Elizabeth F. Barkley - Student Engagement Techniques

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.

Procrastination is a term that resonates with many faculty members, and it is an important concept that is intimately connected to student motivation. Steel (2007) published a comprehensive meta-analysis about procrastination that can help us understand how. In this article, the author identifies several important variables related to procrastination, including self-efficacy, need for achievement, boredom, distractibility, self-control, impulsiveness, and organization. In addition, Steel proposes a model, temporal motivation theory, which attempts a synthesis of these well-established motivational formulations, focusing in particular on time. What Steel does, in short, is to integrate two ideas: expectancy-× value (described earlier) and hyperbolic discounting , which means discounting future rewards in favor of immediate rewards, moderated by an individual's tolerance for or sensitivity to delay (Pychyl, 2008).

What this means in practice is that the temporal constraints under which the task is to be completed are an important consideration. That is, time pressure matters. Even if individuals believe they can do the task and value the reward, which suggests that they should be motivated, motivation will be decreased if they have low ability to withstand urges ( impulsiveness ) or there is an overabundance of time until the realization of the outcome/deadline ( delay ). The result is that when individuals must make a choice, they may procrastinate until they see the utility of completing the task at hand, or until the time pressure increases sufficiently. That is, individuals are more likely to complete tasks that are valued and that can be achieved, and are also more likely to put off tasks that are difficult and undervalued. Individuals prefer large and immediate rewards, and thus will procrastinate on unpleasant tasks with rewards in the distant future. Temporal motivation theory, then, suggests that students' motivations are strongly influenced by what they think is important, whether they believe they can succeed, and what they believe they can accomplish within a reasonable time. Schmidt, Dolis, and Tolli (2009) suggest that “temporal motivation theory may help further the understanding of the impact of time, and particularly deadlines, on dynamic attention allocation” (p. 707).

To provide an example of how this unfolds in a college classroom, when a student has one month to study before the final exam, the student has to choose how to allocate the time available. The student, for example, may have to choose between studying or socializing. Thus, the options for time allocation are in competition. The student wants to socialize, but the student also wants a good grade on the final. The reward of studying is not immediate; thus, at the beginning of the student's study period, the motivation to study may be lower than the motivation to socialize. However, as the study period diminishes from several weeks to several days, the motivation to study will (one hopes) surpass the motivation to socialize (Steel, 2007).

TABLE 2.3.Students' Subjective Experiences

Source: Adapted from Brophy (2004), pp. 19–20.

The value × expectancy and temporal motivation theories outline constructs important to our growing understanding of student motivation, particularly when considered together, and the implications for classroom practice are fairly straightforward. Basically, teachers can increase student motivation by taking steps to increase the value of the learning to students and helping students hold optimistic and positive expectations about their own ability to succeed as well as focusing on class pacing, and by creating reasonable deadlines for learning tasks.