Achievement goals were important to changes in motivational constructs around the receipt of grades in the classroom. As expected, the effects of a per formance-approach goal on changes in motivational constructs were moderated by grades. When students received high grades, a performance-approach goal was unrelated to changes in self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, or intrinsic value. However, when students received low grades, a performance-approach goal was related to decreased intrinsic value and increased desire to avoid chal lenge. Thus, although a performance-approach goal does not seem to have draw backs in the context of success, there are drawbacks when students experience setbacks

in recent years, some researchers have concluded that it is only perfor mance-avoidance goals that have drawbacks and that performance-approach goals promote high achievement and do not affect motivation and engagement negatively

Preference to avoid challenging work. Preference to avoid challenging work (4 items) assesses students' desires for easy, familiar tasks (Urdan, Ryan, Ander man, & Gheen, 2002). Sample items are "I prefer doing work that does not make me think too hard" and "I prefer assignments that I know I can do rather than those that are a challenge." The measure was found to be reliable in our sample (a at Time 1 = .85; Time 2 = .85)

In summary, our main goal was to examine how students' achievement goals are related to changes in self-efficacy, preference to avoid challenge, and intrin sic value in the face of evaluation. Early in the semester, we assessed students' achievement goals, self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value. We assessed students' self-efficacy, desire to avoid challenge, and intrinsic value again immediately after they received their grades on their first major exam or paper. This design allowed us to examine the role of goals in the change in mo tivational constructs associated with performance feedback. Our main hypothe ses were (a) a mastery goal will be associated with enhanced motivation around receipt of grades (i.e., increased efficacy and value and lower preference for chal lenge avoidance); (b) a performance-avoidance goal will be associated with di minished motivation around receipt of grades (i.e., decreased efficacy and value and increased preference for challenge avoidance); and (c) the effects of a per formance-approach goal on changes in motivation will be moderated by grades. When students encounter low grades, a performance-approach goal will be relat ed to diminished motivation. When students receive high grades, a performance approach goal will be unrelated to changes in motivation.

Shim & Ryan 337 Furthermore, we expected a performance-avoidance goal to be associated with declines in motivational constructs, even in the context of high grades. A perfor mance-avoidance goal brings about negative achievement-related processes re garding evaluation. A performance-avoidance goal is associated with construing exams as a threat; incurring negative emotions, such as worry, fear, and anxiety; and the desire to escape exam situations (McGregor & Elliot, 2002). A perfor mance-avoidance goal, undergirded by a fear of failure, inherently involves a focus on a negative outcome (Elliot, 1999). With a performance-avoidant frame work, positive feedback is interpreted as "not failing" or "not being the worst." Al though such an assessment satisfies a performance-avoidance goal, it is unlikely to boost motivation, as the absence of something negative is not evidence of some thing positive. Thus, we expected a performance-avoidance goal to be associated with diminished motivation, regardless of whether grades are high or

Performance goals are associated with the belief that intelligence is fixed (a

n recent years, some research has indicated that performance-ap proach goals are beneficial for achievement and do not affect motivation nega tively (see Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). In particular, when the approach versus avoidance nature of performance goals is considered, performance-avoidance goals are maladaptive, whereas performance-approach goals are often positively associated with achievement and show a positive or neutral relation to motivation

performance-approach goal has been positively associated with self-efficacy (Bong, 2001; Pajares et al; Skaalvik; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), desire to avoid challenging work (Meyer, Turner, & Spencer, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 2002), and task value (Bong; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Wolters et al). However, some researchers have found no relation between a performance-ap proach goal and self-efficacy (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares et al.) or task value (Lopez, 1999; Tanaka & Yamauchi, 2001), so it is not clear whether this is always the case

udy, a mastery goal is positively associated and a performance-avoidance goal is nega tively associated with self-efficacy, challenge-seeking, and intrinsic value (Mid dleton & Midgley, 1997; Pajares, Britner, & Vahante, 2000; Skaalvik, 1997).

contrast, a performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. Performance goals can be distinguished as either approach or avoidant (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). A performance-approach goal concerns a focus on gaining favorable judgments of one's ability, and a performance-avoid ance goal concerns a focus on avoiding negative judgments of one's ability. Achievement goals represent disparate purposes for involvement regarding aca demic tasks and, as such, have been linked to different achievement-related processes and outcomes

performance goal concerns a focus on demonstrating competence. P

wring out every ounce of performance

Join Darin Fisher, VP of Chrome as he talks the past, present and future of the web.

The machine, of course, is not complete without a third party, the (human) operator, and it is within this triad that the text takes place.

It’s known that Angular becomes slower with around 2,000 bindings due to the process behind dirty-checking. The less we can add to this limit the better, as bindings can add up without us really noticing it!

Here are a few handy tips on measuring your project’s performance profile:

If your timeline graph is dominated with the color green after recording

there does not seem to be a general rule for how many workers to spawn. Some developers claim that 8 is a good number, but use an online calculator and suit yourself

The $digest loop keeps iterating until the model stabilizes

The value function should return the value which is being watched. AngularJS can then check the value returned against the value the watch function returned the last time

Both accessibility and performance are invisible aspects of an experience and should be considered even if they aren’t explicit goals of the project.

So instead we introduced the loading spinner on each widget. Nothing is actually any faster, but the whole experience feels more responsive

Simply reducing some CSS transition times from 500ms to 250ms, and cutting others out entirely, made the whole dashboard feel snappier and more responsive.

This means content is served from the nearest possible geographic location to the user, cutting down request latency from as high as 2500ms (in places such as Singapore) to tens of milliseconds

We eventually came up with a compromise solution based on Addy Osmani’s basket.js, using a combination of server-side script concatenation and localStorage for caching. In a nutshell, the page includes a lightweight loader script, which figures out which JS and CSS it has already cached and which needs to be fetched. The loader then requests all the resources it needs from the server in one request, and saves all the resources into localStorage under individual keys. This gives us a great compromise between cutting down the number of HTTP requests while still being able to maintain cacheability, and not re-downloading code unnecessarily when it hasn’t changed. Addtionally, after running a few benchmarks, we found that localStorage is (sometimes) actually faster than the native HTTP cache, especially on mobile browsers.

Is Your Performance Review System Outdated

High performing teams have well-defined goals, systems of accountability, clear roles and responsibilities, and open communication.

Instead of cheerleading, people in my profession should think of themselves as businesspeople. What’s good for the company? How do we communicate that to employees? How can we help every worker understand what we mean by high performance?

I replied, “Why bother? We know how this will play out. You’ll write up objectives and deliverables for her to achieve, which she can’t, because she lacks the skills. Every Wednesday you’ll take time away from your real work to discuss (and document) her shortcomings. You won’t sleep on Tuesday nights, because you’ll know it will be an awful meeting, and the same will be true for her. After a few weeks there will be tears. This will go on for three months. The entire team will know. And at the end you’ll fire her. None of this will make any sense to her, because for five years she’s been consistently rewarded for being great at her job—a job that basically doesn’t exist anymore. Tell me again how Netflix benefits?

HR people can’t believe that a company the size of Netflix doesn’t hold annual reviews. “Are you making this up just to upset us?” they ask. I’m not. If you talk simply and honestly about performance on a regular basis, you can get good results—probably better ones than a company that grades everyone on a five-point scale.

Traditional corporate performance reviews are driven largely by fear of litigation. The theory is that if you want to get rid of someone, you need a paper trail documenting a history of poor achievement. At many companies, low performers are placed on “Performance Improvement Plans.” I detest PIPs. I think they’re fundamentally dishonest: They never accomplish what their name implies.