presentation ii betty version3
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1
Do Chinese students’ perceptions of test value affect test
performance?Mediating role of motivational and
metacognitive regulation in test preparation
Chia Ying Betty Hu
Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate: November 17, 2009
Page 2
Hong, E., & Pen, Y., (2008). Do Chinese students’ perceptions of test value affect test performance? Mediating role of motivational and metacognitive regulation in test preparation. Learning and Instruction 18, 499-512.
Page 3
Reflection
Results
Methodology
Introduction
Content
Page 4
With testing a central element in education, students form beliefs about testing, and these views change as they go through an education system.
(Paris, Lawton, & Turner, 1991)
Introduction
Page 5
Some students maintain positive views about tests or view testing as a necessary element of school life, many students view testing as boring, plainly dislike it, or show apathy about tests.
(Pariset al., 1991; Wade & Moore, 1993)
Introduction
Page 6
To examined three major constructs drawn from the social-cognitive perspective of self-regulated learning-task value, motivation, and metacognition as they are applied to test preparation.
Propose of the Study
Page 7
Perceivedtest value
Testperformance
Motivationalregulation
MetacognitiveRegulation
Framework
Page 8
Hypotheses model
Page 9
students who hold strong test value would perceive themselves as regulating motivation and using metacognitive strategies more than those who hold weak test value
The relationship of test value to perceived motivational and metacognitive regulation would be weaker in older students than in younger students, as older students’ test value and perceived self-regulatory behaviors are more likely in the process of changing toward declination
H1
H2
Hypotheses
Students’ perceived test value had a significant direct effect on motivation and metacognitive regulation.
Page 10
Test value would have an effect on test performance through the mediationof self-regulation, but not directly when mediating variables are included in the model.
Students who report regulating motivation during test preparation would score higher in tests than those who regulate less.
H3
H4
Hypotheses
Test value also had a significant indirect effect on test performance.
Motivational regulation had a significant direct effect on test performance.
Page 11
The relationship of perceived motivational regulation and test performance would be weakerin older students than in younger students due to some older students manifesting a decline in motivation for school works, although the pattern and timing may be inconsistent among them
The relationship of test value to perceived motivational and metacognitive regulation would be weaker in older students than in younger students, as older students’ test value and perceived self-regulatory behaviors are more likely in the process of changing toward declination
H5
H6
Hypotheses
Motivational regulation had a significant direct effect on test performance. Although the structural coefficients were both statistically significant in each grade level, they were not invariant.Metacognitive regulation did not demonstrate a significant effect on test performance in both grades
XX
Page 12
The relationship of perceived motivational regulation and test performance would be weaker in older students due to inconsistent use of strategies during test preparation as compared to younger students
The relationship between perceived motivational and metacognitive regulation would be positive and strong
H7
H8
Hypotheses
The correlation between the motivation and metacognition disturbances was statistically significant
Motivational regulation had a significant direct effect on test performance. Although the structural coefficients were both statistically significant in each grade level, they were not invariant.XX
Page 13
Methodology
ParticipantParticipant
CC
BB
DD
AA7 grade ( 6 classes)
11 grade ( 6 Classes)
11 grade ( 4 Classes)
7 grade ( 2 Classes)
Page 14
Total: 326
11 GRADE:7 GRADE:
Male: 160
Female: 166
Male: 152Female: 239Total: 391
Participants
Page 15
Instruments
Self-Assessment Questionnaire
-Test and test preparation
Final Exam
-Chinese-Meth
Page 16
Self-Assessment Questionnaire-Test and test preparation
Measuring Effort (Eff)
Persistence (Per)
Measuring Planning (Pl)Self-Checking (SC)Strategy Selection (SS)
Test Value in the Future Life(Val-f)
Measuring Test Value in Learning (Val-l)
Page 17
Final exam
Chinese Language
Multiple ChoiceFill-in-the-BlankShort answer for
reading comprehensionShort essay
Mathematics
Word ProblemsMultiple ChoiceFill-in-the-Blank
Page 18
Internal consistency
Page 19
Internal consistency
Page 20
Results
Page 21
Perceivedtest value
Testperformance
Motivationalregulation
Metacognitiveregulation
.63**(.51)**
ns (ns)
.47** (.42)**
.38** (.18)*
.74** (.56)**
Motivational regulation had a significant direct effect on test performance
metacognitive regulation did not demonstrate a significant effect on test
performance in both grades
The correlation between the motivation and metacognition disturbances was
statistically significant
Students’ perceived test value had a significant direct effect on motivational
regulation
Students’ perceived test value had a significant direct effect on metacognitive
regulation
Page 22
This research had a neat hypotheses model.
The final exam was not consistent.
The result didn’t clearly response the hypotheses statements.
Reflection
Page 23