The expectancy-value theory seems to be a predictive framework that can foresee performance, activity choices, enrollment decisions, etc. (Durik et aI., 2006; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002). A student’s belief that they have the ability to finish a task and that the task has value to them with minimal costs or ‘strings’ attached, can be a predictor of high performance or persistence in that task.
The theory doesn’t seem to explain the reasons for students having these expectancies or values, especially based on social norms. For instance, costs may roughly predict women’s occupational choices (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2014), but it’s not clear through this framework why costs would affect mostly women’s choices but not men’s.
I feel this theory can be especially helpful in predicting retention rates for at-risk students and can provide ‘target points’ in one’s academic track where intervention may be most required. This could help increase the numbers of under-represented minorities in STEM fields.
Since this theory doesn’t explain the reasons for expectancies or values, one may have to turn to another motivational theory, perhaps something like self-determination theory, to create appropriate interventions. For instance, if the Expectancy-Value theory has predicted that costs affect women, perhaps the relatedness component of the self-determination theory can explain why so, which in turn can lead to building the desired support or encouragement systems for women.
If using two different lenses, care should be taken that one is able to accurately inform the other. Perhaps different theories could then work well together, complementing each other, and strengthening others’ weaknesses.
I like your idea of combining two theories of motivation, I think most times it is possible to gain a complete understanding of a phenomenon when it is viewed through two different lenses. I am curious as to what you think good target points might be for at-risk students. The article states that expectancies and values interact in a non-additive way. If appears to be the case that when either expectancies or values are high, and the other is low, the high one is unable to compensate for the low one, suggesting low motivation will result (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2014). Many at-risk youth suffer from low motivation, so intervening to increase low expectancies or values may have a substantial impact these youth.
Hi Sukanya, Thanks for your thoughts on expectancy-value theory. I particularly liked your idea about using expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory to address motivation in at-risk students. I would argue that this would be helpful even beyond supporting targeted groups. As a teacher, I felt that there was a general culture of low motivation in school; students didn’t find value in completing high school and so were unmotivated. Using expectancy-value theory to describe this phenomenon and self-determination theory to explain it might offer enlightenment into the widespread poor-attitude epidemic I perceived. Teachers would benefit from research-based tips to improve utility value and attainment value (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2014, p. 92); Common Core standards push “career readiness,” but students aren’t grasping the relevance of their work.
Hi Sukanya – I’ve wondered this exact thing! You note self-determination theory as a possibility, but I was wondering if you think attribution theory has any merit? This theory argues that people try to explain outcomes they experience, both positive and negative (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patell, 2014) and I think these explanations could shape both expectancies and value. For example, a student who fails a test and attributes it to his/her own fault (“I am stupid”), then s/he might expect to fail in the future. This could explain the formation of expectancies. Using this same example, students might learn to not value tasks they feel they are going to fail at. I can see how this makes sense, but I am interested to hear others’ opinions!
Hi Mathew,
Yeah, I think it’ll be a great advantage if we can increase both expectancies and values. I think good target points would be 9-6 months or so before students have to make important choices (such as taking AP courses, choosing majors, college applications, etc). In this case, we’ll know what we can do to ensure their choices aren’t merely an effect of low motivation but something that they truly want.
Hi Sarah,
Yeah, using research would be good to address constructs that are complicated like utility value and attainment value. I think utility value, especially, could seem low for students in rigid curriculums. Unless teachers can help students see the utility value of math, for instance, there always might be questions like “what’s the point of algebra, I don’t think I’ll use it”.
Hi Kimberly,
Actually, I’m glad that many of you are well versed in theories of motivation because I’m learning a lot from all of you 🙂 I hadn’t thought about attribution theory in this way, but I think what you say makes a lot of sense. Attributing some traits to ourselves will affect our expectancies I think. I have a feeling many of these theories are interconnected. It might be useful to see the different ways in which they explain each other.
Administrators:
Christine Greenhow
Diana
Rand
cainwil1
Ming
Top Posters:
galvins1: 51
richkat3: 50
albertsk: 43
moudgal1: 43
schellma: 41
liraamal: 39
Emilia: 35
zhumengd: 34
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 19
Topics: 97
Posts: 339
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 0
Members: 77
Moderators: 0
Admins: 5
Most Users Ever Online: 58
Currently Online:
3 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)