Localización subcelular de los generadores LFP de hipocampo

For more than three decades, achievement goals have received substantial consideration in the field of education (Conley, 2012; Kaplan and Maehr, 2007; Meece et al., 2006; Senko et al., 2011). Therefore, it is worthwhile presenting a history of achievement-goal theory.

Between the mid and late 1970s, four scholars at the University of Illinois (Carol Ames, John Nicholls, Carol Dweck and Marty Maehr) independently conducted a research program that aimed to understand students’

achievement motivation (Elliot and Dweck, 2005; Senko et al., 2011). At the end of 1977, these researchers began meeting in a seminar series to discuss their concerns regarding their research (Roberts, 2012). These meetings influenced their thinking about achievement goals (Brandmo, 2013), as evidenced in articles some of these researchers wrote in that period (Maehr and Nicholls, 1980; Nicholls and Dweck, 1979) that articulated the basic ideas of achievement goals (Murayama et al., 2012). In the following years, Nicholls and Dweck continued working in this area, yet with different

27 2.3.1 Dweck’s conceptualization

Dweck articulated her ideas about achievement goals after studying late grade-school-age children (Elliot, 2005). In a series of publications (Diener and Dweck, 1978; Diener and Dweck, 1980; Dweck, 1975; Dweck and

Reppucci, 1973), Dweck and colleagues revealed that students with relatively equal ability had different responses to task failure. These authors noticed that some students responded positively to failure by increasing their efforts and enhancing their performance, while others responded in a ―helpless‖ manner characterized by diminution in performance and persistence. In an attempt to identify the root causes of this phenomenon, Dweck posited that the reason for such responses is connected to the ―goals‖ that students adopt for finishing the task (Dweck, 1986a; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Dweck, 1999). According to the authors, students who adopt ―learning goals‖ view a given task as an opportunity to learn, gain knowledge and strengthen their competence. In addition, students who adopt these goals view failure as a beneficial experience that will help them in their future tasks. In contrast, students who adopt ―performance goals‖ view a given task not as an

opportunity to learn and gain knowledge but as an opportunity to demonstrate their competence (Elliott and Dweck, 1988; Smiley and Dweck, 1994). When failure at a task is encountered, such students view failure as an indication that they do not have the ability to succeed again in the task, even if they try harder. Thus, they reduce the amount of effort they usually apply to this task (Murayama et al., 2012).

28

It is noteworthy to say that students who adopt each type of goal (i.e. learning or performance goals) have different beliefs about ability. Learning-goal adopters view ability as malleable and able to be enhanced by greater effort, while students who adopt performance goals believe that ability is a stable trait that cannot be changed (Bempechat et al., 1991;Dweck and Leggett, 1988).

2.3.2 Nicholls’ conceptualization

Nicholls’ articulation of achievement goals emerged from research

investigating the manner in which children conceptualize ability (Thrash and Hurst, 2008). Nicholls argues that children aged between five and eleven years old do not differentiate between ability and effort (Jagacinski and Nicholls, 1984; Jagacinski and Nicholls, 1987; Nicholls, 1976; Nicholls, 1978; Nicholls, 1980). At this early age, success is intertwined with effort, and

children who can apply more effort are viewed as having greater ability (Elliot, 2005). At approximately age 12, children begin to distinguish between ability and effort. By this age, ability is ―inferred‖ when a student outperforms their peers while applying equal effort, or when the student gains the same grades as others while applying less effort (Murayama et al., 2012).

According to Nicholls (1984), older students can view achievement situations as ability that is either intertwined with effort or separate from it. According to Nicholls (1984), such different views of ability form two broad types of

achievement goals that students might pursue; ―task-involvement‖ and ―ego- involvement‖ goals. Students who pursue the task-involvement goal do not differentiate between ability and effort, and consider both as one, thus they try

29

to learn by applying as much effort as possible (Nicholls, 1984). In contrast, students who pursue the ego-involvement goal do distinguish between ability and effort, thus they try to demonstrate their ability by outperforming their peers while applying only the minimum effort (Nicholls, 1984).

It is noteworthy that adopting of either ego or task involvement goals can lead to different outcomes (Elliot, 2005; Murayama et al., 2012). Students who adopt ego-involvement goals can gain positive effects when accompanied by a high perceived ability and negative effects when accompanied by a low perceived ability, while task-involvement is believed to lead to positive effects regardless of the level of perceived ability (Elliot, 2005).

Despite the differences between Dweck and Nicholls in articulating

achievement goals, many ―striking‖ similarities can be noted and considered (Elliot, 2005; Murayama et al., 2012; Thrash and Hurst, 2008). According to the authors, both Dweck and Nicholls stressed the importance of competence in the achievement-goal construct. In addition, both Dweck and Nicholls offered a dichotomy in conceptualization of achievement goals (i.e. Dweck’s learning goals and performance goals and Nicholls’ task-involvement students and ego-involvement students). Moreover, the goal types proposed by Dweck and Nicholls are comparable. For example, students who represent Dweck’s learning goals and Nicholls’ task-involvement students are characterized by applying a great deal of effort and seeking deep understanding of the task at hand, while students who represent Dweck’s performance goals and Nicholls’ ego-involvement students are characterized by their attempts to outperform others and demonstrate ability.

30

These conceptual similarities encouraged Ames and Archer (1987; 1988) to integrate the views of both Dweck and Nicholls into one achievement-goal approach. These authors argue that the conceptual work of Dweck and Nicholls was sufficiently similar to unify achievement-goal terms as a

dichotomy comprising ―mastery goals‖ and ―performance goals.‖ According to Murayama et al. (2012), this unification was a breakthrough in uniting the terminology used in this research area and as a result, research on achievement goals blossomed thereafter, particularly in the field of higher education and sport (Elliot, 2005).