Research Project Piece 1

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Educational Research Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Educational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org

Students' Motivation for Standardized Math Exams Author(s): Katherine E. Ryan, Allison M. Ryan, Keena Arbuthnot and Maurice Samuels Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 2007), pp. 5-13 Published by: American Educational Research Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4621063 Accessed: 22-01-2016 19:21 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4621063?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Features

Students' Motivation for Standardized Math Exams by Katherine E. Ryan, Allison M. Ryan, Keena Arbuthnot, and Maurice Samuels

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 indi-

vidual 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.

Keywords: accountability; high-stakes testing; motivation

he 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 stu- dent 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 chal-

lenges this assumption. Not only knowledge but individuals' per- sonal beliefs and goals influence performance. Understanding the

variability of engagement and achievement of students with sim- ilar "abilities" or "background knowledge" is at the heart of much motivational research (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Individuals' beliefs and goals form qualitatively distinct motivational frame- works 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).

Two Students' Beliefs About Math Test Taking 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 confi- dence 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."

Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. I, pp. 5-13 DOI: 10.3102/0013189X0629800 1

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 1K

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 for- midable 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 pres- sures created in recent years with these kinds of assessments. In this article, we focus on standardized math test taking because mathe- matics 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 litera- ture on key motivation constructs. Most major theories of moti- vation 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 lead-

ing 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 pro- cessing (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 cog- nitive processes, we present excerpts from interviews with stu- dents 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 Goals

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 achieve- ment 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 tar-

get goals (i.e., get 8 of 10 correct on an exam) and embody an inte-

grated 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 differ- ences, 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 evalu- ation on a given academic task (performance goal). Valence is dis-

tinguished 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 pro- moting 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.

•1 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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' achieve- ment or others impressions of one's achievement). Natalie's char- acterization 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 any- thing). Beth's orientation toward tests reflects a similar orienta- tion. 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, aperformance-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 orienta- tion 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, mod- erate 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, mod- erate 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 the-

ory and evidence regarding value (Eccles, 1983, 1993; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992).

Value 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 encom-

passes 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 perfor- mance 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 stu- dents in terms of future aspirations. Interest refers to intrinsic rea- sons students might engage in a task, such as enjoyment and inherent challenge of a task. Several other theories have also dis- cussed 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 essen- tial 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)

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 7I

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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.

Self-Concept Research in achievement motivation distinguishes between acad- emic 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 relation-

ships 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, mod- erate 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 remem- ber 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 mis- match 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 mod- erate 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 con- sidering 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 litera- ture on self-efficacy and math achievement.

Self-Efficacy

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

81 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 experi- enced. 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... ifI 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 frustra- tion when she cannot understand a particular math problem.

Research has found self-efficacy to have an effect on achieve- ment 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 adoles- cence are not straightforward. Studies have found either no dif- ferences 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-effi-

cacy than male students, even though have the same or higher math achievement in comparison with male students. Gender dif- ferences 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 neg- ative thoughts about a task such as taking a test are likely to con- tribute 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).

Test Anxiety 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 perfor- mance 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 rela- tion 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 fail- ure. Emotionality refers to physiological reactions such as nervous- ness 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)

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 9I

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 shak- ing 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 feel-

ing "light" reflect the physiological component of test anxiety or

emotionality. Regina and Natalie seem to be describing some-

thing 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 hur- ries, 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 anx-

iety when taking tests these days. Thirty-five percent of teachers in high-stakes testing states and 20% of those in low-stakes test- ing 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 stu- dents 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 exam- ple, test anxiety could be a CIV source if test-anxious students score lower on high-stakes math tests in comparison with their perfor- mance 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 per- formance. In addition, there is some evidence that the kinds of

cognitive strategies used during test taking are related to test per- formance (Elliott et al., 1999; Haydel & Roeser, 2002; Quinn &

Spencer, 2001; Roeser et al., 2002). We review literature on this issue in the next section.

Cognitive Processes

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 solv-

ing the math problems represents another form of cognitive disor-

ganization. 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 con-

trast, Sarah and Amy draw on a different kind of resource when

they solve math problems. Amy uses formulas to do math prob- lems, 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 ver- bal protocol methodology (Haydel & Roeser, 2002). Students who were characterized by academic helplessness (similar to per- formance-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

Io EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 pro- cessing 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 docu- mented that stereotype threat exists and impairs performance in a variety of performance contexts (gender, ethnicity, socioeco- nomic 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 examin-

ing 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.

Conclusion

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 stu- dents 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, influ- ence 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 inter- view 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-achiev-

ing students take high-stakes assessments, these kinds of conse-

quences 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 tak-

ing. 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 con- tribute to a deeper understanding of individual as well as group dif- ferences in test performance.

NOTES

'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 mathemat- ics 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 reme- dial math courses were ineligible for this category. The criteria for classi- fication 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. 2These schools were selected because they provided access to a sub-

stantial 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.

REFERENCES

Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J. & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18-29.

Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kim, A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2001). Stereotype susceptibility in children: Effects of identity activation on quantita- tive performance. Psychological Science, 12, 385-390.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal ofEducationalPsychology, 84, 261-271.

Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations ofthought and action: A social cog- nitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 IE

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and

self-efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 34, 139-153.

Brophy, J. (1999). RI motivation in education past, present, and future. In Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 11, pp. 1-44). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Budescu, D., & Bar-Hillel, M. (1993). To guess or not to guess: A deci- sion-theoretic view of formula scoring. Journal of Educational Measurement, 30(4), 277-291.

Clarke, M., Abrams, L., & Madaus, G. (2001). The effects of and impli- cations of high-stakes achievement tests for adolescence. In T. C. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Adolescence and education: General issues in the edu- cation ofadolescents (pp. 201-229). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Committee on Education and the Workforce. (2004). Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (Hearing before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, 107th

Congress, second session). Retrieved February 14, 2006, from

http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS30979 Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on

motivation andschool reform. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crocker, L., Schmitt, A., & Tang, L. (1988). Test anxiety and stan- dardized achievement test performance in the middle school years. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 20(4), 49-57.

Croizet, J.-C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students form low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588-594. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2005, February). Test-based accountability,

incentives, and motivation for learning. Paper presented at the National Academies Center for Education, Board on Testing and Assessment, Workshop on Test-Based Accountability and Incentives, Washington, DC.

Deffenbacher, J. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dweck, C., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to moti- vation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Dweck, C. S. (2001). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development ofachievement motiva- tion (pp. 57-88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dweck, C. S., Mangels, J. A., & Good, C. (2004). Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and performance. In D. Dai & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrative per- spectives and intellectual functioning and development (pp. 41-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Eccles, J. (1993). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, self-perceptions, and activity choices. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1992 (Vol. 40, pp. 145-208). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1995). In the mind of the actor: The struc- ture of adolescents' achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(3), 215-225.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Text anxiety and the hierar- chical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.

Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76, 628-644. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal

framework. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals,

study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 91, 549-563.

Entwhistle, N. (1988). Motivational factors in students' approaches to

learning. In R. Schmeck (Ed.), Learning strategies and learning styles: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 21-51). New York: Plenum.

Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency beliefi. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Haladyna, T. M., & Downing, S. M. (2004). Construct-irrelevant vari- ance in high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 23(1), 17-27.

Hancock, D. R. (2001). Effects of test anxiety and evaluative threat on stu- dents' achievement. Journal ofEducational Research, 94(5), 284-290.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Pintrich, P. R., Barron, K. E., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, R. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 94, 638-645.

Haydel, A. M., & Roeser, R. (2002). On motivation, ability, and the

perceived situation in science test performance: A person centered

approach with high school students. Educational Assessment, 8(2), 163-189.

Helmke, A. (1988). The role of classroom context factors for the achieve- ment impairing effect of test anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 37-52.

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects, and treatment of test

anxiety. Review ofEducational Research, 58(1), 47-77. Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Furhman

& R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigningaccountability (pp. 141-146). New York: Teachers College Press.

Heubert, J. P., & Hauer, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. Inzlict, M., & ben-Zeev, T. (2003). Do high-achieving female students

underperform in private? The implications of threatening environ- ments on intellectual processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 796-805.

Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797-832.

Levy, B. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit self-

stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1092-1107.

Maehr, M. L., & Meyer, H. A. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we've been, where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371-409.

Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1998). Longitudinal structural equation models of academic self-concept and achievement: Gender differences in the development of math and English constructs. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 705-738.

Meece, J. L., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (1990). Predictors of math anx- iety and its influence on young adolescents course enrollment inten- tions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 60-70.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons, responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741-749.

Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of the lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

1I EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Morris, L., Davis, M., & Hutchings, C. (1981). Cognitive and emo- tional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised Worry- Emotionality Scale. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 73, 541-555.

Nicholls, J. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, Rec. 1425.

115 Stat. (2002). Pajares, F. (1996a). Role of self-efficacy beliefs in the mathematical prob-

lem-solving of gifted students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 325-344.

Pajares, F. (1996b). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.

Pajares, F. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics self-efficacy beliefs. In A. M. Gallagher & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Gender differences in mathematics: An integrative psychological approach (pp. 294-315). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics performance of entering middle school students.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 124-136.

Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental

ability in mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 26, 426-443. Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). An achievement goal theory perspective on

issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92-104.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Handbook of self- regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). The interference of stereotype threat with women's generation of mathematics problem-solving. Journal ofSocial Issues, 57(1), 55-71.

Roeser, R. W., Shavelson, R. J., Kupermintz, H., Lau, S., Ayala, C., Haydel, A., et al. (2002). The concept of aptitude and multidimen- sional validity revisited. EducationalAssessment, 8(2), 191-205.

Sarason, I. (1972). Experimental approaches to test anxiety: Attention and the uses of information. In C. Spielberger (Ed.),Anxiety: Current trends in

theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 383-403). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Schunk, D., & Pajares, F. (2001) The development of academic self-

efficacy. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development ofachieve- ment motivation (pp. 15-31). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, T. (1999). Stereotype suscepti- bility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 80-83.

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-per- ceptions, and anxiety. ]ournal ofEducational Psychology, 89, 71-81.

Smith, R. J., Arnkoff, D. B., & Wright, T. L. (1990). Text anxiety and academic competence: A comparison of alternative models. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 37(3), 313-321.

Snow, R. E., Douglas, D., & Corno, L. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In R C. Calfee & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook ofeducationalpsychology (pp. 243-310). New York: Macmillan.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 35, 4-28. Steele, C. M., & Aronson J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellec-

tual test performance of African-Americans. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Stipek, D. (2002). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory andpractice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Stringfield, S. C., & Yakimowski-Srebnick, M. E. (2005). Promises, progress, problems and paradoxes of three phases of accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 43-75.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future direc- tions. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99-142). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education.

Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 616-622.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265-310.

Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R. W., & Davis-Kean, P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook ofchildpsychology (Vol. 3, pp. 933-1002). New York:

John Wiley. Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological

Bulletin, 76, 92-104. Zohar, D. (1998). An additive model of test anxiety: Role of exam spe-

cific expectations. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90(2), 330-340.

AUTHORS

KATHERINE E. RYAN is an associate professor of educational psychol- ogy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 230B Education

Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; k-ryan6@uiuc .edu. Her research interests include educational accountability issues and

high-stakes assessment.

ALLISON M. RYAN is an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 230B Education

Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; [email protected]. Her research interests include motivation and engage- ment and the intersection of social and academic concerns for students

during early adolescence.

KEENA ARBUTHNOT is a postdoctoral fellow and lecturer on educa- tion at Harvard Graduate School of Education, 13 Appian Way, 450 Gutman Library, Cambridge, MA 02138; [email protected]. Her research examines issues related to educational measurement, test-

ing policy, and racial and gender achievement gaps.

MAURICE SAMUELS is a doctoral student at the University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign, 230B Education Building, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; [email protected]. His research interests include the evaluation of school accountability systems at the school and state lev- els and the use of democratic and culturally responsive approaches in

program evaluation.

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2007 13

This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Fri, 22 Jan 2016 19:21:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions