Download
environments learners processes and outcomes n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Environments, learners, processes and outcomes PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Environments, learners, processes and outcomes

Environments, learners, processes and outcomes

108 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Environments, learners, processes and outcomes

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Environments, learners, processes and outcomes Dave Putwain

  2. Environment/ Situation Characteristics: Physical environment Psycho-social environment Relationships/ relatedness Promotion of value/ utility of learning and outcomes Learning Behaviours/ Processes: Metacognition Self-regulation (learning, behaviour and emotions) Appraisal and coping Effort, persistence, task-focus Learner characteristics Competence beliefs (self-efficacy/ concept, growth mindset) Motivation/ Goals Competence-related emotions (learning and assessment) Resilience/ buoyancy

  3. (1) Motivational messages made prior to high-stakes tests and examsPutwain & Symes

  4. You need to get at least a C in GCSE maths to get into college. Your maths GCSE is only 1 month away now, you need to start revising. If you don’t work hard, you will fail GCSE maths. If you don’t pass maths GCSE you won’t get a good job.

  5. Motivational messages… • Achievement outcome Focus: attaining success vs. avoiding failure • Achievement outcome Values: why are GCSEs important? • Response efficacy: what behaviours are required to attain success/ avoid failure? • Self efficacy: encouragement to perform those behaviours

  6. Predicts lower grades on tests Low self-efficacy Predict lower autonomous motivations Increases worry and anxiety in tests High Value/ Fear Messages Threat Appraisal High Value of GCSE outcome Predicts mixed effects on goals

  7. Aims of this project: Examine how value judgements and self-efficacy are related to: • Threat Appraisals • Challenge Appraisals • Discounting Appraisals

  8. Study 1: • In vivo with 252 Year 11 students from 2 secondary schools • Ask them to report teachers’ use of value-promoting messages and their appraisal • Examine relations with academic self-efficacy and value judgements • Higher ecological validity/ no causality • Study 2: • In vitro with 371 Year 12/13 students from 4 sixth form colleges • Give them scenarios in which value academic self-efficacy and value judgements are manipulated • Ask them how a fictional student would respond • Lower ecological validity/ causality possible

  9. Study 1 Step 1: Revise existing measure

  10. Step 2: Examine correlations with value and academic self-efficacy

  11. Study 2

  12. An example: Sarah is a hard working Year 11 student who is good at maths. She finds the work done in lessons challenging, but usually does very well. In her Year 10 maths exam she got a grade A and is predicted a grade A in her GCSE maths. Sarah believes that maths is an important subject to do well in. She wants to go to college to study A levels and knows she must get at least a pass in GCSE maths. She also knows that maths is a useful skill to have in daily life to help with things like bills.

  13. What we have shown • Challenge appraisals are linked to high value of GCSE outcomes and high academic self-efficacy • Threat appraisals are linked to high value of GCSE outcomes and low academic self-efficacy • Messages are disregarded when GCSE outcomes are not valued and academic self-efficacy is low

  14. (2) Exam related anxiety, buoyancy coping and GCSE gradesPutwain, Chamberlain, Daly & Sadreddini

  15. Analytic Approach:A mediated moderational model Test Anxiety Exam Coping Approach Academic Buoyancy GCSE achievement Test Anxiety x Academic Buoyancy

  16. Structure of the study Prior Measure of Educational Attainment: KS2 SAT Grades (English, science and maths) T1 Measures: Test anxiety and academic buoyancy T2 Measures: coping with pre-exam anxiety Educational achievement outcome: GCSE grades (English, science and maths)

  17. Participants… • 325 Year 11 students • male n = 142, female n = 183 • mean age of 15.3 years (SD = .61) • Drawn from 10 secondary schools • 14.3% FSM (English mean = 15.9%) • 12.0% EFL (English mean = 12.3%) • 61.9% 5 x GCSE passes (English mean = 59.4%)

  18. Measures:

  19. Results Indirect Effect B = -.07, SE = .03 [-.02 to -0.15] Worry Worry -.20 -.47 Task focus & orientation GCSE achievement Tension Tension .38 .14 Indirect Effect B = .05, SE = .03 [.01 to 0.11] Worry x Academic Buoyancy .15

  20. Moderating role of buoyancy Simple slopes: High Academic Buoyancy: B = .09, t = -0.64, p = .52 Mid Academic Buoyancy: B = -.39, t = -3.30, p = .001 Low Academic Buoyancy: B = -.69, t = -4.88, p <.001

  21. What we have shown • Indirect negative relationship between worry and GCSE achievement partly due to less use of task focus • Indirect positive relationship between tension and GCSE achievement due to more use of task focus • High academic buoyancy protects achievement from high worry

  22. (3) An ITC-based multimodal intervention for reducing test anxiety Putwain, Daly, Chamberlain & Sadreddini

  23. Strategies to Tackle Exam Pressure & Stress • Six session programme • Combines CBT, Stress Inoculation Training and Cognitive Skills Deficit Training • IT-based resource (CD or school server) • Booklet for self-reflection tasks

  24. The six sessions: • What is exam stress and anxiety • Identifying negative thoughts, replacing them with positive thoughts • Controlling physiological reactions to stress • Revision and test-taking skills • Motivation and goal setting • Identifying what works for you?

  25. Outcome Study Design 10 schools, Years 10 and 11 (N =3111) Intervention (n =1602) Non-intervention (n =1519) Time 1: Baseline assessment of whole sample – TA/ AB questionnaire administered Completed STEPS (992 were given STEPS as homework and 399 as classwork) Time 2: Assessment of whole sample – TA questionnaire administered Complete STEPS (N=1445)

  26. Intervention group participants • 219 (13.7%) completed the entire programme • 409 (25.5%) partially completed the programme • 974 (60.8%) chose not to complete any of the programme

  27. Study participation • More likely if scheduled into school curriculum (p < .001) • Did not differ by gender (p >.05) • Did not differ by level of pre-intervention test anxiety (p >.05)

  28. High TA: Intervention vs. Control t(329) = 4.89, p < .001, d = .63, t(329) = 3.46, p = .001, d = .53

  29. High TA: Completers vs. Non-completers t(95) = 3.93, p < .001, d = .89 t(95) = 2.82, p = .006, d = .49

  30. What we have shown The development of a multimodal ICT delivered resource Has potential to reduce worryand tension in high TA students