Finally, self-worth models propose that people are strongly motivated to preserve their sense of self-worth. When students don't succeed, they would prefer to question—and have others question—their effort (they're “lazy”) rather than their ability (they're “dumb”) (Brown & Weiner, 1984; Cross, 2001). Based on this model, it is easier to understand why some students don't even try to accomplish a task if they believe there is low probability that they will be successful.
Covington (1993) found four typical student patterns that resonate with the experience many college teachers have interacting with students in the classroom. Success-oriented students are serious learners who want to perform well, and they usually do. They are predisposed toward engagement, as they enjoy learning for learning's sake. They find personal satisfaction in challenging assignments because they are accustomed to success and are able to preserve their perceptions of self-worth even in the event of an occasional failure. Overstrivers are also successful students and will take on challenging tasks, but they are not entirely confident in their ability, and consequently worry constantly about their grades and performance. Anxious that each new learning task will be the one that exposes the lower levels of ability that they have so far been able to conceal, they compensate by expending a great deal of effort to ensure that they do succeed. Failure-avoiders also suffer anxiety, but because they have not always been successful in school, they are afraid that if they fail at a specific learning activity, they will prove to themselves and others that they lack the ability to succeed. In order to preserve their sense of self-worth, they avoid tasks that are too challenging. Finally, failure-accepting students have become so accustomed and resigned to academic failure that they feel hopeless. They respond to learning tasks with indifference (school is irrelevant and unworthy of their efforts) or even antagonism, and they are neither satisfied with success nor dissatisfied with failure (Cross & Steadman, 1996, pp. 79–84). In short, they have disengaged from the learning process.
Although the role of expectancy has received considerable attention in the study of student motivation, “value” is still a critical variable. Students are making the sacrifices necessary to get a college education because they believe in the value of the learning, the value of the degree, or both. Therefore, in our efforts to promote student engagement, it is useful to look at what the research says about how the concept of value influences student motivation.
Value
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.
Temporal 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