IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i2p21582440231180671.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring Motivation for Mathematics Course Choice in Secondary School Students: Interrelationships Between Cost and Other Situated Expectancy-Value Theory Components

Author

Listed:
  • Jane Kirkham
  • Elaine Chapman
  • Sally Male

Abstract

Higher-level mathematics courses in upper secondary school serve as a critical filter to future educational courses and careers in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). However, the percentage of senior school students in Australia undertaking higher-level mathematics courses is decreasing. Given that these courses provide students with skills and knowledge integral to STEM disciplines, it is important to discover factors that serve to encourage or detract students in choosing higher-level mathematics courses. Considering that educational and career choices are influenced by personal interests, values, and expectations, the purpose of this study was to design and validate a bipolar format survey instrument to investigate motivational factors on mathematics course choices of Year 10 Australian school students based upon Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT). A 25-item survey instrument using a bipolar format was developed to measure: Expectancy for success (operationalized as Competence-beliefs); Intrinsic value; Attainment value; Utility value; and Cost in relation to mathematics. Confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses of data collected from Year 10 students ( n  = 886) revealed a four-factor model consisting of well-defined factors of Competence-beliefs, Intrinsic value, Attainment value, and Utility value. Unexpectedly, the items designed to measure the Cost factor dispersed variously into the factors of Competence-beliefs, Intrinsic value, and Utility value, and conceptually plausible explanations are offered for this finding. This survey represents a promising instrument for measuring predictors of mathematics course choices in senior school students. The study findings also suggest interrelationships between specific cost dimensions and other factors relevant to the measurement of SEVT constructs more generally.

Suggested Citation

  • Jane Kirkham & Elaine Chapman & Sally Male, 2023. "Measuring Motivation for Mathematics Course Choice in Secondary School Students: Interrelationships Between Cost and Other Situated Expectancy-Value Theory Components," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:21582440231180671
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231180671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231180671
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231180671?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna DeCastellarnau, 2018. "A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1523-1559, July.
    2. Jane Kirkham & Elaine Chapman, 2020. "Gendered Decision-Making About Mathematics Courses: Contributions of Self-Perceptions, Domain-Perceptions, and Sociocultural Factors," Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(1), pages 1-43, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Niculaescu, Corina E. & Sangiorgi, Ivan & Bell, Adrian R., 2023. "Does personal experience with COVID-19 impact investment decisions? Evidence from a survey of US retail investors," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Outdoor Activity Participation Improves Adolescents’ Mental Health and Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Jon Roozenbeek & Stefan M. Herzog & Michael Geers & Ralf Kurvers & Mubashir Sultan & Sander van der Linden, 2022. "Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(3), pages 547-573, May.
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:547-573 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Choi, Young Rok & Phan, Phillip H. & Choi, Jaepil, 2020. "Formal governance, interfirm coordination, and performance in partnerships: An empirical investigation of a mediation model," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 413-424.
    6. Aarti Sharma & Taghreed Abunada & Sawsan S. Said & Rana M. Kurdi & Atiyeh M. Abdallah & Marawan Abu-Madi, 2022. "Clinical Practicum Assessment for Biomedical Science Program from Graduates’ Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-10, September.
    7. Karen Gorissen & Bert Weijters & Berre Deltomme, 2024. "Green versus Grey Framing: Exploring the Mechanism behind the Negative Footprint Illusion in Environmental Sustainability Assessments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-10, February.
    8. S. Brent Jackson & Kathryn T. Stevenson & Lincoln R. Larson & M. Nils Peterson & Erin Seekamp, 2021. "Connection to Nature Boosts Adolescents’ Mental Well-Being during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, November.
    9. Giovana Vitória Nunes Leite Duarte & Susana Pereira Antunes Procópio & Angélica Cotta Lobo Leite Carneiro & Leandro de Morais Cardoso, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Tool for Assessing Sustainable Social Practices in Food Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    10. Arne Weigold & Ingrid K. Weigold & Migyeong Jang & Emily M. Thornton, 2022. "College students’ and Mechanical Turk workers’ environmental factors while completing online surveys," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 2589-2612, August.
    11. Wonyoung Yang & Hyeun Jun Moon & Jin Yong Jeon, 2019. "Comparison of Response Scales as Measures of Indoor Environmental Perception in Combined Thermal and Acoustic Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-26, July.
    12. David Fortunato & Matthew V. Hibbing & Tessa Provins, 2022. "Hurdles to inference: The demographic correlates of survey breakoff and shirking," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(2), pages 455-465, March.
    13. Konstantin Gavras & Jan Karem Höhne & Annelies G. Blom & Harald Schoen, 2022. "Innovating the collection of open‐ended answers: The linguistic and content characteristics of written and oral answers to political attitude questions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(3), pages 872-890, July.
    14. Wonyoung Yang & Jin Yong Jeon, 2021. "Usability of Visual Analogue Scales in Assessing Human Perception of Sound with University Students Using a Web-Based Tablet Interface," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    15. Marc Asensio & Melanie Revilla, 2022. "Number of answer categories for bipolar item specific scales in face-to-face surveys: Does more mean better?," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1413-1433, June.
    16. Zhou, Fei & Su, Qiulai & Mou, Jian, 2021. "Understanding the effect of website logos as animated spokescharacters on the advertising: A lens of parasocial interaction relationship," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:21582440231180671. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.