Agentic Engagement and Test Anxiety: The Mediatory Role of the Basic Psychological Needs

Abstract

Despite the role of agency in schools, few researchers have addressed the issue. The present study aims to analyze the relationship between agentic engagement, basic psychological needs, and test anxiety by using structural equation modeling. For this purpose, 289 female students in math-physics and basic sciences were selected as the samples by using multistage cluster sampling. Reeve and Tseng’s aspects of students’ engagement during learning activity, La Guardia’s et al. basic psychological needs, and Ahvaz test anxiety scale were used as data collection tools. The results of structural equation modeling indicated that agentic engagement positively influenced the basic psychological needs such as autonomy, competence, and relatedness while it could negatively affect test anxiety with the mediatory role of basic psychological needs. In conclusion, agentic engagement can be regarded as a critical variable in affecting the basic psychological needs and reducing test anxiety.

Keywords

agentic engagement autonomy competence relatedness test anxiety

Introduction

An individual biography of traditional scripts relies more on the individuals’ agencies. Agency means an individual’s perception of the extent to which one can make decisions and judgments related to his job (Giddens, 1991). Agency is regarded as a key term in life course theory (Elder, 1994; Elder & Shanahan, 2007) and an individual-level construct which plays a significant role in social action and choice. However, according to Hitlin and Elder (2007), agency is described as an underspecified, “slippery” theoretical concept in sociology. Regarding sociological theory, agency is not generally accepted or valued as a nonstructural factor (Fuchs, 2001; Loyal & Barnes, 2001), or structural factors are primarily concerned with the selves of individual actors (Hitlin & Elder, 2007). In addition, agency is more related to self-regulation and self-awareness as well as volition and orientation to the future, which are established by other variables such as academic attainment and structural constraints. According to Markus and Nurius (1986), well-formulated objectives and a good sense of one’s potentialities enable the person to anticipate future “possible selves” and design the related strategies for their attainment. In the present study, the role of education aspirations shown to shape education participation was emphasized by introducing agentic engagement in schools. According to Schoon and Lyons-Amos (2016), high versus low aspirations is related to whether young people want to leave after compulsory schooling or stay on in education.

Agentic engagement is a concept which was first introduced to assess and analyze educational downfalls and failures. Then, it was used as a basis for reformist efforts in the field of education (Fredericks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Agentic engagement explains how students feel and behave when they face the school environment and class activities (Fredericks et al., 2004). Shernoff et al. (2016) defined agentic engagement as the mutual interaction between the teacher and students.

Reeve and Tseng’s (2011) new model prefers “cognitive,” “behavioral,” “emotional,” and “agentic” components. “Agentic component” is defined as the students’ constructive contribution into the learning process (Reeve & Tseng, 2011). Furthermore, Veiga (2016) focused on engagement in school as well as its cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and agentic aspects. Agentic component refers to the active interest and high self-confidence in learning and acquiring knowledge.

According to van Lier (2008), successful learning relies heavily on the learner’s activities and initiatives. However, learners should hold a personal sense of agency, that is, a belief that their behavior can add variety to their learning in that context before they are interested in their agentic resources and selecting to practice their agency in a special learning context. The learners can make a personal sense of what they face and use affordances to be personally meaningful and relevant. Principally, different environments can display “latent potential” to make interaction easier for learners, as van Lier (2004) named “relations of possibility.” Thus, agency is originated from the interaction between resources, contexts, and the learners’ attitudes and use (Mercer, 2011).

The new concept of “agentic engagement” is related to the process through which the students, deliberately and somehow actively, try to personalize and enhance what they learn and the situation in which they learn. For example, in the learning process, the students may make suggestions endogenously, state their preferences, ask questions, discuss what they need and think about, suggest goals and objectives, talk about their interests, ask for resources or learning opportunities, look for solutions to the questions, seek for more clarification for the instructions, and selection (Mehran, 2014).

Choosing the subject and method will enable the students to feel competent by selecting their own responsibilities and tasks (Urdan & Turner, 2005). Competence is a psychological need which provides intrinsic motivation for trying to make better challenges (Reeve, 2008). Furthermore, it is related to the learner’s personal needs to feel the effective and efficient engagement with the environment and the ability to pursue his or her interests (Kanat-Maymon, Benjamin, Stavsky, Shoshani, & Roth, 2015). The learners experiencing a higher level of educational competence are less anxious and choose higher levels of challenging tasks (Harter, 1982). In a structured class environment in which the rules, norms, and positions are well defined (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), the students learn how to manage their tasks and practice competence (Zimmer-Gembeck, Chipueer, Hanisch, Creed, & McGregor, 2006).

Therefore, if the environment and the structure can generate agentic engagement, they will actively influence the students’ agency and, accordingly, their basic psychological needs. Although educational engagement may be regarded as the predicting factor of educational progress (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011), test anxiety is an obstacle to the educational performance (Hembree, 1988). Test anxiety is an uncomfortable emotion or feeling leading to learning interferences and a reduction in school grades. According to Beidel and Turner (2007), test anxiety is described as a component of social anxiety which is a major concern in school settings. Social anxitey disorder (SAD) is related to poor social skills, reduced social interactions, low self-esteem, and low school performance (Stein & Kean, 2000). Test anxiety is not limited to social anxiety, interfering with social functioning, while it plays a significant role in academic performance. Higher levels of test anxiety are more concerned with impaired performance on the tests, especially high-stake tests (McDonald, 2010). Test anxiety, as a critical educational factor, is influencing millions of students around the world every year, leading to a reduction in their educational performance.

Although a large number of studies have focused on test anxiety among teenagers, few researchers have addressed the test anxiety and educational engagement (Raufelder, Hoferichter, Ringeisen, Regner, & Jacke, 2015). Some researchers emphasized on finding the relationship between test anxiety and educational engagement with respect to the social context (Eccles & Roeser, 2009). However, by considering the significance of educational engagement in reducing test anxiety, further studies can be conducted in the field. The environment and context supportive of agentic engagement can influence the students’ agency, as well as their basic psychological needs. Therefore, the present study aimed to analyze the relationship between agentic engagement and test anxiety by regarding the mediatory role of educational engagement (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

The correlation between agentic engagement, basic needs, and test anxiety.

Conceptual Model of the Study

Agentic engagement is defined as the constructive contribution of the students in the teaching-learning process (Reeve & Tseng, 2011), which is influenced by the contextual factors and plays a significant role in enhancing intrinsic motivation. The support of teachers and educational context on the students’ agency will provide the context for their agentic behaviors. The students having a high agentic engagement feel more competent, autonomous, and related by selecting, contributing in the educational process, as well as communicating in the class. Therefore, agentic engagement can influence their basic psychological needs. Students pay more attention to their educational tasks and experience less anxiety and stress when their basic needs are met. The model used in the present study focuses on the mediatory role of the basic psychological needs in creating the relationship between agentic engagement and test anxiety. In other words, agentic engagement can reduce test anxiety by considering basic psychological needs.

Method

To conduct the present study, nonexperimental and correlational research was used. Regarding data analysis, structural equation modeling was implemented.

Sampling

To this aim, all math-physics and basic sciences female students studying in the second and third grade high schools during 2014-2015 (M = 16.5; SD = 0.5) were selected as the population. Then, two high schools were randomly selected from the two districts in Hamedan, Iran, among whom 289 math-physics and basic sciences female students were considered for data collection based on multistage cluster sampling.

Instruments

Academic engagement aspect questionnaire

The questionnaire included four aspects related to academic engagement such as cognitive, behavioral, emotional, and agency (Reeve & Tseng, 2011). It consists of 22 questions with 7-point Likert-type scales (strongly disagree, disagree, somehow disagree, average, somehow agree, agree, and strongly agree). Regarding the students’ behavioral engagement, Reeve and Tseng (2011) evaluated five variables. The reliability of the questionnaire was confirmed based on Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (r = .94). Furthermore, a self-report scale encompassing four variables which can evaluate the students’ emotional state while doing school assignments was implemented to assess emotional engagement (Skinner et al., 2009, as cited in Reeve & Tseng, 2011). Reeve and Tseng (2011) confirmed the reliability of these four variables (r = .78). Furthermore, learning strategy questionnaire was used for evaluating cognitive engagement (Wolters, 2004, as cited in Reeve & Tseng, 2011), derived from two subscale features such as the evaluation of learning complexity strategies based on developmental aspects (Questions 15-18), and the evaluation of metacognitive and self-regulative features like planning, observing, and improving the task (Questions 19-22). Reeve and Tseng (2011) reported the reliability of these eight factors (r = .88). They emphasized that depending on a previously reliable measurement is not possible because engagement is considered as a new factor. Thus, five variables were developed for assessing the new scale based on the observation of classroom goals, self-report scale, and conceptual framework. In addition, Reeve and Tseng (2011) assessed the reliability of these variables (r = .82). Furthermore, academic engagement scale was reported to be reliable (r = .71). Finally, confirmatory analysis was used for checking the validity of the questionnaire (goodness of fit index [GFI] = 0.99, adjusted goodness of fit index [AGFI] = 0.97, comparative fit index [CFI] = 1, root mean square error approximation [RMSEA] = 0.04).

Basic psychological need questionnaire

The questionnaire was designed by La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, and Deci (2000) to evaluate the learners’ basic psychological need. It included 21 subscales related to autonomy (seven subscales), competence (six subscales), and relatedness (eight subscales). For example, one of the scales related to autonomy is “I feel I can suggest on the way for studying and do assignments in the classroom.” Regarding relatedness, one of the scales is related to “I occasionally feel improvement in the classroom.” All scales were developed based on a 5-point Likert-type scale (completely wrong to completely right). Deci et al. (2001) confirmed the reliability of the total scale (r = .83) while it was .60, .59, and .79 for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, respectively. Finally, confirmatory analysis was implemented to evaluate the validity and the fitness indices (GFI = 0.94, AGFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.06).

Ahvaz Inventory Test Anxiety

It consists of a 25 paper-and-pencil tests of self-report (Abolghasemi, Asadi Moghadam, Najarian, & Shokrkon, 1997). The main questionnaire used for evaluating test anxiety includes 93 items, which were randomly selected to 581 female and male students at the third grade of guidance school in Ahvaz. The reliability of the inventory for all female and male participants was .94, .95, and .92, respectively. In addition, the reliability of the test anxiety was confirmed (r = .93). Finally, confirmatory analysis was utilized to assess the validity of fitness indices (GFI = 0.97, AGFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08).

Results

Table 1 indicates the descriptive statistics of the variables. The measures of skewness and kurtosis represent the normal distribution of the data.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Research Variables.

Variables	M	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis
Agentic engagement	2.96	0.84	−0.24	−0.39
Competence	3.66	0.80	−0.35	−0.01
Autonomy	3.33	0.86	−0.19	−0.32
Relatedness	3.66	0.84	−0.43	−0.12
Test anxiety	1.27	0.70	0.25	0.56

To study the causal relationship between the variables, structural equation modeling was used. Table 2 represents the results of the correlation between the research variables. In the present study, the agentic engagement was considered as the exogenous variable while competence, autonomy, relatedness, and test anxiety were regarded as the endogenous variables.

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix of the Research Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5
Agentic engagement	1
Competence	.34**	1
Autonomy	.51**	.42**	1
Relatedness	.19**	.30**	.30**	1
Test anxiety	−.18**	−.24**	−.34**	−.13*	1

p < .05. **p < .01.

As shown in Table 2, the highest level of correlation belongs to the relationship between agentic engagement and autonomy (.51). Among the research variables, autonomy has the highest correlation coefficient (–.34) with test anxiety. Then, competence (–.24), agentic engagement (–.18), and relatedness (–.13) have the highest level of correlation with test anxiety.

Figure 2 illustrates the model fit used for predicting the test anxiety, along with the fit indices. The numbers on the paths and parameters are standardized. As shown in Figure 2, no significant relationship was observed between test anxiety and agentic engagement, relatedness and competence. However, other paths are significant at the level of 0.01. Among the variables of the model, agentic engagement has the most significant effect on autonomy (0.75) and autonomy has the most significant effect on reducing test anxiety.

Figure 2.

Model fit for predicting the test anxiety.

As presented in Table 3, all goodness of fit indices for the model are based on an optimal range. AGFI, GFI, and CFI indices were used to study the model fit. The domain of these values could change between 0 and 1. The measures close to 1 show goodness of fit. RMSEA with values less than 0.08 represents the goodness of fit of the model (Hooman, 2007). The acceptable values of χ²/df should be less than 3 (Kline, 2011).

Table 3.

Model Fit Indices of Test Anxiety.

χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	GFI	AGFI	RMSEA
383.23	145	2.64	0.93	0.88	0.84	0.07

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation.

As shown in Table 4, agentic engagement plays a significant role in competence (0.53) and autonomy (0.75) and autonomy has a significant effect on reducing test anxiety (0.66). However, agentic engagement could not influence test anxiety in spite of affecting the basic psychological needs although it has a significant indirect effect on reducing test anxiety (–0.54).

Table 4.

The Coefficients Related to Different Variables.

Paths	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Total effect	Coefficient of determination
On test anxiety from				0.29
Agentic engagement	0.33	−0.54**	−0.22**
Competence	−0.07	—	−0.07
Autonomy	−0.66**	—	−0.66**
Relatedness	−0.03	—	−0.03
On competence from				0.28
Agentic engagement	0.53**	—	0.53**
On autonomy from				0.57
Agentic engagement	0.75**	—	0.75**
On relatedness from				0.08
Agentic engagement	0.30**	—	0.30**

Discussion

The role the students can play in making decisions about the class, discussing their preferences, and allowing them to select the learning activities will pave the way for increasing agentic engagement and creating a sense of autonomy. Autonomy is regarded as a response to the need for behaving in such a way that it is originated from and confirmed by one’s own personality instead of being controlled and oppressed (Kanat-Maymon et al., 2015). Based on the supportive framework of autonomy, people choose the related tasks based on the values, interests, and goals which establish their identity (Assor, Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon, & Roth, 2005).

Selecting an appropriate feedback by the teacher, encouraging students to ask questions and giving proper responses, and providing a conversational environment to improve the learning process will positively influence the students’ agency, enhance the teacher–student relationship, and affect the students’ need to communicate. The need for communication is related to the people’s need to feel that they are interested in communicating with others and are supported by them (Johnston & Finney, 2010). When the students feel that they are loved and their experiences are valuable in warm social relationships, their need for communication is satisfied. The feeling of importance supports the students’ energetic, active, and contributive behavior and hinders negative emotions such as anxiety and impatience (Hejazi, Ghazi Tabataba’i, Gh Lavasani, & Moradi, 2014).

Those who are suffering from test anxiety have a negative evaluation of their own abilities (Sarason, 1984). According to Bandura’s (1997) social cognition theory, anxious students will generate a low level of self-competence and self-efficacy. Therefore, self-efficacy is related to anxiety (Trifoni & Shahini, 2011). Those having low self-efficacy are more anxious because they do not have a positive imagination of themselves which supports their anxiety. Bandura (1997, as cited in Reeve & Tseng, 2011) argues that self-efficacy is the basis for agency among men (e.g., students) and accordingly the students’ agency could be the predicting factor for low test anxiety.

The present study aimed to test a conceptual model regarding the role of agentic engagement and basic psychological needs such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness in reducing the students’ anxiety. To this aim, a conceptual model was selected and tested using structural equation modeling. The results indicated that the selected model is adequately fit with the data and can explain 29% of the test anxiety variance.

Based on the results of structural equation modeling, agentic engagement could not play a significant role in reducing test anxiety although it could reduce test anxiety through the mediation of basic psychological needs,. The results were consistent with the study conducted by Raufelder et al. (2015) who analyzed the perception of the supportive and oppressive role of parents in the relationship between test anxiety and educational engagement among teenagers. In addition, the present study indicated that agentic engagement had the most significant direct effect on autonomy and autonomy had the most significant direct effect on reducing test anxiety. Therefore, agentic engagement could predict low test anxiety through the mediation of autonomy.

Furthermore, agentic engagement could play a significant role on competence, while the direct effect of competence on test anxiety was not significant. In addition, agentic engagement had a significant direct effect on relatedness, while the indirect effect of agentic engagement on reducing test anxiety through the mediation of relatedness variable was not significant. Therefore, it can be argued that agentic engagement has a significant direct effect on basic psychological needs such as competence, autonomy, and relatedness and significant indirect effect on reducing test anxiety through the mediation of autonomy variable. In general, agentic engagement results in reducing test anxiety through the mediation of basic psychological needs.

Educational failure, hating and loathing school are regarded as the consequences of educational disengagement. The agentic component is one of the most important aspects of educational engagements through which students actively try to learn, personalize, and enhance the situations and conditions in which the learning process is taking place. Therefore, the agent students select, contribute, and communicate and, accordingly, their basic psychological needs are satisfied. Self-efficacy is the basis for agency which plays a role in reducing test anxiety. Thus, the students’ agency could predict low test anxiety. Accordingly, regarding the importance of educational engagement and its effectiveness on basic psychological needs and ultimately on test anxiety, teachers should be adequately informed about the agentic engagement and learn the activities which may provide opportunities for agentic enjoyment.

The results of the present study have several implications for educational psychologists, decision makers, and executive officers for designing proper educational policies to enhance educational engagement and students’ agency and accordingly reduce test anxiety.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Farnaz Mehdipour Maralani has her research interest in Developmental Psychology and Psychological Assessment.

Azre Shalbaf is working in the field of Educational Management.

Masoud Gholamali Lavasani has his expertise in computer anxiety, self-regulation learning, academic motivation and emotion, achievement goals, well-being, and socio-emotional development.

References

Abolghasemi

Asadi Moghadam

Najarian

Shokrkon

(1997). The development and scale validation for assessment of test anxiety among the students of the third grade of secondary school in Ahvaz. Journal of Education Science and Psychology, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, 3-4, 61-73. (In Farsi)

Assor

Kaplan

Kanat-Maymon

Roth

(2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397-413. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.

Beidel

D. C.

Turner

S. M.

(2007). Clinical presentation of social anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. In Beidel

D. C.

Turner

S. M.

(Eds.), Shy children, phobic adults: Nature and treatment of social anxiety disorders (2nd ed., p. 47e80). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Gagne

Leone

D. R.

Usunov

Kornazheva

B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 930-942. doi: 10.1177/0146167201278002

Dotterer

A. M.

Lowe

(2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649-1660. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5

Eccles

J. S.

Roeser

R. W.

(2009). Schools, academic motivation, and stage-environment fit. In Lerner

R. M.

Steinberg

(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology, Volume 1: Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 404-434). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Elder

G. H.

(1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology, Quarterly, 57, 4-15.

Elder

G. H.

Shanahan

M. J.

(2007). The life course and human development. In Handbook of child psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

10.

Fredericks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Paris

A. H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

11.

Fuchs

(2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19, 24-40.

12.

Giddens

(1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

13.

Harter

(1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97. doi:10.2307/1129640

14.

Hejazi

Ghazi Tabataba’i

Gh Lavasani

Moradi

(2014). The relationship between the teacher and students and engagement in school: The mediatory role of basic psychological needs. Journal of Applied Psychology Research, 5, 19-40. (In Farsi)

15.

Hembree

(1988). Correlate, causes, and effects of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research, 58, 47-77. doi:10.3102/00346543058001047

16.

Hitlin

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency. Sociological Theory, 25, 170-191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00303.x

17.

Hooman

H. A.

(2007). Structural equation modeling using LISERL software (2nd ed.). Tehran, Iran: SAMT. (In Farsi)

18.

Johnston

Finney

(2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the basic needs satisfaction in general scale. Psychology of Export and Exercise, 11, 91-99.

19.

Kanat-Maymon

Benjamin

Stavsky

Shoshani

Roth

(2015). The role of basic need fulfillment in academic dishonesty: A self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.002

20.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

21.

La Guardia

J. G.

Ryan

R. M.

Couchman

C. E.

Deci

E. L

. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367-384.

22.

Loyal

Barnes

(2001). “Agency” as a red herring in social theory. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 31, 507-524.

23.

Markus

Nurius

(1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954

24.

McDonald

A. S.

(2010). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology, 21, 89-101.

25.

Mehran

(2014). Relationship between contextual agents (teachers), educational engagement, and educational progress (Master’s thesis). University of Tehran, Iran. (In Farsi)

26.

Mercer

(2011). Understanding learner agency as a complex dynamic system. System, 9, 427-436.

27.

Raufelder

Hoferichter

Ringeisen

Regner

Jacke

(2015). The perceived role of parental support and pressure in the interplay of test anxiety and school engagement among adolescents: Evidence for gender-specific relations. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 3742-3756. doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0182-y

28.

Reeve

J. M.

(2008). Understanding motivation and emotion ( Mohamadi

Y. S.

, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Virayesh. (In Farsi)

29.

Reeve

J. M.

Tseng

C.-M.

(2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 257-267.

30.

Sarason

I. G.

(1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929-938. doi:10.1080/10615808808248215

31.

Schoon

Lyons-Amos

(2016). Diverse pathways in becoming an adult: The role of structure, agency and context. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 46, 11-20.

32.

Shernoff

D. J.

Kelly

Tonks

S. M.

Anderson

Cavanagh

R. F.

Sinha

Abdi

(2016). Student engagement as a function of environmental complexity in high school classrooms. Learning and Instruction, 43, 52-60. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.003

33.

Skinner

E. A.

Belmont

M. J.

(1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 571-581.

34.

Stein

M. B.

Kean

Y. M.

(2000). Disability and quality of life in social phobia: Epidemiologic findings. Am J Psychiatry, 157, 1606-1613.

35.

Trifoni

Shahini

(2011). How does exam anxiety affect the performance of university students? Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 93-101. Retrieved from http://www.mcser.org/images/stories/2_journal/mjssmay2011/9.pdf

36.

Urdan

Turner

J. C.

(2005). Competence motivation in the classroom. In Elliot

A. E.

Dweck

(Eds.), Handbook of competence motivation (pp. 297-317). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

37.

van Lier

(2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer.

38.

van Lier

. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In Lantolf

J. P.

Poehner

M. E.

(Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 163-186). London, England: Equinox.

39.

Veiga

F. H.

(2016). Assessing student engagement in school: Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 217, 813-819. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.02.153

40.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Chipueer

H. M.

Hanisch

Creed

P. A.

McGregor

(2006). Relationships at school and stage-environment fit as resources for adolescent engagement and achievement. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 911-933. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.008