Much has been written about test anxiety: its causes, characteristics and effects. But very little has been written about test apathy, the mirror image of test anxiety.
Test anxiety has been defined as a situational anxiety trait with emotionality and worry as its two components. Emotionality is the physiological component of test anxiety, such as an increase in systolic blood pressure, sweating, stomach aches, headaches and the like. Worry, the cognitive component of test anxiety typically consists of negative thought patterns associated with test taking, "I'm stupid," "I can't do this," "I'm a failure," "My parents are going to hate me," etc. These two test anxiety components often lead to test failure (Spielberger & Vagg, 1995).
In contrast, test apathy, the inability to exert effort and experience little or no anxiety when taking a test, leads to the same outcome: test failure. Test apathy is truly a weird phenomenon, which based upon my anecdotal and clinical experience, is as prevalent. as or more common than test anxiety in the school setting. The student suffering from test anxiety is experiencing test failure due to overwhelming anxiety, whereas the student with test apathy is also experiencing test failure with little or no anxiety at all! If the motto for the test anxious student is "I know this information but I can't access it," the test apathetic student's motto is "I know this information but I don't care to access it."
This is a situation that within the atmosphere of "No Child Left Behind"
and high stakes testing leaves educators confused, angry, and very concerned.
It seems no matter how hard educators try to motivate these students, nothing
seems to work. Their efforts are met with results that are nil or non-existent.
In fact these students are often very candid about their lack of effort and
state or behave matter-of-factly that they don't care to learn or
do well upon a test.
Based upon my 20 plus years as a practicing school psychologist, I have found that two situations correlate with test apathy.
In the first circumstance, type I test apathy, is exhibited in those students who reside in environmental or home situations where little or no demands are made upon them. These students have been shielded as much as possible from any discomfort and responsibility. These parents don't want their children to suffer any pain or anxiety and do everything they can for the child. Often the children are medically and physically fragile. The parents are recognized by their frequent school visitations, typically bringing some item left at home that the student did not bring, such as a lunch, a book bag, homework or permission slip. As well, they incessantly criticize their child's teacher, often in front of the child.
This type of test apathetic student has not learned to tolerate any academic demand placed upon them. They have no frustration tolerance and as a result will refuse or simply not put forth any intellectual effort in an assessment situation, resulting in poor test taking performance.
The second type of test apathy (type IT) is exhibited in those students who reside in environmental situations in which the parents or caretakers do little or nothing for them. These children are on their own from an early age, fending for themselves, making meals, washing their clothes, caring for a younger sibling, and last — "dead last" — engaging in intellectual and educational activity.
Often these types of test apathetic students reside in environments in which the parents or caregivers are overwhelmed or preoccupied with their own needs or survival. Typically not well educated, and often either not employed or working multiple jobs, these adults are not available for their children physically, emotionally, or intellectually. It's not difficult to understand that students from these situations have little or no investment in their learning or test taking and as such perform miserably on teacher-made or standardized tests.
In both test apathetic scenarios the children do not possess the will, desire, or in some cases, the skill to learn or perform well upon a test. In the first case the student is expecting others to take the test for them. In the second case the student does not even know how to or care about taking the test.
These students are difficult to remediate. In contrast to students with test anxiety who want to do well but feel they can't, test apathetic students would prefer not to perform at all.
In both Type I and Type II test apathy, the student will begin to learn and improve test performance when a compatible relationship is established between him or herself and the educator. I call this an "educational alliance," and it can be developed by two preexisting methods.
The first method was developed by Ross Greene and his associates (2005), and is called collaborative problem solving (CPS). The second method, the dynamic interactional approach (DIA) was developed by Jules Abrams (1984) and his associates. In both methods the goal is to create this "educational alliance" between the test apathetic student and the educator. By educational alliance I refer to a situation in which a positive relationship is built and developed upon mutual trust and student-educator compatibility
The CPS model describes 3 steps to create this situation: empathy, problem definition and invitation. Empathy, the first step, is utilized to acknowledge the student's behavior and concerns. The educator then defines the problem in terms of how the student's test apathy is affecting the educator and the student, both individually and mutually. Finally, the educator invites the student to collaboratively solve the problem together. The purpose of CPS is thus to increase the probability of a working relationship between the test apathetic student and the educator, and through the bond begin the slow and continuous educational process of being motivated to learn.
The second method to remediate test apathy, the Dynamic Interactional Approach, utilizes several practical techniques to encourage the educational alliance. These techniques fall into 3 categories: preventative strategies, integrative strategies and strategies for maintaining contact.
Preventative techniques place emphasis on knowing and understanding the test apathetic student. This includes becoming familiar with the student's moods, their preferences, interests, how much demand they can tolerate, and what period or periods of the day they perform best.
Integrative techniques are utilized to help the test apathetic student gain insight into their behavior and learning pattern so that the student may critically examine and hopefully realize the effect of their test taking pattern. When utilizing this technique, the educator attempts to make known to the test apathetic student how their behavior is inhibiting their development in a non-threatening way, and then encouraging alternative modes of responding.
For example: "Ashley, you don't try on a test because maybe you think you could fail. But now you are taking a practice test that you can handle. You seem to have a habit of 'blowing off' tests. But you can practice breaking that habit. Let's give it a shot and see how you do on this practice test."
The final technique, maintaining contact, is an action taken by the educator to demonstrate to the test apathetic student that they are personally important to the educator. This action may include informal contact during the course of the school week, sharing a personal reflection or story, a simple discussion, or asking the student about a personal interest or event.
In the world of education, the importance of and the reliance on testing and assessment seems to be increasing daily. It is hoped that by employing some of the above mentioned strategies and techniques, educators can make inroads into the test performance of apathetic students.
Abrams, J. J. (1984). Interaction of neurological and emotional factors in learning disability. Learning Disability, 3(3),27-37.
Greene, R. W. & Ablom, S. A. (2005). Treating explosive kids: the collaborative problem solving approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
Pearson, G. H. J. (1954). Psychoanalysis and the education of the child. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Spielberger, C. D. & Vagg, P. R. (1995). Test anxiety: theory, assessment, and treatment. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.