School Motivation, Cognitive Strategies And Test Anxiety In The School Performance

Abstract

The multidimensional nature of academic learning has determined the research regarding the role of noncognitive factors in academic performance. The examination of the relationship between motivation, the correct use of learning strategies, personality traits (anxiety, self-efficacy, self-confidence) and academic achievement has focused less on secondary school students. The present study intends to establish the nature of the connection between academic motivation, study strategies and those utilized during school examinations, as well as between test anxiety and academic performance. The research methodology entails the application of a questionnaire regarding the evaluation of study motivation and of learning strategies to a number of 220 8th grade students from Suceava county. The students’ academic success was represented by the grades obtained at the national evaluation and the V-VIII grade point average. Discovering the students’ weak points and providing counseling on learning and emotions management must therefore become a vital part of educational programs in schools.

Keywords: Evaluationmotivationcognitive strategies;test anxietyschool performance

Introduction

Evaluative activities, especially tests and exams, have a profound impact on students, considering

the significance given to the obtained grades from the perspective of the consequences, both personal and

social. According to national statistics, a significant number of students obtain poor results at the end of

middle school evaluation, a discovery that has prompted researchers to locate the causes of academic

underachievement in some students. Beyond the struggle for good grades and the profound desire of

some students to develop the intellectual competencies needed for access to a future professional expertise, a large number of students of all levels are poorly motivated, do not wish to actively involve

themselves in learning and avoid tasks that demand critical thinking (Turturean, M., 2013).

In reality, the academic community has completely accepted the idea that school successes are not

determined solely by cognitive abilities. Acknowledging that success is reflected by the results of the

student in the evaluation undertaken by him, we can then take into consideration that there will be other

non-cognitive factors which will influence the student’s performance in the test. The incentive for this

change in perspective is the fact that the answer validity of those tested is affected by individual affective

or non-cognitive factors.

What keeps students going in order to move from one academic stage to another so that they can

win a diploma? The team coordinated by Camille A. Farrington from Chicago University (2012) has

examined the literature and has identified five categories of non-cognitive factors related to academic

performance: academic behaviors, academic perseverance, academic mindsets, learning strategies and

social skills.

Recent studies on certain non-cognitive factors not only hint at their importance in academic

achievement, but also support the necessity of social investments for their development as an additional

means of reducing certain ethnic/racial or gender inequalities in educational achievements (Farrington,

C.A .et al, 2012, p. 5). The importance of studies backing the role of non-cognitive factors in learning has

been increased by the desire to shift students’ beliefs regarding their own intelligence, so as to connect

school performance with self-control, discipline and conscientiousness. In fact, characteristics such as

self-control (Marici M., 2016, p.10), “academic tenacity” (Dweck, C., 2011) are predictive factors for

academic achievement, much more so than general intelligence (IQ). Neglecting the non-cognitive

aspects of the student’s personality can lead to major difficulties in operating the study acquisitions.

Many students become aware of the negative factors (test anxiety, lack of learning abilities) interfering

with academic achievement only at the end of the high school period (Stroud, K.C et al., 2010, p.18).

Despite all this, it has been proven that students with a good school performance practice strategic

learning and strongly believe in planning their work and monitoring their own understanding.

Problem Statement

Academic achievement has always been the focus for those interested in the educational

phenomenon, although this should not necessarily be correlated with exceptional achievements, and

instead it should depend on the student’s potential. Studies show that school results are a strong predictor

of future school results – in other words, generally success is followed by more success and failure draws

more failure ( Gherasim, L.R., Butnaru, S.,2013, p.12). There are no guarantees that academic

achievement and the degree obtained will lead to social success and fulfillment, but without the

certification of certain school acquisitions, the possibilities of professional insertion are much more

limited.

While examining the role of non-cognitive factors in school performance, studies have

concentrated on the answer of at least three questions regarding the learning process, expressed from the

student’s perspective: “Why do I study?”, “Can I get involved successfully in this activity?” and “What

do I need to reach this success?” (Wiegfield & Eccles, 2001).

As with all other human activities, motivation is a predictive factor for school results in any

educational level (Griffits, Sharlkey and Furlong, 2009, Schipor, D.M.,2009). Motivation reflects a

student’s investment in the learning process, influencing the choice of certain study strategies and the

effort spent in implementing them. Motivation is associated both with school results during the school

year, as well as with those obtained in standardized tests (Finn and Rock, 1997, Jimerson, Campos and

Greif, 2003). Wise (1996) elaborates a model of motivation and performance in evaluation conditions

from the perspective of persistence in the task. There are authors that identify the following tenacity

factors: place of control (James, 1984; Mische, Zeiss & Zeiss, 1974), the dominant personality

characteristics (McGiboneyc and Carter, 1993), vocational success (Stephenson, 1961; Staw and

Ross,1980), emotional intelligence (Harshome, May and Maller, 1929; Eysenck, 1953), neurotic

tendencies (Wang, 1932;Eysenck, 1953) (apud Constantin et al., 2007). Studies undertaken on the

Romanian school population have reported contradictory results on the effect of motivational orientation

on school results. In the study on secondary school students, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations did not

predict the grades and perceived competence. (Gherasim, Butnaru, Iacob, 2011), a fact explained by the

decline during early adolescence of the tie between grades, perceived competence and motivation. The

research coordinated by Pintrich (1994) on middle school students concludes that intrinsic motivation is

strongly influenced in this period by the nature of school tasks. If the students receive stimulating tasks, if

they are given the opportunity of making certain choices or of working together in groups, then they will

be more motivated and involved from a cognitive perspective (Pintrich et al., 1994, p.158). An important

factor in the level of commitment in an activity is the value of the task. Ecclesset. al. (1983) have defined

the subjective values of tasks (interest in the task, importance for individuals and its usefulness) as

stimulants for their fulfillment. The affective component, specifically the emotional reaction to a certain

task is also important to a student’s commitment. Anxiety towards the task is the most frequent affective

variable associated with performance and academic success. The results of studies are consistent and

show a negative effect of anxiety on academic performances (Pintrich and Schunk, 2002). The exam is,

without a doubt, a stressor because it demands solving certain problems within a limited timeline and at

as high a performance level as possible. The fear of not obtaining the desired result causes anxiety and

concern. Thoughts regarding the occurrence of surprised factors or the perception of other candidates (in

too large a number and very well-prepared) are triggers that can heighten stress. These thoughts,

accompanied by a variety of emotional manifestations on a somatic and emotional level interferes

unfavorably with the cognitive processes the student must employ during the preparation phase, as well as

with the necessary concentration efforts.

Research results show that persons who are anxious before a test are characterized by a low level

of self-efficacy (Arch, 1987; Pintrich and De Groot, 1990; Bandura, 1993,Zeidner, 2007). If the situation

is perceived as a threat for the student when he observes a discrepancy between the demands of the tasks

and his personal resources, emotions centered coping and irrelevant cognitions are evoked. A.Bandura

(1993, p.132) claims that the people’s beliefs in their own abilities to face successfully certain tasks

affects not only the level of stress during difficult situations, but also their level of motivation. Students

constantly judge their intellectual capacities when facing school demands, then decide whether to persist

or not in their academic endeavors. Different studies have proven that self-efficacy is one of the strongest

predictors of a student’s achievement or success (Bandalos, Geske& Finney,2005). For example, in a longitudinal study on a number of first year high school students, self-efficacy has been positively

correlated with performance, personal adjustment, health and commitment to remain in school (Chemers,

Hu, Garcia, 2005). Examining the sources of self-efficacy depending on students’ gender and

background, Usher and Pajares (2006, pp.125-141) correlate academic performance of middle school

students with a series of variables such as: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions

and physiological state.

Connected to the query “What do I need to achieve success?” is the usage of cognitive and

metacognitive strategies in the learning activity. If it is difficult for children 5-6 years of age to evaluate

time and the number of repetitions necessary for learning, children between 9-10 years of age are already

capable of creating their own study time depending on the difficulty of the task (Lemeni, 2011, p.156). If

at first they use certain strategies automatically and unconsciously, with time they will become aware of

them and will start using them voluntarily. Cognitive strategies such as repetition, elaboration,

organization and metacognitive ones such as planning, monitoring and evaluating are proven to be

connected to motivation and success in learning. The perfect usage of learning strategies makes the

difference between students with academic success and those with failure and influences significantly the

level of self-efficacy (Kistiner, Rakoczy and Otto,2010, Zimmerman, 2008, Graham and Harris, 2000).

Lemeni (2001, pp.157-158) lists a few reasons why students do not use efficient learning strategies:

-They aren’t informed on the conditions of using efficient learning strategies

-They encounter difficulties in understanding the material or have too little time for superior

strategies of comprehending the material

-Their purposes are inconsistent with using efficient learning strategies (some students only wish

to receive a reasonable grade with little effort)

-They have a low self-esteem relative to their ability to learn in an academic environment.

Researchers claim that we should analyze changes that occur at the level of self-regulation

process, due to the development process (Au et al.2009, apud. Gherasim, Butnaru, 2013, p.52). In this

context we should take into consideration the fact that modifications of the self-regulation of learning

depend on the belief in one’s self-efficacy and also on classroom environment and parental support.

Students that do not acquire and do not activate efficiently the learning strategies can expect a lower self-

esteem (Gherasim, Butnaru, 2013, p.53).

Purpose of the Study

The current study intends to tackle potential connections between the motivational structure, the

strategies adopted during study and also during examinations and certain personality factors involved in

academic success. We aim to:

-Verify if motivational and cognitive strategies can be associated with school performance and

exam success;

-Check how text anxiety, level of self-efficacy and self-control are correlated to exam success;

-To establish if there are gender differences from the perspective of the variables: intrinsic

motivation, test anxiety, learning strategies.

Research Methods

4.1. Participants

Initially, there were 300 protocols administered which contained the tools for the research. Later,

the selected pool contained a number of 220 8th grade students from 2 middle schools from the rural area

and 2 from the urban area in Suceava county, 117 girls and 103 boys have taken part in the study and the

age mean was of 14 years and 9 months.

4.2. Measures

The SMALSI inventory and the MSLQ questionnaire have been applied during Orientation and

Counseling classes in order to identify problematic profiles and areas (high test anxiety, low motivation,

inefficient strategies of tackling cognitive tasks) so as to recommend and involve students in a program of

psychological counseling that would help them efficiently deal with exams. Parents gave their written

consent for the evaluation of the students and they were informed regarding the purposes of the research.

Out of the 300 students who received the questionnaire in March-April 2016, we have kept 220 subjects

who consented to the use of their data. The students’ academic success was represented by the grades

obtained at the national evaluation and the V-VIII grade point average. The data was taken from the

Ministry of Education’s official website.

In accordance with the purposes of the research, we have selected the following scales from the

two instruments:

I.School Motivation and Learning Strategies Inventory (SMALSI) (Stroud, K.C., Reynoulds,C.R.,

2006) (Romanian version, M. Porumb, coord.,2010)

A. Academic motivation represents the desire to receive information.

B. Study Strategies are defined as the conscious behaviors of a person while studying meant to

enable the gaining and processing of information (selection of important information, creation of

connections between already assimilated information and that recently acquired, memorizing strategies

for the codification of information, etc.).

C. Strategies used in tests represent a set of abilities and knowledge regarding choosing the right

answer, managing the time depending on the question’s degree of difficulty.

D. Test anxiety represents a modifiable factor interfering with a student’s ability to prove that they

have gained a certain amount of information. The concept, as evaluated by SMALSI, contains the two

traditional components of text anxiety, that is worry and exaggerated emotions (Cassady and Johnson,

2002).

II.Motivational strategies for learning (MSLQ) (Rao & Sachs, 1999), translated and adapted by

O.R. Țugui-Ivan (2015).

E. Self-efficacy is the individual’s belief concerning their abilities in organizing and executing

actions in order to obtain certain designated types of performance.

F. Self-regulation is an individual’s ability to monitor their own behavior in a relative autonomy

when facing external pressure.

Findings

5. 1. Correlation Analysis

Interpreting the results allows us to notice that there are positive and significant correlation

between students’ previous results and those obtained at the national examination (r = 0.652, p<0.001),

between the level of self-efficacy and test grades (r = 0.678, p<0.001 ), as well as between motivation and

results (r = 0.492, p<0.001). Test results are positively correlated also to the use of learning strategies (r =

0.408, p<0.001), using correct strategies during exams (r = 0.359, p<0.001), as well as with the level of

self-regulation (r = 372, p<0.001). As far as the connection between test anxiety and exam results is

concerned, the correlation is weak and negative (r = - 0. 208, p = 0.002).We have also noticed that the

level of self-efficacy correlates strongly with academic motivation and the use of cognitive strategies, as

we can see in the following table.

See Full Size >

5.2. The effects of the gender variable on test anxiety, self-regulation, self-efficacy, school motivation and the use of cognitive strategies

Test T for independent samples shows there are no significant differences between boys and girls

from the point of view of exam anxiety [ F(2,218)= 16.052, p > 0.05]. The statistical results indicate

significant differences between boys and girls concerning the other examined variables. Thus, 8th grade

girls have more motivation for high academic results (M=37,74, AS=8,35) than boys do (M=46.69

AS=8,63), use cognitive strategies while learning more often (M=68.40, AS=11,77) than boys (M=55,03,

AS=10,74), they use correct strategies to tackle tasks during tests more often (M=60,05, AS=10,94) than

boys (M=50,64, AS=11,71). Also, girls have a higher self-regulation than boys (M= 28,94,AS=6,58) and

a feeling of self-efficacy that is again higher than in the boys (M=43,91,AS=9,30).

Discutions

Our study has aimed to verify the role of certain non-cognitive factors (self-efficacy, self-

regulation, intrinsic motivation, test anxiety) in school performance. We have also verified the correlation

between previous school results, cognitive strategies used by students during individual study sessions,

optimal strategies used during testing and results obtained at the national evaluation at the end of the

VIII-th grade.

This study confirms the findings in previous studies regarding the role of motivational factors in

learning performance. Many studies have proven that intrinsic motivation is positively associated with

student’s educational success (Pintrich&DeGroot,1990, Schunk,1995, Zimmerman, 2008) and with their

perception of their abilities (Ames, 1992). Moreover, a series of research studies have indicated that the

goal orientation and the motivational one can influence another determinant factor of school performance,

that is perceived self-efficacy (Au et.al, 2009). L.Gherasim and S.Butnaru (2013, p.74) have explained

the basis and dynamics of this correlation: students intrinsically-oriented tend to attribute failure to

internal, controllable causes (especially their effort), are more pleased by their results and they regulate

their behavior in order to achieve future success, while extrinsically motivated students attribute their

results to external causes in order to preserve their self-esteem. This study, however, contradicts another

study on Romanian middle school students, which discovered that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation did

not predict the grades and perceived competence of students (Gherasim, Butnaru, Iacob, 2011). The study

confirms the conclusions of researchers who have discovered that the high levels of motivation and self-

efficacy are positively correlated with the use of cognitive strategies and self-regulatory strategies in the

case of middle school students (Pintrich&deGroot,1990, Pintrich, Roeser&deGroot, 1994).

As far as test anxiety is concerned, there has been no connection found between test anxiety and

the use of cognitive strategies, however, it does have a negative relation with self-regulation in teenagers

(Pintrich&deGroot,1990, Benjamin,McKeachie&Lin,1987). Our study indicates a moderate positive

connection between test anxiety and self-efficacy. A. Bandura (1993, p.133) explains that students with a

low level of confidence in their own ability to cope with academic tasks are vulnerable to achievement

anxiety. More than this, previous experiences of academic success or failure can cause the anxiety to

grow through their direct effect on the level of self-efficacy (Meece,Wigfield&Eccles, 1990). The feeling

of self-efficacy is influenced by a series of emotional and physiological states, such as arousal, anxiety,

which forms in true informative sources (Usher,Pajeras, 2006, p.127). Strong emotional reactions to

academic tasks influence the students’ confidence in their own abilities to gain success. Although our

study does not reveal a powerful link between anxiety and performance, a significant percentage of

students have confessed to feeling emotional and physiological effects associated to test anxiety. And,

fear of evaluation is one of the main stress factors in a student’s life.

Another objective of our research has dealt with checking certain gender differences regarding the

tie between school success and non-cognitive factors. Our study confirms some previous findings which

indicate the greater tendency for girls to use cognitive learning strategies, to show a greater level of

intrinsic orientation towards learning than boys, as well as a higher level of self-efficacy and self-

regulation.A series of previous research studies have reported gender differences regarding the level of

self-efficacy (Saunders, Davis,Williams, 2004, Kerpelman and Mosher, 2004). The gender differences concerning the dominance of the girls when it came to intrinsic motivation in learning have confirmed

previous findings (Skaalvik&Skaalvik ,2004). There are studies which indicate girls have more intentions

of continuing with their studies (Pricopie,2011) and have more confidence than boys in the ability of

education to insure social and professional mobility (Bujorean, E.,2015). On the other hand, other studies

have found no gender differences regarding the level of intrinsic motivation (Ryan&Pintrich,1997,

Russilo&Arias, 2004) .

Our study contradicts previous results regarding differences between boys and girls from the point

of view of test anxiety. A series of metaanalyses between 1990 and 2000 using data from researchers in

various countries have shown a higher level of test anxiety in female subjects compared to male subjects

(Zeidner, 1998; Robu, 2011; Ermolaev, 2016).

Conclusions

In the current context, students’ ability to adapt to change entails that intellectual education in

schools should involve, apart from the transmission of knowledge, attaining the methodology of learning

and the building of a style of intellectual work (Momanu, M., 2008, p.97). Because orienting oneself to

meta-cognitive goals brings an extra complexity to the teaching processes (Glava, A., 2007, p.30), it

becomes necessary to project and organize certain teaching situations that will promote:

-The development of activities for planning, identifying the best learning strategies depending on

the cognitive style and monitoring one’s own progress and one’s active dispositions (precision,

involvement, focusing one’s intellectual energy);

-The development of self-assessment strategies (Clipa et. al., 2011) allowing students to regulate

their own learning process;

-Self-directed learning, seeing as the teacher is not the only source of knowledge

-Learning through cooperation that could permit confrontation, negotiation, restructuring and

validating students’ ideas and beliefs.

If we were to accept the idea that success is reflected in the student’s test results, then we take into

consideration the fact that non-cognitive factors might influence their performance during certain

examinations. Consequently, the teacher will have to take this impact into consideration and, implicitly,

adapt accordingly both the process of teaching-learning as well as the assessment procedure. The right

environment for analyzing motivation, anxiety and attitude remains the classroom, where the practicing

researcher will try to identify the causes of individual differences in using theoretical knowledge and

practical abilities. On the other hand, individual determinants should be analyzed while interacting with

contextual ones (parental support, the quality of the school environment, etc).

The exam is, without a doubt, a stressor, since it requires solving problems within a limited time

span and as high a level as possible. Fear of not obtaining the desired result can cause anxiety and worry.

Thoughts connected to the presence of undesired surprise situations or the perception of the other

candidates (too many and very well-prepared) could cause the stressful situation to grow. Countering

academic stress is highly linked with the efficiency with which students manage to go through and

assimilate the study material, and, respectively, of the manner in which they organize their revision plan,

their study strategies, but also on the manner in which they deal with their negative emotions. Practically, students should learn to plan and organize study activities, taking into consideration the allotted time,

their previous failures or successes, they should be aware of their own personality and ability so that they

can be adequately motivated for constant learning during semesters, but also for intensive learning during

exam sessions.

References

1. Ames, C.A. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
2. Psychology, 84, 261-271.
3. Arch, E. C. (1987). Differential responses of females and males to evaluative stress: anxiety, self-esteem, efficacy, and willingness to participate. R. Schwarzer, H. M. Van der Ploeg, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.). Advances in Test Anxiety Research . Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, Vol. 5, pp. 97-106.
4. Bandalos, D. L., Geske, J.A., Finney, S.J. (2003). A Model of Statistic Performance Based on
5. achievement goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 95(3), Sep 2003, 604-616.
6. Bandura, A.(1993).Perceived Self-Efficacy in Cognitive Development and Functioning. Educational
7. Psychologist. 28(2),117-148.
8. Benjamin, M., McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y., & Holinger, D. P. (1981). Test anxiety: deficits in information
9. processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 816–824
10. Bujorean, E. (2015). Violența simbolică în școală. Teză de doctorat nepublicată. Universitatea
11. ”Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Iași.
12. Cassady, J.C., Jonson, R.E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance. Contemporary
13. Educational Psychology,27(2),270-295.
14. Chemers, M.M., Hu, L, Garcia B.F. (2001). Academic Self-Efficacy and First-Year College.Journal of
15. Educational Psychology, Vol 93(1), Mar 2001, 55-64.
16. Clipa, O., Ignat, A.A. Rusu, P. (2011). Relations of self-assessment accuracy with motivation level and metacognition abilities in pre-service teacher trening. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (2011) 883 – 888.
17. Constantin, T., Iarcuczewicz, I., Constantin, L., Fodorea, A., Căldare, A., (2007). Persistenţa motivaţională şi operaţionalizarea ei în vederea evaluării potenţialului motivaţional individual. Analele de Psihologie şi Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei, Editura Universităţii „Al I. Cuza”, nr 1 / 2007.
18. Dweck,C.S.,Walton,G.M.,Cohen,G.L. (2011). Academic tenacity: Mindsets and skills that promote ong-term learning, apud. Farrington, C.A. et. al.(2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
19. Ecless,J.S.,Adler, T.F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B. et all (1983). Expactancies, values and academic beaviors. J.T. Spence (ed.). Achievement and achievement motives, San Francisco,CA: W.H. Freeman.
20. Ermolaev, I. (2016).Evaluarea strategiilor de învățare și a motivației școlare. Enache, R., Ermolaev, I.(coord) Sugestii și dialoguri în psihologie - de la teorie la practică. Editura Sitech: Constanța. Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., & Beechum, N.O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
21. Finn, J.D., Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology ,82, 221-234.
22. Gherasim, L.R., Butnaru, S.(2013). Performanţa şcolară. Determinanţi individuali şi contextuali în adolescenţă. Editura Polirom: Iaşi.
23. Gherasim, L.R., Butnaru, S., Iacob, L.M.(2011). The Motivation, Learning Environment and School Achievement, The International Journal of Learning, 17(12), 353-363.
24. Glava, A.(2007). Pedagogia metacognitivă și învățarea constructivistă. Ionescu, M.(coord.). Abordări conceptuale și praxiologice în științele educatiei. Cluj-Napoca: Eikon, .26-43.
25. Graham,S. &Harris,K.(2000). The role of self-regulation and transcription skills in writing and writing development, Educational Psychologist, 35, 3-12.
26. Griffits, A.J., Sharlkey ,J.D. &Furlong,M.J.(2009).Student Engagement and Positive School Adaptation.
27. Gilman,R. (eds).Handbook of Positive Psychology in the Schools,New York: Routledge 197-211. Jimerson, S.R., Campos, E.& Toward an understanding of definitions and measures of school engagement and related terms. The California SchoolPsychologist, 8, 7-27.
28. Kerpelman, J.L.& Mosher, L.S.(2004). Rural African American adolescents future orientation: The importance of self-efficacy, control and responsability, and identity development. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 187-208.
29. Kistiner,S., Rakoczy,K.&Otto,B.(2010).Promotion of self-regulated learning in classrooms: Investigating frecquences, quality and consequences for student performace. Metacognition and learning, 5(2), 157-294.
30. Lemeni,G. Strategii de învăţare. Băban, A.(2001). Consilierea educaţională. Psinet: Cluj-Napoca, pp. 156-158.
31. Marici, M. (2016). Autocontrolul și performanțele școlare. Eși și al.(eds). Noi abordări în educație. Inovație și creativitate în domeniul didacticii.Editura Didacticăși Pedagogică :București, 7-14.
32. Meece,J.L., Wigfield,A.&Eccles, J.S.(1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its consequences for young adolescents’s course enrollment intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology,82, 60-70.
33. Momanu, M., Cozma,T. (2008). Educația: caracteristici, ipostaze, dimensiuni. Cucos, C.(coord.)Psihopedagogie. Iași:Polirom.
34. Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33-40.
35. Pintrich.P.R.,Roeser, R.W., DeGroot, E. (1994). Classroom andInidivual Differences in Early Adolescent’sMotivation and Self-Regulated Learning. Journal of Early Adolescence. Vol.14.No.2,139-161.
36. Pintrich, P.R., Schunk, D. (1996). The Role of Expenctancy and Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research & Applications, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
37. Pricopie, R.(2011). Acces și echitație în învățământul superior din România. Editura Comunicare.ro: București, 23-26.
38. Robu, V.(2011). Psihologia anxietății față de testări și examene. Editura Performantica: Iași.
39. Rusillo,M.T.C.& Arias, P.F.C. (2004). Gender differences in academic motivation of secondary school children. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology and Psychopedagogy, 2.1,3-31 Ryan, A.M. &Pintrich, P.R. (1997). Should I ask for help? The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 437-460.
40. Saunders,J., Davis, L., Williams,T.&Williams,J.H. (2004). Gender differences in self-perceptions and academic outcomes: A study of African American school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(1), 81-90.
41. Schipor, D.M., Balan, C.C.(2009). Psihologia educatiei. EdituraUniversitatii din Suceava:Suceava, 99-109.
42. Skaalvik,E.M.&Skaalvik, S.(2004). Self-concept and self-efficacy: A test of the Internal/External Frame of Reference model and predictions of subsequent motivation and achievement. Psychological Reports,9 5.
43. Stroud, K.C., Reynoulds,C.R., Porumb, M.(2010). Chestionarul de evaluare a strategiilor de învățare și a motivației școlare SMALSI. Adaptarea și standardizarea pe populația din România.Editura ASCR: Cluj-Napoca.
44. Țugui-Ivan, O.R.(2015). Factori psihologici ai succesului la examene. Lucrare pentru obținerea gradului didactic I nepublicată, Universitatea ”Al.I.Cuza” Iași.
45. Turturean, M. (2013). Current Issues of Motivation-Implications for an Education of Excellence. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 92 ( 2013 ) 968 – 972.
46. Ursa, O.(2015). Non-cognitive individual factors and their impact on communicative performance in a foreign language.Journal of Romanian Literary Studies. Issue N07/2015,955-958.
47. Usher, E.L., Pajaras, F.(2006). Sources of academic and self-regulatory efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31,125-141.
48. Wigfield A, Eccles JS. (2001). The development of competence-related beliefs and achievement taskvalues from childhood to adolescence. See Wigfield& Eccles 2001. In press.
49. Zeidener, M. (2007). Test anxiety in educational contexts: What I have learned so far. Schutz&Pekrun (eds).Emotion in education, San Diego,CA: Academic Press, 165-184.
50. Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments and future propects, American Educational Research Journal, 45 (1), 166-183.