Vermont Initial Licensure Portfolio

Part 1

Shane Quintana

12/13/19

The Learner and Learning

Description of Part 1

To me, the learner and learning can be summarized by one idea: continuous

development. The learner is a person who acknowledges their ignorance and makes the choice

to attain a skill or information for their benefit. Learning is the process through which these

people gain these skills and information. Because there is nearly an infinite amount of skills and

information but only a finite amount of time to cultivate them, learning is a nonstop experience,

which means the learner is always developing. Since a strong focus of mine is student

development, I tend to observe struggling students and their habits in a classroom. I do this

because exceeding students usually have self-motivation and are in control of their learning,

whereas struggling students clearly lack the same inspiration and engagement and would

greatly benefit from more teacher intervention. I once observed and then worked with a seventh

grade student, Andrew (pseudonym), who fits this description. In classes, he would be half-

paying attention, doodle and scribble on his classwork, ignore homework, and then,

consequently, receive failing grades; he would do this even with more comprehensible and

straight-forward content like vocabulary, which the class was working on. Because there are a

plethora of factors influencing his chosen educational habits that are beyond his control, I

wanted to understand at least his reasoning for why he chose to act in such a manner, so I

asked him one day in class. Andrew’s explanation was simple: he could never understand the

content, could not complete assignments because of this, and eventually gave up even

attempting to listen or complete work in anticipation of failing. So, I pried him with more

questions to get a better grasp of his mindset. I asked if he tried to get help, if he had an
emotional response from failing grades, and if failing a few times justified arresting any effort

given in class. He said that he sought help initially, but stopped doing so because the teacher

could not spend enough personal time with him to clarify everything. Then he explained that not

trying and failing was more tolerable than trying, failing, and getting frustrated because of the

results; to him, this justified not expending any effort. In the small amount of time I had to talk

with him, I explained that he should continue to seek help, no matter how much he would

receive, but, more importantly, I told him that there is no good excuse for not trying at all

because there are long-term negative consequences that will follow and affect his life outside

the classroom. He did not have a response, but I knew he at least listened to me because of the

eye contact we made. During the following vocabulary lesson the next day, I saw that he was

reading the questions and writing actual answers instead of his usual avoidant behavior. He had

some confusion on one definition and promptly asked me for clarification. The most interesting

thing I observed that day, though, was when the teacher was having students verbally respond

to answers as a class. For the first time that semester, I saw Andrew raise his hand to

participate. Unfortunately, the teacher called on another student, and I feared that Andrew

would be discouraged and revert to ignoring the discussion again. However, when the teacher

asked for another response, Andrew was the first and only student to volunteer, and I was

overjoyed to see his effort and persistence. At the end of that week, there was a summative

assessment on the vocabulary the students had been learning. Andrew did not rush through the

test to finish, taking his time to read the directions and questions and think his answers through

fully. The next Monday when grades were given back on the assessment, Andrew had finally

met and achieved the standards on a unit. Afterwards, Andrew’s output of effort was not

consistent day-to-day, as expected, but there certainly was an overall positive trend of more

focus and concern that resulted in more learning.

Andrew illustrated to me that a main concern of teachers is how to motivate a person to

be a learner and engage them in the learning process. There are many incredible specific,
research-supported methods of teaching such as Socratic seminars, direct instruction,

cooperative learning, inquiry-based lessons, interactive websites, project-based assignments,

personalized work, and more that exist and will be established. I certainly plan to employ these

practices in the proper contexts. However, without the pertinent motivation, some students will

be highly involved with some methods, while other students only find interest in other activities. I

learned through Andrew that, although there can be external guides, ambition is deeply an

internal process dependent on the beliefs that a person harbors. As the renowned psychologist

Carl Jung points out in his works, people don’t have ideas and then consciously act them out;

ideas grip people and dictate their subsequent actions, whether the person is aware of this or

not. Therefore, I plan to promote the concept of attribution theory to students to shape their

conscious or subconscious logic and, thereby, increase motivation, engagement, success, and

overall well-being.

Criterion 1.1: Learning Theory

I believe attribution theory supplemented with the expectancy-value theory would be

most beneficial to implement for optimal student success because it focuses on minute (yet not

insignificant) and immediate changeable factors—such as effort—that ultimately influence major

factors that can only be changed on a larger time-scale—such as ability. These theories are

closely aligned with student motivation; however, they also incorporate the emotions and value

structures of students that would help me as an educator understand students and supervise

them to success.

Fritz Heider (1958) was the first psychologist to outline the human thought process of

observing a consequence and then naturally trying to identify an internal or external action that

lead to the repercussions, whether the identification is accurate or not; this is the underlying

idea of attribution theory. Heider’s focus with this theory, however, was on how humans use this

cause and effect judgement to try to understand the actions of other people and its significance

in interpersonal relations, as his book title suggests. Bernard Weiner (1985) decided to delve
into this idea further and create a more elaborate and fleshed out concept that could be utilized

for human development, specifically for personal determination. What Weiner added to

attribution theory was classifying the most common causes human use for attribution related to

academic performance, causal categories, and emotions related to attributions and outcomes.

In a meta-analysis of surveys done on causes of achievement, Weiner discovered that although

there is an infinite amount of causes participants could report for precursors of achievement,

four specific agents were ubiquitously proposed: ability, effort, luck, and difficulty of task.

According to the participants of these studies, these four elements are the most significant

factors in determining achievement. Next, Weiner analyzed these four causes and established

that they had the varying characteristics of locus, stability, and controllability—known as the

three causal dimensions. Locus describes whether a cause is internal to the person or external;

stability determines if a cause is fixed (stable) or momentary (unstable); and controllability

specifies whether one can alter the cause based on one’s own volition. As a note, these three

dimensions are not limited to the aforementioned prevailing causes, but can be used to

categorize any source of any outcome. Now combining the four common causes of

achievement and the three causal dimensions, Weiner (2000) concluded that ability is internal,

stable, and uncontrollable; effort is internal, unstable, and controllable; luck is external, unstable,

and uncontrollable; and difficulty of task is external, stable, and uncontrollable. Another

contribution Weiner (1985) and others made to attribution theory is its prediction of emotional

responses due to certain causal ascriptions. He determines that attributions lead to positive or

negative self-esteem based on feelings of pride, shame, or guilt. As expected, pride in oneself is

related to considering a successful outcome to internal causes such as ability and effort. Shame

and guilt are related to negative outcomes; however, there is an interesting distinction between

the two emotional responses. Research done by Brown and Weiner (1984), Covington and

Omelich (1984), and Jagacinski and Nicholls (1984) all demonstrate that attributing failure to

one’s ability produces shame, whereas attributing failure to lack of effort produces guilt. The
difference is that deficiency in ability is associated with feelings like embarrassment and

humiliation, but lack of effort is related to a lapse in conscience—knowing that one is not doing

what one should. Furthermore, in a large survey done about guilt and shame by Wicker et al.

(1982), shame ultimately leads to resignation and hindered motivation, but guilt leads to redress

and encouraged motivation. So, changing one’s attributions of lack of ability to lack of effort

could embolden personal motivation and persistence through failure.

Since Weiner’s invigoration of attribution theory, there have been numerous studies

implicating educational benefits of positive attributions over negative attributions, but an apt,

encompassing study is that of Fishman and Husman (2017). The research was conducted to

not only determine the effects of attributional beliefs, but also to understand how students’

conscious control of this attributional process affects academic outcomes. The study gave a

survey to 800 university students that had participants respond to personal questions and

hypothetical scenarios measuring for perceived control of situations and attributions, awareness

of motivational consequences, emotional responses, and well-being. In the first analysis of their

data, Fishman & Husman (2017) deduced that students’ perceived control of attributions

predicted their sense of autonomy, and students’ awareness of motivational consequences

predicted their well-being. More importantly, when both of these conscious thought processes

are utilized, a student is much more likely to engage in cognitive reappraisal. That means if a

student becomes aware of the attributions they instinctually make and the results of those

attributions, they are more inclined to readjust their interpretations of a situation for their

betterment. This grasp of self-autonomy is so crucial for students because, as attributional

theory implies, students are going to infer causes of a situation, whether their inferences are

correct or false. When people feel controlless, they base their conception on imagination,

superstition, and conspiracies as well as acceding important decisions to governmental and

higher powers (Kay et al., 2008) all to regain some feeling of control again (Whitson & Galinsky,

2008) (Kay et al., 2008).

 Although attribution theory encompasses a great portion of potential student thought

processes, expectancy-value theory, in accordance with attribution theory, is a valuable

addition. Expectancy-value theory states that, in regards to education, a student’s effort on a

task is dependent on how they expect to perform as well as the values they apply to the rewards

received upon completion (Tollefson, 2000). Furthermore, if a student has attributions based on

stable causes, then they will assume the same outcome will repeat; if a student has attributions

based on unstable causes, then the same outcome is not as likely to be expected (Weiner,

2000). The context Weiner (2000) puts this in is when a student fails a test and believes the

failure is a cause of an unfair teacher (stable), then the student will expect to fail on the next

test. On the other hand, if a student attributes failure on a test to luck (or lack thereof), then the

student may anticipate different results on the next test.

In connection to Andrew’s story, attribution theory and expectancy-value theory put

Andrew’s transformation in perspective. His resignation, as he said, was a cause of his inability

to comprehend the content. Therefore, Andrew’s attributions to his poor grades were his low

ability and highly difficult assignments. Because of these stable and uncontrollable ascriptions,

Andrew exhibited withdrawal from lectures and assignments. Not only that, but Andrew also

demonstrated hopelessness as well because of his expectation of not getting better, never

understanding the content, and thereby not trying in the first place on subsequent work. His

behavior shifted, though, after finding a new perspective and focus. Instead of focusing on

things he cannot control—the difficulty of the work and his ability (I do believe ability can

change, just not in an immediate time frame, making it an uncontrollable cause)—he began to

focus on what he could control, which was his output of effort. With the result of his effort being

a passing grade on an assessment, Andrew no longer had the expectation of failing and,

therefore, showed significantly less detachment from what was happening in the classroom.

My plan as a teacher is to demonstrate to students the major effects of their

subconscious, internal beliefs on their actions. At the start of semesters, instead of spending an
entire class period going over the syllabus, I will focus more on summarizing attribution theory

and expectancy theory in a clear manner. I will highlight that their effort will influence their

success the most because that is what they have the most control over. What I am most excited

to try, though, is having students write a reflection on the causes of their success or failure on

an assessment, after every summative assessment. There are two great advantages to this

procedure. First, the students would become aware of the attributions they make, see how it is

affecting them, and make suitable adjustments if necessary. Also, these exercises would not be

limited to disengaged students who need to focus on effort. It provides the opportunity for

successful students to think about their habits and ideas as well. Perhaps a successful student

finds himself or herself to be lucky, so they do not bother to study the content and also,

theoretically, do not feel the same sense of pride and satisfaction if their success depended on

hard work. Writing about their luck could change their passiveness into better study habits.

Another possibility is that a student may do well, but not as well as they want to. If they are

putting in the effort of paying attention and studying, they could analyze that process more.

They may discover that, although they study, they are doing it in an inefficient way. This

reflection would give them the opportunity to rethink how they study and develop a new

technique that would be more beneficial. Once the students have analyzed their past or current

habits and made constructive changes, they will then have to write about their future

expectations on assignments and assessments. This will provide students with goals and then

be able to gauge how they are performing in relation to their own standards. The other

advantage these reflections would provide is it allows me to understand my students on a

deeper level. Gaier (2015) explains that the better a teacher can understand student causal

ascriptions, the better a teacher can guide student behavior in the future. The three guidelines

he provides are accurately understanding a student’s attributions, understanding that those

attributions—whether correct or not—is legitimate and personal to the student, and being aware

of possible bias when observing students. Therefore, the reflections would cover the Gaier’s
(2015) first two recommendations for me: I will understand student attributions because it will

come from the students, and I will be considerate of how they genuinely feel and that they

believe their causal ascriptions. I will avoid being biased in my assumptions of student success

and failure because I will not make any assumptions in the first place. I will rely on student

reflections instead of trying to infer the information myself. Also, I do not expect these reflections

to fully motivate students, so I will make individual meetings with students if necessary in order

to have them vocally communicate their beliefs and motivate them on a personal, one-to-one

level. Again, these measures will all be taken to guide students away from maladaptive

attributions and towards ones that will help them academically.

Criterion 2: Diverse Cultures and Communities

Interestingly, attribution theory has positive implications for culturally diverse students as

well as learning differences within students. To begin, van Laar (2000) conducted two studies

that analyzed the differences between academic achievement and self-esteem in White and

Black students. She found a paradox where Black students generally reported lower grades

than to White students, but had equal or even higher reported levels of self-esteem. The two

studies were performed to identify a cause of high self-esteem regardless of lower academic

performance. The first one surveyed 134 Black students and 395 White students, measuring

their future expectancies, attributions, and self-esteem. These measurements were based on

questions about what participants believed their future monetary earnings, socioeconomic

status, and well-being would be along with what they attribute their future to (ability, effort, or

external reasons), while self-esteem was measured using the Rosenberg self-esteem scale.

The data showed that older Black students made less internal attributions about their future than

younger Black students and their White counterparts. What the data also found was that higher

external attributions were a strong factor in high self-esteem ratings among Black students. By

attaching their shortcomings to uncontrollable external factors, these students could avoid

feelings of shame or guilt that come with internal attributions, and thereby maintain a high sense
of self-worth, regardless of academic performance and future achievement or lack thereof. And

because of this, these older Black students had measurable higher self-esteem than White

students did. However, van Laar (2000) used a structural equations model to identify causal

relationships within the data. This analysis determined that external attributions within Black and

White students caused a lowering of expectations. The second study provided the same

questions and used the same measurements, but this time made it a longitudinal study. So, van

Laar (2000) surveyed and supervised 51 Black students and 514 White students from the

summer before they started college through the end of their first year. The new findings

reaffirmed the conclusions of the first. Before entering college, the 51 Black students reported

high expectancies for future economic success and well-being; they also reported a high

importance to academic success as well. Most importantly, Black students made the same

amount of internal attributions as the White students. The unfortunate discovery was that this

early optimism of Black students diminished as their first year advanced. First, these students

disclosed their serious dissatisfaction with their academic performance and felt like they were

underperforming compared to their cohorts. Along with this, Black students shifted their

expectancies to lower levels of success, and these lower levels coincided with new external

attributions. However, their measured self-esteem remained consistent throughout the study,

despite not achieving their academic goals and lowering their future expectancies of success.

Overall, van Laar (2000) concludes that encouraging self-esteem and self-worth to minority

students, specifically Black students, would be misguided because this is not an area they have

deficiencies. It would be better to guide them towards adaptive attributions that would empower

them. There is no debate that minority students often come from disadvantaged communities

with lower educational opportunities as well as being confronted with boundaries due to their

race. The author of these studies implies that when students make attributions based on these

external, uncontrollable disadvantages and boundaries, they often feel powerless and slowly

lose the effort to try. What is more beneficial is having minority students make attributions to the
things they can control. In the end, the most controllable internal attribution that anyone can

make is the effort and persistence one can put forth.

Criterion 2: Learning Differences

Like students from diverse cultures, attribution theory provides benefits to all learners, no

matter their differences. In regard to high achievers, my planned process of continuous self-

assessment allows these students to practice metacognitive thinking, which is possibly the

hardest kind of thinking to teach. As Fishman and Husman (2017) outlined, the process of

attributional reappraisal is metacognitive in that students will have to think about what they

think—whether those thoughts were subconscious or not. Going beyond this, the reappraisal

process means that, after identifying their attributions, they (with my help if needed) have to

think creatively in order to develop adaptive attributions that will lead them to success. Focusing

on struggling students, Hamm et al. (2017) established that attributional retraining (AR)—

teaching about the attribution process and having someone adjust their perceptions—positively

influenced low cognitive elaborating students. Cognitive elaboration is one’s ability to think

critically, learn actively, and create helpful schemas. The process Hamm et al. (2017) used was

giving two online questionnaires to 806 university students in an introductory psychology course

during a period of two semesters. Directly after the first questionnaire, students were randomly

assigned to either an AR treatment or stress-reduction treatment (SR). The AR treatment asked

students to analyze their past failures and successes, a video about the assets of adaptive

attributions, and then perform a quick write about how they can use AR in their academics. The

SR group answered the same questions, except they had to watch a video about stress

management methods instead. The second questionnaire was given in the second semester,

where students gave answers about their attributions to their performance in class based on

strategy, effort, ability, professor’s quality of teaching, test difficulty, and luck. They also

answered about how much control they felt in their performance and their ensuing emotions.

Finally, Hamm et al. (2017) collected the final grades of students at the end of the second
semester. An analysis of the data showed that students from the AR section received higher

grades than the SR section. Also, four months after the AR lesson, low elaborators had

decreased the amount of uncontrollable causal attributions made. As expected, uncontrollable

attributions predicted a lower sense of perceived control, while controllable attributions predicted

higher perceived control within students. This decrease in uncontrollable attributions led to a

12% increase of a standard deviation in low elaborators’ perceived control. In addition, a focus

on uncontrollable attributions was related to higher levels of negative emotion. The same was

true for perceived control; the less control one perceived, the more negative their emotions

reported were. Therefore, Hamm et al. (2017) ultimately surmised that if a student can increase

their perceived control—through controllable attributions—and positive emotions, they can

increase their academic performance, and this was particularly true for students with lower

cognitive abilities.

Hall et al. (2007) also conducted research with results demonstrating attributional

retraining’s positive effects at any level of the cognitive scale. Similar methods were used as

Hamm et al. (2017) where participants completed a survey at the start of the school year,

following their first exam in an introductory psychology course. After the first questionnaire,

participants were divided into a control group and an AR condition group. The experimenters

gave the AR group a handout and brief explanation of the attributional process. Participants

then wrote continuously for 15 minutes in adherence to the Pennebaker expressive writing

model. After the writing, some of the participants in the AR group had final questions related to

cognitive processes while the others had final questions related to affective processes, or

emotions. Later in the school year, there was a second questionnaire, and the experimenters

completed the research by collecting the final grades of the participants. Those from the AR

group received higher grades, had higher expectations, and reported lower levels of negative

emotions compared to the control group. The interesting results of the data implied that high

cognitive elaborators showed overall improvements in relation to a cognitive focus on AR,

whereas lower elaborators improvement came through an emotional focus. Highlighting the

cognitive process increased high elaborators grades, expectations, and positive emotions;

highlighting the affective process increased low elaborators grades, expectations, and positive

emotions. Furthermore, Hall et al. (2007) found that the two main predictors for final grades in

the cognitive AR were expectations and negative emotions; the two main predictors in the

affective AR were positive and negative emotions.

The findings of Hamm et al. (2017) and Hall et al. (2007) reflect my experience with

Andrew. As mentioned above, Andrew was a student that struggled and did not have the same

cognitive abilities as his peers. Although there were multiple reasons for his deficiencies, a

major contribution to it was the causal ascriptions he made. Two of his major attributions to his

poor grades were the difficulty of the content and the teacher’s limited amount of time, which are

both external and uncontrollable attributions. Because of these, Andrew displayed the same

conclusions that Hamm et al. (2017) made. Andrew displayed no sense of conscious control

over his learning and exhibited harmful and negative emotions like anger and frustration. This

accumulated into a disengagement from the classroom and failing grades. The change in

Andrew’s attributions and perceived control was what led to changes in his behavior and

comprehension in class. As the cited research predicted, a change in attributions was a catalyst

for motivation and success, and in this case, for a student with lower cognitive abilities.

My focus, again, will be student personal reflections after each assessment or major

assignment. This will be particularly beneficial to struggling students. To account for learning

differences, I will be conscious of students with lower and higher ability and what they write on

their reflections. For students with lower cognitive abilities, I will have them focus on emotions if

they do not know where to start —how they feel toward their grades and effort levels and how

attributional reappraisal can be used to create more positive emotions. On the other end, I will

have the students with higher cognitive abilities focus on the relationship of cause and effect

and how their attributions ultimately determine the actions they take. Also, if there are any
extremely high achievers (but not limited to high achievers) that consistently act out the same

successful academic habits, I will encourage them to focus on their personal life. Fishman and

Husman (2017) explain that some students will come across rejections to college. If these

students attribute their denial to their ability, they will likely be discouraged from the college

application process because of an uncontrollable cause. Students, instead, should instead focus

on the strategy—internal and controllable—which is something they can adjust for the future.

Another major element to adolescence is social life, where students are trying to understand the

social landscape and their place in it. Adolescents go through a range of experiences from

social rejection to arguments with friends. It is unfortunately easy to rely on uncontrollable

attributions, whether they are internal or external, to associate with an outcome. The best way to

promote perseverance through these difficult times is having students identify, again, the

elements of a situation that they can control. Instead of blaming other people and feeling a

sense of no control, they can look for ways in which to improve themselves or become more

durable. Whether high or low in cognitive ability, students think about their thought processes

and make the necessary adjustments, which leads to a greater understanding of their self.

Another piece of Hamm et al.’s (2017) research that I will want to incorporate in my

classroom is the possibility of doing an entire lesson, maybe even a small unit, dedicated to

attributional retraining at the start of semesters. Simply talking about the attribution process may

not be enough to influence and impact students. It will be more effective if I design a lesson

around attributional retraining so it positively affects students’ academics and social life. Also,

before implementing attributional self-reflections after assessments, I will first have students do

the same writing that Hamm et al. (2017) had their participants do. After my lesson on causal

ascriptions and attributional retraining, I will have students write about how much control they

feel over their experiences in the classroom and how they see controlling or readjusting their

attributions may improve their grades and life.

Criterion 3: Individual Learning

 Since the focus of my paper is based on psychological concepts, I will establish greater

individual learning through the psychological environment. The type of psychology I will

encourage is mindfulness, consciousness, and self-awareness mainly through constantly

iterating attribution theory based on all the aforementioned research and also through the

written reflections. Hall et al. (2007) and Hamm et al. (2017) demonstrate that writing is the most

effective means to process information, self-evaluate, and make future plans. Specifically,

emotional expressive writing seems to be the most relevant to attributional reflection. Hall et al.

(2007) describes its significance because students first highlight their emotional responses to

their failure or success, making the experience more pertinent to their conscious thought, then

elaborating on their feelings allows them to integrate the experience and feeling instead of

ignoring and subconsciously harboring it. The research of Niles et al. (2016) analyzes the

specific elements that makes this writing process beneficial. Out of the 116 participants, 59 were

assigned to an expressive writing group, while the other 57 were in the control group. During the

first meeting, Niles et al. (2016) gave the participants a questionnaire, which was to be followed

by four writing sessions to take place within eight weeks. The expressive writing group wrote

about the most stressful or traumatic experience they had within the last five years and

articulate their thoughts and feelings about the experience. The control group simply wrote

about their daily life and what they did without any emotional expression. The research was

completed three months later with a final follow-up questionnaire. The researchers measure

depressive symptoms, physical symptoms, and anxiety symptoms of their participants. Also, the

writings were judged on narrative structure (detail and focus of subject), affect labeling,

discovery of meaning, and self-affirmations. Niles et al. (2016) had three main discoveries. First,

they found that self-affirmation statements and greater detail when describing a traumatic event

predicted less anxiety in participants. Unexpectedly, they also determined a positive correlation

between discovery of meaning statements and higher levels of anxiety. The paper suggests that

because there is previous research that positively correlates discovery of meanings statements
with health improvements, the current findings could be indicative of a comparison between

understanding potential meaning yet not currently having it that causes stress. Finally, their

research showed that the frequency of negative affect words predicted later anxiety.

This relates to my experience with Andrew because of the metacognitive skills he

demonstrated. Although it was not self-initiated and not conducted through writing, Andrew

clearly showed an understanding of his causal ascriptions no matter how shallow or deep. He

may have not been able to communicate or express how his thoughts and attributions directly

influenced his actions, but he exhibited an internal or subconscious understanding, where he

identified the causes he focused on, the effects of his focus, and subsequently made suitable

changes. My only wish was to have him write about his feelings and beliefs and see how that

would influence his behavior.

To start, the process of having students write is an act of individual learning because it

is an independent, contemplative assignment. These exercises also encourage individual

learning because it promotes metacognitive skills. Since it is impossible to experience another

person's thought process, the students will have to work by themselves in this method of self-

understanding and trying to think about their thoughts. Also, this type of writing and thinking is a

way for students to practice the higher cognitive functions highlighted by Bloom’s revised

taxonomy in relation to the self. Students first analyze their habits and causes—an incredibly

difficult process. Next is evaluating those habits and causes they have ascribed to actions.

Finally, the students will come to a point where they have enough information, including their

future expectations, to alter their habits and guide themselves into profitable patterns. I will

enhance this form of independent learning through guiding students to adaptive attributions. I

will achieve this by reading what students write and providing feedback or plan a personal

meeting with them. The first step would be to make sure that students are focusing on internal,

controllable causes. As the research states, if a student attaches their performance to external,

uncontrollable causes, they are more likely to give up trying because they see it to be a futile
effort. If a student is already ascribing internal, controllable causes to an outcome, then I will

have them focus on that process itself. Again, a student may be focusing on their study habits

as a consequence of their grades, which would be good. However, if the student is still

struggling to find success, then I will have that student analyze their study habits further.

Perhaps they aren’t studying long enough, studying with distractions around them, using the

wrong method, or any other reason that would inhibit this internal, controllable attribution. To

incorporate the research of Niles et al. (2016) I will be conscious of the details of student’s

writing and the language they use. If a student is vague in their description, it may be a

determinant of a lack of understanding and higher anxiety levels. To alleviate this, I will ask

students to elaborate more for a clearer understanding and to promote a successful integration

of the experience and emotions. In regards to language use, I will assure that students are not

self-deprecating when considering the past. For example, students will not be allowed to use the

word “stupid,” or any of its synonyms, because it is unnecessarily self-critical as well as an

indication of ability, which is an external, uncontrollable attribution. However, some negative

affective words will be necessary for explaining emotional responses, so I will counter this by

advocating self-affirmations for their expectancies. A simple example is if a student writes about

being embarrassed by a test score, they will have to talk about the pride they will feel when they

achieve success in the future. Also, because the process of causal search is not limited to

school related experiences, this could provide students an opportunity to resolve other personal

issues. Many times, students are afflicted by experiences outside the classroom that can

dominate their expenditure of energy and focus and, ultimately, remove them mentally from the

classroom. Again, finding adaptive causes for these issues is an independent process for the

student,, whereby meaning and understanding can only be achieved internally. By giving

students a chance to sort out personal issues, they can regain their sense of contentment that is

so crucial to learning in a classroom.

Reflection
 Overall, the learning theory of attribution and expectancy-value theory has benefits that

transcend teaching practices, learning differences, content, and the classroom. The peak of my

naiveté was assuming that all students would at least do the work a teacher asked of them,

even if it was the bare minimum effort. Andrew was my first introduction into severe student

disengagement. Observing him blatantly ignore assignments made me consider how I want to

make sure all students are involved in the learning process. For instance, a Socratic seminar

cannot be successful if only a small portion of the class is talking, or personalized assignments

will not yield results if a student refuses to consider their own interests. I find attributional theory

and the practice of causal search a solution to this damaging disengagement. As mentioned

above, it is oftentimes a sense of no control that subconsciously teaches students to not even

bother with the learning process in the first place. The incredible thing about causal search is

that it also has benefits for engaged and successful students. Sometimes, these students will be

making maladaptive attributions, or lack a proper understanding of their actions that could

become more efficient that casual search can correct for them. Also, if needed, academically

successful students may need to alter their attributional process socially to develop their

interpersonal relationships and skills that is crucial for positive well-being in life. Finally,

partaking in these exercises develops a self-understanding that is so difficult for humans to

achieve. As humans, it is easier and oftentimes more fun to act subconsciously, but acting so

comes with detrimental effects. Knowing one’s beliefs and their subsequent consequences

develops a mindful and conscious lifestyle that allows one to determine their future success.

Works Cited

Brown, J., & Weiner, B. (1984). Affective consequences of ability versus effort

ascriptions: Controversies, resolutions, and quandaries. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 76. 146-158.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). An empirical examination of Werner's

critique of attribution research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1199-1213.

Fishman, E. J., & Husman, J. (2017). Extending attribution theory: Considering

students’ perceived control of the attribution process. Journal of Educational Psychology,

109(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000158

Gaier, S. E. (2015). Understanding Why Students Do What They Do: Using

Attribution Theory to Help Students Succeed Academically. Research & Teaching in

Developmental Education, 31(2), 6–19.

Graham, Sandra. (1994). Motivation in African Americans. Review of Educational

Research, 64: 55–117.

Hall, Nathan C., Perry, Raymond P., Goetz, Thomas, Ruthig, Joelle C., Stupnisky,

Robert H., & Newall, Nancy E. (2007). Attributional retraining and elaborative learning:

Improving academic development through writing-based interventions. Elsevier Learning

and Individual Differences, (17), 280-290.

Hamm, J., Perry, R., Chipperfield, J., Murayama, K., & Weiner, B. (2017). Attribution-

based motivation treatment efficacy in an online learning environment for students who

differ in cognitive elaboration. Motivation & Emotion, 41(5), 600–616.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9632-8

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
 & Sons Inc.

Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conception of ability and related affects in

task involvement and ego involvement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 909-919.

Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the

government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external

systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18 –35.

Niles, A. N., Byrne Haltom, K. E., Lieberman, M. D., Hur, C., & Stanton, A. L. (2016).

Writing content predicts benefit from written expressive disclosure: Evidence for

repeated exposure and self-affirmation. Cognition & Emotion, 30(2), 258–274.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.995598

Tollefson, Nona. (2000) Classroom applications of cognitive theories of motivation.

Educational Psychology Review, 12 (1). 63-83.

van Laar, C. (2000). The Paradox of Low Academic Achievement but High Self-

Esteem in African American Students: An Attributional Account. Educational Psychology

Review, 12(1), 33–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009032900261

Weiner, Bernard. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and

emotion. Psychological Review, 92 (4), 548-573.

Weiner, Bernard. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation

 from an attributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1-14.

Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern

perception. Science, 322, 115–117.

Wicker, F, W., Payne, G. C., & Morgan, R. D. (1983). Participant descriptions of guilt

and shame. Motivation and Emotion, 7, 25-39.