- Email: [email protected]
Fear appeals in the primary classroom: Effects on test anxiety and test grade
Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Fear appeals in the primary classroom: Effects on test anxiety and test grade David William Putwain ⁎, Natalie Best Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, St. Helen's Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 January 2010 Received in revised form 26 April 2011 Accepted 2 July 2011 Keywords: Fear appeals Classroom environment Test anxiety Test score
a b s t r a c t The present study investigated whether fear appeals used prior to a test increased self-reported test anxiety and had a detrimental effect on test scores. Forty primary school pupils were instructed for one week under a low threat condition under which no fear appeals were made and another week under a high threat condition in which fear appeals were made salient. An end-of-week test was given in both conditions. Pupils reported an increase in test anxiety related worrisome thoughts and autonomic reactions under the high threat condition, but not in off-task behaviours. Test scores were lower under the high threat condition, but were not attributable to the increases in test anxiety related thoughts and autonomic reactions. This study adds weight to the argument that fear appeals are a damaging classroom strategy, but the mechanism by which fear appeals are reducing test scores is not yet clear. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
In this study we examine the role of classroom fear appeals used prior to a class test. When used in this way, fear appeals refer to messages used by teachers is to convey to students, repeatedly and sometimes forcefully, the importance of, the timing of and the consequences of failing forthcoming tests and examinations (Putwain & Roberts, 2009). The use of fear appeals may be well-intentioned, with teachers highlighting the benefits for pupils' future educational and employment prospects in the belief they can motivate ‘lazy’ students (Putwain, 2009) and such strategies may not be entirely misplaced. Research suggests that students are more likely to persist in their academic efforts and be more highly motivated when they see the value of educational tasks and activities (Eccles, 2005; Martin, 2001, 2002). However fear appeals used prior to tests and examinations tend to emphasise the educational value of performance outcomes rather than the knowledge and skills developed at school. This emphasis on the importance of performance is perceived as highly upsetting and anxiety-provoking by some students (Connor, 2001, 2003; Hall, Collins, Benjamin, Nind, & Sheehy, 2004; Putwain & Roberts, 2009). The little research conducted to date has reported that the increasing use of fear appeals has been associated with negative outcomes: lower motivation (Sprinkle, Hunt, Simonds, & Comadena, 2006), higher test anxiety (Putwain & Roberts, 2009; Putwain & Symes, 2011a) and lower mathematics grades in secondary school (Putwain & Symes, 2011b), but it has largely relied on correlational analyses. Research has yet to establish if fear appeals are causally related to test anxiety and examination/test scores, or whether they
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44 1695 584498. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.W. Putwain). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.007
may indeed reduce examination/test scores through test anxiety. A series of studies by Field and his colleagues has eloquently demonstrated in a prospective experimental paradigm how exposure to negative information can lead to acquisition of developmentally appropriate fear (Field, Argyris, & Knowles, 2001; Field, Hamilton, Knowles, & Plews, 2003; Field & Lawson, 2003, 2008). The limited weight of evidence to date would suggest that fear appeals may indeed contribute to the development of test anxiety. Test anxiety, usually defined as the tendency to appraise exams and other assessment situations as threatening (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995), is widely considered to be a multidimensional construct. In this project, we used a three-factor model of test anxiety (Wren & Benson, 2004) consisting of a cognitive component (worrisome thoughts), an affective-physiological component (autonomic reactions) and a behavioural component (off-task behaviours). Test anxiety and in particular the cognitive component is widely believed to negatively impact on performance through occupying working memory resources (e.g., Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck, Santos, Derekeshan, & Calvo, 2007; Owens, Stevenson, Norgate, & Hadwin, 2008). If fear appeals result in an increased test anxiety, it would be reasonable to expect pupils' performance to decline as a consequence. We therefore propose a meditational hypothesis that fear appeals reduce test performance through test anxiety, especially the worry component.
1. Aims of the present study The aims of this study were twofold. First, to demonstrate experimentally that fear appeals can causally contribute to both an increase in fear and a reduction in test performance. An extended
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
corollary of this aim is to address whether the anticipated reduction in test performance is attributable to (i.e. mediated by) test anxiety. Second, as fear appeals in the classroom have only been researched to date in secondary school and undergraduate students, we wished to establish the debilitating effects of fear appeals on test anxiety and test performance in a sample of primary school children. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Forty primary school pupils participated in this study drawn from a single English primary school. Primary schooling in the UK covers four year group cohorts; Years 3–6, ages 7/8 in Year 3 to ages 10/11 in Year 6. Ten pupils, with an equal gender split, were randomly selected from the mid-range of ability (based on prior test and classwork performance) in each year group to provide a representative spread of primary school ages and year groups. Institutional, parental and pupil consents were provided in accordance with guidelines for working with children as research participants (Scott & Haydon, 2005). We were particularly vigilant for ways in which children may indicate withdrawal behaviourally (e.g. through not engaging in a class task or activity) rather than by verbally indicating their intention to withdraw. 2.2. Measures Test anxiety was measured using the Children's Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Wren & Benson, 2004). This instrument was specifically designed for use with children aged 8–12 years and includes subscale scores for three dimensions of test anxiety: worrisome thoughts, concerning failure (e.g. ‘when I take tests, I worry about failing’), autonomic reactions, concerning the pupils' general and specific somatic indications of anxiety (e.g. ‘when I take tests, my heart beats fast’) and off-task behaviours concerning nervous habits and distracting behaviours (e.g. ‘when I take tests, I play with my pencil’). Pupils respond to statements on a four-point scale of never– always. Using a confirmatory factors analysis (see Table 1) we selected the four highest-loading items from the original 30-item measure. Acceptable fit indices were reported for this reduced 12-item version (χ2/df ≤ 2 and RMSEA≤ .08 and the CFI≥ .90) which was used in subsequent analyses (see Appendix A). Reliability coefficients (reported in Table 2) were largely acceptable (α = .68–.81). A measure of fear appeals was included as a manipulation check using the Teachers' Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire (Putwain & Roberts, 2009) adapted for use with primary school aged children. Nine items, those most applicable and adaptable to the primary school context, were selected from the original fourteen (we rejected items from the
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analyses. Models CTAS 30-item (low threat) 30-item (high threat) 25-item (low threat) 25-item (high threat) 12-item (low threat) 12-item (high threat) Adapted TUFAQ Low threat High threat
χ2
df
χ2/df
RMSEA
CFI
892.72⁎⁎⁎ 667.11⁎⁎⁎ 473.52⁎⁎⁎ 420.35⁎⁎⁎ 67.81 (ns) 53.74 (ns)
402 402 272 272 51 51
2.06 1.66 1.74 1.55 1.35 1.05
.17 .13 .14 .12 .06 .04
.50 .64 .64 .72 .93 .98
511.41⁎⁎ 25.57 (ns)
26 26
1.97 0.49
.07 b.00
.93 .1
⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. CTAS (Children's Test Anxiety Scale); TUFAQ (Teacher's Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire).
581
Table 2 Means and standard deviations for perceived fear appeals, test anxiety and test scores under low and high threat conditions. Low threat
Fear appeals Perceived frequency Perceived threat Test anxiety Thoughts Autonomic reactions Off-task behaviours Standardised test score
High threat
SD
Cronbach's α
M
SD
Cronbach's α
1.29 1.35
0.48 0.51
.88 .75
4.42 4.52
0.70 0.84
.91 .87
2.33 1.80 2.21 15.75
0.74 0.63 0.88 4.43
.79 .68 .83 –
2.63 2.05 2.17 9.48
0.68 0.82 0.84 5.14
.68 .76 .81 –
M
original scale referring to jobs and post-compulsory education) and we changed the wording of items to refer to tests rather than exams and included the classroom teacher's name. Six items corresponded to the perceived frequency with which fear appeals were made by the class teacher and three corresponding to the perceived threat of fear appeals (see Appendix B). Pupils responded on a five point scale of all of the time–none of the time. A confirmatory factor analysis (reported in Table 1) demonstrated the 2-factor adapted version was acceptable for use in subsequent analyses. Reliability coefficients (reported in Table 2) were all acceptable (α = .75–.91). Mathematics tests were taken by pupils at the end of each of the low and high threat weeks. Tests were made up of thirty questions, designed to assess the material covered during that week by pupils, marked as correct or incorrect and providing a score in the range of 0–30. Age-appropriate tests for the different year groups were selected from pedagogical tests (Edmondson, Jurgensen, Mumford, & Roberts, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d) designed to assess National Curriculum progress at different year group. Our participating teacher selected tests which were of equivalent levels of difficulty for the low and high threat weeks. As tests were teacher-marked, it was not possible to estimate reliability coefficients. Since we wished to aggregate test scores from each year group to produce a measure of performance, raw scores were transformed into standardised z-scores using the means and standard deviations from each year group.
2.3. Design The experiment was conducted over a two-week period in a within-participants design, during which fear appeals were manipulated to create low and high threat conditions. In the low threat condition, pupils were reminded once at the beginning and once at the end of every mathematics lesson (one per day) that there would be a test during the last lesson of the week on the material covered. The teacher was careful not to place undue importance on the test or to emphasise failure. In the high threat condition, pupils were also reminded once at the beginning, one mid lesson and once at the end of every mathematics lesson that there would be a test during the last period of the week. The teacher used a script of three of statements that contained fear appeals: the tests were important, that hard work was required to avoid failure and that test results would be seen by parents and the Head Teacher. As test anxiety is related to perceptions of competence (Elliot, 2005; Putwain & Symes, 2011a), only pupils who were, according to the classroom teachers' records for classwork and previous tests, in the mid-range of ability (within ±2 ageappropriate National Curriculum target level) for two reasons. First, to avoid distorting findings by including a number of students with particularly high or low perceptions of competence in a small sample and second, to avoid potentially further reducing the academic selfefficacy or self-concept of students who already held low perceptions of competence.
582
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
2.4. Procedure For one week students received instruction on a specific mathematics unit following their normal curriculum in which they were told they had a test in such a way that did not include fear appeals and received a test at the end of the week (low threat condition). For another week, students again received instruction on a specific mathematics unit following their normal curriculum in which fear appeals were used regularly throughout the week (high threat condition). Measures of test anxiety and fear appeals were taken immediately following the test. For these two weeks, pupils received mathematics instruction separately from their usual classmates from a single teacher who volunteered for this project, although they followed the same units of work. This allowed for the experimental manipulation to be conducted without influencing other pupils. A counterbalancing procedure was employed whereby two year groups (Years 4 and 6) participated in the low threat condition for one week followed by the high threat condition for the second week. The remaining two year groups (Years 3 and 5) participated in the high threat condition for one week followed by the low threat condition in the second. As primary pupils in England take high-stakes Standardised Assessment Tests near the end of Year 6, this experiment was conducted at the beginning of the school year, approximately nine months prior to these tests, to avoid interfering with test preparation. 3. Results 3.1. Changes in test anxiety and test scores under low and high threat conditions A repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted using the low and high threat conditions as the withinsubjects factor and year group as a covariate. Perceived fear appeals (as a manipulation check), test anxiety and test score were the dependent variables (descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2). The outcome was significant (Λ= .13, F(6,33)= 38.35, pb .001) suggesting that univariate analyses should be explored. The high threat condition was associated with large increases1 in the both the perceived frequency (F =235.86, p b .001, ηp2 =.86) and perceived threat of fear appeals (F =196.48, p b .001, ηp2 =.84), indicating that the manipulation was highly effective. During the high threat condition, a large increase was also reported in the worrisome thoughts component of test anxiety (F =9.96, p =.003, ηp2 =.20) and a moderate increase in the autonomic reactions component of test anxiety (F= 6.67, p =.02, ηp2 = .15). No increases were reported in the off-task behaviours component (F = 0.10, p = .75, ηp2 b .01). A large reduction in test score was found during the high threat condition (F =43.75, pb .001, ηp2 =.53). 3.2. Can the reduction in test score be attributed to the increase in test anxiety? To answer this question we followed the analytic rationale set out by Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (2001) for meditational analysis in within-participants designs. First, we created an index of change in test scores as an outcome variable by subtracting the scores collected in the low threat condition from scores collected in the high threat condition. Second, we mean centred the three test anxiety variables (worrisome thoughts, autonomic reactions and off-task behaviours) and created two predictor variables: (i) the sum of each test anxiety variable and (ii), an index of change in each test anxiety variable. The index of change in test score was then regressed against the
1 Cohen (1969) suggests following as a rough guide for interpreting the ηp2 statistic: ≤05 as small, .1–.2 as medium and N.2 large.
Table 3 Meditational analysis to establish whether the reduction in standardised test score is attributable to test anxiety. B
SE
β
1. Worrisome thoughts Intercept Sum Index of change
− 6.26 −.32 − 2.00
.95 .76 1.58
−.07 (ns) −.20 (ns)
2. Autonomic reactions Intercept Sum Index of change
− 6.17 −.67 1.78
.97 .78 1.69
−.15 (ns) .18 (ns)
3. Off-task behaviours Intercept Sum Index of change
− 6.27 .47 −.39
.97 .61 1.58
.13 (ns) −.04 (ns)
1. F(2,37) = 0.83, p = .44; R2 = .04. 2. F(2,37) = 0.70, p = .51; R2 = .04. 3. F(2,37) = 0.35, p = .71; R2 = .02.
sum and index of change scores for the three test anxiety variables respectively. When interpreting this analysis, the intercept represents the difference in test scores between the two conditions which are not mediated by test anxiety, thus a coefficient of 0 would indicate a fully mediated effect. The coefficient for the index of change in test anxiety represents the extent to which test score is mediated by test anxiety. Results of this analysis are reported in Table 3. These findings suggest that the reduction in test score in the high threat condition is not attributable to test anxiety, partly due to the relatively high coefficients reported for the intercept and partly due to the nonsignificant index of change scores for test anxiety variables. However, given the small R 2 values reported in Table 3, the statistical power of analyses reported here are less than optimal (N.8) for the number of participants, and should be considered with caution. 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that the use of fear appeals in the primary classroom in the anticipation of a class test would have a detrimental effect on test performance by increasing test anxiety. Pupils reported that their class teacher used more fear appeals and that these fear appeals were perceived as more worrisome during the threat condition. Pupils performed worse in an age-appropriate test at the end of the high threat week and also reported experiencing more test anxiety related worrisome thoughts and autonomic reactions, but not more off-task behaviours. Although pupils performed worse in the test at the end of the high threat week and also reported experiencing more test anxiety related thoughts and autonomic reactions, the evidence seems to suggest that decreases in scores were largely unrelated to test anxiety. Although it was necessary to use separate age-appropriate tests for the pupils included in this study, these were linked along dimensions of progress used in the English National Curriculum and standardised to provide an aggregated measure of performance. This finding is of key importance in using an experimental manipulation to demonstrate that fear appeals have a detrimental effect on pupils' test anxiety and standardised test scores. Previous work has shown that the increasing use of fear appeals by teachers is correlated with both test anxiety and poor performance on high stakes tests, but the experimental manipulation used in this study adds weight to the view that fear appeals are causally related to poor test performance and test anxiety. These findings support the previous work by Field and his colleagues showing that negative messages can increase fear beliefs in children. There is, however, an
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
additional body of work suggesting that a bias towards threatening stimuli can be found in highly test anxious persons (e.g., Calvo, Eysenck, & Castillo, 1997; Keogh & French, 2001; Vasey, El-Hag, & Daleiden, 1996) suggesting the direction of causality may also operate in the reverse direction to the one reported here; pupils who are highly test anxious to begin with selectively attend to, and hence report to be more frequent and threatening, fear appeals. Although this study clearly showed that fear appeals are causally responsible for an increase in test anxiety, future research may wish to include an additional pre-test measure of test anxiety to examine the possibility that pupils respond differentially to fear appeals, whether increases in test anxiety are reported in all pupils, or more strongly in those who reported high test anxiety at the outset. Evidence presented in this study suggests that test anxiety is not the mechanism by which fear appeals are associated with a negative performance outcome. Since off-task behaviours did not increase during the high threat condition, it is perhaps not surprising that this aspect of test anxiety was not a mediator. The findings regarding worrisome thoughts and autonomic reactions are more puzzling given the weight of evidence linking increased test anxiety to lowered performance. We suggest it would be prudent not to reject the hypothesis that test anxiety mediates the fear appeals — performance effect until findings have been replicated for the following two reasons. First, as noted above, the statistical power of the mediational test was less than optimal and a greater number of participants may be required to detect relatively small mediating effects. Second, it is possible that the Children's Test Anxiety Scale was not sufficiently sensitive to capture changes in test anxiety between the low and high threat conditions. The item stems used in this measure (worded as ‘When I take tests…’) imply a trait analysis of test anxiety by asking pupils to report how they generally feel and respond in test situations. Thus, pupils may have under-reported the degree of state anxiety experienced in the high threat condition. A future replication should consider either: (i) adapting this measure to make it more specific to a particular test to measure state test anxiety, (ii) adapt an adult measure of state test anxiety (e.g., Meijer, 2001) as there are few measures available for younger children, or (iii) use an existing measure of state anxiety for children (e.g. the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children: Spielberger, Edwards, Lushene, Montuori, & Platzek, 1973). If test anxiety is not the mechanism by which fear appeals exert a damaging effect on test score, then some consideration should be given, briefly, to what it might be. Messages contained in fear appeals are not only potentially anxiety-provoking, but in educational terms they are controlling, by implicitly or explicitly communicating to pupils that the responsibility and impetus for learning is controlled by the classroom teacher, the school management/leadership or some other external authority. Control is a central feature of several theories of educational motivation including expectancy-value theory (e.g., Eccles, 2005) and self-determination theory (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although fear appeals may attempt to highlight the value of test performance, according to expectancyvalue theory, controlling statements reduce the task value to pupils, and hence lower pupil engagement and self-regulation (e.g., Eccles, 1983, Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). From the perspective of selfdetermination theory, fear appeals might threaten the need for competence, resulting in a self-protective disengagement (e.g., Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003) and/or prompt a reduction in pupils' autonomy, leading to a reduction in intrinsic motivation for classroom learning (e.g., Assor & Kaplan, 2001; Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Pelletier, Seguin-Levesque, & Legault, 2002). In conclusion, the findings of the research reported here suggest that fear appeals are not a useful classroom strategy for preparing pupils for tests, serving to increase test anxiety related thoughts and autonomic reactions and reduce test scores. On the basis of these
583
findings, teachers and others involved in the education of primary school children would be best advised to avoid the use of such strategies, even if they feel under considerable performative pressures themselves. Follow up research may wish to increase the numbers of participants to enable a more powerful mediational analysis, and use state measures of test anxiety and/or measures of motivation to examine whether these may be responsible for the detrimental impact of fear appeals on test grade. Appendix A Items used from the Wren and Benson (2004) Children's Test Anxiety Scale (item numbering refers to position on the original 30-item scale).
6. 9. 11 27
Thoughts It is hard for me to remember the answers I worry about failing I worry about doing something wrong I think about how poorly I am doing
8. 10. 17. 23.
Autonomic reactions My face feels hot My belly feels funny My head hurts My hand shakes
7. 18. 22. 30.
Off-task behaviours I play with my pencil I look at other people I try to finish up fast I stare
Appendix B Teachers' Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire adapted from Putwain and Roberts (2009) for use with primary schoolchildren.
Perceived frequency of fear appeals 3. How often does Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you must work hard for your test, otherwise you might fail? 5. How often does Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you that you have a test coming up? 6. How often did Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you your test was getting nearer? 7. How often does Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you that you must work hard for your test because it is very important? 8. How often did Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you how many days till you take the test? 9. How often did Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you to work hard for your test as it was not very far off? Perceived threat of fear appeals 1. Did you feel worried when Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] told you that your test was getting nearer? 2. Did you feel worried when Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] told you that you had a test? 4. Did you feel worried when Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] told you that if you do not work hard you will fail the test?
References Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support: Five important ways to enhance or undermine student's experience of autonomy in learning. In A. Effklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivational research (pp. 101–120). Dordrecjt: Kluwer Academic (Part 1). Calvo, M. G., Eysenck, M. W., & Castillo, M. D. (1997). Interpretation bias in test anxiety: The time course of predictive inferences. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 43–64, doi: 10.1080/026999397380023. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press. Connor, M. J. (2001). Pupil stress and standard assessment tests (SATS). Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 6, 103–111, doi:10.1080/13632750100507660.
584
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
Connor, M. J. (2003). Pupil stress and standard assessment tests (SATS): An update. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 8, 101–107, doi:10.1080/13632750300507010. Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verification of Atkinson's original 2 × 2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion, Vol. 14. (pp. 85–105)New York, NY: Hemisphere. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press. Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency and cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control theory. European Psychologist, 14, 168–176, doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviour. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievementrelated choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence motivation (pp. 105–121). London: Guildford Press. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000a). Collins primary maths pupil book 3. London: Collins Educational. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000b). Collins primary maths pupil book 4. London: Collins Educational. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000c). Collins primary maths pupil book 5. London: Collins Educational. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000d). Collins primary maths pupil book 6. London: Collins Educational. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). London: Guildford Press. Eysenck, M. W., Santos, R., Derekeshan, N., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353, doi:10.1037/15283542.7.2.336. Field, A. P., Argyris, N. G., & Knowles, K. A. (2001). Who's afraid of the big bad wolf: A prospective paradigm to test Rachman's indirect pathways in children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1259–1276, doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00080-2. Field, A. P., Hamilton, S. J., Knowles, K. A., & Plews, E. L. (2003). Fear information and phobic beliefs in children: A prospective paradigm and preliminary results. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 113–123, doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00050-5. Field, A. P., & Lawson, J. (2003). Fear information and the development of fears during childhood: Effects on implicit fear responses and behavioural avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1277–1293, doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00034-2. Field, A. P., & Lawson, J. (2008). The verbal information pathway to fear and subsequent causal learning in children. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 459–479, doi:10.1080/ 02699930801886532. Hall, K., Collins, C., Benjamin, S., Nind, M., & Sheehy, K. (2004). SATurated models of pupildom: Assessment and inclusion/exclusion. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 801–818, doi:10.1080/0141192042000279512. Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students' intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347–356, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.347. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134, doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115. Keogh & French (2001). test anxiety, evaluative stress and susceptibility to distraction from threat. European Journal of Personality, 15, 123–141, doi:10.1002/per.400.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The student motivation scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of guidance and Counselling, 11, 1–20. Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 14, 34–49. Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31–38, doi:10.1080/00050060310001706997. Meijer, J. (2001). Learning potential and anxious tendency: Test anxiety as a bias factor in educational testing. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 14, 337–362, doi:10.1080/ 10615800108248361. Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Norgate, R., & Hadwin, J. A. (2008). Processing efficiency theory in children: Working memory as a mediator between test anxiety and academic performance. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21, 417–430, doi:10.1080/ 10615800701847823. Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186. Putwain, D. W. (2009). Assessment and examination stress and anxiety in Key Stage 4. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 371–390, doi:10.1080/01411920802044404. Putwain, D. W., & Roberts, C. M. (2009). The development and validation of the Teachers Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 643–661, doi:10.1348/000709909X426130. Putwain, D. W., & Symes, W. (2011a). Classroom fear appeals and examination performance: Facilitating or debilitating outcomes? Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 227–232, doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.022. Putwain, D.W., & Symes, W. (2011b) Teachers' use of fear appeals in the mathematics classroom: Worrying or motivating students? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 456–474, doi: 10.1348/2044-8279.002005. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Scott, S., & Haydon, D. (2005). Bernado's statement of ethical research practice with children. Available online at: http://barnados.org.uk (accessed 11th January 2010). Spielberger, C. D., Edwards, C. D., Lushene, R. E., Montuori, J., & Platzek, D. (1973). Preliminary test manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D. Speilberger, & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 3–14). Bristol: Taylor & Frances. Sprinkle, R., Hunt, S., Simonds, C., & Comadena, M. (2006). Fear in the classroom: An examination of teachers' use of fear appeals and students learning outcomes. Communication Education, 55, 389–402, doi:10.1080/03634520600879170. Vasey, M. W., El-Hag, N., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996). Anxiety and the processing of emotionally threatening stimuli: Distinctive patterns of selective attention among high- and low-test-anxious children. Child Development, 67, 1173–1185, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01789.x. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310, doi:10.1016/0273-2297 (92)90011-P. Wren, D. G., & Benson, J. (2004). Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development and internal construct validation. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17, 227–240, doi: 10.1080/10615800412331292606.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Learning and Individual Differences j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f
Fear appeals in the primary classroom: Effects on test anxiety and test grade David William Putwain ⁎, Natalie Best Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill University, St. Helen's Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, United Kingdom
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 January 2010 Received in revised form 26 April 2011 Accepted 2 July 2011 Keywords: Fear appeals Classroom environment Test anxiety Test score
a b s t r a c t The present study investigated whether fear appeals used prior to a test increased self-reported test anxiety and had a detrimental effect on test scores. Forty primary school pupils were instructed for one week under a low threat condition under which no fear appeals were made and another week under a high threat condition in which fear appeals were made salient. An end-of-week test was given in both conditions. Pupils reported an increase in test anxiety related worrisome thoughts and autonomic reactions under the high threat condition, but not in off-task behaviours. Test scores were lower under the high threat condition, but were not attributable to the increases in test anxiety related thoughts and autonomic reactions. This study adds weight to the argument that fear appeals are a damaging classroom strategy, but the mechanism by which fear appeals are reducing test scores is not yet clear. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
In this study we examine the role of classroom fear appeals used prior to a class test. When used in this way, fear appeals refer to messages used by teachers is to convey to students, repeatedly and sometimes forcefully, the importance of, the timing of and the consequences of failing forthcoming tests and examinations (Putwain & Roberts, 2009). The use of fear appeals may be well-intentioned, with teachers highlighting the benefits for pupils' future educational and employment prospects in the belief they can motivate ‘lazy’ students (Putwain, 2009) and such strategies may not be entirely misplaced. Research suggests that students are more likely to persist in their academic efforts and be more highly motivated when they see the value of educational tasks and activities (Eccles, 2005; Martin, 2001, 2002). However fear appeals used prior to tests and examinations tend to emphasise the educational value of performance outcomes rather than the knowledge and skills developed at school. This emphasis on the importance of performance is perceived as highly upsetting and anxiety-provoking by some students (Connor, 2001, 2003; Hall, Collins, Benjamin, Nind, & Sheehy, 2004; Putwain & Roberts, 2009). The little research conducted to date has reported that the increasing use of fear appeals has been associated with negative outcomes: lower motivation (Sprinkle, Hunt, Simonds, & Comadena, 2006), higher test anxiety (Putwain & Roberts, 2009; Putwain & Symes, 2011a) and lower mathematics grades in secondary school (Putwain & Symes, 2011b), but it has largely relied on correlational analyses. Research has yet to establish if fear appeals are causally related to test anxiety and examination/test scores, or whether they
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 44 1695 584498. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.W. Putwain). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.07.007
may indeed reduce examination/test scores through test anxiety. A series of studies by Field and his colleagues has eloquently demonstrated in a prospective experimental paradigm how exposure to negative information can lead to acquisition of developmentally appropriate fear (Field, Argyris, & Knowles, 2001; Field, Hamilton, Knowles, & Plews, 2003; Field & Lawson, 2003, 2008). The limited weight of evidence to date would suggest that fear appeals may indeed contribute to the development of test anxiety. Test anxiety, usually defined as the tendency to appraise exams and other assessment situations as threatening (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995), is widely considered to be a multidimensional construct. In this project, we used a three-factor model of test anxiety (Wren & Benson, 2004) consisting of a cognitive component (worrisome thoughts), an affective-physiological component (autonomic reactions) and a behavioural component (off-task behaviours). Test anxiety and in particular the cognitive component is widely believed to negatively impact on performance through occupying working memory resources (e.g., Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009; Eysenck, Santos, Derekeshan, & Calvo, 2007; Owens, Stevenson, Norgate, & Hadwin, 2008). If fear appeals result in an increased test anxiety, it would be reasonable to expect pupils' performance to decline as a consequence. We therefore propose a meditational hypothesis that fear appeals reduce test performance through test anxiety, especially the worry component.
1. Aims of the present study The aims of this study were twofold. First, to demonstrate experimentally that fear appeals can causally contribute to both an increase in fear and a reduction in test performance. An extended
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
corollary of this aim is to address whether the anticipated reduction in test performance is attributable to (i.e. mediated by) test anxiety. Second, as fear appeals in the classroom have only been researched to date in secondary school and undergraduate students, we wished to establish the debilitating effects of fear appeals on test anxiety and test performance in a sample of primary school children. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Forty primary school pupils participated in this study drawn from a single English primary school. Primary schooling in the UK covers four year group cohorts; Years 3–6, ages 7/8 in Year 3 to ages 10/11 in Year 6. Ten pupils, with an equal gender split, were randomly selected from the mid-range of ability (based on prior test and classwork performance) in each year group to provide a representative spread of primary school ages and year groups. Institutional, parental and pupil consents were provided in accordance with guidelines for working with children as research participants (Scott & Haydon, 2005). We were particularly vigilant for ways in which children may indicate withdrawal behaviourally (e.g. through not engaging in a class task or activity) rather than by verbally indicating their intention to withdraw. 2.2. Measures Test anxiety was measured using the Children's Test Anxiety Questionnaire (Wren & Benson, 2004). This instrument was specifically designed for use with children aged 8–12 years and includes subscale scores for three dimensions of test anxiety: worrisome thoughts, concerning failure (e.g. ‘when I take tests, I worry about failing’), autonomic reactions, concerning the pupils' general and specific somatic indications of anxiety (e.g. ‘when I take tests, my heart beats fast’) and off-task behaviours concerning nervous habits and distracting behaviours (e.g. ‘when I take tests, I play with my pencil’). Pupils respond to statements on a four-point scale of never– always. Using a confirmatory factors analysis (see Table 1) we selected the four highest-loading items from the original 30-item measure. Acceptable fit indices were reported for this reduced 12-item version (χ2/df ≤ 2 and RMSEA≤ .08 and the CFI≥ .90) which was used in subsequent analyses (see Appendix A). Reliability coefficients (reported in Table 2) were largely acceptable (α = .68–.81). A measure of fear appeals was included as a manipulation check using the Teachers' Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire (Putwain & Roberts, 2009) adapted for use with primary school aged children. Nine items, those most applicable and adaptable to the primary school context, were selected from the original fourteen (we rejected items from the
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analyses. Models CTAS 30-item (low threat) 30-item (high threat) 25-item (low threat) 25-item (high threat) 12-item (low threat) 12-item (high threat) Adapted TUFAQ Low threat High threat
χ2
df
χ2/df
RMSEA
CFI
892.72⁎⁎⁎ 667.11⁎⁎⁎ 473.52⁎⁎⁎ 420.35⁎⁎⁎ 67.81 (ns) 53.74 (ns)
402 402 272 272 51 51
2.06 1.66 1.74 1.55 1.35 1.05
.17 .13 .14 .12 .06 .04
.50 .64 .64 .72 .93 .98
511.41⁎⁎ 25.57 (ns)
26 26
1.97 0.49
.07 b.00
.93 .1
⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b .001. CTAS (Children's Test Anxiety Scale); TUFAQ (Teacher's Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire).
581
Table 2 Means and standard deviations for perceived fear appeals, test anxiety and test scores under low and high threat conditions. Low threat
Fear appeals Perceived frequency Perceived threat Test anxiety Thoughts Autonomic reactions Off-task behaviours Standardised test score
High threat
SD
Cronbach's α
M
SD
Cronbach's α
1.29 1.35
0.48 0.51
.88 .75
4.42 4.52
0.70 0.84
.91 .87
2.33 1.80 2.21 15.75
0.74 0.63 0.88 4.43
.79 .68 .83 –
2.63 2.05 2.17 9.48
0.68 0.82 0.84 5.14
.68 .76 .81 –
M
original scale referring to jobs and post-compulsory education) and we changed the wording of items to refer to tests rather than exams and included the classroom teacher's name. Six items corresponded to the perceived frequency with which fear appeals were made by the class teacher and three corresponding to the perceived threat of fear appeals (see Appendix B). Pupils responded on a five point scale of all of the time–none of the time. A confirmatory factor analysis (reported in Table 1) demonstrated the 2-factor adapted version was acceptable for use in subsequent analyses. Reliability coefficients (reported in Table 2) were all acceptable (α = .75–.91). Mathematics tests were taken by pupils at the end of each of the low and high threat weeks. Tests were made up of thirty questions, designed to assess the material covered during that week by pupils, marked as correct or incorrect and providing a score in the range of 0–30. Age-appropriate tests for the different year groups were selected from pedagogical tests (Edmondson, Jurgensen, Mumford, & Roberts, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d) designed to assess National Curriculum progress at different year group. Our participating teacher selected tests which were of equivalent levels of difficulty for the low and high threat weeks. As tests were teacher-marked, it was not possible to estimate reliability coefficients. Since we wished to aggregate test scores from each year group to produce a measure of performance, raw scores were transformed into standardised z-scores using the means and standard deviations from each year group.
2.3. Design The experiment was conducted over a two-week period in a within-participants design, during which fear appeals were manipulated to create low and high threat conditions. In the low threat condition, pupils were reminded once at the beginning and once at the end of every mathematics lesson (one per day) that there would be a test during the last lesson of the week on the material covered. The teacher was careful not to place undue importance on the test or to emphasise failure. In the high threat condition, pupils were also reminded once at the beginning, one mid lesson and once at the end of every mathematics lesson that there would be a test during the last period of the week. The teacher used a script of three of statements that contained fear appeals: the tests were important, that hard work was required to avoid failure and that test results would be seen by parents and the Head Teacher. As test anxiety is related to perceptions of competence (Elliot, 2005; Putwain & Symes, 2011a), only pupils who were, according to the classroom teachers' records for classwork and previous tests, in the mid-range of ability (within ±2 ageappropriate National Curriculum target level) for two reasons. First, to avoid distorting findings by including a number of students with particularly high or low perceptions of competence in a small sample and second, to avoid potentially further reducing the academic selfefficacy or self-concept of students who already held low perceptions of competence.
582
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
2.4. Procedure For one week students received instruction on a specific mathematics unit following their normal curriculum in which they were told they had a test in such a way that did not include fear appeals and received a test at the end of the week (low threat condition). For another week, students again received instruction on a specific mathematics unit following their normal curriculum in which fear appeals were used regularly throughout the week (high threat condition). Measures of test anxiety and fear appeals were taken immediately following the test. For these two weeks, pupils received mathematics instruction separately from their usual classmates from a single teacher who volunteered for this project, although they followed the same units of work. This allowed for the experimental manipulation to be conducted without influencing other pupils. A counterbalancing procedure was employed whereby two year groups (Years 4 and 6) participated in the low threat condition for one week followed by the high threat condition for the second week. The remaining two year groups (Years 3 and 5) participated in the high threat condition for one week followed by the low threat condition in the second. As primary pupils in England take high-stakes Standardised Assessment Tests near the end of Year 6, this experiment was conducted at the beginning of the school year, approximately nine months prior to these tests, to avoid interfering with test preparation. 3. Results 3.1. Changes in test anxiety and test scores under low and high threat conditions A repeated measures multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted using the low and high threat conditions as the withinsubjects factor and year group as a covariate. Perceived fear appeals (as a manipulation check), test anxiety and test score were the dependent variables (descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2). The outcome was significant (Λ= .13, F(6,33)= 38.35, pb .001) suggesting that univariate analyses should be explored. The high threat condition was associated with large increases1 in the both the perceived frequency (F =235.86, p b .001, ηp2 =.86) and perceived threat of fear appeals (F =196.48, p b .001, ηp2 =.84), indicating that the manipulation was highly effective. During the high threat condition, a large increase was also reported in the worrisome thoughts component of test anxiety (F =9.96, p =.003, ηp2 =.20) and a moderate increase in the autonomic reactions component of test anxiety (F= 6.67, p =.02, ηp2 = .15). No increases were reported in the off-task behaviours component (F = 0.10, p = .75, ηp2 b .01). A large reduction in test score was found during the high threat condition (F =43.75, pb .001, ηp2 =.53). 3.2. Can the reduction in test score be attributed to the increase in test anxiety? To answer this question we followed the analytic rationale set out by Judd, Kenny, and McClelland (2001) for meditational analysis in within-participants designs. First, we created an index of change in test scores as an outcome variable by subtracting the scores collected in the low threat condition from scores collected in the high threat condition. Second, we mean centred the three test anxiety variables (worrisome thoughts, autonomic reactions and off-task behaviours) and created two predictor variables: (i) the sum of each test anxiety variable and (ii), an index of change in each test anxiety variable. The index of change in test score was then regressed against the
1 Cohen (1969) suggests following as a rough guide for interpreting the ηp2 statistic: ≤05 as small, .1–.2 as medium and N.2 large.
Table 3 Meditational analysis to establish whether the reduction in standardised test score is attributable to test anxiety. B
SE
β
1. Worrisome thoughts Intercept Sum Index of change
− 6.26 −.32 − 2.00
.95 .76 1.58
−.07 (ns) −.20 (ns)
2. Autonomic reactions Intercept Sum Index of change
− 6.17 −.67 1.78
.97 .78 1.69
−.15 (ns) .18 (ns)
3. Off-task behaviours Intercept Sum Index of change
− 6.27 .47 −.39
.97 .61 1.58
.13 (ns) −.04 (ns)
1. F(2,37) = 0.83, p = .44; R2 = .04. 2. F(2,37) = 0.70, p = .51; R2 = .04. 3. F(2,37) = 0.35, p = .71; R2 = .02.
sum and index of change scores for the three test anxiety variables respectively. When interpreting this analysis, the intercept represents the difference in test scores between the two conditions which are not mediated by test anxiety, thus a coefficient of 0 would indicate a fully mediated effect. The coefficient for the index of change in test anxiety represents the extent to which test score is mediated by test anxiety. Results of this analysis are reported in Table 3. These findings suggest that the reduction in test score in the high threat condition is not attributable to test anxiety, partly due to the relatively high coefficients reported for the intercept and partly due to the nonsignificant index of change scores for test anxiety variables. However, given the small R 2 values reported in Table 3, the statistical power of analyses reported here are less than optimal (N.8) for the number of participants, and should be considered with caution. 4. Discussion The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that the use of fear appeals in the primary classroom in the anticipation of a class test would have a detrimental effect on test performance by increasing test anxiety. Pupils reported that their class teacher used more fear appeals and that these fear appeals were perceived as more worrisome during the threat condition. Pupils performed worse in an age-appropriate test at the end of the high threat week and also reported experiencing more test anxiety related worrisome thoughts and autonomic reactions, but not more off-task behaviours. Although pupils performed worse in the test at the end of the high threat week and also reported experiencing more test anxiety related thoughts and autonomic reactions, the evidence seems to suggest that decreases in scores were largely unrelated to test anxiety. Although it was necessary to use separate age-appropriate tests for the pupils included in this study, these were linked along dimensions of progress used in the English National Curriculum and standardised to provide an aggregated measure of performance. This finding is of key importance in using an experimental manipulation to demonstrate that fear appeals have a detrimental effect on pupils' test anxiety and standardised test scores. Previous work has shown that the increasing use of fear appeals by teachers is correlated with both test anxiety and poor performance on high stakes tests, but the experimental manipulation used in this study adds weight to the view that fear appeals are causally related to poor test performance and test anxiety. These findings support the previous work by Field and his colleagues showing that negative messages can increase fear beliefs in children. There is, however, an
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
additional body of work suggesting that a bias towards threatening stimuli can be found in highly test anxious persons (e.g., Calvo, Eysenck, & Castillo, 1997; Keogh & French, 2001; Vasey, El-Hag, & Daleiden, 1996) suggesting the direction of causality may also operate in the reverse direction to the one reported here; pupils who are highly test anxious to begin with selectively attend to, and hence report to be more frequent and threatening, fear appeals. Although this study clearly showed that fear appeals are causally responsible for an increase in test anxiety, future research may wish to include an additional pre-test measure of test anxiety to examine the possibility that pupils respond differentially to fear appeals, whether increases in test anxiety are reported in all pupils, or more strongly in those who reported high test anxiety at the outset. Evidence presented in this study suggests that test anxiety is not the mechanism by which fear appeals are associated with a negative performance outcome. Since off-task behaviours did not increase during the high threat condition, it is perhaps not surprising that this aspect of test anxiety was not a mediator. The findings regarding worrisome thoughts and autonomic reactions are more puzzling given the weight of evidence linking increased test anxiety to lowered performance. We suggest it would be prudent not to reject the hypothesis that test anxiety mediates the fear appeals — performance effect until findings have been replicated for the following two reasons. First, as noted above, the statistical power of the mediational test was less than optimal and a greater number of participants may be required to detect relatively small mediating effects. Second, it is possible that the Children's Test Anxiety Scale was not sufficiently sensitive to capture changes in test anxiety between the low and high threat conditions. The item stems used in this measure (worded as ‘When I take tests…’) imply a trait analysis of test anxiety by asking pupils to report how they generally feel and respond in test situations. Thus, pupils may have under-reported the degree of state anxiety experienced in the high threat condition. A future replication should consider either: (i) adapting this measure to make it more specific to a particular test to measure state test anxiety, (ii) adapt an adult measure of state test anxiety (e.g., Meijer, 2001) as there are few measures available for younger children, or (iii) use an existing measure of state anxiety for children (e.g. the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children: Spielberger, Edwards, Lushene, Montuori, & Platzek, 1973). If test anxiety is not the mechanism by which fear appeals exert a damaging effect on test score, then some consideration should be given, briefly, to what it might be. Messages contained in fear appeals are not only potentially anxiety-provoking, but in educational terms they are controlling, by implicitly or explicitly communicating to pupils that the responsibility and impetus for learning is controlled by the classroom teacher, the school management/leadership or some other external authority. Control is a central feature of several theories of educational motivation including expectancy-value theory (e.g., Eccles, 2005) and self-determination theory (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although fear appeals may attempt to highlight the value of test performance, according to expectancyvalue theory, controlling statements reduce the task value to pupils, and hence lower pupil engagement and self-regulation (e.g., Eccles, 1983, Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). From the perspective of selfdetermination theory, fear appeals might threaten the need for competence, resulting in a self-protective disengagement (e.g., Covington & Omelich, 1991; Martin & Marsh, 2003) and/or prompt a reduction in pupils' autonomy, leading to a reduction in intrinsic motivation for classroom learning (e.g., Assor & Kaplan, 2001; Hardre & Reeve, 2003; Pelletier, Seguin-Levesque, & Legault, 2002). In conclusion, the findings of the research reported here suggest that fear appeals are not a useful classroom strategy for preparing pupils for tests, serving to increase test anxiety related thoughts and autonomic reactions and reduce test scores. On the basis of these
583
findings, teachers and others involved in the education of primary school children would be best advised to avoid the use of such strategies, even if they feel under considerable performative pressures themselves. Follow up research may wish to increase the numbers of participants to enable a more powerful mediational analysis, and use state measures of test anxiety and/or measures of motivation to examine whether these may be responsible for the detrimental impact of fear appeals on test grade. Appendix A Items used from the Wren and Benson (2004) Children's Test Anxiety Scale (item numbering refers to position on the original 30-item scale).
6. 9. 11 27
Thoughts It is hard for me to remember the answers I worry about failing I worry about doing something wrong I think about how poorly I am doing
8. 10. 17. 23.
Autonomic reactions My face feels hot My belly feels funny My head hurts My hand shakes
7. 18. 22. 30.
Off-task behaviours I play with my pencil I look at other people I try to finish up fast I stare
Appendix B Teachers' Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire adapted from Putwain and Roberts (2009) for use with primary schoolchildren.
Perceived frequency of fear appeals 3. How often does Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you must work hard for your test, otherwise you might fail? 5. How often does Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you that you have a test coming up? 6. How often did Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you your test was getting nearer? 7. How often does Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you that you must work hard for your test because it is very important? 8. How often did Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you how many days till you take the test? 9. How often did Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] tell you to work hard for your test as it was not very far off? Perceived threat of fear appeals 1. Did you feel worried when Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] told you that your test was getting nearer? 2. Did you feel worried when Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] told you that you had a test? 4. Did you feel worried when Miss/Mr [INSERT NAME OF TEACHER] told you that if you do not work hard you will fail the test?
References Assor, A., & Kaplan, H. (2001). Mapping the domain of autonomy support: Five important ways to enhance or undermine student's experience of autonomy in learning. In A. Effklides, J. Kuhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivational research (pp. 101–120). Dordrecjt: Kluwer Academic (Part 1). Calvo, M. G., Eysenck, M. W., & Castillo, M. D. (1997). Interpretation bias in test anxiety: The time course of predictive inferences. Cognition and Emotion, 11, 43–64, doi: 10.1080/026999397380023. Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NY: Academic Press. Connor, M. J. (2001). Pupil stress and standard assessment tests (SATS). Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 6, 103–111, doi:10.1080/13632750100507660.
584
D.W. Putwain, N. Best / Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 580–584
Connor, M. J. (2003). Pupil stress and standard assessment tests (SATS): An update. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 8, 101–107, doi:10.1080/13632750300507010. Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revisited: Verification of Atkinson's original 2 × 2 model. In C. D. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulcsar, & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion, Vol. 14. (pp. 85–105)New York, NY: Hemisphere. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press. Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (2009). Anxiety, processing efficiency and cognitive performance: New developments from attentional control theory. European Psychologist, 14, 168–176, doi:10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.168. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviour. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco: Freeman. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievementrelated choices. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence motivation (pp. 105–121). London: Guildford Press. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000a). Collins primary maths pupil book 3. London: Collins Educational. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000b). Collins primary maths pupil book 4. London: Collins Educational. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000c). Collins primary maths pupil book 5. London: Collins Educational. Edmondson, A., Jurgensen, E., Mumford, J., & Roberts (2000d). Collins primary maths pupil book 6. London: Collins Educational. Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). London: Guildford Press. Eysenck, M. W., Santos, R., Derekeshan, N., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7, 336–353, doi:10.1037/15283542.7.2.336. Field, A. P., Argyris, N. G., & Knowles, K. A. (2001). Who's afraid of the big bad wolf: A prospective paradigm to test Rachman's indirect pathways in children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39, 1259–1276, doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00080-2. Field, A. P., Hamilton, S. J., Knowles, K. A., & Plews, E. L. (2003). Fear information and phobic beliefs in children: A prospective paradigm and preliminary results. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 113–123, doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(02)00050-5. Field, A. P., & Lawson, J. (2003). Fear information and the development of fears during childhood: Effects on implicit fear responses and behavioural avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1277–1293, doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00034-2. Field, A. P., & Lawson, J. (2008). The verbal information pathway to fear and subsequent causal learning in children. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 459–479, doi:10.1080/ 02699930801886532. Hall, K., Collins, C., Benjamin, S., Nind, M., & Sheehy, K. (2004). SATurated models of pupildom: Assessment and inclusion/exclusion. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 801–818, doi:10.1080/0141192042000279512. Hardre, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students' intentions to persist in, versus drop out of, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347–356, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.347. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134, doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115. Keogh & French (2001). test anxiety, evaluative stress and susceptibility to distraction from threat. European Journal of Personality, 15, 123–141, doi:10.1002/per.400.
Martin, A. J. (2001). The student motivation scale: A tool for measuring and enhancing motivation. Australian Journal of guidance and Counselling, 11, 1–20. Martin, A. J. (2002). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 14, 34–49. Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2003). Fear of failure: Friend or foe? Australian Psychologist, 38, 31–38, doi:10.1080/00050060310001706997. Meijer, J. (2001). Learning potential and anxious tendency: Test anxiety as a bias factor in educational testing. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 14, 337–362, doi:10.1080/ 10615800108248361. Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Norgate, R., & Hadwin, J. A. (2008). Processing efficiency theory in children: Working memory as a mediator between test anxiety and academic performance. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21, 417–430, doi:10.1080/ 10615800701847823. Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196, doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186. Putwain, D. W. (2009). Assessment and examination stress and anxiety in Key Stage 4. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 371–390, doi:10.1080/01411920802044404. Putwain, D. W., & Roberts, C. M. (2009). The development and validation of the Teachers Use of Fear Appeals Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 643–661, doi:10.1348/000709909X426130. Putwain, D. W., & Symes, W. (2011a). Classroom fear appeals and examination performance: Facilitating or debilitating outcomes? Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 227–232, doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.11.022. Putwain, D.W., & Symes, W. (2011b) Teachers' use of fear appeals in the mathematics classroom: Worrying or motivating students? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 456–474, doi: 10.1348/2044-8279.002005. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78, doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Scott, S., & Haydon, D. (2005). Bernado's statement of ethical research practice with children. Available online at: http://barnados.org.uk (accessed 11th January 2010). Spielberger, C. D., Edwards, C. D., Lushene, R. E., Montuori, J., & Platzek, D. (1973). Preliminary test manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Children. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: A transactional process model. In C. D. Speilberger, & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 3–14). Bristol: Taylor & Frances. Sprinkle, R., Hunt, S., Simonds, C., & Comadena, M. (2006). Fear in the classroom: An examination of teachers' use of fear appeals and students learning outcomes. Communication Education, 55, 389–402, doi:10.1080/03634520600879170. Vasey, M. W., El-Hag, N., & Daleiden, E. L. (1996). Anxiety and the processing of emotionally threatening stimuli: Distinctive patterns of selective attention among high- and low-test-anxious children. Child Development, 67, 1173–1185, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01789.x. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310, doi:10.1016/0273-2297 (92)90011-P. Wren, D. G., & Benson, J. (2004). Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development and internal construct validation. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 17, 227–240, doi: 10.1080/10615800412331292606.