Elizabeth A. Canning and Judith M. Harackiewicz (2015) examined utility-value interventions in three different studies to compare interventions that rely on information that is directly communicated with interventions that employed self-generated information. Previously, motivational interventions have used a variety of “self-persuasion techniques” and “directly communicated information” to promote positive attitudes toward school among school-aged children, according to Canning & Harackiewicz (2015, p. 47). Although many of these interventions have used techniques that are based off of reputable research, specific factors that contributed to the success of such interventions have remained unclear due to a lack for systematically assessing these interventions in controlled settings.
…show more content…
Canning & Harackiewicz’s (2015) examined two different utility-value (UV) interventions. UV interventions have been derived from the “expectancy-value model” and this theory states that performance and motivation on achievement tasks are determined by a combination of “subjective task values” and “perceived expectancies for success” (p. 48). Eccles claimed that there were at least four types of subjective task values that served as predictors for success and motivation, which included cost, attainment, intrinsic, and utility. In contrast with the other three subjective task values, utility value has been strongly associated with variety of positive outcomes and practices, such as value, interest, engagement, and achievement outcomes. Recently, laboratory studies have demonstrated that certain ways of communicating utility value is more effective among certain students than others. Canning & Harackiewicz’s research sought to clarify the understanding for effectively communicating utility value between students with high confidence and those with low confidence. Additionally, previous studies had
Canning & Harackiewicz’s (2015) examined two different utility-value (UV) interventions. UV interventions have been derived from the “expectancy-value model” and this theory states that performance and motivation on achievement tasks are determined by a combination of “subjective task values” and “perceived expectancies for success” (p. 48). Eccles claimed that there were at least four types of subjective task values that served as predictors for success and motivation, which included cost, attainment, intrinsic, and utility. In contrast with the other three subjective task values, utility value has been strongly associated with variety of positive outcomes and practices, such as value, interest, engagement, and achievement outcomes. Recently, laboratory studies have demonstrated that certain ways of communicating utility value is more effective among certain students than others. Canning & Harackiewicz’s research sought to clarify the understanding for effectively communicating utility value between students with high confidence and those with low confidence. Additionally, previous studies had