Student motivation issues are important in the implementation of teaching in school. At the same time, the motivation of students cannot be measured by simple actions that are available in daily practice. If statistical methods can show different relationships, then they are useful for administration, but the teachers cannot use them to support students individually. Some educational models focus on changes in student motivation, such as the gradual release of responsibility [1], or the meaningful learning cycle by Liron Levi and Shachar Oz[2] et al. The available methods rely on motivation but do not provide an opportunity to measure it. Hence, there is the problem; how can a school teacher use motivation to improve learning? Delving deeply into an issue, it is known that motivation does not have such a strong effect as it is considered, but still has some effect on learning success [3]. In the long-term perspective, external regulation in motivation has a negative effect, while internal motivation is not of exceptional importance [4]. At the same time, some studies [3, 5,6] indicate that it is precisely the students’ expectations that have an important influence on the success of education in general, including the choice of continuing education. This has several implications. High expectations of students with low academic performance lead to psychological consequences. Moreover, the authors show that such students will have social problems in the future [7]. At the same time, the students’ expectations play an important role in the choice of future learners’ development [5]. Besides, expectations have a significantly greater effect than social status, background, and current academic performance on the final result, yet insufficiently [3]. There is an opinion that it is the school where the motivation and learners’ expectations can be most easily regulated [8]. As discussed earlier, there are several motivation-based techniques. Yet, no tools have been found to leverage students’ expectations. Moreover, it should be recognized that many schools are more focused on teachers’ or parents’ expectations [8].

What are expectations? The studies emphasize that students want to see a certain result. Students anticipate getting the expected grade on a certain subject. It is assumed that matching real grades and expectations will have some impact on students’ motivation and, as a consequence, will affect academic performance. The author points [3] out that such study are lacking. At the same time, the available research studies have included mathematics, languages, and, less often, physical education [4]. Moreover, the second type of expectation can be used for evaluation. Students always have expectations about the learning process. It applies to learning styles, individual approaches, and so on. 

Thus, we are dealing with two kinds of expectations: expectations about the learning process and expectations of results. Since this is a practice-oriented study, it is necessary to develop easy-to-implement tools to carry out the lesson. Quick questionnaires are best suited for this purpose. In 2020, the issue of expectations became even stronger, since April 2020, online teaching began. It has long been proven that using questionnaires can change expectations in and of themselves[9]. Also, clarification of expectations helps students to change the teacher's attitude towards specific lessons.

The research has been conducted in Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS) of Physics and Mathematics in Taraz City, Kazakhstan. School education begins from grade 7 (13-14 years old), before that, students studied in public schools. NIS is a school for talented children, and the selection of candidates is based on admission exams. 

The research has been carried out in three stages. The first stage took place at the end of the 2018-2019 academic year. An observation of a group of 9 students at the age of 15-16 was made on chemistry lessons. Based on the observation results, 2 expectations-based questionnaires were developed. The first questionnaire was focused on expectations about the learning process. The questionnaire was carried out once. It consisted of 19 questions, which gave the following information: • Do students accept responsibility for their learning? • Do students believe in student-centered learning? • How do students better perceive material (visual, auditory, kinesthetic)? • How do students feel in group work? The information from the questionnaire was used to plan 4 lessons. The total value for the class was used; the difference was not more or less than one student, since a small number of students were surveyed. The second survey (expectations of results) contained a list of learning goals and students' noted level of learning objectives achievement(achieves, not full, not achieve, cannot define). It was carried out after every lesson, as well as before the summative assessment. Next, the correlation was found between the expected results after the lesson, but before the summative assessment and the real result for the selected goals. The second stage was held in the 2019-2020 academic year (the results were accepted at EСER 2020 ID: 1144) within one term. The same tools were used as in the first stage, but the study included 4 groups, consisting of 9-12 people in each, a total number of 42 students at the age of 15-16. There were two blocks of lessons for each group: traditional (teacher-centred) and student-centred teaching. At this stage, we checked how the satisfaction of learning expectations relates to the expected and actual results. At the third stage, it was tested how the method could improve academic performance for students aged 13-14, based on our findings within two terms in the 2020-2021 academic year. Lessons and surveys were conducted online. The first survey (expectations from the learning process) was conducted at the beginning of each term (2 in total). The results were used for planning and teaching in each class separately. The results expectation questionnaires were used as in the previous stages. In addition to comparing the expected results and those achieved, an analysis of the quality of knowledge was carried out.

At the first stage, it was found that the expectation questionnaires could improve the planning process. Student scores were 20% higher for high-order skills (assess, explore) and 7% higher for low-order skills (understand, compose, characterize) compared to the previous term. At the second stage, it was found that students expected a better result while taking into consideration their learning expectations. At the same time, 3-4 weeks later expectations usually decrease and more or less converge with the actual results within (+/- ) 20%). For example, around 83% of students in the first group think that it is more effective when the teacher explains the lesson, and there is no research conducted by them. 67% of students think that they can write correctly chemical equations with the electron balancing method by algorithms after the lesson (traditional lesson), and 34% think so 3-4 weeks later. As a result, 42% of students have already demonstrated this skill in the first group. Similar patterns have been observed in other groups. It has been concluded that the expectations of the learning affect the results of the students. At the third stage, it was found that usage of the expectation questionnaires helps to select the most convenient teaching methods for students, as well as to indicate areas for self-improvement. Thus, the number of students with an “excellent” grade increased by 20%, while the quantity of those with good and satisfactory grades decreased by 17% and 3% respectively, compared to the first term. All students with “excellent” grades in the first term scored them, two students with “satisfactory” grades improved to "good” marks. Unfortunately, 2 out of 48 students dropped in performance. This shows that, in general, questionnaires are effective in teaching students in selected groups.

1.Pearson P. D., Gallagher M. C. The instruction of reading comprehension //Contemporary educational psychology. – 1983. – Т. 8. – №. 3. – С. 317-344. 2.Levi L., Oz S. The Meaningful Learning Cycle: Model Explained How Learning Should Really Happen. – 2017. 3.Fan W., Wolters C. A. School motivation and high school dropout: The mediating role of educational expectation //British Journal of Educational Psychology. – 2014. – Т. 84. – №. 1. – С. 22-39. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12002 4.Stephanou G. et al. Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and in its effects on performance expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects //Psychology. – 2017. – Т. 8. – №. 12. – С. 1941. 10.4236/psych.2017.812125 5.Ma X. Participation in advanced mathematics: Do expectation and influence of students, peers, teachers, and parents matter? //Contemporary educational psychology. – 2001. – Т. 26. – №. 1. – С. 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.2000.1050 6.Hidayati N. The effect of achievement motivation and expectation toward students’ learning achievement on Islamic education //MUDARRISA: Jurnal Kajian Pendidikan Islam. – 2017. – Т. 9. – №. 2. – С. 208-227. https://doi.org/10.18326/mdr.v9i2.208-227 7.Boxer P. et al. Educational aspiration–expectation discrepancies: Relation to socioeconomic and academic risk-related factors //Journal of adolescence. – 2011. – Т. 34. – №. 4. – С. 609-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.10.002 8.De Boer H., Bosker R. J., van der Werf M. P. C. Sustainability of teacher expectation bias effects on long-term student performance //Journal of Educational Psychology. – 2010. – Т. 102. – №. 1. – С. 168. 9.Festinger L. Wish, expectation, and group standards as factors influencing level of aspiration //The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. – 1942. – Т. 37. – №. 2. – С. 184.