Improving low achievers' academic performance at university by changing the social value of mastery goals

Recent research has shown that, in a University context, mastery goals are highly valued, and that students may endorse these goals either because they believe in their utility (i.e., social utility), in which case mastery goals are positively linked to achievement, or to create a positive image of themselves (i.e., social desirability), in which case mastery goals do not predict academic achievement. The present two experiments induced high vs. neutral levels of mastery goals' social utility and social desirability. Results confirmed that mastery goals predicted performance only when these goals were presented as socially useful but not socially desirable, especially among low achievers, those who need mastery goals the most to succeed.

Understanding academics' popular science publishing : institution culture and management style effects

Most universities and higher education systems have formally taken up a third mission, which involves various public outreach and engagement activities. Little is known regarding how higher education institutions' organisations interact with academic's level of public outreach. This article examines to which extent the perceptions academics have of their institutions' culture and management style, as well as some of their own individual and statutory characteristics interact with their level of public outreach. Using the Academic Profession in Europe comparative and quantitative research database, this article focuses on two countries on the extremities of the spectrum - Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Brief report : Academic amotivation in light of the dark side of identity formation

The study intended to determine motivational profiles of first-year undergraduates and aimed their characterization in terms of identity processes. First, a cluster analysis revealed five motivational profiles: combined (i.e., high quantity of motivation, low amotivation); intrinsic (i.e., high intrinsic, low introjected and external regulation, low amotivation); "demotivated" (i.e., very low quantity of motivation and amotivation); extrinsic (i.e., high extrinsic and identified regulation and low intrinsic and amotivation); and "amotivated" (i.e., low intrinsic and identified, very high amotivation). Second, using Lebart's (2000) methodology, the most characteristic identity processes were listed for each motivational cluster. Demotivated and amotivated profiles were refined in terms of adaptive and maladaptive forms of exploration. Notably, exploration in breadth and in depth were underrepresented in demotivated students compared to the total sample; commitment and ruminative exploration were under and overrepresented respectively in amotivated students. Educational and clinical implications are proposedand future research is suggested.