The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework.

Abstract

Two studies examined hypotheses drawn from a proposed modification of the social-cognitive model of achievement motivation that centered on the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Implicit theories of ability were shown to be direct predictors of performance attainment and intrinsic motivation, and the goals of the 2 x 2 framework were shown to account for these direct relations. Perceived competence was shown to be a direct predictor of achievement goals, not a moderator of relations implicit theory or achievement goal effects. The results highlight the utility of attending to the approach-avoidance distinction in conceptual models of achievement motivation and are fully in line with the hierarchical model of achievement motivation.

Adolescents’ autonomous functioning and implicit theories of ability as predictors of their school achievement and week-to-week study regulation and well-being

“…Therefore, we considered important to control for perceived competence before examining the relations of autonomous functioning to study efforts and procrastination. Likewise, research has shown that although entity beliefs (or incremental beliefs) do not associate with perceived competence, they do predict subsequent grades, much like perceived competence does (Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006). So, taking into account perceived competence was again deemed necessary.…”

An analysis of Turkish students’ perception of intelligence from primary school to university

“…They are learning oriented, and are motivated to try to learn, to seek out difficult conditions to develop learning, and to persist to get over these difficulties (Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2005, p.44) Both theories are summarized in Table 1 (Yeager, Paunesku, Walton & Dweck, 2013, p.5). According to the literature, the self-theory adopted by students affects their achievement and goal orientation (Dweck, 1986;Dweck, 2000;Dweck and Leggett, 1988;Elliot & Dweck, 1988;Dupeyrat & Marine, 2005;Stipek & Gralinksi, 1996;Roedel & Schraw, 1995;Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007;Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002, Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006Siegle, Rubenstein, Pollard & Romey, 2010), their reactions to obstacles and difficulties (Dweck and Leggett, 1988), their motivations (Haimovitz, Wormington & Corpus, 2011, Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006, their strategies (Stipek & Gralinski, 1996;Vermetten, Lodewijks & Vermunt, 2005) and their efforts (Stipek & Gralinski, 1996;Dupeyrat & Mariné, 2005). Moreover, the teachers' perceptions of intelligence affect the students' success and their educational aims (Lynott and Wolfolk, 1994;Lee, 1996).…”

Implicit theories of intelligence and motivation for learning mathematics in high school students

“…Иако Двекова тврди да су имплицитне теорије интелигенције биполаран кон-структ, у истраживањима других аутора утврђено је да ове две теорије представљају два засебна фактора, при чему они међусобно остварују негативну корелацију (Abd El Fattah & Yates, 2006;Bodill & Roberts, 2013;Bråten & Strømsø, 2004;Cury et al, 2006;Delavar et al, 2011;Dinger & Dickhäuser, 2013;Dupeyrat & Marine, 2005), али постоје и налази у којима остварују позитивну везу (Abd El Fattah & Al Nabhani, 2012;Magno, 2012). Наведени корпус истраживања имплицитних теорија интелигенције постули-ра став да уколико је појединац присталица једне од ових теорија, то не значи нужно његов низак степен слагања са супротним становиштем.…”