Abstract
When large-scale assessments (LSA) do not hold personal stakes for students, students may not put forth their best effort. Low-effort examinee behaviors (e.g., guessing, omitting items) result in an underestimate of examinee abilities, which is a concern when using results of LSA to inform educational policy and planning. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between examinee motivation as defined by expectancy-value theory, student effort, and examinee mathematics abilities. A principal components analysis was used to examine the data from Grade 9 students ( n = 43,562) who responded to a self-report questionnaire on their attitudes and practices related to mathematics. The results suggested a two-component model where the components were interpreted as task-values in mathematics and student effort. Next, a hierarchical linear model was implemented to examine the relationship between examinee component scores and their estimated ability on a LSA. The results of this study provide evidence that motivation, as defined by the expectancy-value theory and student effort, partially explains student ability estimates and may have implications in the information that get transferred to testing organizations, school boards, and teachers while assessing students’ Grade 9 mathematics learning.
Highlights
When test scores from large-scale assessments (LSA) are reported and interpreted for individual students, classes, schools, states, or nations, there is often an implicit assumption that the scores represent the best effort of the student (Wolf & Smith, 1995)
In Ontario, Canada, LSA of mathematics do not explain the effect of students’ motivation and effort on their estimates of academic achievement. This is a concern because the results from these LSA are used to provide accountability in the educational system for the allocation of funds, justify changes to the mathematics curriculum, inform parents about their children’s progress, and help children adapt to changes in today’s world (Education Quality Accountability Office [EQAO], 2011).This is one of the reasons why the current study focused on examining student motivation and student effort in relation to their estimates of academic achievement by using Grade 9 LSA of mathematics based on self-report data and test scores
EQAO self-report items such as “I like math” was classified as intrinsic or interest value because it related to students’ enjoyment from doing mathematics; “Math is boring” was classified as attainment value because it is related to the importance that the student placed on the mathematics tasks; “The math I learn now is very useful for everyday life” and “I need to keep taking math for the kind of job I want after school” were classified as utility values because they reflected the importance of mathematics for student future plans; “I am good in math” and “Mathematics is an easy subject” were classified as achievement values because they related to student goal orientations (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010, p. 10)
Summary
When test scores from large-scale assessments (LSA) are reported and interpreted for individual students, classes, schools, states, or nations, there is often an implicit assumption that the scores represent the best effort of the student (Wolf & Smith, 1995). Researchers in the field of educational measurement have questioned this assumption by stating that if the test score is not consequential or important to the student, one cannot be sure how much the observed score is influenced by the lack of effort (DeMars, 2000; Wolf & Smith, 1995) This leads to the argument that test consequences influence motivation, and motivation influences students’ effort, test performance, and estimates of academic achievement (DeMars, 2000; Sundre & Moore, 2002; Wolf, Smith, & Birnbaum, 1995). Task-value beliefs are defined by four components: (a) attainment value—the personal importance of doing well on a task, (b) intrinsic value—the enjoyment the individual gets from performing the task, (c) utility value—how well the task relates to current and future goals, such as career goals, and (d) cost—negative aspects of engaging in the task, such as fear of failure (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
