The perceived price of participation: How do students cover the cost to engage?
2.30-3.00pm
Daniel Taylor-Griffiths, University of Queensland
As universities face growing student disengagement and wellbeing challenges, understanding the motivational foundations of engagement has become critical.
This research synthesised principles of self-regulated learning (Pintrich, 2000) situated expectancy-value theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020) and models of engagement (e.g. Kahu & Nelson, 2018) to investigate how students regulate their motivational beliefs – specifically their expectancies (Can I do this?), value judgments (Should I do this?), and perceived costs (What will this take?). The research examined how these beliefs related to cognitive, affective, and behavioural engagement during the transition to undergraduate studies.
The study triangulated data from weekly self-report surveys and interviews. The first phase (n = 378, 33 interviews) employed content analysis, interpretive phenomenological analysis, and structural equation modelling to examine connections between motivational beliefs and cognitive (intention to withdraw), affective (happiness, depression, anxiety), and behavioural (time on task) engagement. The second phase (n = 97, 10 interviews) employed a randomised quasi-experiment comparing initiatives designed to influence students' cost perceptions. Both conditions included weekly co-regulatory goal-setting, monitoring, and evaluation exercises, but differed in their weekly instructional materials which targeted time management and principles of acceptance and commitment therapy respectively.
Quantitative findings revealed relationships between motivational beliefs and engagement measures, with cost perceptions crucially influencing both expectancies and value judgements. Content analysis showed students predominantly perceive costs around time, relating it to effort, psychological wellbeing, and the need to prioritise time to meet multiple commitments. Interviews suggested non-traditional students perceive costs differently. Qualitative findings from phase two demonstrated that co-regulatory exercises were more salient to students than one-off educational resources.
This work provides a student-centric engagement model framing students as rational decision-makers prioritising educational engagement within competing needs. Institutions should provide personalised iterative co-regulatory initiatives that reduce costs and/or increase investment to promote student wellbeing and engagement.