Tag: Attribution

  • Helpless

    What is a meaning of Helpless?

    Meaning of helpless: “Unable to defend oneself or to act without help.” A student who has a history of failure and does not expect this to change will attribute failure to ability an internal and stable factor. This pattern is characteristic of students classified as having learned helplessness. These individuals expect that their actions will be futile in affecting future outcomes. Consequently, they give up. Learned helplessness was first investigated in young animals who had been presented with inescapable electric shocks in one situation; when placed in a different situation, they failed to try to escape or avoid the shock (Seligman & Maier, 1967). Animals that demonstrated no connection between their activity and avoiding the shock had learned to be helpless. It was further hypothesized that humans responded the same way: they were passive in situations where they believed their actions would have no effect on what happens to them. In this original explanation, helplessness was viewed as global affecting all domains of one’s life. Later research found that people may experience helplessness in one situation and not in others (Alloy, Abramson, Peterson, & Seligman, 1984). This means that a student may feel helpless in learning math but not in learning history.

    Helplessness exists in achievement situations when students do not see a connection between their actions and their performance and grades. The important aspect of learned helplessness is how it affects the motivational behavior of students in the face of failure. The attributions a student makes for failure act as a bridge between a student’s willingness to try again and the student’s tendency to give up.

    Helpless and Mastery Orientation

    Helpless 02

    In a now-classic study, Diener and Dweck (1978) identified two patterns of responses to failure following success in problem-solving tasks: a maladaptive-helpless orientation and an adaptive-mastery orientation. Children showed different response patterns to failure in their thinking, self-talk, affect, and actions. Keep in mind that the students in the study had the same failure experience while performing the tasks, but there were two different patterns of response to the failure outcome. The thinking, self-talk, and actions of the helpless-oriented children formed a self-defeating pattern. When failure is attributed to lack of ability, there is a decline in performance. Attribution to lack of effort does not show this decline (Dweck & Goetz, 1978).

    Are there ability differences in learned helplessness? Butkowsky and Willows (1980) compared good, average, and poor readers. They found that poor readers had lower expectancies of success on a reading task. Poor readers overwhelmingly attributed their failures to lack of ability (68% compared with 13% for average readers and 12% for good readers). They took less responsibility for success, attributing success more to task ease an external cause than did the good and average readers. In the face of difficulty, poor readers became less persistent a self-defeating behavior. Helplessness was also found when children studied new material that required them to read passages with confusing concepts.

    In a study by Licht and Dweck (1984), half the children received material with a clear passage, and the other half received a confusing passage. There were no differences between mastery orientation and helpless orientation when the passage was clearly written. In contrast, when the passage was not clear, most of the mastery children reached the learning criterion, whereas only one third of the helpless children did. This investigation is important because some academic subjects, like math, are characterized by constant new learning, which may be initially confusing to students. Mastery students will not be discouraged by the initial difficulty, whereas helpless students immediately lose confidence although they may be equally competent. When teaching new material, teachers can be especially alert for this pattern of helplessness in the face of initial difficulty.

    Learned Helplessness and Students with Learning Disabilities

    Helpless 01

    Are some students more prone to experience a sense of helplessness? Students particularly susceptible to the pattern of learned helplessness are those students who are identified as having learning disabilities (LD) (Licht, 1983). Children with LD experience much failure over a long period of time on a variety of school tasks. As a result, these children come to doubt their academic abilities, with the accompanying belief that nothing they can do will help them be successful. This is followed by the self-defeating response of decreasing effort. Children with LD have been found to exhibit the following characteristics of the learned helplessness pattern (Licht, 1983):

    • Score lower than non-LD children on measures of self-esteem and perceptions of ability,
    • Are more likely to attribute difficulty with tasks to lack of ability,
    • Are less likely to attribute failure to insufficient effort, and
    • Lower their expectations for future success and display greater decline in expectation following failure.

    It is important for teachers to be aware of the characteristics of helplessness because learned helplessness may explain the students’ apparent lack of motivation. How can a teacher identify a helpless pattern? What can a teacher do to lessen the likelihood of helplessness and help students who have this tendency? Butkowsky and Willows (1980) suggested that educators must begin to rethink failure as a necessary component of the learning process and not as a damaging experience to be avoided.

    Does the pattern of learned helplessness show up in young children? Dweck and Sorich (1999) concluded that there is clear evidence of a helplessness pattern in children younger than age 8. After experiencing failure or criticism, they show signs of helplessness like self-blame, lowered persistence, and lack of constructive strategies. Mastery-oriented children, in contrast, assumed they were still good even when their work had errors, and believed they could improve through effort. An important implication for parents and teachers, according to the authors, is to be very cautious when giving feedback to children. Extremely positive or negative feedback can be detrimental to children’s beliefs about their competence.

  • Attribution and Motivation Among Ethnicity

    Understanding of Attribution and Motivation Among Ethnicity?

    What is Ethnicity? Meaning of Ethnicity “The fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.” Some about of Ethnic; Relating to a population subgroup (within a larger or dominant national or cultural group) with a common national or cultural tradition. Relating to national and cultural origins. Denoting origin by birth or descent rather than by present nationality. Characteristic of or belonging to a non-Western cultural tradition.

    An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities, such as common ancestral, language, social, cultural or national experiences. Unlike other social groups (wealth, age, hobbies), ethnicity is often an inherited status based on the society in which one lives. In some cases, it can be adopted if a person moves into another society. Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, mythology and ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, and physical appearance.

    Ethnic groups, derived from the same historical founder population, often continue to speak related languages and share a similar gene pool. By way of language shift, acculturation, adoption and religious conversion, it is sometimes possible for individuals or groups to leave one ethnic group and become part of another (except for ethnic groups emphasizing racial purity as a key membership criterion).

    Ethnicity is often used synonymously with ambiguous terms such as nation or people. In English, it can also have the connotation of something exotic (cf. “White ethnic”, “ethnic restaurant”, etc.), generally related to cultures of more recent immigrants, who arrived after the founding population of an area was established.

    Now reading – Attribution and Motivation Among Ethnicity; Do attributional explanations for success and failure act as an important motivational force in different ethnic groups? According to Graham (1989,1994), because attributional theory considers the role of thought in determining behavior, it is particularly fruitful in examining motivation in different cultures and ethnic groups.

    Beliefs About Effort and Ability

    Are attributional belief patterns similar among different ethnic groups? A comparison of poor African-American, Hispanic, Indo-Chinese, and White fifth- and sixth-grade students found similar attribution patterns for all groups (Bempechat, Nakkula, Wu, & Ginsberg, 1996). All groups rated ability as the most important factor for success in math. In a subsequent study comparing African-American, Hispanic, Indo-Chinese, and White fifthand sixth-graders, Bempechat, Graham, and Jimenez (1999) found cultural similarities as well as cultural specifics. For all ethnic groups, failure was attributed to lack of ability and success to external factors. In contrast, Indo-Chinese students had stronger beliefs that failure was due to lack of effort. Attribution for failure due to lack of ability is a problem for all students because it is believed to be uncontrollable.

    Graham (1984) compared middle- and low-SES African-American and White students on attributions for failure following a problem-solving task. The middle-class children in both ethnic groups were more likely to attribute failure to lack of effort and maintained consistently higher expectancies for success after experiencing failure. For both groups, this is indicative of an adaptive attributional pattern following failure, similar to that found in research by Diener and Dweck (1978). The findings of this research are important because they demonstrate the positive motivation pattern of African-American students—a pattern that has received little attention.

    Stevenson and Lee (1990) compared beliefs of American and Asian students concerning the role of effort and ability for success in mathematics. They asked mothers in Minnesota, Japan, and Taiwan to assign 10 points among ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck to rank their importance in academic success and school performance. All the mothers assigned the points in the same rank order: (1) effort, (2) ability, (3) task, and (4) luck. American mothers scored ability and effort as about equal. In contrast, Taiwanese and Japanese mothers assigned effort a higher value than ability. Peak (1993) noted that, in Japanese elementary schools, ability is rarely mentioned, whereas effort is consistently portrayed as key to success. In contrast, in the United States, students who try very hard are often labeled nerd or grind.

    These perceptions of effort and ability take on increased importance when homework is considered in the context of effort. Japanese and Chinese students spend at least twice the amount of time and effort on homework than do American students (Stevenson & Lee, 1990). American teachers assign less and consider it less valuable. Peak (1993) pointed out that homework reflects teachers’ beliefs on whether extra practice makes a difference and whether students are willing to engage in extra effort on behalf of their studies. American parents do not appear to consider good study habits as critical to academic success as do Asian parents.

    Implications for Teachers

    What can teachers draw from the attributional beliefs among different ethnic groups in terms of classroom practice? The important issue is to understand the motivational processes, such as attribution, operating within a particular ethnic group (Bempechat et al., 1996; Graham, 1994). When similarities are found across ethnic groups, educational interventions do not necessarily have to be targeted to children differentially based on their ethnic group membership.

    Graham (1989) emphasized the importance of teacher feedback in influencing concepts of ability and expectations of minority, low-SES students. Recall the previous discussion of indirect attributional cues. It is important to be aware of feedback that may indirectly convey to students that they have low ability. Graham (1994) suggested that in view of the number of African- American children in negative educational situations, it is especially important to be sensitive to how minorities feel, think, and act in response to non-attainment of goals.

     

  • What are Source of Attributional Information?

    What are Source of Attributional Information?

    How do we decide what caused our success and failure? What cues do we use to explain whether an outcome was influenced by our ability, effort, or some other factor? Information comes from direct and indirect cues (Graham, 1991). Some information comes from direct cues, like failing a test when other students succeeded. Information is also obtained from more indirect cues, often conveyed unintentionally, such as when a teacher communicates pity to a student who failed a test. In addition, there may be a bias toward causes (Weiner, 1992).

    Direct Attributional Cues

    One of the most important informational cues is the outcome of the task. Here students have a direct cue as to their performance. Another source of attributional information comes from comparing one’s performance to that of others (Weiner, 1992). When most of the class fails a test, students are likely to attribute the failure to the difficulty of the task, not to their ability. However, if Sam failed and everyone else in the class made an A or B, he is likely to believe the failure was due to his low ability. If Sarah fails a test and a peer says, “I didn’t study at all and I made an A,” Sarah may take this as a cue that failure must be due to her ability. When a teacher sees students comparing grades on a test, information other than the test score is being communicated. An important role of the teacher is to help students interpret the possible reasons for test scores and make an adaptive attribution.

    Indirect Attributional Cues

    In school, feedback that students receive from teachers is a source of much information about ability. Students’ attributional interpretations may be based on the attributions that teachers communicated to them (Reyna, 2000). Graham (1991) identified three groups of feedback as sources of indirect cues: praise versus blame, sympathy versus anger, and help versus neglect.

    Praise Versus Blame: The praise or blame a student receives from a teacher can function as an indirect low-ability cue (Graham, 1991). The cue provided by praise or blame interacts with the difficulty of the task and effort expended by a student. Praise acts as a low-ability cue when a student is praised for completing an easy task. A low-ability cue is also conveyed when a student fails a task but receives no blame, like lack of effort. The student can interpret this to mean, “There’s nothing I can do about the failure.”

    Sympathy Versus Anger: Did it ever occur to you that communicating sympathy to a student could be interpreted as evidence that he or she has the low ability? Graham (1984) found that when teachers conveyed sympathy following poor student performance, the failing students took this as a cue that they had low ability. Obviously a statement like “I feel sorry for you because you made such a low score” would be a low-ability cue. What might a teacher say that unintentionally conveys a message of low ability to a student? One student remembers a class being told, “All students have to do this except Holly and Ramon.” Holly took her omission as a cue that she would not be able to do the task. In contrast, mild anger for failure can provide an indirect cue that one is capable. For example, “You can do better than this. You handed this paper in with no editing,” provides a cue to the student that he or she is capable of more.

    Unsolicited Help: Another low-ability cue for students is unsolicited help by the teacher (Graham & Barker, 1990). Graham and Barker found that, regardless of whether a helper was a peer or teacher, other students judged the student who received unsolicited help as lower in ability than non-helped peers. The important factor in this example is unsolicited. When the teacher consistently gives help to Sylvia before she requests it, this suggests that the teacher knows that she will not be able to do it.

    Ability Grouping: One powerful cue for ability that affects large groups of students are tracking according to ability groups. Students in both high and low tracks are defined by labels such as high ability, honors, low-achieving, slow, and average (Oakes, 1985). These labels are powerful cues about one’s ability. Oakes observed that students in the lower track are usually seen by others as dumb and also see themselves in this way. A label may have an adverse effect on students in the high-achieving class as well. Students in a high-track class may take this label as a cue that they naturally have high ability and then assume inflated self-concepts. This belief can interfere with students working to develop their academic skills.

    It is important that teachers be aware of the subtle cues that may have unintentional effects on students’ perception of ability. Commonly accepted practices of generous praise, minimal blame, sympathy, and unsolicited help can sometimes be interpreted by students as they have the low ability (M. D. Clark, 1997; Graham, 1991). M. D. Clark found that responses given to students with LD are often interpreted as low-ability cues. Graham further suggested that these cues raise important questions pertinent to the motivation of minority students such as African-Americans. For example, are minority students more likely to be targeted for feedback that conveys sympathy—thus receiving a cue for low ability? Reyna (2000) took this a step further, stating that labeling and indirect cues can lead to stable beliefs about ability and have the negative effect of stereotyping.

    Attribution Bias

    Attribution bias or Attributional bias is a predisposition to make certain attributional judgments that may be in error (Weiner, 1985). Several variations of attributional bias have been identified that are relevant to achievement settings. A common misjudgment is a hedonic bias, the tendency to attribute success to self rather than to attribute failure to self (Weiner, 2000).

    Previous knowledge can also lead to attributions that are erroneous (Frieze, 1980). Potential sources of errors in attributional judgments can be found in stereotypes about certain groups (Reyna, 2000). These preconceptions about certain groups can serve as ready-made explanations for why a student achieves or does not achieve. There is a danger that the stable, uncontrollable attribution for low performance will lead to lower expectations.

    The implication for educators is to recognize that a number of possible causes may explain any given success or failure. Thus, it is important to be aware of potential stereotypical attributional biases. Explore other possible causes by gathering more information when bias may be a factor (see Strategy).

    Strategy of Collect Attributional Information

    Simply ask students why they succeeded, failed, or improved.

    Some teachers elicit information by having students give their reasons for how well they did after assignments or exams.

    Attribution information can be obtained through the use of learning logs, in which students keep records and write about their goals, successes, and failures.

    Conduct an attributional task analysis of student performance. Is it because the student cannot or will not? A teacher may believe that a student is not performing well because he or she has the low ability or is lazy. Instead, the student may be performing low because he or she does not have the essential skills.

    Look for clues that will enable you to determine if the student has the essential skills. Does the student have prerequisite knowledge or skills? Does the task require formal reasoning whereas the student is functioning at the concrete reasoning level? Does the student have the necessary learning or memory strategies?

    If the student cannot, then teach the prerequisite skill or guide student to the appropriate source of help.