See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238098781

EFFECT OF COMBINED STRATEGY

INSTRUCTION AND ATTRIBUTION RETRAINING
ON STUDENTS' CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS,
LEARNING STRATEGIES AND ACHIEVEMENT: A
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
ARTICLE

CITATION

READS

89

1 AUTHOR:
Sau Cheong Loh
University of Malaya
23 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Sau Cheong Loh

Retrieved on: 28 March 2016

Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

185

EFFECT OF COMBINED STRATEGY INSTRUCTION AND

ATTRIBUTION RETRAINING ON STUDENTS' CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS, LEARNING STRATEGIES AND
ACHIEVEMENT: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Loh Sau Cheong
University of Malaya
Artikel ini memaparkan kerangka konseptual sebuah kajian yang telah
dijalankan, iaitu menegai kesan gabungan strategi pengajaran dan latihan
semula atribusi terhadap atribusi sebab; strategi pembelajaran; dan
pencapaian murid. Gabungan strategi pengajaran dan latihan semula atribusi
merupakan pemboleh ubah bebas, yang juga merupakan rawatan eksperimental
untuk-kajian-tersebut, Sementara-atribusi-sebab.. strategi pembelajaran dan
pencapaian merupakan pembolehubah-pembolehubah bersandar. Sepertimana
beberapa teori utama iaitu Teori Atribusi Weiner, Model Latihan Semula Atribusi,
dan Teori Pemprosesan Maklumat, kerangka konseptual ini memaparkan satu
perspektij yang komprehensij mengenai saling berkaitan pembolehubahpembolehubah yang dikaji dan juga aplikasi teori-teori dalam kajian tersebut.
Individuals' emotions, feelings and behavior are closely related to their causal attribution
for success and failure. They usually attribute success to internal factors such as effort
and ability whilst they attribute failure to external factors such as task difficulty and luck
(Whitley & Frieze, 1985).
Certain individuals might have been trying very hard but still failed at last. It is not
that they were not working hard, but just that they were not working smartly or intelligently. Thus, it is more appropriate to reattribute failure from either external, uncontrollable, or stable factors to either internal, controllable, or unstable factors such as ineffective
use of strategies, apart from lack of effort. At the same time, it is also more appropriate to
reattribute success from either external, uncontrollable, or unstable factors to either
internal, controllable, or stable factors such as ability.
This article highlights the theories and the conceptual framework of a particular
study concerning the effects of combined strategy instruction (SI) and attribution retraining (AR) on students' causal attributions, learning strategies and achievement. The
study involved Weiner's attribution theory, AR model and information processing theory.
Weiner's Attribution Theory
Individuals tend to find causes to explain the outcomes of important or negative events in
achievement contexts as well as in unexpected events or helpless situations (Diener &
Dweck, 1978; Weiner, 1972). Individuals will ask 'why' in an attempt to understand their
successes and failures, for instance, "Why did I fail my mathematics test?" (Weiner,
1979).
Weiner (1979) postulated that the causes perceived as most responsible for success
and failure in the achievement-related context are ability, effort, task difficulty and luck.
However, the causal attributions are not limited to just the above four causes. Other factors such as mood, fatigue, illness, bias (Weiner, 1974; Weiner, Russell, & Lerman,
1978),

186 Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

past history of success and failure, social norms (Weiner, 2000) could also serve as
important reasons for achievement performance.
Weiner (1979) proposed a three dimensional taxonomy to categories the causes.
According to Weiner (1986), individuals attribute the causes for failures and successes
based on the dimensions of locus, stability and controllability. Locus refers to whether
the causes are within (e.g., ability) or outside of (e.g., chance) the person. Controllability
refers to whether the causes are changeable personally or influenced by the person (e.g.,
laziness) whilst the dimension of stability includes globality (Weiner, 1994). Stability
refers to whether the causes are stable or unstable over time (for instance, effort) and
globality refers to whether the causes are general or specific across situations. Low
intelligence, for instance, is considered as stable over time and general across situations
(Weiner, 1994).
Generally, ability is perceived as stable as it is more genetically related, whereas
causal factors such as mood and effort are perceived as varied, changing from moment to
moment. However, the relative placement of a cause on the dimensions varies according
to individuals and time (Weiner, 1979). A cause can be readily categorized as internal or
external based on the individual's perceptions. Since attribution theory deals with phenomenal causality, personal interpretations must be taken into consideration. Hence, the
placement of a cause depends on its subjective meaning. Nevertheless, despite this variance, general agreement still exists where categorization is concerned (Weiner, 1979).
In most educational programs, 'failure-oriented' students were induced to attribute
failures to lack of effort (Andrew & Debus, 1978; Chapin & Dyck, 1976; Dweck, 1975),
which is unstable and under volitional control. This will result in sustaining of hope and
increased persistence towards the goal (Weiner, 1979).
Attribution Retraining Model
Attribution retraining (AR) is seen as useful for improving students' achievement. In an
AR program, the purpose is to change the individual's perceptions as to why failure occurs. The assumption underlying AR is that attributions influence behavior (Andrew &
Debus, 1978). Thus, altering the maladaptive attributions with the replacement of more
adaptive ones (Perry, Hechter, Menec, & Weinberg, 1993) will result in altering the maladaptive behavior.
In the attribution model, the stability of a cause, rather than its locus, determines the
expectancy shifts (Weiner, Heckhausen, & Cook, 1972; Weiner, 1979). In other words,
causal attributions for past performance are an important determinant of goal expectancies (Weiner, 1979). If conditions (the presence and absence of causes) remain the same,
then the outcome experienced will be expected to recur. A success would produce large
increments of future successes and a failure would strengthen the belief that there will be
subsequent failures. In other words, stable causes like high ability will anticipate higher
expectation for success when compared to unstable causes like effort. Individuals will
experience greater pride following successes when outcomes are attributed to either
internal, or controllable or stable causes. On the other hand, if the causes are perceived as
likely to change (unstable), there may be uncertainty in subsequent outcomes.
In academic learning, when failures are due to lack of ability (a stable and internal
characteristic), there are lower expectancies of future successes. In contrast, when failures
are perceived as due to lack of effort (an unstable, controllable factor), there are higher

Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

187

expectancies of future successes. This in tum may influence students' selected goals and
their persistence in attempting the tasks (Schunk, 1981). They are less persistent (Licht,
Kistner, Ozkaragoz, Shapiro, & Clausen, 1985) and are pessimistic about future performance (Pearl, Bryan, & Herzog, 1983).
In AR, the appropriate attributions are typically presented either directly to the students or by modeling the attributions in a structured interview. It is normally done in a
quasi-experimental field in an actual classroom, and is supplemented by other techniques,
such as discussion or strategy training.
It is important to recognize that high motivation cannot improve achievement if students lack the necessary skills to succeed. Van Overwalle and De Metsenaere (1990)
argued that while AR could increase motivation, a study strategy course would enhance
students' skills in effective study. Hence, bothAR and study strategies are equally important for increasing academic achievement. Before discussing learning strategies, let us
.firstexamine.the.information processing theory.
Information Processing Theory
The information processing theory proposed by the cognitive psychologists identifies that
memory storage system has two levels: the working memory or short-term memory; and
the long-term memory (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Information from the environment is
first perceived through the sensory register and then transferred to the working memory
to be encoded. The working memory can only keep limited information for a very short
time. However, if the new information is rehearsed or related to the prior knowledge in
the long-term memory, then it can be assimilated into it.
The learning process involves integrating new materials into the existing memory in
a meaningful fashion. Learners can activate related knowledge in their long-term memory
and build links between new information and prior knowledge. When learning involves
the long-term memory, it is a meaningful learning process. Thus, learners should
integrate as much new information as possible with information in the long-term memory
(Schunk, 1991). Various strategies can be adopted to process such information.
Specific Learning Strategies
Strategies are individuals' approach to tasks and they include how individuals think and
act when planning, executing and evaluating the performance on tasks and the outcomes
(Deshler & Lenz, 1989). They are the techniques for learning (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991).
The use of specific learning strategies helps individuals to approach the learning tasks
(Ellis, Deshler, Lenz, Schumaker, & Clark, 1991).
Research findings suggest that at the beginning of a new course, it is more productive for students to apply those strategies specific to the subject matter rather than to apply those general strategies (Pokay & Blumenfeld, 1990). However, in the late semester,
when the students are more familiar with the content, strategies involving planning and
monitoring progress begin to come into play.
General Learning Strategies
McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin and Smith (1986) as well as Weinstein and Mayer (1986)
exam-ined three types of general learning strategies, namely: the metacognitive strate-

188

Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

gies; cognitive strategies; and resource management strategies. Metacognitive strategies

refer to planning, monitoring and evaluating of students' own cognition. Cognitive strategies refer to integrating new materials with prior knowledge; and resource management
strategies refer to effort, time use, establishment of study environment and help-seeking.
Some findings from the past studies have noted that students tend to rely on less
sophisticated strategies even though they have a wide repertoire of strategies. This is true
even for the advanced learners (Garner, 1990; Wood, Willoughby, Reilley, Elliott, &
DuCharme, 1995). Secondly, students who have had an extensive repertoire of strategies
perform better on academic tasks.
The findings also indicate that although students have a variety of strategies, they
are not using them for maximal gain. One possible explanation given by Wood, Motz and
Willoughby (1998) is that students need more exposure and experience with the strategies
in order to use them appropriately.
Strategy Instruction
According to Duffy (1993), strategy instruction (51) is concerned with whether the students have developed an integrated concept of what it means to be strategic. Being strategic is much more than knows different strategies. It is more concerned as to how one
adapts and combines the different strategies within an overall plan. This requires subtle
instruction that goes beyond techniques such as direct instruction (Rosen shine &
Stevens, 1984), direct explanation (Duffy, Roehler, Sivan, Rackliffe, Book, & Meloth,
1987) or reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Consequently, teachers who
employ 51 will teach students how to select appropriate strategies according to the
problems encountered, to use strategies in flexible combinations and to change strategies
where necessary (Duffy, 1993).
Ellis et al. (1991) produced an instructional model for teaching learning strategies.
This model has been operationalized by specifying a sequence of eight instructional stages. The procedures are associated with each stage of instruction and are employed over
various time periods. The time frame can range from as short as one instructional period
to as long as several weeks for a given instructional stage. The use of organizers and
principles of goal attainment has been identified as two important elements to promote
learning and motivation. The eight stages in the Strategy Instructional Model (SIM) comprise the following: pre-testing and making commitments, describing, modeling, verbal
practicing, controlled practicing and feedback, advanced practicing and feedback, posttesting and making commitments as well as generalization.
Attribution Retraining and Strategies
Although AR by itself has had positive impact on academic behavior and persistence, yet
research has shown that combining AR with other strategies has resulted in even greater
gains (Curtis & Graham, 1991). In a study by Miranda, Escusa, and Abarca (1997), it was
found that students with learning disabilities who have followed the self-regulation procedures together with AR for enhancing reading comprehension strategies have benefited
more than students who have followed the self-regulation procedures alone and those
who have not been exposed to any strategies (control group).
In another replication study, Borkowski, Weyhing, and Carr (1988) also confirmed

Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

189

that combining the reading strategy and AR considerably improved the reading summarization strategies of children with learning disabilities in their study, whereas simply training children on reading strategies did not produce significant advantages.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of the study, as shown in Figure 1, is based on the cognitive
perspective on motivation which focuses on the mental processes as causal determinant to
action (Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996).
The research aimed at helping students to reattribute their successes from either external, uncontrollable or unstable factors to either internal, or controllable or stable factors. Likewise, to reattribute failures from either external, uncontrollable or stable factors
to either internal, or controllable or unstable factors. Internal factors are caused by one
whilst external factors are caused by other people or the environment. Controllable
causes are perceived as changeable or influenced by the person whilst uncontrollable
causes are perceived as not changeable or not influenced by the person. Stable causes are
perceived as not changing by themselves over time and place whilst unstable causes are
perceived as changing by themselves over time and place (Weiner, 1992). Causes such as
inefficient use of learning strategies and lack of effort are commonly perceived as either
internal, or controllable or unstable in nature.
In addition to AR, SI based on attention, selection, rehearsal, retrieval, informationprocessing, simple problem-solving and time management skills was also conducted. AR,
together with SI served as the treatment as well as the independent variable of the study.
It was also hoped that at the end of the activities, students could master their own
learning and thus perform better in their studies.
The first part of the framework which is on the far left of the figure portrays the application of information processing theory whereby any wanted external environmental
experiences will be selected by the different senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch.
Paying attention to the teacher in the classroom will initiate active information processing. This sensory information is then attended to, transformed, organized and elaborated
on. Information from the sensory register will then be held in the working memory. Here,
information is actively processed through the functioning of the learning strategies
learned.
Learning strategies involved in this study were the general and content strategies, as
well as the cognitive, metacognitive and resource management strategies. The cognitive
strategies involved attending, selecting, test strategies, rehearsing and retrieving. The
metacognitive strategies were self-testing, elaboration, organizing and problem-solving.
The resource management strategies involved time use and study environment while the
content strategies were based on the mathematics content-specific skills. The resultant in
information processing is the cognitive outcome.
The active information processing together with cognitive outcomes form the cognitive process of individuals. These processes entail the entire information processing
theory.
From the perspective of Weiner's attribution theory, individuals tend to seek
explanations for the events (Weiner, 1972, 1979, 1985, 1986). What corne between the
stimuli and the behavior are the motivational processes guided by the cognitive outcomes
(Weiner, 20(0). These cognitive outcomes include causal attributions as one of the
dependent

190 Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

variables of this study. In the case of attributions for failure to either external, uncontrollable or stable factors such as task difficulty and lack of guidance; as well as attributions
for success to either external, or uncontrollable or unstable factors such as simple task
and luck that give rise to poor learning strategies and low achievement, AR is necessary.
In the study concerned, students were retrained in attribution for failure to either internal, controllable or unstable causes such as the lack of learning strategies and the lack
of effort. Also, students were retrained in attribution for success to either internal, controllable or stable causes such as intelligence. Here, the AR model plays its role through a
series of ten activities, by informing the students that failure is caused by lack of learning
strategies and effort; success is caused by intelligence, hard work and effective use of
learning strategies. In the experimental group, these activities were coupled with SI,
whereby students were taught how to select, and use and change strategies. The
researcher provided feedback to the students who then evaluated themselves. This is the
part where intervention comes into play.
Again, the following part portrays the underlying assumption of the AR model
which states that altering the causal attributions will alter individuals' behavior (Andrew
& Debus, 1978). In line with Weiner's attribution theory which states that causal
attributions for past performance are an important determinant of goal expectancies
(Weiner, 1979), these cognitive outcomes are then transformed into behavioral responses
and are seen when individuals portray increase in the mastery of the learning strategies
(second dependant variable ofthe study) and higher achievement (third dependant
variable ofthe study). As a result, successful goal orientation will be achieved.
Tremendous effect can be observed by combining the Attribution Retraining.
With these behavioral activities will lead to improvement which add further to the active
information processing flow, and hence, contribute to the ongoing regulation of behavior.
All the three dependant variables were measured before and after the experimental
treatment. Strategy Instruction whereby students were trained in attributing their
successes and failures to more adaptive attributions, increasing in strategy mastery and
achievement in learning.
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study have implications in the educational settings. Students having
maladaptive attribution patterns can be prevented from having low expectancy of success
or dropping out from their academic studies by following Attribution Retraining
programs that are combined with the Strategy Instruction.

192 Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

REFERENCES
Andrew, G. R., & Debus, R. L. (1978). Persistence and causal perception of failure:
Modifying cognitive attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 154-166.
Atkinson, R. C; & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its
control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of
learning and motivation (Vol. 2). New York: Academic.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of AR on strategy-based
reading comprehension in learning disabled-students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 46-53.
Chapin, M., & Dyck, D. G. (1976). Persistence in children's reading behavior as a function of N length and AR. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(5), 511-515.
Curtis, K. A., & Graham, S. (1991), Altering beliefs about the importance of strategy: An
attributional intervention. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
Deshler, D. D., & Lenz, B. K. (1989). The strategies instructional approach. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36(3), 203-224.
Diener, c., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous
changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.
Duffy, G. (1993). Rethinking SI: Four teachers' development and their low achievers'
understandings. Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231-247.
Duffy, G. et al. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation
oflearnedhelplessness. Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 31,674-685.
Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, 1. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children,
23(6), 1-24.
Garner, R. (1990). When children and adults do not use learning strategies: Toward a
theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517-529.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (Eds.). (1996). The psychology of action: Linking
cognition and motivation to behavior. New York: Guilford.
Licht, B. G., Kistner, 1. A., Ozkaragoz, T., Shapiro, S., & Clausen, L. (1985). Causal
attributions for learning disabled children: Individual differences and their
implications for persistence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,208-216.
McKeachie, W., Pintrich, P., Lin, Y., & Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and learning in the
college classroom: A review of the literature. AIm Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, National Center for research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning
(NCRIPTAL).
Miranda, A., Escusa, M. 1. V., & Abarca, E. V. (1997). Is AR necessary? Use of selfre
gulation procedures for enhancing the reading comprehension strategies of children
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 503-603.
Palincsar, A. M., & Brown, A. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehensive-fostering
and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.

Masalali Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

193

Pearl, R., Bryan, T., & Herzog, A. (1983). Learning disabled and nondisabled children's
strategy analyses under high and low success conditions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6,67-74.
Perry, R. P., Hechter, E J., Menec, V. H., & Weinberg, L. E. (1993). Enhancing achievement motivation and performance in college students: An attributional retraining
perspective. Research in Higher Education. 34(6), 687-723.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia,T. (1991). Student goaLorientationand self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pokay, P., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester: The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 32(1), 41-50.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson
(Ed;7,-Handbook of- reading research ... (pp;745-798). New--ef~:-L-{)ngman;
Schunk, D. (1991). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New York:
Macmillan.
Schunk, D. H. (1981). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement: A
self-efficacy analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 93-105.
Van Overwalle, E, & De Metsenaere, M. (1990). The effects of attribution-based intervention and study strategy training on academic achievement in college freshmen.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60,299-311.
Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation. Chicago, IL: Markham.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71,3-25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer.
Weiner, B. (1994). Integrating social and personal theories of achievement striving. Review of Educational Research. 64(4),557-573.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.
Weiner, B., Heckhausen, H., & Cook, R. E. (1972). Causal ascriptions and achievement
behavior: A conceptual analysis of effort and reanalysis of locus of control. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2),239-248.
Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1978). Affective consequences of causal ascriptions. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attributional research (Vol. 2, pp. 59-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weinstein, c., & Mayer, R. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315328). New York: Macmillan.
Whitley, B. E., & Frieze, I. H. (1985). Children's causal attributions for success and
failure in achievement settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,77,608-616.

194 Masalah Pendidikan 2005, Universiti Malaya

Wood, E., Motz, M., & Willoughby, T. (1998). Examining students' retrospective memories of strategy development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 698704.
Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Reilley, S., Elliott, S., & DuCharme, M. (1995). Evaluating
students' acquisition of factual material when studying independently or with a
partner. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 237-247.