75 .08 Dropouts 80 2.55 1.14 **significant at o< < .001 71 Overall Abilitvagestionnaire This questionnaire was designed to find out how children in Jordan perceive themselves in terms of their ability in sport skills. The results of the multiple t-tests, shown in Table 19, indicated that there was a significant difference between male participants and male dropouts in overall perceived ability. The male partici- pants scored higher (mean = 7.45) than the male dropouts (mean = 6.33). The results also indicated that there was a significant difference between female participants and female dropouts in their overall perceived ability. The female participants scored higher (mean = 7.74) than the female dropouts (mean = 6.50). TABLE 19 OVERALL ABILITY Participants Dropouts f SD ‘Y SD t-value Males 7.45 1.01 6.33 1.15 5.20* Females 7.74 1.13 6.50 0.90 6.53* Overall: x = 7.26 SD = 1.20 *significant at (X < .001 T-tests were also carried out to determine whether there were significant differences between male and female participants and male and female dropouts with respect to overall perceived ability. The results, as 72 presented in Table 20, indicated that the differences were not significant. TABLE 20 RESULTS OF T-TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES WITHIN THE PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS Participants f SD t-value Males 7.45 1.01 1.76 n.s. Females 7.74 1.03 Dropouts Males 6.33 1.15 0.73 n.s. Females 6.50 0.90 Theoretical Models Harter's Theory Perceived Control Questionnaire. Multivariate tests were used to assess the differences in the perceived control of failure/success between participants and dropouts with respect to sport participation. Table 21 shows the sample sizes, means, and standard deviations of perceived control for participants and dropouts. The results of the multivariate analysis of variance test indicated that the differences were not significant, F (6,252) = 1.89, p = .083. Due to the fact that these results approached significance, and the interest in exploring further the relationship between 73 participants and dropouts in their perceived control of outcome, a discriminant analysis follow-up was performed. Results of the discriminant analysis revealed one signifi- 2 cant function x = 10.96, p < .05. The one discriminat— ing variable was unknown success. The means indicated that more dropouts tended to perceive success as due to unknown factors compared to the participants. As shown in Table 21, the results of the multivariate test did not show any differences between participants and dropouts with respect to internal success/failure and others success/failure. It can thus be concluded that the findings of this study did not support Harter's theory. TABLE 21 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED CONTROL FOR PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS Participantsa Dropoutsb Perceived Control Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Internal success 3.22 .84 3.04 .81 Internal failure 2.35 .79 2.33 .70 Others success 2.54 .75 2.63 .82 Others failure 2.50 .80 2.49 .67 Unknown success 2.38 .83 2.71 .80 Unknown failure 2.43 .70 2.28 .74 a n = 181 bn = 80 Perceived Competence . A multivariate was used to examine the differences in the ANOVA test sources of 74 motivation between participants and dropouts with respect to sport participation. Table 22 shows the sample sizes, means, and standard deviations of per- ceived sources of competence for participants and dropouts. TABLE 22 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 0F PERCEIVED SOURCES OF COMPETENCE FOR PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS . a b Participants Dropouts Source Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Cognitive 2.68 .55 2.57 .42 Social 2.70 .45 2.59 .45 Physical 2.62 .44 2.50 .39 General self-esteem 2.62 .49 2.52 .43 a n = 181 bn = 80 There were no significant differences found between participants and dropouts, F (4,256) = 1.52, p > .05. These results tend to refute Harter's theory. Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation. A multivariate ANOVA test was used to find the differences in the perceived motivation for participation in sport between participants and dropouts. Table 23 shows the sample sizes, means, and standard deviations of perceived motivation for participants and dropouts. 75 TABLE 23 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED MOTIVATION FOR PARTICIPANTS AND DROPOUTS Participantsa Dropoutsb Motivation mean S.D. mean S.D. Challenge 2.75 .42 2.65 .43 Curiosity/Interest 2.80 .49 2.71 .43 Independent mastery 2.72 .45 2.66 .43 Independent judgment 2.84 .43 2.73 .46 Internal criteria 2.78 .44 2.71 .46 a n = 181 bn = 80 The result of the multivariate ANOVA test was not significant, F (5,255) = .75, p > .05. This finding did not support the prOposed hypothesis. Maehr and Nicholls' Model An achievement orientation questionnaire was used to gather information on why the subjects felt successful 1J1 sport participation. Factor analysis employing oblique rotation was carried out on the responses to determine the congruence of orientations between the Jordanian culture and the American sample upon which the orientations had been derived. Loadings equal to or greater than .4 were considered to contribute to a construct. Five items were found clustered to the “Ability“ factor, 2 items to the “Venture“ factor, and 2 76 items to the “Independence“ factor, although the second item is weak. The “independence“ factor was found only in Jordanian athletes, which is not predicted by Maehr and Nicholls' theory. The items and factor loadings are shown in Table 24. The results indicated that the items did not cluster to 'task orientation” and “social approval orientation" factors as predicted by Maehr and Nicholls' model. Instead, the items clustered to “ability,” “venture,“ and "independence“ orientation factors. A multivariate ANOVA test was used to examine the differences in the means of scores on ability, venture, and independence factors between participants and dropouts. The results of the MANOVA indicated that the differences in the mean score were significant, F(3,257) = 9.3, p < .05. Additional tests of the hypothesized relationships could not be made given the differences in orientation patterns. Discriminant analysis was carried out to examine if ability, venture, and independence achievement orienta- tions in sport participation can discriminate the parti- cipants and the dropouts. The results revealed one significant function, x2 = 24.59, p < .05. The only discriminating variable was ability orientation. The means indicated that more participants tended to perceive ability as an achievement orientation compared to TABLE 24 77 FACTOR LOADINGS OF ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTATION IN SPORT PARTICIPATION Ability Venture Social Approval Independence Unknown Item I showed how smart I was My performance made me feel good I met the challenge I demonstrated my skills athletically My hard work (practice) paid off I was able to think of the needed strategy I did something few other people did I did something new and different I was recognized as a good player I showed I was a leader I demonstrated my importance to others Other people told me I did well I did it on my own I understood something important I reached a goal .30 .42 .59 .40 .64 .62 .52 .55 .31 .37 .34 .32 .32 .32 78 dropouts. The result supports the proposed hypothesis with respect to ability orientation. its-m The descriptive part of the results presented the most important reasons that children have for partici- pating in and dropping out of sports in Jordan, and the influence of culture, coaches and teaches, religion, and tradition upon sport participation in Jordan. The second part of the results tested Harter's and Maehr and Nicholls' theories for sport motivation in Jordan. The discussion of these results will be presented in the next chapter. The most important reason for participating in sport programs was "liking the team spirit,“ “liking to improve skills,“ and ”liking the action,“ while the most important reasons for dropping out of sport programs were "didn't learn new skills,“ "didn't like to compete,“ and "not enough team spirit.“ The only aspect of Harter's perceived control theory confirmed was ”unknown success" as a source of motivation for sport participation. Perceived physical competence was the only aspect of Harter's perceived competence theory confirmed, and the study did not support Harter's theory in terms of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. The results did not support Maehr and Nicholls' theory except in ability achievement motivation. 79 The results of this study confirmed the following hypotheses: 1. Children tun) score highly on ability orientation are more likely to maintain their sport participation. 2. Misinterpretation of religion has a stronger negative effect on girls' participation in sports than on boys. 3. Misinterpretation of religion has a stronger negative effect (H1 sport dropouts than .I,_;.._. 9! &L2»: L2,.) . I...“ .3... 5.2;. 9:4! Lia-9| a?! my, 3......43...‘ g' LL93 LL...- Qf‘Ec'u‘9‘ 4L2; g? Jalfo (J J.,! ecflu Gig-y . 4"..." ~¢‘~'.'.' e! o (“no *J ‘2'}: UR) O)?- J.»- -‘ .m‘“‘_“ 128 w". CW‘ O‘Ho.¢+3" J—‘tJ‘ co—.l MU CdL‘ ‘33; Q) J :!L:‘ ‘J'I'W‘J‘ 0 ’1 J3 |,| 3 i r .' |' i r i . t 9' i . i r i r i f I 1‘ I \ I '. g r :- .. 1 r i r 1 r i r 1 r i r I L .> .‘ I (.LLLIL, your; an: ‘L5.'."\ J'Ls- 1 [(43 0.. .113; ‘31 1".) LLLHfiJLH {oi-JJ‘ JP 3,.3‘.) _ -, 7....‘L’L5! an...“ ‘3... LIL. y"\flt”&i1r‘ GE‘J“: (5:35.3151“ -I-I-I-a "a q.‘ Q \ _. '. a...“ AMHQH L31 ~.;fu.|-.L:‘_I (‘na-pp: unb‘ {Behind v...” (.5... “an: L..L:.i n.s.-.4... gm -. L'a-IJ“ h'bedi’ tfi-‘d' in)“ uh uh“ “Jam n.s.-g: 95.3,)“ wt" V4494.” J.L.: v.3.“ FJ‘U-a-n a...” v3.31 Liam‘s.” LL...» was... v.1.“ MW“ JJ’Q‘JJ. ~73.“ .IJU qu :90.“ um . ‘JSI-n. 043‘ unu‘ 4.4:; \rié‘ VJ a—e-n-H'LI‘ rx-e 'Lfic-NF’ Q35" L. 'u: .31..“ v...“ IL... I”; rm ":..,.I...., 0......“ L...\.:.\ Lia—.1: 0.” aka: 9.2.“ a... 4W3.“ 9.4.... vun kph-*3.“ £0,913 9.3..“ ing“ 4;.“ vsgfiibuwiulagfl! - . ‘ '1 H-‘J-u’! wbvwfi‘fl .r-s‘ (*NJ“) emu: w .'.t-.'«..II gal ”LauI an ”La... via! 0 Lariat.” -A'. -I h-v-wo- 129 I5L__.J qfiuoI VI...IJIu-i-.I . ,ILuIv'ad)“ bag-.091- - dl—J-Zk‘y LpJJJJ‘gKSS‘ 9'5," ‘1’; lfl‘J 5.5 e MUG-3L5 .‘A’f’."-t‘ .PML‘JJ-L —',¢LILoo-§\+euoe o’gMI),-, 'Ayb'aJ-‘ . ’ flit-21.41,,oubus -v _ ,. w bu“; u, .a I r r I WI quMI 9.2.31... I o I r r I WWI-mu, v3.31- 1- c t l’ f i “I’m 'L’imlggm (,1. r o I I- I I -I..__:.L_.L-._I,I.... I c I . r f {Log-m.“ oi;—' huQ‘JLQ-oqu Lil- o t. t l’ I’ \ “fine-x... 1 o l r l’ I LN..." “Lav: imgai van- v o I r I I wvauIJIL3L-LasvuI_ A. .kqaafli o I r l’ I uan_,-~15uiu-Mtgni- a c I . I I Imam Iraquywvim- I- o I. I- r I MRI-I‘é‘Jj-fio-J‘vmeM-H o I r I‘ I (ouhsyaguvuI_u g’ , ‘19:. 130 WU'1LA...’ ' .\C_,\' l,‘ _M ’0‘, uni-y... c.” LI. I!" I ”T v” . I .le a wave/1.4: a“: eHw/WM_I E Iuww q....__.m .94.... ”up; Hwa‘fl‘ a“: éLé-I’IWM-I-r E] - and" cr- J-‘-5‘ .F-S' or" cue-v IDS-Lian Cl [3 --,.II:...'I...,;:...,.;IJ .1,ng bx. 9, Maseru I,” D [I U mar-$7 egg/0L.“ on, cam/$.31» oI :1 B-‘J'uon an.” M IN 9.)“ W . 9....” 1.1.4 Edi-c" L-I-IJ o9 at...) v’ 0.94-5L3 995* we. ° ,3»: 'w—JT egos/ow w, ’1... 03.3., ,J W .y 3 ”Jae U)“; QJJJ' o—o aW/ow . .M-Lfeuw 2L...» tagger . . .I ,‘ I | ' Wu Paul... {,1 etc—~41 aha/9L.“ oS-b 5WI0WJ-n or 53-3“), 0‘ O, D.,-JU' @lJL—p’ ”04L“ 4‘4“ {ti-1‘ ~5———.5 'W one-I3. Ian—~51 cum/ow 05-4.: emu/ow» -I g1 Laud ”may 50“.”.9-1: Lids gflwfl J' obs-en.» hit-d HJLCJ' g' (Legit; 0 «Jun-J)! iii-II “ Cl C] DE] Dike CH DI 1£19 cur-5" eLp/gw L__.?I,.,,I lei-Av .L____1I,:.Ls III .IJLLH W '1 campus-1 U—qfie o' W Y oLp-AII’JL‘J’ .9le Cur—‘7 OWFLe-TJ U)»: u?» arr-“'— IJHI on ”—5.5 as. .IJL...’ W '1 {Au-”low “‘3' 4.»: u' ensue. H549.“ I“- 9*»: db navy.” a tau—$7 awn/ow cal-o3! .59., u] w“ 64—— Ubfir u?» Uta-luv)“. yes-IL.» Ina—‘7 “HF-"J H“ L__-.L,.t will” 1 .WNAIJL Q’s-£25.- o' UM ' In}? 1234"". fier‘Ls" a“ 5.4.1, ' 05-1.: o-‘JJ ,oS-J.’ 054.: oS-b 054.: 09: 131 9W/oWIfi-‘r “LI-k OHM H ’“3' H1 QIJLQ...“ 0.99“?- UJLMI chi-4‘ om 90-39 . L¢.:..IL,.I ch—e—U" [12.-333$? 9.9-3:- Z'I'Hfl' V)“ o9 5.1443“? 4'45 fi-hs-Jh-z Leek-41' IWM'M L...» .°.,——la.i.g' '9an L_.._._.~..II nun.» D.,... .H_....L:L, csW/WM "5.)"! (ijoI) 9L5 III Lu Hayley-M I," ”-3 . cab» wA-p . aW/awufl uu-‘—*/ so“ (4)-“Us «LI—1‘ 11.69}th 'J_S 0' ”4.1.7.1.! ”—9 z_—-"-'J;"' Eur-V 9')". ,4... C» have 1.9-ity,“ .O|___ ‘SI “FL—9w Via-313M w 'x-lfi-z o‘ III-“bk! 9—4 0““th .9. ‘-‘ 03-99.)" Haj-1' 0V 0A W 0“ D {£13.11 [3 1£1F [:1 El [:1 Cl [:1 E] “D E] E] [:1 Cl LJ El (nu-VJ f ____,‘,.d, lF—h LIN"; M' J o QHHYI U)... 0‘ M.,-“3 u‘ 9J5“ ° “Jo-r 'm lulu-'3" IJU (DH 0 L—g'uv‘ tin-“L‘Jt‘ PJ-r‘ Us OH“ 01-, o’J' cw.L¢—l ”.4 03-1.: 95-1: 132 ”‘03,, ‘:,0o.-Dl t- LII-2| 9" La 1'...» J.,—94d L..." XI Macaw-Man... 0 'MG' WITOLr-Udmr Hoa|uun ° 'JP‘IJ NS" ”.61."... w...”- L_.__.g 35 0| it: 7] °YV D D D E] [3 11m D E] I3 1r GUI—4’7 “Lea/":5“ L—bb" Ir" W "JR-J 'J-‘J‘a u" .'__._L.'L. Qua—3' 99935/3‘93 E] -I.__x:.ssI Iran, 'L‘4’unz-li—l G'JH-t-‘Lr E] ”H1 9&3/15‘33 M!) 0' CUM H {ii-“4H" 0‘ 9“” now... ”I . “H1 9%)]? D p—fi-W 3.13—J ”3.11... ”—4.1; 0' .10-‘22.): ' u-J-h-‘U-IJ 0‘ Dee-34L.” a-n o- oar-ISLE- u.“ L94“! 0' Jr, ug’ ”pus; MID)? “Wit-4‘ ' “r Lfir’ '3-3-‘29- ”HT egg. Ngu- Hum-“’0' ”3.1.2:. H—bh-hr “J.,-3165’ w 31’ g. "..'/Q'.'... «guy»! L,» ”.413:— , 054., 05-1.: 05-1: 05-1.: 054.: 054.: o-‘JJ 05-4., 133 cW/WMcflJ t5! f—F‘J L‘ 34"“ 9’ 19:“ 9.).» a. 3.3L...) Ugh, Vin-91:) i.e.,—'3’ «Lu-bu: *Hw/WIfi-v p31 a- 345:4? saute- Zoe-'- .u:,l.n *9“: GD 0' “12;.” Wk :—" fis'JH“ J? P“ .‘w: P" wLwaWIwa-v Zen”! nevi-’0' 2.2.! twat-1d wax 9+” 014:4? 'I-é' H IDLE-“l WM .31 I,.°.Ls IM Lu wast» oh—fiul 5" IA”? I’J‘Q IJA——5L' ”:99le o'luloaeL.“ u'r-a-wétaz-U NW}... L-w-er“ 94-“ I‘m-10' ~.——?~.-.' Low... UH} our has-3 ‘4» pea-la ”1.3.2., ow/WIfi-r 6'.) Ma’s-301% 9L: r—i-r-l‘ 93"“de a_,,..,:.l '6» V) ujul .- _ - we,» M cam/own J—e—l o- 9” 996L291 0 L53! ‘3' 0‘1 0‘V “A 0H 0'. 0H ,D Di; DD [:1 m (6 {E F. Cl [:1 D E] E] \ D“. ‘13" 1£¥?1 tIFi “’J—J‘ “W'Wow D Bat—S I.“ u...) 0"". 4") i f' '41:..- pjut “*m’” €er 0' W '10:. ' 4‘34 Di [J.Pdh‘jff”, "JYIW 0‘ FL“. “H7 “VJ/ow D U ,_._.s. m, . . “W '93 Cr—n J25! tyuQ a} . L4H)” cur—‘1 °H=Jlaw [—- HVJM 0' ”4.1:... “-93 Ww‘é 4m W «35-3.: é—u “DH" ”4"": cf“ ‘rlo‘u . cur—41 “Hg/0H3“ [3 U1 r-‘JmJ-v ,2. u,,g_-.-., ..-.-.3 9“ ‘r’flt :ouu ._..;'-.' .4,. '¢'./ow [j UHH,’ .74qu J"’{ H1“ Vow-Av {-1335 '7 I I 0 ‘ft Lg“ 1 ... '9 . 9+:sz (‘3‘th " rd!“ ‘W/ohr'd D D 1" H" 4+!» ”A“, '-""——-- a! I”, 'P‘J‘JLI‘ .99.: erg: 134 L-HJ 5'”ng Je-‘WJ‘... .“r J" '41-? Psi-ll 0613' "u" 9"“ Pan-51 o'dl M‘w/WM '1'! 'J-dafir 0' 'JJJW 4,! “Uh—«J um w '9”? hug! W‘WIUL’SM” 0". "1' 'W", 3)....5 L0“? ' J-U' may M‘WIQ’WM .11 H M'I on “I ”'4'" “‘4‘“ 'm‘n of qr—Jo I,“ 0g ”'4’ °mlew “aw“‘wlwé‘v «V w 4“" 'JJ-urfiét ‘1)“ ”A! .3.” 9.4;“. 8 “kw/OW“ .y‘ Why-l “UH-J W H-“s—L- I-e-‘J w "Va” Jill 5”" “Rm/ow“ H'JH‘ 'J‘JL‘! at .24”... CUM 0“ uJ-L“: again/WM 4,. 6.5-ax; “J; 'Jbr’ M D E] C] 111;}? @ El 2:91 [3 C} 135 a», 12‘, sinu‘ LID/U 1 bk..." \ J—‘J ’52 and: ‘1: 9» ‘ 'V” v—-’ ur-' P—‘Jv‘ “Rig/0'!" (as-U - “'Lr-J’IoL-a—"Jflr E] 'u——-Lh in-H pea m M HJIJJ t—U,I V" D LBJ—5‘ ‘39-'34/9‘9“ 05-.) UW/UWM . '9—2 g? M 93;? I” 1 [j :8, [:1 HE] D [:1 DE] E] D «£51 I.” 9 QMMQAJ 5,4,: (x) m» to, Waiw 1,.“ . ( 03—51c3yyhs ”J59. I.\>IJ ”Jamal-:5!) J.,—’0)” PJ-e‘ - f—Q—Jw—h: .z__:... “Lu 9,,“ (as-U oS-b 05-h 05-1.: 05-h 05-!) 054.: 05-!) 054.9 a“: M “kw“ El [3 Cl DD I] _ 0.6—Lt]; gamma [:1 D D D a 0? 0! Cl [:1 DUDE] DDD'DD EDD C] DUDE] DECIDE] DUE] WW." ”WW 0- P34 Hal ”.1; ":9;- ‘MA 0. v—-‘ (cLSJUI; M.,,uu “Let... 1g,“ 5.4“ ' wwb’fl‘m . “.9“ :7. 1"“ '5’" 9”" «A.» ~ n.4,.» my». ,J UM .Lg:" .JJSAI-g 0‘ ° Hr-L'Lr 'L-.-" 0.94“: UlJJfl u' Whiz-L, P—‘b-v‘J-H H4“! 0345”“ PM 0 w-teuL-BI Lawmiekfi wtwwva 0M 93-“ Cal-r M PH rpm chew/.292” M La ZJU 9.5).; W'flwf‘x‘ gram.” 5?" Hum-Jr!" P214 ' Cub-‘2' (+1))?“ J'P" PM ' (“3“) aid ‘41—‘15 "4' 91 on» Pfi‘ - i0.» '33.,” via—l1! o' w-i-L-hPJ-J - LL.» 'l-u-fii' H—r 136 09, (Du—‘1” aha—”Hf: ham" 9.: 3.x...» Mowg’g “J34 Nd, ~44? .09.;01 .94 W ° H‘Jf’fie :4” my.) arm" aHQ-U‘a‘a-r 3e69,! 3»L—.JL,‘ (”J—5,." , 3.3L; (v.01 )BJLM J.L.; 054.: a“: o-e-te-n- ate-“41'“ P4) 9"“? I.» We“ P9" “a” 05-h w—A—n p‘wéu‘ «cubic U 'H-lu o' 95-!) W. ‘ 0W” gin-r ofi-‘J-J Orr cat-Jun: 05-9 0543»: Y GEEK-"$9 g—J M.,.» In." v.) 3*N'VLIJY' ° QJNH-‘w .r—e‘ aww V31 my“ ”A... Luz-‘5 Haw-1H: mus-m o- (.54.: D E] DDEJD DEILJDCI DEED El C] I: C] DUDE! DUDE] "\ °“' o‘v °\A 0“ 0'0 4’! ETC] DUDE] 137 0‘”: VB W150» l V1 La ‘1’... 1")” Lu...“ 05-4.: M4 w .oLrJJJA-r “J:‘I"‘¢ u' cr-JJ WIT (ah—”die M 0' '1)“: o .W.‘Hpflg‘ Cr“) (0‘51" OWW L._.....o JS 0| 3.3L: OMM:J by: D m on '11 [j ° H" D on DJ 138 ,——a—'—J\ C l_| H submits v““‘+‘-“‘ JJ‘JJJ-‘é—‘an-‘y 5M «1 ”1 ,3 u... 45!)\ H‘eifl wu1M 9'3,” {4'4" . nth,“ “M.,..H‘Q: com , Mm. “Jug! vi: ‘N‘s’a‘ja’k': ”wt Mann. ,. ‘. ,, was Hwy! {*1 J41 - ”an LL; H“ cVJ‘JI (1) (r) (f) (U . an. (r) “u." w ,5|.,....J..J‘.,..! (1) an. H) ”I‘m-H u.’ ”H Jm'“ Ad!“ (v) .LéL—Iéx‘ 29L...“ wfixvu. L. LALUJJJM Lam . ! ' ( )éJ—J ( ) vsL-zn 1:_g‘;.:;., ‘1‘ Quad a...“ ‘3‘ Way m . r (you: 04AM “ii-3| Aubvauw-l-lov‘q-IJJL' at“ km 0 l’ ( )\.H.9 W 3' 0,9131 3‘3"!\ 01 (”$4 ULp| 13b on '.____.iv-..~1 up. u: 9L5 . .213, ”a." duck-1.3L. In . 1: .( )vsuun 1°..." J.L.I H24! 0‘3 Z;U‘%§&Lufi1#vbffi|JW\ um . o ( ) ”.3. J1.“ [9% 3,14,! flmw¢U| ngu\¢.wl guy-.MgflUw‘ hm . 1 ‘ ’J‘flv“«}n‘0“ ‘3 v___5.,.._.....'|.a,:| :wuwflgayfl 22 um . v ~( )oLa‘Uph-I-a JJ—_‘\ 32\ ‘51 . u»...:_n a, 21.1., ouVJu um . A .( )‘mZJW‘J‘KéLJ-L‘H‘JLOJ v—u" an HR; . “A.” ‘JR-‘LS‘ v5 u” on ,4 Lu . 1 .( ) yuan-1.3 LHJJA 9.! W..g£\bat.:.J! 0’ 8.3L; LRJ a L. BHJULJJJH Lu» . |o -( ) LAM-b hon-Jo‘s 6S: .u__+~. :41, HI my.) 4 U311.” 0:“ at vast... 0‘ . u -( ) HMS aby‘u wfizg- vbuwv: m¢w\ Lam . H o( )Mér“ 139 L___...LL..,M ALL“! LJL... {,3 Lu...“ §\.+x.n “'1 J—‘—"""" -'. Lfi—LP'“ Hg}! 013.3“ LJL.‘ 0‘ pplflunu.“ Lyn. v1.“ ,1...“ 0"” VJ... L...) o__..g.U\ ...,..J| J.,: 3492‘ “L6 H! L...“ M, “Lu... LL... J: H,“ mm QJ¢JL¢flU1JJnJ|eJJ ”mum may 3...”... one-ILL“ .4.“ --, gnu.“ .,.L.,.~:\ 0...... y. "La! .39...." “,5." 91.4.: mg t...“ c... LOJH-igM-o‘fi-l Lubfld-a-Lé LoL‘J-‘ipw Lani-3pc- ‘L-apo-o a .3 .9 .,. 1 og—HPJVJ‘JK,‘ _| .......... 'ustfim‘é‘wf‘é‘fir‘c'r’fi‘fl _|’ .......... . w—AUH\~.M.H¢M -r .........r ov—lLfiJ‘wMHJ’MfJ -1 . 7 4m: ,3...” r4 _. o . Ls_____9 WowWJuJ| - 1 .......... .:'______“ H’JlaL’. -V .......... . Hmwdm ”(49.1 -A .......... . oi! .L'q‘ptl‘ 0| “3.34-6J0 29VJL1M|J¢AJ\J _. 1 .......... ' . lab—“9.3L”... Flat ,4 .1. AAA —."u-H‘Hé-U‘FJ -H .......... . 3:1H‘LA‘H‘ one; ..~.r .GNW‘M‘Q ._.1r .......... 4...“; ’4‘.” 5.1.11 ,4 -u o Rub-3‘6" 'Lfi!‘gm .4. 0000000000 . um bu‘amogfu _n........... . mu 5.)." ”J as“; ..w . L___.M.:u.lt #31 p) —M .......... . LAB—H bvutquul ,3.“ 0'" -n .......... .‘QJLH ,3. a,“ a! “1...: -r. . mum gym... m: V:uL. crop; -n........... ~‘1m——-1~o—-"‘9J -rr........... .4KmdLmoQPJ ..rr .......... . (5.91)..." a: NLLII 34$.“ .9.“ P" .,_|’1 00000000.. mum bang, LBW om OI 9.1.4,; .4. . 1.12% mun»: P" -r1 . 1J0...” Jun.» 0.. 04..“ ,..: -n; . VH5.” yLJL, Lamb LULMJ'; 099-1 .r;. .......... . \Pd...‘"tc’_.¢‘ 0L: -rq . L.L_~.:._:..< -rwm... - ,__.H M4,.“ 0.9....“ _n.'.......... ,Z‘JIHA! fizzwkeu‘ r3441» 3,124 5.3., .u out 11,1.4‘3Lpst 0o . 41.....1 1.9.3.“... I...“ 140 9/«3—u Jxeb Q\' ,| J)