Starting Tests With Easy Versus Difficult Tasks: Effects on Appraisals and Emotions
Resource type
Journal Article
Status
Published
Recommended form of citation (APA)
Bieleke, M., Goetz, T., Krannich, M., Roos, A.-L., & Yanagida, T. (2021). Starting Tests With Easy Versus Difficult Tasks: Effects on Appraisals and Emotions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 92(2), 317-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1947764
Author(s)
External DOI
PHSG Organisation name
Project(s)
License Condition
All rights reserved
Proforis OA-status
Green OA - accepted version
Topic PHSG
Pädagogische Psychologie
Subjects
Fields of Science and Technology (OECD)
Social sciences::Educational sciences
Abstract
Tests in educational contexts often start with easy tasks assuming that this fosters positive experiences-a sense of control, higher valuing of the test, and more positive and less negative emotions. Although intuitive and widespread, this assumption lacks an empirical basis and a theoretical framework. We conducted a field experiment and randomly assigned 208 students to an easy-to-difficult or a difficult-to-easy condition in a mathematics test. Perceived challenge was measured along with control appraisals, value appraisals, and emotions (enjoyment, pride, anxiety, anger, boredom). While students starting with easy tasks felt less challenged than students starting with difficult tasks in Part 1, no differences emerged regarding control and value appraisals and emotions. In Part 2, students who had started with easy tasks proceeded to difficult tasks and reported higher challenge, lower value and control, and less positive and more negative emotions than students who proceeded from difficult to easy tasks. Control and value appraisals mediated these differences between conditions, especially regarding positive emotions. These results cast doubt on the preference for easy-to-difficult over difficult-to-easy task orders, revealing their potential for causing adverse experiences at the end of the test (e.g., reflecting contrast effects).
Additional Information
Accepted version initially published on https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bd6fm
PHSG Organisation name
Project(s)
Version
Accepted Version
Access Rights
metadata only (bibliographisch)
License Condition
All rights reserved
Rights Holder
Publisher
Copyright-Statement
This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2021.1947764