Читать книгу Student Engagement Techniques - Elizabeth F. Barkley - Страница 30

Clearly, students are more likely to complete a task if they value the activity. The expectancy-value model differentiates task value into four components: attainment value (i.e., importance of doing well), intrinsic value (i.e., personal enjoyment), utility value (i.e., perceived usefulness for future goals), and cost (i.e., competition with other goals) (Eccles et al., 1983). For college teachers, these different components of value likely ring true. Some students will value a task because they want to achieve, while others will simply enjoy it. Some will value a task because they believe it will help them in their future careers. Others will simply value it because they value other tasks less. These value constructs also are related to other theories of motivation. Self-determination theory, for example, suggests that at times we engage in behavior simply because we want to (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002). Settings that promote intrinsic motivation satisfy three innate needs: autonomy (self-determination in deciding what to do and how to do it), competence (developing and exercising skills for manipulating and controlling the environment), and relatedness (affiliation with others through social relationships). Students are likely to be motivated in courses that promote these three characteristics.

Csikszentmihalyi's (1993, 1997) concept of “flow” describes states of deep intrinsic motivation that sound a lot like deep engagement. He proposes that when we experience flow, action and awareness merge. We are so absorbed in the task at hand that irrelevant stimuli disappear from consciousness and worries and concerns are temporarily suspended. We lose track of time; in fact, it seems to pass faster. The activity becomes autotelic—worth doing for its own sake. Wlodkowski (2008) notes that helping students achieve a sense of flow is more possible than many instructors realize, and he identifies the following characteristics as contributors: (a) goals are clear and compatible, allowing learners to concentrate even when the task is difficult; (b) feedback is immediate, continuous, and relevant as the activity unfolds so that students are clear about how well they are doing; and (c) the challenge balances skills or knowledge with stretching existing capacities (Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2003, in Wlodkowski, 2008, pp. 267–268). Brophy (2004) observes that while some people seem to possess a flow personality, seeking out challenges and taking great pleasure in stretching their limits, others rarely experience flow because they fear failure and avoid challenging situations (p. 11).

While the expectancy × value model offers a framework for identifying engagement strategies generally, it is also helpful in understanding and devising interventions for at-risk students whose low levels of confidence and failure expectancy have placed them in a state of almost chronic disengagement. For example, dissembling occurs when students recognize the value of the task but feel incapable of doing it, either because they aren't certain of what to do, how to do it, or doubt that they can do it. They then make excuses, deny their difficulties, pretend to understand, or participate in any of the other behaviors designed to protect their ego rather than developing the task-related knowledge and skill. Evading is likely when success expectancies are high but task value perceptions are low, that is, students feel confident they can do the task but don't see any reason to do so and instead daydream, interact with classmates on topics unrelated to course content, think about their personal lives, and so forth. Finally, rejecting (active disengagement) is likely when both success expectations and task value perception are low. Lacking either a reason to care about succeeding or the confidence that they could do the task even if they tried, they simply become passive or smolder with anger or alienation, rejecting the task and don't even feel the need to dissemble or pretend to themselves or others that they are capable of doing it. Understanding the root causes of lack of engagement can help identify strategies for re-engaging these students. See Table 2.3, “Students' Subjective Experiences,” for a summary of the anticipated student responses to engaging in a learning task when the expectancy or value aspects are influenced positively or negatively.

Although value and expectancy have received much attention in the study of student motivation, they generally do not account for the temporal factor that is all too real for many students, all of whom are balancing life outside the classroom with life inside and the real competition for their time and attention. Therefore, in our efforts to promote student engagement, it is useful to look at the temporal aspect of student motivation.