Download Attribution Theory and School Reform: Teacher Beliefs and Student Failure and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Educational Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
Attribution Theory and School Reform Author(s): Linda Kight Winter, Jon Butzon
Affiliation: Winthrop University, Charleston Education Network
Attribution Theory and School Reform
Linda Kight Winter
Winthrop University
Jon Butzon
Charleston Education Network
Abstract
Weiner's attribution theory is used as the framework to look at the ways in which teachers and other educators cast poor student performance to protect their own self-images. Commonly heard teacher language that attributes student failure to something other than the teacher is examined within these three broad categories: "It's the students fault," "It's the parent's fault," or "It's the test's/standard's/curriculum's fault." The importance of leadership and board policy to confront these false attributions is emphasized.
Attribution Theoryand School Reform
Year after year, in school after school, test scores and other data tell us that students who are poor, minority, or English language learners perform poorly in school. Generally substantiated, as well, is the critical role teach ere xpectations play in any individual student's success or failure - the well known "self-fulfilling prophecy." Looking at student success or failure as influenced by the student's own beliefs about his or her performance has been a focus of attribution theory research.
In this article, however, we are focusing on the role that attribution theory plays in teacher and principal beliefs as they explain school achievement specifically, how do educators perceive and explain the failures of their students? Using attribution theory as the framework, we will focus on school reform and how efforts to improve school performance are impacted by educators' beliefs about student success or failure. Let us begin by reviewing the basics of attribution theory.
Theoretical Framework
Intrapersonal attribution theory (Weiner, 1974, 1986, 2000) states that individuals construct explanations for their successes and failures, which may or may not accurately reflect reality. For example, Mario may believe that he is smart and was prepared for the test, so he attributes his failure on the test to its being unfair. Jamal believes he is a skilled athlete and attributes making the soccer team to that belief. Tina, on the other hand, thinks that none of her classmates likes her which explains why she is picked last for softball.
Weiner (2000) further explains three ways that attributions may differ. First, a student may choose whether or not her success is determined by "internal" or "external" factors. Internal factors include such are as ability or effort - in the examples above, "I'm smart" or "I didn't try really hard." External factors include "luck" and characteristics of others- "the test was unfair" or "the coach has it in for me."
A student also considers whether or not a situation is constant, i.e., are the factors stable or unstable. "I'm smart" is likely viewed as stable, and "I didn't try really hard" could be viewed as unstable. The next teacher could give a fair test, so this could be viewed as unstable, whereas the coach's opinion, if it has existed all year, might be viewed as more stable.
Finally, the student considers whether or not she has control over the factors that influence events. If Tina believes "classmates don't like me because I am poor," then she may believe she has little control over others' opinions of her. If, however, she believes they don't like her because she is too loud or too shy, she could say perhaps that these factors are controllable by her.
Attribution theory has long been studied in conjunction with whether or not students expect to succeed or fail in the future and, given that self-constructed knowledge, to what degree they will exhibit effort or
Similarly, we heard a very successful principal in a highpoverty, 100% minority school refer to her students as "MY kids." George McKenna, famed principal from LosAngeles, related a story about challenging a teacher about his inaction in asituation. "Well, if it is not your child, I understand. But if this IS your child ..." (personal communication, 1988).
In South Carolina, we actually formalize the idea that "it's the kids" by comparing school performance on the state achievement test in any given school to children in a "school like ours," which means of similar poverty level. Instead of comparing poor children's progress to all third graders, for example, we only compare them to other poor third graders.
Poverty, especially in schools where poor children constitute a high percentage of the enrollment, is widely accepted as an indisputable reason why test performance is low. By extension, poverty becomes the excuse for teachers not producing better outcomes. Schools with high poverty enrollments that perform well are seen as exceptions, outliers that cannot be replicated, and sometimes even viewed suspiciously, rather than as beacons of success to be emulated. Yet, as Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2002) have found, good teaching trumps poverty. President Obama (2009) recently affirmed, "From the moment students enter a school, the most important factor in their success is not the color of their skin or the income of their parents, it's the person standing at the front of the classroom."
So how might this relate to attribution theory? If I attribute the problem to "those kids," I see it as external, unlikely to change, and out of my control a perfect recipe for poor teacher motivation.
"It's the parent’s fault"
If kids come to us from strong, healthy, functioning families, it makes our job easier. If they do not come to us from strong, healthy, functioning families, it makes our job more important.
One of the authors often gives graduate students in her classes teachers who aspire to become principals ¿ the above quote with the last word ("important") left off and asks them to fill in the blank. Often, the responses are in the realm of "difficult." And indeed, it is difficult work to teach children who come to school not having the benefit of parents who have done part of the job of teaching their children for us ¿ teaching them their alphabet, their colors, to write, to behave, to think, to listen.
But those of us in education today must accept that this is the job before us ¿ for most children, we must provide 100% of their education, not 50% or 75% like our teachers may have done for us, after our dads and moms read to us and checked our homework and took us to the library regularly. It is the hand educators have been dealt, and in reality, it is the hand many children have been dealt.
So saying the problems of public education are rooted in the fact that parents don't send us better kids is a foolish, flimsy excuse. As a fellow psychologist once said, parents send us the best kids they have. They don't keep the "good" ones at home. Blaming them for not doing otherwise is just another way of diverting blame. In terms of attribution theory, it is a way of saying that we have no control over these children's education because the parents didn't send us different/better children. The outcome is out of our control an external problem that we really don't see changing any time soon. So why should we even try teaching them?
But the real question to be asked is: if parents don't do everything for the education of their children that we wish they would do, does that relieve us of the responsibility to teach those children to the same high standard we apply to children with optimal parent support? Given what it will take for the United States to be competitive in an increasingly complex global market, we think not. We have to do whatever it takes to ensure the educational success of these children, and not just because it is the right thing to do.
"It's thetest's/standard's/curriculum's fault"
Note this story from The Atlanta Journal Constitution (2008), after the state school superintendent announced and explained why 70 to 80% of the state's sixth and seventh graders failed the social studies section of the Georgia Criterion-Referenced Competency Test.
Several possible explanations emerged for failure rates that ran as high as 80 percent: New curriculum standards that may have been too vague. A complicated process for creating tests. Flawed test questions. Inadequate training in the new curriculum for
students or poverty or anyother factor. (See Gordon, Kane, & Staiger, 2006; Haycock, 2005; Marzano, 2 003;Odden & Wallace 2003; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2002). The "excuse" and "blame" language that educators use to explain student failure becomes embedded in the culture of the school and provides the leader with clear indicators as to where teachers place the responsibility for teaching and learning.
In our experience, it is a rare school board that, as a matter of policy, establishes high standards and expectations for learning for every student and then holds teachers and school leaders accountable for high standards of teaching and performance. As long as this policy vacuum exists, school failure will continue to beat tributed to the student, parents, tests, the curriculum, and poverty; all false beliefs that serve to protect the self-image of educators but do nothing but harm to the children whose lives we have the power to change.
References
Coloroso, B. (Author). (1990). Winning at parenting...without beating your kids. [DVD]. Availablefrom http://www.kidsareworthit.com.
Diamond, L, Judd, A, & Vogel, H. (May 21, 2008). State throws out CRCT results. Downloaded May 23, 2008, from http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/05/21/crct_0521.html?cxntlid=homepag e_tab_newstab.
Gordon, R., Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifyingeffective teachers using performance on the job. Washington,D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Haycock, K. (1998, Summer). Goodteaching matters: How well-qualified teacherscan close the gap. A Publication of The Education Trust, 3 (2), 1- 2_._ Retrieved September2, 2009, from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/0279CB4F-B729-4260-AB6E- 359FD3C374A7/0/k16_summer98.pdf.
Haycock, K. (2005, June 8) Improving academic achievement and closing gaps between groups in themiddle grades. Presentation given at CASE Middle Level summit.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). Whatworks in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Obama, B. (2009). Thefive pillars of education.. A speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerceon March 10, 2009.
Odden, A. & Wallace, M. J. (2003, August 6). Leveragingteacher pay. Education Week, 22(43), 64.
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2002). Teachers,schools, and academic achievement. University of Texas, Dallas: TexasSchools Project.
Weiner, B. (1974). Achievementmotivation and attribution theory. Morristown, N.J.: General LearningPress.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 1 - 14.
