Adolescents’ Motivational Profiles in Mathematics and Science: Associations With Achievement Striving, Career Aspirations and Psychological Wellbeing

Abstract

Pertinent to concern in Australia and elsewhere regarding shortages in STEM fields, motivational expectancies and values predict STEM study and career aspirations. Less is known about how “cost” values may deter, and how expectancies/values and costs combine for different profiles of learners to predict achievement aspirations and psychological wellbeing outcomes. These were the aims of the present study using established measures of perceived talent, intrinsic and utility values, and a new multidimensional “costs” measure as the platform to explore a typology of mathematics/science learners. Grade 10 Australian adolescents ( N = 1,172; 702 girls) from 9 metropolitan Sydney/Melbourne schools completed surveys early 2012/2013. Latent profile analyses educed profiles within each of mathematics and science: “Positively engaged” scored high on positive motivations, low on costs; “Struggling ambitious” were high for both positive motivations and costs; “Disengaged” exhibited generally low scores on positive motivations but high costs. MANOVAs examined mathematics/science profile differences on clustering variables, experienced learning environments, achievement background and striving, career aspirations and psychological wellbeing. Positively engaged/Struggling ambitious were distinguished by high costs perceived by Struggling ambitious, associated with debilitated psychological wellbeing, but not eroding achievement striving. A greater proportion of boys was in this risk type. Disengaged students reported lowest STEM-related career aspirations, aimed marks and history of results; in mathematics, a greater proportion of girls was in this risk type. Profiles could be conceptualized along dimensions of achievement striving and psychological wellbeing. Similar profiles for mathematics and science, and coherent patterns of antecedents and outcomes, suggest several theoretical and educational implications.

Striving for Success but at What Cost? Subject-Specific Achievement Goal Orientation Profiles, Perceived Cost, and Academic Well-Being

“…As has been noted in previous research, students aiming to succeed well often do but are also susceptible for negative effects on well-being (e.g., Tuominen-Soini et al, 2011. These findings reflecting the differences between mastery-and success-oriented students echo the results of Watt et al (2019), who identified Positively engaged (i.e., high on expectancy-value constructs, low on costs) and Struggling ambitious (i.e., high on positive values and costs) students, who differed in that the Struggling ambitious students perceived high costs, accompanied with debilitated psychological well-being, but still no impairment in achievement striving.…”

“…Collating the previous research together and drawing particularly from Daniels et al (2008) , Tuominen-Soini et al (2008 , 2012) , Luo et al (2011) , Lo et al (2017) , and Jiang et al (2018) students with profiles high in mastery were anticipated to demonstrate adaptive well-being (e.g., low cost, high engagement, low burnout), students with profiles high in both mastery and performance were anticipated to demonstrate maladaptive along with adaptive well-being (e.g., high cost, high engagement, high exhaustion), students with profiles characterized by average scores on all orientations were anticipated to show moderate well-being (e.g., average cost, engagement, and burnout), and students with profiles high on avoidance goals were anticipated to demonstrate maladaptive academic well-being (e.g., low engagement, high cynicism), that is, as suggested by Watt et al (2019) , besides the consistently adaptive (e.g., mastery-oriented) and maladaptive (e.g., avoidance-oriented) profiles, we also expected to find asynchronous profiles (e.g., success-oriented), in which not only achievement goals but also costs would be high and which might further exert some deleterious effects on academic well-being (e.g., high emotional exhaustion and stress; see also Tuominen-Soini et al, 2008 ), regardless of high engagement ( Tuominen et al, 2020b ).…”

“…Despite only few studies available, the more specific look at cost seems informative. Cost has shown to differentiate students' adaptive and maladaptive motivational patterns (Conley, 2012), contribute to subsequent academic achievement (Conley, 2012;Hong et al, 2020), and predict retention intentions (Perez et al, 2014), and due to its association with debilitated well-being (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress; Watt et al, 2019) and the adoption of avoidance motivation (Jiang et al, 2018), it also seems to play a role in student engagement. As to the associations between costs and achievement goals, the findings are scant and somewhat mixed due to variation in the assessment of the constructs (e.g., whether just one combined component or multiple subfacets of cost have been used).…”

“…Striving for a goal also requires investing time and effort, thus implying that there always is some subjective cost in play. This aspect of motivational trade-off is incorporated in the expectancy-value theory ( Eccles et al, 1983 ) and, although empirically somewhat neglected until the recent years, has shown to provide insights particularly into the predictions of students’ avoidance motivation and behavior (e.g., avoidance goals, negative classroom affect: Jiang et al, 2018 ; drop-out intentions: Perez et al, 2014 ) and even well-being ( Watt et al, 2019 ). Thus, a combined look at the perceived cost and achievement goals may help to explain students’ achievement behavior beyond positive purposes ( Conley, 2012 ; Jiang et al, 2018 ) and, consequently, provide a more comprehensive view onto the complexity of students’ subject-specific motivational processes and their implications on study-related well-being.…”

Motivational Mindsets and Reasons for Studying: Development and Validation of a Classification Tool

“…Little research has been conducted in education on motivational profiles using the person-centered approach (Gillet, Morin, & Reeve, 2017). Prior studies fusing student motivation with studentcentered analyses have focused on the expectancy-value framework (Watt, Bucich, & Dacosta, 2019); achievement goal-orientation (Tuominen-Soini, Salmela-Aro, & Niemivirta, 2011; need achievement (Covington & Omelich, 1991); burnout and engagement (Salmela-Aro & Read, 2017); and combinations of adaptive/maladaptive motivation, self-regulation, and psychological wellbeing (Elphinstone & Tinker, 2017). Among the research that has focused on the multidimensionality of motivation, the most prominent in the academic context has primarily been carried out from the self-determination framework (Deci & Ryan, 2000).…”