Interactive Effects of Positive Task Value and Cost on Students’ Learning Behavior

Self‐Regulation, Co‐Regulation, and Socially Shared Regulation of Motivation for Collaborative Activity: Comparison Between University Students and Working Adults1

“…In particular, the fact that this result was obtained only for university students is difficult to explain and therefore, more detailed research is required. Previous research based on value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Kera & Nakaya, 2016) had assumed that value had some positive aspects, such as interest value and utility value, as well as negative aspects, such as “cost.” A comprehensive examination of the relationships between the various aspects of value and motivational regulation will better clarify the function of motivational antecedent factors. Third, the correlation coefficients between the three modes of motivational regulation were very strong.…”

“…The question item of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997;Ito & Shinto, 2005) was "I am confident that I will work on group activities in the future." The question item of interest value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;Kera & Nakaya, 2016) was "I think it would be fun to work on a group activity." The question item of utility value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;Kera & Nakaya, 2016) was "I think the group activities are meaningful."…”

“…The question item of interest value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;Kera & Nakaya, 2016) was "I think it would be fun to work on a group activity." The question item of utility value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;Kera & Nakaya, 2016) was "I think the group activities are meaningful." As the contents of these constructs are clear and unitary and can be asked in a straightforward manner, we decided to measure each of them with a single item.…”

“…To assess self‐efficacy, interest value, and utility value, we used one item each that most directly represented these constructs. The question item of self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Ito & Shinto, 2005) was “I am confident that I will work on group activities in the future.” The question item of interest value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Kera & Nakaya, 2016) was “I think it would be fun to work on a group activity.” The question item of utility value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Kera & Nakaya, 2016) was “I think the group activities are meaningful.” As the contents of these constructs are clear and unitary and can be asked in a straightforward manner, we decided to measure each of them with a single item. This was also aimed at minimizing the burden on survey participants to answer questions.…”

“…In addition, it has been shown that previous performance level positively predicts self‐efficacy and task values (Bandura, 1997; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Motivation studies that address value (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Kera & Nakaya, 2016) have attempted to examine intrinsic value by dividing it into “interest value” and “utility value”; “utility value” refers to the usefulness of an activity in everyday life. Therefore, we designed our study such that it further clarifies how self‐efficacy and the two kinds of task value—interest value and utility value—positively influence the three modes of regulation of intrinsic motivation by comparing university students with working adults.…”