Strategije suočavanja sa anksioznošću u situaciji testiranja engleskog jezika kod studenata visokog i niskog samopoštovanja

Introduction: Different types of tests present a great part of the academic life, and the tests themselves are extremely stressful situations for most students. The question of strategies used for coping with anxiety in testing situations is raised by the anxiety experienced by students and the levels of their self-esteem during tests. Aim of the paper: The aim of the paper is to take into consideration language anxiety, self-esteem and social and demographic variables as predictors of active use of strategies for coping with the testing situation. Material and methodology: This research included 338 students from five faculties/colleges, with an average age of 21.82±2.561, who were administered the following scales: Rosenberg's Self-esteem Scale, the Coping with the Testing Situation Scale and Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale. Results: The Subscale for Language Anxiety during Testing has the highest reversed predictive value (beta=-0.43, p<0.001) of coping strategies for the testing situation; older respondents have less expressed ability of coping with the testing (beta=-0.23, p<0.001), and the higher the level of fear from negative evaluation (beta=0.21, p<0.001), the more the respondents are coping with the testing situation. Conclusion: The higher the testing anxiety, the less will the students use coping strategies, and the older students cope less with stressful testing situations, but the greater the presence of a more expressed fear of inefficiency, the more will the respondents cope with the testing situation through various strategies.

Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans

Despite being closely related, dogs perform worse than wolves in independent problem-solving tasks. These differences in problem-solving performance have been attributed to dogs’ greater reliance on humans, who are usually present when problem-solving tasks are presented. However, more fundamental motivational factors or behavioural traits such as persistence, motor diversity and neophobia may also be responsible for differences in task performance. Hence, to better understand what drives the differences between dogs’ and wolves’ problem-solving performance, it is essential to test them in the absence of humans. Here, we tested equally raised and kept dogs and wolves with two unsolvable tasks, a commonly used paradigm to study problem-solving behaviour in these species. Differently from previous studies, we ensured no humans were present in the testing situation. We also ensured that the task was unsolvable from the start, which eliminated the possibility that specific manipulative behaviours were reinforced. This allowed us to measure both persistence and motor diversity more accurately. In line with previous studies, we found wolves to be more persistent than dogs. We also found motor diversity to be linked to persistence and persistence to be linked to contact latency. Finally, subjects were consistent in their performance between the two tasks. These results suggest that fundamental differences in motivation to interact with objects drive the differences in the performance of dogs and wolves in problem-solving tasks. Since correlates of problem-solving success, that is persistence, neophobia, and motor diversity are influenced by a species’ ecology, our results support the socioecological hypothesis, which postulates that the different ecological niches of the two species (dogs have evolved to primarily be scavengers and thrive on and around human refuse, while wolves have evolved to primarily be group hunters and have a low hunting success rate) have, at least partly, shaped their behaviours.

Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans

Despite being closely related, dogs consistently perform worse than wolves in independent problem-solving tasks. These differences in problem-solving performance have been attributed to dogs’ greater reliance on humans, who are usually present when problem-solving tasks are presented. However, more fundamental motivational factors or behavioural traits such as persistence, behavioural variety and neophobia may also be responsible for differences in task performance. Hence, to better understand what drives dogs’ and wolves’ different problem-solving performance, it is essential to test them in the absence of humans. Here, we tested equally raised and kept dogs and wolves with two unsolvable tasks, a commonly used paradigm to study problem-solving behaviour in these species. Differently from previous studies, we ensured no humans were present in the testing situation. We also ensured that the task was unsolvable from the start which eliminated the possibility that specific manipulative behaviours was reinforced. This allowed us to measure both persistence and behavioural flexibility more accurately. In line with previous studies, we found wolves to be more persistent than dogs. We also found behavioural variety to be linked to persistence and persistence to be linked to contact latency. Finally, subjects were consistent in their performance between the two tasks. These results suggest that fundamental differences in motivation to interact with objects drive the performance of wolves and dogs in problem solving tasks. Since correlates of problem-solving success i.e. persistence, neophobia, and behavioural variety are influenced by species’ ecology, our results support the social ecology hypothesis which postulates that the different ecological niches of the two subspecies (dogs have evolved to primarily be scavengers and thrive on and around human refuse, while wolves have evolved to primarily be group hunters and have a low hunting success rate) at least partly shaped their behaviours.

Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans

Despite being closely related, dogs consistently perform worse than wolves in independent problem-solving tasks. These differences in problem-solving performance have been attributed to dogs’ greater reliance on humans, who are usually present when problem-solving tasks are presented. However, more fundamental motivational factors or behavioural traits such as persistence, behavioural variety and neophobia may also be responsible for differences in task performance. Hence, to better understand what drives dogs’ and wolves’ different problem-solving performance, it is essential to test them in the absence of humans. Here, we tested equally raised and kept dogs and wolves with two unsolvable tasks, a commonly used paradigm to study problem-solving behaviour in these species. Differently from previous studies, we ensured no humans were present in the testing situation. We also ensured that the task was unsolvable from the start which eliminated the possibility that specific manipulative behaviours was reinforced. This allowed us to measure both persistence and behavioural flexibility more accurately. In line with previous studies, we found wolves to be more persistent than dogs. We also found behavioural variety to be linked to persistence and persistence to be linked to contact latency. Finally, subjects were consistent in their performance between the two tasks. These results suggest that fundamental differences in motivation to interact with objects drive the performance of wolves and dogs in problem solving tasks. Since correlates of problem-solving success i.e. persistence, neophobia, and behavioural variety are influenced by species’ ecology, our results support the social ecology hypothesis which postulates that the different ecological niches of the two subspecies (dogs have evolved to primarily be scavengers and thrive on and around human refuse, while wolves have evolved to primarily be group hunters and have a low hunting success rate) at least partly shaped their behaviours.

Differences in persistence between dogs and wolves in an unsolvable task in the absence of humans

Despite being closely related, dogs consistently perform worse than wolves in independent problem-solving tasks. These differences in problem-solving performance have been attributed to dogs’ greater reliance on humans, who are usually present when problem-solving tasks are presented. However, more fundamental motivational factors or behavioural traits such as persistence, behavioural variety and neophobia may also be responsible for differences in task performance. Hence, to better understand what drives dogs’ and wolves’ different problem-solving performance, it is essential to test them in the absence of humans. Here, we tested equally raised and kept dogs and wolves with two unsolvable tasks, a commonly used paradigm to study problem-solving behaviour in these species. Differently from previous studies, we ensured no humans were present in the testing situation. We also ensured that the task was unsolvable from the start which eliminated the possibility that specific manipulative behaviours was reinforced. This allowed us to measure both persistence and behavioural flexibility more accurately. In line with previous studies, we found wolves to be more persistent than dogs. We also found behavioural variety to be linked to persistence and persistence to be linked to contact latency. Finally, subjects were consistent in their performance between the two tasks. These results suggest that fundamental differences in motivation to interact with objects drive the performance of wolves and dogs in problem solving tasks. Since correlates of problem-solving success i.e. persistence, neophobia, and behavioural variety are influenced by species’ ecology, our results support the social ecology hypothesis which postulates that the different ecological niches of the two subspecies (dogs have evolved to primarily be scavengers and thrive on and around human refuse, while wolves have evolved to primarily be group hunters and have a low hunting success rate) at least partly shaped their behaviours.

EFL Learners Beliefs and Experiences of Test Anxiety

The aim of this paper is to identify the effects of anxiety on EFL students' performance in a testing situation at the Language Center of Zawia University. 210 students from the language center participated in the study. Data was collected by using a questionnaire. The collected data was analyzed by using a quantitative design and discussed in relation to the research question. The findings of this study show that there are negative effects of anxiety on students' performance in testing situation. It reveals that the more anxious the students are the lower they perform in a test.