January 2012 Volume 15 Number 1 - Educational Technology ...

From the expectancy-value model (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), it is suggested that both expectancies and values lead
to performance, persistence, and choice. Students who have low self-perceptions of ability to succeed and control, do
not perceive a task to be important, useful, or interesting (low perceptions of task value), may seek to avoid a task
rather than to invest effort in completing it. According to Schunk (1991), when students see themselves as effective
learners, they are more highly motivated, work harder on learning tasks, expend more effort, and display more selfregulatory
behaviors. The level of self-efficacy, therefore, may be related to students’ intrinsic motivation to persist
in carrying out a learning task and thereby affects their ability to develop problem-solving skills. One’s expectancy
for success may also influence the development of task values.
Discussions
The results of this study may have implications in engineering and technology education in grades 9–12. First, in
relation to the significant correlation between students’ interest in the design task and expectancy for success,
students’ interest in engaging in the design tasks should be positive. A study conducted by Durik and Harackiewicz
(2007) suggested that TV plays an important role in students’ interest development. Efforts that promote students’
understanding about the usefulness, interest, and importance of solving the design task are necessary. A teaching
approach that emphasizes how a design solution can be used in real-life applications may positively contribute to the
increase of students’ task value and interest development. For example, control systems designed by the students in
the marble-sorter design project may be used in the detecting system in industry. The level of difficulty and
complexity of the task also must be carefully considered before the task is given to the students. Teachers may want
to present their students with a design task that is challenging but within their reach. When students perceive the
design task to be beyond their abilities, they may become discouraged, which may, in turn, lower their intrinsic
motivation.
Second, the 76 percent contribution of IGO and TV toward students’ expectancy for success also indicated other
factors that played roles in developing students’ expectation to successfully complete their design tasks. EGO does
not seem to be a good predictor for students’ expectancy for success. Smaller correlation coefficients between EGO
and SELP (r = .362, p = .000) and between EGO and CLB (r = .339, p = .000) conforms to insignificant standardized
beta coefficient in the regression test (β = .050, p = .327). Those other factors may be associated with the way the
instruction of the design courses was presented. Moreover, in addition to students’ appraisal of challenge and task
absorption, issues that relate to students’ self-determination and a feeling of autonomy are also essential elements in
intrinsic motivation (Butler, 1987). When students are allowed to make decisions, their interest in learning is likely
to increase. When student evaluation is based upon self-referenced information, students develop learning goals.
However, when evaluation information is based on normative standards and social comparison (i.e., EGO), students
will be more likely to focus on performance goals (Song, 2004), which may increase evaluative pressure and, in turn,
may work against intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980). Whenever necessary, teachers may want to carefully
exercise extrinsic motivational strategies to increase students’ expectancy for success in a design challenge. Contrary
to many studies that found intrinsic and extrinsic motivations to be positively correlated, some studies found
otherwise (Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0426421. Any
opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.
159