the attitude of preservice science teachers toward a low anxiety examination model

The Attitude of Preservice Science Teachers Toward aLow Anxiety Examination Model

Robert L. ShrigleyAssociate Professor of EducationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania 16802

INTRODUCTION

One of the truisms of American education is the intense anxietymany college students experience during examination periods. Al-though mild anxiety may enhance learning, there is some reason tobelieve that high level test anxiety is not only unpleasant to the learner,but also a hindrance to learning. Ebel (1965, p. 207) writes: "Milddegrees of anxiety facilitate and enhance test performance. Moreextreme degrees are likely to interfere with and depress test perform-ance." Waite et al. (1958) have reported a study where low anxietysubjects performed better than high anxiety subjects.Can a model of testing be developed that measures learning and

challenges preservice teachers, but at the same time, lowers theiranxiety toward tests? Developing a low anxiety testing model thataccomplishes, in part at least, lower student anxiety was the essenceof the investigation and this report is a preliminary appraisal of thatmodel.

THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this investigation was to (1) develop and implementan eight component low anxiety testing model for preservice scienceteachers, (2) compare the results of a midterm given under (a) lowanxiety testing conditions to (b) midterms given under conventionaltesting conditions, and (3) develop a Likert-type instrument and surveythe attitude of preservice teachers toward the testing model.

DEFINITION

Ausubel (1960, p. 451) defines anxiety as tl. . . a special varietyof fear experience in response to an anticipated threat to self-esteem."The investigator defines a low anxiety testing model as one that lessensthe fear experienced by preservice teachers prior to, during andfollowing a course examination. The lessening of anxiety is evidencednot only by a positive reaction to the attitude scale, but also bya decrease in student questions, complaints and verbal hostility towardtest items, scores, grades and other evaluative criteria.

17

18 School Science and Mathematics

EIGHT COMPONENT TESTING MODEL

The low anxiety testing model consists of the following components:

1. Education students receive stems to the multiple choice test items several dayspreceding the examination.

2. Students consult books and notes during the examination period.3. The instructor encourages student queries during the administration of the

examination.4. Students are required not to respond to a specified number of the test items.5. Ample time is given students to complete the test.6. Students receive immediate feedback on test results.7. The instructor reviews the test items with the education students following the

testing period.8. The course has a broad evaluation base.

ASSUMPTIONS OF THE TESTING MODEL

Test Stems Provided

Test anxiety on the part of the preservice teachers manifests itselfin many ways. One of the most obvious manifestations is the barrageof questions students ask about the content of a test a day or twoprior to its administration. Assuming that knowing the specific contentover which they are being tested will lower anxiety, the investigatordistributes stems to the multiple-choice test items to the studentsseveral days before the examination. At the time of testing, the studentsare given the test items complete with distractors.

Open Book Components

Open book tests not only tend to lower anxiety, they provide teachereducation students with opportunity to apply pedagogical knowledgeto practical teaching situations incorporated into test items. Ebel (1965,p. 78) claims: "Instructors have seen in them [open book tests] astrong incentive for students to study for the ability to use knowledgerather than simply to remember it."Assuming that anxiety toward testing will be lowered if education

students are expected to apply broad teaching strategies to professionalquestions rather than memorize factual information, students consulttheir notes and books during the administration of tests.

Open Instructor ComponentTest anxiety is evidenced by the frustration shown by students

when test administrators are reluctant to clarify test items duringthe administration of the test. With little opportunity for clarificationof the language of a test during its administration, the result canbe anxiety, sometimes in the form of open hostility. On the other

Attitudes of Pre-Service Teachers 19

hand, this investigator has discovered that encouraging queries duringthe testing period results in a much lower anxiety level during theadministration and review of the test. Assuming that the open instructorcomponent would lower test anxiety, examinations are proctored bythe instructor for the expressed purpose of clarifying test items.

Indirectly the investigator is providing clues that may assist thestudent in providing the expected response. It is assumed, therefore,that rewarding thoughtful queries with a clue to the correct responseis justified.A by-product of this procedure is the data collected on weaker

test items. Several queries concerning the same word, phrase ordistractor on a particular multiple-choice test item provides data thatcan justify modification or deletion of an item.

Response to Ninety PercentQuite often education students are encouraged to involve themselves

in teaching experiences that require a justified absence from twoor three consecutive class periods. The preservice science teachers,who are also enrolled in a field experience, have such opportunitiesas serving as a teacher’s aide in an off-campus, week-long outdooreducation project.

If students believe an absence of this length may result in theirloss of points on an examination, they will often pass up a worthwhileprofessional experience in the field. Those who choose to involvethemselves have been known to make statements concerning theirvulnerability to grade loss due to absence from class.Assuming that asking students to respond to only 90 percent of

the test items will lower the anxiety of those who will miss classto involve themeselves in a worthwhile field experience, all studentsin the course are instructed to omit responses to any ten percentof the test items. Presumably the leeway of ten percent could covercourse material missed by those who were absent. The investigatorrealizes that students can also omit answers because of difficultyof test items, lack of clarity or lack of preparation.

No Time Limit

Test anxiety created by time limits on tests is evidenced by studentcomplaints and a reluctance to surrender the test papers when timeis called. Removing time limits lowers anxiety and changes the modeof examination to power testing. Cleman’s (1971, p. 192) supportspower testing by writing: "For measurement of many cognitive aspectsof behavior, power tests are superior to tests with time limits."Assuming that students need adequate time to make thoughtful


decisions when responding to higher cognitive test items and furtherassuming that narrow time limits heighten test anxiety, examinationsare given during double class periods which provides more thanadequate time for all students to complete the test.

Immediate Feedback

Students can exhibit test anxiety until they realize the results oftheir performance. Anxiety is evidenced by student complaints if theirtest papers are not scored within a reasonable time.Assuming that knowing test results immediately after the testing

period will lower anxiety, students are instructed to make a duplicatecopy of their responses which they used to compare to a test keyposted on the hallway bulletin board. Each student is also askedto compute his raw score and tally his total test score on the tablethat, when fully developed, serves as a frequency table giving studentssome indication of class standing on the examination.

Reviewing the Exam with the Students

The sense of unfairness generated by the instructor who is notopen to student review of the examination contributes to the testanxiety syndrome. Having some control over teacher’s scoring errors,as well as an opportunity to discuss items, tends to lower anxiety.Assuming that an examination review tends to lower anxiety, the

instructor reviews the test items with the group.

Broad-based Evaluation

Anxiety can be heightened when a course grade is determined solelyby scores on tests with no opportunity for the student to prepareassignments outside class hours. The investigator has sensed lessfrustration on the part of students when the final course grade wasdetermined by examination scores plus a variety of written reportsprepared outside class.The investigator assumed that the anxiety level of a student can

be lowered by determining his final course grade from such exercisesas a resource notebook and microteaching activity (which are criterion-referenced), in addition to midterm and final tests.

All scores are recorded promptly in numerical form beside thestudent’s social security number at a central location in the classroom.With all student scores posted for a particular assignment, any studentcan easily observe his ranking in the class. The investigator alsoshares with the students the percentage of letter grades (A, B, C,etc.) awarded over the past years in this course. Armed with thisinformation, students can estimate a letter grade at all times duringthe term.


Low ANXIETY COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL TESTINGThe test items most compatible with this model of testing are those

that represent Bloom’s (1956) higher levels of learning. Instead ofsimple recall or comprehension of strategies of teaching, items aredeveloped that require students to apply, analyze or evaluate teachingtechniques.Not only should preservice teachers be expected to operate on

Bloom’s higher learning levels, items requiring only recall or compre-hension would be incompatible with several of the components ofthis testing model. Recall test stems plugged into this model couldresult in perfect scores, a skewed distribution, narrow range of rawscores and little discrimination between low and high achievers inthe course.The investigator assumed that the low anxiety model would result

in a higher test score mean than a conventional testing model nothaving the eight low anxiety components. A similar distribution oftest scores was expected.As a means of making a preliminary comparison of the scores

on low anxiety to conventional testing, the investigator comparedthe low anxiety (T-l) midterm results with several previous conven-tional (T-2) midterms (See Table 1). This comparison had at leastone limitation. The midterm examination used in both treatments werenot identical nor equivalent forms. However, all test items were drawnfrom a common bank of 150 midterm multiple-choice test items thatthe investigator has written and analyzed over the years.

Table 1 provides preliminary data on the test results of the firstcontingent of 30 science education students experiencing the lowanxiety testing mode. Their midterm test results were compared to141 students who experienced conventional testing during previousterms in the same course. The mean score of T-l was 27.23; themean score of T-2 was 25.18. The gain in the mean score of lowanxiety testing was congruent with the investigator’s expectations.

TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF LOW ANXIETY (T-l) MIDTERM TEST WITH PREVIOUSCONVENTIONAL (T-2) MIDTERM TESTS ADMINISTERED TO THIRD YEAR PRESERVICE

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS IN A SCIENCE EDUCATION COURSE

NumberNumberofof Standard

Mode of Testing StudentsItems Mean Deviation Skewness

T-l (Low Anxiety) 30 35 27.23 3.22 -0.08

T-2 (Conventional) 141 35 25.18 4.05 -0.26


The standard deviation for T-l was 3.22 and T-2 was 4.05. Theskewness of T-l was -0.08 and the skewness of T-2 was �0.26.The standard range on this scale is from +3 to �3 with a skewnessof zero considered a normal distribution. Both T-l and T-2 resultedin a similar distribution of raw scores.

RESULTS OF THE ATTITUDE SURVEYAt the completion of the first term of low anxiety testing, 26 of

the 30 students in the class responded to the Likert-type questionnaireshown in Table 2. Although students responded with one of fivechoices, strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree and stronglydisagree, for the purpose of this study the data were collapsed intothree categories: agreement, undecided, and disagreement. The resultsof this survey are described below.

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES OF 26 PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY TEACHERSFOLLOWING A MIDTERM EXAMINATION IN A SCIENCE EDUCATION COURSE (IN PERCENTAGE)

A�Strongly Agree; B�Agree; C�Undecided; D�Disagree; E�Strongly Disagree

Statements A B C D E

1. The stems to examinations should be given to studentsseveral days prior to the exam. 68 24 4 4 0

2. Examinations in education courses should be open bookand open notes. 32 44 20 4 0

3. The instructor should encourage students’ queries abouttest items during the examination period. 28 44 28 0 0

4. Asking the students to omit answers to 10 percent ofthe test items is advisable. 16 56 20 8 0

5. I felt less threatened by this type of examination thanconventional testing. 16 64 4 8 8

6. I prepared less for this type of examination than hadthe instructor administered a standard examination. 0 12 12 48 28

7. This type of exam seemed more fair than standard exami-nation. 28 44 24 4 0

StemsAs shown on Table 1, Statement 1, ninety-two percent of the

respondents were in agreement that the stems should be distributedseveral days prior to the examination.

Open Book

Seventy-six percent of the respondents were in agreement thatstudents should be permitted to use their books and notes duringexamination period (Statement 2).


Open InstructorSeventy-two percent of the respondents were in agreement that

the instructor should answer student queries about test items duringthe examination period (Statement 3).

Omit Ten PercentSeventy-two percent of the respondents were in agreement that

students should omit a response to ten percent of the test items(Statement 4).

Test Threat

Eighty percent of the students were less threatened by this testingmode than conventional testing (Statement 5).

Less Preparation

Statement 6 indicates that only 12 percent of the respondents spentless time preparing for this mode of testing than conventional testing.

Fairness of TestSeventy-two percent agreed that the low anxiety test model seemed

fairer than standard tests.

CONCLUSIONSThis report is considered a preliminary appraisal of the low anxiety

model for testing preservice elementary teachers in science education.Assuming that 70 percent student agreement on a statement to becriterion indicating a valid component of low anxiety testing, theresults of the student appraisal of the testing mode could be concludedas follows:Assuming that a college instructor is willing to (1) limit his exams

to multiple-choice test items that represent Bloom’s higher learninglevels, (2) proctor his own examinations, (3) review the test withstudents, and (4) spend sufficient time orienting students to a somewhatunconventional mode of testing,

(1) test items should be distributed to students before the examination date.(2) students should be encouraged to use books and notes during the administration

of the test.(3) students should be encouraged to make queries about test items during the

administration of the test.(4) students should omit a response to a small percentage of the test items.(5) instructors should expect this mode of testing to be less threatening than

conventional testing.(6) instructors should not assume that students will spend little time preparing for

the examination.


(7) instructors should expect students to consider this mode of testing fairer thanconventional testing.

DISCUSSION

Students were completely unfamiliar with, and at first somewhatskeptical of, this model of testing. When I described several of itscomponents, not a few thought I was joking. They assumed thatsuch a test would not challenge them.

Students seem to have little understanding of a test stem. Whenthe stems were distributed, a number of students thought I had giventhem essay or completion questions that required lengthy responses.There is need, therefore, to spend some time orienting students tothis model of testing.

Providing the students with two or three complete sample test itemsis an efficient means of convincing them that such a test can requiremuch preparation. When students in my course were shown that thetest items were not the simple memory type, but application andanalysis items, they sensed the test as a challenge and one requiringpreparation.The distribution of test stems lowers the motivation for students

to seek test information by unethical means. Thus, the testing modeldiscourages cheating. The students’ need for working space to accom-modate an array of materials during the administration of the testplaces students at some distance from each other�thus copying ananswer is difficult. As a further means of security, the answer sheetis stapled to the test booklet as its final page. Therefore, studentresponses to the test items are out-of-view most of the time.

Students came to an examination equipped with their textbook andclass notes. I also encouraged them to use information from visualaids on display in the classroom. A few of the students soughtinformation from bulletin boards during the administration of the test.Prior to the examination date, the students were encouraged to worktogether as they examined the stems and prepared for the test.However, during the administration of the examination, they wereexpected to refrain from using each other’s notes or books.During the midterm, only a few students utilized the open instructor

component of the test model. However, during the final test in thecourse, I was kept busy responding to queries concerning the testitems. I answered about 90 percent of their queries. Occasionally,my response to a query would so nearly provide the answer to atest item, that I could not justify responding directly to the student’squery. Providing the student the opportunity to question the instructorduring the administration of the examination has ramifications other


than lowering anxiety. During the test review the instructor can suggestto the critic of a particular test item, "Why didn’t you make thoseconcerns known to me during the test period? Maybe I could haveclarified the item."Asking the students to respond to only 90 percent of the items

made students less reticient about missing class to involve themselvesin worthwhile off-campus field experiences. This procedure alsolowered the pressure on the instructor when an item was undulycriticized by a student during the exam review. To the critic, theinstructor could suggest, "If you had such concerns about that item,why did you choose to answer it?"At first, students asked permission to answer all of the items.

Assuming that granting such permission would have destroyed thiscomponent of the testing model, I insisted that all students refrainfrom answering any ten percent of the items. To assure compliance,I scored only the first 90 percent of the items answered.To assure students that time limitations would not be imposed,

a double class period totalling 130 minutes was reserved for examina-tions for the two terms that the investigator has piloted the low anxietytesting model. Completing a 35-item multiple choice test of the typeused by this investigator required a maximum of 90 minutes ofexamination time. During the examination periods, students appearedmore relaxed than during similar examinations in the course wheretime limits had been imposed.Most of the students volunteered to involve themselves in the

immediate feedback scoring procedure. To do this they made a secondset of responses and compared them to a test key posted on a hallwaybulletin board. The students cooperated in recording their total rawscore on a frequency table. That this procedure lowered student anxietywas indicated by the drop in queries and complaints about waitingfor official test results.As I had expected, there was a rise in the mean score of the

test. However, the distribution was similar to the results of conventionaltesting. Thus letter grades were no more difficult to assign than whereconventional tests were administered.The drop in student anxiety and hostility during the test review

was the most noticeable change brought about by the testing model.Fewer test items were challenged and the emotional climate of testreview periods was more calm and rational.Many students commented positively about the fairness of determin-

ing a final course grade by many forms of evaluation rather thanbasing it solely on classroom examinations. Having scores to all coursework recorded promptly in a central location in the classroom seemedto lower anxiety on the part of students. This was evidenced by


fewer queries about grades and fewer lengthy office visits by studentswanting to know "how they stood" in the course.

Ebel (1965, p. 207) has written:

"Test anxiety can be educationally useful if it is distributed, at a relatively lowlevel, throughout the course of instruction, instead of being concentrated, at arelatively high level, just prior to and during an examination. Skillful teaching involvesthe controlled release of energy stimulated by test anxiety."

The investigator suggests the low anxiety testing model accom-plishes, in part at least, Ebel’s goal of distributing anxiety at a lowerand more productive level throughout the period of a college course.

REFERENCES

AUSUBEL, D. P., Emotional Development in C. W. Harris (Editor) Encyclopedia ofeducational research. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960.

BLOOM, B. S., Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain.New York, David McKay, 1956.

CLEMANS, W. V., Test administration in R. L. Thorndike (Editor) Educational measure-ment. Washington: American Council in Education, 1971.

EBEL, R. L. Measuring educational achievement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,Prentice-Hall, 1965.

WAITE, R. R., SARASON, S. B., LIGHTHALL, F. F. and DAVIDSON, K. S. A study ofanxiety and learning in children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958,57, 267-270.

EXPERIMENTS ON NEW CYCLOTRON

The beam of the Indiana University cyclotron will start travelling at halfthe speed of light soon when experiments begin on the atomic nucleus. Twentyfour experiments have been approved by the cyclotron committee, to beperformed during the first six months of "beam time," which started inOctober.

Physicists from all over the world will bring their special targets and detectorequipment to run experiments that may last 24 hours or longer. Projectshave been approved for Polish, Israeli, French, and Australian physicists,as well as groups from Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, New York, and Indiana.

Scientists will study knock-out reactions whereby a projectile, travelingat nearly half the speed of light, hits one of the constituents of the nucleus.The result is a "knock-out" whereby both the projectile and the constituentof the nucleus come out.The target is a piece of graphite shaved down to one one-thousandth of

an inch to study the carbon nucleus. With this target researchers will findout how particles in a carbon nucleus react when they are hit by a barrageof other particles.

"It’s like the human body. We know how the parts work, but we couldn’tput one together. We know a lot about the nucleus. We know how oneisolated nuclear particle interacts with one other particle, but we don’t haveany idea how nuclear particles react when they are in the presence of otherparticles. And we don’t know everything about how a nucleus is put together,"said one researcher.

After investigating the "carbon target," the group will experiment onvirtually every element they can get their hands on.

the attitude of preservice science teachers toward a low anxiety examination model

Documents