Promoting University Students’ Engagement in Intercultural Group Work: The Importance of Expectancy, Value, and Cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intercultural group work (IGW) is a valuable learning strategy to enhance deep learning and prepare university students to participate in a globalized world, so more insight is needed into what motivates students to engage actively in IGW. Using an expectancy–value theory framework, this study investigates the extent to which the different components of this theory (i.e., self-efficacy, perceived benefit, and perceived cost) relate to each other and contribute to student engagement in IGW. Responses to a questionnaire, gathered from 846 bachelor’s students from six universities in the Netherlands and Canada, reveal that strong self-efficacy for IGW, high perceived benefit of IGW, and low perceived cost of IGW correlate. In structural equation modeling analyses, self-efficacy and emotional cost emerge as important predictors of behavioral and cognitive engagement; intercultural benefit is critical for cognitive engagement. As a prerequisite of cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement also mediates the effects of self-efficacy, costs, and benefits. Therefore, developing students’ self-efficacy, increasing perceived benefits of IGW, and decreasing perceived costs of IGW can promote student engagement and deeper learning. Universities thus should prepare students for IGW and provide support and feedback during group work process. Based on the results, we theorize about the relationships among the components of the expectancy–value theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".