Background
Students hold diverse cognitive beliefs that exert an impact on various facets of their lives, including their beliefs concerning exam performance. This gives rise to the emergence of cognitive test anxiety (CTA), denoting individuals’ cognitive responses to evaluative situations and their internal dialogue surrounding such situations before, during, and after these assessments (Cassady & Johnson, 2002).
Since the 1970s, research has investigated executive functions (EFs), a term first introduced by Pribram in 1973, elucidating the functions of the brain and cerebral cortex. The development of EFs commences in early childhood, spanning through adolescence and beyond, encompassing aspects such as perception, decision-making, planning, problem-solving, and language processing (Grange & Houghton, 2014). Its influence extends to several variables crucial in an adolescent’s life, particularly during the normative tenth-grade age, such as CTA (Leibert & Morris, 1967).
This investigation centers on variables integral to a student’s academic experience, specifically EFs and CTA. The research involves the formulation and execution of a training program targeting EFs, drawing inspiration from Anderson’s model. The primary aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in alleviating CTA among students.
Cognitive test anxiety
Cognitive test anxiety is defined as the cognitive response and internal dialogue that takes place within the student before, during, or after the test (Cassady & Johnson, 2002). It also includes the beliefs that negatively affect the student’s performance on a test, such as low study skills (Liebert & Morris, 1967). It includes the student’s self-disparaging thoughts, fear of failure, guilt for not doing enough, the idea that he or she is unsuccessful and inadequate compared to others, distraction during study and testing, concerns about the test result, perception of the test as a threat to self-esteem, and avoidance of preparation and assessment situations (Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Sahin et al., 2006).
Several studies that examined the relationship between test anxiety and performance showed that the cognitive dimension has an impact that exceeds the emotional dimension (von der Embse et al., 2018). CTA is not limited to the student being in a test situation, but is also related to poor study skills, inability to retrieve information, and difficulty in encoding and organizing knowledge (Benjamin et al., 1981).
Theories and models have attempted to explain CTA, including the cognitive interference model, which states that anxiety during testing interferes with the ability to retrieve information and impairs recall of prior learning (Benjamin et al., 1981). As for the learning deficiency model, it indicates that CTA is not a cause but rather a consequence of the individual’s poor abilities and ineffective study habits, which leads to learning deficiencies (Numan & Hasan, 2017). The information processing model also attributes the low achievement of students with CTA to having problems learning, organizing, or revising content before a test, or recalling it during a test (Benjamin et al., 1981).
Executive functions (EFs)
The precise definition of executive functions (EFs) poses a notorious challenge. Sergeant et al. (2002) highlighted the existence of 33 distinct definitions of EFs. This multiplicity in definitions arises from various factors, including the absence of a clear elucidation of the interrelationships among these skills. Consequently, the term exhibits variability based on the specific model’s perspective and the intended purpose of its utilization (McCloskey et al., 2008).
Executive functions have been defined as a set of abilities that enable goal-directed behavior, including behavioral regulation, working memory, planning and organizational skills, and self-monitoring (Stuss & Benson, 1986). According to Lezak (1995), EFs consist of the capabilities that enable a person to successfully engage in independent, purposeful, self-serving behavior, and consist of four components: will, planning, purposeful action, and effective performance. Each comprises a distinct set of activity-related behaviors that are necessary for appropriate, socially responsible, and effective self-serving behavior in adults.
Anderson (2002) stated that the processes associated with EFs are multiple, but the main elements include anticipation, goal selection, planning and activity initiation, self-regulation, mental flexibility, attention distribution, and the use of feedback. Barkley (1997) defined EFs as goal-directed behaviors that can include cognitive and behavioral skills, such as inhibition, working memory, problem-solving, task navigation, emotional control, planning, and monitoring. EFs are central to many cognitive abilities, as they are involved in retaining information, performing mental processing and representations, acting appropriately, avoiding impulsiveness, resisting inappropriate behaviors, and adapting behavior flexibly to changes in the situation (Davidson et al., 2006).
Executive functions develop sequentially, starting in early childhood. Interaction with caregivers plays a major role in influencing the development of executive functions through middle childhood, and these interactions become more complex with age due to language and social development, attention, and impulse control. In addition, organization – as a mental process – increases the capacity and speed of working memory, as well as the development of inhibition, and cognitive flexibility (Goldstein & Naglieri, 2014).
Klenberg (2015) stated that these functions play an essential role in student’s learning and their ability to carry out basic tasks in school settings.
Also, an individual with impaired EFs often makes decisions impulsively and incorrectly. This is due to the increased pressure on working memory, which causes the control mechanisms to malfunction. An individual with cognitive control has an increased ability to organize information and reduce cognitive pressure, enabling him/her to choose effective strategies for better and more appropriate decision-making (Getz, 2013). Thus, EF skills improve academic outcomes, and support social and emotional learning, self-confidence, and self-efficacy (Culclasure et al., 2019; Durlak et al., 2011; Richardson et al., 2012).
Although the beginnings of EFs and their theoretical basis came from clinical neuropsychology, many cognitive psychologists developed models for EFs that contributed to enriching and clarifying this concept to include many cognitive tasks (Goldstein & Naglieri, 2014).
Anderson developed his model in which EFs are portrayed as a comprehensive control system consisting of four factors (Anderson, 2002; Anderson et al., 2004, 2008). The first is attention control, including organization and control of actions and impulse control, such as the ability to delay gratification. The next is information processing, which includes fluency, efficiency, and speed of output, which are components that can be enhanced by using effective organizational strategies. Third, cognitive flexibility includes shifting responses, learning from mistakes, developing alternative strategies, distributing attention, and processing multiple sources of information simultaneously. If the individual does not have cognitive flexibility, he will become easily irritated if the activity changes, he will fail to adapt to new demands, and he will avoid any cognitive processing such as mental arithmetic and will tend to make the same mistakes. Finally, goal setting includes the ability to take the initiative, plan actions, and deal with tasks effectively and strategically. Anderson’s model was adopted in the current study as a basis for building the training program.
Purpose of the study
The choice of specialization at the secondary level in Jordan depends on the average scores of the student in the previous stages, specifically the scores of the tenth-grade year. Therefore, students in this grade experience CTA at elevated levels, and the presence of deficiencies or weaknesses in the skills of EFs impacts subsequent career-related milestones for students.
In the test anxiety experiment (O’Donnell, 2017), while attention training helps students with test anxiety (Emadi Far & Gorji, 2017), increased students’ negative thoughts about themselves and negative assessments about failing their exams decrease test performance (Yüksel et al., 2018). Therefore, the current research is based on examining the effectiveness of a training program based on the Anderson model in reducing CTA, as this program will increase cognitive flexibility. It involves learning from mistakes, developing alternatives, strategies for distributing attention, and other dimensions of the Anderson model on which the training program is based. Thus, students in this age group are ready to receive help that contributes to reducing CTA. The effect of CTA increases at this stage due to the relationship of test results with subsequent career-related milestones (Elliot & McGregor, 1999). Accordingly, the current study attempts to test the following hypothesis:
There is no statistically significant difference at α ≤ .05 between the mean scores of the experimental group and the control group on the post-test anxiety scale due to the training program based on the Anderson model in executive functions.
Participants and procedure
Methodology and design
The study employed a quasi-experimental method, with the CTA being the dependent variable and the training on EFs being the independent variable, as shown below:
G1 R O1 X O1
G2 R O1 — O1
Participants
The participants consisted of 36 tenth-grade students in Amman, Jordan, who were enrolled in the first semester of the academic year 2022-2023, aged 15-16 years old, who were divided into two groups: the experimental group (19 male and female), and the control group (17 male and female) (see Table 1). The study’s ethical standards were meticulously upheld at all participating institutions before commencing data collection. The study was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration of 1989, and the research protocol received approval from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling at Yarmouk University in Jordan.
Instruments
Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale (CTAS). The research data were collected with the short version of the CTAS without the reverse-coded items (Cassady & Finch, 2014). The short version has been reported as a conceptually preferable version to the original full-length version and was able to validly assess CTA within a variety of cultural contexts (Bozkurt et al., 2017). The scale comprises 17 items, each rated on a 4-point Likert scale. An illustrative item is “While preparing for a test, I often think that I am likely to fail,” with responses ranging from 1 (not at all typical of me) to 4 (very typical of me).
Construct validity was established by distributing the scale to a sample of 127 students and correlations between item scores and scale scores were calculated. These correlations ranged between .40 and .83, which indicates a good construct validity of the scale. To ensure the scale’s reliability, data from the validity sample were used and the test was repeated after 2 weeks, then Pearson’s correlation equation for stability reliability was calculated (r = .84, p < .001). Cronbach’s α was calculated for internal consistency (.93). Both reliability criteria are considered good indicators of reliability of this scale.
Executive function training program. A training program was developed based on Anderson’s model of executive functions, which includes four basic functions: attentional control, cognitive flexibility, goal setting, and information processing. The training program includes fourteen 45-minute sessions and is presented three times weekly. The program included a set of general guidelines for students, such as respect for other opinions and avoiding direct criticism, and adopted strategies such as discussion, sharing, feedback, cooperative learning, opening questions, and brainstorming.
The validity of the program was verified by presenting it to 5 university professors specializing in counseling and educational psychology, and their observations and amendments had an 80% agreement rate.
Procedure
The research endeavor commenced with the dissemination of an advertisement tailored for tenth-grade students grappling with test anxiety. This outreach aimed to enlist participants for a specialized training program explicitly designed to mitigate the aforementioned condition, contingent upon obtaining informed consent from both the students and their parents. Upon enrollment, participants underwent an initial assessment to gauge the level of CTA. Individuals with low test anxiety were subsequently excluded, while those exhibiting a moderate to high degree were included.
Subsequently, the selected students were randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group. Participants in the experimental group were then contacted to confirm their willingness to attend the training sessions and were required to sign a participation form. Upon confirmation of their commitment, they received the prescribed training program and were expected to attend sessions regularly, actively engage in the training, and complete assigned tasks. Following the completion of the training program, both groups underwent a post-test assessment to measure CTA levels.
Results
The study hypothesis is that there is no statistically significant difference (α ≤ .05) between CTA means of the experimental group and the control group on the post-test anxiety scale.
To test this hypothesis means and standard deviations for CTA (pre-test and post-test scores) for the experimental and control groups were calculated and are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Means and standard deviations of CTA dimensions’ pre-test and post-test scores for the experimental and control group
| Group | Pre-test | Post-test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |
| Experimental (n = 19) | 3.55 | 0.58 | 2.20 | 0.51 |
| Control (n = 17) | 3.61 | 0.61 | 3.53 | 0.53 |
Table 2 shows that there are apparent differences between the mean CTA scores before and after the test based on the assigned group. To detect the statistical significance of these differences, ANOVA was used, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
ANOVA on the scores of cognitive test anxiety based on group
| Source | Type III sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre1 | 0.56 | 1 | 0.56 | 2.15 | .152 |
| Group | 15.54 | 1 | 15.54 | 59.98 | .001 |
| Error | 8.55 | 33 | 0.26 | ||
| Total | 313.36 | 36 |
Table 3 presents findings indicating a statistically significant difference in the post-test scores of CTA (F(1, 33) = 59.98, p < .001). The observed difference favored the control group, with a mean of 3.53, compared to the experimental group’s mean of 2.20. This difference signifies a reduction in students’ scores within the experimental group attributed to the training program. Moreover, Figure 1 visually depicts the disparities in scores within the Cognitive Test Anxiety Scale (CTAS) after the training intervention, further underscoring a discernible decrease in CTA levels within the experimental group.
Discussion
This study showed that there was a statistically significant difference (α ≤ .05) in CTA, where the mean post-test score of the experimental group was lower than the mean post-test score of the control group, which indicates a decrease in students’ scores in the experimental group due to the training program.
This result can be attributed to the fact that the objectives, strategies, and training program based on Anderson’s model of EFs has an influential effect on reducing the level of CTA, as it worked on training students on study strategies, alternative strategies, and how to choose the strategy appropriate to the subject.
The participants’ attention improved because one of the program’s procedures aided them in focusing their attention on specific stimuli in the program, such as the use of dark colors and unusual shapes. Consequently, they were able to maintain their attention throughout the experiment sessions. It is well established that the use of unusual shapes or attention-grabbing colors enhances selective attention (Tulving et al., 1996; Ranganath & Rainer, 2003). Additionally, considering that the participants were adolescents, Banich (2009) pointed out that younger individuals demonstrate an increased ability to benefit from attentional control compared to adults.
In addition, the program helped students in recognizing feelings and how to control them, and training in cognitive flexibility to identify mistakes and learn from them. As there is an inverse relationship between cognitive flexibility and test anxiety (Kuloglu & Orhan, 2021), students with low cognitive flexibility do not think of alternative strategies to reduce their anxiety, and they have a negative perception of the obstacles they face and what may result from them. Therefore, if the student can search for ways to deal with the situation and has the belief that he can deal with it, this will help in reducing his anxiety.
This applies to test anxiety (Beck & Burns, 1979), where the low level of cognitive flexibility makes the student exaggerate the problem and makes the problem more complex, focusing on the problem itself rather than looking for solutions (Bedel & Ulubey, 2015).
As participants contributed to setting their own goals, Schunk (1985) emphasized that learners who articulate their personal goals experience improvements in their self-efficacy, academic achievement, and commitment to achieving those goals. Moreover, the training program included activities that make students familiarize themselves with the tasks they must perform, identify those that require high attention, and learn how to divide them into parts and focus on each part, all of which contribute to reducing test anxiety, as high test anxiety is associated with low levels of selective attention (Gass & Curiel, 2011).
Cognitive interference theory indicates that CTA arises due to poor coding and storage skills (Benjamin et al., 1981), and the learning deficiency model indicates that it originates from poor abilities and ineffective study habits (Culler & Holahan, 1980). The models and theories justify that the cause of test anxiety is the presence of a defect in one or more of the four basic EFs that have been trained according to the Anderson model of executive functions, and training on the four functions was effective in reducing CTA among the study sample.
This result is consistent with the results of studies conducted by Fergus and Limbers (2019) and Emadi Far and Gorji (2017), which indicated the effectiveness of attention training in reducing test anxiety. The results of the current study are also in line with the findings from the study conducted by Sabzi et al. (2022), which showed evidence of the effectiveness of training on EFs in reducing test anxiety in the experimental group compared to the control group after the test.
Conclusions
The enduring significance of CTA in the ongoing assessment process, encompassing both historical and contemporary contexts, highlights the necessity for proactive intervention. Recognizing the inherent diversity among students and the varying degrees to which this issue presents itself, our study aimed to create a customized training program to alleviate CTA. This endeavor is especially crucial for adolescents navigating a developmental stage where educational materials become more intricate. The effectiveness of the intervention is elevated by its strategic foundation in EFs, which directly and influentially affects CTA. Aligning the training program with these crucial cognitive processes enhances its ability to effectively tackle and reduce the underlying factors contributing to CTA, thereby providing a promising approach for meaningful and sustainable outcomes in addressing the challenges faced by students in this regard.
Limitations and future research directions
The generalization of the results of this study is influenced by several factors, such as the sample size. The sample in this study is relatively small, but this is due to administrative constraints. Additionally, the generalization of results is constrained by the study’s duration, as many educational institutions do not permit experiments to be conducted on their students for a long period.
The study is also constrained by its exclusive reliance on the Anderson model of executive functions, encompassing a specific subset of these cognitive processes. This limitation emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of findings within the defined scope of the chosen model, prompting future research to consider alternative models or a broader spectrum of executive functions for a more comprehensive understanding.
