a response to the chapter in Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How Learning Happens: Seminal Works in Educational Psychology and What They Mean in Practice. Routledge
This is attribution theory and I had read about it (and incorporated some of it into the Delta Module Two session on motivation, but I had only read Dornyei on it, not any of the original sources). But having looked at the article they are recommending by Weiner, which is where it originated from, and some of his later pieces in the vague hope they might be more easily readable, and even a couple of college level classics like Schunk on learning theories, I reckon that Dornyei says it more accessibly and gives a more concrete picture of how it works than any of them, including Kirschener and Hendrick.
But trying to tease it out and apply it to language learning or Delta teachers is still useful as it is precisely because I felt it was practical and immediate that I included it in the session on motivation (hoping to provoke internal insights for some).
In short, attribution theory is about the causes people see behind their successes and failures and it ties into learning and motivation because what the person thinks caused the outcome is more impactful on future behaviour (than what actually caused it). If you think the causes are something you could change, you are likely to have better future results than if you think they are something you cannot change. It seems to overlap with Dweck and her ideas about fixed / growth mind set and performance versus mastery goals, but this is perhaps more about how you got to that position (of having a fixed or a growth mind set). Though it still doesn’t explain why some people light on one kind of cause or another.
Also I think (though hard to be sure) they have a problem in their table presenting the categories in the Kirschner chapter. What they say fits better with Schunk’s table than with their own.
You can break things into internal (from you e.g. your effort or ability) and external (from outside e.g. luck or a prejudiced teacher). And then within those two areas you can sort things into stable (not usually changing such as your character – lazy or hard working, or a biassed teacher – in that you would need something significant to change the bias). Or unstable – coming in different quantities randomly e.g. mood or luck. And again into controllable and uncontrollable. So you can control how much effort you put into things in general (typical effort) or at that moment (immediate effort), but you can’t control innate ability or your mood. I read all the sources I found, as saying controllable meant controllable by the individual, but I assumed they meant the individual ascribing causes, but if that is what it means then I don’t understand why teacher bias is seen as controllable and everyone (looking in five different things then giving up in exasperation) has teacher bias as external (ok), stable (maybe, biases don’t usually shift quickly) and controllable (why ? it is’t controllable by the individual ascribing causes ?). And I can’t find anything in the Weiner article to help with that. Help from others is external, unstable and controllable, I assume because you can ask for help (or not) but can’t guarantee how much you will get.
So if you ascribe your successes to the level of effort you put in (momentarily or generally) and the degree to which you sought help when needed, you are likely to continue to be successful (I guess as you will continue to apply effort and asking for help). But if you ascribe your success to external factors (teacher bias in your favour, good luck) or uncontrollable internal factors (innate ability etc) you are not particularly likely to continue on a path of positive outcomes. And that whole thing works vice versa, with a special mention for how deciding you are innately not good at something means you can then stop trying.
So the if the response to a good mark is ‘yay, I studied hard’ or the response to a bad mark is ‘I should have learned more words / practised more / read more’ all should be well.
But if the response to a bad mark is ‘my teacher doesn’t like me’ or ‘the wrong question came up’ or ‘Cambridge want specific things in the answers and I can’t work out what they are’ or the classic ‘my student were in an odd mood today and that is why it didn’t work’ then there is trouble ahead.
Kirschner says the obvious outcome is that you need to find out what students are ascribing things to and make sure it is seen as internal and controllable.
Dornyei says in a language classroom avoid the idea of being innately good at or bad at languages being referred to as a cause. Praise effort (though never forget it also needs good strategies) and model effort leading to good outcomes. So I guess to some extent in language teaching and in training that last makes a case not for appearing to be effortlessly good at what you do (where your instinct is to aim at seamless delivery), but let them see the volume of time and effort it may have taken you to get to the product. Which supports the ‘we are all in this learning boat together’ approach to teaching.
It sounds obvious, but the first time I read Dornyei I had not long brushed off one of my educational achievements with the comment of ‘well, I was lucky’. So an English tendency to understate or avoid praising yourself could actually have a negative impact you don’t realise.
Dornyei, Z. 2001 Motivational Strategies in the Language Classroom CUP
Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories, an Educational Perspective (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
Weiner, B. (1985). An Attributional Theory Of Achievement MotIvation And EmotIon. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
sallyhirst 