Analyzing what Pajares says a bit better, and talking about 'the system'

It really fascinates me to look at how the progression of the readings has led us to seek the answers that we need. Heated arguments regarding expectancy value theory, while valid, were clarified by a more detailed analysis of Pajares, which was really essential to understand why expectancy value theory is something that falls short on explaining how we self-regulate. While Bandura has an extremely process oriented outlook towards motivation and how it can paresis through pwrevious success and cultivate stronger efficacy, EVT talks about how interest, value and intrinsic importance are things that cultivate motivation. EVT often expounds that intrinsic motivation is the be all and end all of success. But, can we achieve mastery classrooms by saying that we need to work with already developed social cultural value systems that may form the basis of the drives contained within the EVT framework? Aren't such aspects better explained in a more process oriented, domain specific fashion?

In my personal opinion, self-efficacy flips EVT on its head in.order to help us understand how success is what drives motivation. Not an abstract conception of something like value or interest, because honestly, you can’t get in anyone’s head. I think it tells us to ask the correct questions and question our choices when we make mistakes, thus providing for a more specific background framework if you will, for the cultivation of self-regulation. While I'm not saying that 'mastery' is the be all and end all of things, what I do have to say that it is (sadly but truly) neglected in today's classrooms because we have turned into a 'grading society'. There needs to be a balance, like Bandura says there could be, but warns us to edge on the side of intrinsic motivation and mastery.

While the distinction between EVT and Bandura’s theory is murky, as Pajares says, I think that the main difference lies in how global EVT tends to be in its quest to explain how we evaluate ourselves. To each theorist their own, but I feel that when we talk about ‘mastery’, a careful understanding of what initial success looks like is extremely important. In a ‘grading society’, I think that we’re focusing more on what is expected os us than being learners. This links back to the 'anxiety' associated with education act we have created as a byproduct of society today. Michael said that a pendulum swings pretty fast though. It's true! It's time interval, by actual theory is 1s.  This is precisely why it’s so blatantly easy to throw around the term ‘mastery’ with such ease, and turn around and butcher it with grades and numbers.

The flip side is of course, also a possibility, with. us turning around and breaking the system, much like Habermas's notion of breaking down civil discourse in order to create new paradigms for the social good. While this may result from a more instrumental outlook towards reflection, I feel that it paves the way for higher self-efficacy and mastery experiences in varied domains, while giving us the freedom to still be happy about the extrinsic rewards that we are obsessed with in a 'grading society'. While this goes back to the notion of privilege, I think that we're missing the point by not looking at the possible benefits such a system could have because we are buried within the vicarious influence that society undeniably has on us.