Psiholo.ka obzorja / Horizons of Psychology, 10, 2, 7-19 (2001)H © Dru.tvo psihologov Slovenije 2001, ISSN 1318-187HZnanstveni empirieno-raziskovalni prispevekH Coping with stress and cognitive interference in studentfteachers performance as important factors influencingftheir achievementf CIRILA PEKLAJ* AND MELITA PUKLE . University of Ljubljana, Department of Psychology, Ljubljana, SloveniaH Abstract: The purpose of our study was to investigate the relations between student teachers. strateN gies for coping with stressful situations, cognitive interference factors and successfulness of presentaN tion of seminar work. There were 135 student teachers participating in the study. At the beginning of thI semester they were administered the Way of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). AfteQ seminar presentation they reported on cognitive interference factors during their talk (distractive factor 1 and intrusive thoughts). Different aspects of their performance were also evaluated by the teacheQ according to standard criteria. Significant correlations were observed between certain ways of coping ¸ cognitive interference factors and success of performance. Further statistical analysis showed significans differences in experiencing distractive factors and intrusive thoughts during presentation between stuN dents with low, medium and high performance success. The importance of successful strategies foQ coping with verbal presentation and the implications for student teacher education are discussedp Key words: coping with stress, cognitive interference, intrusive thoughts, achivement, verbal presentaN tion, student teachersp Spoprijemanje s stresom in kognitivna interferenca prif .tudentih kot pomembna dejavnika vpliva nafnjihove dose.kef CIRILA PEKLAJ IN MELITA PUKLE . Univerza v Ljubljani, Oddelek za psihologijo, LjubljanaH Povzetek: Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti povezanost med strategijami spoprijemanja s stresnimo situacijami, kognitivno interferenco in uspe.nostjo verbalne predstavitve seminarskega dela .tudento . bodoeih ueiteljev. V raziskavi je sodelovalo 135 .tudentov pedago.kih smeri. Na zaeetku semestra s 1 .tudentje izpolnjevali vpra.alnik spoprijemanja s stresom (Ways of Coping Questionnaire; Folkman iU Lazarus, 1988). Uporabili smo verzijo, ki ugotavlja posameznikovo obieajno odzivanje na stresnI situacije. Po predstavitvi seminarske teme so .tudentje poroeali o kognitivni interferenci med nastopanje . (o prisotnosti moteeih dejavnikov in vsiljivih misli). Prav tako je profesor po nastopu ocenil uspe.noss *Naslov / address: doc. dr. Cirila Peklaj, Univerza v Ljubljani, Oddelek za psihologijo, A.kereeva 2, 1000HLjubljana, Slovenija, e-mail: cirila.peklaj@ff.uni-lj.siH 8fC. Peklaj and M. PuklekH nastopa posameznega .tudenta po vnaprej znanih kriterijih. Analiza rezultatov je pokazala pomembn 1 povezanost med doloeenimi naeini spoprijemanja s stresom, vidiki kognitivne interference in uspe.nostj 1 predstavitve. Nadaljne statistiene analize so pokazale pomembne razlike v razlienih vidikih kognitivnI interference med skupinami zelo, srednje in manj uspe.nih .tudentov. V zakljueku avtorici razpravljat a o pomembnosti uspe.nih naeinov spoprijemanja s situacijo nastopanja in pove.eta rezultate raziskavI z vpra.anji izobra.evanja .tudentov pedago.ke usmeritvep Kljuene besede: spoprijemanje s stresom, kognitivna interferenca, vsiljive misli, dose.ki, besedn a predstavitev, .tudento CC=355 1 The development of teaching competence represents an important part of studens teacher education. Behavioural approach to teacher.s professional developmens emphasizes training of specific skills as a necessary prerequisite for successful teachingp Cognitive approach to teacher training, on the other hand, is directed toward examinN ing and modifying student teachers. cognitive structure and processes. The thirB approach, known as experiential approach tries to integrate cognitive, behavioural ¸ and affective levels of student teachers. learning. Kolb (1984) defines learning as a process in which knowledge is acquired through experience transformation. ExperiN ence and its transformation are two basic learning elements. Learning, according t 1 Kolb, consists of four phases: concrete experience, observation and reflection, abN stract conceptualisation and testing in new situations. In experiential approach, one o . the first student teachers. teaching experiences and also the first step in developin . professional teaching skills is usually their presentation of project work in front of a large group of colleagues that is followed by professor.s and colleagues. reflectioU on presentation. The purpose of others. feedback is to help student to become awarI of his/her advantages in teaching, to direct student.s attention to the skills which he » she should still working on, and to connect student.s presentation with the concept 1 and theory of teacher education. These experiences are the basis for using thu 1 improved skills and strategies in new situations (Peklaj, 1992) p Students. verbal presentation, that is, their performance in front of a largI group and an authority (a professor), is important learning situation and also a ver stressful one. Students have to show their intellectual and social competence in thI presence of others. Verbal presentation in front of a large group is a typical socia× situation that can evoke social anxiety. Social anxiety is defined as a subjective expeN rience of anxiety that can appear in actual or anticipated social evaluative situatioU (Puklek, 1997b). Students. verbal presentation has some characteristics which caU evoke social anxiety (Buss, 1980; Zimbardo, 1977; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons ¸ 1990) ç N the situation is usually novel situatione Coping with stress and cognitive interferenceH N a speaker is in the centre of others. attentione N there is no retreat in case of failuree N a student will be evaluated after the presentatione N a quality of presentation and an evaluation influence student.s self-efficac concerning his/her professional skillsp Another explanation for the fact that social evaluative situations could be a threatening experience for students (especially for the socially anxious ones) come 1 from the self-presentation model of social anxiety, proposed by Schlenker and Lear (1982). The social evaluative situation will be perceived as a threatening experiencI if an individual is highly motivated to make a preferred impression on real or imagineB audience. At the same time, such an individual doubts in his/her ability to make a positive social impression and thus imagines self-debilitating evaluative reactions fro . others. Socially anxious students were found to be more disturbed and experienceB more intrusive thoughts of negative self-evaluation and social comparison and evaluN ation in public performance than their socially non-anxious mates (Puklek, 1998a, b) p erbal performance as a typical stressful situation elicits different coping stratN egies. The anticipation of performance outcomes is important factor influencing thI subject.s performance (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). If it is positive, the situation wil× be perceived as a challenge and it will lead to task-relevant cognitive activity (Sarason ¸ 1984). The individual will focus his/her attention on problem solving. On the otheQ hand, if the anticipation of the outcome is negative, the situation will be perceived a 1 a threat. In such case, the individual will perceive a discrepancy between demands o . the task and his/her personal resources to accomplish them. The emotion-focuseB coping and task-irrelevant cognitions will be elicited (Boekaerts, 1993; Sarason, 1984) p A challenging performance situation for the student will probably elicit cognition 1 and behaviours directed toward successful task completion. The student will be atN tentive to the task requirements and will try to monitor his/her performance accordin . to the situation demands. Task-involved orientation will probably lead to higher perN formance than ego-involved orientation where student is directed toward maintainin . his/her well being, positive self-esteem and trying to cope with negative feelings iU performance situation (Ames & Archer, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). A performance situN ation that is perceived as a threat elicits different task-irrelevant cognitions or intruN sive thoughts (Puklek, 1998a; Sarason, 1984). Intrusive thoughts include thought 1 about one.s own inferiority, inadequacy, anticipation of failure, negative evaluation ¸ humiliation in front of a group, anticipation of a negative self-presentation in a socia× group and task irrelevant thoughts or mind wandering. Some studies (e.g. Mikulincer ¸ 1989; Sarason, 1984) showed that intrusive thoughts of negative self-evaluation anB social comparison impaired task achievement. In addition, in one of our previou 1 studies on intrusive thoughts in students teacher. public performance we found interN nal self-focusing factors as the most frequent distractive factors during performancep More than a half of students felt lack of or distrust in verbal competence, anticipateB 1a C. Peklaj and M. PuklekH failure or focused their attention on evident signs of anxiety while presenting thI project work. The three most frequent intrusive thoughts were: .What do others thin÷ of my performance., .I.m not relaxed. and .Colleagues who listen to me are boredr (Puklek, 1998b) p The purpose of the present study was to include some additional variable 1 which can be associated with student teachers. performance in experiential approacO to teacher training. To supplement the study design of our previous work, we als 1 included the achievement variable, that is, the students. successfulness of their publi ¬ presentation evaluated by the teacher. We hypothesisedç N positive correlations between emotion-focused coping strategies (distancing ¸ escape-avoidance) and cognitive interferencee N negative correlations between task-oriented coping strategies (planful proble . solving, confrontation) and cognitive interference e N positive correlations between task-oriented coping strategies and performancI achievemente N negative correlations between emotion-focused coping strategies and performN ance achievemente N negative correlations between cognitive interference during performance anB performance achievemente N differences in usual ways of coping among students with different levels o . performance achievemente N differences in experiencing cognitive interference during performance amon . students with different levels of performance achievementp Methodf Participantsf 135 second year undergraduate student teachers (students of linguistics and socia× sciences) of Faculty of Arts in Ljubljana (115 female and 11 male, the data abous gender were missing for 9 subjects). Female students represented the majority of thI sample. However, women prevail at the linguistic and social science studies at thI facultyp Instrumentsf Ways Of Coping Questionaire - WCQ . (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) measures thI strategies which an individual usually uses in different stressful situations. ParticiN pants are required to indicate how they usually act in certain stressful situation on a four-point scale (0 - not at all, 3- usually). 66 items form 8 subscale: ConfrontivI Coping with stress and cognitive interferenceH11f Coping (e.g., I expressed my feelings), Distancing (e.g., I behaved as nothing woulB have happened; I tried to forget everything), Self-control (e.g., I tried to keep m opinion for myself), Seeking Social Support (e.g., I tried to find professional help) ¸ Accepting Responsibility (e.g., I recognised that I give rise to the problem myself) ¸ Escape-Avoidance (e.g., I hoped that miracle will happen; I have slept more thaU usually), Planful Problem Solving (e.g., I focused on the problem), Positive ReapN praisal (e.g., I have changed and became more mature). Cronbach.s a reliabilit coefficients for the subscales ranged from .61 to .79 (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). IU the present study, the Slovene translation of the questionnaire (Lamovec, 1994) wa 1 used. The alpha coefficients were somewhat lower than were reported by the auN thors of the questionnaire: Confrontive Coping .41, Distancing .60, Self-control ,38 ¸ Social Support Seeking .74, Accepting Responsibility .51, Escape-Avoidance .68 ¸ Planful Problem Solving .61 and Positive Reappraisal .62p Questionnaire of Distractive Factors and Intrusive Thoughts - QDFITH(Puklek, 1997a). It measures the situational and personal factors which disturb thI verbal presentation of participants. The first part of the questionnaire contains 1 . distractive factors which could be divided according to their content into three groupsç external situational factors (e.g., new situation, presence of a professor), interna× self-focusing factors (e.g., lack of verbal competence, anticipation of a failure, attenN tion to evident signs of anxiety) and internal self-excusing factors (e.g., bad mood ¸ fatigue, unpreparedness to presentation). Participants marked the presence (YESN NO) and in case of answer YES the intensity (5-point scale) of each disturbing factoQ (1- very little, 5- very much) p The second part of the questionnaire presents several intrusive thoughts. ParN ticipants indicate on a 5-point scale how often the intrusive thought was presens during the presentation (1 - never present to 5 - present all the time). The intrusivI thoughts can be divided into four groupsç N Intrusive thoughts of negative self-evaluation (6 items: I.m not relaxed; I. . confused; I.m not able to present the seminar well; etc.) p N Intrusive thoughts of social comparison and social evaluation (8 items: Other 1 see I.m nervous; Colleagues from the group are more assertive than me; Whas do others think about my performance; etc.) p N Task-irrelevant intrusive thoughts (4 items: I thought about a certain past evente I thought about an event which is momentarily interesting for me; etc.) p N Task-relevant intrusive thoughts (5 items: I thought about the content of thI seminar; I thought about what to change that things would go better; etc.) p Seminar Assessment Criteria contains 10 skills required for good presentaN tion of the seminar work. They cover the two aspects of presentation: presenting thI seminar theme (clear presentation, good structure, use of different . tools, etc. Ö and stimulating the interaction with the group (maintain and direct attention with alN 12fC. Peklaj and M. PuklekH ternating different methods, stimulate activity by discussion or work in groups, use o . questions to the group). Each skill was assessed on the 5-point scale (1 - very poor t 1 5 - excellent). In further analysis the three scores were used: the sum of presentin . criteria, the sum of interaction criteria and the total sump Proceduref At the beginning of the semester the students chose a seminar theme or project wor÷ and filled in the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988). We useB the form that measures individual.s usual style of coping with stress. During thI semester the students worked on a seminar theme in groups of three to four studentsp They also had consultations with their mentor and were familiar with the criteria o . good presentation. Each group presented their project work in the Educational PsyN chology course. During the presentation they were encouraged to use different methN ods of presentation and to work on an active participation of their colleagues. At thI end of the presentation the group of presenters was evaluated by their colleagues anB the professor. The professor also assessed each student.s presentation according t 1 the previously prepared Seminar Assessment Criteria. Immediately after the evaluaN tion of presentation the students filled in the Questionnaire of Distractive Factors anB Intrusive Thoughts (Puklek, 1997a) p Data were analysed by SPSS. Correlations between student.s ways of copin . (WCQ) and cognitive interference factors (QDFIT), between ways of coping anB students. performance (seminar assessment criteria) and between cognitive interferN ence factors and students. performance were calculated. In the next step, the stuN dents were divided into three groups according to their result on the total sum o . performance evaluation criteria: low (1. quartile), medium (2. and 3. quartile) anB high (4. quartile) performance group. The series of analysis of variance (ANOVAÖ were carried out to asses the difference between low, medium and high performancI groups in their usual ways of coping and reports of disturbing factors and intrusivI thoughtsp Resultsf Table 1 presents the correlations between different ways of coping with stressfu× situations and distractive factors and intrusive thoughts. Only a few correlations werI significant with rather low intensity. Confrontive coping was positively correlateB with task-relevant intrusive thoughts. Participants who usually try to solve their probN lem in an active manner had more thoughts related to the content of their presentatioU and to different ways of moderating and adapting their performance. As was hypothN esised, distancing was positively correlated with distractive factors and task-irrelN evant thoughts. In addition, it was negatively correlated with task-relevant thoughtsp Coping with stress and cognitive interferenceH13f Table 1: Correlations between students. strategies of coping with stressful situations andHcognitive interferenceH Ways of Coping Questionnaire QDFIT CON DIS SC SSS RA E-A PPS PRE Distractive factors .16 .21* .04 .01 .21 .31* .16 .06 Intrusive thoughts NSE .15 .12 .12 -.04 .09 .36* -.01 .01 SC/E .14 .13 .18 .01 .09 .32* .03 -.03 TI .00 .35* .00 -.09 -.03 .13 -.03 .01 TR .20* -.21* .17 -.08 -.02 .20* .07 -.04 AIT .19 .08 .18 -.05 .07 .39* .04 -.01 Note. CON = Confrontive Coping; DIS = Distancing; SC = Self-Control; SSS = Seekin . Social Support; RA = Responsibility Accepting; E-A = Escape - Avoidance; PPS = Planfu× Problem Solving; PRE = Positive Reappraisal; QDFIT = Questionnaire of Distractive Factor 1 and Intrusive Thoughts; NSE = Intrusive Thoughts of Negative Self-Evaluation; SC/E § Intrusive Thoughts of Social Comparison and Social Evaluation; TI = Task Irrelevans Intrusive Thoughts; TR = Task Relevant Intrusive Thoughts; AIT = All IntrusivI Thoughtsp * p < .0â The students who usually try to distance themselves from the problem experienceB more mind wandering during their verbal presentation and had less task-relevans thoughts that have a potential to improve performance. In accordance with the hyN pothesis, another emotion-focused way of coping . escape/avoidance strategy . wa 1 positively associated with the disturbing factors and intrusive thoughts. The student 1 who usually use this way of coping in stressful situations listed more distracting facN tors and experienced more intrusive thoughts of negative self-evaluation and socia× comparison and social evaluation than the students who usually do not avoid thI problem they have. At the same time, the students with the above mentioned copin . strategy had more task-relevant thoughts which serve as a self-guidance in the perN formance. The hypothesis regarding the negative association between task-orienteB ways of coping and cognitive interference in verbal presentation was not confirmedp Table 2 presents the correlations between different ways of coping and evaluN ation of students. verbal performance assessed by the professor. In accordance witO our hypothesis, the two ways of emotion-focused coping (i.e., distancing and escapeN avoidance) were significantly negatively correlated with performance evaluation, alN beit the correlations were rather low. The hypothesis regarding the positive associaN tion between task-oriented ways of coping and performance was not confirmedp Table 3 contains correlations between distractive factors and intrusive thought 1 experiencing during students. verbal presentation and students. achievement on thI evaluation criteria. The results confirmed the proposed hypothesis. Students wh 1 14fC. Peklaj and M. Puklek Table 2: Correlations between students. strategies of coping with stressful situations andHperformance evaluationH Performance evaluation presentingÓ interactionÓ all criteriaÓ WCQ criteria criteria Confrontive Coping -.01 .01 .01 Distancing -.20* -.25** -.23* Self-Control .04 .03 .04 Seeking Social Support -.01 -.06 -.03 Accepting Responsibility .00 -.05 -.02 Escape - Avoidance -.13 -.24** -.19* Planful Problem Solving .07 .01 .05 Positive Reappraisal .16. .04 .12 Note. WCQ = Ways of Coping Questionnairep * p < .05 ** p < .01 Table 3: Correlations between distractive factors and intrusive thoughts and perform-Hance evaluationH Performance evaluation Ó presentingÓ interactionÓ all criteriaÓ QDFITcriteria criteria Distractive factors -.33*** -.33*** -.34*** Intrusive thoughts Negative self-evaluation -.28** -.27** -.29** Social comparison/eval. -.36*** -.37*** -.38*** Task irrelevant thoughts -.04 -.10 -.07 Task relevant thoughts -.10 .02 -.04 All intrusive thoughts -.30** -.27** -.30*** Note. QDFIT = Questionnaire of Distractive Factors and Intrusive Thoughtsp * p< .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .00R reported more distractive factors and intrusive thoughts during their presentation haB lower performance results. However, only the intrusive thoughts of negative selfN evaluation and intrusive thoughts of social comparison and evaluation were signifiN cantly negatively related to the successfulness of their performance. The correlaN tions between task relevant and task irrelevant intrusive thoughts and achievement iU performance were not statistically significantp Results of comparison between low, medium and high performing student 1 according to their usual coping styles are shown in Table 4. Distancing showed thI only significant difference among the three groups (F(2, 115) = 3.22; p < .05). ThI students with low performance level had the highest result in distancing and the stuN Coping with stress and cognitive interference15f Table 4: Means and SDs of ways of coping according to the students. level of perform-HanceH Performance level Low (N=36) Medium (N=53) High (N=33) WCQ M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Confrontive Coping 7.28 (2.57) 7.40 (2.43) 7.52 (2.57) Distancing 7.03 (2.57) 6.87 (2.77) 5.48 (3.02) Self-Control 10.38 (3.51) 11.60 (2.57) 10.41 (2.84) Seeking Social 10.09 (3.48) 11.24 (3.21) 9.91 (3.54) Support Accepting 7.06 (1.82) 7.70 (1.95) 7.06 (2.07) Responsibility Escape - Avoidance 6.84 (3.98) 7.06 (3.55) 5.61 (3.10) Planful Problem 10.37 (2.80) 10.38 (2.33) 10.84 (3.05) Solving Positive Reappraisal 9.87 (3.02) 11.58 (3.30) 11.06 (3.26) Note. WCQ = Ways of Coping Questionnairep dents with high performance level had the lowest one. Thus, the hypothesis about thI different coping strategies in students with different successfulness in performancI was not confirmedp The comparisons among low, medium and high performing students accordin . to their report of distractive factors and intrusive thoughts during verbal presentatioU are present in Table 5. The results confirmed our hypothesis regarding the presencI of cognitive interference in students with different level of success in verbal presenN tation. Statistically significant difference among the three groups was found in stuN dents. listing of distracting factors (F(2, 112) = 5.20; p < .01). High performing stuN Table 5: Means and SDs of distractive factors and intrusive thoughts according to theHstudents. level of performanceH Performance level Low (N=36) Medium (N=53) High (N=33) QDFIT M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Distractive factors 4.94 (1.97) 3.94 (2.12) 3.12 (2.68) Intrusive thoughts Negative self-evaluation 12.62 (4.08) 11.88 (3.97) 9.47 (2.49) Social comparison/ev. 17.43 (5.26) 15.36 (4.34) 12.87 (3.46) Task irrelevant thoughts 5.21 (1.97) 4.92 (2.04) 4.87 (2.10) Task relevant thoughts 17.14 (3.49) 15.43 (4.60) 15.83 (5.04) All intrusive thoughts 52.88 (11.62) 47.97 (10.92) 43.03 (10.10) Note. QDFIT = Questionnaire of Distractive Factors and Intrusive Thoughtsp 16fC. Peklaj and M. PuklekH dents reported the lowest level of distracting factors and low performing student 1 reported the highest one. Statistically significant differences among groups were als 1 found in intrusive thoughts of negative self-evaluation (F(2, 103) = 6.39; p < .01) ¸ intrusive thoughts of social comparison and evaluation (F(2, 102) = 8.10; p < .001Ö and in the sum of all intrusive thoughts (F(2, 91) = 5.63; p < .01). The results showeB the same pattern in all three domains of intrusive thoughts. Low performing student 1 reported the highest intensity of intrusive thoughts and high performing students reN ported the lowest one. No statistically significant differences were found among thI three groups according to task relevant and task irrelevant intrusive thoughtsp Disscusionf The purpose of our study was to investigate factors that can impair student teacher 1 performance in verbal presentation of their work. Verbal presentation is part of stuN dent teachers. professional training which is based on experiential approach. WI were especially interested in the relations between students. permanent style of copN ing with stress, distractive factors and intrusive thoughts during verbal presentatioU and students. successfulness in it. Unfortunately, we failed to confirm some of thI given hypothesesp Only a few significant correlations between different ways of coping and cogN nitive interference factors were found. As expected, distancing and escape-avoidN ance strategies of coping were related to disturbing factors and intrusive thought 1 during students. verbal presentation. These two coping strategies are emotion-foN cused strategies that individuals use to reduce or deny the importance of the proble . or find rationalisations for the causes of their failure. They can both stimulate thought 1 which interfer with the task in actual performance. In accordance with the hypothN esis, the results also showed positive relations between distancing and escape/avoidN ance strategies and lower performance quality. Confrontation as a problem-focuseB strategy elicited task relevant intrusive thoughts but had no relation with performancI achievement. Participants with distancing and avoiding the problematic situations probN ably use more defence mechanisms, like denial, reduction of problem importance oQ escape from achievement situations which move them away from the task. ThI achievement results are thus less satisfying. On the other hand, confrontation witO the problem leads to directing thoughts toward organisation and structure of the tas÷ but not necessary to high performancep Nevertheless, the significant relations between emotion-focused coping stratN egies, cognitive interference and performance were rare and low. We also could nos find support for the hypotheses regarding the associations of task-oriented copin . strategies with distractive cognitive activity during presentation and more successful× presentation. That could be the result of the fact that coping strategies are not stablI personality traits and change with and within situation (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985 ¸ Coping with stress and cognitive interferenceH17f 1988). The application of Ways of Coping Questionnaire as a situational measurI might show different results. Another reason for the low correlations could be founB in low reliability of some WCQ subscales that can reduce the number of significans correlations (Bucik, 1997) p The quality of students. performance was affected by cognitive interferencI during presentation. The results are consistent with previous studies which confirmeB the relations between cognitive interference and impaired achievement (Mikulincer ¸ 1989; Sarason, 1984). The most detrimental intrusive thoughts were thoughts of negaN tive self- and social evaluation. The group of low achieving students experienced thI most above mentioned intrusive thoughts and the group of high achieving students thI least. Students who think that they are not competent to accomplish their task sucN cessfully may put less effort in presenting their work. During the presentation the are preoccupied with negative thoughts about themselves instead of focusing on thI task and such cognitive activity may affect their achievement. The connection beN tween the perception of low self-efficacy and achievement was already confirmed iU different subject areas (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). In a presentation situation thI most salient factor is a presence of the public. If the public (colleagues and a teacherÖ has a task to give a feedback to the performer it become even more important factoQ that can affect student.s performance (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1998). ThI intrusive thoughts of colleagues. opinion about one.s own performance, his/her thought 1 about the poor impression on the professor and colleagues and the comparison witO the presentation of others were found to be the most detrimental intrusive thoughts a 1 well in our studyp Another result surprising on the first sight was that task-relevant intrusivI thoughts and performance quality were not related. It seems that successful student 1 present their work automatically and are not occupied with planing and task monitorN ing during presentation. Similar results about self-regulated mechanisms and achieveN ment have also been found in other research (Carr, Alexander, & Folds-Bennett ¸ 1994; Peklaj, 1998, Peklaj & Vodopivec, 1998) p Some implications for further research and teacher educational practice caU be made from the results of the present study. In the future research our interess should be directed toward improvement of metric characteristics of coping with stres 1 measures. The use of a situational measure of coping in a specific evaluative situaN tion is suggested. Some other factors that can impair student performance shoulB also be included in the research, such as social anxiety, self-efficacy believes, differN ent aspects of motivation, control of previous experiences with presentations etcp Some implications for student teachers. education can be derived from the researcO as well. As teachers, we can take some steps to make student.s presentation les 1 stressful and more predictable. The successfull presentation can be achieved througO careful planing of presentation, consultations and teacher.s help and previous prepaN ration in well-known situations (e.g., at home, in group of friends). The evaluation o . presentation should be directed toward mastering of different professional skills, criN 18fC. Peklaj and M. PuklekH teria for evaluation should be known in advance and competition between student 1 and social comparison should not be salient. The evaluation situation ought to be morI seen as a peer feedback and a possibility to improve professional skills in a nonN threatening experiential situationp Referencesf Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educa-Htional Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271p Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students. learnin . strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3) ¸ 260-267p Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being concerned with well-being and with learning. EducationalHPsychologist, 28 (2), 149-167p Bucik, V. (1997). Osnove psiholo.kega testiranja [Essentials of psychological testing] p Ljubljana: Filozofska fakultetap Buss, A.H. (1980). Self - consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: Freemanp Carr, M., Alexander, J. & Folds-Bennett, T. (1994). Metacognition, and Mathematics stratN egy use. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 583-595p Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion anB coping during three stages of a college examination. Personality and Social Psy-Hchology. 48 (1), 150-170p Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of PersonalityHand Social Psychology, 54 (3), 466-475p Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Pal 1 Alto: Consulting Psychologists Pressp Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as a source of learning and develop-Hment. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffsp Lamovec, T. (1994). Psihodiagnostika osebnosti I [Psychodiagnostic of personality I] p Ljubljana: Filozofska fakultetap Mikulincer, M. (1989). Cognitive interference and learned helplessness: The effects of offN task cognitions on performance following unsolvable problems. Journal of Person-Hality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 129-135p Nicholls, J.G. (1984) Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability subjective experience ¸ task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346p Peklaj, C. (1992). Izku.enjsko ueenje kot izhodi.ee za izobra.evanje ueiteljev [Experientia× learning as a basis for teacher education]. In Kaj hoeemo in kaj zmoremo [What doHwe want and what can we achieve]. Zbornik s posveta o problemih in perspektivaO izobra.evanja ueiteljev (pp.117-120). Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Pedago.k a fakultetap Peklaj, C. (1998). Metacognitive, affective-motivational processes and achievement iU native language. Poster presented at the 24th International Congress of ApplieB Psychology, San Franciscop Coping with stress and cognitive interferenceH19f Peklaj, C. & Vodopivec, B. (1998). Metacognitive, affective - motivational processes anB mathematics achievement. Studia Psychologica, 40 (3), 197-209p Pintrich, P.R. & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning component 1 of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 33N 40p Puklek, M. (1997a). Sociokognitivni vidiki socialne anksioznosti in njen razvojni trend vHadolescenci [Sociocognitive aspects of social anxiety and its developmental trendHin adolescence]. Unpublished master thesis. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakultetap Puklek, M. (1997b). Students. intrusive thoughts during verbal presentation. Poster preN sented at the 5th European Congress of Psychology, Dublinp Puklek, M. (1998a). Kognitivna aktivnost v .olski situaciji nastopanja in njena povezanost 1 socialno anksioznostjo [Cognitive activity in the school performance situation anB its association with social anxiety]. Sodobna pedagogika, 2, 182-196p Puklek, M. (1998b). Social anxiety and cognitive interference in students. public performN ance. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Convention of ICP, Melbournep Sarason, I.G. (1984). Stress, anxiety and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. JournalHof Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 929-938p Schlenker, B.R. & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: . conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92 (3), 641-669p Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1990). Student differences in self-regulated learnN ing: Relating grade, sex, and giftedness to self-eficiacy and strategy use. Journal ofHEducational Psychology, 82 (1), 51-59p Zimbardo, P.G. (1977). Shyness: What is it, what to do about it. Reading, MA: Addison N Wesleyp Prispelo/Received: 28.08.200a Sprejeto/Accepted: 23.12.200a