| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Students’ Motivation for Standardized Math ExamsThe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 230B Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; k-ryan6{at}uiuc.edu. Her research interests include educational accountability issues and high-stakes assessment
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 230B Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; ryan2{at}uiuc.edu. Her research interests include motivation and engagement and the intersection of social and academic concerns for students during early adolescence
Harvard Graduate School of Education, 13 Appian Way, 450 Gutman Library, Cambridge, MA 02138; arbuthke{at}gse.harvard.edu. Her research examines issues related to educational measurement, testing policy, and racial and gender achievement gaps
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 230B Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; msamuels{at}uiuc.edu. His research interests include the evaluation of school accountability systems at the school and state levels and the use of democratic and culturally responsive approaches in program evaluation
The recent No Child Left Behind legislation has defined a vital role for large-scale assessment in determining whether students are learning. Given this increased role of standardized testing as a means of accountability, the purpose of this article is to consider how individual differences in motivational and psychological processes may contribute to performance on high-stakes math assessments. The authors consider individual differences in processes that prior research has found to be important to achievement: achievement goals, value, self-concept, self-efficacy, test anxiety, and cognitive processes. The authors present excerpts from interviews with eighth-grade test takers to illustrate these different achievement-related motivational beliefs, affect, and cognitive processing. Implications for future research studying the situational pressures involved in high-stakes assessments are discussed.
Key Words: accountability • high-stakes testing • motivation The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002) has defined a vital role for large-scale assessment in determining whether students are learning. Assessment results are being used for "high-stakes" purposes such as grade promotion, certification, and high school graduation as well as holding schools accountable to improve instruction and student learning. NCLB reflects a particular perspective on how teaching and learning take place and the role of testing in this process. Specifically, the high-stakes nature of these tests is intended to motivate students to perform to high standards, teachers to teach better, and parents and local communities to make efforts to improve the quality of local schools (Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2004; Herman, 2004; Lee & Wong, 2004; Stringfield & Yakimowski-Srebnick, 2005). Within this view, motivation is a unidimensional trait that does not vary in the student population. The premise is that rewards (e.g., passage to the next grade) and threats of sanctions (e.g., grade retention or the denial of a high school diploma) will boost students’ motivation (Clarke, Abrams, & Madaus, 2001). This kind of assessment environment raises important issues. There is a fundamental assumption that test taking is a singular experience for students. That is, the assessment context (high stakes vs. low stakes) will not influence or influence in a similar way how individuals and groups of students engage the test-taking process (Heubert & Hauer, 1999). Our perspective challenges this assumption. Not only knowledge but individuals’ personal beliefs and goals influence performance. Understanding the variability of engagement and achievement of students with similar "abilities" or "background knowledge" is at the heart of much motivational research (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Individuals’ beliefs and goals form qualitatively distinct motivational frameworks leading to differential trajectories of cognitive engagement, affect, and performance (Brophy, 1999; Covington, 1992; Dweck, Mangels, & Good, 2004; Maehr & Meyer, 1997; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Stipek, 2002; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser, & Davis-Kean, 2006).
When taking [math] tests, I know that I know this stuff so I really don’t worry about it even though I know it will determine if I pass or fail to the next grade . . . if you’re more confident on the test, you will perform better. I wanted to do well [on this math test] because . . . I want to do well at everything I do. (Martin, male African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2003) I wanted to do well on this test. . . . I don’t want to have my name out there and it say she did the worse stuff. . . . Well probably, this is a really bad reason, it’s probably not the reason I should have [for doing well] but my dad is very good at math, and my brother, I, and my mom aren’t good at math at all, we inherited the "not good at math gene" from my mom and I am good in English but I am not good in math so I can make my dad happy and make myself feel better about math in general. (Sarah, female White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, March 2003) These brief vignettes illustrate some of the different self-perceptions students bring to the context of math test taking. For instance, when we asked Martin about his experiences taking math tests, he told us that doing well on the test was one of his goals. Furthermore, Martin wants to do well at everything. He is very confident about what he thinks he knows. Martin understands that it is important to be confident and to maintain that confidence when taking a test. Sarah presented a very different picture of herself and how she engages the math domain and testing. She also wanted to do well on the test, but for a different reason: so that she would not be known as someone who does the "worst." She perceives herself as not being good at math. Although she would like to feel better about math and make her father happy, inheriting her mother’s "not good at math gene" presents a formidable obstacle to reaching those goals as well as improving her math achievement. We propose that it is these kinds of differences in students’ motivational beliefs, affect, and cognitive processing that may be important in understanding students’ math test performance. There is a substantial amount of research showing that such beliefs are important to achievement, especially in the classroom (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1990; Wigfield et al., 2006). However, these beliefs have not been examined as fully in the high-stakes standardized testing situation, particularly the circumstantial pressures created in recent years with these kinds of assessments. In this article, we focus on standardized math test taking because mathematics plays a crucial gatekeeper role to educational and economic opportunities. However, other critical and important domains could be examined (e.g., English, science, social studies). To examine how these individual and/or group differences in student beliefs may influence standardized math performance, we briefly review both the theoretical and the empirical literature on key motivation constructs. Most major theories of motivation address individuals’ beliefs about why they want to do a task or beliefs about whether they can do a task (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Wigfield et al., 2006). We focus on several leading theories of achievement motivation in achievement settings that encompass these aspects of motivation: goals and value (i.e., students’ beliefs about why they take standardized tests) and self-concept and self-efficacy (i.e., students’ beliefs about whether they can do well on standardized tests). Furthermore, we consider two other psychological processes, test anxiety and cognitive processing (specifically cognitive disorganization), that are likely to show individual differences and affect students’ achievement. We comment on gender and ethnic differences when research has shown differences in processes and how these differences affect achievement. After briefly reviewing these motivational, affective, and cognitive processes, we present excerpts from interviews with students to illustrate the extent to which these psychological processes vary during standardized test situations. The students participated in semistructured interviews in which they were asked to talk about their experiences in math test taking. These students were moderate and high math achievers1 in the eighth grade (n = 33; 40% male, 60% female) from six schools in the Midwest.2 We selected eighth-grade students because by early adolescence, students have sophisticated conceptions of academic ability (Dweck, 2001; Nicholls, 1990). The interview excerpts are intended to provide a context for considering how these processes may influence math test taking, not as study results. We conclude with a brief discussion about whether test taking is likely to be the same for all students.
Achievement goal theory addresses the purpose and meaning that students ascribe to achievement behavior. Identified as "a major new direction, one pulling together different aspects of achievement research" (Weiner, 1990, p. 620), it is now the most frequently used approach to understanding students’ motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Within achievement goal theory, goals are conceptualized as an organizing framework or schema regarding beliefs about purpose, competence, and success that influence an individual’s approach, engagement, and evaluation of performance in an achievement context (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Church, 1997; Nicholls, 1989; Pintrich, 2000b). Achievement goals go beyond task-specific target goals (i.e., get 8 of 10 correct on an exam) and embody an integrated system of beliefs focused on the purpose or reason students engage in behavior (i.e., why does a student want to get 8 of 10 correct?) (Pintrich, 2000a). Although there are personality differences, achievement goals are situation specific (Ames, 1992; Pintrich, 2000a; Urdan, 1997). There is growing evidence that cues in the environment influence individuals’ goals, which set into motion achievement-related affect and cognitions that affect achievement. (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Achievement goals capture meaningful distinctions in how individuals orient themselves to achieving competence in academic settings (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pintrich, 2000b; Skaalvik, 1997). Two dimensions are important to understanding achievement goals: how a goal is defined and how it is valenced (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pintrich, 2000b; Skaalvik, 1997). A goal is defined by a focus on either absolute or intrapersonal standards for performance evaluation on a given academic task (mastery goal) or on normative standards for performance evaluation on a given academic task (performance goal). Valence is distinguished by either promoting positive or desired outcomes (approach success) or preventing negative or undesired outcomes (avoiding failure). Thus, four achievement goal orientations can be distinguished within this framework. We provide examples of each and then define each goal.
Mastery-Approach Goals Um usually I don’t look at the score; usually I see how many I got right and what I need to do to think about it. (Andy, male White eighth grader, high math achiever, September 2003) [When facing a difficult problem], I didn’t really get frustrated, but I did want to just get it right, just to challenge myself, I guess. (Ray, male African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, January 2004) [I was] feeling like I was just gonna try to do good on the math test, and see what happened afterwards. (Bill, male White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, September 2003) A mastery-approach goal is characterized by a focus on mastering a task, striving to accomplish something challenging, and promoting success on the task, often in reference to one’s previous achievement. Bill’s, Andy’s, and Ray’s comments about math tests reflect this kind of orientation. Bill concerns himself with doing as well as possible (approach success) on the test (task at hand). Andy claims not to look at the test score. He is concerned with what he got correct (approach success) on the test (task) and what he might need to do next. Both are interested in becoming more competent, improving their skills and knowledge. Ray sees difficult items as a way to challenge himself.
Mastery-Avoid Goals I wanted to do well . . . [on the math test] Um just to see what I know so I don’t feel like I don’t know anything. (Natalie, female White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, September 2003) I wasn’t nervous or anything . . . it’s not the end of the world if I don’t do great on the test, but I wouldn’t want to fail it or anything. (Beth, female African American eighth grader, high math achiever, May 2004) A mastery-avoid goal is distinguished by a focus on avoiding any misunderstanding or errors and preventing a negative outcome on a task, specifically in reference to one’s previous achievement (but, it is important to note, not in reference to others’ achievement or others impressions of one’s achievement). Natalie’s characterization of how she engaged the math test reflects this kind of goal. She is not focused on herself or what other people think about her. Instead, she concentrates on the test (task at hand). However, the way she values her performance reflects a concern with avoiding a negative outcome (that she does not know anything). Beth’s orientation toward tests reflects a similar orientation. She also is focused on avoiding failure on the task, in this case the math test.
Performance-Approach Goals I want to do well so I can show it to my grandmother for her praise. (Martin, male African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2003) [I want to see] How good I’m compared to other kids in the nation. (Amanda, female White eighth grader, high math achiever, April 2003) I always try to do well, I guess it makes me look good . . . builds up my reputation. (George, male African American eighth grader, high achiever, May 2004) On the other hand, a performance-approach goal concerns a focus on demonstrating high ability and looking smart. Martin wants to do well so that his grandmother will think he is smart. He is concerned about his grandmother’s judgment of his ability. When Amanda says that she wants to see how well she did in comparison with the rest of the nation, there is a clear normative focus (a focus on self in comparison with others, not on the task). There is an implication that this student probably expects to be successful, given the national comparison group selected, although this is not stated directly. George’s motivation orientation is similar to Amanda’s. He wants to look good and to develop a reputation for being "good."
Performance-Avoid Goals [My math test score means] alot because if I did bad I would feel really like embarrassed. (April, female White eighth grader, moderate to high math achiever, September 2003) I just didn’t want to do bad. I mean I don’t think anyone wants to do bad on anything. I don’t want to be like . . . I don’t know. I don’t want to be like stupid or anything . . . that is why I try to do good on things. (Maxwell, male African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2004) A performance-avoid goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgments of one’s ability and avoiding looking dumb. April’s comments about why her math test score means a lot illustrates a performance-avoid goal. She is oriented toward how she will appear (performance, not the task). April is also concerned about avoiding a negative outcome: not being embarrassed by her math test score (avoiding failure). In the excerpt at the beginning of this article, Sarah’s achievement goal also reflects this orientation. She does not want to be named (focus on self) as the person who did the worst on this test (avoid failure). Maxwell’s view also reflects a concern about how he will look if does not do well. Unlike April, who is concerned about being embarrassed, Maxwell is concerned about what a poor performance would say about his ability: that he is "stupid." These achievement goals represent disparate purposes for involvement regarding academic tasks and have been linked to different achievement beliefs and behaviors (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). There is a large literature that identifies achievement goals as critical in understanding students’ academic outcomes (e.g., Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1990; Wigfield et al., 2006). Furthermore, performance-avoid goals have consistently been linked to lower levels of performance (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999, 2001; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Harackiewicz, Pintrich, Barron, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). In addition to achievement goals, there are other important motivational processes that contribute to understanding students’ test performance. In the next section, we consider additional theory and evidence regarding value (Eccles, 1983, 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).
Like goals, value also concerns the reasons why students want, or do not want, to do something. Currently, the model used most frequently to understand students’ value is derived from Eccles and Wigfield’s work (Eccles, 1983, 1993; Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). In their model, value encompasses students’ perceptions of importance and utility as well as interest in a given task. Importance refers to the importance of doing well and is further defined as the extent to which performance on a task allows an individual to confirm or disconfirm a central part of his or her identity (Eccles, 1993; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Utility refers to the usefulness of a task for students in terms of future aspirations. Interest refers to intrinsic reasons students might engage in a task, such as enjoyment and inherent challenge of a task. Several other theories have also discussed the nature and consequences of interest and intrinsic value for engagement and performance on achievement tasks (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2005). The students’ quotations presented below distinguish differences in how students value math and some of the reasons why they value it. It’s [math tests are] not very important to me but I know it is essential for me as I grow up so I just pay attention and do what I need to do now for later. (Cassie, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2004) I know if I don’t pass math I don’t graduate and it is like very serious because I know I want to graduate. (Regina, female White eighth grader, high achiever, May 2003) It’s somewhat important but it’s somewhat, like I don’t really give that much thought to it . . . I want to do well because I am in sports and you have to have good grades for eligibility. (April, female White eighth grader, moderate achiever, September 2003) [Math tests] . . . It’s important because I need a good grade in math. (Owen, male White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, September 2003) Math is pretty close to my favorite subject. (Amanda, female White eighth grader, high achiever, April 2003) Well, I want to be a doctor when I grow up and someone told me that doctors have to be pretty good at math. (Heidi, female White eighth grader, high achiever, September 2003) I want to do well because I just love math so much. (Terah, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, January 2004) Amanda characterizes math as her favorite subject, suggesting that she values math as a discipline or content area, like Terah. On the other hand, students who are successful or moderately successful at math may value math and math test performance for different reasons, such as the consequences of performing poorly. For instance, Heidi’s reasons for valuing math are related to her career choice, a desire to be a physician, instead of an intrinsic valuing, unlike Terah and Amanda. Cassie does not value math tests much, although she thinks that she will need math later, so she does pay attention and try. Others students have more immediate concerns about math test performance and consequences. Regina describes herself as someone who sees math as "serious" because you have to pass math to graduate. April does not value math or math tests much, although she does want to do well so she can remain eligible for sports. Owen thinks that math tests are important because he wants a good grade in the subject. Unlike Amanda, Heidi, Cassie, Rebecca, and Owen value math in relationship to a consequence instead of an intrinsic valuing of math. As these students’ responses suggest, students value math and math test taking for a wide variety of reasons. The extent to which students value math and math test taking is also likely to be related to their views about their math competence. In the next section, we examine current research on self-concept.
Research in achievement motivation distinguishes between academic self-concept, domain self-concept (math self-concept or English self-concept), and self-efficacy (task-specific self-concept) (Bandura, 1997; Bong & Clark, 1999; Pajares, 1996b; Schunk & Pajares, 2001). Most individuals have a generalized view of their competence in academics (academic self-concept) as well as more domain-specific beliefs about their competence (domain-specific self-concept in English vs. math) (Bandura, 1997; Bong & Clark, 1999; Pajares, 1996b; Schunk & Pajares, 2001). Math self-concept has been linked to subsequent math grades and math standardized test scores (Eccles, 1983; Marsh & Yeung, 1998). Furthermore, there are contradictions concerning the relationships between math self-concept and academic outcomes. Although female students’ math grades were higher, their self-reported math self-concepts and math test scores were lower (1988 National Education Longitudinal Survey data; Marsh & Yeung, 1998) than their male counterparts. The excerpts below illustrate differences in students’ math self-concepts. Well, I’m really not good at math. . . . I don’t generally do well in math even though I try. (Sarah, female White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, March 2003) I know I know this stuff. . . . I’m usually confident about what I am doing in math. (Cassie, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2004) [I have ] the confidence of knowing that I usually do [score] very high [on math tests]. (Regina, female White eighth grader, high achiever, May 2003) Math is like my best subject, and I just listen in class and remember everything. (Bill, male White eighth grader, moderate achiever, September 2003) Math is annoying. . . . I am not very good at it. . . . I think math is my worst subject so a test is a big deal. (Jeanette, female White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, September 2003) I do other tests better than math. . . . I am not that good at math. It’s not my best subject. (Norman, male African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, January 2004) Bill, Cassie, and Regina are confident about how good they are at mathematics. They are certain that they are very knowledgeable about the math domain. Regina is sure that she will score very high on math tests. All of these students engage math test taking with a great deal of confidence, feeling very sure of themselves. This is not the case for Sarah, Jeanette, and Norman. They do not see themselves as being able to do well. Instead, there is a mismatch between their achievement levels (moderate) and how they see themselves performing on math tests (Ford, 1992). Although Sarah works hard at math, she does not expect to do very well on math tests in spite of her efforts, because she does not see herself as good at math. Similarly, Jeanette and Norman do not see themselves as "good" at math, in spite of the fact they are moderate math achievers. As a consequence, they do not expect to do well on a math test. Furthermore, for Jeanette, a math test becomes a significant challenge. Students’ math self-concepts are likely to be important in considering how individuals and groups of students engage the test-taking process. In addition, individuals make more situation-specific assessments regarding their capabilities to successfully execute behaviors to bring about certain outcomes, referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996b). Below, we distinguish domain-specific self-concept from self-efficacy and review literature on self-efficacy and math achievement.
Individuals make more situation-specific assessments regarding their capabilities to successfully execute behaviors to bring about certain outcomes, referred to as self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). As described by Bandura (1986, 1997), self-efficacy is dynamic and evolves as an individual gains experience with a task. Students’ self-perceptions about math (e.g., math value and competence) are likely to shape their self-efficacy when difficulty is experienced. Students who are unsure about whether they can complete tasks will avoid them or give up more easily (Snow, Douglas, & Corno, 1996). The excerpts below illustrate how math self-efficacy can influence students’ test-taking performance, including some of the strategies students use to maintain their self-efficacy in the face of difficulties. Through other parts of it, I was reassured about the questions that I absolutely thought I knew so it kind of helped me feel better about the rest of it. (Sarah, female White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, March 2003) [When taking the test] . . . I was like oh, this is easy and then it started to get harder. (Cassie, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2004) [When I saw those difficult problems], I figured I would get them wrong. . . . Yeah, because if I know I’m going to get them wrong I just kind of think why bother trying. (April, female White eighth grader, moderate to high math achiever, September 2003) When I don’t know how to go about an answer [on a math test] . . . I try to be optimistic. I can start freaking out, getting frustrated, or I can be creative and try to create an answer . . . if I find myself frustrated, I’m like "Stop and create a system" . . . so I just find a way. (Maggie, female African American eighth grader, high math achiever, May 2004) These just aren’t hard at all. I kinda enjoy these. . . . I don’t know they just seem kind of easy. (Shawn, male African American eighth grader, high math achiever, May 2004) Well, at first I felt confident [about the math problem], but when I started not to get it I felt frustrated. (Susan, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, January 2004) April, who reported that she wants to do well in math so she can maintain sports eligibility, gave up on the difficult items because she did not think she could answer those items correctly. Unlike Shawn who says that he enjoyed these items, other students such as Sarah and Maggie devise strategies to help them engage difficult items. Sarah uses what she has done correctly to remind herself that she has already gotten some items correct. This positive experience (getting some items correct) helps her remain efficacious throughout the rest of the test. Maggie has a set of strategies, her system that she brings to the math test so she can avoid "freaking out." Susan feels frustration when she cannot understand a particular math problem. Research has found self-efficacy to have an effect on achievement in the classroom and on math tests (Pajares, 1996a, 1996b; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). Above and beyond "actual" achievement, beliefs that one can successfully bring about a positive outcome if one tries are important. Students such as Sarah and Maggie try. They have plans about what to do when items are difficult, so they are likely to be more effective test takers than students such as April, who just give up. Findings about gender and math self-efficacy during adolescence are not straightforward. Studies have found either no differences between male and female students or that male students report stronger self-efficacy beliefs (Pajares, 1996a, 1996b, 2005; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995). When gender differences are found, female students have lower self-efficacy than male students, even though have the same or higher math achievement in comparison with male students. Gender differences in self-efficacy start during middle school and tend to increase as students grow older (Pajares, 2005). In addition to students’ beliefs about whether they can do well on a test (i.e., self-concept, self-efficacy) and if they want to do well on a test (value, goals), it is important to consider affect, or how they feel during a test. For instance, work to date has not examined changes in self-efficacy during the course of an exam. Fears and negative thoughts about a task such as taking a test are likely to contribute to lower self-efficacy and initiate or increase test anxiety. In the next section, we summarize research on math test anxiety and achievement (Crocker, Schmitt, & Tang, 1988; Hancock, 2001; Hembree, 1988; Smith, Arnkoff, & Wright, 1990).
Of all the processes we discuss in this article, it is test anxiety that has the clearest historical connections with the assessment literature. Higher test anxiety is related to lower achievement (Crocker et al., 1988; Hembree, 1988; Smith et al., 1990). Findings from earlier studies (Crocker et al., 1988) suggest that test anxiety does not have a differential influence on test performance when comparing male and female or African American and White students. However, there is some evidence that the relationship between test anxiety and achievement does vary depending on context (Helmke, 1988). Performance-avoid goals have been consistently linked to increased anxiety (Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvick, 1997). Furthermore, anxiety has been found to mediate the relation between performance-avoid goals and exam performance for college students (Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Research in the achievement goal literature has studied the worry component of test anxiety rather than the emotionality component (Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Worry refers to cognitive reactions such as self-criticism and concern about the consequences of failure. Emotionality refers to physiological reactions such as nervousness or profuse sweating. The worry component undermines exam performance by introducing distracting thoughts that interfere with concentration on a test (Deffenbacher, 1980; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981; Sarason, 1972; Wine, 1971). Other studies support this distinction (Meece, Eccles, & Wigfield, 1990; Smith et al., 1990). The student interview selections presented below also show this distinction. These selections present a range of views about what the role of test anxiety is in today’s test-taking context. Well usually, when I take tests in the beginning when I used to take them, I feel like oh! I was more relaxed for it so I scored higher but now like we prepare two weeks ahead of time it’s more like I’m more nervous when I first take it. (Cassie, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2004) Sometimes I get a little nervous about it. Usually I worry over the grade. (Regina, female White eighth grader, high achiever, May 2003) Usually tests make me nervous. . . . Kind of anxious like I had to hurry and then when I hurry I might not get the right answer. Like I’m worried about making the time or falling behind the other kids or something . . . if they’re all done before me, I feel like I am not doing it correctly. (Natalie, female, White eighth grader, moderate to high math achiever, September 2003) Um I’m a little skittish before tests, but especially ones I don’t know about . . . like kind of nervous, um I feel like I’m light and I’m kind of feeling that way now. . . . I just get this weird feeling . . . but I am used to it now. (Andy, male, White eighth grader, high math achiever, September 2003) At first it [the math test] made me [anxious] . . . my hands are shaking and my heart was beating but then I calmed down when they told me it wasn’t for a grade so I was OK. (Susan, female, African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, January 2004) Susan’s and Andy’s comments about a pounding heart and feeling "light" reflect the physiological component of test anxiety or emotionality. Regina and Natalie seem to be describing something different. Regina is distracted by concerns about her grade while taking the math test. Natalie is preoccupied by a double-bind: She feels that she has to hurry during the test, but if she hurries, she might answer test items incorrectly. Cassie’s comments suggest that the increase in test preparation time is making her feel more nervous about tests now. There is some evidence that suggests students are experiencing more anxiety when taking tests these days. Thirty-five percent of teachers in high-stakes testing states and 20% of those in low-stakes testing states reported that students are anxious about taking their states’ assessments (Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus, 2003). The teachers (80% from the high-stakes testing states) described students as under intense pressure to perform well. Measurement researchers have identified test anxiety in the high-stakes testing context as a potential source of construct-irrelevant variance (CIV; Haladyna & Downing, 2004). CIV is a psychological or situational factor that systematically decreases (or increases) test scores for a specific group of test takers that is unrelated to what is being measured (Messick, 1995). For example, test anxiety could be a CIV source if test-anxious students score lower on high-stakes math tests in comparison with their performance on other math tests. Although few studies have directly addressed this issue, Zohar (1998) found that high-stakes situations contributed to test anxiety, suggesting that context is a factor. Thus far, we propose that students’ beliefs about if they want to do well on a test (goals, value), whether they can do well on a test (i.e., self-concept, self-efficacy), and how they feel during a test (worry or emotionality) are factors influencing math test performance. In addition, there is some evidence that the kinds of cognitive strategies used during test taking are related to test performance (Elliott et al., 1999; Haydel & Roeser, 2002; Quinn & Spencer, 2001; Roeser et al., 2002). We review literature on this issue in the next section.
When considering students’ cognitive engagement in test taking, three different kinds of cognitive processing can be distinguished: deep processing, surface processing, and cognitive disorganization. Cognitive disorganization has been conceptually and empirically distinguished from surface processing (the use of formulas, the memorization of information, recalling class instructions) and deep processing (critical thinking, integrating new information with prior knowledge and experience) (Entwhistle, 1988). Cognitive disorganization is characterized by distracting thoughts, attention to the amount of time used in solving a problem at hand, and so on. The excerpts below are examples of how students described their thought processes while answering challenging math problems when taking math tests. My mind wanders and I was thinking about other things when I’m at a hard math problem. . . . Because I kinda get confused by some of them [math problems]. (Amanda, female White eighth grader, high achiever, April 2003) Sometimes I get confused [when taking a math test]. I felt like I was taking too much time on a problem or where I should’ve only spent like a minute I spent more like 3. (Cassie, female African American eighth grader, moderate math achiever, May 2004) I didn’t really feel like I had enough time to finish it. . . . I probably would have spent more time and got a better answer. (Owen, male White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, September 2003) I looked for patterns, and uh, I tried to think logically and then this must mean that. (Andy, male White eighth grader, high math achiever test taker, September 2003) Like, it wasn’t extremely hard questions . . . but it still would take logical thinking and just in your head and like trying to figure out what it really meant. (Bill, male White eighth grader, moderate-achieving test taker, September 2003) I try to do those and use the formulas to do those math problems. (Amy, male White eighth grader, high achiever, April 2003) I try to remember things that she (math teacher) said because it is easy for me. (Sarah, female White eighth grader, moderate math achiever, March 2003) Amanda’s description of her thoughts when she tries to answer a difficult problem is an example of cognitive disorganization. She becomes distracted when trying to answer a difficult problem. Preoccupation with the time limits instead of a single focus on solving the math problems represents another form of cognitive disorganization. Owen and Cassie are both thinking about whether they have enough time to answer the questions while they are trying to answer the questions. In contrast, both Andy’s and Bill’s strategies reflect deep processing. They use critical thinking when solving math problems. Andy looks for patterns using what he describes as logic when he infers that "this" must mean "that." Bill also cites logical thinking "in his head" as the way he solves problems. In contrast, Sarah and Amy draw on a different kind of resource when they solve math problems. Amy uses formulas to do math problems, whereas Sarah thinks back to what the math teacher told her in class. These two cognitive strategies are illustrative of what has been defined in the literature as surface processing. Only a few studies have examined cognitive processing and exam performance. Cognitive disorganization has been found to mediate the relationship between performance-avoid goals and exam performance for college students (Elliott et al., 1999). Other recent work has explicitly examined and described the affective, motivational, and cognitive processes involved in answering science items with concurrent and retrospective verbal protocol methodology (Haydel & Roeser, 2002). Students who were characterized by academic helplessness (similar to performance-avoid goals) were not as cognitively engaged. They used less factual information, were less likely to make predictions or explain concepts, and used less strategic monitoring in solving science problems. Scores from a test engagement questionnaire measuring cognitive test-taking strategies, test mood, effort, and energy were found to be predictive of science test scores above and beyond science ability, demographic characteristics, and other motivational constructs (Roeser et al., 2002). Stereotype threat has been linked to diminished cognitive processing for female students on challenging math test items (Study 2 in Quinn & Spencer, 2001). Stereotype threat is a situational pressure that is created and depresses performance when negative stereotypes about particular groups (i.e., female and African American students do not do well at math) are made salient for individuals who belong to those groups (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Research has documented that stereotype threat exists and impairs performance in a variety of performance contexts (gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and age; Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001; Croizet & Claire, 1998; Inzlict & ben-Zeev, 2003, Levy, 1996; Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999; Spencer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995). In Quinn and Spencer’s (2001) study examining stereotype threat and cognitive processing, college women in the high-stereotype condition (typical standardized math test instructions) were unable to formulate strategies for more of the problems (14% of the time vs. 4%) compared with women in the low-threat condition (in which women were told that the items were gender fair). Furthermore, women in the high stereotype threat condition could not generate any strategy 14% of the time, in comparison with 2% of the time for men.
High-stakes testing is the foundation of NCLB, which is aimed at addressing achievement differences among students. Consequently, standardized test performance is taking a large hand these days in the fate of children’s educational trajectory with the passage of this legislation. Unfortunately, this legislation rests on a unidimensional view of motivation and other achievement-related processes. That is, high-stakes test systems do have a motivating power for all students to the same degree and in the same direction (Clarke et al., 2001). In addition, this premise assumes that these processes do not vary by ethnicity, gender, race, and/or content area and that no other social-psychological processes, such as stereotype threat, influence test-taking processes. This foundational assumption rests on the notion of an ideal test taker, not a real test taker. An ideal test taker is one who is "well calibrated" (the test taker knows what he or she knows) and whose goal is to maximize test performance (Budescu & Bar-Hillel, 1993). In contrast, real test takers are students who may not be sure about what they know, whether they want to do well, or how they feel (i.e., they are not well calibrated). Furthermore, a real test taker’s goal may not be to maximize performance (i.e., the test taker may want to just avoid looking bad or doing poorly; Budescu & Bar-Hillel, 1993). That is, there is a psychological dimension to the way real test takers respond to tests and items. The test takers we presented in this article are real, not ideal, test takers. Although these students were moderate or high math achievers, their descriptions of the test-taking process deviated, sometimes substantially, from the ideal. We found that they had different beliefs about whether they could do well. Some of these real test takers were not always sure how important it was to do well. Their comments reflected a variety of emotions as they talked about taking tests. The cognitive strategies some real test takers used were not ideal at all (e.g., disorganized), clearly at odds with maximizing test performance. Although we did not interview any low-achieving math test takers, these students are the most likely to be affected by high-stakes tests, because the results are used for grade promotion and certification. When low-achieving students take high-stakes assessments, these kinds of consequences may activate motivational patterns such as avoiding failure instead of a focus on mastery, trigger worry, and other less effective test-taking strategies. In short, the empirical and conceptual research about achievement-related processes we have examined in this article and the students’ views about testing suggest that this assumption is not tenable. As the student excerpts we have presented illustrate, different motivational, affective, and cognitive processes occur during standardized test taking. Research has shown such processes to be important in classroom contexts (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Wigfield et al., 2006). However, questions remain about the motivational and psychological processes that are important to students’ performance in the context of high-stakes testing. Further research illuminating the motivational and psychological processes involved during standardized test situations is crucial. Examining the relationships among motivational, affective, and cognitive processes and mathematics test performance will contribute to a deeper understanding of individual as well as group differences in test performance.
1 To be considered a high math achiever, a student had to meet two of the following criteria: (a) have scores ranked in the 80th percentile or above on a standardized math achievement test (e.g., the Iowa Test of Basic Skills) or exceed the Illinois Standards Assessment Test mathematics standards (receive a score of 4 on the basis of four performance levels); (b) be enrolled in high school freshman algebra; and (c) have a grade of A– or better in his or her current math course. Students enrolled in remedial math courses were ineligible for this category. The criteria for classification as a moderate math achiever were similar: (a) have scores ranked between the 40th and 79th percentiles; (b) be following a high school, college-bound mathematics course-taking track; and (c) be enrolled in prealgebra and have a grade of B– or better in the current math course. 
2 These schools were selected because they provided access to a substantial number of high- and moderate-achieving, African American, White, male, and female math students at a relatively small number of similar schools. Approximately 35% of the students interviewed were White, and 65% were African American.
Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 1,
5-13 (2007)
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
TOP
Abstract
Two Students' Beliefs About...