CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
SciVerse ScienceDirect PrOCSCl ¡0
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 69 (2012) 1198 - 1207
International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2012)
Motivation to learn: a research on university students
Maria Luisa Pedditzia, Manuela Spignob *
aUniversity of Cagliari, Via Is Mirrionis 1, Cagliari 09100, Italy bUniversity of Cagliari, Via Is Mirrionis 1, Cagliari 09100, Italy
Abstract
Frequent cases of university drop-outs highlight various issues related to learning motivation. This work is based on Finn's "partecipation-identification" model and on Goal Theory. Studies highlight the importance of teacher-student relationship and achievement goals on students motivation. We want to analyze if there are significant differences between: regular students and student who have not passed their exams within the prescribed period of time; Psychology Degree Course's students and Primary Education Degree Course's students; working students and students who don't work.
We considered the following variables: personal goals dimension; university belonging feelings; perceived teacher-student relationship; perceived school goals dimension
This is a descriptive study and it uses an inquiry method on a sample of 100 Italian university students, using Anova, by SPSS.
It was possible to highlight that students who are not regular have a less positive perception of teacher-student relationship and also of task goal structure than regular students. There aren't any significant difference between Psychology students and Primary Education students and between students who have a job and students who haven't.
The results have demonstrated that regular students have a significantly more positive perception of teacher-student relationship. This means that the regular students feel better integrated in University than not regular students. For students who have not passed all their exams within the prescribed period of time, the perspective changes dramatically.
In order to better explain this situation, we want to start from the theory of self-worth, which assumes that school performance should be understood in terms of students' attempts to maintain a positive self-image. To defend that image the students can implement a variety of defensive and self-protective strategies.
From the data obtained, it was found that regardless of the degree course the levels of motivation are the same. First of all we can infer that they do not depend on length or facility of degree programs and neither on older age of Primary Education students than Psychology students. They depend on the other hand, probably, by the fact that the students have acquired an optimal level of self-regulation in learning.
© 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selectionandpeer-review underresponsibilityofDr. Zafer BekirogullariofCognitive - Counselling, Research &Conference ServicesC-crcs.
Keywords: learning motivation; achievement goals; teacher-student relationship; mastery goals; performance goals
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +393493652914 E-mail address: manuelaspigno@yahoo.it. 1877-0428 © 2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Cognitive - Counselling, Research & Conference
Services C-crcs.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.052
1. Introduction
Frequent cases of university drop-outs and delays in studies highlight various issues related to learning motivation. The relationship between motivation and university dispersion is summarized in the participation-identification's model (Finn, 1989), which explains the neglect and school drop-out from the student's lack of identification with the values and norms of the school, with resulting in alienation and loss of sense of belonging.
Motivation and de-motivation can be considered as phenomena mediated by the representation of the relationship with each other and analyzed from the point of view of interpersonal functioning in school. The following research analyzes learning motivation in a sample of university students.
Studies of Ames (1992) and Roeser, Midgley and Urdan (1996) show that educational environments, the teacher-student relationship and feelings of belonging to the school may affect the motivation and learning goals adopted by students. They show that students who perceive their school and teachers as more oriented towards perfomance goals they are also more inclined to adopt relative ability goals. On the contrary, those who perceive teachers more oriented towards mastery goals are more inclined to adopt personal mastery goals.
Teachers, through their systems and actions can emphasize improvements, mastery and intellectual progresses (task goals) or, on the other side, they can stress social comparison, relative ability and competition between students (relative ability goals). This research deals with the issue of learning motivation from the perception that students have about their relationships with peers, with the University in general and especially with the teachers. We started from achievement goals (Elliot & Dweck, 1989), taking into account learning strategies and general school climate that may facilitate or inhibit feelings of belonging or alienation (Pedditzi, 2010).
2. Objectives
The present study aims to analyze the learning motivation of university students from the theory of learning goals (Dweck, Leggett, 1988) and the researches that emphasize the relationship between learning de-motivation and perception of school climate (Roeser , Midgley and Urdan, 1996). The following variables were analyzed:
■ students' personal mastery goals and performance goals;
■ university belonging feelings;
■ perceived teacher-student relationship;
■ perceived school goals dimension.
We want to analyze if there are significant differences between:
■ regular students and students who have not passed their exams within the prescribed period of time;
■ Psychology Degree Course's students and Primary Education Degree Course's students;
■ working students and students who don't work.
3. Method
The design of this study is descriptive and uses the inquiry method. It is based on a survey conducted by using questionnaires on learning goals with university students during 2009/2010 academic year, in the Faculty of Education, during the verbalization of the examinations' results of Psychology of Education .
3.1 Instruments
We used the questionnaire of Roeser, Midgley and Urdan (1996) and Pintrich & De Groot (1990), in its Italian adaptation by Agus and Marini (1999). It can detect the following data:
■ sex;
■ age;
■ degree course;
■ working student or not;
■ regularity about examinations.
The questionnarie is made by 59 items evaluated by a 7 points Likert scale where:
1= completely false; 2= very false; 3= quite false; 4= undecided; 5= quite true; 6= very true; 7= completely true. It is a selection of items taken from Roeser, Midgley e Urdan (1996) and others from Meece, Blumenfeld e Hoyle (1988) and evaluates 13 scales:
■ "Mastery Goal Orientation Scale": analyzes the intrinsically motivated orientation, which leads the student to engage in study activities in order to increase their knowledge and skills ( items such as: "I work hard in studying because I like learning new things");
■ "Performance Goal Orientation Scale": analyzes performance goal orientation, which leads students to consider performance and outcomes more important than the task (items such as: "I work hard in studying because for me it's very important to succeed better than my colleagues");
■ "Personal Task Goals Scale": assesses students' personal task goals that lead students to engage in the task and study in order to increase their knowledge and skills (items such as: "I like the study activities that make me think" or "I like school work that I learn from even if I make a lot of mistakes");
■ "Personal Relative Ability Goals Scale": assesses the adoption of personal relative ability goals that come from the comparison between personal school performance and the performance of other students (items such as: "I like to show my teachers I'm smarter than the others students");
■ "Academic Self-Efficacy Scale": assesses feeling of self-efficacy in academic tasks (items such as: "I can do even the hardest school work if I try");
■ "University Belonging Scale": analyzes positive or negative feelings of belonging to University, with items such as: "I am happy to belong to this degree program";
■ "Perceived Teacher-Student relationships Scale": analyzes student perception of the quality of teacher-student interactions in school (items such as: "In this degree program, students' ideas are listened to and valued");
■ "Academic Task Goal Structure Scale": analyzes students' perception of mastery goals proposed by the professors (items such as: "In this degree program, mistakes are okay as long as we are learning" or " In this degree program, understanding the work is more important than getting the right answers");
■ "Academic Ability Goal Structure Scale": assesses students' perception of professors' performance goals and includes items that evaluate students' perception that relative ability is a salient and rewarded marker of success in University (for example:"In this degree program, professors act better with students who get good grades, rather than the others").
3.2 Statistical Methodology
Data were analyzed using the following procedures through statistical software:
• frequencies analysis;
• Anova.
3.3 Sample
The sample was made by 100 students (21% males and 79% females).
About 35% of students are enrolled in Primary Education degree's course, while 65% are enrolled in Psychological Sciences and Techniques degree's. Among the students taken into account, 50% are workers, 50% do not work To the question: "Have you ever thought about retreat?" 5% of students answered "yes" and 95% said "no". 37% of the students are regular with their examinations, 39% no, while 24% it is almost.
4. Results
4.1 Differences between students with regular examinations and not
The analysis of variance, applied to the independent variable "students with regular examinations" showed the following results:
Table 1 Differences between regular students and non regular students
N Means Standard Deviation Gdl F Sig
Self-regulation learning strategies yes 18 5,290 ,7039 2 ,279 ,758 n.s.
no 19 5,403 ,8082
almost 13 5,230 ,2920
Meta-cognitive strategies yes 30 5,535 ,8664 2 ,213 ,809 n.s.
no 30 5,653 ,7410
almost 19 5,534 ,7075
Professors' Task Goals (Academic Task Goal Structure Scale) yes 37 5,013 ,7539 2 3,288 ,042
no 39 4,611 ,6843
almost 24 4,715 ,6379
Negative teacher-student relationship yes 37 3,513 ,7219 2 2,650 ,076 n.s.
no 39 3,917 ,8009
almost 24 3,700 ,7757
Positive teacher-student relationship yes 37 4,329 ,7975 2 3,994 ,022
no 39 3,887 ,6453
almost 24 4,241 ,6826
Professors' Ability Goals (Academic Ability Goal Structure Scale) yes 37 4,493 ,6833 2 1,045 ,356 n.s.
no 39 4,275 ,6483
almost 24 4,427 ,6815
Academic Self-Efficacy yes 37 5,351 ,8191 2 1,165 ,316 n.s.
no 39 5,076 ,7908
almost 24 5,250 ,7453
Personal Relative Ability Goals yes 37 3,180 1,068 2 1,036 ,359 n.s.
no 39 3,440 1,064
almost 24 3,069 1,077
Personal Task Goals yes 37 5,389 ,8484 2 ,517 ,598 n.s.
no 39 5,559 ,7962
almost 24 5,566 ,8165
In particular, they show the following results:
Table 2 Positive student-teacher relationship - Duncan's Post-hoc
Are you regular with your exams? N Means S.D.
no 39 3,887a ,6453
almost regular 24 4,241a,b ,6827
yes 37 4,329b ,7975
Among regular and non regular students emerge statistically significant differences in the perception of the teacher-student relationship. Students who are not regular with the studies present a less positive perception of the relationship with their teachers than students regularly. Students who answer "almost" to the question "Are you regular with your exams?" get scores that are placed in an intermediate position with respect to the other two, in perceiving a positive relationship with their professors.
Table 3 Task Goals Structure - Duncan's Post-hoc
Are you regular with N Means D.S.
your exams?
no 39 4,6111a ,6843
almost regular 24 4,7153a,b ,6379
yes 37 5,0135b ,7540
Among the regular students and those who are not regular emerge also statistically significant differences in the perception of professors' task goal structure. Students who are not regular with their studies in fact show a less positive perception of professors' task goals than students who are regular. Again, students who answer "almost" to the question "Are you regular with your exams?" get scores that are placed in an intermediate position with respect to positive perception of their professors' task goals.
4.2 Differences between Psychology students and Primary Education students
The analysis of variance applied to the independent variable "degree" gave the following results:
Table 4 Differences between Psychology students and Primary Education students
N Means S.D. Gdl F Sig
Self-regulation learning Primary E. 15 5,377 ,4875 1 ,173 ,679
strategies Psychology 35 5,292 ,7286 ns
Meta-cognitive strategies Primary E. 27 5,532 ,7797 1 ,152 ,697
Psychology 52 5,605 ,7804 ns
Professors' Task Goals Primary E. 35 4,842 ,7669 1 ,349 ,556
(Academic Task Goal Structure Scale) Psychology 65 4,753 ,6922 ns
Negative teacher-student Primary E. 35 3,851 ,7659 1 1,637 ,204
relationship Psychology 65 3,643 ,7822 ns
Positive teacher-student Primary E. 35 4,251 ,8063 1 1,332 ,251
relationship Psychology 65 4,073 ,6924 ns
Professors' Ability Goals (Academic Ability Goal Structure Scale) Primary E. 35 4,492 ,6792 1 1,212 ,274 ns
Psychology 65 4,338 ,6635
Academic Self-Efficacy Primary E. 35 5,104 ,8155 1 1,140 ,288 ns
Psychology 65 5,282 ,7789
Personal Relative Ability Goals Primary E. 35 3,271 1,117 1 ,013 ,911 ns
Psychology 65 3,246 1,052
Personal Task Goals Primary E. 35 5,382 ,7410 1 1,071 ,303 ns
Psychology 65 5,560 ,8538
There are no significant differences between students of two degree courses: students of Psychology and students of Science of Primary Education. They have the same levels of motivation, self-study and perception of positivity/negativity in the relationship with the teachers. Probably this is because both are at the end of their degree program and they have reached a good level of motivation and self learning.
4.3 Differences between working students and students who don't work
The one-way analysis of variance, applied with reference to the independent variable "working condition" gave the following results:
Table 5 Differences between working students and non working students
N Means S.D. Gdl F Sig
Self-regulation learning strategies yes 22 5,378 ,5754 1 ,329 ,569 ns
no 28 5,269 ,7291
Meta cognitive strategies yes 39 5,631 ,7026 1 ,328 ,569 ns
no 40 5,530 ,8474
Professors' Task Goals (Academic Task Goal Structure Scale) yes 49 4,809 ,6463 1 ,111 ,739 ns
no 51 4,761 ,7840
Negative teacher-student relationship yes 49 3,800 ,7820 1 1,118 ,293 ns
no 51 3,635 ,7753
Positive teacher-student relationship yes 49 4,146 ,6973 1 ,021 ,885 ns
no 51 4,125 ,7766
Professors' Ability Goals (Academic Ability Goal Structure Scale) yes 49 4,413 ,6970 1 ,092 ,763 ns
no 51 4,372 ,6487
Academic Self-Efficacy yes 49 5,183 ,7517 1 ,200 ,655 ns
no 51 5,254 ,8355
Personal Relative Ability Goals yes 49 3,173 1,163 1 ,556 ,458 ns
no 51 3,333 ,9769
Personal Task Goals yes 49 5,604 ,7921 1 1,631 ,205 ns
no 51 5,396 ,8347
There are no significant differences in the variables considered among working students and students who don't work, because both categories of students have the same levels of motivation, self-study and perception of positivity/negativity in the relationship with their professors. Probably this is because the study of meta-cognitive strategies and self-regulation implemented by the students are not affected negatively or positively by the fact that they usually work or not.
5. Conclusions
The present study reveals a significant difference among college students, interviewed from the regularity in their studies' curriculum. This difference is related to the perception they have about the quality of professor-student interactions and their perception of professors' task goals.
The results of analysis of variance have clearly showed that those with regular examinations has a significantly more positive perception of the relationship with their professors and professors' mastery goals. This means that the student with regular exams who feels better integrated in the university than student who don't experience regularity also perceives a better relationship with their professors.
Probably he/she usually follows lessons, stays in close contact with all stuffs concerning the university environment and with colleagues who follow the same course. The professor is not seen as an "enemy", but as a person from whom you can learn something, a human being, a source of knowledge, made available for students through the lessons, to enhance their knowledge. From this point of view, the relationship with professors can only be viewed positively, because it doesn't matter the human sympathy /antipathy that he/she can inspire to the student: he/she is nothing but a useful means to increase their knowledge . The perception that students have about the relationship with their professors are like this: "In this course the students' ideas are taken into account and they are valued" and the measure of the perception of mastery goals proposed by professors through the education process are "in this faculty professors accept mistakes, as long as you learn something," or "the ability to understand the lesson is more important than giving the right answers", because, considering what we've just said before, it would not have any sense to think otherwise. The teacher is in fact considered as a means by the student and not as an obstacle for his own personal studying journey.
For students who are not regular with the exams, perspective changes dramatically. To explain, we want to start from the theory of self-worth, which held that school performance should be understood in terms of students' attempts to maintain a positive self-image with regard to the competence, particularly when there is a risk of' failure. To defend that image the students can implement a variety of defensive and self-protective strategies (Covington, 1992).
Probably the fact that students who are not regular with their exams perceive a more negative relationship with their professor, judging professors' behavior as biased and oriented positively only with "the students who goes well with their studies", is a way to protect themselves (except for cases of real personal dislike, not forgetting that, as we said before, teachers are human beings, and human in the fullest sense of the word). A sort of good scapegoat to explain why they aren't regular with their exams, without necessarily affect their self esteem.
Explaining the situation according to attribution theory (Weiner, 1985), recalling that, according to the author, to explain the success or failure achieved in a situation or task, the individual takes into account four fundamental causes (ability, effort, task difficulty, luck), framed in three basic dimensions (internal or external to the person, stability or constancy, controllability); this way the student can explain the fact that he/she isn't regular with his/her exams, through causal attribution to an external locus, for example the negative attitude of the teacher, regarded as unstable and uncontrollable dimension. Self-esteem is well protected and future expectations about the chances of success greatly reduced, sometimes in a sort of vicious circle, difficult to fight and that may be the basis for a large percentage of those drop-outs ("slipping out").
This aspect is often common that when the student feels powerless with respect to external forces, the sense of helplessness is pressing, pervasive, persistent and there is no other solution than to give up and resign themselves to
abandonment. The research described in the previous chapter was founded by an hypothesis that there could be a substantial difference in the levels of motivation, self-learning and perception of positivity/negativity in the relationship with the professors between students from two degree programs: Psychology and Primary Education. From this point of view there were no significant differences and there were no motivational differences. Looking at the data, however carefully we see that it has gone beyond the initial hypothesis, reaching highly significant results in the motivational field, until we get in touch with the discussed phenomenon of university dispersion. Specifically, therefore, must be taken in account both the relevant data, as those who are not. From the data obtained, although not statistically significant, it was found that, regardless of the degree course studied, the levels of motivation are the same. First of all, we infer that motivational levels do not depend on degree program's facility, on its length (3 years for Psychology, 4 years for Primary Education) or students' age (Psychology's students are younger than Primary Education's students). On the other hand, probably, it depends by the fact that the student has acquired an optimal level of self-regulation learning and he/she has a good control of their cognitive resources and he/she knows how to use them and control them (Boscolo, 1997). It's very important that the outcome does not depend by working condition. It's common thinking that working students are less motivated than the others, perhaps because we may think that they usually consider study as a "minor work" or because they had less time available or they are less interested in engaging with all their might. This research shows however that there is no statistically significant difference between students and workers. Personal goals, performance or mastery are pursued in a equally hard way by both samples of subjects and the level of underlying motivation is not altered.
References
Ajello, A.M. (1999). La motivazione ad apprendere, in Pontecorvo (Ed). Manuale di Psicologia dell'educazione. Bologna: il Mulino.
Albanese, O., Doudin, P.A., Martin, D. (1996). Metacognizione ed educazione. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Atkinson, J.W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. PsichologicalReview, 64, 359-372. Atkinson, J.W. (1964). An introduction to motivation, Princeton,Van Nostrand; trad.it. La Motivazione, Bologna: il Mulino, 1973.
Baldaro Verde, J. (1989). L'insuccesso scolastico, in M.W. Battacchi (Ed). Trattato enciclopedico di Psicologia dell'eta evolutiva. Padova: Piccin.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psichological Review, 84, 191215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New York: Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-184.
Bandura, A. (1995). Self Efficacyin changing societies. Cambridge: University Press. Trad.it.. Il Senso di
autoefficacia. Trento: Erickson, 1996.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman, New York. Trad.it., Autoefficacia. Teoria e applicazioni. Trento: Erickson, 2000.
Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Trad.it. Conflitto, attivazione e creativita. Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1971.
Borkowski, J.G., Muthukrishna, N. (1996). Un modello graduale per inserire l'insegnamento meta cognitivo in classe, in Ianes D. (a cura di). Metacognizione e Insegnamento. Trento: Erickson.
Boscolo, P. (1997). Psicologia dell'apprendimento scolastico. Aspetti cognitivi e motivazionali. Torino: UTET. Bruner, J. (1997). La cultura dell'educazione. Milano: Feltrinelli. Bruner, J. (1967). Verso una teoria dell'istruzione. Roma: Armando.
Brown, A.L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of metacognition, in Glaser (a cura
di). Advances in instructional psychology, vol.1. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Bruner, J.,Olver, R.R., Greenfield, P.M. (1968). Lo sviluppo cognitivo. Roma: Armando.
Cacciamani, S. (2002). Psicologia per l'insegnamento. Roma: Carocci.
Cacioppo, G. (1999). Ricerche sulla dispersione universitaria. Psicologia e scienze dell'educazione a Palermo.
Scuola e citta, 8, 341-343.
Carugati, F., Selleri, P. (1996). Psicologia sociale dell'educazione. Bologna: il Mulino. Carugati, F., Selleri, P. (2005). Psicologia dell'educazioneII. Bologna: il Mulino. Cornoldi, C. (1995). Metacognizione e apprendimento. Bologna: il Mulino.
Covington, M.V. (1983). Motivated cognitions, in Paris, Olson, Stevenson (a cura di). Learning and motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale: Erlbaum
Covington, M.V. (1992). Making the grade. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress De Beni, R., Moe, A. (2000). Motivazione e apprendimento. Bologna: il Mulino
Deci, E.L., Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Ryan, R.M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325-46.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour, Plenum. New York. Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1992). The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement, in Boggiano, Pittman (a cura di). Achievement and motivation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Del Favero, L. (2006). Psicologia dell'interesse: problemi teorici e prospettive di ricerca, Giornale italiano di psicologia, 4, 815-850.
Di Stefano, G., Tallandini, M.,A. (1992). Meccanismi eprocessi di sviluppo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore. Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psycologist, 41, 1040-1048. Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Trad.it. Teorie del se. Trento: Erikson, 2000.
Dweck, C.S., Legget, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psichological Review, 95, 256-273.
Elliot, E.S., Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
Farinelli, F.(2002). L'insuccesso scolastico: conoscerlo per contrastarlo. Roma: Edizioni Kappa.
Finn, J.D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 2, 117-142.
Ford, M.E. (1992). Motivating Humans: Goals, Emotions and personal agency beliefs. CA: Sage, NewburyPark.
Ford, M.E. (1996). Stimolare la motivazione e il senso di autoefficacia nell'apprendimento. Difficicolta di
apprendimento, 441-64.
Gardner, H. (1996). Formae mentis. Milano: Feltrinelli. Gardner, H. (1999). Educare a comprendere. Milano: Feltrinelli.
Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a developmental model. Human Development, 21, 3464.
Harter, S. (1981). A model of mastery motivation in children: individual differences and developmental change. In
Collins (a cura di). Minnesota symposium on child psychology, vol.14, Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for children. ChildDevelopment,53, 87-97.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self system, in Hetherington (a cura di). Handbook of child
psychology, vol. 4, Socialization, personality, and social development. New York: Wiley.
Ianes, D. (1996). Metacognizione e insegnamento. Trento: Erickson.
Lepper, M.R., Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Liverta Sempio, O. (1998). Vygotskij, Piaget, Bruner. Concezioni dello sviluppo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore. Liverta Sempio, O., Confalonieri, E., Scaratti, G. (a cura di) (1999). L'abbandono scolastico. Aspetti culturali, cognitivi, affettivi. Milano: Cortina Editore.
Marini, F. (1990). Successo e insuccesso nello studio. La teoria attribuzionale della motivazione scolastica. Milano: FrancoAngeli
Mason, L. (2006). Psicologia dell'apprendimento e dell'istruzione. Bologna: il Mulino. Mazzoni, G. (2000). L 'apprendimento. Roma: Carocci.
Mc Combs, B. L., Pope, J. E. (1996). Come motivare gli alunni difficili. Trento: Erickson. Miller, P. (1987). Teorie dello sviluppo psicologico. Bologna: il Mulino.
Nicholls, J. G. (1983). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation, in Paris, Olson, Stevenson (a cura di).
Learning and motivation in the classroom. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Nota, L. (1997). Stare con gli altri, no problem!, in Vianello R., Cornoldi C. (a cura di). Metacognizione e sviluppo dellapersonalita. Congresso Internazionale, CNIS, Bergamo: Edizioni Junior.
Pedditzi, M.L .(2010). Prevenire il disagio e la dispersione scolastica: l'analisi dei bisogni in un intervento svolto con insegnanti, studenti e genitori. XII Congresso Nazionale AIP Sezione Psicologia Clinica E Dinamica. 24-26
settembre 2010. (pp. 1-7). ISBN/ISSN: 978-88-905270-12. TORINO: Universita degli Studi di Torino (ITALY). pubblicazione su CD.
Pellerey, M., Orio, F. (1995). La diagnosi delle Strategie cognitive, affettive e motivazionali coinvolte nell'apprendimento scolastico. Costruzione, validazione e standardizzazione di un questionario di autovalutazione.
Orientamenti Pedagogici, 4, 683-726.
Perini, S. (1997). Psicologia dell'educazione. Bologna: il Mulino.
Perricone Briullotta, G. (2005). Manuale di psicologia dell'educazione. Una prospettiva ecologica per lo studio e l'intervento sulprocesso educativo. Milano: McGraw-Hill.
Piaget, J. (1968). La nascita dell'intelligenza nelfanciullo. Firenze: Giunti-Barbera.
Piaget, J. (1970a). The child's conception of time. Basic Books, New York. Trad.it. Lo sviluppo della nozione di tempo nel bambino. Firenze: La Nuova Italia
Piaget, J. (1970b). The child's conception of movement and speed. New York: Basic Books, Pintrich, P.R., Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of cognitive and motivational factors, in Wigfield e Eccles (a cura di). Development of achievement motivation. San Diego Ca: Academi Press (pp.249-284).
Pombeni, M.L. (1996). Orientamento scolastico e professionale. Bologna: il Mulino. Pontecorvo, C. (1999). Manuale di psicologia dell'educazione. Bologna: il Mulino.
Pontecorvo, C. (1998). Dinamiche dell'innovazione a scuola, in Talamo A. (a cura di). Apprendere con le nuove tecnologie. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Pontecorvo, C., Ajello, A.M., Zucchermaglio, C. (1991). Discutendo s'impara. Interazione sociale e conoscenza a scuola. Roma: Carocci.
Rheinberg, F. (2003). Psicologia della motivazione. Bologna: il Mulino.
Rosati, G., Gattini, G. (a cura di) (2002). Orientarsi per orientare: la scuola dell'autonomia e il territorio: percorsi integrati. Cagliari: IRRE.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rumiati, R. (1988). Il Comportamentismo, in D'Odorico L., Pinto G., Rumiati R.,Vianello R. Psicologia dello sviluppo. Bergamo: Juvenilia.
Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-61.
Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., Grolnick, W.S. (1992). When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: A theory of internalization and self-regulation in school, in Boggiano, Pittman (a cura di). Achievement and motivation: A social-developmental perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schunk, D.H., Zimmerman, B. (1994). Self- regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. New York: Hillsdale, Erlbaum.
Soresi, S., Nota, L. (1999). Interessi e scelte. Firenze: Giunti Organizzazioni Speciali. Skinner, B.F. (1970). La tecnologia dell'insegnamento. Brescia: La scuola.
Steiner, V.J., Souberman, E. (1987). Postfazione, in Vygotskij, Il processo cognitivo. Torino: Boringhieri.
Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy motivation and
learning, in Pintrich, Maehr (a cura di) Advancesc in motivation and achievement, vol 7. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Valentini, P. (1998). Jean Piaget: le opere, i metodi, il modello teorico, in Sempio O. L. (a cura di), Vygotsky,
Piaget, Bruner. Concezioni dello sviluppo. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore, pp. 127-158. Liverta Sempio ,1988.
Varisco, B.M., Mason, L. (1989). Media, computer, societa e scuola. Torino: SEI.
Vygotskij, L. S. (1987). Il processo cognitivo. Torino: Boringhieri.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism to cognition. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown: General Learning Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion PsycologicalReview, 92, 548-73.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlang.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. NewburyPark: Sage.
Wentzel, K.R., (1991). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context, in Maher,
Pintrich (a cura di). Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 7. Londra: JAI Press, Greenwiche.
White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psycological Review, 66, 297-333.
Zimmerman, B.J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis.
In Zimmerman, Schunk (a cura di). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (pp. 1-37). New York:
Mahwah, Erlbaum.
