Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Agentic Engagement and Test Anxiety: The Mediatory Role of the Basic Psychological Needs:

Agentic Engagement and Test Anxiety: The Mediatory Role of the Basic Psychological Needs: Despite the role of agency in schools, few researchers have addressed the issue. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between agentic engagement, basic psychological needs, and test anxiety by using structural equation modeling. For this purpose, 289 female students in math-physics and basic sciences were selected as the samples by using multistage cluster sampling. Reeve and Tseng’s aspects of students’ engagement during learning activity, La Guardia’s et al. basic psychological needs, and Ahvaz test anxiety scale were used as data collection tools. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that agentic engagement positively influenced the basic psychological needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness while it could negatively affect test anxiety with the mediatory role of basic psychological needs. In conclusion, agentic engagement can be regarded as a critical variable in affecting the basic psychological needs and reducing test anxiety. Keywords agentic engagement, autonomy, competence, relatedness, test anxiety Lyons-Amos (2016), high versus low aspirations is related Introduction to whether young people want to leave after compulsory An individual biography of traditional scripts relies more schooling or stay on in education. on the individuals’ agencies. Agency means an individu- Agentic engagement is a concept which was first intro- al’s perception of the extent to which one can make deci- duced to assess and analyze educational downfalls and fail- sions and judgments related to his job (Giddens, 1991). ures. Then, it was used as a basis for reformist efforts in the Agency is regarded as a key term in life course theory field of education (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). (Elder, 1994; Elder & Shanahan, 2007) and an individual- Agentic engagement explains how students feel and behave level construct which plays a significant role in social when they face the school environment and class activities action and choice. However, according to Hitlin and Elder (Fredericks et al., 2004). Shernoff et al. (2016) defined agen- (2007), agency is described as an underspecified, “slip- tic engagement as the mutual interaction between the teacher pery” theoretical concept in sociology. Regarding socio- and students. logical theory, agency is not generally accepted or valued Reeve and Tseng’s (2011) new model prefers “cognitive,” as a nonstructural factor (Fuchs, 2001; Loyal & Barnes, “behavioral,” “emotional,” and “agentic” components. 2001), or structural factors are primarily concerned with “Agentic component” is defined as the students’ constructive the selves of individual actors (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). In contribution into the learning process (Reeve & Tseng, addition, agency is more related to self-regulation and 2011). Furthermore, Veiga (2016) focused on engagement in self-awareness as well as volition and orientation to the school as well as its cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and future, which are established by other variables such as agentic aspects. Agentic component refers to the active academic attainment and structural constraints. According to Markus and Nurius (1986), well-formulated objectives and a good sense of one’s potentialities enable the person 1 Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran to anticipate future “possible selves” and design the University of Tehran, Iran related strategies for their attainment. In the present study, Corresponding Author: the role of education aspirations shown to shape education Farnaz Mehdipour Maralani, PhD Student of Educational Psychology, participation was emphasized by introducing agentic Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1983969411, Iran. engagement in schools. According to Schoon and Email: fmehdipourm@gmail.com Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open interest and high self-confidence in learning and acquiring reduced social interactions, low self-esteem, and low school knowledge. performance (Stein & Kean, 2000). Test anxiety is not lim- According to van Lier (2008), successful learning relies ited to social anxiety, interfering with social functioning, heavily on the learner’s activities and initiatives. However, while it plays a significant role in academic performance. learners should hold a personal sense of agency, that is, a Higher levels of test anxiety are more concerned with belief that their behavior can add variety to their learning in impaired performance on the tests, especially high-stake that context before they are interested in their agentic tests (McDonald, 2010). Test anxiety, as a critical educa- resources and selecting to practice their agency in a special tional factor, is influencing millions of students around the learning context. The learners can make a personal sense of world every year, leading to a reduction in their educational what they face and use affordances to be personally mean- performance. ingful and relevant. Principally, different environments can Although a large number of studies have focused on test display “latent potential” to make interaction easier for learn- anxiety among teenagers, few researchers have addressed the ers, as van Lier (2004) named “relations of possibility.” test anxiety and educational engagement (Raufelder, Thus, agency is originated from the interaction between Hoferichter, Ringeisen, Regner, & Jacke, 2015). Some resources, contexts, and the learners’ attitudes and use researchers emphasized on finding the relationship between (Mercer, 2011). test anxiety and educational engagement with respect to the The new concept of “agentic engagement” is related to social context (Eccles & Roeser, 2009). However, by consid- the process through which the students, deliberately and ering the significance of educational engagement in reducing somehow actively, try to personalize and enhance what they test anxiety, further studies can be conducted in the field. The learn and the situation in which they learn. For example, in environment and context supportive of agentic engagement the learning process, the students may make suggestions can influence the students’ agency, as well as their basic psy- endogenously, state their preferences, ask questions, discuss chological needs. Therefore, the present study aimed to ana- what they need and think about, suggest goals and objec- lyze the relationship between agentic engagement and test tives, talk about their interests, ask for resources or learning anxiety by regarding the mediatory role of educational opportunities, look for solutions to the questions, seek for engagement (Figure 1). more clarification for the instructions, and selection (Mehran, 2014). Conceptual Model of the Study Choosing the subject and method will enable the students to feel competent by selecting their own responsibilities and Agentic engagement is defined as the constructive contribu- tasks (Urdan & Turner, 2005). Competence is a psychologi- tion of the students in the teaching-learning process (Reeve cal need which provides intrinsic motivation for trying to & Tseng, 2011), which is influenced by the contextual fac- make better challenges (Reeve, 2008). Furthermore, it is tors and plays a significant role in enhancing intrinsic moti- related to the learner’s personal needs to feel the effective vation. The support of teachers and educational context on and efficient engagement with the environment and the abil- the students’ agency will provide the context for their agentic ity to pursue his or her interests (Kanat-Maymon, Benjamin, behaviors. The students having a high agentic engagement Stavsky, Shoshani, & Roth, 2015). The learners experiencing feel more competent, autonomous, and related by selecting, a higher level of educational competence are less anxious contributing in the educational process, as well as communi- and choose higher levels of challenging tasks (Harter, 1982). cating in the class. Therefore, agentic engagement can influ- In a structured class environment in which the rules, norms, ence their basic psychological needs. Students pay more and positions are well defined (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), attention to their educational tasks and experience less anxi- the students learn how to manage their tasks and practice ety and stress when their basic needs are met. The model competence (Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipueer, Hanisch, Creed, used in the present study focuses on the mediatory role of the & McGregor, 2006). basic psychological needs in creating the relationship Therefore, if the environment and the structure can gen- between agentic engagement and test anxiety. In other words, erate agentic engagement, they will actively influence the agentic engagement can reduce test anxiety by considering students’ agency and, accordingly, their basic psychological basic psychological needs. needs. Although educational engagement may be regarded as the predicting factor of educational progress (Dotterer & Method Lowe, 2011), test anxiety is an obstacle to the educational performance (Hembree, 1988). Test anxiety is an uncom- To conduct the present study, nonexperimental and correla- fortable emotion or feeling leading to learning interferences tional research was used. Regarding data analysis, structural and a reduction in school grades. According to Beidel and equation modeling was implemented. Turner (2007), test anxiety is described as a component of social anxiety which is a major concern in school settings. Sampling. To this aim, all math-physics and basic sciences Social anxitey disorder (SAD) is related to poor social skills, female students studying in the second and third grade high Mehdipour Maralani et al. 3 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Research Variables. ing the new scale based on the observation of classroom goals, self-report scale, and conceptual framework. In addition, Reeve Variables M SD Skewness Kurtosis and Tseng (2011) assessed the reliability of these variables (r Agentic engagement 2.96 0.84 −0.24 −0.39 = .82). Furthermore, academic engagement scale was reported Competence 3.66 0.80 −0.35 −0.01 to be reliable (r = .71). Finally, confirmatory analysis was used Autonomy 3.33 0.86 −0.19 −0.32 for checking the validity of the questionnaire (goodness of fit Relatedness 3.66 0.84 −0.43 −0.12 index [GFI] = 0.99, adjusted goodness of fit index [AGFI] = Test anxiety 1.27 0.70 0.25 0.56 0.97, comparative fit index [CFI] = 1, root mean square error approximation [RMSEA] = 0.04). Basic psychological need questionnaire. The questionnaire Table 2. Correlation Matrix of the Research Variables. was designed by La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, and Deci Variables 1 2 3 4 5 (2000) to evaluate the learners’ basic psychological need. It included 21 subscales related to autonomy (seven sub- Agentic 1 engagement scales), competence (six subscales), and relatedness (eight Competence .34** 1 subscales). For example, one of the scales related to auton- Autonomy .51** .42** 1 omy is “I feel I can suggest on the way for studying and Relatedness .19** .30** .30** 1 do assignments in the classroom.” Regarding relatedness, Test anxiety −.18** −.24** −.34** −.13* 1 one of the scales is related to “I occasionally feel improve- ment in the classroom.” All scales were developed based on *p < .05. **p < .01. a 5-point Likert-type scale (completely wrong to completely right). Deci et al. (2001) confirmed the reliability of the total schools during 2014-2015 (M = 16.5; SD = 0.5) were selected scale (r = .83) while it was .60, .59, and .79 for autonomy, as the population. Then, two high schools were randomly competence, and relatedness, respectively. Finally, confirma- selected from the two districts in Hamedan, Iran, among tory analysis was implemented to evaluate the validity and whom 289 math-physics and basic sciences female students the fitness indices (GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, were considered for data collection based on multistage clus- RMSEA = 0.06). ter sampling. Ahvaz Inventory Test Anxiety. It consists of a 25 paper-and- Instruments pencil tests of self-report (Abolghasemi, Asadi Moghadam, Academic engagement aspect questionnaire. The questionnaire Najarian, & Shokrkon, 1997). The main questionnaire used included four aspects related to academic engagement such as for evaluating test anxiety includes 93 items, which were cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and agency (Reeve & Tseng, randomly selected to 581 female and male students at the 2011). It consists of 22 questions with 7-point Likert-type scales third grade of guidance school in Ahvaz. The reliability of (strongly disagree, disagree, somehow disagree, average, some- the inventory for all female and male participants was .94, how agree, agree, and strongly agree). Regarding the students’ .95, and .92, respectively. In addition, the reliability of the test behavioral engagement, Reeve and Tseng (2011) evaluated five anxiety was confirmed (r = .93). Finally, confirmatory analy- variables. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed sis was utilized to assess the validity of fitness indices (GFI = based on Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (r = .94). Furthermore, a 0.97, AGFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08). self-report scale encompassing four variables which can evalu- ate the students’ emotional state while doing school assignments Results was implemented to assess emotional engagement (Skinner et Table 1 indicates the descriptive statistics of the variables. al., 2009, as cited in Reeve & Tseng, 2011). Reeve and Tseng The measures of skewness and kurtosis represent the normal (2011) confirmed the reliability of these four variables (r = distribution of the data. .78). Furthermore, learning strategy questionnaire was used To study the causal relationship between the variables, for evaluating cognitive engagement (Wolters, 2004, as cited structural equation modeling was used. Table 2 represents the in Reeve & Tseng, 2011), derived from two subscale features results of the correlation between the research variables. In the such as the evaluation of learning complexity strategies based present study, the agentic engagement was considered as the on developmental aspects (Questions 15-18), and the evalua- exogenous variable while competence, autonomy, relatedness, tion of metacognitive and self-regulative features like planning, and test anxiety were regarded as the endogenous variables. observing, and improving the task (Questions 19-22). Reeve As shown in Table 2, the highest level of correlation and Tseng (2011) reported the reliability of these eight factors (r belongs to the relationship between agentic engagement and = .88). They emphasized that depending on a previously reliable autonomy (.51). Among the research variables, autonomy measurement is not possible because engagement is considered has the highest correlation coefficient (–.34) with test as a new factor. Thus, five variables were developed for assess- 4 SAGE Open Figure 1. The correlation between agentic engagement, basic needs, and test anxiety. Figure 2. Model fit for predicting the test anxiety. anxiety. Then, competence (–.24), agentic engagement 1 show goodness of fit. RMSEA with values less than 0.08 (–.18), and relatedness (–.13) have the highest level of cor- represents the goodness of fit of the model (Hooman, 2007). relation with test anxiety. The acceptable values of χ /df should be less than 3 (Kline, Figure 2 illustrates the model fit used for predicting the 2011). test anxiety, along with the fit indices. The numbers on the As shown in Table 4, agentic engagement plays a signifi- paths and parameters are standardized. As shown in Figure 2, cant role in competence (0.53) and autonomy (0.75) and no significant relationship was observed between test anxi- autonomy has a significant effect on reducing test anxiety ety and agentic engagement, relatedness and competence. (0.66). However, agentic engagement could not influence However, other paths are significant at the level of 0.01. test anxiety in spite of affecting the basic psychological Among the variables of the model, agentic engagement has needs although it has a significant indirect effect on reducing the most significant effect on autonomy (0.75) and autonomy test anxiety (–0.54). has the most significant effect on reducing test anxiety. As presented in Table 3, all goodness of fit indices for the Discussion model are based on an optimal range. AGFI, GFI, and CFI indices were used to study the model fit. The domain of these The role the students can play in making decisions about values could change between 0 and 1. The measures close to the class, discussing their preferences, and allowing them Mehdipour Maralani et al. 5 Table 3. Model Fit Indices of Test Anxiety. 2 2 χ df χ /df CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA 383.23 145 2.64 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.07 Note. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation. Table 4. The Coefficients Related to Different Variables. Paths Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Coefficient of determination On test anxiety from 0.29 Agentic engagement 0.33 −0.54** −0.22** Competence −0.07 — −0.07 Autonomy −0.66** — −0.66** Relatedness −0.03 — −0.03 On competence from 0.28 Agentic engagement 0.53** — 0.53** On autonomy from 0.57 Agentic engagement 0.75** — 0.75** On relatedness from 0.08 Agentic engagement 0.30** — 0.30** to select the learning activities will pave the way for because they do not have a positive imagination of themselves increasing agentic engagement and creating a sense of which supports their anxiety. Bandura (1997, as cited in Reeve autonomy. Autonomy is regarded as a response to the need & Tseng, 2011) argues that self-efficacy is the basis for agency for behaving in such a way that it is originated from and among men (e.g., students) and accordingly the students’ confirmed by one’s own personality instead of being con- agency could be the predicting factor for low test anxiety. trolled and oppressed (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2015). Based The present study aimed to test a conceptual model on the supportive framework of autonomy, people choose regarding the role of agentic engagement and basic psycho- the related tasks based on the values, interests, and goals logical needs such as competence, autonomy, and related- which establish their identity (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat- ness in reducing the students’ anxiety. To this aim, a Maymon, & Roth, 2005). conceptual model was selected and tested using structural Selecting an appropriate feedback by the teacher, encour- equation modeling. The results indicated that the selected aging students to ask questions and giving proper responses, model is adequately fit with the data and can explain 29% of and providing a conversational environment to improve the the test anxiety variance. learning process will positively influence the students’ Based on the results of structural equation modeling, agency, enhance the teacher–student relationship, and affect agentic engagement could not play a significant role in the students’ need to communicate. The need for communi- reducing test anxiety although it could reduce test anxiety cation is related to the people’s need to feel that they are through the mediation of basic psychological needs,. The interested in communicating with others and are supported results were consistent with the study conducted by Raufelder by them (Johnston & Finney, 2010). When the students feel et al. (2015) who analyzed the perception of the supportive that they are loved and their experiences are valuable in and oppressive role of parents in the relationship between warm social relationships, their need for communication is test anxiety and educational engagement among teenagers. satisfied. The feeling of importance supports the students’ In addition, the present study indicated that agentic engage- energetic, active, and contributive behavior and hinders neg- ment had the most significant direct effect on autonomy and ative emotions such as anxiety and impatience (Hejazi, Ghazi autonomy had the most significant direct effect on reducing Tabataba’i, Gh Lavasani, & Moradi, 2014). test anxiety. Therefore, agentic engagement could predict Those who are suffering from test anxiety have a negative low test anxiety through the mediation of autonomy. evaluation of their own abilities (Sarason, 1984). According to Furthermore, agentic engagement could play a significant Bandura’s (1997) social cognition theory, anxious students will role on competence, while the direct effect of competence on generate a low level of self-competence and self-efficacy. test anxiety was not significant. In addition, agentic engage- Therefore, self-efficacy is related to anxiety (Trifoni & Shahini, ment had a significant direct effect on relatedness, while the 2011). Those having low self-efficacy are more anxious indirect effect of agentic engagement on reducing test 6 SAGE Open anxiety through the mediation of relatedness variable was Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and not significant. Therefore, it can be argued that agentic well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc engagement has a significant direct effect on basic psycho- country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Society logical needs such as competence, autonomy, and related- for Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 930-942. doi: ness and significant indirect effect on reducing test anxiety 10.1177/0146167201278002 through the mediation of autonomy variable. In general, Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school agentic engagement results in reducing test anxiety through engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. the mediation of basic psychological needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660. doi:10.1007/ Educational failure, hating and loathing school are regarded s10964-011-9647-5 as the consequences of educational disengagement. The agen- Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motiva- tic component is one of the most important aspects of educa- tion, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg tional engagements through which students actively try to (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Volume 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 404- learn, personalize, and enhance the situations and conditions 434). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. in which the learning process is taking place. Therefore, the Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: agent students select, contribute, and communicate and, Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology, Quarterly, accordingly, their basic psychological needs are satisfied. Self- 57, 4-15. efficacy is the basis for agency which plays a role in reducing Elder, G. H., & Shanahan, M. J. (2007). The life course and human test anxiety. Thus, the students’ agency could predict low test development. In Handbook of child psychology. New York: anxiety. Accordingly, regarding the importance of educational John Wiley & Sons, Inc. engagement and its effectiveness on basic psychological needs Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School and ultimately on test anxiety, teachers should be adequately engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. informed about the agentic engagement and learn the activities Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. which may provide opportunities for agentic enjoyment. Fuchs, S. (2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19, 24-40. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in The results of the present study have several implications the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. for educational psychologists, decision makers, and execu- Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. tive officers for designing proper educational policies to Child Development, 53, 87-97. doi:10.2307/1129640 enhance educational engagement and students’ agency and Hejazi, E., Ghazi Tabataba’i, M., Gh Lavasani, M., & Moradi, A. accordingly reduce test anxiety. (2014). The relationship between the teacher and students and engagement in school: The mediatory role of basic psychologi- Declaration of Conflicting Interests cal needs. Journal of Applied Psychology Research, 5, 19-40. (In Farsi) The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Hembree, R. (1988). Correlate, causes, and effects of test to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77. doi:10.3102/00346543058001047 Funding Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory, 25, 170-191. ship, and/or publication of this article. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00303.x Hooman, H. A. (2007). Structural equation modeling using LISERL References software (2nd ed.). Tehran, Iran: SAMT. (In Farsi) Johnston, M., & Finney, S. (2010). Measuring basic needs satis- Abolghasemi, A., Asadi Moghadam, A., Najarian, B., & Shokrkon, faction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psy- H. (1997). The development and scale validation for assess- chometric evaluations of the basic needs satisfaction in general ment of test anxiety among the students of the third grade of scale. Psychology of Export and Exercise, 11, 91-99. secondary school in Ahvaz. Journal of Education Science and Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 3-4, 61-73. & Roth, G. (2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in aca- (In Farsi) demic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j. Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor cedpsych.2015.08.002 motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397-413. modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008 La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A York, NY: W.H. Freeman. self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need ful- Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2007). Clinical presentation of social fillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. In D. C. Beidel Psychology, 79, 367-384. & S. M. Turner (Eds.), Shy children, phobic adults: Nature Loyal, S., & Barnes, B. (2001). “Agency” as a red herring in social and treatment of social anxiety disorders (2nd ed., p. 47e80). theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31, 507-524. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mehdipour Maralani et al. 7 Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Stein, M. B., and Kean, Y. M. (2000). Disability and quality of Psychologist, 41, 954-969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954 life in social phobia: Epidemiologic findings. Am J Psychiatry, McDonald, A. S. (2010). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety 157, 1606-1613. in school children. Educational Psychology, 21, 89-101. Trifoni, A., & Shahini, M. (2011). How does exam anxiety affect the Mehran, M. (2014). Relationship between contextual agents performance of university students? Mediterranean Journal of (teachers), educational engagement, and educational progress Social Sciences, 2, 93-101. Retrieved from http://www.mcser. (Master’s thesis). University of Tehran, Iran. (In Farsi) org/images/stories/2_journal/mjssmay2011/9.pdf Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex Urdan, T., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the dynamic system. System, 9, 427-436. classroom. In A. E. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook Raufelder, D., Hoferichter, F., Ringeisen, T., Regner, N., & Jacke, of competence motivation (pp. 297-317). New York, NY: C. (2015). The perceived role of parental support and pressure Guilford Press. in the interplay of test anxiety and school engagement among van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learn- adolescents: Evidence for gender-specific relations. Journal of ing: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Child and Family Studies, 24, 3742-3756. doi:10.1007/s10826- van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & 015-0182-y M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of Reeve, J. M. (2008). Understanding motivation and emotion (Y. S. second languages (pp. 163-186). London, England: Equinox. Mohamadi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Virayesh. (In Farsi) Veiga, F. H. (2016). Assessing student engagement in school: Reeve, J. M., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 813-819. Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.153 Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive interfer- Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipueer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, ence: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and Psychology, 46, 929-938. doi:10.1080/10615808808248215 stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engage- Schoon, I., & Lyons-Amos, M. (2016). Diverse pathways in ment and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 911-933. becoming an adult: The role of structure, agency and context. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008 Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 46, 11-20. Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, Author Biographies R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as Farnaz Mehdipour Maralani has her research interest in a function of environmental complexity in high school class- Developmental Psychology and Psychological Assessment. rooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2015.12.003 Azre Shalbaf is working in the field of Educational Management. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the class- room: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student Masoud Gholamali Lavasani has his expertise in computer anxiety, engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational self-regulation learning, academic motivation and emotion, achieve- Psychology, 85, 571-581. ment goals, well-being, and socio-emotional development. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Agentic Engagement and Test Anxiety: The Mediatory Role of the Basic Psychological Needs:

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/agentic-engagement-and-test-anxiety-the-mediatory-role-of-the-basic-o79awsNqSV

References (46)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244018772884
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Despite the role of agency in schools, few researchers have addressed the issue. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between agentic engagement, basic psychological needs, and test anxiety by using structural equation modeling. For this purpose, 289 female students in math-physics and basic sciences were selected as the samples by using multistage cluster sampling. Reeve and Tseng’s aspects of students’ engagement during learning activity, La Guardia’s et al. basic psychological needs, and Ahvaz test anxiety scale were used as data collection tools. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that agentic engagement positively influenced the basic psychological needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness while it could negatively affect test anxiety with the mediatory role of basic psychological needs. In conclusion, agentic engagement can be regarded as a critical variable in affecting the basic psychological needs and reducing test anxiety. Keywords agentic engagement, autonomy, competence, relatedness, test anxiety Lyons-Amos (2016), high versus low aspirations is related Introduction to whether young people want to leave after compulsory An individual biography of traditional scripts relies more schooling or stay on in education. on the individuals’ agencies. Agency means an individu- Agentic engagement is a concept which was first intro- al’s perception of the extent to which one can make deci- duced to assess and analyze educational downfalls and fail- sions and judgments related to his job (Giddens, 1991). ures. Then, it was used as a basis for reformist efforts in the Agency is regarded as a key term in life course theory field of education (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). (Elder, 1994; Elder & Shanahan, 2007) and an individual- Agentic engagement explains how students feel and behave level construct which plays a significant role in social when they face the school environment and class activities action and choice. However, according to Hitlin and Elder (Fredericks et al., 2004). Shernoff et al. (2016) defined agen- (2007), agency is described as an underspecified, “slip- tic engagement as the mutual interaction between the teacher pery” theoretical concept in sociology. Regarding socio- and students. logical theory, agency is not generally accepted or valued Reeve and Tseng’s (2011) new model prefers “cognitive,” as a nonstructural factor (Fuchs, 2001; Loyal & Barnes, “behavioral,” “emotional,” and “agentic” components. 2001), or structural factors are primarily concerned with “Agentic component” is defined as the students’ constructive the selves of individual actors (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). In contribution into the learning process (Reeve & Tseng, addition, agency is more related to self-regulation and 2011). Furthermore, Veiga (2016) focused on engagement in self-awareness as well as volition and orientation to the school as well as its cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and future, which are established by other variables such as agentic aspects. Agentic component refers to the active academic attainment and structural constraints. According to Markus and Nurius (1986), well-formulated objectives and a good sense of one’s potentialities enable the person 1 Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran to anticipate future “possible selves” and design the University of Tehran, Iran related strategies for their attainment. In the present study, Corresponding Author: the role of education aspirations shown to shape education Farnaz Mehdipour Maralani, PhD Student of Educational Psychology, participation was emphasized by introducing agentic Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran 1983969411, Iran. engagement in schools. According to Schoon and Email: fmehdipourm@gmail.com Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open interest and high self-confidence in learning and acquiring reduced social interactions, low self-esteem, and low school knowledge. performance (Stein & Kean, 2000). Test anxiety is not lim- According to van Lier (2008), successful learning relies ited to social anxiety, interfering with social functioning, heavily on the learner’s activities and initiatives. However, while it plays a significant role in academic performance. learners should hold a personal sense of agency, that is, a Higher levels of test anxiety are more concerned with belief that their behavior can add variety to their learning in impaired performance on the tests, especially high-stake that context before they are interested in their agentic tests (McDonald, 2010). Test anxiety, as a critical educa- resources and selecting to practice their agency in a special tional factor, is influencing millions of students around the learning context. The learners can make a personal sense of world every year, leading to a reduction in their educational what they face and use affordances to be personally mean- performance. ingful and relevant. Principally, different environments can Although a large number of studies have focused on test display “latent potential” to make interaction easier for learn- anxiety among teenagers, few researchers have addressed the ers, as van Lier (2004) named “relations of possibility.” test anxiety and educational engagement (Raufelder, Thus, agency is originated from the interaction between Hoferichter, Ringeisen, Regner, & Jacke, 2015). Some resources, contexts, and the learners’ attitudes and use researchers emphasized on finding the relationship between (Mercer, 2011). test anxiety and educational engagement with respect to the The new concept of “agentic engagement” is related to social context (Eccles & Roeser, 2009). However, by consid- the process through which the students, deliberately and ering the significance of educational engagement in reducing somehow actively, try to personalize and enhance what they test anxiety, further studies can be conducted in the field. The learn and the situation in which they learn. For example, in environment and context supportive of agentic engagement the learning process, the students may make suggestions can influence the students’ agency, as well as their basic psy- endogenously, state their preferences, ask questions, discuss chological needs. Therefore, the present study aimed to ana- what they need and think about, suggest goals and objec- lyze the relationship between agentic engagement and test tives, talk about their interests, ask for resources or learning anxiety by regarding the mediatory role of educational opportunities, look for solutions to the questions, seek for engagement (Figure 1). more clarification for the instructions, and selection (Mehran, 2014). Conceptual Model of the Study Choosing the subject and method will enable the students to feel competent by selecting their own responsibilities and Agentic engagement is defined as the constructive contribu- tasks (Urdan & Turner, 2005). Competence is a psychologi- tion of the students in the teaching-learning process (Reeve cal need which provides intrinsic motivation for trying to & Tseng, 2011), which is influenced by the contextual fac- make better challenges (Reeve, 2008). Furthermore, it is tors and plays a significant role in enhancing intrinsic moti- related to the learner’s personal needs to feel the effective vation. The support of teachers and educational context on and efficient engagement with the environment and the abil- the students’ agency will provide the context for their agentic ity to pursue his or her interests (Kanat-Maymon, Benjamin, behaviors. The students having a high agentic engagement Stavsky, Shoshani, & Roth, 2015). The learners experiencing feel more competent, autonomous, and related by selecting, a higher level of educational competence are less anxious contributing in the educational process, as well as communi- and choose higher levels of challenging tasks (Harter, 1982). cating in the class. Therefore, agentic engagement can influ- In a structured class environment in which the rules, norms, ence their basic psychological needs. Students pay more and positions are well defined (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), attention to their educational tasks and experience less anxi- the students learn how to manage their tasks and practice ety and stress when their basic needs are met. The model competence (Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipueer, Hanisch, Creed, used in the present study focuses on the mediatory role of the & McGregor, 2006). basic psychological needs in creating the relationship Therefore, if the environment and the structure can gen- between agentic engagement and test anxiety. In other words, erate agentic engagement, they will actively influence the agentic engagement can reduce test anxiety by considering students’ agency and, accordingly, their basic psychological basic psychological needs. needs. Although educational engagement may be regarded as the predicting factor of educational progress (Dotterer & Method Lowe, 2011), test anxiety is an obstacle to the educational performance (Hembree, 1988). Test anxiety is an uncom- To conduct the present study, nonexperimental and correla- fortable emotion or feeling leading to learning interferences tional research was used. Regarding data analysis, structural and a reduction in school grades. According to Beidel and equation modeling was implemented. Turner (2007), test anxiety is described as a component of social anxiety which is a major concern in school settings. Sampling. To this aim, all math-physics and basic sciences Social anxitey disorder (SAD) is related to poor social skills, female students studying in the second and third grade high Mehdipour Maralani et al. 3 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for the Research Variables. ing the new scale based on the observation of classroom goals, self-report scale, and conceptual framework. In addition, Reeve Variables M SD Skewness Kurtosis and Tseng (2011) assessed the reliability of these variables (r Agentic engagement 2.96 0.84 −0.24 −0.39 = .82). Furthermore, academic engagement scale was reported Competence 3.66 0.80 −0.35 −0.01 to be reliable (r = .71). Finally, confirmatory analysis was used Autonomy 3.33 0.86 −0.19 −0.32 for checking the validity of the questionnaire (goodness of fit Relatedness 3.66 0.84 −0.43 −0.12 index [GFI] = 0.99, adjusted goodness of fit index [AGFI] = Test anxiety 1.27 0.70 0.25 0.56 0.97, comparative fit index [CFI] = 1, root mean square error approximation [RMSEA] = 0.04). Basic psychological need questionnaire. The questionnaire Table 2. Correlation Matrix of the Research Variables. was designed by La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, and Deci Variables 1 2 3 4 5 (2000) to evaluate the learners’ basic psychological need. It included 21 subscales related to autonomy (seven sub- Agentic 1 engagement scales), competence (six subscales), and relatedness (eight Competence .34** 1 subscales). For example, one of the scales related to auton- Autonomy .51** .42** 1 omy is “I feel I can suggest on the way for studying and Relatedness .19** .30** .30** 1 do assignments in the classroom.” Regarding relatedness, Test anxiety −.18** −.24** −.34** −.13* 1 one of the scales is related to “I occasionally feel improve- ment in the classroom.” All scales were developed based on *p < .05. **p < .01. a 5-point Likert-type scale (completely wrong to completely right). Deci et al. (2001) confirmed the reliability of the total schools during 2014-2015 (M = 16.5; SD = 0.5) were selected scale (r = .83) while it was .60, .59, and .79 for autonomy, as the population. Then, two high schools were randomly competence, and relatedness, respectively. Finally, confirma- selected from the two districts in Hamedan, Iran, among tory analysis was implemented to evaluate the validity and whom 289 math-physics and basic sciences female students the fitness indices (GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, were considered for data collection based on multistage clus- RMSEA = 0.06). ter sampling. Ahvaz Inventory Test Anxiety. It consists of a 25 paper-and- Instruments pencil tests of self-report (Abolghasemi, Asadi Moghadam, Academic engagement aspect questionnaire. The questionnaire Najarian, & Shokrkon, 1997). The main questionnaire used included four aspects related to academic engagement such as for evaluating test anxiety includes 93 items, which were cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and agency (Reeve & Tseng, randomly selected to 581 female and male students at the 2011). It consists of 22 questions with 7-point Likert-type scales third grade of guidance school in Ahvaz. The reliability of (strongly disagree, disagree, somehow disagree, average, some- the inventory for all female and male participants was .94, how agree, agree, and strongly agree). Regarding the students’ .95, and .92, respectively. In addition, the reliability of the test behavioral engagement, Reeve and Tseng (2011) evaluated five anxiety was confirmed (r = .93). Finally, confirmatory analy- variables. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed sis was utilized to assess the validity of fitness indices (GFI = based on Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (r = .94). Furthermore, a 0.97, AGFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08). self-report scale encompassing four variables which can evalu- ate the students’ emotional state while doing school assignments Results was implemented to assess emotional engagement (Skinner et Table 1 indicates the descriptive statistics of the variables. al., 2009, as cited in Reeve & Tseng, 2011). Reeve and Tseng The measures of skewness and kurtosis represent the normal (2011) confirmed the reliability of these four variables (r = distribution of the data. .78). Furthermore, learning strategy questionnaire was used To study the causal relationship between the variables, for evaluating cognitive engagement (Wolters, 2004, as cited structural equation modeling was used. Table 2 represents the in Reeve & Tseng, 2011), derived from two subscale features results of the correlation between the research variables. In the such as the evaluation of learning complexity strategies based present study, the agentic engagement was considered as the on developmental aspects (Questions 15-18), and the evalua- exogenous variable while competence, autonomy, relatedness, tion of metacognitive and self-regulative features like planning, and test anxiety were regarded as the endogenous variables. observing, and improving the task (Questions 19-22). Reeve As shown in Table 2, the highest level of correlation and Tseng (2011) reported the reliability of these eight factors (r belongs to the relationship between agentic engagement and = .88). They emphasized that depending on a previously reliable autonomy (.51). Among the research variables, autonomy measurement is not possible because engagement is considered has the highest correlation coefficient (–.34) with test as a new factor. Thus, five variables were developed for assess- 4 SAGE Open Figure 1. The correlation between agentic engagement, basic needs, and test anxiety. Figure 2. Model fit for predicting the test anxiety. anxiety. Then, competence (–.24), agentic engagement 1 show goodness of fit. RMSEA with values less than 0.08 (–.18), and relatedness (–.13) have the highest level of cor- represents the goodness of fit of the model (Hooman, 2007). relation with test anxiety. The acceptable values of χ /df should be less than 3 (Kline, Figure 2 illustrates the model fit used for predicting the 2011). test anxiety, along with the fit indices. The numbers on the As shown in Table 4, agentic engagement plays a signifi- paths and parameters are standardized. As shown in Figure 2, cant role in competence (0.53) and autonomy (0.75) and no significant relationship was observed between test anxi- autonomy has a significant effect on reducing test anxiety ety and agentic engagement, relatedness and competence. (0.66). However, agentic engagement could not influence However, other paths are significant at the level of 0.01. test anxiety in spite of affecting the basic psychological Among the variables of the model, agentic engagement has needs although it has a significant indirect effect on reducing the most significant effect on autonomy (0.75) and autonomy test anxiety (–0.54). has the most significant effect on reducing test anxiety. As presented in Table 3, all goodness of fit indices for the Discussion model are based on an optimal range. AGFI, GFI, and CFI indices were used to study the model fit. The domain of these The role the students can play in making decisions about values could change between 0 and 1. The measures close to the class, discussing their preferences, and allowing them Mehdipour Maralani et al. 5 Table 3. Model Fit Indices of Test Anxiety. 2 2 χ df χ /df CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA 383.23 145 2.64 0.93 0.88 0.84 0.07 Note. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation. Table 4. The Coefficients Related to Different Variables. Paths Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect Coefficient of determination On test anxiety from 0.29 Agentic engagement 0.33 −0.54** −0.22** Competence −0.07 — −0.07 Autonomy −0.66** — −0.66** Relatedness −0.03 — −0.03 On competence from 0.28 Agentic engagement 0.53** — 0.53** On autonomy from 0.57 Agentic engagement 0.75** — 0.75** On relatedness from 0.08 Agentic engagement 0.30** — 0.30** to select the learning activities will pave the way for because they do not have a positive imagination of themselves increasing agentic engagement and creating a sense of which supports their anxiety. Bandura (1997, as cited in Reeve autonomy. Autonomy is regarded as a response to the need & Tseng, 2011) argues that self-efficacy is the basis for agency for behaving in such a way that it is originated from and among men (e.g., students) and accordingly the students’ confirmed by one’s own personality instead of being con- agency could be the predicting factor for low test anxiety. trolled and oppressed (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2015). Based The present study aimed to test a conceptual model on the supportive framework of autonomy, people choose regarding the role of agentic engagement and basic psycho- the related tasks based on the values, interests, and goals logical needs such as competence, autonomy, and related- which establish their identity (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat- ness in reducing the students’ anxiety. To this aim, a Maymon, & Roth, 2005). conceptual model was selected and tested using structural Selecting an appropriate feedback by the teacher, encour- equation modeling. The results indicated that the selected aging students to ask questions and giving proper responses, model is adequately fit with the data and can explain 29% of and providing a conversational environment to improve the the test anxiety variance. learning process will positively influence the students’ Based on the results of structural equation modeling, agency, enhance the teacher–student relationship, and affect agentic engagement could not play a significant role in the students’ need to communicate. The need for communi- reducing test anxiety although it could reduce test anxiety cation is related to the people’s need to feel that they are through the mediation of basic psychological needs,. The interested in communicating with others and are supported results were consistent with the study conducted by Raufelder by them (Johnston & Finney, 2010). When the students feel et al. (2015) who analyzed the perception of the supportive that they are loved and their experiences are valuable in and oppressive role of parents in the relationship between warm social relationships, their need for communication is test anxiety and educational engagement among teenagers. satisfied. The feeling of importance supports the students’ In addition, the present study indicated that agentic engage- energetic, active, and contributive behavior and hinders neg- ment had the most significant direct effect on autonomy and ative emotions such as anxiety and impatience (Hejazi, Ghazi autonomy had the most significant direct effect on reducing Tabataba’i, Gh Lavasani, & Moradi, 2014). test anxiety. Therefore, agentic engagement could predict Those who are suffering from test anxiety have a negative low test anxiety through the mediation of autonomy. evaluation of their own abilities (Sarason, 1984). According to Furthermore, agentic engagement could play a significant Bandura’s (1997) social cognition theory, anxious students will role on competence, while the direct effect of competence on generate a low level of self-competence and self-efficacy. test anxiety was not significant. In addition, agentic engage- Therefore, self-efficacy is related to anxiety (Trifoni & Shahini, ment had a significant direct effect on relatedness, while the 2011). Those having low self-efficacy are more anxious indirect effect of agentic engagement on reducing test 6 SAGE Open anxiety through the mediation of relatedness variable was Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and not significant. Therefore, it can be argued that agentic well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc engagement has a significant direct effect on basic psycho- country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Society logical needs such as competence, autonomy, and related- for Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 930-942. doi: ness and significant indirect effect on reducing test anxiety 10.1177/0146167201278002 through the mediation of autonomy variable. In general, Dotterer, A. M., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom context, school agentic engagement results in reducing test anxiety through engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. the mediation of basic psychological needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660. doi:10.1007/ Educational failure, hating and loathing school are regarded s10964-011-9647-5 as the consequences of educational disengagement. The agen- Eccles, J. S., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Schools, academic motiva- tic component is one of the most important aspects of educa- tion, and stage-environment fit. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg tional engagements through which students actively try to (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Volume 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 404- learn, personalize, and enhance the situations and conditions 434). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. in which the learning process is taking place. Therefore, the Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: agent students select, contribute, and communicate and, Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology, Quarterly, accordingly, their basic psychological needs are satisfied. Self- 57, 4-15. efficacy is the basis for agency which plays a role in reducing Elder, G. H., & Shanahan, M. J. (2007). The life course and human test anxiety. Thus, the students’ agency could predict low test development. In Handbook of child psychology. New York: anxiety. Accordingly, regarding the importance of educational John Wiley & Sons, Inc. engagement and its effectiveness on basic psychological needs Fredericks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School and ultimately on test anxiety, teachers should be adequately engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. informed about the agentic engagement and learn the activities Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109. which may provide opportunities for agentic enjoyment. Fuchs, S. (2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19, 24-40. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in The results of the present study have several implications the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. for educational psychologists, decision makers, and execu- Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. tive officers for designing proper educational policies to Child Development, 53, 87-97. doi:10.2307/1129640 enhance educational engagement and students’ agency and Hejazi, E., Ghazi Tabataba’i, M., Gh Lavasani, M., & Moradi, A. accordingly reduce test anxiety. (2014). The relationship between the teacher and students and engagement in school: The mediatory role of basic psychologi- Declaration of Conflicting Interests cal needs. Journal of Applied Psychology Research, 5, 19-40. (In Farsi) The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect Hembree, R. (1988). Correlate, causes, and effects of test to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77. doi:10.3102/00346543058001047 Funding Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory, 25, 170-191. ship, and/or publication of this article. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00303.x Hooman, H. A. (2007). Structural equation modeling using LISERL References software (2nd ed.). Tehran, Iran: SAMT. (In Farsi) Johnston, M., & Finney, S. (2010). Measuring basic needs satis- Abolghasemi, A., Asadi Moghadam, A., Najarian, B., & Shokrkon, faction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psy- H. (1997). The development and scale validation for assess- chometric evaluations of the basic needs satisfaction in general ment of test anxiety among the students of the third grade of scale. Psychology of Export and Exercise, 11, 91-99. secondary school in Ahvaz. Journal of Education Science and Kanat-Maymon, Y., Benjamin, M., Stavsky, A., Shoshani, A., Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 3-4, 61-73. & Roth, G. (2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in aca- (In Farsi) demic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective. Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j. Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor cedpsych.2015.08.002 motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397-413. modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008 La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A York, NY: W.H. Freeman. self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need ful- Beidel, D. C., & Turner, S. M. (2007). Clinical presentation of social fillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. In D. C. Beidel Psychology, 79, 367-384. & S. M. Turner (Eds.), Shy children, phobic adults: Nature Loyal, S., & Barnes, B. (2001). “Agency” as a red herring in social and treatment of social anxiety disorders (2nd ed., p. 47e80). theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31, 507-524. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Mehdipour Maralani et al. 7 Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Stein, M. B., and Kean, Y. M. (2000). Disability and quality of Psychologist, 41, 954-969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954 life in social phobia: Epidemiologic findings. Am J Psychiatry, McDonald, A. S. (2010). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety 157, 1606-1613. in school children. Educational Psychology, 21, 89-101. Trifoni, A., & Shahini, M. (2011). How does exam anxiety affect the Mehran, M. (2014). Relationship between contextual agents performance of university students? Mediterranean Journal of (teachers), educational engagement, and educational progress Social Sciences, 2, 93-101. Retrieved from http://www.mcser. (Master’s thesis). University of Tehran, Iran. (In Farsi) org/images/stories/2_journal/mjssmay2011/9.pdf Mercer, S. (2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex Urdan, T., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the dynamic system. System, 9, 427-436. classroom. In A. E. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook Raufelder, D., Hoferichter, F., Ringeisen, T., Regner, N., & Jacke, of competence motivation (pp. 297-317). New York, NY: C. (2015). The perceived role of parental support and pressure Guilford Press. in the interplay of test anxiety and school engagement among van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learn- adolescents: Evidence for gender-specific relations. Journal of ing: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer. Child and Family Studies, 24, 3742-3756. doi:10.1007/s10826- van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & 015-0182-y M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of Reeve, J. M. (2008). Understanding motivation and emotion (Y. S. second languages (pp. 163-186). London, England: Equinox. Mohamadi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Virayesh. (In Farsi) Veiga, F. H. (2016). Assessing student engagement in school: Reeve, J. M., & Tseng, C.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 813-819. Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.153 Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive interfer- Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Chipueer, H. M., Hanisch, M., Creed, ence: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social P. A., & McGregor, L. (2006). Relationships at school and Psychology, 46, 929-938. doi:10.1080/10615808808248215 stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engage- Schoon, I., & Lyons-Amos, M. (2016). Diverse pathways in ment and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 911-933. becoming an adult: The role of structure, agency and context. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008 Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 46, 11-20. Shernoff, D. J., Kelly, S., Tonks, S. M., Anderson, B., Cavanagh, Author Biographies R. F., Sinha, S., & Abdi, B. (2016). Student engagement as Farnaz Mehdipour Maralani has her research interest in a function of environmental complexity in high school class- Developmental Psychology and Psychological Assessment. rooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60. doi:10.1016/j. learninstruc.2015.12.003 Azre Shalbaf is working in the field of Educational Management. Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the class- room: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student Masoud Gholamali Lavasani has his expertise in computer anxiety, engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational self-regulation learning, academic motivation and emotion, achieve- Psychology, 85, 571-581. ment goals, well-being, and socio-emotional development.

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Apr 26, 2018

Keywords: agentic engagement; autonomy; competence; relatedness; test anxiety

There are no references for this article.