Attribution: Its Effects on Student Learning

by Maggie Kyger

Picture this scenario: Donnie, a fifth grade student with a learning disability comes to the LD resource room with his social studies test in hand, a failing grade conspicuously in red on the front page. His LD teacher, seeking to offer solace and support states: “Well Donnie, I’m sure that if you study harder next time, you’ll do better.”

During a school day, a student is faced with numerous opportunities for success or failure. Attribution theory seeks to understand how these experiences shape an individual’s self-perception and his or her responses to subsequent tasks. Weiner (1989) postulated three dimensions of attribution:

  1. locus of control,
  2. stability, and
  3. controllability.

Specific patterns of attribution have been identified as contributing to either high or low levels of motivation, persistence and self-esteem. Students with higher ratings of self-esteem and with higher school achievement tend to attribute success to internal, stable, uncontrollable factors such as ability, while they contribute failure to either internal, unstable, controllable factors such as effort, or external, uncontrollable factors such as task difficulty (Marsh, 1986; Weiner, 1989). Attributing failure to lack of effort results in greater persistent levels only if it is paired with attribution beliefs that ability contributes to success. Students with learning disabilities seem less likely than non-disabled peers to attribute failure to effort, an unstable, controllable factor, and more likely to attribute failure to ability, a stable, uncontrollable factor. Conversely, students with learning disabilities are more likely to attribute success to external, uncontrollable factors such as luck, ease of task, or assistance received, rather than to internal factors such as ability or effort (Pintrich, Anderman, & Klobucar, 1994).

Pairing attribution training with study and test-taking strategy training provides a structure for linking causality and consequence. Having students engage in structured dialogues about the strategy they chose, the effort they expended, and the outcome of the task can positively affect both their achievement and their self-esteem. Using graphic organizers to guide these discussions can help students rank their strategy use and “see” its relationship to measured outcomes. Student-directed goal setting can be used to reinforce and expand these connections to future tasks and expectations. Fulk and Mastropieri (1990) suggested the following components be incorporated in any strategy-attribution retraining:

  1. Explain the purpose and value of the strategy.
  2. Teach the importance of attributing outcomes to controllable causes such as effort and use of strategy.
  3. Model successful and unsuccessful applications of the strategy.
  4. Discuss the impact of effort and appropriate use of the strategy on both successful and unsuccessful applications.
  5. Provide practice on strategy application with opportunities for guided self-talk on causality and attribution.
  6. Develop self-monitoring procedures for students.

As Donnie’s plight illustrates, students with learning problems often experience failure as something that is meted out in equal (if not greater) measure to success. Failure experiences can be opportunities for growth, but they can also be opportunities for lowered self-esteem and achievement expectancy. Providing structured attribution training can enable students to develop alternative, more positive models for reflection and decision-making. Donnie may still walk in the room with an F on his test, but now his teacher can respond with: “Let’s sit down and figure out why your strategy didn’t work and what you can use next time.”

References:
Fulk, B. J. M. & Mastropieri, M. (1990). Training positive attitudes. “I tried hard and did well!”. Intervention in School and Clinic 26, 79-83.
Marsh, H. (1986). Self-serving effect (bias?) in achievement attributions: Its relation to academic achievement and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 190-200.
Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 360-370.
Weiner B. (1989). Attribution theory (275-326)., An attributional theory of behavior (327-406). Human Motivation, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.