operationalized at different levels (domain vs. task). Thus, the current dissertation will distinguish between domain- and task-specific competence beliefs while equally including research on self-efficacy, self-concept of abilities, and expectancy beliefs.
1.2.2 Value-related theories and constructs of motivation
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and self-determination theory
Eccles et al.’s (1983) development of the four value beliefs in EVT was influenced by previous work on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000), which also constitutes the basis of self-determination theory (SDT). Intrinsic motivation is considered a human disposition and is defined as “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable reasons” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 56). Intrinsically motivated activities such as play and active learning take place independently from external incentives, which is why they are considered to be autonomous. In contrast, extrinsic motivation refers to activities that are “done in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 60). Although intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation are antagonistic constructs, humans also have a disposition to assimilate and internalize nonintrinsically motivated practices and values from their social and cultural environment. Through processes of internalization and integration, originally extrinsic activities can become increasingly autonomous and, consequently, intrinsically motivated (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Accordingly, SDT postulates that there is a continuum from extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation, comprising various types of extrinsic motivation in which the regulation of academic behavior becomes increasingly internalized, integrated, and self-determined.
Inspired by theories of intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-determined motivation, reasons to engage in an activity which pertain to an individual’s self, personal interests, identities, and goals were introduced to EVT in the form of value beliefs. Yet in contrast to SDT, which focuses on antagonistic types of motivation (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), EVT considers different value beliefs and thus different degrees of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation to contribute to a comprehensive perception of value (Wigfield et al., 2009). External motives to engage in a task are not per se considered undesirable as long as they are personally important and thus contribute to overall high degrees of subjective task value. Accordingly, both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of motivation can be found to varying degrees in the concepts of intrinsic value, attainment value, and utility value (Eccles, 2005). A person who intrinsically values a task does not do it as a means to another end but rather because he or she enjoys it, which comes very close to Ryan and Deci’s (2000) definition of intrinsic motivation. If an individual perceives high levels of attainment value, both the activity and its outcomes are important to the person’s self and identity, which comprises intrinsic but also extrinsic motives. Similarly, a person who thinks that a task is useful for his or her future plans acts to achieve a personally valued outcome. In both cases, the behavior is highly internally regulated, personally important, and more (attainment value) or less (utility value) self-determined. This implies that attainment and utility values have
THE EXPECTANCY-VALUE MODEL OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
13 ties to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. There are no explicit overlaps between EVT and externally regulated types of extrinsic motivation in which engaging in a task relies on an individual’s desire to receive a reward or avoid punishment.
Interest theory
Interest theory (e.g., Schiefele, 1991; 2009) is concerned with answers to the question
“Why do I want to do this task?”. The terms interest and motivation often are used synony-mously in everyday conversation. However, in research in education, motivation refers to an individual’s drive to do a certain activity in a specific situation and interest actually represents a possible determinant of motivation. Interest is related to either a specific task or domain and, accordingly, comprises two conceptions: situational interest, a temporary, task- and situation-specific psychological state characterized by high attention and positive emotions; and individual interest, an enduring personal orientation toward a domain—a stable character trait. Situational interest is assumed to influence students’ intrinsic motivation to learn directly; individual interest is assumed to impact intrinsically motivated learning either directly or indirectly via the experience of situational interest (Schiefele, 2009). Under certain conditions, situational interest can become individual interest (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). According to Schiefele (1991;
2009), individual interest also can be defined as a relatively stable set of valence beliefs. These valences refer to a) feelings associated by an individual with a domain of interest and to b) the personal value and significance attributed by an individual to a domain of interest. In this definition, the feeling-related aspect of individual interest has a considerable conceptual overlap with intrinsic task value found in EVT. In addition, the value-related aspect of individual interest shares certain aspects with attainment and utility value, namely that a domain of interest has personal importance and relates to personal goals (Schiefele, 2009; Trautwein et al., 2013).
Furthermore, interest and value beliefs are both constructs which vary in degree.
Despite some similarities, the theoretical complexity of individual and situational interest is not fully captured in the definition of intrinsic value (Wigfield et al., 2009). Nevertheless, similar to competence-related constructs, the empirical distinctiveness of the constructs of interest, intrinsic value, and intrinsic motivation depends on their distinct operationalization, in particular, their measurement level. At the domain level, individual interest, intrinsic value, and intrinsic motivation often have been measured using similar items, and overlaps in wording also may occur with items used to measure attainment value (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). In contrast, when measured at different levels, individual (i.e., domain-specific) interest and task-related intrinsic value beliefs have been shown to be empirically distinct constructs (Hulleman, Durik, Schweigert, & Harackiewicz, 2008).
Future time perspective
Future time perspective (FTP) (Nuttin, 2014; Nuttin & Lens, 1985; Volder & Lens, 1982) is a cognitive theory of motivation concerning present anticipation of future goals and beliefs about the instrumentality of engaging in tasks to attain these personal goals (i.e., instrumentality beliefs). In contrast to learning goal theory, which is concerned with approaches towards
INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
14
learning (performance vs. mastery as learning goals, e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), FTP focuses on personal life goals and the time perspective taken on these goals. Accordingly, goals are differentiated into immediate, present goals and more long-term, future goals. In addition, personal goals may refer to different areas of life such as school, career, social relationships, personal development, and leisure (Peetsma, 2000). A FTP is created by setting highly valued goals in the rather distant future and by engaging in long-range projects to achieve these goals (Volder & Lens, 1982). Accordingly, FTP combines cognitive aspects of motivation (ability to relate present behavior to distant goals) with dynamic aspects of motivation (ascribing relevance to personal goals). Individuals who take on a FTP are assumed to perceive their current behavior as more instrumental to accomplish both short- and long-term goals and, thus, to value task engagement more than people who are focused on immediate goals (Simons, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004). Recent work on the instrumentality perspective has incorporated aspects of EVT and SDT into the definition of four types of instrumentality beliefs based on the degree of utility value (low vs. high) and on the type of regulation (internal vs.
external) (Simons et al., 2004).
Whereas utility value beliefs refers to the perceived utility of engaging in a task for attaining personal goals in general, instrumentality beliefs are more specific regarding their time perspective and the nature of the goals. In empirical studies, instrumentality beliefs have been measured with items that contain a time marker (present vs. future) and refer to a broad range of personal goals in various areas of life (Husman, Derryberry, Crowson, & Lomax, 2004). In contrast, the operationalization of utility value has been diverse, either without any time and goal specification (e.g., Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993) or with mixed time orientations referring to different goals (e.g., concerning present leisure time and future employment, Eccles & Wigfield, 1995), resulting in overlaps with items measuring instrumentality. However, value scales more recently developed in the context of EVT provide a more comprehensive and refined measurement of utility value beliefs, including time markers and goals in various areas of life (Gaspard, Dicke, Flunger, Schreier et al., 2015; see 1.3.1).
Summary and implications for the present research
Theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation—and SDT—influenced Eccles et al.’s (1983) development of value beliefs in EVT, some of which are more (intrinsic value) or less (utility value) intrinsically motivated. The major difference between SDT and EVT is that intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation constitute oppositional types or qualities of motivation. In contrast, EVT defines value beliefs (intrinsic, attainment, utility) that vary in quantity and, when in greater amounts, contribute to an overall higher level of motivation.
Interest theory distinguishes between situational interest as a temporary psychological state of enjoying a task and individual interest as an enduring character trait shaped by personal value attributed to a domain of interest. Although the conceptual complexity of the constructs of interest is not represented in the definition of intrinsic value, interest and intrinsic value refer to similar basic concepts (Wigfield et al., 2009). Empirically, interest, intrinsic value, and intrinsic
THE EXPECTANCY-VALUE MODEL OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION
15 motivation often have been operationalized with similar items, which is why research on students’ interest and intrinsic motivation also are consulted when referring to empirical findings concerning students’ intrinsic value beliefs in this dissertation.
Similar to utility value beliefs as defined in EVT, the core construct of FTP—instrument-ality beliefs—also deals with how important task engagement is perceived to be in order to attain personal goals. Theoretically, instrumentality beliefs rely on the time distinction between broad ranges of present or future goals, whereas utility value beliefs relate to general future goals (Eccles et al., 1983). However, the empirical operationalization of utility value beliefs has been mixed (i.e., with or without time markers, referring to general utility or specifying a goal), resulting in notable empirical overlaps with items measuring instrumentality. Taking a broad view on the utility value construct of motivation, including utility for present and future personal goals, the notion of students’ relevance perceptions will subsume several utility-related constructs and respective research in this dissertation (cf., Priniski, Hecht, & Harackiewicz, 2017). In addition to studies of instrumentality beliefs (e.g., Husman et al., 2004), studies in which terms such as “curricular meaningfulness” (e.g., Roeser et al., 2000), “instrumental motivation” (e.g., OECD, 2016b), and “functional relevance (of learning)” (e.g., Woolley, Rose, Orthner, Akos, & Jones-Sanpei, 2013) were used also are taken into account when reviewing research on students’ relevance perceptions.
1.3 Educational relevance of competence beliefs and value beliefs