Loading...
Teachers’ attributions for students’ academic progress in hypothetical unsuccessful and actual successful and unsuccessful conditions
Paulsen, Ellen M.
Paulsen, Ellen M.
Citations
Altmetric:
Abstract
This study focused on attribution theory (Weiner, 1976, 1979, 1984), which emphasizes the causal explanations for achievement or failure made by individuals to explain the behavior of themselves and others. Middle school teachers reported their sense of efficacy and attributions for these conditions:
(a) hypothetical student failure (pretest);
(b) teacher identified student success (posttest successful);
(c) teacher identified student failure (posttest unsuccessful).
Teacher comparison groups were: general education, alternative education (Kansa), special education, and Chapter I, from an ethnically diverse metropolitan district.
Attributions were measured by: rating and ranking of causes for academic progress (Student, Teacher, and Environment); scores on two subscales; an index; and teachers' open-ended explanations for student failure. Results showed method variance as an important concern for attribution research.
There were differences in attribution responses under the three conditions. Pretest results indicated that all groups except Kansa attributed student failure to student causes while the Kansa group attributed student failure to teacher causes. Kansa teachers showed the largest changes from pretest to posttest. In posttest successful conditions, Kansa teachers attributed success to student and environment causes; in posttest unsuccessful conditions, their responses were mixed. The other teacher groups continued to attribute to student causes in unsuccessful conditions; teacher and environment causes became more important in successful conditions.
The responses appear consistent with attribution theory. Teachers who made a strong commitment to change were less likely to: (a) help, (b) praise, (c) feel guilt, and (d) enjoy working with the student at posttest. They were more likely to: (a) be angry, (b) feel the student had control of the academic environment and, (c) attribute to low student effort when the student was unsuccessful.
High and Low efficacy groups showed no differences in attributions at pretest or posttest. The Low efficacy group identified more students as unsuccessful and rated their teaching skills as lower with these students than did the High efficacy group.
Student data showed no significant differences in Kansa or control students' group ability and achievement scores at pretest but there was a significant difference in favor of control students for attendance. At posttesting, 100% of the Kansa students and 55% of the control students were attending school.
Description
Ph.D. University of Kansas, Educational Psychology and Research 1993
Date
1993-05-31
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Kansas