Language Learning ISSN 0023-8333

Attribution and Self-Efficacy and Their

Interrelationship in the Korean EFL Context
Peggy Pei-Hsuan Hsieh
The University of Texas Medical School at Houston

Hyun-Sook Kang
Illinois State University

This study examined the interrelationships between learners’ attributions and self-
efficacy and their achievements in learning English as a foreign language. Participants
were 192 ninth-grade English learners in Korea who were asked to provide attribution
and self-efficacy ratings upon receiving test grades. Results indicated that learners with
different levels of self-efficacy ratings endorsed attributions differently for successful
and unsuccessful outcomes. Learners with higher levels of self-efficacy attributed their
test results to more internal and personal control factors than those who reported lower
self-efficacy levels. For learners who were unsuccessful, those with higher self-efficacy
made stronger personal control attributions than learners with lower self-efficacy.

Keywords motivation; attribution; self-efficacy; learning English as a foreign language;

achievement

Introduction
For students in Korea, the acquisition of English competence is often regarded
as the key factor in getting ahead in school and in Korean society. Given the
importance placed on learning English as a foreign language (EFL), it comes as
no surprise that a growing number of studies have addressed the achievement
issues surrounding EFL learning in Korea (e.g., Bong, 2001; Kang, 2000; Lee,
2007; Lee & Lee, 2001).
Over the past two decades, researchers have been increasingly fond of the
examination of students’ motivation in predicting and improving academic

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peggy Hsieh, The University
of Texas Medical School at Houston, 6431 Fannin St. JJL 302, Houston, TX 77030. Internet:
hsuan.hsieh@uth.tmc.edu

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 606


C 2010 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00570.x
Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

performance because it has been suggested to be related to students’ initiation

of a task, the amount of effort that they expend on a task, and their persistence
in the face of challenge (Brophy, 1988; Wigfield, 1994). As a result of its
significance in explaining achievement, foreign language motivation research
has grown to be a prolific area of study (Dörnyei, 2005).
Motivation is a multifaceted construct in that it bears a reciprocal relation to
beliefs, expectations, learning, and achievement (Pintrich, 2003). In cognitive
learning theories, the existence of cognitive structuring processes in general has
long been demonstrated to be related to students’ psychological and behavioral
consequences, and in recent research, it has become more evident that students
simultaneously build up a network of beliefs about their capabilities and about
reasons for success and failure. By seeking explanations for successes and
failures and believing that one is capable of being successful, one can predict
and control the events that affect outcomes and continue working, with the
hope of succeeding again and again. Bandura’s (1977) self-efficacy theory
(about the belief that individuals have about their capabilities to complete a
specific task successfully) and Weiner’s (1976) attribution theory (about the
reasons individuals give for their successes and failures) represent two theories
that have contributed substantially to an understanding of students’ beliefs and
explanations of their achievement. These theorists suggest the important role
students’ beliefs play in their actions, motivation, and achievement (Bandura,
1977; Schunk, 1991; Weiner, 1985). Therefore, in an effort to understand
the factors that influence foreign language learners’ achievement, this study
uses two prominent cognitive motivation theories to learning (self-efficacy and
attribution) to examine how they respectively and collectively relate to Korean
secondary-level learners’ EFL achievements.

Self-Efficacy
Many researchers have attempted to uncover what distinguishes successful
foreign language learners from less successful ones. It has been suggested
that self-efficacy has a powerful influence on learners’ effort, tenacity, and
achievement (Bandura, 1986a; Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Miller, 1995; Zajacova,
Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). There is prolific research that examines the
relationship between self-efficacy and general academic achievement (e.g.,
Pajares, 2003; Pajares & Kranzler, 1995; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Schunk,
1984), and the relationship has consistently been found to be a positive one.
In the context of learning EFL in Hungary, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels
(1994) investigated the role of self-confidence in influencing English pro-
ficiency both directly and indirectly through learners’ attitudes toward and

607 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

efforts invested in learning English. In spite of its similarities to self-efficacy,

self-confidence is a socially defined construct (Dörnyei, 2005) that “reflects
more global beliefs that one can cope with almost any task” (McCollum, 2003,
p. 21), whereas self-efficacy reflects beliefs about one’s capabilities to com-
plete a specific task successfully, referred to as self-perceptions of competence
(Bandura, 1986a). Taking into account the limitations regarding the socially
defined construct of self-confidence, there is a need to turn to more cognitively
defined constructs such as self-efficacy in the context of learning EFL.
Yang (1999) investigated the relationship between Taiwanese English learn-
ers’ beliefs and strategy use and reported a strong correlation between self-
efficacy and functional practice strategies. Although Yang was one of the few
to investigate the relationship between self-efficacy and strategy use, items used
to measure self-efficacy were more related to learners’ emotion, not to personal
beliefs about their own capabilities. For example, sample items for self-efficacy
used in Yang’s study included “I feel timid speaking English with other people”
and “People from my country are not good at learning foreign languages.” More
recently, Mills, Pajares, and Herron’s (2007) study indicated that self-efficacy
for self-regulation was a stronger predictor of college students’ achievement in
intermediate-level French than were self-efficacy to receive grades in French
class, anxiety in reading the target language, and French learning self-concept.
Students who perceived themselves as capable of using effective metacognitive
strategies to monitor their academic work time efficiently were more likely to
reach success in intermediate-level French. However, the fact that one third of
the participants in this study were taking French classes as an elective course
for their higher education at selective American universities limits the general-
izability of the findings to other learner populations and to other instructional
contexts, such as societies in which learning English is compulsory and in
which a high level of proficiency in English helps students to get ahead in their
academic and professional careers.
As one of the few studies on self-efficacy in the Korean EFL context,
Lee and Lee (2001) found that self-efficacy was strongly correlated with the
goal to strive to develop skills and abilities (mastery goal orientation) and
moderately correlated with performance-approach goals orientation (striving
to document superior ability). Expanding the design of the aforementioned
research, Bong (2001) examined the relationship among self-efficacy, per-
ceived value of English, and goals for learning among middle and high school
Korean EFL learners. Results indicated that performance-avoidance goals
were negatively correlated with both self-efficacy and the value placed on
English.

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 608

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

The level of one’s self-efficacy can be influenced by the learner’s past

experiences, verbal persuasion (i.e., verbal feedback and encouragement or
discouragement), vicarious experiences, and physiological cues, as suggested
by Schunk (1984). However, these are not the only factors that influence the
development of one’s self-efficacy. How capable learners feel about completing
a task successfully can also be shaped by the way they interpret the reasons for
their success or failure, for which Weiner (1977) coined the term attribution.

Attribution
Weiner (2000) maintained that learners’ attributions can influence their ex-
pectancy for future success, their beliefs about their own competence, the
amount of effort they invest, their motivation, and, ultimately, their level of
achievement. Extensive research has been done on attributions and achieve-
ment indicating that success is more likely to be attributed to internal factors
such as ability and effort than is failure and that ability attribution is a strong
predictor of achievement (Bempechat, Ginsburg, Nakkula, & Wu, 1996; Frieze
& Weiner, 1971; Hsieh & Schallert, 2008; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Much
empirical evidence has indicated that attributions will influence a student’s
expectations for future success and motivation, and vice versa. For example,
Schunk (1983) found that students who were given ability attributional feedback
(such as telling students they are smart or have high ability/talent) demonstrated
the highest skill in a task and had higher self-efficacy than their counterparts
who received no feedback from their teachers on how they did. One explanation
for this is that as students receive the feedback that they have the capability to
do well, they develop a sense of efficacy to sustain their motivation. Provid-
ing attributional feedback helps to support their self-perceptions of progress
and validates their sense of competency (Schunk, 1982). Williams and Burden
(1999) took a qualitative approach through the use of interviews and found
that students tended to attribute success to external factors such as teacher ap-
proval more than internal factors such as their learning skills. Learners hardly
mentioned intelligence or effort for their success. Limitations of the study in-
cluded the small sample size of 36 participants and the fact that interviews
were conducted to assess general attributions for both success and failure about
the French class rather than specific attributions for students’ actual success or
failure on a test. It should be noted that the more specific the event, the more ac-
curate the attribution. As a follow-up to the previous study, Williams, Burden,
Poulet, and Maun (2004) examined attribution patterns reported by British
secondary-level students for their perceived successes and failures in learning
a foreign language. They reported the frequency of each attribution and found

609 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

effort to be the factor that most successful students attribute success to and
teacher to be the most frequent factor for unsuccessful students. Although it is
of interest to examine which attributions are prevalent among these foreign lan-
guage learners, it is of greater importance to understand how these attributions
relate to academic achievement when combined with self-efficacy.

Reciprocal Relationship Between Self-Efficacy and Attribution

The two motivational constructs of self-efficacy and attribution used to explain
academic achievement have each been studied independently in great depth in
areas such as math (e.g., Bempechat et al., 1996; Pajares & Miller, 1995; Spence
& Usher, 2007), writing (e.g., Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2003;
Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000), and sports (e.g., Greenlees, Lane, Thelwell,
Holder, & Hobson, 2005; Holder, 1997; Martin-Krumm, Sarrazin, Peterson, &
Famose, 2003). Although both theories involve learners’ beliefs and influence
achievement (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), they have rarely been connected and
examined in a foreign language learning context (Hsieh & Schallert, 2008). As
Horwitz (1988) argued, an understanding of learner expectations and beliefs
is important because it is these beliefs about language learning that influence
learners’ achievement.
The relationship between attribution and self-efficacy is twofold. As an in-
dividual’s self-efficacy can be influenced by how he/she explains the outcome
of a test, one’s attributions for an outcome can also be affected by the level of
confidence one has for a given task (Bandura, 1986b). This topic is explored
in a study by Schunk (1982) that outlined the reciprocal relationship between
self-efficacy and attribution in relation to children’s problem-solving abilities.
When given positive attributional feedback, children’s attributions of their own
effort and ability increase and self-efficacy is accordingly amplified, whereas at-
tributing failure to lack of ability yields a drop in self-efficacy. Silver, Mitchell,
and Gist (1995) also investigated this reciprocal relationship, suggesting that
high or low self-efficacy beliefs lead to corresponding performance attribu-
tions, which, in turn, affect one’s perceptions of self-efficacy and create a cycle
between the two. When success is attributed to internal factors, self-efficacy in-
creases, but when failure is attributed to internal and stable causes, self-efficacy
beliefs decrease. Taking this interaction into a foreign language learning con-
text, Graham (2006) examined British students’ self-efficacy and attributions
through interviews. Results indicated that students with low self-efficacy tended
to believe they had no control over the learning outcome, whereas students with
high self-efficacy believed that failure was due to insufficient effort. Despite
the practical implications for language practitioners on learner attributions for

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 610

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

their successes and failures, it was pointed out that future research in this area
should employ more fine-tuned research tools with a larger sample size, for
which a quantitative study would be more appropriate. In a quantitative study,
Hsieh and Schallert (2008) found that students who attributed failure to lack of
effort had higher self-efficacy than students who believed that effort does not
play a significant part in the test outcome. This may suggest that students’ self-
efficacy suffers when they do not feel that outcomes are within their volitional
control.
Despite the addition of the refined motivational measures in foreign lan-
guage learning, the investigation of how Korean students learn English is of
particular interest because most of the studies in the area of foreign language
motivation have been conducted with learners in North America and Europe.
The direct application of the results to a foreign language learning context, such
as the Korean EFL context, is necessary in order understand the full picture of
how foreign language motivation and achievement are acquired.
This study attempts to elucidate the contributions of self-efficacy and attri-
butions to the learning of EFL in South Korea. English is one of the required
school subjects across the nation and often serves as a key to academic and
professional success in Korean society. The results of this study and the re-
sulting suggestions may provide researchers with a new perspective on Korean
learners’ beliefs about learning EFL and may provide ways for educators to
help students to achieve competence in English.
In attempting to disentangle the motivational variables embedded in the
EFL context and to examine the interrelationships between learners’ motivation
and performance on classroom-based achievement tests, the following research
questions were developed for this study:
1. How do learners’ self-efficacy and attributions relate to language achieve-
ment, and how well do they predict language achievement?
2. Do learners’ attributions for the achievement outcomes vary between suc-
cessful and unsuccessful EFL learners?
3. Do learners’ attributions differ between those who report having high self-
efficacy and those who report having low self-efficacy?
Our main hypotheses were as follows: (a) Self-efficacy would be posi-
tively related to language achievement; (b) successful students would attribute
learning outcomes to internal and personal, controllable factors, whereas un-
successful students would attribute failure to external factors; and (c) students
with higher self-efficacy would attribute learning outcomes to more personal,
controllable factors than students with lower self-efficacy.

611 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Table 1 Participants’ information

Girls Boys All participants

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Number of years 7.10 (1.58) 6.34 (1.81) 6.78 (1.72)

studied EFL
Number of hours/week 5.56 (3.24) 4.84 (2.61) 5.23 (2.98)
spent on studying
English
Grade received in 76.47% (20.47%) 70.30% (22.39%) 73.63% (21.54%)
eighth grade

Method
Participants
Participants were 192 ninth-grade students from two schools in Korea: 92 (48%)
participants from an all-boys’ school and 100 (52%) participants from an all-
girls’ school. Both groups of learners in the two public schools were of lower
middle-class socioeconomic backgrounds. All participants learned English as
a required school subject for at least 6 years in school and reported that the
English instruction they had received focused primarily on English grammar
rather than on communications skills. Ninety-six percent of the participants
reported not having visited any English-speaking country. Table 1 presents an
in-depth breakdown of the means and standard deviations of how many years
learners have studied English, the average number of hours per week they spent
studying English, and the average grade they received in eighth grade.

Measures
Attribution
Learners’ attributions were measured using two scales: the Causal Dimension
Scale II (CDS II) developed by McAuley, Duncan, and Russell (1992) and
the Language Achievement Attribution Scale (LAAS) developed by Hsieh and
Schallert (2008). The CDS II contained 12 items that measured the dimensions
of causal attributions. The dimensions included locus of causality (internal
control), stability, personal control, and external control, each scored on a 9-
point Likert scale (e.g., “The grade you received is due to something over which
you have power,” “The grade you received is due to something over which others
have control”). The internal consistency values for the four subscales in this
study were as follows: locus of causality, .65; stability, .26; personal control,

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 612

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

.78; external, .80. Due to the low internal consistency for the stability measure,
it was excluded from the analyses.
Two attribution scales were used because we wished to not only examine
the dimensions of the attributions but also to understand what specific reasons
learners gave for their successes and failures. The LAAS included eight ques-
tions in which learners were asked to report the grade they had received on
the test and how satisfied they were with the result. Learners then rated the
degree to which they believed the result of their test was due to their ability
(e.g., “My grade on this test is what it is because of my ability in learning the
language”), effort, the difficulty of the test, their mood, the teacher, and luck,
common examples provided by Weiner (1985). These reasons were measured
on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree
(Hsieh & Schallert, 2008).

Self-Efficacy
The self-efficacy instrument asked students to rate on a scale of 0 to100 (0 =
very uncertain and 100 = very certain) their confidence of earning 10 possible
scores on their next test. This procedure of measuring self-efficacy has been
used in many studies and has been found to be a good measure of self-efficacy
(e.g., Bandura, 1984; Stajkovic & Sommer, 2000; Wood & Locke, 1987). A
Cronbach’s α coefficient of .85 was obtained in this study.

Language Achievement
Students’ self-reported scores on the language tests were used as a measure of
achievement. Although self-reports of test scores can be seen as a limitation to
this study, this way of obtaining sensitive data assures that revealing of students’
scores was voluntary. The language achievement measure was used to examine
the predictive power of learners’ self-efficacy and attributions. The mean and
standard deviation for the test scores are reported in Table 2.

Procedures
Questionnaires were distributed and completed during class meetings in mid-
May. Learners were assured that their identities and responses would be kept
confidential. It was agreed with the teachers that learners would complete the
demographic, attribution, and self-efficacy questionnaires at the time the learn-
ers’ first test was returned to them so that they could evaluate whether they
perceived their scores to be a success or failure. Learners filled out the ques-
tionnaires immediately before any verbal feedback was given by the teacher,
thus ensuring that the attributions for the test results were the learners’ own

613 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

 Table 2 Intercorrelations among test score, attribution ratings, and self-efficacy
Hsieh and Kang

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Test 1 71.57 23.19

scores
∗∗
2 Test 2 77.38 28.24 .592
scores
3 Ability 3.98 1.36 −.036 −.073
∗∗
4 Effort 3.49 1.46 .130 .091 .202
∗
5 Difficulty 3.32 1.44 .161 .076 −.043 .037
6 Mood 2.46 1.25 −.003 .076 −.117 .013 .140
∗ ∗∗
7 Luck 2.48 1.28 .103 .036 −.069 .113 .149 .303

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
8 Teacher 2.07 1.19 −.186 −.063 −.091 −.054 .078 .258 .343
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
9 Internal 6.28 1.54 .272 .294 .315 .233 −.044 −.056 −.064 −.107
∗∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
10 External 3.10 1.80 −.248 −.184 −.064 .040 .041 .179 .182 .370 −.282
∗∗ ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
11 Stable 5.25 1.48 .205 .199 .211 .240 .054 −.072 .113 .052 .441 .044
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
12 Personal 6.61 1.81 .478 .489 .219 .116 .027 −.018 −.117 −.129 .556 −.311 .330
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
13 Self- 65.64 27.42 .499 .437 −.020 .082 .032 −.098 −.053 −.186 .284 −.242 .242 .434
efficacy
∗
p < .05.
∗∗
p < .01.

614
Korean EFL Learners’ Belief
Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

explanations. Learners’ second test scores were gathered upon receiving their
second test result.

Data Analysis
To analyze the data, learners were grouped first by whether they perceived their
test scores as a success or failure, then by their self-efficacy level. Learners
were categorized into successful and unsuccessful groups not based on their
test grades but rather according to their perceptions of whether their grade was
a success or a failure. This was a suggested approach because most learners
may view 90% on a test as a successful grade, whereas learners with high
expectations of themselves may view the same score as a failure (Hsieh &
Schallert, 2008).

Results
First, to examine the predictive power of EFL learners’ self-efficacy beliefs and
attributions on their achievements in the EFL classroom, correlation analyses
were conducted. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for
all variables in the study are presented in Table 2. The analyses revealed that
both classroom-based achievement measures were significantly correlated with
self-efficacy scores and with internal and personal control attributions, ranging
from r = .27 to r = .50. From the correlation analysis, we find that language
achievement is negatively related to “external attribution,” meaning that stu-
dents who do not believe they have control over the learning outcome are also
the ones who do not perform well. In the same way, those who do not perform
well make external attributions for this outcome.
To test whether learners’ self-efficacy and attribution would predict their
achievement in English, multiple regression analysis was conducted. This anal-
ysis was used because we wanted to examine the effects of self-efficacy on
achievement, as it has been identified as the key motivational construct in
predicting achievement in other areas of learning. We also wanted to add to
the literature on how learners’ attributions predict achievement, thus we added
attributions to the model to see if this would add additional variance to the
prediction of achievement in English.
In the first regression analysis model, learners’ English test score at time 2
was the dependent variable, whereas the predictor variable was self-efficacy.
Results indicated that self-efficacy was significantly related to achievement,
R2 = .24, F(1, 186) = 58.67, p < .001. In the second model, all attributions
were added to the analysis, controlling for self-efficacy, and were found to be

615 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

significantly related to achievement, R2 = .33, F(9, 177) = 2.78, p < .01, with a
significant increase in R2 (R2 change = .30). Of the attribution factors, personal
control was most strongly related to test score. Supporting this conclusion
is the strength of the bivariate correlation, which was .47, p < .001. In the
third model, only the personal control variable was added to the analysis. This
variable predicted significantly over and above the other variables, R2 change =
.37, F(1, 176) = 20.09, p < .001. With the addition of this variable, we see a
significant improvement in the prediction of achievement. Results are shown
in Table 3.
This finding reaffirms that self-efficacy is a good predictor of academic
achievement, as suggested by other researchers (e.g., Bong, 2005; Mills et al.,
2007; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994), and
complements previous findings in that the addition of attributions at the second

Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses: Using self-efficacy and attributions

to predict achievement (N = 162)

Standardized Zero
Model Predictors coefficient β t Significance order Partial Part

1 Self-efficacy .49 7.66 .00 .49 .49 .49

2 Self-efficacy .39 5.74 .00 .49 .40 .35
Internal .12 1.52 .13 .26 .11 .09
External −.11 −1.58 .12 −.24 −.12 −.10
Ability −.09 −1.31 .19 −.03 −.10 −.08
Effort .04 0.55 .58 .11 .04 .03
Difficulty .13 2.10 .04 .16 .16 .13
Mood .01 0.16 .88 −.02 .01 .01
Luck .17 2.39 .02 .12 .18 .15
Teacher −.14 −1.90 .06 −.19 −.14 −.12
3 Self-efficacy .30 4.36 .00 .49 .31 .25
Internal −.01 −0.08 .94 .26 −.01 −.01
External −.06 −0.88 .38 −.24 −.07 −.05
Ability −.12 −1.83 .07 −.03 −.14 −.11
Effort .04 0.71 .48 .11 .05 .04
Difficulty .12 1.94 .05 .16 .15 .11
Mood −.02 −0.28 .78 −.02 −.02 −.02
Luck .20 3.02 .01 .12 .22 .18
Teacher −.14 −2.12 .04 −.19 −.16 −.13
Personal control .35 4.48 .00 .47 .32 .26
Note. Adjusted R2 = .24 for Model 1; R2 = .30 for Model 2; R2 = .37 for Model 3.

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 616

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

level significantly increased the variance explained in test scores in the context
of learning EFL. Previously, Kang (2000) reported that Korean middle-school
EFL learners with low instrumental-knowledge orientation tended to attribute
their success or failure to variables beyond their control. The current study also
demonstrated that attributing test outcomes to factors over which learners have
control was strongly related to their achievement in the EFL classroom. This
may suggest that learners who assume greater responsibilities for their learning
outcomes (those who attribute outcomes to factors within their control) do
better than those who do not assert personal control in the learning of EFL.
To address the second research question of whether successful and unsuc-
cessful EFL learners and learners with varying levels of self-efficacy differ in
their endorsement of attributions, a MANOVA was conducted. The two sets
of attributions (the CDS II and the LAAS) served as dependent variables,
whereas learners’ groups, based on their perceived success or failure in lan-
guage achievement and their high or low self-efficacy, were the independent
variables.

Attributions of Successful and Unsuccessful Learners

Multivariate F tests indicated significant differences between successful and
unsuccessful learners in terms of attributions, Wilks’s λ = .74, F(9, 176) =
6.89, p < .001, partial η2 = .26. ANOVAs on each dependent variable (CDS II,
including “internal,” “external,” and “personal” factors, and LAAS, including
“ability,” “effort,” “difficulty of the test,” “mood,” “the teacher,” and “luck”
variables) were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Results showed
that successful learners tended to endorse internal attributions more strongly
(M = 6.69, SD = 1.28) than unsuccessful learners (M = 6.05, SD = 1.61),
F(1, 184) = 7.54, p < .01, MSe = 16.47, partial η2 = .04. In addition, learners
in the successful group also tended to attribute their success to personal control
factors (M = 7.17, SD = 1.30) more than those in the unsuccessful group (M =
6.35, SD = 1.96), F(1,184) = 9.62, p < .01, MSe = 26.71, partial η2 = .05.
Significant differences between successful and unsuccessful learners were
also found in the actual reasons for learners’ believed success and failure.
Specifically, learners in the successful group attributed test outcomes to ability
(M = 4.95, SD = 1.18) more than did unsuccessful learners (M = 3.69, SD =
1.44), F(1, 184) = 5.33, p < .05, MSe = 9.40, partial η2 = .03. This indicates
that successful learners attributed test outcomes to their high level of ability,
whereas unsuccessful learners did not feel that ability was the reason for their
failure. Similarly, successful learners tended to rate test outcomes according to
the amount of effort they put into studying (M = 5.31, SD = 0.99) more than

617 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Table 4 Mean (standard deviations) attribution scores for successful and unsuccessful
learners
Successful Unsuccessful Difference
Attribution M (SD) M (SD) between two groups F Significance

Internal 6.69 (1.28) 6.05 (1.61) 0.64 7.54 p < .01

External 3.04 (1.96) 3.13 (1.70) 0.09 0.54 n.s.
Stable 4.89 (1.46) 4.90 (1.34) 0.01 0.37 n.s.
Personal 7.17 (1.30) 6.35 (1.96) 0.82 9.62 p < .01
Ability 4.95 (1.18) 3.69 (1.44) 1.26 5.33 p < .05
Effort 5.31 (.99) 3.44 (1.45) 1.87 20.30 p < .001
Difficulty 3.61 (1.48) 3.19 (1.40) 0.42 1.65 n.s.
Mood 2.21 (1.05) 2.57 (1.30) 0.36 2.99 n.s.
Luck 2.90 (1.44) 2.56 (1.13) 0.34 2.60 n.s.
Teacher 2.01 (1.39) 2.12 (1.07) 0.11 0.03 n.s.

did learners in the unsuccessful group (M = 3.44, SD = 1.45), F(1, 184) =

20.30, p < .001, MSe = 38.36, partial η2 = .10. The means and standard
deviations for specific attributions are presented in Table 4.
These are remarkable results because it is conducive to learning and aca-
demic achievement for learners to view success as a result of internal factors
and factors within their control, such as some of their attributes or actions,
as indicated by the internal and personal ratings on the CDS II scale and
supported by the LAAS results of learners’ strong endorsement of ability and
effort attributions. From the results gathered here, it can be suggested that these
learners make adaptive attributions for success, such that successful learners
believed that success was due to high ability, which is highly associated with
high self-confidence (Tremblay & Gardner, 1995). The attributions of failure
to lack of ability would be maladaptive because they are associated with a
lack of volitional control. However, unsuccessful learners in this study did not
believe lack of ability was the reason for their failing grade. As suggested
by many attributional retraining theorists such as Dweck (1975), Foersterling
(1985), and Robertson (2000), learners’ motivation can be influenced by the
types of attributions that they make. Attributions can influence students’ mo-
tivations, behaviors, emotional reactions, and expectations for future success
(Weiner, 1979, 2000). Stable factors influence expectation of success, whereas
controllable factors lead to feelings of control. Students who believe that they
have control over academic outcomes hold higher expectations for success and
tend to be more highly motivated. Thus, findings suggest that the Korean EFL

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 618

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Table 5 Mean (standard deviations) attribution scores for learners with high or low
self-efficacy

High self- Low self- Difference

efficacy efficacy between
Attribution M (SD) M (SD) two groups F Significance

Internal 6.64 (1.43) 6.10 (1.58) 0.54 5.35 p < .05

External 2.74 (1.81) 3.59 (1.71) 0.85 9.12 p < .01
Personal 7.22 (1.54) 6.29 (1.87) 0.93 12.39 p < .001
Stable 5.38 (1.45) 5.02 (1.37) 0.36 4.13 n.s.

learners in this study have demonstrated healthy attributions for their learning
outcomes.

Attributions of Learners with High and Low Self-Efficacy

Results of the MANOVA indicated that learners with different levels of self-
efficacy endorsed attributions differently, Wilks’s λ = .88, F(9, 176) = 2.63,
p < .01, partial η2 = .12. Learners with higher self-efficacy tended to attribute
test outcomes more strongly to internal control factors, F(1, 184) = 5.35, p <
.05, MSe = 11.69, partial η2 = .03, and personal control factors, F(1, 184) =
12.39, p < .001, MSe = 34.41, partial η2 = .06, than those with lower self-
efficacy. On the other hand, learners with lower self-efficacy tended to attribute
test outcomes more strongly to external factors, F(1, 184) = 9.12, p < .01,
MSe = 28.39, partial η2 = .05, than those with higher self-efficacy (see
Table 5 for means and standard deviations). Results suggest that learners with
higher self-efficacy tended to view test outcomes as a result of something about
them and thus indicated having more confidence to perform well in the EFL
class. Conversely, learners with lower self-efficacy reported that test outcomes
resulted from some external factors beyond their control, thus creating an inabil-
ity to foresee positive future outcomes and leading to low expectations of future
success. Having such a belief could possibly lead to learned helplessness.

Interaction Effects
Further analysis (2 × 2 MANOVA) demonstrated a significant interaction be-
tween successful or unsuccessful language achievement groups and high or
low self-efficacy levels, Wilks’s λ = .90, F(9, 176) = 2.63, p < .01, partial
η2 = .12. A follow-up test using the ANOVA indicated that significant inter-
action effects were only found in personal control factors, F(1, 184) = 3.75,
p <.05, MSe = 10.41, partial η2 = .02. Specifically, among learners who per-
ceived the test outcome as unsuccessful, those who reported having higher

619 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Table 6 Mean (standard deviations) personal control attribution scores for learners with
high or low self-efficacy

High Self- Low self- Difference

efficacy efficacy between
Group M (SD) M (SD) two groups F Significance

Unsuccessful 7.07 (1.66) 5.64 (1.95) 1.43 3.74 p < .05

Successful 7.37 (1.36) 6.96 (1.18) 0.41 1.83 n.s.

7.5

7
Personal Control

6.5
Unsuccessful
6 Successful

5.5

5
Low Self-Efficacy High Self-Efficacy

Figure 1 Mean personal control scores for successful and unsuccessful students with
high or low self-efficacy.

self-efficacy assumed greater personal control for the learning outcome (M =

7.07, SD = 1.66) than those who reported lower self-efficacy (M = 5.64,
SD = 1.95); see Table 6. On the other hand, no significant interaction ef-
fects were found for successful learners, indicating that these learners had a
high sense of personal control over the learning outcome regardless of their
self-efficacy level. The pattern of the interaction is shown in Figure 1.
Although perceptions of achievement levels may be similarly low (as in
this case when learners see themselves as being unsuccessful), learners with
different levels of self-efficacy had different perceptions of personal control
over the learning outcome. This is worth noting because whether a person
attributes failure to controllable or uncontrollable factors will likely influence
the person’s future behaviors. Whereas unsuccessful learners with high self-
efficacy reported high levels of personal control over the learning outcome,
unsuccessful learners with low self-efficacy tended to believe they had little
control over the failure. Although it is promising to see that unsuccessful
Korean EFL learners who had higher self-efficacy took responsibility for their

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 620

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

perceived low achievement, those with low self-efficacy may feel discouraged,
develop low expectations for future success, and pull away from future tasks,
which can then lead to lower achievement and motivation (Bandura, 1986b;
Licht & Kistner, 1986; Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006).

Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to investigate how Korean EFL learners
attribute successes and failures in their language classes. This study stresses
the importance of the identification and alteration of learners’ unhealthy attri-
butions, which may lead to low self-efficacy and low motivation. We examined
how well self-efficacy and attributions would predict learners’ achievement
levels in authentic EFL classes. As Bandura (1997) stated, self-efficacy, ex-
pectations of success, and achievement are related. Students who have high
self-efficacy tend to have positive outcome expectations and, in turn, to vali-
date self-efficacy as they experience success (Schunk & Pajares, 2005). The
positive correlation between self-efficacy and language achievement found in
this study should not discount the potential importance of foreign language
learners’ attributions. Although many researchers suggest that self-efficacy
alone is predictive of academic success (e.g., Bandura, 1986b; Schunk, 1984),
this study has identified that successful academic outcomes are also signif-
icantly related to feelings of personal control over the learning task, which
complements Schunk and Pajares’s (2005) findings. When students feel in con-
trol of the learning situation, they tend to put in more effort and persist in the
face of challenges (Weiner, 2000). On the other hand, students who attribute
negative outcomes to uncontrollable factors like lack of ability or teacher bias
(some examples of maladaptive attributions) may develop learned helplessness
(Peterson, Maier, & Seligman, 1993). Our results support the important role
that both self-efficacy and attribution play in language achievement.
This study also reveals that successful English language learners tend to
ascribe their success to internal and personal factors more than unsuccessful
learners, contrary to the findings of Williams and Burden (1999), in which
British students explained their successes in learning French by external fac-
tors. Using the LAAS, we are able to pinpoint the exact attribution learners
endorsed for their achievement. Successful learners more strongly endorsed
ability and effort attributions for their test outcomes than did unsuccessful
learners. Whereas learners with lower self-efficacy tended to attribute test re-
sults more to external factors and felt they had less personal control for poor
outcomes, higher self-efficacy learners attributed low scores to factors under

621 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

their control. It is promising to know that high self-efficacy learners take re-
sponsibility for their failures.
Results of the findings give precedence to the importance of teachers’ roles
in monitoring students’ beliefs. Although the study only looked at Korean En-
glish language learners, the assessment of students’ beliefs and reasons for
success and failure should be carried out for all students. Foreign language
teachers should identify students’ unhealthy attributions, such as believing that
they have no volitional control over future learning outcomes. These attri-
butions can discourage the investment of time and effort, leading to learned
helplessness and poor future test performance (Bandura, 1986b; Schunk &
Zimmerman, 2006; Weiner, 2000). Attributing failure to factors within learn-
ers’ personal control, such as lack of effort, inadequate preparation, or misuse
of strategies, can lead to higher expectations of success if study habits are
changed. Thus, learners will be more likely to invest effort in future tasks
perceived as worthwhile. This type of adaptive attribution should be taught so
that learners take responsibility for their learning outcomes, which may lead
to higher expectations of future successes and achievement (Horner & Gaither,
2004; Robertson, 2000). As attributions and self-efficacy are strongly related
to future effort, persistence, motivation, and expectations of future success,
foreign language teachers should pay special attention to learners’ cognitive
beliefs, not just focus on learners’ performance.
The interrelationship between attribution and self-efficacy is clearly demon-
strated in this study. This relationship is important in the field of foreign lan-
guage because beliefs about personal and external locus of causality are closely
related to a student’s sense of his or her ability to learn a foreign language. As
Horwitz (1988) has reported, many language learners make presumptions of
who can succeed in language learning based on their previous learning experi-
ences and cultural backgrounds, and these beliefs can influence their ultimate
performance.
Educators and administrators who work closely with language learners need
to understand how they can help learners develop a strong sense of self-efficacy
and make appropriate, healthy attributions for success or failure. Through this
study, it can be suggested that by helping students develop awareness of their
own cognition, motivation, and behaviors, they might be able to attain future
language success. Foreign language teachers can help students develop a sense
of efficacy through attribution retraining, which would involve specific teacher
feedback confirming learners’ adequate abilities and emphasizing the effort
and perseverance required to complete a given task successfully.

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 622

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

As with all empirical studies, implications should be interpreted with the

knowledge of its limitations. First, as in all self-reporting questionnaire data,
there may be a chance that participants of this study may have misinterpreted
items on the questionnaires or represented themselves inaccurately. In addi-
tion, our sample consisted of students studying English at two different Korean
high schools and teachers’ achievement scores might have been assessed dif-
ferently. However, because there is a specific English curriculum standard that
all ninth graders must meet in order to enter college, we reason that achieve-
ment scores for the two schools are comparable. Although similarities exist
between the schools, it must be taken into consideration that results generated
may not generalize to all students in Korea. Further research should evaluate
the relationships among students’ self-efficacy, attribution, and achievement
in different cultures. A study of how students of different cultures attribute
successes and failures and how they develop their sense of capabilities to learn
a foreign language would be of great importance.
Revised version accepted 29 April 2009

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling misconceptions of perceived self-efficacy. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 8, 213–229.
Bandura, A. (1986a). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory.
Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 4, 359–373.
Bandura, A. (1986b). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bempechat, J., Ginsburg, H., Nakkula, M., & Wu, J. (1996). Attributions as predictors
of mathematics achievement: A comparative study. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 29, 53–59.
Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation
among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and achievement
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23–34.
Bong, M. (2005). Within-grade changes in Korean girls’ motivation and perceptions of
the learning environment across domains and achievement levels. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 656–672.
Brophy, J. E. (1988). Research linking teacher behavior to student achievement:
Potential implications for instruction of Chapter 1 students. Educational
Psychologist, 23, 235–286.

623 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence and group
cohesion in the foreign language classroom. Language Learning, 44, 417–448.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in
second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of
learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 674–685.
Foersterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 98,
495–512.
Frieze, I., & Weiner, B. (1971). Cue utilization and attributional judgments for success
and failure. Journal of Personality, 39, 591–605.
Graham, S. (2006). A study of students’ metacognitive beliefs about foreign language
study and their impact on learning. Foreign Language Annals, 39(2), 296–309.
Greenlees, I., Lane, A., Thelwell, R., Holder, T., & Hobson, G. (2005). Team-referent
attributions among sport performers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
76, 477–487.
Holder, T. P. (1997). A theoretical perspective of performance evaluation with a
practical application. In R. J. Butler (Ed.), Sport psychology and performance
(pp. 68–86). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Horner, S. L., & Gaither, S. M. (2004). Attribution retraining instruction with a
second-grade class. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31, 165–170.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university
foreign language learners. Modern Language Journal, 72, 283–294.
Hsieh, P. H., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Implications from self-efficacy and attribution
theories for an understanding of undergraduates’ motivation in a foreign language
course. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 513–532.
Kang, D. H. (2000). Motivation is such a complex process. English Teaching, 55, 3–39.
Lee, J.-H., & Lee, S. (2001). The relationships of goal orientation, self-efficacy, and
reasons for academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 15(3),
217–234.
Lee, S.-K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL
students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning,
57, 87–118.
Licht, B. G., & Kistner, J. A. (1986). Motivational problems of learning-disabled
children: Individual differences and their implications for treatment. In J. K.
Torgensen & B. W. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on
learning disabilities (pp. 225–255). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student
engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19,
119–137.
Martin-Krumm, C., Sarrazin, P., Peterson, C., & Famose, J. (2003). Explanatory style
and resilience after sport failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
1685–1695.

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 624

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The
revised causal dimension scale (CDS II). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 566–573.
McCollum, D. L. (2003). Utilizing non-cognitive predictors of foreign language
achievement. Applied Language Learning, 13(1), 19–32.
Mills, N., Pajares, F., & Herron, C. (2007). Self-efficacy of college intermediate
French students: Relation to motivation and achievement. Language Learning,
57(3), 417–442.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 30–38.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A
review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.
Pajares, F., Britner, S. L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals
and self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Pajares, F., & Kranzler, J. (1995). Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental ability in
mathematical problem-solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20,
426–443.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1995). Mathematics self-efficacy and mathematics
outcomes: The need for specificity of assessment. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 42, 190–198.
Peterson, C., Maier, S., & Seligman, M. (1993). Learned helplessness: A theory for the
age of personal control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 67–86.
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 33–40.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Robertson, J. S. (2000). Is attribution training a worthwhile classroom intervention for
K-12 students with learning difficulties? Educational Psychology Review, 12,
111–134.
Schunk, D. (1984). Self-efficacy perspective on achievement behavior. Educational
Psychologist, 19, 48–58.
Schunk, D. H. (1982). Effects of effort attributional feedback on children’s perceived
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548–556.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Ability versus effort attributional feedback: Different effects on
self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75,
848–856.

625 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational

Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic
functioning. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 85–104). New York: Guilford Press.
Schunk, D., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Competence and control beliefs:
Distinguishing the means and ends. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 349–367). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Silver, W. S., Mitchell, T. R., & Gist, M. E. (1995). Responses to successful and
unsuccessful performance: The moderating effect of self-efficacy on the
relationship between performance and attributions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 62(3), 286–299.
Spence, D. J., & Usher, E. L. (2007). Engagement with mathematics courseware in
traditional and online remedial learning environments: Relationship to self-efficacy
and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37,
267–288.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Sommer, S. M. (2000). Self-efficacy and causal attributions: Direct
and reciprocal links. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 707–737.
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in
language learning. Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 504–518.
Weiner, B. (1976). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational
process. Review of Educational Research, 42, 203–215.
Weiner, B. (1977). An attributional approach for educational psychology. Review of
Research in Education, 4, 345–366.
Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an
attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1–14.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A
developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.
Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. (1999). Student’s developing conceptions of themselves
as language learners. Modern Language Journal, 83, 193–201.
Williams, M., Burden, R., Poulet, G., & Maun, I. (2004). Learners’ perceptions of their
successes and failures in foreign language learning. Language Learning Journal,
30, 19–29.
Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to
academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47,
1013–1024.

Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627 626

Hsieh and Kang Korean EFL Learners’ Belief

Yang, N.-D. (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning
strategy use. System, 27(4), 515–535.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and
academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46, 677–706.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on
writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 845–862.

627 Language Learning 60:3, September 2010, pp. 606–627