Running head: STUDENT MOTIVATION 1

Student motivation in low-stakes assessments

Chrysa Staiano

AL6730 Assessment in TESOL

Hawaii Pacific University

Dr. Hanh Nguyen

April 28, 2014

STUDENT MOTIVATION 2
Student motivation in low-stakes assessments

Introduction

The overall goal of this paper is to examine how students motivation can be affected by
taking low-stakes tests and how the amount of effort students put into a low-stakes assessment
may affect the validity of test results. It will also describe how teachers can build motivation in
their students for required low-stakes exams and why student effort on assessments is important
to teachers, administrators and test creators. This paper will review the project of my group
mates and I in Assessment in TESOL at Hawaii Pacific University (HPU) during the spring of
2014. Included are the projects objectives and specifications, a description of the students and
their institution, the results of the students who took our quiz, a reflection and discussion on this
particular assignment and future inquires based on my previously-mentioned area of study.

Product Description - Background I nformation

Host class

The name of the host class is WR1100: Analyzing and Writing Arguments and it is
taught by Professor Brian Rugen. The host class student teacher is Kristen Coulter. There are
thirteen students in the class and their countries of origin include: Vietnam, Japan, Norway,
Sweden and the United States. Their proficiency levels range from intermediate to advanced
(nearly fluent). The class meets every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 0940-1035.
According to the professors syllabus (Rugen, 2014), the class objectives include that passing
students should be able to:
1. read, annotate, and summarize texts by finding the thesis (major argument), topic
sentences (supporting arguments), and supporting details
2. become able to examine your own cultural assumptions and personal motivations in
any argument
3. make the appropriate choices according to a writer's purpose, topic, and audience
STUDENT MOTIVATION 3
4. recognize and use a number of models, patterns, and techniques for organizing
academic arguments
5. understand and use appropriately these useful strategies: types of appeals, types of
claims, logical fallacies, and mediation/negotiation
6. understand and use the writing process, including brainstorming, outlining, drafting,
peer review, revising, and editing
7. use sources appropriately and properly

The overwhelming majority of the students are strong communicators, so they currently
need to develop their confidence and vary their vocabulary when speaking publicly. They also
need to become more proficient at reading and researching academic English texts. From
observing the class, my overall impression is that the students are eager to learn and enjoy this
class because of the easygoing nature of the professor. Many of the students seem ready for more
advanced writing and academic studies.
In general, the host teacher uses a genre approach for learning. First, the students are
exposed to a genre and/or text and given discovery activities in order to notice the texts features.
Next, students perform guided practice and then application activities to practice what theyve
learned before incorporating it into an argumentative essay. The host teacher has more of a
process approach for assessment, especially since this is a writing course. The students are
encouraged to brainstorm, write outlines and revise their essays with help from the teacher and
their fellow students.
Host institution

WR1100 takes place at HPU, located in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is a private school that
offers undergraduate and graduate degrees. Students at this university come from all 50 states of
the United Stated and nearly 80 countries around the world. The mission of HPU is that
Students from around the world join us for an American education built on a liberal arts
foundation. Our innovative undergraduate and graduate programs anticipate the changing needs
STUDENT MOTIVATION 4
of the community and prepare our graduates to live, work, and learn as active members of a
global society (HPU, 2014).
Group members

This assessment group consisted of Nick Bayani, Kristen Coulter, Megan Hanlon and
Chrysa Staiano (myself). Nick is from Japan and has a lot of experience taking language tests
(TOEFL, TOEFL-iBT, STEP Eiken) and teaching communication at his mothers cram school.
Kristen is from Michigan and is WR1100s student teacher. She has no additional language
teaching experience. Megan is from Minnesota and has taught English for over three years in the
Czech Republic and the United States. Chrysa is from New York and has experience teaching
English in Korea and participating in community literacy programs in Hawaii. Kristen, Chrysa
and Megan plan to graduate from the MATESOL program in May, 2014.
Language Assessment Instrument

Our assessment project, a paraphrasing quiz was given on Friday, March 7, 2014. The
students had fifty minutes approximately the entire class period to complete it. Our assessment
approach was to make this quiz communicative and authentic so we added context to every item.
The context for each item included writing for academic purposes, which is a real task that
university students perform. The context also helped the assessment seem purposeful because it
allowed the students to understand why they were performing each function (paraphrasing,
identifying synonyms, etc.). The version of the quiz given to the students can be found in
Appendix A.
This quiz is considered an achievement test given at the end of the class unit on
paraphrasing. The unit was taught by the student teacher and directly tied to the professors
objective of using sources appropriately. The item-design approach included making the quiz
STUDENT MOTIVATION 5
integrative and direct. In some items, the students were asked to identify synonyms while
maintaining the same part of speech, while in other items they had to change word order and
class. In the final sections, they had to paraphrase short paragraphs in complete sentences.
The goal of the quiz was to measure how well the students could paraphrase academic
sources, so the tasks asked them to paraphrase and cite no more than three sentences of academic
text. The quiz was criterion referenced even though the scores did not count towards the
students final grade in WR1100. As noted in our specifications, a satisfactory score is
considered to be 80%.
Objectives

The objectives for this quiz were to measure students' ability to: a) paraphrase by
utilizing synonyms, b) paraphrase by changing sentence structure, c) paraphrase by adjusting the
word class, and d) retain the main idea of original text or quote within the paraphrase.
Specifications

Content
Operations: Producing synonyms, using paraphrasing techniques and paraphrasing sentences as
part of academic writing skills

Types of text Academic texts from college textbooks and research journals

Addressees Native and non-native speaking university students

Topics of texts General Academic English

Dialect and Style General Academic English, formal style

Length of texts Total two pages.

Speed of processing Careful: 100 words/minute for model sentences

Structure, timing, medium and techniques
Test Structure Five sections: 1. vocabulary recognition; 2. producing synonyms in sentences; 3.
producing paraphrases by changing word order/sentence structure; 4. paraphrasing whole
sentences; 5. paraphrasing 2-3 sentence clusters
STUDENT MOTIVATION 6

Number of items 1. vocabulary recognition (3 items) 2. producing synonyms in sentences (5
items); 3. producing paraphrases by changing word order/sentence structure (4 items); 4.
paraphrasing whole sentences (2 items); 5. paraphrasing 2-3 sentence clusters (2 items) Total =
16 items

Number of passages 3 passages

Medium Paper and pen

Timing Section 1 (recognize synonyms): 4 minutes; Section 2 (produce synonyms): 8 minutes;
Section 3 (phrase paraphrase): 8 minutes; Section 4 (1 sentence paraphrase): 9 minutes; Section 5
(2-3 sentence paraphrase): 11 minutes Total time: 40-50 minutes

Techniques Section 1: vocabulary recognition/matching; Sections 2: gap-filling; Sections 3-5:
short answer & extended response

Criterial levels of performance
A satisfactory score will be considered 80% or above.

Scoring procedures
Section 1: objective scoring with a key (no credit)
Section 2: subjective scoring based on whether students used a synonym and kept the same part
of speech (1pt/item)
Section 3: subjective scoring based on whether students paraphrased and retained the phrases
original meaning (2pts/item)
Sections 4 & 5: subjective scoring using an analytical rubric that measures whether the original
meaning of the passage has been retained, paraphrasing techniques have been used and citations
attempted/written correctly (6pts/item).

Each rater graded every item independently according to the rubric for each section.
Before discussing the grades as a group, our initial inter-rater reliability was 33%. Then we came
together to input each of our grades into a spreadsheet and for a round table discussion to decide
the final grade for each section. During the discussion we talked about which items we removed
points for and why. If we continued to disagree on the scores, we compared the students given
answers to the rubric to ensure we (all the raters) were sticking to the same guidelines for the
section/item in question. After the group discussions, our inter-rater reliability was 100%. We
STUDENT MOTIVATION 7
did not split the difference (e.g. give a 4.5 if one scorer had a 4 and one had a 5) because our
rubric did not allow for half points.
Student Results

The total amount of points a student could earn on the quiz was 37. The mean was
28.8/37, or 77%. The highest score was 37 (100%), which one student achieved. The lowest
score was 16/37 (43%). The mode was 35, which was earned by two students. A complete a list
of all student scores can be found in Appendix B and descriptive statistical analysis of the quiz is
found in Appendix C.








STUDENT MOTIVATION 8
Reflection and Discussion

While we administered the quiz to WR1100 on March 7, 2014, one of the students asked
if the quiz factored into their course grade. Our group member administering the test at the time
replied no but then encouraged all of the students to do their best regardless. Though the
process of making, calibrating, administering and analyzing the quiz was important to my
assessment group, this was not the case for the WR1100 students. Therefore, the quiz was
considered to be low-stakes, meaning there was no academic or meaningful consequence to the
students in regards to test performance, regardless of its level of importance for teachers and
other stakeholders (Abdelfattah, 2010).
In low-stakes assessments, the lack of consequences and personal benefits for the
students may lead to decreased student motivation to perform well on the exam. This is
especially true of achievement tests where students receive neither grades nor academic credit
(Wise & DeMars, 2005). As this was the case with our paraphrasing quiz, it is questionable
whether all of the students performed their best, especially since they knew the quiz held no
academic weight for them. There is not certain proof that the WR1100 students did not try their
best, but some of the quiz scores leave much to be desired. The mean score was a 28/37 (76%)
and only 7/13 of the students achieved a satisfactory score of 80% or above.
During the test administration, it was not overtly noticeable that students were not putting
forth the greatest amount of effort possible. On Section 5.2 of the quiz, the last section (and
presumably the section that the students would spend the least amount of effort on), only two
students (#4 & #5) received no credit or half of a point (from a total of 6). Student #4s paper has
markings on it in Section 5.2 (underlines and circles), which indicates that the student did
attempt to read and dissect the question. Student #4 received an overall score of 22/37 (60%) and
STUDENT MOTIVATION 9
clearly attempted to answer the other items on the quiz, so the low overall score more likely
indicates lack of proficiency with paraphrasing techniques rather than low motivation. A similar
case can be made for Student #5. In Section 4.1 this student received a 6/6, in Section 4.2 a 5/6
and in Section 5.1, a 5/6. (Sections 4 & 5 asked the students to paraphrase a short academic
paragraph.) In 5.2 however, the student correctly began his/her paraphrase with Meyerhoff
(2006) also writes with nothing following. Since the students previous answers clearly showed
he/she was rather comfortable paraphrasing, it can be inferred that he/she simply ran out of time.
One positive aspect of low-stakes tests are that they do not cause a great amount of stress
on students, unlike high-stakes tests, such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and Test of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), but there are many drawbacks too. First, giving
students an abundance of low-stakes tests causes them to believe all tests are low-stakes, which
is entirely not true. In addition, low-stakes tests are linked to providing invalid results because
they do not measure what students know. Instead, they reveal how students perform with
minimal effort (ONeil, Sugrue, & Baker, 1995/1996, in Barry, Horst, Finney, Brown, & Kopp,
2010).
The issue of invalid test results as a result of low student motivation has been looked into
by many researchers. Huffman, Adamopoulos, Murdock, Cole, and McDermid (2011) cautions
that low motivation on low-stakes exams severely limits the validity of standardized tests as a
means of evaluating student outcomes. The quiz for WR1100 was not a standardized test, but it
is arguable that any known low-stakes assessment begins with questionable validity before
adding all the other factors that normally contribute to decreased validity (e.g. scoring
procedures, language and appearance of the test). Wise and DeMars (2005) echo ONeil et al.,
(1995/1996) by claiming that low motivation leads to reduced test scores so the scores are not
STUDENT MOTIVATION 10
an accurate reflection of students true academic capabilities. Because motivated students
routinely outperform their less motivated peers, high ability can be obscured by low motivation,
which causes test scores to reflect variation in levels of effort and not ability. This is a major
problem because differences in students efforts are not what teachers aim to infer from
assessment scores.
Test-taking effort
According to Wise and DeMars (2005), test-taking effort is students engagement and
expenditure of energy toward attaining the highest score possible on a test. In low-stakes tests,
students have generally been found to give 60-70% of their total effort, which indicates they are
not trying their hardest to attain the highest score possible (Cole & Bergin, 2005, in Huffman, et
al.). Factors that influence students test-taking effort include their beliefs about their
competence and perceived difficulties of the task. These beliefs in turn are influenced by
attainment value (the importance of doing well/scoring high), intrinsic value (enjoyment gained
by completing the task), utility value (how the task fits into ones future plans) and perceived
costs (sacrifices made in order to do the task) (Wise and DeMars, 2005).
While some students will not try their hardest on low-stakes tests because of weak beliefs
and no perceived personal benefit from the testing experience, many students will give
considerable effort because they have been conditioned to do so in the past. Other students may
also apply a decent amount of effort, just not as much as if they were working towards a certain
assessment or course grade. These are the two most likely scenarios for the students in WR1100.
Despite knowing the quiz was low-stakes, they applied a considerable or decent amount of effort
because of their self-pride and perceived value of their academic work. They may have also been
influenced by a desire to help my assessment group with our project. These efforts can be seen
STUDENT MOTIVATION 11
by the 7/13 students who scored an 80%+ on the quiz, but also on the low-scoring quizzes of
students #4, #6 and #8. Both #4 and #6 earned no credit on Section 2 of the quiz, yet markings
and attempted (yet incorrect) answers indicate they at least tried to answer correctly. Wise and
DeMars (2005) state that very few students will honestly attempt a few test questions and either
guess on the rest or leave them blank. Only one student (#8) appeared to skip an entire section
(no markings or attempted answers), but there is no evidence to suggest he/she did this out of
defiance.
Raising motivation

Teachers have many options in helping the build motivation in their students before
giving a low-stakes text. First, Wise (2009) suggests that teachers appeal to the academic
citizenship of their students, meaning they should be encouraged to give a significant amount
of effort on tests despite no direct personal benefits (p. 155). With an appeal like this, students
will gain a more accurate picture of why the test is important for their teachers, administrators
and institution as a whole. If the students are tuned into how the results of their assessments may
affect future students, they will be more likely to take them seriously. Before distributing our
test, an academic citizenship appeal certainly could have been given to the students of
WR1100. My group could have been upfront and admitted the test did not count towards the
students grades (instead of being prompted by the student), but that the results were still very
important for our own learning. Another option would have been to discuss our own insights into
the quiz results and our reflection on the project when we returned the quizzes to the students.
Instead, we just told them the high score, low score and average for the class and remarked that
everyone did really well (despite a 76% class average). Giving substantive feedback aligns
STUDENT MOTIVATION 12
with Wise and DeMars (2005) suggestion that providing feedback is a way to raise students
motivation in future assessments.
Wise and DeMars (2005) also suggest that in order to raise motivation in low-stakes tests,
teachers can change their assessment methods to a format that students prefer, such as multiple-
choice as opposed to an essay exam. While our assessment group did change the format of our
quiz during the drafting process, we did not do so out of consideration for the WR1100 students.
We made changes based on the feedback from our Assessment professor and host teacher, which
included adding a recognition section (Section 1) for no credit. We also made aesthetic changes
such as adding white space and changing the font of the examples to make students feel more
comfortable. My group and I never considered making the quiz purely multiple-choice because
those items are only recognitional and would not be direct testing for paraphrasing purposes.
Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone (1994) (in Huffman, et al., 2011) mention that
providing rationale for the tests is a way to raise motivation in low-stakes testing. My group did
not do this in regards to the paraphrasing quiz as a whole, but we did provide context for each
item. Providing context helped the students visualize a real-world task associated with each item.
The contexts were helpful because they involved academic writing, which the students will do
throughout their studies. One example from Section 3 is Imagine you are writing a research
paper (about Lou Gehrigs disease)... To view all the specific contexts, please see Appendix A,
which holds our quiz as given the students.
Student motivation in low-stakes exams can be a real challenge because low effort leads
to lower test scores, which does not reflect the students true potential on exams. This lack of
validity is troublesome for teachers and researchers who make important decisions for students
educational programs and assessments based on these results. Employing potential motivators on
STUDENT MOTIVATION 13
students low stakes tests however will help the students enjoy the process much more and
provide more valid results for the teachers, test-creators and other stakeholders who value them
so much.
Future Inquiries
In order to detect students motivation levels, students have been asked to self-report their
levels of motivation prior to taking assessments (Swerdzewski, Harmes, & Finney, 2011). The
positive aspects of the self-report include that it collects information in minimal time and only
adds a few items to the overall test. However, self-reporting methods like this can be unreliable
because items require that all the students know and report their level of motivation on the same
scale. Because students are the best source of information about their own levels of motivation,
self-reporting items can be extremely useful. Therefore, my first question for future research is
Which self-reporting method is more accurate in informing teachers about motivation in tests?
Secondly, attempts to raise students motivation prior to low-stakes tests have included
showing them a motivational presentation, appealing to their academic citizenship, publically
recognizing good grades, providing material incentives (like a new binder) and financial
incentives ($20 to the highest score) and withholding next steps (like class registration)
(Huffman, et al., 2011). Teachers do not have time to trial all of these methods, but still want to
provide motivation for their students in order for them to receive higher grades. So, my second
question for future research is Which is the most effective way to raise students motivation prior
to them taking a low-stakes exam?
Finally, assessment scores on low-stakes tests may not measure what students can know
and do because the students low effort levels are likely to interfere with the results (Wise and
DeMars, 2005). Try as they might, teachers cannot be responsible for consistently raising the
STUDENT MOTIVATION 14
motivation levels of their students prior to every exam. As a result, teachers must accept the
students scores despite the questionable validity due to test-taking effort. It is my hope however
that a method exists to eliminate or decrease this questionable validity, so the scores of highly
motivated learners and low-motivated learners can be accepted with the same validity. My
question for future inquiry is How can the levels of motivation be factored out of test scores so
they can all be examined on the same scoring basis?






STUDENT MOTIVATION 15
References

Abdelfattah, F. (2010). The relationship between motivation and achievement in low-stakes
examinations. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(2), 159-168. DOI
10.2224/sbp.2010.38.2.159

Barry, C.L., Horst, S.J., Finney, S.J., Brown, A.R., & Kopp, J.P. (2010). Do examinees have
similar test-taking effort? A high-stakes question for low-stakes testing. International
Journal of Testing, 10, 342-363. DOI: 10.1080/15305058.2010.508569

Cole, J.S., & Bergin, D.A. (2005, May). Association between motivation and general education
standardized test scores. In Huffman, et al. (2011). Strategies to motivate students for
program assessment. Educational Assessment, 16, 90-103. DOI:
10.1080/10627197.2011.582771

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The
self-determination theory perspective. In Huffman, et al. (2011). Strategies to motivate
students for program assessment. Educational Assessment, 16, 90-103. DOI:
10.1080/10627197.2011.582771

HPU is America's No.1 University for Diversity!. (2014). Hawaii Pacific University.
Retrieved April 14, 2014, from http://www.hpu.edu/HPU/diversity/index.html

Huffman, L., Adamopoulos, A., Murdock, G., Cole, A., & McDermid, R. (2011). Strategies to
motivate students for program assessment. Educational Assessment, 16, 90-103. DOI:
10.1080/10627197.2011.582771

ONeil, H.F., Sugrue, B., & Baker, E.L. (1995/1996). Effects of motivational interventions on
the national assessment of educational progress mathematics performance. In Barry, et al.
(2010). Do examinees have similar test-taking effort? A high-stakes question for low-
stakes testing. International Journal of Testing, 10, 342-363. DOI:
10.1080/15305058.2010.508569

Rugen, B.R. (2014). WR1100: Anaylzing and Writing Arguments syllabus. Personal
Collection of B. Rugen, Hawaii Pacific University, Honolulu, HI.

Swerdzewski, P.J., Harmes, J.C., & Finney, S.J. (2011). Two approaches for identifying low-
motivated students in a low-stakes assessment context. Applied Measurement in
Education, 24, 162-188. DOI: 10.1080/08957347.2011.555217

Wise, S.L. (2009). Strategies for managing the problem of unmotivated examinees in low-stakes
testing programs. The Journal of General Education, 58(3), 152-166.

Wise, S.L. & DeMars, C.E. (2005). Low examinee effort in low-stakes assessment: Problems
and potential solutions. Educational Assessment, 10(1), 1-17.

STUDENT MOTIVATION 16
Appendices

Appendix A WR1100 quiz

Paraphrasing Quiz 50 mins March 7,
2014

Section 1
Please match the word from the word bank to the best definition.


summary quote paraphrase


1. A repeat or direct copy of words from a text or speech.

________________________________

2. A statement that expresses the same meaning but in different words or structure. Can be as
long as the original text.

________________________________

3. A brief statement about the main points of something. Not as long as the original text.

________________________________


Section 2 5 points
Imagine you are writing a research paper about jetlag. Your first step is to identify synonyms for
paraphrasing purposes. Read the passage and then write synonyms for the underlined phrases.
Remember to keep the same part of speech. The first one has been done for you as an example.

(1) People who travel and people whose work schedules are altered (2) drastically
(1) travelers (2)
_______________________
often (3) suffer from jetlag, which is a (4) disturbance of the bodys time clock.

(3) _______________________ (4) _______________________

Jetlag sufferers are (5) troubled by both night-time sleeplessness and extreme daytime sleepiness,
STUDENT MOTIVATION 17

(5) _______________________

which (6) inhibits their ability to function normally.

(6) _______________________


Section 3 8 points
Imagine you are writing a research paper about Lou Gehrigs disease. Identify synonyms and
change word order and class for paraphrasing purposes. Read the passage and then paraphrase
the original phrases in the space below. An example has been provided.

It's hard to imagine a more terrible illness than ALS, also called Lou
Gehrig's disease. For most people, it means their nervous system
shuts down until their body cant move. That also means they'll lose
their ability to speak. So Carl Moore, an ALS patient from Kent,
Washington recorded his voice to use later when he can no longer
talk on his own.
Original Paraphrase
Ex. Terrible illness very bad sickness
1. until their body cant move ________________________________
2. lose their ability to speak ________________________________
3. recorded his voice to use later ________________________________
4. when he can no longer talk on his own ________________________________



STUDENT MOTIVATION 18

Section 4 12 points
Imagine you are writing a concept essay about blogging. Read the original excerpt and provide a
paraphrase on the lines below. Dont forget to include the authors last name and page number
for MLA, or the authors last name, year, and page number for APA, in the parenthetical citation.

1. Blog contents represent both a bloggers personal identity and social identities.
Bloggers express their identities by showing their feelings, personal values, and thoughts
to readers (Colter & Gretzel, 2014, p. 38).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________


2. Blogging has become an important aspect of tourism consumption and marketing
processes (Smith, 2011, p. 130). Bloggers express their personal travel experiences and
provide travel information in their blogs, thus constructing meaning for their own travel
experiences and projecting meaning to their readers (Lee & Gardener, 2008, pp. 113-8).

_____________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________










STUDENT MOTIVATION 19

Section 5 12 points
Imagine you are writing a research paper for your Introduction to Sociolinguistics class. Read the
original excerpt and provide a paraphrase on the lines below. Dont forget to include the authors
last name and page number for MLA, or the authors last name, year, and page number for APA,
in the parenthetical citation.

1. Sociolinguistics is a very broad field, and it can be used to describe many different
ways of studying language. A lot of linguists may describe themselves as sociolinguists,
but the people who call themselves sociolinguists may have rather different interests from
each other and they may use very different methods for collecting and analyzing data.
This can be confusing if you are new to the field (Meyerhoff, 2006, pp. 1-2).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________




2. Labov conducted these sociolinguistic interviews in a number of different parts of the
island. In some places, the inhabitants were mainly of Anglo-British decent, in some
they were mainly Portuguese descent, and in some they were mainly of Native American
descent. He also sampled speakers from different walks of life. Some of the people he
talked to worked on farms, some worked in the fishing industry, and some worked in
service occupations (Meyerhoff, 2006, p. 30).

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

STUDENT MOTIVATION 20

Appendix B Students results

WR1100 Quiz March 7, 2014

Test no. Points/37 Percentage
1 36 97*
2 27.5 74
3 16 43
4 22 60
5 23.5 64
6 26.5 72
7 35 95*
8 16.5 45
9 32.5 88*
11 37 100*
12 35 95*
13 34 92*
14 33 89*

Notes: We accidentally skipped test no. 10 when numbering.

* denotes a satisfactory score on the quiz (80%+). 7/13 80%+.

STUDENT MOTIVATION 21
Appendix C Descriptive statistics

Alpha value (for confidence interval) 0.02

Variable #1 (Var1)
Count 13 Skewness -0.60466
Mean 28.80769 Skewness Standard Error 0.56695
Mean LCL 23.33189 Kurtosis 1.96977
Mean UCL 34.28349 Kurtosis Standard Error 0.9097
Variance 54.23077
Alternative Skewness
(Fisher's) -0.68657
Standard Deviation 7.36415 Alternative Kurtosis (Fisher's) -0.91889
Mean Standard Error 2.04245 Coefficient of Variation 0.25563
Minimum 16. Mean Deviation 6.28402
Maximum 37. Second Moment 50.05917
Range 21. Third Moment -214.16067
Sum 374.5 Fourth Moment 4,936.09896
Sum Standard Error 26.55184 Median 32.5
Total Sum Squares 11,439.25 Median Error 0.70997
Adjusted Sum Squares 650.76923 Percentile 25% (Q1) 24.25
Geometric Mean 27.79807 Percentile 75% (Q2) 35.
Harmonic Mean 26.65874 IQR 10.75
Mode 35. MAD 4.5