Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Choice and Self

EğitimveBilim2011,Cilt36,Sayı160

EducationandScience2011,Vol.36,No160

Expectancy-ValueModelofAchievementChoiceandSelf-ReportedDisruptiveBehaviorsofElementarySchoolStudents

İlköğretimÖğrencilerininBaşarıSeçimiBeklentiDeğeriModeliveSınıf-İçiRahatsızEdiciDavranışları

BülentAĞBUĞA*

PamukkaleUniversity

AbstractThepurposeofthisstudyistoexaminetherelationshipsamongelementaryschoollevel

boysandgirls’ expectancybeliefs, subjective taskvalues, and theirdisruptivebehaviors in aphysical educationprogram.Onehundred and thirty one students (56 boys and 75 girls) ingrades3,4,5,and6completedquestionnairesassessingtheirexpectancybeliefs,subjectivetaskvaluesandself-reporteddisruptivebehaviors.The resultof this research revealednogenderdifferencesforthesevariables.Resultsalsoindicatedthattherewerenosignificantrelationshipsbetweenexpectancy-valueofachievement choiceandstudents’disruptivebehaviors forbothgender. Because this study represents the first attempt to examine the relationships amongexpectancy beliefs, task values and student self-reported disruptive behaviors in a physicaleducation/activitysetting,moreresearchisneededtoconfirmorrefutethisfinding.

Keywords: Expectancy beliefs, subjective task values, studentmisbehaviors, elementaryschool

ÖzBu çalışmanın amacı, ilköğretimokulu erkekvekız öğrencilerinin “beklenti inançları”,

“öznelgörevdeğerleri”ve“sınıf-içirahatsızedicidavranışları”arasındakiilişkileriincelemektir.Araştırma, ilköğretim3.,4.,5.ve6. sınıflaradevameden131öğrenci (56erkekve75kız) ileyapılmışve“beklentiinançları”,“öznelgörevdeğerleri”ve“sınıf-içirahatsızedicidavranışları”değerlendiren anketleri tamamlandırılmıştır.Bu çalışmanın sonunda erkek ve kız öğrencileraçısından bu değişkenlerde bir farklılık görülmemiştir. Her iki cinsiyet için “başarı seçimibeklenti değeri” ve “sınıf-içi rahatsız edici davranışlar” arasındaki ilişkinin istatistik olarakönemibulunmamasınarağmen,builişkininnegatifbirilişkiolduğutespitedilmiştir.Buçalışmailköğretimokulu erkek ve kız öğrencilerinin “beklenti inançları”, “öznel görevdeğerleri” ve“sınıf-içi rahatsız edici davranışları” arasındaki ilişkiyi inceleyen ilk çalışma olduğu içingelecektebukonuüzerindeaynıyadafarklıeğitimortamlarındaaraştırmalarıntekraredilmesigerekmektedir.

Sonuçolarak,buçalışma,“beklentiinançları”ve“öznelgörevdeğerlerinin”öğrencilerinderslerekatılımlarınıetkileyenönemlibelirleyicilerolduğunubelirtmektedir.

Anahtar Sözcükler: Beklenti inançları, öznel görev değerleri, sınıf-içi rahatsız edicidavranışlar,ilköğretimokulu.

Introduction

Although school physical educationprogramshave been recognized as themost logicaland practical environments in promoting physical activity (Sallis & McKenzie, 1991; Xiang,

* Assist.Prof.Dr.BülentAĞBUĞA,PamukkaleUniversity,[email protected]

25EXPECTANCY-VALUEMODELOFACHIEVEMENTCHOICEANDSELF-REPORTEDDISRUPTIVEBEHAVIORSOFELEMENTARYSCHOOLSTUDENTS

McBride,&Solmon,2003b),theseprogramsoftenfailstomeettherecommendationthatchildrenandadolescentsparticipateinatleast60minutesofmoderatelyintensephysicalactivitydaily(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2006). Fortunately,motivating children to bemorephysicallyactive,after-schoolprogramsshouldbeprovidingmorestructuredandmoreproductive physical activities. The effects of after-school programs on students’ physical activity levels, however, dependlargelyon whether students are motivated toparticipate and to demonstrate engagement behaviors. Defined as the energization, direction, and regulation of behavior (Roberts, 2001), motivation affects student achievement behaviors such as activity choice, effort, persistence, and performance. To ensure successful participation and learning in after-school physical activity programs, teachers and researchers should know how to motivate students, what affects their motivation, and howmotivationalprocesseschange.

Children’smotivationineducationalsettingswasmostlyinvestigatedbyconductingself-efficacy(Bandura,1997)andachievementgoaltheory(Ames,1992;Duda,1996;Dweck&Leggett,1988;Nicholls,1989).Anexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoice(Eccles,1987;Ecclesetal.,1983;Eccles,Adler,&Meece,1984;Eccles,Wigfield,&Schiefele,1998;Wigfield,1994;Wigfeld&Eccles,1992),however,mightrepresentoneofothermotivationaltheoreticalframeworksforinvestigating children’smotivation. Examining elementary school children’s expectations andvaluesusingtheexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoicemayprovideabetterperceptionaboutchildren’sdevelopmentofmotivationalvaluesandexpectancy(Xiang,McBride,Guan,&Solmon,2003a).

Expectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoiceResearchers(Atkinson,1957;Ecclesetal.,1983;Wigfield,1994;Wigfeld&Eccles,1992)in

thistraditionarguethatindividuals’choice,persistence,andperformancecanbeexplainedbytheirbeliefsabouthowwelltheywilldoontheactivity(expectancy-relatedbeliefs)andtheextenttowhichtheyvaluetheactivity(subjectivetaskvalues).Ecclesandhercolleagues(Ecclesetal.,1983;Eccles&Wigfield,1995;Wigfield&Eccles,1994)proposedthatexpectancy-relatedbeliefsconsistsofbothbeliefsaboutabilityandexpectanciesforsuccess.Whilebeliefsofabilityrefertochildren’sevaluationoftheirabilityindifferentachievementtasks,expectanciesforsuccessrefertochildren’ssenseofhowwelltheywilldoonanupcomingtask.Sometimesexpectancyforsuccessandselfefficacycanbemixed.Whileexpectancyforsuccessreferstoperformanceexpectations,andrelatesspecificallytotaskperformance,self-efficacy,isaself-appraisalofone’sabilitytoaccomplishataskandone’sconfidenceinpossessingtheskillsneededtoperformthattask(Garciaetal.,1991). Expectancy-valueresearchdemonstratesthatbothbeliefsaboutabilityandexpectanciesforsuccessplayafundamentalroleinachievementmotivationandinfluencebehaviorandlearning(Bandura,1986;Covington,1984;Ecclesetal.,1983).

Eccles et al. (1983) identified four major components of subjective task values that caninfluence achievement motivation: (a) attainment value or importance, (b) intrinsic value orinterest,(c)utilityvalueorusefulness,(d)cost.Theydefinedattainmentvalueastheimportanceofdoingwellonthetaskintermsoftheirself-imageandcorepersonalvalues.Intrinsicvaluereferstheenjoymentonegainsfromdoingthetask.Utilityvaluereferstoperceivedusefulnessoftaskinlife.Costreferstohowthedecisiontoengageinoneactivitylimitsaccesstootheractivities(Wigfield&Eccles,2000).Costincludeslossoftimeandenergyforotherchoices(Xiangetal.,2003a).However,thiscomponentisnotexaminedinthepresentinvestigation.

Notably, expectancy-value model proposes that when students believe that they aregoodatlearningtasks(i.e,expectancybeliefs)andseewhattheyaredoingintheclassroomasimportant, useful, and interesting (i.e, task values), they aremore likely todemonstrate highlevelsofengagement in learning.Xiang,McBride,andBruene(2004), forexample, foundthatexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandsubjectivetaskvalueswerepredictorsofchildren’sintentionsforfutureparticipationinphysicaleducationandinrunning.

26 BÜLENTAĞBUĞA

Researchindicatesthatgenderdifferencesoccuredinchildren’sexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandsubjectivetaskvalues.Anumberofresearchers(Meece&Courtney,1992;Satina,Solmon,Cothran, Loftus, & Stockin-Davidson, 1998;Wigfield et al., 1997;Wright, 1997) reported thatgirlshavelowerabilitybeliefsandexpectanciesforsuccess,evenif theyperformedaswellasorbetterthanboys.Wigfieldetal.(1997),however,reportedthatchildren’sexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandsubjectivetaskvaluescanbedependedontheirgendertypeintheelementaryschoolyears.Wigfieldetal.(1997)foundthatboys’expectancy-relatedbeliefswerehigherthangirls’formathandsports,whilegirls’expectancy-relatedbeliefswerehigherthanboys’forreadingandinstrumentalmusic. Inphysical education settings, boyshavehigher expectations for successthan girlsmainly due to a gendered learning context that is perceived to bemale dominant(Satinaetal.,1998;Wright,1997;Xiangetal.,2003a).The participants in those studies, however, were mostly Caucasian students. Little information is available concerning the application of the expectancy-value model to minoritystudentsinphysicaleducation/physicalactivitysettings.

Students’disruptivebehaviorsSeveralstudieshavebeenperformedtoexaminetherelationshipbetweentheexpectancy-

valuemodelandothermotivationaltheories.Theyshoweddistinctresults.Forinstance,whileXiang and her colleagues (2004) found that fourth graders’ expectancy-related beliefs and/orimportancemadesignificantcontributionstothepredictionoftheir1-milerunningperformance,Chen,Martin, Ennis, and Sun (2006) showed that none of the constructs of this model (i.e.,expectancybeliefsandtaskvalues)predictedlearningoutcomesandaveragein-classphysicalactivity.Itisapparentthatbecauseofthiscontrastintheavailableempiricalstudies,moreresearchis neededby examining the expectancy-valuemodelwith other learning outcomes. Students’disruptivebehaviorsrepresentonepftheselearningoutcomes.

Disruptive behavior, sometimes called troublesome or misbehavior (McCormack, 1997;O’Hagan&Edmunds,1982)hasalwaysbeenoneofthemostseriousconcernsofschools.Thistypeofbehaviordisruptsnotonlyteachersbutalsothelearningfocusofstudents(Fernandez-Balboa,1991).Italsointerfereswithapositiveclassroomclimate,aswellasstudentssocialinteractions,andmaycreateanatmospherethatreducesstudentparticipation(Doyle,1986;Kounin,1970).

Research indicates that disruptive behavior mostly occurs because of inappropriatecurriculumandteachingstrategies,teacher’sinabilitytomeetthediverseneedsofallstudentssuch as class size, limited planning time, cultural and linguistic barriers, lack of access toequipmentandmaterials,poororganization,mismatchbetweenteachingstyleandthelearningstylesofstudents,thestudent’semotionalandbehavioraldisorders,thephysicalarrangementoftheclassroom,boredomorfrustration,andtransitionalperiods(Belka,1991;Fink&Siedentop,1989;O’Sullivan&Dyson,1994;Tinning,1987).Additionally,moredisruptivebehaviorscanbeseeninphysicaleducationprogramsbecauseoflackofcontrolofstudentsinalargeareaofgym(Rimmer,1989).

Becauseoftheeffectsofstudentdisruptivebehaviorsontheabilityofteacherstomanageclasses and successful teaching, numerous researchers have conducted research on studentdisruptive behaviors in the classroom and physical education (Anderson & Prawat, 1983;Cothran&Kulinna,2007;Doyle,1990;Kaplan,Gheen,&Midgley,2002;Kaplan&Maehr,1999;Kulinna,Cothran,&Regualos,2003;Supaporn,Dodds,&Griffin,2003).Supapornetal.(2003),forexample,examinedhowtheclassroomecologyandprogramofactioninfluenceteacher’sandstudents’understandingofmisbehaviorinamiddleschoolphysicaleducationsetting.Intheirstudy,mostmisbehavior that studentsdescribedwere relatedwith classroom rules, routines,andteacherexpectationsandwerereportedasinterferingwithinstructionalormanagerialtasks.Forexample,verbalmisbehaviorsincludedtalking,yelling,criticizingpeers,usinginappropriatelanguage, and arguing with the teacher whereas physical misbehaviors included wanderingor fooling around,walking on bleachers, using equipment inappropriately, leaving the gym,pushing,kicking,andfighting.Recently,Kulinnaetal.(2003)developedthe“PhysicalEducationClassroomManagement Instrument” (PECMI) to measure students’ disruptive behaviors in six categories:


(1) aggressive (e.g., “bullying”), (2) low engagement or irresponsibility (e.g., “doesn’t participate”), (3) fails to follow directions (e.g., “doesn’t line up right”), (4) illegal or harmful use of substances (e.g., “drug use”), (5) distracts or disturbs others (e.g., “giggling”), and (6) poor self-management (e.g., “late assignments”).

To reduce disruptive behaviors, most researchers (e.g., Frith & Armstrong, 1986; McCarl,Svobodny,&Beare,1991;Nelson,Smith,Young,&Dodd,1991;Prater,Joy,Chilman,Temple,&Miller,1991)have used behaviorist approaches such as self-management training, positive reinforcement, and self-monitoring as effective methods. These behaviorist approaches, however, are not adequate to effectively deal with disruptive students (Kaplan et al., 2002; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999). As a result, there is a need to explore other approaches to the study of student disruptive behaviors.

KaplanandMaehr(1999)proposedthatmotivationaltheoriescouldbeusedtoexaminestudents’ disruptive behaviors. In physical education settings, however, only a few researchexamined the relationship between student motivation and their disruptive behaviors. Forexample,Papaioannou(1998)hasfoundthatreasonsforbeingdisciplinedinphysicaleducationrelatetogoalorientations.Amasteryorientationwasassociatedwithintrinsicreasons,caring,responsibility, and introjected reasons for being disciplined during participation in physicaleducationclasses.Aperformanceorientationwaspositivelyrelatedtoextrinsicreasonsandtonoreasonsforbeingdisciplined.Overall,high-mastery-orientedindividualsperceivedthemselvesasmoredisciplined than low-mastery-oriented students, and thiswas linked to their reasonsforbeingdisciplined.Notably,KaplanandMaehr(1999)andPapaioannou(1998)examinedtherelationshipbetweendisruptivebehaviorsandachievementgoaltheoryasaviabletheoreticalperspectivetothestudyofstudents’disruptivebehaviors.Recently,Agbuga,XiangandMcBride(2010)foundthatmasterygoalsarerelatedtolessdisruptivebehaviorsthanperformancegoalsinphysicaleducationsettings.

Nevertheless,researchonstudents’motivationwithinothermotivationalapproachessuchasanexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoicehasnotbeenlinkedwiththestudyofstudents’disruptivebehaviorineducationsettings.Therefore,thepresentstudyoffersexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoiceasatheoreticalframeworkforinvestigatingthestudents’disruptivebehavior in an after-school physical education setting. Such inquiry may provide practicalinformation to reveal constructs of value in at-risk elementary schoolminority students andhowthesevaluesandexpectanciesinteracttotheirdisruptivebehaviors.Suchinquirymayalsoprovideimportant implicationsfor teacherswhowanttodesignphysicaleducationprogramswhere students’ disruptive behaviors will be minimized and therefore their learning can bemaximized.

Asaresult,thisstudyattemptedtousetheexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoiceasatheoreticalframeworktoexaminerelationshipsamongstudents’motivationandtheirself-reporteddisruptive behaviors in an after-school physical educationprogram. Specifically, thefollowing research questionswere addressed: (a)What is the relationship between children’sexpectancy-related beliefs, subjective task values, and disruptive behaviors? (b)What genderdifferencesoccurbetweenchildren’sexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementgoalsanddisruptivebehaviors?

Methods

TheSettingandParticipantsThis studywasperformed ina federally funded21st Century Community Learning Centers’

(21st CCLC) after-school program serving mostly African-American and Hispanic-Americanstudentsingrades3-6.Thepurposeofthisprogramistocreatecommunitylearningcentersthatprovideacademicenrichmentopportunitiesforchildren,particularlyminoritystudentswhoareinlowsocio-economiclevel,tomeetStateandlocalstudentstandardsincoreacademicsubjects

28 BÜLENTAĞBUĞA

meetsuchasreadingandmathematics,toofferstudentshigh-qualityenrichmentactivitiesthatcanmatchtheirregularacademicprograms,andtoofferliteracyandrelatededucationalservicestothefamiliesofparticipatingstudents(Bhanpuri,2005).The 21stCCLCafter-schoolprogram consisted of five program areas for students: reading, science, math, physical activity, and enrichment. The after-school program ran from 3:00 p.m. and ended at6:00 p.m. Mondays to Thursdays for the regular school year. Participants rotated through the five program areas every 30 minutes. Class size typically ranged from 20 to 30 students.

Thefocusofthephysicalactivityprogramwithinthis21stCCLCprogramwastoprovidestudents opportunities to engage in maximum amounts of enjoyable moderate-to-vigorousphysical activity (MVPA), to developpositive attitudes towardphysical activity, and to learnaboutphysicallyactiveandhealthylifestyles.Tothisend,theCoordinatedApproachtoChildHealth (CATCH) was adopted as a curricular program. The CATCH is a developmentallyappropriatephysicalactivityprogramthatpromoteshealthyfoodchoices,healthrelatedfitness,skillcompetency,andcognitiveunderstandingsabouttheimportanceofphysicalactivityamongchildren(Luepker,Perry,McKinlay,Nader,Parcel,&Stoneetal.,1996).Aerobicgames,sports,jumpingrope,parachuteactivities,andmuscularstrengthgamesaremajorcomponentsoftheCATCHprogram.

After-school physical education classes were taught by two experienced physical education specialists who were trained to employ numerous techniques to maximize the amount of time students spend in activities during the physical activity class. Physical education specialists,specifically,receiveda2-hrtrainingsessionbeforeimplementingthelessonsanda10-minboostertrainingpriortostartingeachlesson.Thefollowingtrainingobjectiveswereapplied:(a)Awareofthelessonobjectives;(b)assesstheCATCHcurricula;and(d)promotestudents’participationinphysicalactivity;and(e)developteachers’organizational,management,andinstructionalskills.

Participantsincluded131(56boysand75girls,Mage=10.55,SD=1.29,Mage=10.30,SD=1.10,respectively)studentsingrades3-6enrolledinthefederallyfundedafter-schoolprograminaruralschooldistrictlocatedinsouth-centralTexas.Participantscamefromapublicelementaryschoolwithin the district. They came from lowermiddle class backgrounds and represent arange of ethnic groups: 4.4%Caucasians, 64.4%AfricanAmerican, and 31.1%Hispanic. ThestudentpopulationoftheschooldistrictconsistedofchildrenfromfamiliesoflowertomiddleSES.Approximately90%of thestudents intheschoolwereeligibleforfreeorreducedlunch.Theywerevoluntarytocometoafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogramsafterregularschooltime.Permissiontoparticipateinthestudywasreceivedfromtheinstitution,children,andtheirparents.

DesignMethodology Asurvey-baseddescriptiveresearchdesignwasused. Thestudentscompletedtoatwo-

partquestionnaire.Thefirstpart consistedofdemographic information includingage,grade,gender,andschool.Thesecondpartassessedtheirexpectancybeliefs,taskvaluesanddisruptivebehaviorsintheafter-schoolphysicaleducationclasses.

Expectancy-valuemodel scale.ElevenitemsweremodifiedfromquestionnairesdevelopedandusedbyEcclesandhercolleagues(Ecclesetal.,1983;Eccles,Wigfield,Harold,&Blumenfeld,1993)andXiangetal.(2003a).Theitemswereoriginallybasedona7-pointscale.However,inthepresent study,weusedXiang andher colleagues’ 5-point scale system. InEccles andhercolleaguesstudies(e.g.,Ecclesetal.,1983;Eccles,Adler,&Meece,1984),theparticipantswerehighscoolstudents.Theparticipants,however,weresecond-andfourth-gradestudentsintheirphysicaleducationclasses inXiangetal. (2003a)study.Xiangetal (2003a) tookthe followingstepstopreservethevalidityandreliabilityofthesemeasuresinelementaryphysicaleducation.First,theyconsultedwithapaneloffiveknowledgeableprofessionalsaboutthequestionnaireitemspriortodatacollection.Thepanelconsistedofoneexpertinchildren’sreading,twoschooldistrictphysicaleducationcoordinators,andtwoelementaryphysicaleducationteachers.The


panelmemberswereaskedtoexaminetheappropriatenessof literacylevelandmeasurementscaleoftheitemsforchildreninsecondandfourthgrade.Basedontheirsuggestions,Xiangetal.(2003a)rewroteseveralitemsandreducedthe7-pointscaletoa5-pointscale.Theyconcludedthata5-pointscaleisvalidandreliable.Thefivequestionsaddressedexpectancy-relatedbeliefsincludingbeliefsaboutabilityandexpectanciesforsuccessintheafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.Examplesofeachscale:(a)Beliefsaboutability:Elementaryschoolchildrenwereaskedtoratetheirgeneralabilityinafterschoolphysicaleducation.Theywereasked,“Howgoodareyouatactivitiesandgamesinafterschoolphysicaleducation(ASPE)?”(1=verybad,5=verygood),“IfyouweretolistallthestudentsinyourASPEclassfromworsttothebest,wherewouldyouputyourself?”(1=oneoftheworst,5=oneofthebest),“Somekidsarebetterinonesubjectthaninanother.Forexample,youmightbebetterinmathematicsthaninreading.Comparedtomostofyourotherschoolsubjects,howgoodareyouatactivitiesandgamesinASPE?(1=alotworseinASPE,5=alotbetterinASPE),(b)Expectanciesforsuccess.Thechildrenwereaskedtwoquestionstoassessexpectanciesforsuccessbasedon5-pointscales.Forexample,theywereasked,“HowwelldoyouthinkyouwilllearnactivitiesandgamesinASPEthisyear?”(1=notatallwell,5=verywell),and“HowgoodwouldyoubeatlearningsomethingnewinASPE?”(1=verybad,5=verywell).TheCronbachalphacoefficientofthisscalewas.75.Thesixquestionsaddressedsubjectivetaskvaluesincludingattainmentvalueorimportance,intrinsicorinterestvalue,andutilityvalueorusefulnessintheafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.Examplesof each scale: (a)Attainment value or importance. Twoquestions assessed this construct. Forexample,thechildrenwereasked,“Forme,beinggoodatactivitiesandgamesinASPEis…?”(1=notveryimportant,5=veryimportant),and“Comparedtoyourotherschoolsubjects,howimportant is it toyoubegoodatactivitiesandgames inASPE?” (1=notvery important,5=veryimportant),(b)Intrinsicorinterestvalue.Twoquestionswereusedtoassessthisconstructusing5-pointscales.Thechildrenwerefirstasked,“Ingeneral,IfindnewactivitiesandgamesinASPEare…”(1=“way”boring,5=“way”fun),andthentheywereasked,“HowmuchdoyoulikeactivitiesandgamesinASPE?(1=don’tlikeitatall,5=likeitverymuch),(c)Utilityvalueorusefulness.Twoquestionswereusedtoassessthisconstruct.Thechildrenwereasked,“Somethingsthatyoulearninschoolhelpyoudothingsbetteroutsideofclass.Wecallthisbeinguseful.Forexample,learningaboutplantsmighthelpyougrowagarden.Ingeneral,howusefuliswhatyoulearninASPE?”(1=notusefulatall,5=veryuseful),and“Comparedtoyourotherschoolsubjects,howusefuliswhatyoulearninASPE?(1=notusefulatall,5=veryuseful).TheCronbachalphacoefficientofthisscalewas.74.

Self-reporteddisruptivebehaviors.Students’self-reporteddisruptive behaviors were assessed using an adaptation of the PECMI (Kulinna et al, 2003). The PECMI is a questionnaire to examine students’ reports of the type and frequency of various student behaviors in physical education classes that might disrupt classroom management (Kulinna et al, 2003). The PECMI consists of six categoriesofdisruptivebehaviors(aggressive,disturbingothers,failingtofollowdirections,lowengagementorirresponsibility,illegalorharmful,andpoorself-management)andasksstudentstoratehowofteneachofthesixdisruptivebehaviorsoccursintheirphysicaleducationclassona1(never)to 5 (always) scale. For thepresent study, onlydisturbingothers, failing to followdirections,andlowengagementorirresponsibility(lowengagementwasusedasthetermthroughoutthepaper)were included because the remaining three categories of disruptive behaviors seldomoccurredamong theparticipants in this study.This assessment is basedon the lead teacher’stwo-yearobservationofthephysicalactivityprogram.The revised instrument consisted of 14 items, requiring students to indicate whether they displayed disruptive behaviors in class on 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not like me) through 5 (very much like me). The Cronbach’salphavaluesforthethreescaleswere.74,.79,and.75,respectively,indicatingacceptableinternalconsistency.

Procedures Data were collected during the spring semester of 2006. The questionnaires were

administratedby the researchers to studentsduring regularly scheduledafter-schoolphysical

30 BÜLENTAĞBUĞA

educationclasses.Toensuretheindependenceofstudents’responses,theleadingresearcherhadstudentsspreadoutsothattheycouldnotseeoneanother’sresponses.Eachitemwasreadaloudtothestudents.Theywereencouragedtoanswerastruthfullyastheycouldandtoaskquestionsif they had difficulty understanding instructions or items in the questionnaire. The studentsraisednoquestionswhilecompletingthequestionnaires.Administeringthequestionnairetookapproximately30minutes.

DataanalysisFour steps were taken. First, exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine the

students’self-reporteddisruptivebehaviorsmeasures.Then,descriptivestatisticswereperformedto investigatemeanandstandarddeviationofeachvariable.Thenindependent-samplet testswere performed to test significant differences between two expectancy-value of achievementchoice (i.e., expectancy-related beliefs and subjective task values) and disruptive behaviorsreportedbybothgender.Additionally,Pearsonproduct-momentcorrelationswerecalculatedtoidentifysignificant relationshipsamongexpectancy-relatedbeliefs, subjective taskvalues,andstudents’disruptivebehaviorsintheafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.Finally,multipleregressionswereperformedtoassesstherelativecontributionofexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandsubjectivetaskvaluestostudents’selfreporteddisruptivebehaviors.

Results

ExploratoryFactoranalysesExploratoryfactoranalysiswasconductedtoexaminetheconstructvalidityofstudents’self-

reporteddisruptivebehaviormeasures.Specifically,students’self-reporteddisruptivebehaviorsexploratory factor analysis revealed no items failed to load on their factor (see Table1). Thefactoraccountedfor47.10%ofthevariablevariance.Thescaledemonstratedacceptableinternalconsistency(Cronbach’sα=.91).Table1.FactorAnalysisonSelf-ReportedDisruptiveBehaviorDisruptiveBehaviorItems Factor11.Isometimesgigglewithmyfriendswhilemycoachesaretalking .522.Isometimesdonotparticipate .483.Isometimestalkwithmyfriendswhilemycoachesaretalking .634.Isometimescan’tsitstill .515.Isometimesdonotpayattentiontothecoaches .736.Isometimesdonotfollowmycoaches’directions .757.Isometimesdonotlineupright .728.Isometimesdonottakecareofequipment .619.Isometimesleavethegroupduringactivity .7210.Isometimesmakefunofotherstudents .7411.Isometimesmoveslowlyonpurpose .8012.IsometimesquitwhatIamsupposedtodo .6113.I13.IsometimespretendtobesicksothatIwouldnotparticipateinclass .56

14.Isometimeskeepothersfromworking .72


DescriptiveandIndependent-SampleTTestsIngeneral,bothboysandgirlsreportedpositiveexpectancy-relatedbeliefs(M=4.09,SD=

.58andM=4.20,SD=.54,respectively)andsubjectivetaskvalues(M=4.22,SD=.61andM=4.26,SD= .54,respectively)aboutafter-schoolphysicaleducation,anddisplayedlowlevelsofdisruptivebehaviors(M=2.52,SD=1.04andM=2.36,SD=.96,respectively)(seeTable2).The mean scores of the positive expectancy-relatedbeliefsand subjective taskvalues of both genders were all above the midpoint (i.e., 3) of the scales, suggesting students in this study feltpositivefeelingsintheafter-schoolphysicaleducationclasses.The mean scores of disruptive behaviors were just below the midpoint of the scales (i.e., 3) suggesting both boys and girls felt that these disruptive behaviors were sort of like them in the after-school physical education classes. Results of independent-samplettestsindicatedthatboysandgirlswerenotsignificantlydifferentfromeachotherfortheirexpectancy-relatedbeliefs,subjectivetaskvalues,anddisruptivebehaviors[t(129)= .920,p= .359,t(129)=-1.082,p=.281,andt(129)=-.334,p=.739,respectively.]

CorrelationAnalysesAs shown in Table 2, Pearson product-moment correlations indicated that expectancy-

relatedbeliefswerepositivelyrelatedtosubjectivetaskvaluesofafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogramsfortotalsampleandbothgender(p<.001).Correlationsalsoindicatedbothexpectancybeliefs and subjective task values were not significantly related to students’ self-reporteddisruptivebehaviorsforbothgender(seeTable2).

HierarchicalMultipleRegressionAnalysesAsseeninTable3,multipleregressionanalysesfoundthatneitherexpectancybeliefs(β=

-.192,p=.241forboysandβ=.244,p=.072forgirls)norsubjectivetaskvalues(β=.046,p=.776forboysandβ=-.240,p=.076forgirls)predictedtheirself-reporteddisruptivebehaviors.Thetwoexpectancy-valueachievementchoicepredictorsexplained%3ofthevarianceinstudents’self-reporteddisruptivebehaviorsforboysand6%forgirls,respectively.Table2.DescriptiveDataandCorrelationsforExpectancy-valueandDisruptivescores

M SD Expectancy-relatedbeliefs

Subjectivetaskvalues

Disruptivebehaviors

Totalsample

Expectancy-relatedbeliefs 4,16 ,56 - .530* -.020

Subjectivetaskvalues 4,25 ,57 - -.090

Disruptivebehaviors 2,43 ,99 -

Boys

Expectancy-relatedbeliefs 4.09 .58 - .545* -.166

Subjectivetaskvalues 4.22 .61 - -.058

Disruptivebehaviors 2.52 1.04 -

Girls

Expectancy-relatedbeliefs 4.20 .54 - .516* .120

Subjectivetaskvalues 4.26 .54 - -.114

Disruptivebehaviors 2.36 .96 -

*p<0.01(2-tailed).**p<0.05(2-tailed).

32 BÜLENTAĞBUĞA

Table3.ResultsofStepwiseMultipleRegressionsonStudents’Self-reportedDisruptiveBehaviorPredictor b β R2 (Cumulative) tValueTotalsampleExpectancy-relatedbeliefs .068 .038 .010 .369Subjectivetaskvalues -.192 -.110 .019 -1.059BoysExpectancy-relatedbeliefs -.345 -.192 .028 -1.187Subjectivetaskvalues .079 .046 .030 .286GirlsExpectancy-relatedbeliefs .429 .244 .014 1.828Subjectivetaskvalues -.426 -.240 .061 -1.799Note.-bvaluesareunstandardizedregressioncoefficientsfromthefinalstageoftheregressionanalysis.R2 valuesarecumulative.Witheachincrementalstepaddingtothevarianceexplained.

Discussion

Whiletheexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoicehasbeenappliedcomprehensivelyintheeducationsettings,littleisknownaboutitsutilizationandrelationstoeducationaloutcomesinphysicaleducationsettings,particularlyinafter-schoolphysicaleducationprograms.Guidedbyexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoice,thisstudyexaminedat-riskminorityschoolstudents’ expectancy beliefs, subjective task values and their relations to their self-reporteddisruptivebehaviorsinanelementaryafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.

The result of this research revealed no gender differences for expectancy-related beliefsandsubjectivetaskvalues.Althoughsomerecentstudiesthatfoundthatelementaryschoolboysandgirlsdidnotdifferintaskvaluestowardphysicaleducationandarunningprogram(Xiangetal.,2003a;Xiang,McBride,&Bruene,2006), thecurrentfinding isnotconsistentwithmostpreviousresearchthatreportedgirlshavelowerabilitybeliefsandexpectanciesforsuccess,evenif theyperformedaswell asorbetter thanboys (Meece&Courtney, 1992;Satinaet al., 1998;Wigfieldetal.,1997;Wright,1997).Onepossibleexplanationfortheinconsistencycouldbethatbothboysandgirlsinthisstudymightseetheirphysicalactivityclassesasafunlearningtime,notevaluatingtheirskillsasagradebecauseofafter-schoolphysicalactivityclasses’voluntarysetting.Additionalresearchisneededtodeterminewhethervoluntaryparticipationwouldaffectboth genders’ expectancy beliefs and task values than nonvoluntary participation in physicaleducationsettings.Anotherpossibleexplanationcouldbethatthe participants in previous studies were mostly Caucasian students. The participants in the current study, however, were at-risk minority students. It is known that little information is available concerning the application of the expectancy-value model to minoritystudentsinphysicaleducation/physicalactivitysettings.At-riskminoritystudents’perceptionabouttheirafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogramcanbedifferentthansocio-economicaldevelopedCaucasianones.Athirdpossibleexplanationisthattheperceivedracialandgenderappropriatenessoftheactivitiesortaskscouldimpactindividual’sexpectancybeliefsandvaluestowardanactivity(Guan,2007).Previousstudiesindicatethatdifferentracialandgendergroupsmightexhibitdifferentperceptionsofappropriatenessofparticularsportsandphysicalactivities(Goldsmith,2003;Harrison&Belcher,2006;Solmon,Lee,Belcher,Harrison,& Wells, 2003). Football, basketball and track sprinting, for example, are regarded as moreappropriate forAfrican-Americanswhereasgolfandhockeyareconsideredmoreappropriatefor the CaucasianAmericans (Harrison& Belcher, 2006). In the current after-school physicalactivityprogram,at-riskminoritystudentsperformedmostlyracialappropriatenesssportssuchasfootball,basketball,andtracksprinting.Therefore,bothgendersinthecurrentstudymightsee


theirphysicalactivitiesasracialandgenderappropriate.Thecurrentstudyrevealedasignificantrelationbetweenbothgenders’expectancy-related

beliefs and subjective task values in the after-school physical activity program. This result isconsistentwithprevious studies (Berndt&Miller, 1990;Eccles&Wigfield, 1995;Xianget al.,2003a)whichstatesyoungchildrenhavehigherexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandtaskvalues.Xiangetal.(2003a),forexample,foundapositiveassociationbetweenexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandtask values among elementary school children in a physical education setting. The results ofthecurrentstudyprovidefurtherempiricalevidencesupportingthistheoreticalconnection.Thepresentstudyalsosuggestthatat-riskminoritychildrentendtovalueactivitieswhentheyhavepositivebeliefsandhighexpectanciesforsuccessinafter-schoolphysicalactivityclasses.

Disruptivebehaviorswerereportedbythisgroupofstudentsintheirafter-schoolphysicalactivityclasses.However,themeanscoresofthosebehaviorswerejustbelowthemidpointofthescales.Thisresultmightbeanindicatorthatstudents’disruptivebehaviorsmaybemoderatedinthisafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.

Thecurrentstudyalsoexaminedat-riskminoritystudents’expectancy-relatedbeliefs,taskvaluesandtheirrelationstodisruptivebehaviorsinanafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.Resultsofbothcorrelationandhierarchicalmultipleregressionanalysesrevealednosignificantrelationships among expectancy beliefs, subjective task values, and students’ self-reporteddisruptivebehaviorswerefoundforbothgendersandneitherofthempredictedbothgenders’self-reported disruptive behaviors. That there were no significant relationships among thesevariablesmayindicatethatforthesestudentsthetwoconstructs(expectancybeliefsandsubjectivetaskvalues)hadnoimpactontheirdisruptivebehaviorsintheafter-schoolphysicaleducationprogram.Thefindingmay imply that for thisgroupof students, theydisrupted theclassnotbecausetheydidnotconsiderlearningimportant,useful,andinteresting.However,thisfindingisunexpected,astheexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoiceproposesthatstudentswhobelieve that theyvalue learning aremore likely todemonstratehigh levels of engagement inlearning.Xiangetal. (2004), forexample, foundthatexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandsubjectivetaskvaluesweresignificantpredictorsofchildren’sintentionsforfutureparticipationinlearning.

Inconclusion,thisstudyrepresentsthefirstattempttoapplytheexpectancy-valuemodelof achievement choice to an after-school physical educationprogramwith elementary schoolchildren. Results provide empirical support for the utility of the expectancy-value model ofachievement choice in the context of an after-school physical education program. They alsorevealedstudentsreportedhigherexpectancy-relatedbeliefsandsubjectivetaskvalues.However,youngstudentstendtouseonlyendpointsoftheLikertscale,thereforemeanscoresaregenerallyfoundtobehighforyoungstudents.Thisisoneofthelimitationsofrelyingonself-reportdata.Additionally,this study is one of very few in the domain of physical education/activity that have attempted to apply theexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoice to study students’ disruptive behaviors in an after-school physical education program.

Becausethisstudyrepresentsthefirstattempttoexaminerelationshipsamongexpectancybeliefs, task values and student self-reported disruptive behaviors in a physical education/activitysetting,moreresearchisneededtoconfirmorrefutethisfinding.Futureresearcheffortsare also recommended to replicate this studywith different grade levels of students such assecondaryschoolchildren.Additionally,moreresearchmightbedonebysplittingthechildrenintothetwodifferentdisruptivegroups(i.e.,lessdisruptivestudentsgroupandmoredisruptivestudentsgroup).Thoughanalysesofdatarevealednosignificantrelationsbetweenexpectancy-relatedbeliefs,subjectivetaskvaluesanddisruptivebehaviors,resultsprovideasupportfortheimportanceofgoingbeyondself-reportdataintheexaminationofstudentbehaviorsinphysicaleducation.Futureresearch,therefore,needtouseobservationdatatoexaminethisrelationshipinanafter-schoolphysicalactivitysetting.Ifanegativelinkestablishbetweenexpectancy-valuemodel of achievement choice and students’ self-reported disruptive behaviors in the futureresearch,thismodelmightbeappliedtoreducemisbehaviorsandelevatestudentparticipationandlearning.

34 BÜLENTAĞBUĞA

References

Agbuga,B., Xiang,P.,&McBride,R.(2010). AchievementGoalsandTheirRelationstoChildren’sDisruptiveBehaviorsinanAfter-SchoolPhysicalActivityProgram.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation,29,278-294.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and studentmotivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology,84,261-272.

Anderson, L.,& Prawat, R. (1983).Motivation and schooling in themiddle grades.Review ofEducationalResearch,64,287-309.

Atkinson,J.W.(1957).Motivationaldeterminantsofrisktakingbehavior.PsychologicalReview,64,201-252.

Bandura,A. (1986).Social foundation of thought and action:A social cognitive theory. EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Bandura,A.(1997).Self-efficacy:Theexerciseofcontrol.NewYork:W.H.Freeman.Belka,D.E.(1991).Letsmanagetohavesomeorder.JournalofPhysicalEducation,Recreation

and Dance,62(9),21-23.Berndt,T.J.,&Miller,K.E.(1990).Expectancies,values,andachievementinjuniorhighschool.

JournalofEducationalPsychology,82,319-326.Bhanpuri,H.(2005).Ensuringequity,access,andqualityin21stCenturyCommunityLearning

Centers.PolicyIssues,19,1-24RetrievedJune14,2008,fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/policy/ pubs/pdfs/pivol19.pdf

CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.(2006).Overweightandobesity.RetrievedMarch10,2006,fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/

Chen,A.,Martin,R.J., Ennis,C.D.,& Sun,H. (2006).Content specificity of expectancybeliefs andtask values in elementary physical education.Paperpresented atNationalMeeting of theAmericanEducationResearchAssociation,SanFrancisco,CA.

Cothran,D.J.,&Kulinna,P.H.(2007).Students’reportsofmisbehaviorinphysicaleducation.ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport,78,216-224

Covington,M.V.(1984).Themotiveforself-worth.InR.Ames&C.Ames(Eds.),Researchonmotivation in education: Studentmotivation (Vol. 1, pp.77-112).NewYork:AcademicPress.

Doyle,W.(1986).Classroomorganizationandmanagement.InM.C.Wittrock(Ed.), Handbookofresearchinteaching(3rded.)(pp.392-431).NewYork:Macmillan.Doyle,

W.(1990).Classroommanagementtechniques.InO.C.Moles(Ed.),Studentdisciplinestrategies:Researchandpractice(pp.113-129).Albany,NY:SUNYPress.

Duda,J.L.(1996).Maximizingmotivationinsportandphysicaleducationamongchildrenandadolescents:Thecaseforgreatertaskinvolvement.Quest,48,290-302.

Dweck,C. S.,&LeggettE. (1988).A social-cognitive approach tomotivation andpersonality.PsychologicalReview,2,256-273.

Eccles,J.S.(1987).Genderrolesandwomen’sachievement-relateddecisions.PsychologyofWomenQuarterly,11,135-172.

Eccles,J.S.,Adler,T.F.,Futterman,R.,Goff,S.B.,Kaczala,C.M.,Meece,J.,&Midgley,C.(1983).Expectancies, values, andacademicbehaviors. In J.T. Spence (ED.),Achievement andachievementmotives(pp.75-146).SanFrancisco:W.H.Freeman.

Eccles, J.S.,Adler,T.,&Meece, J.L. (1984).Sexdifferences inachievement:Atestofalternatetheories.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,46,26-43.


Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents’achievementtaskvaluesandexpectancy-relatedbeliefs.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,21,215-225.

Eccles,J.S.,Wigfield,A.,Harold,R.D.,&Blumenfeld,P.(1993).Ageandgenderdifferencesinchildren’sself-andtaskperceptionsduringelementaryschool.ChildDevelopment,64,830-847.

Eccles,J.S.,Wigfield,A.,&Schiefele,U.(1998).Motivationtosucceed.InW.Damon(SeriesEd.)&N.Eisenberg(Vol.Ed.),Handbookofchildpsychology(5thed.,Vol.3).NewYork:Wiley.

Fernandez-Balboa, J.M. (1991).Beliefs, interactive thoughts, andactionsofphysical educationstudentteachersregardingpupilmisbehaviors.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation,11,59-78.

Fink,J.,&Siedentop,D.(1989).Thedevelopmentofroutines,rules,andexpectationsatthestartoftheschoolyear.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation,8,198-212.

Frith,G.H.,&Armstrong,S.W.(1986).Self-monitoringforbehaviordisorderedstudents.TeachingExceptionalChildren,18,144-148.

Garcia, T.,McKeachie,W. J., Pintrich, P. R.,& Smith,D.A. (1991).Amanual for the use of theMotivatedStrategiesforLearningQuestionnaire(Tech.Rep.No.91-B-004).AnnArbor,MI:TheUniversityofMichigan,SchoolofEducation.

Goldsmith,P.A.(2003).Racerelationsandracialpatternsinschoolsportsparticipation.SociologyofSportJournal,20,147-171.

Guan, Z. (2007). Understanding students’ motivation in physical education integration ofexpectancy-value model and self-efficacy theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,LouisianaStateUniversity,Louisiana

Harrison,L. Jr.,&Belcher,D. (2006).Raceandethnicity inphysicaleducation. InD.Kirk,M.O’Sullivan, & D. Macdonald (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Physical Education.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Kaplan,A.,Gheen,M.,&Midgley,C.(2002).Classroomgoalstructureandstudentdisruptivebehavior.BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology,72,191-211.

Kaplan,A., &Maehr,M. L. (1999).Achievement goals and studentwell-being.ContemporaryEducationalPsychology,24,330-358.

Kounin, J. (1970).Discipline and group management in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Kulinna, P.H.,Cothran,D.,&Regualos,R. (2003).Development of an instrument tomeasurestudentdisruptivebehavior.MeasurementinPhysicalEducationandExerciseScience,7(1),25-41.

Luepker,R.V.,Perry,C.L.,McKinlay,S.M.,Nader,P.R.,Parcel,G.S.,Stone,E.J.,etal.(1996).Outcomesofafieldtrialtoimprovechildren’sdietarypatternsandphysicalactivity:Thechildandadolescent trial forcardiovascularhealth.The Journalof theAmericanMedicalAssociation,275,768–76.

McCarl,J.J.,Svobodny,L.,&Beare,P.L.(1991).Self-recordinginaclassroomforstudentswithmild to moderate mental handicaps: Effects on productivity and on-task behavior.EducationandTraininginMentalRetardation,26(1),79-88.

McCormack,A.(1997).Classroommanagementproblems,strategiesandinfluencesinphysicaleducation.EuropeanPhysicalEducationReview,3,102-115.

Meece,J.L.,&Courtney,D.P.(1992).Genderdifferencesinstudents’perceptions:Consequencesforachievement-relatedchoices.InD.H.Schunk&J.L.Meece(Eds.),Studentperceptionsintheclassroom(pp.209-228).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

36 BÜLENTAĞBUĞA

Nelson, J. R., Smith,D. J., Young, R.K.,&Dodd, J.M. (1991).A review of self-managementoutcomeresearchconductedwithstudentswhoexhibitbehavioraldisorders.BehavioralDisorders,16,169-179.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989).The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

O’Hagan,F.,&Edmunds,G.(1982).Pupils’attitudestowardsteachers’strategiesforcontrollingdisruptivebehavior.BritishJournalofEducationalPsychology,52,331-340

O’Sullivan,M.,&Dyson,B.(1994).Rules,routines,andexpectationsof11highschoolphysical educationteachers.InM.O’Sullivan(Ed.),Highschoolphysicaleducationteachers:Their

worldofwork.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation[Monograph],13,361-374.Papaioannou, A. (1998). Goal perspectives, reasons for being disciplined and self-reported

disciplineinphysicaleducationlessons.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation,17,421-441.

Prater,M.E., Joy,R.,Chilman,B.,Temple, J.,&Miller,S.R. (1991).Self-monitoringofon-taskbehaviorbyadolescentswith learningdisabilities.LearningDisabilityQuarterly, 14(13),164-177.

Rimmer, J.H. (1989).Confrontation in thegym:Asystematic solution forbehaviorproblems.JournalofPhysicalEducationandRecreationandDance,60(5),63-65.

Roberts,G.C.(2001).Understandingthedynamicsofmotivationinphysicalactivity:Theinfluenceof achievement goals onmotivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.),Advances inmotivationinsportandexercise(pp.1-50).Champaign,IL:HumanKinetics.

Sallis,J.F.,&McKenzie,T.L.(1991).Physicaleducation’sroleinpublichealth.ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport,62,124-137.

Satina,B.,Solmon,M.A.,Cothran,D.J.,Loftus,S.J.,&Stockin-Davidson,K.(1998).Patriarchalconsciousness: Middle school students’ and teachers’ perspectives of motivationalpractices.Sport,Education,andSociety,3,181-200.

Solmon,M.A.,Lee,A.M.,Belcher,D.,Harrison,L. Jr.,&Wells,L. (2003).Beliefsaboutgenderappropriateness,ability,andcompetenceinphysicalactivity.JournalofTeachinginPhysicalEducation,22,261-279.

Supaporn,S.,Dodds,P.,&Griffin,L.(2003).Anecologicalanalysisofmiddleschoolmisbehaviorthrough student and teacherperspective.Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 22, 328-349.

Tinning, R. (1987). Improving teaching in physical education. Victoria: Deakin University Press, pp. 73-80.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmentalperspective.EducationalPsychologyReview,6,49-78.

Wigfield,A.,&Eccles, J.S. (1992).Thedevelopmentofachievement taskvalues:A theoreticalanalysis.DevelopmentalReview,12,265-310.

Wigfield,A.,&Eccles,J.S.(1994).Children’scompetencebeliefs,achievementvalues,andGeneralself-esteemchangeacrosselementaryandmiddleschool.JournalofEarlyAdolescence,14,107-138.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.ContemporaryEducationalPsychology,25,68-81.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A. J., Freedman-Doan C., &Blumenfeld, P. C. (1997). Change in children’s competence beliefs and subjective taskvaluesacrosstheelementaryschoolyears:A3-yearstudy.JournalofEducationalPsychology,


89,451-469.Wright,J.(1997).Theconstructionofgenderedcontextsinsinglesexandcoeducationalphysical

educationlessons.Sport,Education,andSociety,2,55-72.Xiang,P.,McBride,R.,&Bruene,A.(2004).Fourthgraders’motivationinanelementaryphysical

educationrunningprogram.TheElementarySchoolJournal,104,253-266.Xiang,P.,McBride,R.,&Bruene,A.(2006).Fourthgraders’motivationalchangesinanelementary

physicaleducationrunningprogram.ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport,77,195-207.Xiang, P., McBride, R., Guan, J., & Solmon,M. (2003a). Children’s motivation in elementary

physicaleducation:Anexpectancy-valuemodelofachievementchoice.ResearchQuarterlyforExerciseandSport,74,25-36.

Xiang,P.,McBride,&Solmon,M.A.(2003b).Motivationalclimatesintenteachers’elementaryphysicaleducationclasses:Anachievementgoaltheoryapproach,TheElementarySchoolJournal,104(1),71-91.

Documents

Expectancy-Value Model of Achievement Choice and Self