I like that the authors mentioned that more research must be done on the affects on the individual with mastery and high-performance interactions. The whole time reading, I wondered about the individual that was always had others performing much better than then. I remember in gym class being chosen last for teams frequently because I wasn't very athletic. Gym class is a very performance goal based class and it wasn't a very good feeling being chosen last. I wonder about the potential negative affects of certain individuals that may always be at the bottom. Some competition may be good, but where does it draw the line?
Overall I liked the readings far less than the other readings we've had. I really liked the motivation readings from last week and so thought that I'd enjoy the "attribution theory" paper since it is a cognitive theory of motivation. However, the attribution reading I feel was less helpful from a potential future teacher's perspective. Most of the prior readings I've felt have been extremely beneficial in assisting me personally becoming a more effective teacher. However, although it is beneficial to be aware of what affects or contributes to "success and failure" the reading also discusses some aspects that I, as a teacher can't change. I find these less interesting because I can't do a whole lot to change those. For example, perhaps someone does do bad on a test because they got into a fight with their boyfriend or girlfriend - as a teacher this doesn't help me a whole lot, obviously. Also, it seems the consensus/consistency/distinctiveness concept is just plain logical deduction or cause and effect.
I understand how the authors define the difference between approach performance and avoidance performance but I think it can be hard to distinquish the difference. Approach performance if doing better than others and avoidance performance is not looking stupid. However, if everyone looked "stupid" than one may care that they "perform" better than someone else. I mean they are kind of tied together - at least sometimes. I imagine few people want to look stupid. However, if for instance no one "knows the answer" than it doesn't matter as much performing better than others. My opinion is typically people want to "fit in", too.
We've read about "prior knowledge and beliefs" in previous readings. We haven't discussed Dewey and I don't really know anything about him - but did he say something about prior experiences and how it affects a persons behavior (and thus also thinking)? I'm just wondering what big theorists the ideas from these papers came from.