EDUCATION: Motivation, Culture and learning 2: Self-efficacy and attribution theory

STUDIES:

Author and Year Study Design Results/Claims Interpretation Limitations

Perry et al 2008 Examine attributional thinking over the transition This order was preserved over Top 3 indicate Psychology students – effect the
from high-school to university 5 independent cohorts of 1st controllable attributions order
Attributional Rate the contributions of attributions (effort, test years as contributing to Students use a Exploratory study – should conduct
thinking about difficulty, strategy, professor quality, ability, luck) performance combination of study with a priori hypothesis
failure in new to performance at the start of the year Students differed in the way attributions to explain Longitudinal study – what happens
achievement Examine cognitive and effective outcomes (how they combined these performance over time
settings responsible they feel and how they feel) at end of attributions – this in turn Combinations that were
term 1 course grades and GPA at end of term 2 influenced how much control effort-reliant (low effort, Focused on the control aspect, not on
1-10 scale to rate they perceived they had de-emphasise low ability, stability
Relinquished control – lower test difficulty and bad Locus assessed – paints a black and
responsibility and expectation luck) and self-protective ( white picture when the situation is
judgements, more anger, emphasise low effort and more complex
helplessness and guilt and bad strategy and test
shame at end of term 1, worst difficulty and poor Large sample size and sampled year on
grades and GPA at term 2 teaching) = enhanced year
control, combinations
that relinquished control When you talk to student’s different
(low ability, test orders could have been obtained –
difficulty, poor teaching, dual measures of attribution could
bad luck) and devalued have been helpful
control (de-emphasis of Same rigid pattern because of the way
low effort and bad the questionnaire is set out – following
strategy) depicted a social script – what is expected –
diminished control problem will all
Protective = most
conducive to motivation
and goal striving
Relinquished control =
least conducive
Fong & Krause Investigate sources of self-efficacy in college Mastery experience less in Indicates that how you On psychology course – are these
2014 students (underachievers, n=13 – GPA, reading underachievers and verbal make up your level of results generalizable
test) enrolled in a learning frameworks course persuasions less but similar self-efficacy is important Mixed ethnicity – could have obscured
Lost confidence Compared to achievers n=36 levels of self-efficacy not just the overall differences that are cross cultural
and potential: A Weekly journal entries Mastery experiences were only construct of self-efficacy Strength – students made aware that
mixed methods Self-report factors that made them feel confident positively worded responses were anonymous – reduce
study of or not confident – responses coded in four social desirable responses
underachieving sources of self-efficacy – scale – rate statements Overall self efficacy was the NOTE: high achievers
college students Bandura 1997 : four sources of self-efficacy = same but the sources differed could have under -
sources of self- mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social reported to give equal
efficacy persuasions and physiological and affective states self-efficacy – context
makes self-efficacy
overall the same
Cheung 2014 590 chemistry secondary school students in 9 Data fit the model Efficacy enhancing Scales – 22 items to asses self-efficacy,
schools in hong kong Mediation model explained teaching strategies efficacy enhanced teaching and
The combined Questionnaires about teachers instructional 18% of the variance in use of enhance use of deep student use of deep strategies ( 10 for
effects of strategies deep learning strategies learning strategies and in teaching)
classroom Hypothesise that efficacy enhancing teaching Students turn self-efficacy Could have looked at what sources of
teaching and would positively effect students self efficacy via Students with positive teaching self efficacy were enhanced the most –
learning strategy promoting deep learning strategies reported higher levels of chem sources were just mastery in scale
use on students Structural equation modelling self efficacy than those who So study actually looked at how social
chemistry self- reported that teacher didn’t persuasion effects mastery ??
efficacy create this env.
As a mediator, deep thinking
reduced effect of positive
efficacy from 0.35 to 0.10 – this
helps in part to explain the
relationship between the two
Other factors involved

REVIEWS:
Author and Year Findings and interpretations
Pintrich 2003 There are many social-cognitive models that try to explain what motivates students
SDT integrates needs and socio-cognitive constructs, we have 3 basic needs and these constructs mediate the effects that these needs have on
A Motivational outcome/behaviour
science - Assumes all individuals have the same basic needs
perspective on Children may take multiple paths to achievement so teachers should design principles to create motivating and challenging learning environments for
the role of students.  money? Time? Training?
student Self-efficacy: confident students are more cognitively engaged in learning and thinking, students shouldn’t overestimate too much – may be less willing to
motivation in check over errors /// change strategies to improve,
learning and Some students may be motivated via self-efficacy whilst others through goals, values etc – multiple pathways, interactions are important
teaching contexts Attributions: causes of success and failure – students who believe they have more control – more likely to do well than students who do not feel in
control – not black and white, Weiner 1986 – sometimes having little perceived control is adaptive in the face of failure
Goals: content i.e. social or academic etc. – what is the content of your goal – social thought to be distracting but can be harnessed in service of academic
goals Wentzel 1991, 1999, 2000 or nature of goal – mastery or performance, mastery (understanding etc) often good – performance = less adaptive
outcomes but performance good sometimes as well – can improve performance and achievement – Harackiewicz 1998, 2002 – MENTAL HEALTH ??
Baron & Harackiewicz 2001 – mastery and performance: may have additive effects independently, interactive effects, specialised pattern – both goals
have effect but on different outcomes, selective goal – pick certain ones for each context – situational e.g mastery in class and performance for exam
revision
Dichotomies of good and bad don’t apply to goals and intrinsic/ extrinsic SDT
Self-regulation, a cognitive construct is important in helping students achieve their goals
Need to understand how different constructs from different theoretical models relate to one another
Context: need to focus on internalisation processes
Note: Graham, Taylor and Hudley 1998 used peer nominations of other admired and respected students to demonstrate that African American and latino
boys valued low-achieving boys whereas white students and ethnic minority girls valued high achieving same gender students
Perhaps – they are motivated to be like this to fulfil relatedness, or self-efficacy – they like me cos I’m low achieving so I cannot achieve, goal content – to
be well liked
Bandura 1997 Students who believe they are able are more motivated in terms of effort, persistence than students who believe they are less able, there are dangers
associated with overly optimistic or pessimistic perceptions of efficacy or competence
Graham & Weiner – attribution theory, interpersonal ( why others succeed // fail) intrapersonal (why you succeed// fail) – it helps us make sense of an unpredictable
Williams 2009 world, people spontaneously engage in this type of thinking
In this culture causality is assigned to ability and effort – religion in others?
An attributional Can measure attributions in free response or forced choice – pros and cons to both e.g. mis- interpretations avoidance and acceptance
approach to Locus – is the cause internal or external, stability -is the cause constant or varying over time and controllability – can you change it
motivation in Low ability = stable, part of ourselves, beyond control, effort – internal, unstable, controllable
school Cues for attribution theory = prior information, history and social norm info
Biases: hedonic bias – people take credit for success and blame failure on others, fundamental attribution error – other people – overestimate role of
traits in their success and underestimate situational factors, actor-observer effect – when making trait observations about others people own behaviour =
situational

Indirect attributional cues – teachers, low ability cues sympathy, help from others, low effort = anger, no help
Manipulate failure on novel puzzle solving task – 6 th grade failing students – receive sympathy from experimenter posing as teacher – attributed failure to
ability low – more likely – if experimenter was angry – low effort perceived – Graham 1984
Praise – try hard – praised, if two students achieve same outcome – one who is praised = lower ability, praised for easy task = low ability,
Not real or imagine outcomes in testing – differences could be important – e.g future and imagined situations
Need a developmental perspective: children younger than 9 may not be as vulnerable to negative consequences of attributions to low ability – children
infer teacher anger as lack of effort younger than they recognise teacher sympathy as a cue for low ability attribution (Weiner, Graham, Stern & Lawson
1982)

Definitions// Statistics