Within-teacher variation of causal attributions of low achieving students

Abstract

In teacher research, causal attributions of low achievement have been proven to be predictive of teachers' efforts to provide optimal learning contexts for all students. In most studies, however, attributions have been studied as a between-teacher variable rather than a within-teacher variable assuming that teachers' responses to low achievement are stable for different students in one classroom. To understand teachers' variation of their behaviour towards different low achieving students it would seem worthwhile to identify within-teacher variation of causal attributions. In this study, we analysed the within-teacher variance of attributions of 64 secondary school teachers. Analyses of attribution ratings for three low performing students per teacher showed that, in general, the amount of within-teacher variance was very large, although the within-teacher variance differed among attributions. It can be concluded that teachers' causal attributions of low performance should be investigated as within-teacher variables because they vary between low achieving students.

A Systematic Review of Teachers’ Causal Attributions: Prevalence, Correlates, and Consequences

“…More specifically, approximately half of the teachers in Tollefson et al’s (1990) study attributed student failure to student effort, with a significant proportion of attributions also involving external family variables (30%) and other internal student characteristics (77%; e.g., previous experiences, emotional maturity, interest, attention), However, only 2% of teachers in this study attributed student failure to teacher characteristics, and no attributions were reported to task difficulty. Results from Jager and Denessen (2015) similarly showed teachers to primarily explain students’ failure as due to internal student factors (e.g., attention, motivation, effort) than lesson difficulty or instructional quality (least common), reporting greater blame when failure was perceived as internal to and controllable by the student and lower criticism following external and uncontrollable attributions. Although other study findings suggest that teachers’ may focus especially on students’ external and uncontrollable antecedents to explain student performance (e.g., influence of prior teachers, learning experiences, or other students; Bar-Tal and Guttmann, 1981; Rolison and Medway, 1985; Hall et al, 1989; Bertrand and Marsh, 2015), existing findings generally suggest that teachers are more likely to attribute student failure to factors internal to the students themselves.…”

“…It is important to note in the study by Burger et al (1982) that teachers’ expectations were not assessed as a cognitive consequences of attributions to stable/unstable factors as proposed in Weiner’s theory (expectations for future success), but rather as in indicator of teachers’ satisfaction with their students’ performance (having satisfied past expectations for student success). Teachers have also been found to be more likely to explain student failure as due to factors internal to the student (e.g., student ability, effort) or family influences than teacher- and school-related issues (Burger et al, 1982; for similar findings see Rolison and Medway, 1985; Hall et al, 1989; Tollefson et al, 1990; Jager and Denessen, 2015).…”

Teacher Mindsets Concerning the Malleability of Intelligence and the Appraisal of Achievement in the Context of Feedback

“…A different or additional method of measuring mindsets might help to diminish the risk that the results reflect a false growth mindset. Finally, Jager and Denessen ( 2015 ) reported that teacher beliefs and causal attributions toward different low achieving students showed a large within-subject variance. A limitation in our study was the absence of mindset of individual students, although results from study 1 suggested that teacher's mindset impacted feedback behavior.…”

“…Another explanation for the finding that teachers with a more growth-oriented mindset do not provide more growth-oriented feedback, might be that the type of feedback is dependent on both the mindset of the teacher and the characteristics of the individual student. Jager and Denessen ( 2015 ) reported that teacher beliefs and their causal attributions toward different low achieving students showed a large within-subject variance. Causal attributions such as attention, effort and interest were described inconsistently for different low-achieving students.…”

“I Didn’t Even Think Of This”: Examining The Influence Of Student Disability Accommodation Training On Basic Course Instructor Attitudes And Self-Efficacy

“…Additionally, teachers were more willing to help students in the classroom if they viewed the disability as uncontrollable. Teachers also may be more inclined to attribute student failure or low achievement to causal, student-related attributions (Jager & Denessen, 2015), rather than external factors. These findings indicate that teachers are more prone to believe that student failure is the fault of the student, rather than the fault of the environment (such as a classroom or a teacher's teaching style.…”