Self-efficacy positively and test anxiety negatively predicted classroom grades, while test anxiety positively predicted cognitive strategy use but negatively predicted regulatory strategy use¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1998 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Self-efficacy uniquely explained approximately 6% of the variance in classroom grades, with higher self-efficacy associated with higher grades in all three subjects. → Wolters 1998 q2 i? Higher test anxiety was associated with lower grades but greater reported use of cognitive strategies and less regulatory strategy use. → Wolters 1998 (2)

Evidence¶

Wolters 1998¶

Wolters, C.A. & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science 26: 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003035929216

q2 · i? · associational · r2

In the regression equations predicting teacher-assigned grades in the 545-student survey, "Self-efficacy, by itself, explained approximately 6% of the variance in classroom grade" in each subject; students with greater self-efficacy received higher grades.

"Self-efficacy, by itself, explained approximately 6% of the variance in classroom grade, even after accounting for students’ gender, task value, and level of test anxiety."

Wolters 1998 (2)¶

Wolters, C.A. & Pintrich, P.R. (1998). Contextual differences in student motivation and self-regulated learning in mathematics, English, and social studies classrooms. Instructional Science 26: 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1003035929216

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Across the regression analyses in the same survey, "students who reported higher levels of test anxiety were more likely to engage in cognitive strategies" while using fewer regulatory strategies and earning lower grades; test anxiety uniquely explained about 6% of grade variance.

"students who reported higher levels of test anxiety were more likely to engage in cognitive strategies, but were less likely to use regulatory strategies and tended to receive lower grades."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Academic Anxiety — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
• Affect Regulation — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Task value predicted cognitive and regulatory strategy use but not classroom grades, whereas self-efficacy predicted grades in all three subjects — related
• Low- and high-proficiency EFL learners differ significantly in self-efficacy, intrinsic goal orientation, and test anxiety — related
• Motivational SRL factors correlate with but do not directly predict Japanese EFL learners' proficiency — related
• The relations among motivational, strategy use, and performance constructs were similar across mathematics, English, and social studies — related
• Pre-actional metacognitive, motivational, and positive-emotional components are positively associated with regulatory behavior in the actional phase, while anger and anxiety are negatively associated — related
• Metacognitive strategies, effort regulation, and coping with problems significantly predict Japanese EFL learners' proficiency — related
• Pre-service teachers' assessment quality is negatively related to self-efficacy and perceived costs of engaging with scientific evidence — related
• Motivational variables rarely explain more than 10% of the variance in behavior and outcomes — a broader claim this one bears on
• Academic achievement predicts disaffection but not behavioral/cognitive or emotional engagement at the between-student level — related
• Classroom disciplinary problems are directly and negatively related to student achievement and to competence self-perceptions, test anxiety, and engagement — related