Received: 21 October 2022 Revised: 23 August 2023 Accepted: 24 September 2023

DOI: 10.1111/jcal.12889

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Digital re-attributional feedback in high school mathematics

education and its effect on motivation and achievement

Katharina Alexandra Whalen 1 | Alexander Renkl 1 | Alexander Eitel 2 |

3
Inga Glogger-Frey

1
Department of Psychology, Educational &
Developmental Psychology, University of
Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
2
Department of Psychology & Sports Science,
Educational Psychology, University of Giessen,
Giessen, Germany
3
Department of Psychology, Educational
Psychology, University of Erfurt,
Erfurt, Germany
Correspondence
Katharina Alexandra Whalen, Department of
Psychology, Educational & Developmental
Psychology, University of Freiburg,
Engelbergerstr. 41, 79085 Freiburg, Germany.
Email: katharina.whalen@psychologie.uni-
freiburg.de
Funding information
Robert Bosch Stiftung Germany, Grant/Award
Number: 00906424-002
Abstract
Background: Students often show unfavourable attribution: they attribute poor
school performance to stable factors such as lack of ability and good school perfor-
mance to variable factors such as effort. However, attribution can be influenced by
individualized digital re-attributional feedback leading to positive motivational effects
and higher learning outcomes. This is very promising, but it still is unclear, whether
this digital re-attributional feedback can also be successfully integrated in everyday
classroom activities.
Objectives: The present field experiment investigated how integrating digital re-
attributional feedback into classroom instruction affects student attribution, motiva-
tion and learning outcomes.
Methods: In the experiment, 8th–10th grade high school students (N = 322) worked
with a digital mathematics learning program which was integrated in a three-week
teaching unit. Half the students in each classroom received only standard feedback
after each practice task (SF group); the other half received additionally an individual
re-attributional feedback (RF group) after every third task. Attribution, mathematics
self-concept, and self-efficacy were measured by an online questionnaire twice a
week; learning outcomes in mathematics were measured weekly.
Results and Conclusion: Hierarchical analyses showed that re-attributional feedback
led to a more favourable attribution in case of success on stable factors. Especially
low-performing students benefited from this feedback. No effects on attribution in
case of failure, self-efficacy or learning outcomes could be found. Further research
could investigate if certain adaptations to the digital re-attributional feedback is more
effective in a real classroom setting and has a broader impact on different students.

KEYWORDS
computer-based learning, mathematics self-concept, motivation, re-attributional feedback, self-
efficacy, student learning

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

J Comput Assist Learn. 2023;1–16. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcal 1


2 WHALEN ET AL.
1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N
Learning in Western schools is regularly characterized by the following:
Students who do not perform well in one subject rarely turn the tables
and become overachievers during their school career (Goodwin, 2000).
Why is that? Low-performing students often show problematic
attribution styles (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) when explaining their per-
formance which can influence learning behaviour (Chodkiewicz &
Boyle, 2014): Especially in the subject of mathematics a student might
attribute poor performance to their lack of ability for this subject mat-
ter: “I made this mistake because I simply don't understand math.”
Such attributions reinforce a poor ability self-concept in mathematics
and can be dysfunctional for learning motivation: students may in turn
not invest the effort and persistence that they would need to improve
their skills (Hamm et al., 2017). If they do not invest sufficient effort,
performance is subsequently also likely to be poor, which again con-
firms the students' beliefs in their low mathematics ability
(Akey, 2006; Heller & Ziegler, 1996). The students are stuck in a
vicious circle, and the tables will hardly be turned towards a better
achievement in this subject over the years.
1.1 | Favourable and Unfavourable attribution
How can this vicious circle be broken? Attributions are causal expla-
nations to ascribe a certain outcome of an event. These processes are
malleable and can be changed by attribution retraining (Borkowski
et al., 1988; Haynes et al., 2009) or re-attributional feedback
(Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). In attribution retraining, the students receive
feedback “on success or failure situations with appropriate causal
attributions” (Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008, p. 4). To understand the
effect of attribution processes on learning outcome it is important to
distinguish between favourable and unfavourable attribution: Based
on Weiner's theory (Weiner, 1985; Weiner et al., 1980) it is consid-
ered favourable if students attribute their performance in case of suc-
cess to stable, controllable and/or internal factors such as ability and
understanding, and in case of failure to unstable, controllable and/or
external factors such as concentration or conditions in the classroom.
Favourable attribution in students predicted higher levels of academic
performance (Horner & Gaither, 2004; Houston, 2016). In contrast, it
could have a negative effect on students if they attribute in case of
success to unstable, uncontrollable, and external factors such as luck
and in case of failure to stable, uncontrollable, and internal factors
such as lack of ability. Students with unfavourable attribution styles
are more pessimistic about their future success, show less effort in
perceived difficult tasks (Hamm et al., 2017; Núñez et al., 2005) and
perform poorer in school (Akey, 2006; Houston, 2016).
1.2 | Re-attributional feedback
Consider a student with an unfavourable attribution style: If this stu-
dent succeeds in a task, they might think it was only out of luck.
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
However, if the student fails a task, they might explain it with lack
of ability which is stable and uncontrollable. Consequently, the
student might show less effort when preparing for the next task.
Hence, interventions that prevent attributing poor performance
(exclusively) to low ability may increase study motivation, aca-
demic self-concept, and ultimately performance and learning out-
comes (Banks & Woolfson, 2008; Möller & Köller, 2004).
Attribution retraining from instructors might be such an interven-
tion to help students shift their unfavourable attribution style
(Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). Re-attributional feedback suggests, for
example, that the reason for poor performance on a task was (too)
low effort rather than (too) low ability (e.g., “If you work in a more
concentrated manner, you will have good results”). By receiving
such feedback, the student should gradually shift his or her attribu-
tion for poor performance from low ability to low effort (e.g., “I
made this mistake because I didn't concentrate enough.”). Previous
studies have already shown an effect of attribution retraining:
With more favourable attribution styles, students show increased
self-control (Banks & Woolfson, 2008), self-efficacy (Martinez &
Huber, 2019; Zeichner, 2018), and academic self-concept (Dresel &
Haugwitz, 2008; Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). Hence, they should invest
more effort, perform better, and ultimately have higher learning out-
comes (Horner & Gaither, 2004; Houston, 2016).
1.3 | Motivational effects of re-attributional
feedback
Low-performing students often report low motivation when it comes
to studying for an exam or participating in class (Akey, 2006). Motivat-
ing students is essential for a productive classroom environment and
can possibly lead to better learning outcomes (Aronson, 2008;
Schiefele et al., 2016). Important predictors of learning motivation are
ability self-concept and self-efficacy which are more specific concepts
that not only strongly influence students' learning motivation, but also
through this, their learning outcomes (Bandura, 1993). Ability self-
concept and self-efficacy have similar effects on students' motivation,
emotions, and actions (Martinez & Huber, 2019), but to understand
their individual impact, it is important to distinguish them. Bong and
Skaalvik (2003) propose the following distinction: “while self-concept
represents one's general perceptions of the self in given domains of
functioning, self-efficacy represents individuals' expectations and con-
victions of what they can accomplish in given situations” (p. 5). As in
our study we concentrate on computer-based re-attributional feed-
back in mathematics class, we are interested in measuring mathemat-
ics self-concept as specific domain of functioning (e.g., “I am a good
math student.”).
1.4 | Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy can be influenced by attributional feedback as Martinez
and Huber (2019) showed in their review. In this present study, we

WHALEN ET AL.
focus on self-efficacy in a mathematical context as in “I feel confident
that I can solve this task without help.” In a distant learning environ-
ment, Zeichner (2018) found in a sample of 171 high school students
higher reported self-efficacy scores in students who received attribu-
tional feedback in comparison to students who only received cogni-
tive feedback. Therefore, it is not enough to simply give cognitive
feedback on the student's answer, especially in settings of self-
regulated learning. Hence, re-attributional feedback might be an
important tool for teachers to have a positive effect not only on the
student's attribution but also on their self-efficacy.
1.5 | Mathematics self-concept
Ability self-concept (in mathematics) can also be influenced by pro-
viding re-attributional feedback. Dresel and Ziegler (2006) tested a
computer-based, re-attributional feedback in a mathematics learning
software on 140 seventh grade students. Attributing success to first
effort and then ability led to an increase in academic (mathematics)
self-concept, self-control and to a decrease in helplessness immedi-
ately after retraining and in follow-up. Positive changes in school
performance were found half a year later. In a later study in 151 sixth
grade students, Dresel and Haugwitz (2008) found significant benefi-
cial effects of computer-based re-attributional feedback on compo-
nents of student motivation as positive attributions, (mathematics)
self-concept, and reduced helplessness. These effects could be
found not only directly after the training period but also 5 months
later. These findings suggest a long-lasting effect of re-attributional
training on attribution and self-concept. The researchers found a
positive effect on mathematical knowledge acquisition directly and
5 months after training. However, after a year no statistically signifi-
cant promotional effect of re-attributional feedback on mathematical
knowledge could be found. Therefore, the researchers suggest that
teachers should implement measures to improve attribution and
motivational components such as mathematics self-concept continu-
ously throughout the school year to secure enduring effects on
learning outcome.
1.6 | Learning outcomes
Computer-based re-attributional feedback while performing mathe-
matics tasks can have a positive effect on learning outcomes
(Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008; Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). Martinez and
Huber (2019) showed in their review that attributional feedback
not only had a positive effect on self-efficacy but also on learning
outcomes. The positive influence of self-efficacy on learning out-
comes has been widely reported (Bandura, 1993; Schunk &
Ertmer, 1999). Based on the previously discussed literature, this
study investigates, whether re-attributional feedback might not
only lead to more favourable attribution in students, but further-
more, improve students' mathematics self-concept, self-efficacy,
and learning outcomes.
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
3
1.7 | Computer-based re-attributional feedback in
regular classroom-learning
Attributional retraining is not new and has been proven to be
effective in laboratory and school settings. Studies in the 20th
century reported promising results (Craven et al., 1991; Heller &
Ziegler, 1996; Morris, 2013): Heller and Ziegler (1996) found effects
in female university students when giving written and verbal re-
attribution training. Before treatment only 50% of the treatment
group attributed success internally, after the treatment this number
rose to 75%. Furthermore, before treatment in this group 50% attrib-
uted failure to internal factors, after treatment this did not emerge. In
a second study (also in 1996), they investigated 126 high school stu-
dents. Forty-two children received verbal and written re-attributional
feedback over 6 weeks in six voluntary afternoon sessions. The treat-
ment and placebo group participated in the afternoon sessions but
only the treatment group received re-attributional training, the control
group only had the regular mathematics classes in the morning. Math-
ematical and general self-concept improved in the treatment group.
The other groups showed a decline over 6 weeks. Following training,
the treatment group attributed more favourably in case of success
and failure. In addition, the placebo group showed an increase in
favourable attribution in case of failure but a decline in favourable
attributions in case of success. However, Craven et al. (1991) had
inconsistent results: 162 primary school students were given verbal
re-attributional feedback over the course of 8 weeks. The students
either received re-attributional feedback from a teacher, or from a
researcher, or none. Only the researcher-given feedback resulted in
an increase in specific areas of self-concept (reading self-concept,
mathematics self-concept, school self-concept, academic self-
1
concept, general self-concept, 0.41 < d < 0.49) and in effort attribu-
tions in success situations, d = 0.40. However, the teacher-given
feedback did not show any effect neither in self-concept nor in attri-
bution behaviour. The researchers suggest that this might be due to
differences in re-attributional feedback density as the researcher was
working with individuals or small groups only instead of the whole
class as the teacher was.
At best, verbal or written feedback should immediately follow a
task and is tailored to the actual performance in this task; it should be
frequent enough (i.e., multiple times in a classroom hour) and variable
in their formulation (see Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). If these criteria are
met, such an intervention may foster motivation and learning out-
comes, especially for lower performing students. However, in a typical
mathematics classroom context where a teacher provides their own
feedback to students, it is impossible to give equally frequent and pre-
cise feedback to up to 30 students in 45 or 90 min of teaching time.
In Heller and Ziegler's study (1996), for example the students received
verbal re-attributional feedback about three times per session. Craven
et al. (1991) reported about 30 treatment reinforcements by the
teacher, which is less than one per day.
1
Effect sizes were computed based on given F values using Wilson's effect size calculator
(Wilson, 2023) https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-
SMD5.php.

4 WHALEN ET AL.
Thus, newer studies used automated, computer-based re-
attributional feedback instead of verbal or written teacher feedback
to increase density and showed promising results (Dresel &
Haugwitz, 2008; Hamm et al., 2017; Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016;
Zeichner, 2018). The computer-based approach allows not only giving
re-attributional feedback to every student at the same time. It also
allows to still be personalized if the computer program takes each stu-
dent's performance into account (Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). A recent
meta-analysis from Lazowski and Hulleman (2016) showed in 13 stud-
ies typically moderate effects (d = 0.54) on student motivation in
attributional re-training. Dresel and Haugwitz (2008) found immediate
and long-term positive effects of computer-based re-attribution train-
ing on motivation (d = 0.45, and d = 0.35 in the follow-up 5 months
later) and mathematical knowledge acquisition (d = 0.54, no effect in
the follow-up) in 151 6th-graders. Hamm et al. (2017) showed posi-
tive effects in a randomized online treatment study where 806 first-
year college students either received attributional retraining (treat-
ment group) or stress-reduction treatment (control group). Simple
slope regression analysis showed that low-performing students in the
treatment group outperformed low-performing students in the control
group on a class test 5 months after treatment when controlling for
initial test performance. No treatment effects could be found for
high-performing students. Other studies also showed effects only
with a specific group of students – mainly students with learning dis-
abilities (Berkeley et al., 2011; Casserly, 2013; Okolo, 1992). There-
fore, student's initial performance should be taken into account. To
sum it up, recent literature suggests that if the student's initial perfor-
mance is considered, and feedback is given with a high density, re-
attributional feedback might have a positive effect on motivation and
student performance.
However, research on attribution retraining has been criticized
for its emphasis on experimental studies far removed from regular
classroom-learning (Okolo, 1992). Most studies were performed out-
side of the typical classroom situation in a voluntary setting outside
regular class hours (Craven et al., 1991; Dresel & Ziegler, 2006;
Heller & Ziegler, 1996; Morris, 2013). It is not clear whether effects
found under these special circumstances would hold in mainstream
education. Casserly (2013) discovered that effects of re-attributional
feedback found in small group training could not be maintained in the
regular classroom. Unfortunately, due to monetary and personal allo-
cation difficulties it is hardly ever possible for schools to implement
attributional retraining on an individual basis or in small groups
(Horner & Gaither, 2004). An effective whole-classroom training led
by the teacher is in most cases the only option. In classrooms with
more than a small group of students, computer-based re-attributional
training could support the teachers to increase feedback density.
To investigate whether re-attributional training is equally effec-
tive in the daily teaching routine, further research is needed. All stu-
dents in a class need to be addressed at regular school hours. Some
researchers have already taken a first step and gave an optimistic out-
look: Dresel and Haugwitz (2008) found positive effects on motiva-
tion and knowledge acquisition in 151 sixth grade-students after
computer-based re-attributional training in the whole classroom.
However, the training sessions (five to nine) were placed rather
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
randomly throughout half a school year and not fully integrated in
the teaching plan. Other studies implementing a whole-classroom
training show positive effects but were conducted with a specific
group of students (Casserly, 2013). Therefore, these results cannot
be applied for the whole class. Furthermore, participating teachers
need a basic understanding of the re-attributional feedback pro-
cess, as it has been argued that natural feedback responses given
by teachers could have a negative effect and promote unfavour-
able attribution (Chodkiewicz & Boyle, 2014; Haynes et al., 2009).
However, no significant impact of these research findings
on changing teaching behaviour and integrating computer-based
re-attributional training in school teaching practices have been
reported (Chodkiewicz & Boyle, 2014). Given these results, the
question remains, how re-attributional feedback fosters students'
motivation in the whole classroom? To get a computer-based re-
attributional feedback training accepted by teachers and be used
on a regular basis it might help if it is combined with regular class-
room teaching and fully integrated with the school curriculum. The
teachers should not get the impression they are doing something
special, outside the regular classroom activities which requires
extra work and extra time commitments. Computer-based re-
attributional feedback should become a normal feature within their
regular schoolwork. The question needs to be addressed whether
computer-based re-attributional feedback fully integrated in class-
room activities is as effective as outside the classroom.
1.8 | The present study
Thus, in the present study we not only integrated computer-based
feedback into a typical mathematics classroom setting at regular class
hours, we furthermore, developed a lesson plan according to the
students' curriculum which consists of normal teacher-student
activities and computer-based periods. As all participating teachers
followed the same lesson plan for each grade (grades 8–10), we
were able to standardize to a higher degree as in previous studies
what happened in the classroom throughout the whole training
period of 3 weeks. Furthermore, the lesson plan ensured that the
study periods with the mathematics-learning program were
embedded at didactically useful moments during non-digital in-
person classroom learning, were fully integrated, and not separate
from other classroom instruction activities. We collected data
twice a week for the experimental period of 3 weeks plus a week
before intervention as baseline measurements. While working with
the mathematics program, half the students received computer-
based re-attributional feedback, the other half received the stan-
dard feedback of the mathematics program only. Within class-
rooms, the students were randomly assigned to the two feedback
groups. We wanted to investigate whether in a more realistic set-
ting computer-based re-attributional feedback training can also
lead to a change of attribution, self-efficacy, mathematics self-
concept, and better learning outcomes as in the studies described
above. Furthermore, as in this setup we addressed all students in
the class not only the ones who sign up for extra hours in the

WHALEN ET AL.
afternoon, we wanted to investigate whether especially low-
performing students benefit from this intervention.
1.9 | Research questions and hypotheses
In the present study, we tested whether computer-based
re-attributional feedback integrated into a learning software has an
effect on attribution, self-efficacy, mathematics self-concept, and
learning outcomes compared to the software's standard feedback.
Moreover, we investigated whether re-attributional feedback exerts a
positive effect especially for low-performing students. They may
profit the most from a shift in attribution style in case of failure.
To answer these research questions, we formulated the following
hypotheses:
H1. Computer-based, individual re-attributional feed-
back over a course of 3 weeks (a) leads to a change in
attribution, (b) fosters self-efficacy, (c) fosters mathe-
matics self-concept, and (d) leads to better learning
outcomes compared to standard feedback (main-feed-
back-hypotheses).
H2. The effects on (a) attribution, (b) self-efficacy,
(c) mathematics self-concept, and (d) learning outcome
of re-attributional feedback over the course of 3 weeks
depend on students' initial mathematics performance.
Especially students with low initial mathematics
performance benefit from this computer-based, individ-
ual re-attributional feedback (low-performance-modera-
tor-hypotheses).
2 | METHODS
2.1 | Participants and design
2.1.1 | Participants
Participants were 322 students (mean age at start of data acquisition
M = 14.02 years [n = 245 as not all participants reported their age];
SD = 0.85 years; 58.5% female) attending 8th to 10th grade at the high-
est German school track (gymnasium; preparing for college) from 16 dif-
ferent classrooms. The schools were all situated in the same state of
Germany and therefore had the same teaching curriculum. After the state
ministry of education, heads of schools, teachers, and all parents of par-
ticipating students gave their informed consent, data acquisition started.
2.1.2 | Experimental groups
We randomly assigned half the students of each class to one of the
two experimental conditions: The 158 students in the standard
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5
feedback group had a mean age of 14.04 (n = 118; SD = 0.91) and
55.5% were female. The 164 students in the re-attributional feed-
back group had a mean age of 14.00 (n = 127; SD = 0.79) and
61.4% were female. No differences between experimental groups
in demographic or prerequisite variables were detected (see
Section 3.1 for statistics).
Each participating class received 50 Euros to spend on class activ-
ities and each participating teacher received 50 Euros for the school's
mathematics department.
2.2 | Materials and manipulations
2.2.1 | Lesson plan
During the 4 weeks of data acquisition, the students had mathematics
class with their regular teachers. Usually students had either a 90-min
lesson on 2 days a week or a 45-min lesson on 4 days a week. In week
0, teachers taught their regular classes according to their individual
lesson plan. The only prerequisite for week 0 was that they did not
teach the subject of probability. In weeks 1–3 (intervention period), all
teachers taught the topic probability according to the mathematics
curriculum in 8th to 10th grade classrooms. The lesson plan during
this intervention period was generated for each grade level by the first
author who is a researcher and experienced mathematics teacher. The
lesson plan was composed of a mixture of front-of-class-teaching,
group work, partner work, or independent silent learning. The
teachers introduced the new topics to the students for about two
thirds of the classroom time. For the remaining one third of classroom
time as well as during homework (about 1–2 h per week) the students
worked on their own with the mathematics learning software. There-
fore, most students worked during class twice a week about 60 min
with their teacher and 30 min on the computer. Re-attributional or
standard feedback was given during about 150 min of independent
silent work per week (including homework), which would add up to a
total of 450 min. In Dresel and Haugwitz’ study (2008) students par-
ticipated in 5–9 sessions of 45 min, that is 225–405 min in total. The
authors found positive effects on students' motivation (attributions,
self-concept, and helplessness), and mathematical performance. Dre-
sel and Ziegler's (2006) six sessions of 60 min added up to 360 min
total. Perry et al. (2010) already found positive results of re-
attributional training on academic performance after a 1-h-session.
These findings suggest that a total of about 450 min (150 min per
week) should be an adequate time frame for re-attributional training.
Each student had their own computer and therefore was able to work
at their own pace.
The mathematics learning software allows teachers to select exer-
cises from a large pool of tasks and group them into worksheets.
These worksheets as well as the lesson plan were predetermined by
the research team. However, the teachers had the flexibility to adjust
the lesson plan and/or select extra worksheets in the mathematics
program if their students needed more or less time than the
researchers estimated.

6 WHALEN ET AL.
2.2.2 | Mathematics learning software
As digital mathematics learning software, we used the internationally
disseminated program Bettermarks. The students were able to work
on their tasks independently as the software gives feedback to
whether a task or single steps of the task were solved correctly or not
(knowledge-of-result feedback). In addition, if the students were
not sure what to do, they could ask the program for extra hints. In
case they did not solve the problem correctly after exhausting hints,
the software gave the correct answer, an explanation, and the correct
approach to the problem. An exercise in the learning software can
consist of up to three individual steps where each step leads closer to
the required solution. The exercises were not timed. Table 1 shows an
example of a problem solved in three steps.
2.2.3 | Experimental variation
All participants received on-screen, standard feedback already imple-
mented in the mathematics learning software (e.g., “Well done!” or
“This is not correct!”). The control group (standard feedback condi-
tion, SF) received a standard comment after every step. In addition to
the standard feedback the experimental group (re-attributional feed-
back condition, RF) received re-attributional feedback developed by
psychologists (see Dresel & Ziegler, 2006). This re-attributional feed-
back popped-up in a window after every third step and considered
the student's performance in these last steps.
More specifically, for the re-attributional feedback condition
(RF) we added 73 re-attributional feedback statements to the program
Bettermarks. The feedback was designed to establish attributions to
ability in the case of “success” and attributions to effort in the case of
“failure” (see Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008). According to the students'
success rate in the previous three exercise steps, they received a
feedback statement from one of four categories: “success”: in case of
more than 85% correct answers, “partial success”: 65% - 85% correct,
“partial failure”: 45%–65% correct, “failure”: less than 45% correct
(see Table 2 for example statements). Out of each category, the pro-
gram selected feedback statements randomly. This feedback then was
provided in a pop-up window. Before data acquisition, we sensitized
all teachers to basic aspects of re-attributional feedback in a half-day
workshop, so they would not counteract the computer-based
feedback.
T A B L E 1 . Example of a student's exercise in grade 8 with three
individual steps.
Tim rolls two dice. What is the probability
Problem that he rolls a double?
Step 1 Choose out of the given sets the right event set.
(answer: E ¼ fð1, 1Þ; ð2, 2Þ; ð3, 3Þ; ð4, 4Þ; ð5, 5Þ; ð6, 6Þg)
Step 2 Calculate the cardinality of the sample space Ω.
(answer: jΩj ¼ 6  6 ¼ 36)
Step 3 Calculate the probability PðEÞ.
(answer: PðEÞ ¼ jjΩEjj ¼ 36
6
¼ 16)
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
There is no data available about the actual amount of feedback
sentences each student received in the re-attributional or in the
standard feedback condition. Data on the Bettermarks server was
lost due to high usage of Bettermarks at the onset of the corona
pandemic.
2.3 | Measures
2.3.1 | Attribution
Attribution was measured eight times during the 4 weeks (t1–t8).
The means of the two measurements in week 0 (t1 and t2) were
taken to calculate a pretest variable as intervention started after t2.
Attribution was measured by eight items: attribution in case of suc-
cess on (1) effort, (2) attention, (3) ability, and (4) understanding;
attribution in case of failure on (5) effort, (6) attention, (7) talent, and
(8) understanding (e.g., “If I was [not] able to solve the problems in
mathematics today, it is because I [did not] put a lot of effort in it.”/
because I am [not] talented in math”). We used a 6-point answer
scale from I completely agree (1) to I completely disagree (6). Attribu-
tion in case of failure on effort and attention is considered more
favourable than attribution on talent and understanding (Weiner
et al., 1980). Effort and attention are variable factors which can be
changed more easily than talent and understanding—stable factors
(Weiner, 1985). However, in case of success attribution on stable
factors (here: ability and understanding) are considered more favour-
able as they would stand for success in the long term. Variables mea-
suring variable factors and variables measuring stable factors were
aggregated by calculating the means. As a result, the outcome vari-
able attribution consisted of four components: success_stable, suc-
cess_variable, failure_stable, failure_variable; see Table 3.
2.3.2 | Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy was assessed with five items on an 11-point answer
scale from 1: never (0%) to 11: in any case (100%): for example, “I am
confident I would be able to solve at least one exercise of today's
topic without help.” The means of t1 and t2 of the self-efficacy mea-
surements were taken to calculate a pretest variable. The internal con-
sistency of the self-efficacy items over the eight measuring points
was in the range of Cronbach's α = 0.92–0.96.
2.3.3 | Mathematics self-concept
The first (t1) and last questionnaire (t8) of the four-week study period
measured mathematics self-concept with four items (talent, ability,
capability, understanding). For each item we used a 6-point answer
scale ranging from I think I am talented in math (1) I doubt that I am
talented in math at all (6). The Cronbach's α for these four items at
two measuring points were α = 0.89 (t1) and α = 0.86 (t8).
 13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WHALEN ET AL. 7

TABLE 2 Re-attributional feedback categories according to grading key in German schools (Trautmann, 2022).

Success Partial success Partial failure Failure

More than 85% correct
answers
For example, “You are an
expert in this topic!”
65%–85% correct
For example, “It is evident that you
understand most of the topic!”
45%–65% correct
For example, “You had some correct
answers. If you work in a more
concentrated way, you will have
better results!”
Less than 45% correct
For example, “Next time try and
take more time to write down
each individual step. Then
surely you will be successful.”

TABLE 3 Dimension reduction to four components and their evaluation (see Weiner et al., 1980).

Component measuring
attribution style Description Measured variables Evaluation
success_stable Attribution in case of success to rather stable factors Ability and understanding in case of success Favourable
success_variable Attribution in case of success to rather variable factors Effort and attention in case of success Unfavourable
failure_stable Attribution in case of failure to rather stable factors Talent and understanding in case of failure Unfavourable
failure_variable Attribution in case of failure to rather variable factors Effort and attention in case of failure Favourable

2.3.4 | Learning outcome TABLE 4 Sample exercises from Test 1 in grades 8–10.

Grade 8 Tim rolls two dice. What is the probability that he

Every week the students filled out a mathematical performance test.
It assessed students' weekly learning outcomes using procedural as
well as conceptual items (7–19 items, depending on complexity and
number of steps per items). Automatic sum scores and error rates
were provided by the mathematics learning software Bettermarks. The
questions were different for each grade as the material for the tests
were chosen from each grade's curriculum. Every week the questions
got more advanced as the lesson plan progressed. For this test the
program did not provide feedback neither in the SF nor in the RF con-
dition. In contrast to the regular work sheets, cooperation among stu-
dents or teacher's help was not possible. The questions for the first
test (Test 0) before the intervention period were taken from the cur-
riculum on the subject of probability from the school year before. For
all four performance tests (Tests 0–3) we measured the error rate
ranging from everything correct (1) to no correct answer (0). As students
from grades 8–10 had different performance tests, we z-standardized
the results for each grade separately to be able to better compare
them. Table 4 shows exercises out of Test 1 from grades 8–10. Due
to the Bettermarks data loss, we could only calculate Cronbach's α for
9 out of 12 tests for which we had at least n > 20 (mostly n > 100).
We found Cronbach's α in the range of 0.56–0.74. In the case of
knowledge (learning outcome) measures, these values can be consid-
ered still to be fully acceptable (Field, 2018; Taber, 2018).
2.4 | Procedure
We conducted the study over the period of 4 weeks during which Ger-
man students (grades 8–10) worked with a mathematics learning soft-
ware. Over 4 weeks we collected students' data during and after their
classroom time. The first week (week 0) was used for baseline measure-
ments (t1 and t2). In the first measurement (t1), we furthermore collected
rolls a double?
Grade 9 Two balls are drawn in succession from the urn
shown without putting them back. For a
corresponding tree diagram, first determine all
branch probabilities and then all path probabilities
(the tree diagram was already given).
Grade 10 Ninety-nine students were asked what their
favourite subjects were. Thirty-five students
indicated astronomy, 44 literature, and 34 neither
astronomy nor literature. One student is randomly
selected. What is the probability that he/she
named astronomy but not literature?
demographic data (age, gender, grade level, name of school, mathematics
grade in last report card). After week 0 the intervention started (weeks
1–3): The students were introduced to the new mathematical topics of
probability in normal classroom interaction. They strengthened their
newly acquired skills (conceptual as well as procedural) with the mathe-
matics learning software. The software provided students either with the
individualized re-attributional or the standard feedback only.
To measure the outcome variables attribution and self-efficacy, the
students received a digital questionnaire twice a week which they filled
out at home for about 5 min each (eight measurements: t1–t8)—ideally
on the same day of mathematics instruction in school. Mathematics self-
concept was measured in the beginning and in the end of the data
acquisition (t1 and t8). To measure learning outcomes, at the end of each
week the students were given a mathematics performance test in class
which was integrated in the mathematics learning software (Tests 0–3).
After data collection, the students who received the standard
feedback only (SF condition) were able to benefit from possible posi-
tive effects of the re-attributional feedback as all students of the class
received the re-attributional feedback for eight to 12 weeks (wait-list
control group design).

8 WHALEN ET AL.
2.5 | Data analysis
An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses.
2.5.1 | Data verification
As the students were asked to complete numerous questionnaires
throughout the study, we wanted to make sure not to include ques-
tionnaires, where the students most likely just “clicked through” the
answers without reading them. Therefore, all questionnaires which were
completed in under 70 s were not considered as students would not
have been able to read the questions and answer them properly in that
short amount of time. Furthermore, we conducted a factor analysis of
the eight items measuring self-efficacy and mathematics self-concept in
the last questionnaire (t8) to check whether the students still filled out
the last questionnaire properly. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified
the sampling adequacy for this analysis, KMO = 0.888, well above the
minimum criterium of 0.5 (Field, 2018). Two factors had eigenvalues >1
(Kaiser's criterion [Kaiser, 1960]) and combined explained 77.6% of the
variance. As expected, factor analysis loaded the five items measuring
self-efficacy and the four items measuring mathematics self-concept
onto those two separate factors (Bartlett's measure: p < 0.001, rotated
factor loadings >0.747). In addition, to strengthen these findings, we ran
a factor analysis for the eight items measuring attribution in t8
(KMO = 0.617). Four factors had eigenvalues >1 and combined
explained 86.3% of the variance. The eight items were loaded as
expected onto four factors (success_stable, success_variable, failure_st-
able, failure_variable, Bartlett's measure: p < 0.001, rotated factor load-
ings >0.335). These findings suggests that despite the high number of
questionnaires the data obtained in the last questionnaire is reasonable.
2.5.2 | Multilevel analysis
To test our hypotheses, we carried out multilevel analyses using IBM SPSS
Statistics (version 27). On a first level, we had repeated measurements
within students to measure development over time (for all hypotheses).
As we took the means of t1 and t2 for the attribution and self-efficacy
variables, we had seven measuring points for those variables. There were
four measuring points for mathematical performance (one each week) and
two for mathematics self-concept (one before and one after intervention).
The individual students formed the second level. As those students were
nested in three different grade levels (grades 8–10) and 16 different class-
rooms, we tested whether our model improves by adding a third level
(grade level or classroom). If a third level is introduced, the model must
estimate more parameters and a larger sample size is needed (Field, 2018).
Three hundred twenty-two students on level 2 are a large enough sample
size. However, three different grade levels on level 3 would not be consid-
ered enough contexts on the higher-level variable (Kreft & de
Leeuw, 1998). In addition, the calculated variance of grade level was negli-
gible (<1% of variance explained by level 3; χ2change = 0.0). Therefore, we
decided to test classroom affiliation for level 3 instead. As each classroom
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
consists of 15–30 students and the number of contexts relative to individ-
ual students within those contexts is important (Twisk, 2006), we could
argue that 16 contexts (classrooms) would be enough.
2.5.3 | Testing different models
To test whether a two- or a three-level model would be more accu-
rate we used the χ2-likelihood ratio test for each dependent variable.
After determining whether a two or three level model best fit the
data, we tested for differences between experimental conditions in
the development over time as well as in the end (t8) by entering the
experimental condition (SF and RF) on level 2 (student level; all
hypotheses).
We coded the time variable from 6 to 0 for the seven measuring
points used to measure attribution and self-efficacy. The time variable
was coded from 3 to 0 for the four measuring points used to mea-
sure mathematical performance and from 1 to 0 for mathematics
self-concept. Using this coding, the intercept represents the measur-
ing point at the end of the experimental variation, thus differences
between experimental groups at t8 are tested.
Regarding our main-feedback-hypotheses (H1a–d), we tested
effects (betas) of received feedback (SF and RF) on the students' attribu-
tion, self-efficacy, and mathematical performance at the end of the
4-week-period (treatment effect, β0,1) and on the development over
time (interaction of growth and treatment, β1,1) in separate models. All
other betas are less relevant, as a significant effect in growth rate (slope,
β1,0) would only mean that students behaviour changed over time (posi-
tive values stand for increase, negative for decrease). This change would
be independent of feedback received and therefore, would not answer
our research questions. The same is true for significant differences in
intercept (β0,0) which would only indicate that students on the individual
level are different from each other at the end of data acquisition (t8).
To test our moderator hypotheses (H2a–d, low-performance-
moderator-hypotheses), we added another predictor (moderator)
variable at level 2, namely initial mathematical performance in
week 0 (Test_0). Here, we tested the following two betas: First,
the estimated mean moderation effect on the interaction of treat-
ment and growth rate (β1,3 ) indicates whether students' initial
mathematical performance has a moderating effect on the
interaction of feedback received (experimental condition) and
development over time (growth). This can answer the question
whether especially low-performing students benefit from the
computer-based, individual re-attributional feedback and have
better results in attribution and self-efficacy over time. Second,
the estimated mean moderation on treatment effect (β0,3 )
answers the question whether especially low-performing stu-
dents benefit from the re-attributional feedback regarding attri-
bution and self-efficacy at the end of the 4-week-period. The
other betas as for example the estimated mean moderation effect
(β0,2 ) is independent of the experimental condition and would
only indicate if students' initial mathematical performance would
influence attribution and self-efficacy at the end of intervention.
 13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WHALEN ET AL. 9

Multilevel models consist of regression equations nested on each attribution in week 0 did not differ between the two groups: suc-
level. Therefore, betas can be interpreted in an analogous way. Note, cess_stable, F(1,240) = 0.420, p = 0.518, success_variable, F
that betas cannot be compared across different models. Reporting (1,240) = 2.632, p = 0.106, failure_variable, F(1,240) = 0.022,
effect size for multilevel models is not as straightforward as for linear p = 0.883, and failure_stable, F(1,240) = 0.328, p = 0.567.
models. Lorah (2018) demonstrated that the use of intraclass correla- Furthermore, there were no significant differences in self-efficacy
tion coefficient (ICC) for random effects and f2 or R2 for fixed effects before the intervention, F(1,240) = 1.829, p = 0.178, and mathe-
are appropriate effect size measures. Therefore, we report ICC as matics self-concept, F(1,226) = 0.526, p = 0.469. That is, the two
effect size which can be used for two- as well as three-level models groups were comparable before the intervention, regarding age,
(Snijders & Bosker, 2012). The ICC can be seen as a proportion of var- gender, attribution, self-efficacy, self-concept, and mathematical
iance in the outcome accounted for by level 3 (class) or level 2 performance.
(student) membership (Kirk, 2013; Snijders & Bosker, 2012). For fixed
effects we report f2 or R2 with f2 = 0.02 indicating a small, 0.15 a
medium, and 0.35 a large effect (Cohen, 1992). 3.1.2 | Finding the best-fitting model

With the help of multilevel analyses, we controlled for classroom affil-

3 | RESULTS iation (level 3) as this was the more appropriate level-3-variable than
grade level. Furthermore, we controlled for individual differences
3.1 | Preliminary analyses (level 2). Level 1 represented the development of students over time
(seven measuring points). In a first step, we decided whether a two-
3.1.1 | Comparing treatment groups before or a three-level model was more fitting. The decision to use a three-
intervention level-model was based on the χ2-likelihood ratio test with the critical
value of 3.84 for 1 df and 5.99 for 2 df (p < 0.05, Field, 2018): A
The experimental groups did not differ significantly in terms of age, F three-level model was a better fit for the following variables: attribu-
(1,243) = 0.182, p = 0.670, grade level, χ2 (2) = 0.117, p = 0.943, tion on variable factors in case of success (success_variable), in case
or gender, χ 2(2) = 1.199, p = 0.549. The four variables measuring of failure (failure_variable), and mathematical performance. For all

TABLE 5 Testing two- against three-level models for all outcome variables with multiple measurements.

Variable on Variance explained in Variance explained in

attribution style two-level model (%) three-level model (%) χ2change (dfchange)
success_stable a
Level 1: 16.9 Level 1: 16.9 2523.0–2523.0 = 0.0 (7–6 = 1)
Level 2: 85.2 Level 2: 85.2
Level 3: <0.1
success_variablea Level 1: 35.5 Level 1: 37.3 2611.2–2605.4 = 5.8* (1)
Level 2: 64.5 Level 2: 58.9
Level 3: 4.8
failure_stablea Level 1: 22.9 Level 1: 22.9 3025.4–3025.4 = 0.0 (1)
Level 2: 77.1 Level 2: 77.1
Level 3: <0.1
failure_variablea Level 1: 33.1 Level 1: 24.6 3232.6–3228.3 = 4.3* (1)
Level 2: 66.9 Level 2: 72.4
Level 3: 3.0
self-efficacya Level 1: 34.5 Level 1: 34.5 5171.2–5171.2 = 0.0 (1)
Level 2: 65.5 Level 2: 65.5
Level 3: <0.1
Mathematics Level 1: 18.1 Level 1: 21.1 1053.7–1053.7 = 0.0 (1)
Self-conceptb Level 2: 81.9 Level 2: 78.9
Level 3: <0.1
Mathematical performancec Level 1: 42.8 Level 1: 53.3 2548.7–2513.3 = 35.4* (1)
Level 2: 57.2 Level 2: 33.8
Level 3: 13.0
a
Seven measuring points.
b
Two measuring points.
c
Four measuring points.
*p < 0.05: a three-level model is better fitting.
 13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 WHALEN ET AL.

other variables, the two-level-models showed the better fits. For more

6.82 (2.25)
7.54 (2.20)
6.94 (2.07)
6.93 (2.35)
6.63 (2.37)
6.14 (2.30)
6.74 (2.53)
details see Table 5.
In a second step, we tested whether the development over

SF
time was linear (linear growth or decrease over time) or quadratic
(a U-shaped relationship in growth or decrease). The linear time

Self-efficacyb
variable had a better fit than the quadratic time variable in all

7.20 (2.14)
7.43 (2.15)
7.27 (2.21)
7.53 (1.99)
6.75 (2.44)
7.07 (2.26)
7.18 (2.22)
models.

RF

Abbreviations: RF, re-attributional feedback condition; SF, standard feedback/control condition (high values stand for favourable attribution style variables and high self-efficacy).
3.2 | Effects of different feedback-groups (main-

3.18 (1.20)
3.03 (1.24)
3.01 (1.28)
3.14 (1.29)
2.97 (1.16)
3.25 (1.30)
3.10 (1.37)
feedback-hypothesis H1)

Means for attribution style and self-efficacy (standard deviations in parentheses) for each feedback-group at each of the eight measuring points.

SF
3.2.1 | Change in attribution and self-efficacy

Failure_variablea
To test our main-feedback-hypothesis (H1), we added the indepen-

3.21 (1.30)
2.95 (1.35)
3.29 (1.42)
2.87 (1.41)
3.32 (1.29)
3.28 (1.40)
3.26 (1.32)
dent variable (standard feedback condition SF = 0 or re-
attributional feedback condition RF = 1) as a predictor to our

RF
multi-level model to investigate the impact of different forms of
feedback on change of attribution and self-efficacy. Our findings

3.76 (1.49)
4.01 (1.39)
3.66 (1.40)
3.56 (1.28)
3.79 (1.24)
3.69 (1.32)
3.85 (1.41)
indicate feedback effects under certain conditions. Table 6 gives
an overview of the descriptive statistics including the means and

SF
standard deviations of attribution and self-efficacy at all eight
measuring points. Table 7 provides the results of the hierarchical
analysis. We only report betas which answer our research ques- Failure_stablea

3.87 (1.24)
3.99 (1.24)
3.84 (1.30)
4.15 (1.03)
3.92 (1.22)
4.27 (1.02)
3.97 (1.24)
tions: treatment effect on the students' attribution style and self-
efficacy at the end of the 4-week-period (β0,1) or during the
RF

4 weeks (development over time: interaction of growth and treat-

ment, β1,1).
2.60 (0.85)
2.38 (0.82)
2.33 (0.76)
2.38 (0.88)
2.21 (0.88)
2.44 (0.88)
2.39 (0.93)
We expected an improvement of attribution and self-efficacy
in the RF group in comparison to the SF group over time and a sig-
SF

nificant difference between the two groups at the end of interven-

Success_variablea

tion (Hypotheses H1a,b). A significant effect of received re-

attributional feedback on the improvement over time was found
2.42 (0.90)
2.36 (0.84)
2.36 (1.03)
2.25 (0.83)
2.16 (0.76)
2.29 (1.00)
2.33 (0.93)
for attribution in case of success on stable factors (β1,1; Level
2 ICC = 0.831; f2 = 0.002). Students in the experimental condition
RF

(RF) tended to attribute more towards stable factors in case of suc-

cess over the course of intervention than students in the control
4.10 (1.20)
4.03 (1.16)
4.06 (1.11)
3.87 (1.10)
3.95 (1.16)
3.80 (1.12)
3.99 (1.15)

condition (SF). For attribution variables in case of failure and self-

efficacy, students in the experimental condition (RF) show more
favourable attribution and higher self-efficacy scores over time
SF

Range from 1 (never, 0%) to 11 (in any case, 100%).

than students in the control condition (SF; positive parameters for

Success_stablea

Range from 1 to 6 (most favourable attribution).

β1,1 in Table 7). However, these improvements are not statistically

4.00 (1.14)
3.96 (1.20)
3.82 (1.17)
3.97 (0.97)
4.15 (0.95)
4.11 (1.07)
4.02 (1.18)

significant.
RF

3.2.2 | Change of mathematics self-concept and

learning outcome
Pre (mean of t1 and t2)

We expected an improvement in mathematics self-concept in the re-

attributional feedback condition (Hypothesis H1c). However, the cal-
TABLE 6

culated two-level hierarchical model revealed no difference between

Effect

intervention groups ( p = 0.237, see Table 8). Furthermore, we

t3
t4
t5
t6
t7
t8

expected an improvement in learning outcomes (Hypothesis H1d).

b
a
 13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WHALEN ET AL. 11

Note, that learning outcomes (mathematical performance) were mea-

F(1,261) = 2.324;

F(1,232) = 0.188;
sured with different tests for each grade level. To find treatment

p = 0.129

p = 0.665
group differences in learning outcomes, we used a three-level model.
When adding our independent variable (experimental condition SF or
self-efficacya (SD) RF) we did not find any influence of received feedback type on the
0.434 (0.278) change of learning outcome over time ( p = 0.789, Table 8). Our

0.019 (0.044)
hypotheses (H1c,d) could hence not be supported.

3.3 | Effects on low-performing students (low-

F(1,268) = 0.346;

F(1,229) = 0.801;

performing-moderator-hypotheses H2)
p = 0.557

p = 0.372
Estimation of parameters in multi-level linear growth model for attribution style and self-efficacy with feedback-group affiliation as predictor.

To test our moderator hypotheses that especially low-performing stu-

failure_variableb (SD)

dents benefit from the computer-based, individual re-attributional

feedback, we added initial mathematical performance (Test_0) as a
0.096 (0.163)

0.024 (0.027)

possible moderator variable to our model. The results are displayed in

Table 9. Only betas β0,2, β0,3, and β1,3 are shown, as we concentrate
on the moderation effects. We found for almost all measured vari-
ables (but failure_variable) a significant effect of mathematical perfor-
F(1,281) = 1.128;

F(1,215) = 0.000;

mance before intervention: better performing students tend to

p = 0.289

p = 0.998

attribute more favourably towards stable factors (more in case of suc-

cess and less in case of failure) than students with a lower perfor-
failure_stablea (SD)

mance. Only in case of success, better-performing students attribute

more towards variable factors which is considered unfavourable (neg-
0.162 (0.153)

0.000 (0.022)

ative parameter for β0,2 in Table 9). Better-performing students also

rate higher on self-efficacy and mathematics self-concept at the end
of intervention (β0,2 in Table 9). This was not surprising as we
expected low-performing students to have less favourable attribution
F(1,231) = 0.596;

F(1,189) = 0.016;

and score lower on self-efficacy and mathematics self-concept. We

p = 0.441

p = 0.899

wanted to find out whether the individual, re-attributional feedback

would be able to help low-performing students to overcome this
success_variableb (SD)

disadvantage over time (Hypotheses H2a–d). Therefore, we were

especially interested in the estimated mean moderation effect on the
0.086 (0.111)

0.002 (0.019)

interaction of treatment and growth rate (β1,3 in Table 9). We did find
a significant interaction effect (p = 0.011 in Table 9) for attribution
towards rather stable factors in case of success (Level 2: ICC = 0.798;
f2 = 0.157). In case of failure and for self-efficacy, this benefit could
Note: t8 is the last measuring point at the end of data acquisition.
F(1,287) = 0.773;

F(1,210) = 5.639;

not be found (β1,3 in Table 9). In addition, when only looking at the
end of intervention no moderation of initial mathematical perfor-
p = 0.380

p = 0.018

mance on treatment effect could be found (β0,3 in Table 9). No other

moderation effect was significant.
success_stablea (SD)

To better interpret this interaction, we performed a simple

Calculated with a 3-level hierarchical model.
Calculated with a 2-level hierarchical model.
0.040* (0.017)
0.120 (0.137)

slopes analysis to being able to visualize the effect. Figure 1 provides

this visualization (please note, that the exact values should not be
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

over interpreted as the focus lies here on the direction of the inter-
action). The horizontal axis represents time (measurements at t1 and
treatment effect (β0,1)

t2 were averaged for the baseline measurement). The vertical axis

on growth rate (β1,1)

represents scores for attribution on stable factors in case of success.

treatment effect
Estimated mean

Estimated mean

Higher values represent more favourable attribution. The four lines

represent better-performing (+1 SD, darker lines) and lower-
TABLE 7

performing students (1 SD, lighter lines) in the Standard Feedback

*p < 0.05.
Effect

(SF, dashed lines) and Re-attributional Feedback (RF, solid lines)

condition.
b
a
 13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 WHALEN ET AL.

T A B L E 8 Means (standard deviations in parentheses) for mathematics self-concept and for learning outcome for each feedback-group and
estimation of parameters in multi-level linear growth model with feedback-group affiliation as predictor.

Math. self-concepta (SD)

RF SF Effect Math. self-conceptb (SD)

Pre (t1) 3.75 (1.26) 3.63 (1.33) Estimated mean treatment effect (β0,1) 0.239 (0.186) F(1,170) = 1.657; p = 0.200
t8 3.73 (1.04) 3.57 (1.31) Estimated mean treatment effect on growth rate (β1,1) 0.180 (0.151) F(1,117) = 1.416; p = 0.237
c
Learning outcome (SD)

RF SF Effect Learning outcomed (SD)

Pre (Test 0.06 0.08 Estimated mean treatment effect (β0,1) 0.041 F(1,180) = 0.138;
0) (1.03) (1.01) (0.110) p = 0.712
Test 1 0.02 0.08 Estimated mean treatment effect on growth rate 0.013 F(1,253) = 0.072;
(0.99) (1.02) (β1,1) (0.048) p = 0.789
Test 2 0.05 0.05 (0.95)
(1.01)
Test 3 0.10 0.15
(1.08) (1.03)

Abbreviations: RF, re-attributional feedback condition; SD, standard deviation; SF, standard feedback/control condition; t1, first measurement at the
beginning of intervention; t8, last measurement at the end of intervention.
a
Range from 1 to 6 (low values stand for high self-concept).
c
Students in grades 8–10 completed different performance tests, therefore, results are z-standardized for each grade separately.
b
Calculated with a 2-level hierarchical model.
d
Calculated with a 3-level hierarchical model.
*p < 0.05.

The visualization in Figure 1 shows that better-performing stu-
dents independent of feedback received, attributed in general more
favourably than lower-performing students on stable factors in case
of success (the two darker grey lines lay at all measurement points
above the two lighter grey lines; p < 0.001 in Table 9). For better-
performing students the type of feedback received did not seem to
have an influence on attribution (the solid and dashed dark grey lines
are almost identical). Lower-performing students in the SF group over
time showed a less favourable attribution (declining dashed light grey
line). At the same time, the lower-performing students who received
re-attributional feedback did not show this drop. Therefore, the signif-
icant interaction can be interpreted as follows: at the end of interven-
tion (t8) the lower-performing students in the RF group show more
favourable attribution in case of success on stable factors (higher
values on the vertical axis) than the SF group. This is in line with our
hypothesis that especially low-performing students benefit from the
individual, re-attributional feedback in case of success.
In summary, in line with our hypothesis (H1a), students who
received re-attributional feedback in case of success seemed to have
increasingly attributed towards stable factors as ability and under-
standing over the 3 weeks of intervention (more favourable). In case
of failure there was no significant change in attribution. We could not
find significant support for our hypothesis that over the course of
4 weeks re-attributional feedback improves self-efficacy (H1b), math-
ematics self-concept (H1c) or learning outcome (H1d). Lower-
performing students seemed to have benefited from computer-based
re-attributional feedback leading—over time—to a more favourable
attribution towards stable factors (ability and understanding) in case
of success (H2a). They did not show a benefit on attribution in case of
failure, nor on self-efficacy and mathematics self-concept (H2b–d).
4 | DI SCU SSION
The present study tested whether re-attributional feedback added to
an existing mathematics learning software which was used in regular
classroom instruction leads to a change in attribution, and fosters self-
efficacy, mathematics self-concept, and learning outcome compared
to the software's standard feedback. Moreover, we investigated
whether re-attributional feedback exerts a positive effect especially
for lower-performing students. In contrast to already existing studies,
we integrated the intervention not only in regular classroom instruc-
tion but also into a fully developed lesson plan which was provided to
the teachers. This design, therefore, has a high external validity while
still holding up internal validity using standardization in procedure and
implementing a randomized controlled trial within the limits of class-
room affiliation. In addition, it can easily be adopted for future use in
other schools or other subjects as the digital re-attributional feedback
can be integrated in any other digital learning program.
We found positive effects of computer-based re-attributional
feedback on attribution in case of successfully solving mathematical
tasks. Students more often attributed towards stable factors when
successfully solving a task. However, in case of failure no effects
could be found. Therefore, the results of this experimental study over
the course of 4 weeks only partly confirmed results from previous
studies outside the regular classroom (Dresel & Ziegler, 2006) and
 13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WHALEN ET AL. 13

inside the classroom (Dresel & Haugwitz, 2008). We could not find a

F(1,323) = 19.867;
T A B L E 9 Estimation of parameters in multi-level model for outcome variables on attribution, self-efficacy and mathematics self-concept and effect of feedback-group over time moderated by

F(1,323) = 1.472;

F(1,323) = 0.592;
significant effect on self-efficacy, mathematics self-concept and learn-

p = 0.226

p = 0.442
p < 0.001
ing outcome. Therefore, only one of the main-feedback-

Math. self-concepta (SD)

hypotheses (H1a–d) can be accepted for attribution in case of success
(H1a) and rejected in the other cases.

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; β0,2, estimated mean moderation effect; β0,3, estimated mean moderation on treatment effect; β1,3, estimated mean moderation effect on the interaction of treatment and growth rate.
Taking the students' mathematical performance before interven-

(0.133)

(0.190)

(0.162)
0.230

0.125
0.592 tion into account, we found a more detailed picture. First, we found
that lower-performing students attributed more towards stable fac-
tors after receiving computer-based re-attributional feedback when
F(1,218) = 32.941;

F(1,219) = 0.024;
F(1,227) = 3.170;

solving a mathematical task correctly than lower-performing students

p = 0.076

p = 0.878
p < 0.001

who received standard feedback only. Lower-performing students in

the standard-feedback-group attributed over time less favourably,
whereas the lower-performing students in the intervention group did
Self-efficacya (SD)

not show this drop (Figure 1). These results are in line with the previ-
1.106 ** (0.193)

ously discussed findings of Hamm et al. (2017) in first year college stu-
(0.265)

(0.049)
0.471

0.007

dents where lower-performing students who received attributional

training outperformed lower-performing students in the control group
in a class test after treatment when controlling for initial performance.
F(1,251) = 0.093;

F(1,248) = 0.103;

F(1,216) = 0.012;

This finding suggests, that over longer learning periods (here 3 weeks),
p = 0.760

p = 0.749

p = 0.913

re-attributional feedback might help lower-performing students to

Failure_variableb (SD)

keep up more favourable attribution even if learning contents get

more challenging (H2a). Second, better-performing students in the re-
(0.124)

(0.028)

attributional feedback group did not differ in attribution after success

0.038

0.003

from better-performing students in the control group. It seemed that

j

the impact of re-attributional feedback was negligible in better-

F(1,246) = 16.138;

performing students. In addition, Hamm et al. (2017) could not find

F(1,246) = 0.013;

F(1,200) = 0.004;

treatment effects on higher-performing students. A possible explana-

p = 0.910

p = 0.951
p < 0.001

tion might be that better-performing students attributed success more

towards stable factors such as ability and understanding than lower-
Failure_stablea (SD)

performing students independent of feedback received (see Figure 1

0.442** (0.110)

and Table 9). These findings are in line with previous studies who
0.001 (0.022)

showed that students with less favourable attribution performed

poorly in school (Akey, 2006; Houston, 2016).
j

Furthermore, we did not find differential effects depending on ini-

F(1,212) = 10.654;

F(1,213) = j3.369;

tial mathematical performance on other outcome variables. Therefore,

F(1,178) = 2.270;

of the low-performance-moderator-hypotheses (H2a–d), only

p = 0.001

p = 0.068

p = 0.134
Success_variableb (SD)

Hypothesis H2a can be partly accepted and the questions remains

how lower-performing students can benefit more comprehensively
from computer-based re-attributional feedback.
(0.084)

(0.115)

(0.020)
0.276**

As we did not find strong effects, we carried out exploratory

0.211

0.030

analyses to search for other potential differential effects. There-

fore, we investigated if students' initial mathematics self-concept,
F(1,257) = 30.119;

F(1,254) = 2.790;

F(1,200) = 6.577;

self-efficacy, or attribution style moderated the intervention's

mathematical performance in week 0.

Calculated with a 3-level hierarchical model.

Calculated with a 2-level hierarchical model.
p = 0.096

p = 0.011

effects on the different outcome variables. Neither of the multi-

p < 0.001

level analyses resulted in significant effects (attribution variables as

moderators (success_stable, success_variable, failure_stable, failur-
Success_stablea (SD)

e_variable): for all p > 0.104; self-efficacy as moderator: p > 0.090;

0.528** (0.096)

mathematics self-concept as moderator: p > 0.257 for all outcome

**p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.
(0.133)

(0.017)
0.043*

variables). Only a moderator effect for initial mathematical perfor-

0.222

mance could be found as discussed above. Further research in

needed to further investigate why re-attributional feedback has a
Effect

different impact on students with different cognitive or motiva-

β0,2

β0,3

β1,3

tional dispositions.
b
a

14
Effect of RF on better-performing students (at +1 SD)
Effect of SF on better-performing students (at +1 SD)
Effect of SF on lower-performing students (at -1 SD)
Effect of RF on lower-performing students (at -1 SD)
t1/t2 t3 t4 t5 t6
Measurement points (t1/t2 = means of t1 and t2)
F I G U R E 1 Visualization and descriptive interpretation of the
significant interaction effect of initial mathematical performance by
group on attribution to stable factors in case of success: The two
darker grey lines represent the better-performing students at +1 SD
of mathematical performance before intervention in the re-
attributional feedback (RF, solid line) and standard feedback (SF,
dashed line) condition. The two lighter grey lines represent the lower-
performing students (1 SD). The plots demonstrate that in general
better-performing students attributed more favourably than lower-
performing students in case of success but whereas lower-performing
students in the SF group attributed less favourably over time
(declining line, light grey dashed line), the lower-performing students
in the RF group did not show this drop (light grey solid line). High
values on the vertical axis stand for more favourable attribution.
4.1 | Limitations and further research
In a field experiment many more factors which cannot easily be con-
trolled play an important role. This might explain to some extent, why
in the present field study only some results of previous studies exe-
cuted outside the regular classroom in a more controlled setting could
be replicated (Dresel & Ziegler, 2006; Hamm et al., 2017; Perry
et al., 2010). Not only density and immediacy of re-attributional feed-
back could be important (Dresel & Ziegler, 2006) but also the classroom
climate, teacher's behaviour, feedback given by other students, or how
failure is generally treated in this class (Maxwell et al., 2017). However,
as we controlled in the linear multilevel model for classroom affiliation,
where indicated, effects of classroom affiliation should be minor.
Furthermore, an obstacle with using computer-based feedback
attributing failure to insufficient effort is the following: Focusing on
more effort in case of failure could be seen as demotivational as stu-
dents often see “more effort” as “working hard” and do not take all
other cognitive and metacognitive activities into account. One student
even reported at the end of the study that the comments at the end
of the exercise were “demotivating and did not fit”, whereas other
students reported the exact opposite. This suggests that the same re-
attributional feedback could have a different impact on different stu-
dents. Often, students spend a lot of time (effort) studying but not
using optimal learning strategies (Dunlosky et al., 2013). Furthermore,
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WHALEN ET AL.
Attribution towards stable the student's mindset has an influence on student's self-regulated
factors in case of success
6.0 learning (Karlen et al., 2021). Individualized re-attributional feedback
could be more helpful when combined with learning strategy
5.0 feedback and/or mindset growth in the future.
A further point important to consider in interpretation of the
4.0 results and in future research is that the standard feedback might
have been relatively strong. Students in both feedback conditions
received the standard feedback, that is task-related feedback on how
3.0
to solve the problem: a knowledge of result (correct/incorrect) feed-
back, hints to help with each step, and an explanation and model
2.0
answer. The correct/incorrect feedback in Bettermarks is graphically
(green/red icons) represented during and after working on tasks. It is
1.0
possible that this task-related feedback may have been quite effective
and/or drawn attention from the re-attributional feedback. Thus, the
0.0
t7 t8 standard feedback may have diminished the extra effect of re-
attributional feedback. Students' comments underline this possibility,
as several students stated in the comment section that they were
more focused on the knowledge-of-result feedback and standard
feedback than on the re-attributional feedback. Furthermore, several
students reported that the computer-based feedback was not diverse
enough and repetitive. Thus, we recommend adaptations to the spe-
cific implementation and design of the computer-based re-
attributional feedback for future research. For example, further
research could investigate if leaving out or reducing the standard
feedback might draw more focus on the re-attributional feedback
itself (see effects at Kuepper-Tetzel & Gardner, 2021). To increase
diversity and to add a more personal note, digital re-attributional feed-
back could be combined with teacher-given re-attributional feedback.
Further research is needed to find the best conditions for effective re-
attributional feedback that enhances student motivation and learning.
Favourable attribution has been shown to positively affect self-
efficacy (Zeichner, 2018) and self-efficacy to positively affect learning
outcomes (Bandura, 1993; Schunk & Ertmer, 1999). Attribution in
case of failure might be more or as important than attribution in case
of success to influence motivational aspects and learning outcomes.
Therefore, it could be argued that because in our study only a small
effect of re-attributional feedback on attribution could be found (only
in case of success), this change in attribution was not large enough to
also affect self-efficacy. The same argumentation could be used
to explain why no effect was found on mathematics self-concept and
learning outcome. However, as explained above, we did not find any
moderation effect of initial attribution style on the intervention
effects on any outcome variable in exploratory analyses. With the
above discussed possible adaptations, further research could investi-
gate how lower-performing students can benefit more from digital or
personal re-attributional feedback, why re-attributional feedback has
a different impact on different students, and why only in case of suc-
cess an intervention effect has been found.
5 | CONC LU SION
The results obtained in the present study give useful information for
researchers and educators: First, we could show that computer-based

WHALEN ET AL.
re-attributional training in the current form showed some positive
effect in case of success in regular classroom instruction, an experi-
mentally far less controllable context than a lab setting. Second, this
study can serve as an example how computer-based re-attributional
feedback can be integrated in normal classroom activities and can be
a groundwork for further re-attributional feedback in schools. How-
ever, given the very limited effects found, the specific contents and
modes of the re-attributional feedback delivery must be reconsid-
ered (e.g., variability, combination with other feedback). Third, the
study demonstrated that better-performing students show more
favourable attribution in case of success than lower-performing
students. Especially low-performing students benefited from re-
attributional feedback regarding attributions in case of success.
This suggests that teachers should have an eye on lower-
performing students especially and give them re-attributional
feedback of a high density.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Katharina Alexandra Whalen: Conceptualization; data curation; formal
analysis; investigation; methodology; resources; software; supervision;
validation; visualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and
editing. Inga Glogger-Frey: Conceptualization; formal analysis; funding
acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration;
resources; software; supervision; validation; writing – review and edit-
ing. Alexander Eitel: Conceptualization; methodology; resources;
writing – review and editing. Alexander Renkl: Conceptualization; pro-
ject administration; supervision; validation; writing – review and editing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The authors thank all participating teachers for their support and fruit-
ful cooperation. Furthermore, we would like to thank all research assis-
tants in alphabetical order: Lisa Flick, Meta Gütgemann, Lars Link,
David Rommelspacher, Paul Sölder, and Michael Wonnerth. Without
their help, hard work and commitment, this study would not have been
possible. We thank Bettermarks for providing the software and being
always available for our questions. We thank Michael Wiedmann from
the Robert Bosch Stiftung, Germany, for all his help and support. Open
Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
FUNDING STATEMENT
This work was funded by Robert Bosch Stiftung, Germany
(00906424-002).
CONF LICT OF IN TE RE ST ST AT E MENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
P EE R R EV I E W
The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.
webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/jcal.
12889.
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15
request. Furthermore, the datasets will be available in the future at
Whalen, et al. (2022). http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB_DigiFeed_v1.
ET HICS S TAT E MENT
The Department of Education of the state of Baden-Württemberg,
Germany approved the study.
OR CID
Katharina Alexandra Whalen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4173-
3959
Alexander Renkl https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7971-0619
Alexander Eitel https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6403-3467
Inga Glogger-Frey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1409-2116
RE FE RE NCE S
Akey, T. (2006). School context, student attitudes and behavior, and aca-
demic achievement: An exploratory analysis. Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation.
Aronson, J. (2008). Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological
factors on education. Emerald.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148.
Banks, M., & Woolfson, L. (2008). Research section: Why do students
think they fail? The relationship between attributions and academic
self-perceptions. British Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 49–56.
Berkeley, S., Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2011). Reading comprehension
strategies for secondary students with learning & other mild disabil-
ities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(1), 18–32.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy:
How different are they really? Educational Psychology Review, 15(1), 1–40.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attributional
retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-
disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 46–53.
Casserly, A. M. (2013). The socio-emotional needs of children with dys-
lexia in different educational settings in Ireland. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 13(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1471-3802.2011.01227.x
Chodkiewicz, A. R., & Boyle, C. (2014). Exploring the contribution of attri-
bution retraining to student perceptions and the learning process. Edu-
cational Psychology in Practice, 30(1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02667363.2014.880048
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally
focused feedback and attributional feedback on enhancement of aca-
demic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 17–27.
Dresel, M., & Haugwitz, M. (2008). A computer-based approach to foster-
ing motivation and self-regulated learning. Journal of Experimental Edu-
cation, 77(1), 3–18.
Dresel, M., & Ziegler, A. (2006). Langfristige Förderung von
Fähigkeitsselbstkonzept und impliziter Fähigkeitstheorie durch
computer-basiertes attributionales Feedback. Zeitschrift für Pädago-
gische Psychologie, 20(1/2), 49–63.
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Mitchell, J. N., & Willingham, D. T.
(2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning tech-
niques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychol-
ogy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage.
Goodwin, B. (2000). Raising the achievement of low-performing students.
Policy brief (Vol. 5, pp. 3–10). Mid Continent Research for Education
and Learning.
Hamm, J. M., Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., Murayama, K., & Weiner, B.
(2017). Attribution-based motivation treatment efficacy in an online

16
learning environment for students who differ in cognitive elaboration.
Motivation and Emotion, 41, 600–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-017-9632-8
Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., Stupnisky, R. H., & Daniels, L. M. (2009). A
review of attributional retraining treatments: Fostering engagement
and persistence in vulnerable college students. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher
education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 24, pp. 227–272).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9628-0_6
Heller, K. A., & Ziegler, A. (1996). Gender differences in mathematics and
the sciences: Can attributional retraining improve the performance of
gifted females? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(4), 200–210.
Horner, S., & Gaither, M. (2004). Attribution retraining instruction with a
second-grade class. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3),
165–170.
Houston, D. M. (2016). Revisiting the relationship between attributional
style and academic performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
46(3), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12356
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor anal-
ysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
Karlen, Y., Hirt, C. N., Liska, A., & Strebner, F. (2021). Mindsets and
self-concepts about self-regulated learning: Their relationships with
emotions, strategy knowledge, and academic achievement. Frontiers in
Psychology, 12, 1–13.
Kirk, R. E. (2013). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral
sciences. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384733
Kreft, I. G. G., & de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Sage.
Kuepper-Tetzel, C. E., & Gardner, P. L. (2021). Effects of temporary mark
withholding on academic performance. Psychology Learning and Teach-
ing, 20(3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725721999958
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in edu-
cation: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86,
602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition,
interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessment in Educa-
tion, 6, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
Martinez, A., & Huber, T. (2019). Attributional feedback and its effect on
self-beliefs and academic achievement: A review of the literature.
International Journal of Current Research, 11(3), 2242–2246. https://
doi.org/10.24941/ijcr.34610.03.2019
Maxwell, S., Reynolds, K. J., Lee, E., Subasic, E., & Bromhead, D. (2017).
The impact of school climate and school identification on academic
achievement: Multilevel modeling with student and teacher data. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 8, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.
02069
Möller, J., & Köller, O. (2004). Die Genese akademischer Selbstkonzepte:
Effekte dimensionaler und sozialer Vergleiche. Psychologische
Rundschau, 55, 19–27.
Morris, M. (2013). A naturalistic investigation into the effectiveness of an
attributional retraining program for academic performance. Social Sci-
ences Directory, 2(2), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.7563/SSD_02_02_02
Núñez, J., González-Pienda, J., González-Pumariega, S., Roces, C.,
Alvarez, L., & González, P. (2005). Subgroups of attributional profiles
13652729, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcal.12889 by Cochrane Germany, Wiley Online Library on [27/10/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
WHALEN ET AL.
in students with learning difficulties and their relation to self-concept
and academic goals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2),
86–97.
Okolo, C. (1992). The effects of computer-based attribution retraining on
the attributions, persistence, and mathematics computation of students
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(5), 327–334.
Perry, R., Stupnisky, R., Hall, N., Chipperfield, J., & Weiner, B. (2010). Bad
start and better finishes: Attributional retraining and initial performance
in competitive achievement setting. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 29(6), 668–700. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.6.668
Pintrich, P. R. & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,
research and application (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill Pren-
tice Hall.
Schiefele, U., Stutz, F., & Schaffner, E. (2016). Longitudinal relations
between reading motivation and reading comprehension in the early
elementary grades. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 49–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.031
Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during
computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluative influences. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91, 251–260.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction
to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage Publishing.
Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and
reporting research instruments in science education. Research in
Science Education, 48, 1273–1296.
Trautmann, D. (2022). Notentabellen und Notenschlüssel für alle Schulfor-
men. https://www.abi-rechner.com/notentabelle/#Gymnasium
Twisk, J. W. R. (2006). Applied multilevel analysis: A practical guide.
Cambridge University Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B., Kun, A., & Benesh-Weiner, R. (1980). The development of mas-
tery, emotions, and morality from an attributional perspective. In
W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations
(pp. 35–48). Erlbaum.
Wilson, D. B. (2023). Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator. https://
www.campbellcollaboration.org/escalc/html/EffectSizeCalculator-
SMD5.php
Zeichner, O. (2018). The impact of cognitive and non-cognitive feedback
on students' achievement in a distance learning environment. Journal
of Educational Technology, 14(4), 13–27.
How to cite this article: Whalen, K. A., Renkl, A., Eitel, A., &
Glogger-Frey, I. (2023). Digital re-attributional feedback in
high school mathematics education and its effect on
motivation and achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12889