Motivating productive effort through testing

We often assume that the main reason for testing students is to find out what they know. But it isn’t.

The main reason for testing students is to improve learning, and one of the ways tests do this is to motivate productive effort by students – studying!

Teachers are used to teaching students who study hard and those who don’t. These differences are often attributed to the character of the students (e.g. lazy, hard-working, motivated), to their circumstances (e.g. home life, peer group), or to their abilities (e.g. a high-flyer, disadvantaged).

These folk theories can serve to place responsibility for effort with the student and their circumstances and not with the teacher. It is true that the teacher cannot control all the variables that affect the effort made by students in their studies. However, teachers can create conditions within which students are more likely to engage in productive effort.

HINT: motivational posters aren’t going to cut it!

(Image: https://sweettoothteaching.com/2023/01/how-to-encourage-students-before-testing.html. Do check out their 8 ways to motivate students before testing if you want an alternative to this post!)

To promote productive effort, teachers should have a working knowledge of motivation theories and the evidence to support these theories. They should also understand the levers at their disposal.

Tests are one such lever, perhaps one of the best we have.

Productive effort

Setting aside coercive measures, students must otherwise make an active choice to study. When students choose to spend time preparing for a test, we call this their volition to study. This choice is an act of will which depends on the self: that part of our identity which ‘translates basic psychological needs, motives, feelings, values, and beliefs’ into action (Urhahne & Wijnia, 2023).

More colloquially, we talk about students’ motivation to study. As a term, motivation can encourage us to imagine an attribute which a student does or does not possess. This is misleading and potentially harmful. The volition to study is in fact largely situational and domain-specific. In other words, a student may be motivated to study at one time and not another, towards one goal and not another, in one subject and not another, or for one test and not another. It is motivation’s mutability that makes it open to a teacher’s influence.

For a student’s action to be productive in relation to test preparation, the student must:

Initiate study.
Pay attention to the right things.
Adopt an effective approach to study.
Persist to study.

Productive effort is therefore a function of both motivation (1&4) and informed action (2&3). Teachers must not only increase a student’s volition to study but also their ability to do so with efficacy.

Motivational mechanisms

What follows will focus mostly on the motivational mechanisms that are at work rather than what makes the action taken by students effective, although I will touch on the latter.

I shall draw upon the following popular and fairly well researched theories of motivation:

Expectancy-value theory
Social cognitive theory
Self-determination theory
Interest theory
Achievement goal theory
Attribution theory
Social norms theory.

I will not explain each of these theories fully but rather take an applied approach by considering what these theories tell us that may be of use to the classroom teacher in motivating students through testing.

It is helpful to ask why students study for tests. Isolating the most likely reasons may help identify practical actions teachers can take to harness motivational effects. I will suggest these reasons in turn, briefly explaining what effects may be at work and what practical steps teachers might take as a result.

So, why do students study for tests?

1. Because they have experienced past success

In a nutshell: Past test performance affects a student’s expectancy of future success.

Theoretical constructs: Expectancy-value theory

Key references: Pinquart & Ebeling (2020)

The student’s experience of past tests is an important influence on whether they expect to perform well in future assessments, which in turn is a factor in their future success. Students are more likely to work for something they perceive they have a good chance of succeeding in.

However, expecting to do well is not the only factor necessary to ensure motivation. Expectancy-value theory suggests that the student must also value success and perceive that achieving this success is worth the effort (more of this in point 4).

It will be no surprise to teachers that being successful in tests will mean students are more likely to expect to do well in future tests, but what are they to do with this information? Most obviously, teachers should try to give all students some experience of success. However, breaking into the virtuous cycle of success-motivation-more success is easier said than done.

One approach is to use low-stakes, high success-rate tests frequently so that all students have some regular experience of doing well. Teachers can prepare students carefully for such tests, ensuring students have secure knowledge before testing them. However, they must also ensure that these tests are not too easy for those who regularly achieve well as this may devalue achievement for these students and teach them that doing well requires little effort. To overcome this, teachers may include a very difficult question in the test that most are not expected to answer but will be challenging for the high achievers.

Students’ motivation can also be damaged by regular or catastrophic failure in tests (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Mitigating this risk is also important.

Finally, teachers can create the feeling of success in how they set up tests and portray results. For example, managing students’ expectations about what success looks like for them (perhaps agreeing a personal target), using ‘personal best’ approaches, or avoiding comparisons between students (such as ranking) – these techniques are also relevant to goal-setting which we’ll come to in point 7.

Next, study study for tests…

2. Because they attribute their success to productive effort

In a nutshell: Students believe there is a link between their productive actions and their success.

Theoretical constructs: Attribution theory

Key references: Heider (1958), Weiner (1986)

Students might attribute their success to a range of things: their innate ability, hard work, luck, ease of the test, how well they were taught, and so on. Students may attribute their failure similarly. What students attribute success or failure to is important.

This attribution is particularly significant in motivation when the test is deemed as important by the student, when their success or failure is unexpected, or when the experience is particularly negative. These factors will make the experience emotionally impactful.

Teachers may anticipate such effects by creating a narrative around success, explicitly linking it to productive actions i.e. exerting effort on productive study. They may also be watchful for students making unhelpful attributions and seek to address these. For example, a student may berate themselves as lacking ability, claim the test was too hard, explain their performance as being due to them having a good or bad day, pronounce that they are ‘naturally good’ at the subject, or even claim that they hadn’t been taught something which was on the test.

Attributing success to productive effort is a step towards point 3. Students study hard…

3. Because they know how to succeed

In a nutshell: Students have belief in their competence and control over test preparation.

Theoretical constructs: Social cognitive theory, Attribution theory

Key references: Skinner (1996), Schunk & Zimmerman (2006)

When students expect a test, how confident are they to prepare for it? This will depend on their competence beliefs and whether the means to prepare is within their control. These beliefs are known as self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy will partly depend on past performance in tests (point 1) and correct attribution (point 2). However, teachers can build self-efficacy by teaching explicit study strategies, providing students with opportunities to practice strategies, and demonstrating the link between effort and success. More powerful than merely narrating test success or failure, teachers may seek to provide ‘proof of efficacy’ of certain study methods. For example, a before-and-after test may be given, with students provided with explicit guidance around studying and an opportunity to do so between the first and second test. In doing so, the teacher is attempting to prove that making an effort and studying in this way is beneficial.

Competence beliefs are domain-specific so the teacher should not rely on a general study-skills programme to build students’ self-efficacy. Competence beliefs must be built in relation to the subject and even the topic or form of test. This means teachers being explicit about how to study this topic and for this type of test. Homework can also be used to build self-efficacy, but there must be scaffolding of study, not just an instruction to ‘revise’.

4. Because they believe that success is worth the effort

In a nutshell: Students value success in the test enough to make it worth their time and effort.

Theoretical constructs: Expectancy-value theory

Key references: Tolman (1932), Lewin (1951)

We established earlier that students must expect to be successful in a test and know how to achieve this. However, they must also value doing well and believe it is worth their time and effort.

Students may value doing well for intrinsic reasons (they enjoy doing well) or extrinsic reasons (such as being seen to do well or accruing certain benefits such as moving up a set). We will consider the relative merit of these reasons for valuing success in tests in point 7, but for now we will assume that valuing success is a good thing, whatever the reason.

Is success worth the effort? Students will weigh up how much time and effort it might take, what else they could do instead, and how difficult and frustrating the study is likely to be. This is where the volition to study often falls down. Students will always have better things to do than study. We also know that the most effective study will be frustrating and effortful. It is not an attractive proposition for many students.

To convince students that success is worth the effort the teacher can either increase the perceived value of success or minimise the effort required. It is tempting to emphasise extrinsic rewards to achieve the former, but as we shall see later, this may be counterproductive in the long term. Perhaps a better bet is to emphasise how students will feel when they succeed.

Some hard work cannot be avoided, but teachers can try to reduce extraneous effort by ensuring students have the resources they need at hand to study, ensuring students know how to study effectively, providing some time in class to begin, and giving short term goals for students to work towards and check off as they go. Students must also perceive that the gap between what they currently know and what they need to know to do well is small enough to close in the time available. Teachers can support this by advising students on what it would be best to focus on and reminding them what knowledge is already secure.

5. Because they identify as a successful student

In a nutshell: Achievement in the test aligns with the student’s values and interests.

Theoretical constructs: Self-determination theory, Interest theory

Key references: Ryan & Deci (2000),

Some students appear quite comfortable with being identified as successful at school. Others would do almost anything to avoid being perceived this way even if they secretly take pride in doing well.

Students who identify strongly with the ‘successful student’ identity have a desire to take control of their learning, enjoy feeling competent, and want to do well at school. Doing so aligns with their ambitions for the future. It is easier to identify this way if doing so is socially acceptable and will bring you closer to those you respect and care about. It is also easier to do so if you genuinely find the subjects you study interesting.

Teaching (and testing) students like the ones described above is not a difficult task: studying hard is intrinsic to their identity. However, teaching a class of students whereby those with this identity are in the minority is a challenge. Firstly, how do you meet the student’s need to be accepted by their peers (we shall address this in point 6). Secondly, how do you use testing to motivate less willing students without eroding the intrinsic motivation of others?

Teachers should ensure they put the subject matter front and centre in their teaching and not seek to ‘engage’ students with superficial ’fun’ activities. Regular testing reminds everyone that the point is to learn the subject. To incentivise some students, it may be necessary to employ extrinsic rewards, however these should be targeted wherever possible at those who need them. To intrinsically motivated students, such rewards will likely be perceived as patronizing. These students will respond better to feedback which helps them deepen their understanding and move beyond the core content.

Intrinsically motivated students often reach an unspoken understanding with their teachers where they have the emotional maturity to do so. The student understands that not everyone is as motivated as they are, and that the teacher has a job to do in moving these students forward. Subtle cues and quiet comments are often all that is needed to ensure the student knows what instructions or incentives do or don’t apply to them. In this way, the student can achieve some social acceptance through their relationship with the teacher, whom they regard as a like-minded academic. The student may also satisfy their relational needs by forming friendships with similar students. Teachers can encourage study groups and foster mutually supportive relationships within these groups.

6. Because they want to be part of something successful

In a nutshell: Students feel a sense of belonging to a successful group.

Theoretical constructs: Social norms theory, Attribution theory

Key references: Perkins & Berkowitz (1986)

Students learn how to behave from others around them. How they see others respond to tests, or how they believe others are doing to prepare for them, will influence their own response.

The task of the teacher in this regard is to create positive norms of behaviour around study and to create the impression that productive study is the norm. The implied message is ‘everyone else is doing it, so you should too’.

With regard to test preparation, the teacher should attempt to create positive norms around the time spent studying and the method of study. To achieve this, the teacher must demonstrate that the students who adopt productive study behaviours are the most successful, therefore ensuring correct attribution. It is tempting to use students who have a strong ‘successful student’ identity (see point 5) as an example. However, this may not be welcomed by the student and lead to social isolation from the group. Students who tend not to study well may also find it easier to identify with lower-achieving peers, therefore the task of the teacher is to identify examples of where a student has worked harder or more effectively than previously and to draw a link between this and their improved test performance.

Productive study norms may also be built gradually within a class, beginning by setting very reasonable goals for study, with explicit instruction as to what to do, and building expectations of time and approach as students experience improved test outcomes.

The perception of group-success rather than individual success is also important. Students may not be able to personally achieve well in every test, but they can contribute to group performance. Teachers may set class-average goals and pitch the class against other groups, creating some friendly rivalry. Students will do better if they feel part of a successful group.

7. Because they have a mastery goal

In a nutshell: Test success aligns with the student’s mastery goals.

Theoretical constructs: Achievement goal theory

Key references: Pintrich (2000)

People have different reasons for doing things. For example, when a test is announced, one student may study hard because they want to master the content, another may study hard to achieve the highest mark in the class, and yet another to avoid getting the lowest mark in the class. Or a student may not study at all because they have no goal orientation towards the test – they don’t care!

Achievement goal theory suggests that students who adopt mastery goals, that is those that aim to master the subject rather than perform well in tests, will achieve more in the long term. Students who adopt performance goals which are based around how they perform in relation to others will achieve less well over time, particularly if their goals are ‘avoidant’ i.e. driven by avoidance of failure rather than achievement of success.

Mastery goals would appear to be preferable. However, there is also evidence to suggest that students can adopt multiple goals, for example working hard to master content but switching to drive for strong performance when it comes to high stakes tests. This may be the best of both worlds.

This theory poses a problem for a test-driven motivation approach as tests may reinforce performance goal orientation without mastery of the content. This will result in superficial study of the material. Teachers must take care to counteract this with measures to promote mastery.

Between tests, teachers may encourage a mastery approach through formative assessment, scaffolding tasks, providing encouraging feedback, and highlighting the importance of making mistakes in the learning process. Before the test, teachers should portray the test as a way of showing what has been learnt: as a checkpoint towards mastery of the subject. After the test, teachers should avoid making comparisons of students’ performance or chastising students who have not performed well (which is not the same as chastising students for not studying for the test).

Test results should be portrayed as information which can be used by the student and teacher to support the journey towards mastery. For this reason, teachers should minimise testing which provides no opportunity for correction post-test; either to re-teach material, correct mistakes, or take another test which shows improvement. In other words, all tests should be used formatively and be seen as students as integral to their improvement in mastering the subject.

The object of study

Understanding the reasons students study for tests helps us create the conditions under which students will become more motivated to do so. Let’s summarise these.

Students study hard for tests because:

They have experienced past success.
They attribute their success to productive effort.
They know how to succeed.
They believe that success is worth the effort.
They identify as a successful student.
They want to be part of something successful.
They have a mastery goal.

Teachers can use testing to create conditions within which students are more likely to study by paying attention to the testing environment, what happens before the test, and what happens after the test. Careful use of testing is a potentially powerful motivational tool.

But studying hard is not the only prerequisite for success. Students must engage in productive study, studying the right things in the right way. Testing provides signals about what knowledge is valuable. The form of a test also implies what methods of study might be most beneficial. For example, factual recall tests will encourage students to rote-learn information whereas open-ended questions will encourage students to study a broader domain of knowledge and the connections between ideas. Either may be valid in the right context.

Teachers should consider what they tell students about what might be in a test and what form it will take. If they are very specific, the volition to study may be reduced as students may feel able to secure knowledge quickly. If teachers are too broad and vague about the test, students’ motivation may also be inhibited as the task is too great or uncertain. In addition to our reasons why students study, we may add that students study productively because:

They understand what knowledge is valuable.
They know what is required of them to succeed in this test.
They know enough about what may or may not be tested.

Bringing it all together

Teachers should think about testing not only as a way to find out what students know but as a way to promote learning through productive study.

Teachers can create a positive testing environment by:

Enabling students to experience regular success.
Explicit instruction in test preparation.
Providing opportunities for students to practice productive study in class and at home.
Demonstrating to students which approaches to study lead to success.
Creating the sense that studying is the norm.
Building positive class norms and an identity of success.
Creating a mastery mindset.

Before a test, teachers should:

Emphasise the learning benefits of the test.
Ensure students have everything they need to study.
Provide enough information about what may be on the test and what form it will take.
Remind students of the most effective way to prepare for this type of test.
Set expectations for students as to what success will look like for them as an individual.
Set expectations for the class as to what success will look like for them collectively.

After a test, teachers should:

Portray results as information to inform learning.
Avoid comparisons between students.
Avoid chastising students for poor performance.
Congratulate students for their efforts, not their performance.
Narrate success as being linked to productive learning behaviours.
Remind students that they are one step closer to mastering the subject.

Remember, the main reason for testing students is to improve learning. Motivating productive effort through testing is a key competence for teachers.

References

The inspiration for this post is a paper by Urhahne, D. and Wijnia, L. (2023) titled Theories of Motivation in Education: an Integrative Framework. I would recommend a thorough reading if you are interested in this area.

Heider, F., 1958. Perceiving the other person.

Lewin, K., 1951. Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.).

Perkins, H.W. and Berkowitz, A.D., 1986. Perceiving the community norms of alcohol use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education programming. International journal of the Addictions, 21(9-10), pp.961-976.

Pinquart, M. and Ebeling, M., 2020. Students’ expected and actual academic achievement–A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, p.101524.

Pintrich, P.R., 2000. Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 92(3), p.544.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), pp.54-67.

Schunk, D. H.,and Zimmerman, B. J., 2006. Competence and control beliefs: Distinguishing the means and ends. In P. A. Alexander and P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Skinner, E. A., 1996. A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 549-570.

Tolman, E.C., 1932. Purposive behavior in animals and men. Univ of California Press.

Weiner, B., 1986. Attribution, emotion, and action.