Test anxiety

Test anxiety

Test anxiety is one of situational anxieties, which can be seen in all social economy classes; and has a close relationship with the academic performance of students in educational centres. Test anxiety is determined with disturbing thoughts, increased heart rate, and flooding back emotions during or after the exam, and sometimes is so severe that it limits the student’s daily life (Sepehriyan F and Rezaie Z, 2010). Part of poor academic performance of students and adolescents is attributed to insufficient sleep (Dewald JF, Meijer AM, Oort FJ, Kerkhof G &, Bögels SM, 2010). Sleep problems can cause anxiety, depression, low self-esteem in children, and the persistence of these problems from childhood to adolescence, will be related with use of alcohol and drug in future (Khazaie T, Portaghali P, Jamali O, Khazaei S, Miri N, Sarhadi S, et al., 2012). In some studies have also shown that reduced sleep quality during the test time, and poor sleep affects their academic performance and decrease this performance (Modarresi M, FaghihiniaJ, Akbari M, Rashti A., 2012).

The effects of test anxiety are mediated by several variables including the level of anxiety, the difficulty of the task, and the ability of the student (Ball, 1995). A small amount of anxiety acts as a motivator; it can enhance performance by encouraging the student to try. Conversely, too much anxiety has the opposite effect: it can disrupt mental processes that are needed for the student to perform well. This is especially true when the learning task is demanding, as it often is in the assessment of academic achievement. Twenty-percent of test anxious students quit school before graduating because of repeated academic failure (Tobias, 1979). High test anxiety is also associated with low self-esteem, poor reading and math achievement, failing grades, disruptive classroom behaviour, negative attitudes toward school, and unpleasant feelings of nervousness and dread that stem from an intense fear of failure (Bryan et al., 1983). Because test anxiety has many adverse effects on the lives of students, and the accurate assessment of their academic achievement, it is an important topic for research (Wachelka, D., & Katz, R. C. (1999).

There was a significant positive correlation between GPA and scores on the study habits scale. High test-anxious students who had developed and exercised better study skills did better academically than those with poor study habits. The findings here, and of other studies relating study habits, test anxiety, and GPA (Allen, 1971; Mitchell & Ng, 1972), tend to contradict the common stereotype of the high test-anxious student who knows the subject matter but “freezes up” at test time. These findings suggest that at least part of the academic performance decrement may be due to less knowledge of the relevant material as a function of differential study skills. The amount of study time per week was significantly correlated with GPA for the high test-anxious group but, interestingly, was not for the low-anxious group. This result indicates that high test-anxious students can compensate, to a degree, for their lack of study skills by studying more hours. The superior study skill competence of the low-anxious subjects may have rendered the amount of study time (above a minimum level) relatively unimportant (Culler, R. E., & Holahan, C. J., 1980).

• Naturally students without jobs or even simply part-time jobs will have more time to be able to study rather than students with full-time jobs. This could be a possible barrier to their academic success. (EXPAND)

Free time:

Today’s college students are less prepared for college-level work than their predecessors. The fall 2003 survey conducted by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies found that only 34% of today’s entering first years have spent six or more hours per week outside of class on academic-related work (e.g., doing homework, studying) during their final year in secondary school. Another trend that is emerging is the increase in the number of college students who are employed either part time or full time. According to Gose (1998), 39% of college freshmen work 16 or more hours per week.

• It is clear from past research that both time management and conscientiousness predict students’ achievement at school (e.g.,Britton &Tesser, 1991; Macan et al., 1990; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007;Poropat, 2009; Trapmann et al., 2007; Trueman & Hartley, 1996). Working students clearly need to be even more time conscious. (EXPAND)

Part-time students differ from full-time students in several other key ways. Demographically, part-time students are more likely to be female and to be employed full-time (Chen &Carroll, 2007; O’Toole et al., 2003). Thus, part time students are more likely than full-time students to have competing demands from work and children that may displace study time. Moreover, part-time students who attrite frequently cite lack of time as their primary barrier to success (Kember, 1999). Given the greater time demands on part-time students, it is feasible that time management may be particularly important for this identifiable sub-group, both as a predictor of achievement and as a mediator of test anxiety.

Within this study, we are asking about free time in such a way as obligatory time spent outside of college hours refers to compulsory responsibilities that you are required to do such as employment or non-optional familial duties and self-chosen commitments outside of college hours would refer to social events, relaxation and hobbies. Only a rough number of hours shall be asked, no specifics regarding this will be required.

Although it is perhaps counterintuitive, the research strongly indicates working to be beneficial to student success. Working helps students develop time-management and prioritizing skills and important interpersonal skills. It also gives them valuable career experience and helps them focus on academic work. Work intensity is related to fall-offs in persistence and graduation rates, although the precise point at which this happens is not conclusive and depends on individual differences.

– A dramatic difference between undergraduate education in 1961 and today involves technology. The mechanics of information search and retrieval, and of preparing and revising written assignments, have profoundly changed since 1961. Information that previously required a visit to one or more libraries, sometimes even at other locations, is often only a few mouse clicks away today. With regard to writing, most students now compose at the keyboard rather than writing longhand and transcribing. Sentences and whole paragraphs can be inserted, altered, moved, or removed in a matter of seconds, whereas in the past such editing often meant arduously rewriting or retyping pages. Given these changes, it seems plausible that some of the change in study time may reflect efficiency gains due to new technologies. (ADDRESSES THE LOWERING NUMVER OF STUDY HOURS)

– Misra & McKean (2000) in a study showed that there is a relation between time management, stress reduction and increased academic success. King et al (2003) during a study concluded that there is a correlation between time management skills and academic performance (cited from JehanSeyr, 2006, Sansgiry, Kawatkar, Dutta & Bhosle (2004) during a study as predictors of academic performance on 244 students, concluded that academic competence, time management and study techniques effect academic achievement, and there was a significant difference among students in terms of these variables and Academic performance scores. Proctor, Prevatt, Petscher, Hurst & Adams (2006) reported that the groups who used time-management skills significantly had higher GPA’s. Cano’s (2006) revealed that affective strategies (e.g., time management, motivation, concentration) were statistically significant predictors of students’ academic performance. Students that used time management strategies significantly had higher standardized test scores. (Time management skills impact on self-efficacy and academic performance Karim, Sevari , Mitra Kandy)

Self-efficacy:

A student’s level of self-efficacy and test anxiety directly impacts their academic success (Abdi, Bageri, Shoghi, Goodarzi, & Hosseinzadeh, 2012; Hassanzadeh, Ebrahimi, & Mahdinejad, 2012). When a student doubts themselves and their own ability to test well, the students’ sole focus becomes worrying about poor grades and cannot focus on academics (Bandura, 1993). But, little is understood about how test-anxiety and self-efficacy affect short-term success in the classroom. Specifically, how test anxiety and level of self-efficacy directly preceding an exam will affect the exam score. Test anxiety is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that involves worry, emotionality, and behavioural reply to being preoccupied by the possible negative outcome of academic scores (Chapell, Blanding, Silverstein, Takahashi, Newman, Gubi, & McCann, 2005; Mulkey & O’ Neil, 1999). Students’ level of test anxiety can cause a variety of negative outcomes, mainly low academic scores. But, overall self-efficacy may moderate this effect.

Worry and emotionality are two different ways that the body naturally responds to test anxiety. Too much worry negatively affects performance, but self-efficacy might moderate this influence. Self-efficacy influences people’s belief about their own capabilities, which has been shown to enhance students’ academic performance (Bandura, 1993; Mulkey & O’Neil, 1999). When students are plagued with worry they tend to be distracted or preoccupied with various stressors that burden them, such as the outcome (Cohen et al., 2008; Liebert & Morris, 1967). Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that students with high self-efficacy would not worry as much about the test results. Mulkey and O’Neil (1999) asked 610 males over the age of 18 to take the Novell NetWare 4.1 examination to determine the effects of their worry and self-efficacy. Individuals who were master’s degree students performed well because they stated a belief in their own ability to accomplish the examination given to them, but the opposite was true for most undergraduate students. Abdi et al. (2012) find similar results in their study with high school students. A significant correlation existed between self-efficacy and overall grade points. Regression analyses further showed that self-efficacy could accurately predict academic performance. Emotional responses such as anxiety are the body’s physiological response directed by the autonomic nervous system which increases heart rate and sweating in reaction to a stressful situation such as an exam (Cohen et al., 2008; Mulkey & O’Neil, 1999). Individuals who have high self-efficacy, or confidence in their own skills and abilities, seem to be able to control this physiological response from affecting them negatively (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

• Students with high levels of self-efficacy imagine how they can succeed and they trust in their own abilities (Bandura, 1993). Nelson and Knight’s (2010) study showed that students can avoid negative outcomes of test anxiety by thinking of past achievements, which will build courage and endurance, and in turn will increase their self-efficacy. Those who focus on the area that they are skilled at, cope better and have lower anxiety. Positive thinking techniques can transfer into the classroom and help students excel in academic achievement as well. Students who perceive themselves as being competent will more likely strive to learn how to do better on challenging tasks such as exams. Those with high levels of self-efficacy show lower levels of test anxiety, possibly because they believe in themselves and are able to imagine a successful outcome (Jennifer Barrows, Samantha Dunn, Carrie A. Lloyd, 2013).

Sleep:

Sleep is an important physiological process for humans. Although the direct benefits of sleep is not well quantified across many populations, it is understood that sleep deprivation has serious health consequences (Lavie P, Pillar G, Malhotra A, 2002). The quality of sleep is a measure of both the quantitative and qualitative components of sleep. The quantitative component includes the duration of sleep while the qualitative component is a subjective measure of the depth and feeling of restfulness upon awakening (Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Timothy HM, Susan RB, David JK, 1988). Reductions in sleep duration and sleep quality, across populations, has been linked to changes in lifestyle, increasing use of technology and increased work and social demands (Chokroverty S, 2009). Of note, investigators have identified university students as particularly susceptible to these increasing demands (Kloss JD, Nash CO, Horsey SE, Taylor DJ, 2011). What can be understood by this is the transition from secondary school to university is characterised by reduced adult supervision, new social opportunities with its commitments, difficult studies and other extracurricular activities resulting in irregular sleep schedules and higher risks for sleep deprivation (Taylor DJ, Bramoweth AD, 2010). Moreover, investigators have reported high prevalence estimates (≥40%) of short sleep duration (< 7 hours) (Lund HG, Reider BD, Whiting AB, Prichard JR, 2010) and poor sleep quality as measured by Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (Suen LK, Tam WW, Hon K, 2010) among university students.

Psychological correlates such as stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms are commonly reported phenomena among university students (Sreernamareddy CT, Shankar PR, Binu V, Mukhipadhyay C, Ray B, Menezes RG., 2010). The sources of such psychiatric morbidities are reported to be academic workload and psychosocial concerns (Lund HG, Reider BD, Whiting AB, Prichard JR., 2010)( Sreernamareddy CT, Shankar PR, Binu V, Mukhipadhyay C, Ray B, Menezes RG., 2007)( Shaikh BT, Kahloon A, Kazmi M, Khalid H, Nawaz K, Khan NA, Khan S., 2004) Evidence from both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have also documented associations of different sleep indices with symptoms of depression (Moo-Estrella J, Perez-Benitez H, Solis-Rodriguez F, Arankowsky-Sandoval G., 2005), stress (Lund HG, Reider BD, Whiting AB, Prichard JR., 2010) and anxiety (Eller T, Aluoja A, Vasar V, Veldi M., 2006) among university students.

From  a  life  course  perspective,  sleep  loss  is  often  viewed in  U.S.  dominant  culture  as  a  “normal”  transition  when  students  leave  high  school  and  enter  a  university  environment. However,  poor  sleep  habits  may  begin  in  high  school  and adversely  affect  both  academic  performance  (Wolfson  & Carskadon,  2003)  and  health  (Orzech  et  al.,  2013).   University students  experience  problems  with  both  sleep  quantity and  quality  (Buboltz,  Brown,  &  Soper,  2001;  Buboltz  et  al., 2009;  Lund,  Reider,  Whiting,  &  Prichard,  2010),  although they  may  not  necessarily  see  it  as  an  important  problem  in daily  life  (Orzech,  Salafsky,  &  Hamilton,  2011).  Poorer  sleep habits  in  first  year  university  students  are  associated  with poorer  academic  performance  as  measured  by  grade  point average  (Trockel,  Barnes,  &  Egget,  2000),  a  pattern  that can  continue  throughout  the  university  years  (Galambos, Lascano,  Howard,  &  Maggs,  2013;  Gilbert  &  Weaver,  2010; Gomes,  Tavares,  &  deAzevedo,  2011;  Kelly,  Kelly,  &  Clanton, 2001;  Lack,  1986).

In  the  popular  imagination,  the  sleep  loss  in  university  students  results  from  an  inability  to  balance  social and  academic  demands.  The  reality  is  that  work,  social and  academic  demands  balance  against  sleep  needs  as more  and  more  undergraduates  pursue  paid  employment while  in  school.  In  2013,  40%  of  all  full-time  students and  76%  of  part-time  students  worked  (NCES,  2015).  As economic  pressures  have  increased,  students  are  working more  hours,  adversely  affecting  their  GPA  (Trockel  et  al., 2000)  and  possibly  increasing  time  to  graduation.  However,  there  are  also  pressures  from  within  higher  education to  improve  four-year  graduation  rates.  If  students  cannot adjust  credit  hours  due  to  bureaucratic  limitations,  and cannot  adjust  working  hours  because  they  can  only  reduce their  living  expenses  so  far,  they  adjust  the  other  thing  that takes  requires  substantial  time—their  sleep. The  sleep  loss  for  university  students  (or  anyone)  is  not without  a  biological  cost.  Students  working  longer  hours per  week  are  more  likely  to  report  stress  and  engage  in poorer  health  behaviours  (Pedersen,  2013)  including  diminished  sleep  (Miller,  Danner,  &  Staten,  2008;  Nagai-Manelli et  al.,  2012).

The  common  practice  of  extended  sleep  of  weekends  that  many  college  students  engage  in  has  measured  consequences  of  poor  academic performance and mood on two weekdays following weekend  [18]. Napping in the afternoon is another frequently used by college students.  The  temporal  placement  of  the  nap  is  the  central  problem  in  that  afternoon  time  (a  popular

nap  time  of  college  students)  is  particularly salient in reducing necessary sleep propensity to fall asleep  at bedtime [38]. Less than optimal sleep is associated with depression [19]. Sleep history interview results and self-report (i.e. Morningness versus Eveningness Scale) findings are used to track sleep difficulties.  Results  from  findings  on  these  measures  are  predictive  of  Delayed  Sleep Phase disorder. An Epidemiological Perspective on College Student Health and Sleep

Kathy Sexton-Radek.