Low test-taking motivation in low-stakes testing (tests that do not have a major impact on overall performance/grade, such as quizzes) impacts test scores and does not accurately measure a student’s actual understanding of the tested content. Low test-taking motivation is intertwined with student expectations (Baumert & Demmrich, 2001; Duckworth et al., 2011; Eklöf et al., 2014; Wise & DeMars, 2005). However, few studies have examined both self-reported effort (SRE) and response time effort (RTE), and none have connected SRE and RTE with more than four aspects of the expectancy-value theory. In order to close these gaps, Akhtar et al. investigate the relationship between expectancy, value, test-taking effort, and test performance in low–testing. 

In order to examine the relationship between value, expectancy, and test performance, 2041 Indonesians from ages 14-59 were asked to take fluid reasoning tests on an online platform. The participants were asked to complete the fluid reasoning test (including 3 sub-tests) and asked to rate their test-taking motivation (effort, expectancies, importance, interest, test anxiety, and time cost) using a scale from 1-4. Additionally, RTE was used to measure student behavior during testing by revealing whether or not a student was rapidly guessing to provide a solution. As a result, the expectancy-value theory is useful to generally interpret test-taking motivation. It is worth noting that test anxiety has a direct impact on testing results. Furthermore, Akhtar and colleagues found that test-taking motivation is more accurately measured using RTE compared to SRE because the time taken to complete questions can better predict motivation and effort.

Akhtar et al.’s (2023) study provides educators insight into how student expectations affect their test-taking motivation and performance. Additionally, since test anxiety affects test performance, teachers and parents should work to limit test anxiety in order to best support students. EPIC can incorporate RTE measurements into its research to further investigate test-taking motivation, motivation to navigate through failures in STEM, and motivation in its most general form.

To learn more about Akhtar et al.’s (2023) study, check out the link to retrieve this article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608023000675?via%3Dihub

This post is written by Katelyn Chow. 

References:

Akhtar, H., & Firdiyanti, R. (2023). Test-taking motivation and performance: Do self-report and time-based measures of effort reflect the same aspects of test-taking motivation?. Learning and Individual Differences, 106, 102323.

Baumert, J., & Demmrich, A. (2001). Test motivation in the assessment of student skills: The effects of incentives on motivation and performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 16(3), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173192

Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2011). Role of test motivation in intelligence testing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7716–7720. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018601108 

Eklöf, H., Pavešič, B. J., & Grønmo, L. S. (2014). A cross-national comparison of reported effort and Mathematics Performance in TIMSS Advanced. Applied Measurement in Education, 27(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347.2013.853070 

Wise, S. L., & DeMars, C. E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326977ea1001_1