Compiti di prestazione e compiti di apprendimento: Appendice

APPENDICE

– La meritocrazia a scuola: un serio ostacolo all’apprendimento – F. Butera (2006)

La tesi sostenutadall’autore è che la meritocrazia nuoce all’apprendimento in quanto crea un clima di confronto sociale tra allievi, studenti o altre categorie di persone in formazione, che minaccia il sé e limita le capacità cognitive richieste per apprendere. La meritocrazia è il principio di giustizia che postula che a scuola, così come in altri ambiti della società, ognuno debba essere ricompensato o valorizzato in funzione dei propri meriti. Secondo questo principio è legittimo dare voti più alti agli allievi o agli studenti che hanno migliori prestazioni e offrire attività maggiormente stimolanti a coloro che imparano più in fretta.

Il principio dell’eguaglianza delle opportunità consiste appunto nel rendere possibile che gli allievi meritevoli, cioè con un alto profitto misurato in voti, possano continuare gli studi, qualunque sia il loro ceto d’origine. Il successo di questo sistema è dovuto al fatto che esso introduce un principio di giustizia nell’ineguaglianza sociale, rendendola apparentemente più accettabile: se le opportunità sono le stesse per tutti, allora gli allievi che riescono meglio sono quelli che hanno sviluppato le competenze che rendono legittima la loro posizione di superiorità.

Un sistema basato sul merito porta gli individui inseriti in questo sistema a un processo di confronto sociale permanente. Il confronto sociale è la tendenza umana a valutare le proprie capacità in maniera relativa, utilizzando gli altri come termini di paragone. La meritocrazia, soprattutto quando diventa una norma sociale generalizzata, implica un funzionamento costantemente orientato verso il confronto sociale. Se la norma prevede che si venga premiati per l’eccellenza, allora bisogna tenersi informati in continuazione non solo sui propri risultati ma anche, anzi soprattutto, sui risultati degli altri. La meritocrazia mette l’accento sulla riuscita, in termini di posizione raggiunta, più che sull’apprendimento effettivo; infatti applicare il principio della meritocrazia vuol dire relegare la questione dell’apprendimento a un ruolo secondario, rispetto alla questione della riuscita.

La psicologia sociale, per trattare della relazione tra meritocrazia e apprendimento, trova origine negli studi sul confronto sociale. Secondo la Teoria del Confronto Sociale (Festinger, 1954) il bisogno di valutare il sé (self-evaluation) è un bisogno fondamentale, un meccanismo così radicato nel funzionamento umano da essere attivato in maniera automatica e inconscia. Questa tendenza alla valutazione di sé svolge una funzione adattiva; di fronte a questo bisogno di valutazione di sé, e non possedendo strumenti di misura oggettivi, le persone si valutano confrontandosi con gli altri. Gli altri diventano così la fonte d’informazione.

Perché il confronto sociale può essere utile all’apprendimento? Oltre alla motivazione fondamentale alla valutazione di sé (self-evaluation), esiste anche una motivazione al miglioramento di sé (self-improvement). Il miglioramento dei risultati scolastici avviene quando gli allievi si confrontano con altri allievi tutto sommato molto simili per risultati e non quando si confrontano con il primo della classe.

Come detto la meritocrazia pone l’accento sulla riuscita e si basa sul confronto sociale; il confronto sociale può avere effetti nefasti, se implica una minaccia per il sé, per cui è ragionevole affermare che la meritocrazia implica un confronto sociale minaccioso. Infatti una persona si sente minacciata quando la valutazione di sé la porta alla conclusione, conscia o inconscia, che i suoi risultati non sono all’altezza degli standard normativi per lei pertinenti (i risultati di altre persone, i criteri di riuscita in un dato contesto, le aspettative delle persone di riferimento). In questo caso le persone sono particolarmente preoccupate di ridurre la discrepanza tra la valutazione effettiva e gli standard di riferimento.

La minaccia nel confronto sociale rappresenta un impedimento all’apprendimento. In primo luogo, la minaccia provocata dal confronto sociale studente-insegnante induce una rappresentazione normativa dell’insegnamento, fissando l’attenzione degli allievi sull’obbedienza all’autorità dell’insegnante, più che sull’apprendimento. In secondo luogo, la minaccia provocata dal confronto sociale induce una rappresentazione competitiva delle interazioni sociali, limitando il potenziale benefico di queste interazioni. Solo l’uso dell’expertise da parte dell’insegnante può portare a forme di apprendimento durature. L’insegnante che usa le sue conoscenze, più che la sua posizione, crea l’interesse degli allievi, interesse che implica un trattamento profondo delle informazioni e una loro integrazione più radicata nel sistema di conoscenze.

Purtroppo nell’ideologia del merito, quello che assume importanza nella relazione con l’insegnante è il suo potere di elargire rinforzi positivi o negativi e di stabilire una graduatoria, quindi il suo potere di coercizione o di ricompensa, che porta a una mera obbedienza e talvolta a comportamenti antisociali.

È noto che l’apprendimento avvenga soprattutto per motivazione intrinseca; infatti è la motivazione intrinseca che induce effetti positivi sulla persistenza nel compito in seguito a un insuccesso, sul mantenimento di un comportamento, sulla performance, sulla soddisfazione, sul benessere, sugli atteggiamenti interpersonali positivi e sui comportamenti prosociali. Tutto questo in paragone alla motivazione esterna; e coercizione e ricompensa sono motivazioni esterne. La meritocrazia, promettendo ai partecipanti della competizione una ricompensa in termini di posizioni sociali dominanti, riduce le motivazioni intrinseche/autonome, quelle che predicono meglio un apprendimento profondo e duraturo.

La minaccia nel confronto sociale induce una rappresentazione competitiva delle rappresentazioni sociali, a sua volta nociva per l’apprendimento; per tre ordini di ragioni:

• • riduce il beneficio della cooperazione. Se in un compito cooperativo il confronto sociale si articola attorno alla complementarietà dei ruoli, la competenza del partner diventa un aiuto all’apprendimento. Diversamente se nello stesso compito cooperativo il confronto sociale viene orientato verso la valutazione delle competenze, allora la competenza del partner diventa una minaccia e un impedimento per l’apprendimento;

• • riduce il beneficio del conflitto socio-cognitivo. L’effetto benefico del conflitto socio-cognitivo è sotteso da uno scopo che spinge l’individuo a concentrarsi sul contenuto; lo scopo che spinge l’individuo a primeggiare sugli altri non solo elimina l’effetto benefico del conflitto socio-cognitivo, ma lo rende addirittura deleterio;

• • produce un effetto di focalizzazione. Una minaccia nella valutazione del sé porta le persone a riflettere sui mezzi per ridurre tale minaccia occupando una buona parte delle risorse attenzionali; questa distrazione induce una focalizzazione dell’attenzione sugli elementi centrali di un compito, portando l’individuo a tralasciare gli elementi periferici.

 

Quando il confronto sociale è minaccioso, si pensa troppo al proprio status e di conseguenza rimangono poche risorse attenzionali per occuparsi di ciò che si dovrebbe, o che si vorrebbe, imparare.

In altre parole:

• • la meritocrazia, in quanto confronto sociale minaccioso permanente, non permette di trarre beneficio dalla cooperazione; gli individui cresciuti credendo nell’individualismo non saranno in grado di approfittare del lavoro di gruppo, se non quando il gruppo è costituito da individui subordinati. Se si vuole veramente l’eccellenza, allora bisogna applicare l’apprendimento cooperativo;

• • la meritocrazia minimizza l’utilità del conflitto socio-cognitivo in quanto il progresso cognitivo viene dalla capacità di integrare le differenze; se questa integrazione non avviene perché le differenze vengono rifiutate e percepite come minacciose, allora avrà luogo il conformismo;

• • la meritocrazia, e le sue minacce per il sé, porta ad una focalizzazione percettiva e cognitiva. Preoccupati dalla sorte della propria posizione sociale, gli utenti del sistema meritocratico si ritrovano a corto di risorse per elaborare l’informazione che dovrebbe porre le basi della loro formazione.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAFIA

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and students motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

Ames, C., Russel, A., & Felker, D. W. (1977). Effects of competitive reward structure and valence of outcome on children’s achievement attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 1–8.

Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894-897.

Anderman, E. M., Austin, C. C., & Johnson, D. M. (2002). The development of goal orientation. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on achievement motivation (pp. 197–220). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: A multiple goals approach. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 229–254). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.

Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2003). Revisiting the benefits of performance-approach goals in the college classroom: Exploring the role of goals in advanced college courses. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 357-374.

Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: Selfenhancement motives prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 606–621.

Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bloom, B. S. (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.

Buchs, C., & Butera, F. (2001). Complementarity of information and quality of relationship in cooperative learning. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 335-357. Special issue on “The social psychology of academic achievement: Progress and prospects”.

Buchs, C., Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2002). Sharing our Books: Resource In(ter)dependence, Students Interactions and Performance in Cooperative Learning. Unpublished manuscript, submitted.

Buchs, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Darnon, C. (2004). Conflict elaboration and cognitive outcomes. Theory Into Practice, 43, 23–30.

Butera, F. (2006). La meritocrazia a scuola: un serio ostacolo all’apprendimento. Psicologia Sociale n. 3 settembre-dicembre.

Butera, F., Gardair, E., Maggi, J., & Mugny, G. (1998). Les paradoxes de l’expertise: Influence sociale et (in)competence de soi et d’autrui [Paradox of expertise: Social influence and (in)competence of self and other]. In J. Py, A. Somat, & J. Baillé (Eds.), Psychologie sociale et formation professionnelle: Propositions et regards critiques (pp. 111–123). Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Butera, F., Huguet, P., Mugny, G., & Pérez, J. A. (1994). Socio-epistemic conflict and constructivism. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 53, 229–239.

Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (1995). Conflict between incompetences and influence of a low expertise source in hypothesis testing. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 457–462.

Butera, F., & Mugny, G. (2001). Conflicts and social influences in hypothesis testing. In C. K. W. De Dreu & N. K. De Vries (Eds.), Group consensus and minority influence: Implications for innovation (pp. 161–182). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Tomei, A. (2000). Incertitude et enjeux identitaires dans l’influence sociale [Uncertainty and identity stakes in social influence]. In J.-L. Beauvois, R.-V. Joule, & J.-M. Monteil (Eds.), Perspectives cognitives et conduites sociale (Vol. 7, pp. 205–229). Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.

Butler, R. (1992). What young people want to know when: Effects of mastery and ability  goals on interest in different kinds of social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 934–943.

Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18–31.

Butler, R., & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 261–271.

Carugati, F., De Paolis, P., & Mugny, G. (1980). Conflit de centrations et progrès cognitif, III: régulations cognitives et relationnelles du conflit socio-cognitif. Bulletin de Psychologie, 34, 843-851.

Cheung, P. C., Ma, H. D., & Shek, D. T. L. (1998). Conceptions of success: Their correlates with prosocial orientation and behaviour in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 31–42.

Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 43-54.

Covington, M. V. (1984). The motive for self-worth. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 77–113). New York: Academic Press.

Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade. A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). Task-oriented versus competitive learning structures: Motivational and performance consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1038-1150.

Cury, F., Sarrazin, P., & Famose, J. P. (1997). Achievement goals, perceived ability and active search for information. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1, 166–183.

Dansereau, D.F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz, & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies, issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation. (pp. 103-119). San Diego, New-York: Academic Press.

Darnon, C., Buchs, C., & Butera, F., & Mendès, P. (2002). Epistemic and relational conflict in sharing identical vs complementary information during cooperative learning. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 61, 139–151. Work supported by the “Avenir” program of the Rhône-Alpes Regional Council (France) and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2005). Buts d’accomplissement, stratégies d’étude, et motivation intrinsèque: Présentation d’un domaine de recherche et validation française de l’échelle d’Elliot et McGregor (2001). [Achievement goals, study strategies, and intrinsic motivation: Presentation of a line of research and French validation of Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) scale]. Anne´e Psychologique, 105, 105–131.

Darnon, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., Hulleman, C.,S. (2008). “Too complex for me!” Why do performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals predict exam performance? In press.

Darnon, C., Butera, F., Mugny, G., & Quiamzade, A. (2006). Performance approach and avoidance goals in social interaction: Toward the distinction between two modes of relational conflict regulation. Unpublished manuscript.

Darnon, C., Butera, F., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2007). Achievement goals in social interactions: Learning within a mastery vs. performance goals. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 61-70.

Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (in press). Learning or succeeding? Conflict regulation with mastery or performance goals. Swiss Journal of Psychology.

Darnon, C., Harackiewicz, J., Butera, F., Mugny, G. & Quiamzade, A. (2007). Performance approach and performance-avoidance goals: When uncertainty makes a difference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 813-827.

Darnon, C., Muller, D., Schrager, S. M., Pannuzzo, N., & Butera, F. (2006). Mastery and performance goals predict epistemic and relational conflict regulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, No 4, 766-776.

De Beni, R., Moè, A. (2000). Motivazione e apprendimento. Il Mulino. Bologna.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940–952.

Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.

Doise, W., Mugny G., & Pérez (1998). The social construction of knowledge: Social marking and socio-cognitive conflict. In U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doise, W., Mugny G., & Perret-Clermont, A.N. (1975). Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 367-383.

Drozda-Senkowska, E., & Personnaz, B. (1988). Roˆle du contexte normatif sur l’effet de Pollyanne: 1. Competition et diminution du penchant positif dans les jugements d’autrui [Role of normative context on the Pollyanna effect: 1. Competition and reduction of the positive bias in judging others]. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 41–50.

Dunning, D., Leuenberger, A., & Sherman, D. A. (1995). A new look at motivated inference: Are self-serving theories of success a product of motivational forces? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 58–68.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1992). The study of goals in psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 165–167.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance motivation. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot and C. Dweck (Eds.). Handbook of competence and motivation. (pp. 52-72). New York: The Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628-644.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 * 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.

Elliot, A. J., Shell, M. M., Bouas, H. K., & Maier, M. A. (2005). Achievement goals, performance contingencies, and performance attainment: An experimental test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 630-640.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Eylon, B. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research, 58, 251–301.

Falomir, J.A., Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., & Butera, F. (2001) Influences sociales et changement. La voie du conflit. In J.M. Monteil, & J.L. Beauvois (Eds.). Des compétences pour l’application. (pp. 213-225). Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.

Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282.

Flansburg, S., & Hay, V. (1994). Math magic. New York: Harper Collins.

Gabriele, A. J., & Montecinos, C. (2001). Collaborating with a skilled peer: The influence of achievement goals and perception of partners’ competence on the participation and learning of low-achieving students. Journal of Experimental Education, 69, 152–176.

Gettinger, M. (1992). Applications of social psychology to learning and instruction. In F.J. Medway, & T.P. Cafferty (Eds.) School psychology: A social psychological perspective. (pp. 305-332). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

Gilly, M., & Roux, P. (1984). Efficacité comparée du travail individuel et du travail en interaction socio-cognitive dans l’appropriation et la mise en œuvre de règles de résolution chez les enfants de 11-12 ans. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 4, 171-188.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541-553.

Gruber, H. E. (2000). Creativity and conflict resolution: The role of point of view . In M. Deutsch, & P. T. Coleman (Eds).The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. (pp. 345-354). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1–21.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575.

Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, Vol. 3. The interpersonal context (pp. 28-84). New York: Guilford.

Hewson, P. T., & Hewson, M. G. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13, 1–13.

Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231–247.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151-179.

Holt, J. L., & DeVore, C. J. (2005). Culture, gender, organizational role, and styles of conflict resolution: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 165–196.

Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence and affect in task involvement and ego-involvement: The impact of social comparison information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 107–114.

Johnson, D.W. (1981). Students-students interaction: The neglected variable in education. Educational Researcher, 10, 5-10.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). Classroom conflict: Controversy versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 237–256.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. (2000). Constructive controversy: The educative power of intellectual conflict. Change, 32, 29–37.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Structuring academic controversy. In S. Sharan (Ed.). Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport: Greenwood Publishing group.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson,R.T. (1994). The pro-con cooperative group strategy: Structuring academic controversy within the social studies classroom. In R. Stahl (Ed.), Cooperative learning in social studies: A handbook for teachers. (pp. 306-331). New-York: Addison-Westley publishing company.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson R.T., & Stanne M. (1989). Impact of goal and resource interdependence on problem solving success. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 621-629.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T., & Tjosvold, D. (2000). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch, & P. T.Coleman (Eds). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice.(pp.65-85). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Publishers.

Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Kaplan, A. (2004). Achievement goals and intergroup relations. In P. R.

Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002). Classroom goal structure and student disruptive behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191-211.

Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? A reply to Harackiewicz et al. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646-648.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race?: Response to Harackiewicz et al. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646-648.

Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Seeking help in large college classes: A personcentered approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 37–58.

Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Koestner, J. (1987). Praise, involvement, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 383–390.

Lambiotte, J., Donald, F., Dansereau, D., & O’Donnell, A. (1987). Manipulating cooperative script for teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 424-430.

Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents’ achievement goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 43(2), 1–33.

Limon, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: A critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11, 357–380.

Linnenbrink, A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 197-213.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 115–144). New York: Academic Press.

Marshall, H. H. & Weinstein, R. S. (1984). Classroom factors affecting students’ self-evaluations: An interactional model. Review of Educational Research, 54 , (3), 301-325.

McGarty, C., Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., & Haslam, S. A. (1993). The creation of uncertainty in the influence process: The roles of stimulus information and disagreement with similar others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 17–38.

McGregor, H., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievementrelevant processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381-395.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.

Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.

Monteil, J.M., & Chambres, P. (1990). Eléments pour une exploration des dimensions du conflit socio-cognitif: une expérimentation chez l’adulte. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 4, 499-517.

Mugny, G.,& Butera, F. (2001). Epistemic and identity concerns in the social construction of knowledge. In U. Gerhard (Ed.), Psychologie und Lebens-qualität. Psychologie et qualité de vie (pp. 57-59). Fribourg: Editions Universitaires.

Mugny, G., Butera, F., & Falomir, J.M. (2001). Social influence and threat in social comparison between self and source’s competence: Relational factors affecting the transmission of knowledge. In F. Butera, & G. Mugny (Eds.) Social influence in social reality (pp. 225-246). Seattle, Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.

Mugny, G., Butera, F., Sanchez Mazas, M., & Pérez, J.A., (1995). Judgements in conflict: The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In B. Boothe, R. Hirsig, A. Helminger, B. Meier, & R. Volkart (Eds). Perception   Evaluation   Interpretation. Swiss Monographs in Psychology, (Vol. 3) (pp.160-168). Bern: Huber.

Mugny, G., Butera, F., Quiamzade, A., Dragulescu, A., & Tomei, A. (2003). Comparaisons sociales des compétences et dynamiques d’influence sociale dans les tâches d’aptitudes [Social comparison of competences and social influence dynamics in aptitude tasks]. L’Année Psychologique, 104, 469–496.

Mugny, G., De Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulations in cognitive development. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), Social interaction in individual development (pp. 127–146). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Mugny, G., & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 181-192.

Mugny, G., Doise, W., & Perret-Clermont, A.N. (1975-76). Conflit de centrations et progrès cognitif. Bulletin de Psychologie, 29, 199-204.

Mugny, G., Giroud, J.C., & Doise, W. (1978-79). Conflit de centrations et progrès cognitif, II: nouvelles illustrations expérimentales. Bulletin de Psychologie, 32, 979-985.

Mugny, G., Levy, M., & Doise, W. (1978). Conflit socio-cognitif et dévelopement cognitif [Socio-cognitive conflict and cognitive development]. Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 37, 22–43.

Mugny, G., Tafani, E., Butera, F., & Pigie`re, D. (1999). Contrainte et dépendance informationnelles: Influence sociale sur la représentation du groupe d’amis idéal [Informational constraint and dependence: Social influence on the representation of the ideal group of friends]. Connexions, 72, 55–72.

Muller, D., Yzerbyt, V., & Judd, C. M. (in press). Adjusting for a mediator in models with two crossed treatment variables. Organizational Research Methods.

Newman, R. S. (1990). Children’s help-seeking in the classroom: The role of motivational factors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 71–80.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287.

Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103, 241–262.

Ortiz, A.E., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1996). The effect of positive interdependence on individual performance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 243-249.

Pepitone, E.A. (1972). Comparison behaviour in elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal. 9 , 45-63.

Pérez, J.A., & Mugny, G. (1993). Influences sociales: La Théorie de l’Elaboration du Conflit. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.

Pérez, J.A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. Witte, & J. Davis (Eds.) Understanding group behaviors (Vol. 2): Small group processes and interpersonal relations. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.

Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667-686.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

Pintrich, P. R., Conley, A. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 319-338.

Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in research on motivation and achievement: Vol. 13. Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley (pp. 97–136). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Pool, G. J., Wood, W., & Leck, K. (1998). The self-esteem motive in social influence: Agreement with valued majorities and disagreement with derogated minorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 967-975.

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

Py, J., & Rainis, N. (2001). System variables and estimator variables in eyewitness testimony. In F. Butera & G. Mugny (Eds.), Social influence in social reality: Promoting individual and social change (pp. 249-264). Ashland: Hogrefe & Huber.

Quiamzade, A., & Mugny, G. (2001). Social influence dynamics in aptitude tasks. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 311–334.

Quiamzade, A., Tomei, A., & Butera, F. (2000). Informational dependence and informational constraint: Social comparison and social influences in an anagram resolution task. International Review of Social Psychology, 15, 123–150.

Rawsthorne, L., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 326–344.

Reinisch, J. M., & Sanders, S. A. (1986). A test of sex differences in aggressive response to hypothetical conflict situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1045–1049.

Rhodewalt, F., & Tragakis, M. (2002). Self-handicapping and the social self: The costs and rewards of interpersonal self-construction. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup perspectives (pp. 121-143) Philadelphia: Psychology.

Rosenholtz,  S. J. & Wilson,  B.  (1980). The effect of classroom structure on shared perceptions of ability. American Educational Research Journal, 17, (1), 75-82.

Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). Should I ask for help? The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.

Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking helpin the classroom: Who and why? Educational Psychology Review, 13, 93–114.

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.

Sanders, G., Baron, R.S., & Moore, D.L. (1978). Distraction and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 291-303.

Sandy, S. V., & Cochran, K. M. (2000). The development of conflict resolution skills in children: Preschool to adolescence. In M. Deutsch & P. T. Coleman (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 316–342). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sansone, C. (1986). A question of competence: The effects of competence and task feedback on intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 918–931.

Sapnas, K. G., & Zeller, R. A. (2002). Minimizing sample size when using exploratory factor analysis for measurement. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 10, 135–154.

Sears, D. O. (1983). The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 233–250.

Senko, C. M., Durik, A. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (in press). Historical perspectives and new directions in achievement goal theory: Understanding the effects of mastery and performance-approach goals. In J. Y. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science. New York: Guilford.

Senko, C. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2002). Performance goals: The moderating roles of context and achievement orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 603-610.

Senko, C. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005a). Achievement goals, performance and task interest: Why perceived difficulty matters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1739-1753.

Senko, C. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005b). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320-336.

Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Goal orientation, academic achievement, and depression: Evidence in favor of a revised goal theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 366-375.

Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71-81.

Smith, K., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 651-663.

Smith, K., Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1984). Effects of controversy on learning in cooperative groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 199-209.

Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2003). Goal orientation and achievement: The role of ability self-concept and failure perception. Learning and Instruction, 13, 403-422.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tjosvold D., & Johnson D.W. (1977). The effect of controversy oncognitive perspective taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 679-685.

Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Fabrey, L. J. (1980). Effect of controversy and defensiveness on cognitive perspective taking. Psychological Reports, 47, 1043–1053.

Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D.W., & Lerner, J. (1981). Effects of affirmation and acceptance on incorporation of opposing information in problem solving. The Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 103-110.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99–141). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 236-250.

Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211-238.

Yates, S. M. (2000). Task involvement and ego orientation in mathematics achievement: A three year follow-up. Issues in Educational Research, 10, 77-91.

Yzerbyt, V., Muller, D., & Judd, C. M. (2004). Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424–431.

 

 

 

© Compiti di prestazione e compiti di apprendimento: sviluppi recenti – Fabrizio Manini

 

Torna a “Apprendimento e Prestazioni”