IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

EFL Learners’ Attributions and Causal Dimensionality Styles in the
Chinese Higher Education Context
Ayse Taskiran
Wenzhou-Kean University, China
Hong Pan
Wenzhou-Kean University, China

93

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Abstract
Achievement motivation is a significant contributor to the foreign language learning process.
This study explored the achievement perceptions of English as a foreign language (EFL)
learners who were studying at different higher education institutions with dissimilar degree
programs, such as a vocational college, an undergraduate program in a public university, andSino-American university undergraduate and graduate programs in China. The study also aimed
to reveal EFLs’ causal attributions of success and their underlying dimensionality styles throughan open-ended questionnaire and the Causal Attribution Dimensions Scale (CDSII) (McAuleyet al., 1992). Findings revealed that two thirds of the participants perceived themselves as
unsuccessful learners. Both in success and failure conditions the participants had similar
attributions naming effort, interest, and ability as the most frequent ones. The attributions for
close ended question did not show difference across school types. Qualitative data revealed
more themes for failure, and the data showed some differences across the school types.
Environment and relevance to life/career attributions were the most common in both successand failure conditions. Causal dimensionality analysis revealed more internal, personallycontrollable stable and moderately externally manageable attributional styles for success, andmore internal and personally controllable attributional styles for failure. Findings werecompared and discussed according to school types.
Keywords: attributions, EFL, motivation, causal dimensions, Chinese higher education

94

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

English, as the medium of instruction, has been accepted as a lingua franca (Seidlhofer, 2005)
around the world, and like many other countries, China has been initiating education policies
that encourage EFL learning to enhance the country’s international competitiveness in the
global arena. Consequently, the number of people learning English as a foreign language has
rapidly expanded over the past several decades. Compared to the Western countries, the studyof language learning motivation in the Chinese education context might reveal insights in termsof learner perceptions, learning context, language curriculum, and language assessment due todifferences that are peculiar to the Chinese EFL milieu.
Causal attributions are known as important factors that affect learners’ retention, expectationof future success, motivation, and academic success. There are qualitative and quantitative
studies that focus on the causal dimensions of foreign language learners in Western settings(e.g., Faber, 2019; Kálmán & Eugenio, 2015; Soriano‐Ferrer & Alonso‐Blanco, 2020 Ciabuca& Gheorghe, 2014). However, there is a limited number of studies examining the attributions
and causal dimensionality styles of foreign language learners in the Chinese higher education
environments, and these studies appear to fall short of reflecting the current EFL education
scenario as they are rather outdated. Also, these studies mostly focus on EFL learners’
attributions while ignoring the causal dimensionality styles (e.g. Chen, 2011; Hu et al., 2009;
Jiang, 2003; Li, 2004; Qin, 2002; Su, 2011; Zhang, 2002; Zhang; 2006; Zhang &Yuan, 2004).
Therefore, obtaining detailed data on achievement motivations by examining the perceptionsof success, attributions, and causal dimensions of adult EFL learners studying in different
educational institutions in China can potentially make a significant contribution to the relevant
literature.
Literature Review
Motivation has been the focus of a large body of research in education contexts Dörnyei, 2001;
Hussain et al., 2020; Liu & Zhang, 2020; Safdari, 2021 One of the theories of motivation is
educational psychologist Weiner’s (1972) attribution theory. This theory is concerned with
how individuals interpret events and how this relates to their thinking and behavior. In thisstudy, attributions are defined as the reasons people give for their outcomes and the connections
between those reasons and their future behavior. This definition is based on Weiner’s
attribution theory. The use of the term is limited to achievement motivation and educational
contexts in this study. Weiner (1985) notes that there are three dimensions of attributions: locus
of control (internal vs. external), stability (stable vs. unstable), and controllability (controllable
vs. uncontrollable). These dimensions can be used to explain why people make certain
attributions for success or failure. In an academic context, attributions refer to the ways
individuals explain the causes of their academic achievements. Every one of those dimensions
has unique behavioral and emotional consequences (Graham, 2020). The locus dimension
mainly concerns self-esteem and emotions tied to how one is perceived. On the other hand, thestability dimension of causality primarily shapes one’s outlook on future successes and failures(Graham, 2020). These attributions can influence perceptions, attitudes, future behaviors, andconsequently possibility of academic achievements.

95

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Public schools in China start teaching English in the third grade, and English is a compulsory
subject in vocational high schools and general high schools, and in all universities. China
regards proficiency in a foreign language as one of the fundamental skills for students inprimary and middle school (Cheng, 2014). Ou and Yang (2014) point out that the status ofEnglish in the college entrance examination is equal to that of Chinese. Despite the growing
body of research in numerous diverse cultural contexts (e.g. Çağatay & Erten, 2020 in Turkey;
Faber, 2019 in Germany; Ciabuca & Gheorghe, 2014 in Romania;Nakamura, 2019 in Japan ;,Soriano‐Ferrer & Alonso‐Blanco, 2020 in Spain; Taskiran & Aydin, 2018, in Turkey; Bouchaib
et al., 2018 in Morocco; Zarein et al., 2020 in Iran), China lacks a substantial body of
information about attributions in situations involving achievement, particularly when it comesto learning EFL. The fact that Chinese EFL students are taught in unique cultural and academic
environments that are quite different from those of their western counterparts supports thenotion that studies have not looked at the peculiar language learning attributions of Chinese
EFL students. Earlier attribution literature in the Chinese frame of reference includes studies
conducted on EFL achievement/success, EFL motivation, and EFL attributions (e.g. Hu et al.,2009; Jiang, 2003; Lei & Qin, 2009; Li, 2004; Liu & Zhang, 2018; Qin, 2002; Su, 2011; Zhang,2002; Zhang &Yuan, 2004; Zhang, 2006). However, the focus of such studies tends to be
attributions alone. They do not address causal dimensionality styles of language learners.
Furthermore, they are not sufficiently contemporary.
It is important to investigate the attributions of Chinese EFL learners because learners may
have context-specific experiences and cultural backgrounds that influence their attributions in
the language learning process. As for the attribution studies in the Chinese context, Qin’s(2002) case study that focused on influence of attributional tendencies on motivational
behavior at the university level revealed differences in attributions across different proficiency
levels. Similarly, Zhang’s (2002) study with college juniors revealed that maladaptive
attributions, such as ability, had a negative impact on sustaining language learning motivationand self-efficacy in the failure condition. Li (2004) conducted another study that demonstrated
the close connection between attributions and language learning motivation. Findings showedthat most students who performed poorly in English ascribed their success or failure to luck.
The author concluded that the unpredictable, unstable, and external ascription seemed to hinder
learning motivation, enthusiasm, and retention in the language learning process. Hu et al.
(2009) examined attributions from a different perspective by centering on the relationshipbetween attributions and autonomy among college level EFL learners. The researchers notedthat encouraging students to actively attribute and correct attribution was a crucial part ofenhancing students’ capacity for language learning autonomy. The links between achievement
goal orientation, language learning self-efficacy, language learning anxiety, language learning
strategies, and attributions were examined in a different study by Zhang and Yuan (2004).
Participants held the view that inability and bad luck were not among the factors that would
lead to failure, and that good luck was not relevant in the success condition. According to theauthors, that attribution model helped language learners to increase their self-efficacy when
they succeed, but failure did not lower it.

96

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

When the relevant literature in the Chinese context is considered, there is a need for an up-todate attribution study in every area of education as attributions differ across cultures, contexts,
and individuals. Particularly, causal dimensionality styles of EFL learners should be examined
in detail as dimensionality styles are known to be significant determinants of future
performance, self-esteem, motivation, and academic success (Weiner, 2012). The relationships
between attributions, causal dimensional styles and emotions can be quite complex; therefore,
it is important to consider both the context and the learner specific aspects when conducting ananalysis (Graham, 2020; Hattie et al., 2020). As the list of potential causes of success andfailure cannot be explained clearly, attribution theorists have concentrated not only on specificcauses per se but also on the underlying dimensions or qualities of causes. Age and context
factors have an impact on how attributions are perceived. As a result, attributional research is
phenomenological, studying the causal world from the perspective of the perceiver. Attribution
theorists (Nolen, 2020), hold that circumstances and context have the ability to affect causal
reasoning. For instance, according to early cross-cultural studies, participants from nonWestern nations like Chile and India thought that ability attribution was more unstable on thestability dimension than it was in western civilizations (Betancourt & Weiner, 1982).
Furthermore, studies on development showed that most students did not think of ability as
having consistent trait-like qualities until early adolescence (Stipek & MacIver, 1989).
The subject of this study was to obtain detailed data on achievement motivation by examining
the perceptions of success, attributions, and causal dimensions of EFL learners in different
educational institutions in China. The inquiry intended to reveal the factors that affect the
motivation of Chinese EFL learners, who are the most important stakeholders in language
learning, in both success and failure situations. In order to serve the purpose, the study sought
answers to the following questions:
1) What are Chinese EFL learners’ perceptions of success?
2) What do Chinese EFL learners attribute their success and failure to?
2.1)
2.2)

What are their choices from the provided list of attributions?
What attributions do they state for their perc eived successand failure?
3) What are the causal dimensionality patterns of Chinese EFL learners?
4) Do causal dimensionality patterns of the participants differ according to success andfailure perceptions?
5) Do causal dimensionality patterns of the participants differ according to institutions
and degree programs?
MethodThis descriptive survey study incorporated convergent parallel mixed methods design (Timans
et al., 2019) in data collection and data analysis. Two different instruments were used forgathering data. The quantitative data was collected via a valid scale, CDSII (McAuley et al.,1992) and the qualitative data was collected through a questionnaire that was compiled by the
researchers. CDSII was used as a data collection tool in this study because it is the only
comprehensive, valid, and reliable scale that focuses on four dimensions of attributions in the97

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

literature. The questionnaire and the scale were presented online as the data collection
instruments.
Context of the Study
For the purpose of the study, different higher education institutions in China were selected.
They included Wenzhou-Kean University – a Sino-American University, Jiaxing University,
Zhejiang Institute of Communications – a vocational college, Huaxin College of Hebei Geo
University, and Sun Yat-sen University. The study groups included public university
undergraduate and graduate programs, a vocational college program, and Sino-American
university undergraduate and graduate programs. Undergraduate education is responsible forcultivating professional talents and equipping students with the abilities to continue theirstudies in graduate education (Yu, 2016, p.332). A vocational college education in China is an
education model based on professional skills. The study period is shorter than what is requiredin the undergraduate program. An international education style is made possible for students at
Sino-American universities (Zou et al., 2022). Compared to other traditional universities in
China, the Sino-American cooperative university offers students English as a medium of
instruction and more foreign staff than Chinese staff (Zhao, 2021).

Participants
The sampling procedure of the study included two different techniques. First, throughconvenience sampling, the researchers reached the potential participants whose WeChat
contacts they had. Then, through snowball sampling technique, the researchers asked
participants to share the online version of the questionnaire and the scale link with their friends.
Participation in the study was on a voluntary basis and the consent forms were attached at the
beginning of the data collection tool. The participants were all adults, above 18 years of age.
A total of 561 participants voluntarily answered the questionnaire and the scale. Table 1 shows
the demographic information of the participants.
Table 1
Demographic Information of the Participants
Case
Participants
Age
≤25
>25
GenderFemale
Male

N561

n

%

367
194

65%
35%

356
205

63%
37%

Case N=561nSchool Type
Graduate
121
Sino-American
129
Vocational College
148
Undergraduate
163
English Learning Background≤5 years
16
6-10 years
105>11 years
440

98

%
22%
23%
26%
29%
3%
19%
78%

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Data Collection
Prior to the data collection, ethics committee approval was received for this study from theWenzhou-Kean University Ethics Committee with issue number: WKUIRB2023-046/R.
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants at the beginning of data collection.
The first part of the data collection instrument consisted of a questionnaire, prepared by the
researchers, that included a list of questions for demographic information, such as age,education background, year of English learning experience and a yes/no question that asked if
participants believed they were successful EFL learners. In order to obtain the participants’genuine opinions about their achievement in language learning rather than relying on outside
factors like grades or remarks from their professors, the researchers simply asked one yes/noquestion concerning the participants’ perceptions of success. The next question asked
participants to choose from the list of attributions that were common in the literature according
to their perception of success. At the end of the common attributions list, there was an openended question asking participants to state if there was any other reason for their success or
failure. The purpose of the open-ended question was to let the students describe their
attributions in an open manner, so it could be said that the study accurately represented theattributional characteristics of the participants. The data was collected online on Sojump, a
suitable survey tool for obtaining nationally diversified samples in China at a low cost
(Delponte at al, 2024).
As the second part of the data collection instrument, the participants were presented with the
Causal Dimensions Scale II (CDSII), which is a nine-point Likert-type scale (McAuley et al.,1992) used for exploring learners’ causal dimensionality patterns. According to existing
research, dimensional styles differed amongst people and did not necessarily align with theresearchers’ subjective perceptions of dimensional attributes (Graham, 2020; Hattie, et al,2020). The key to the motivational qualities of attributions was identified in the underlying
cognitive component, which stands for the person’s views about the nature of the attribution(Graham, 2020). As a result, through that scale, the participants were asked to determine theunique features of their attributions themselves. The scale had four dimensions: causal focus(items 1-6-9), external control (items 5-8-12), stability (items 3-7-11), and internal control(items 2-4-10). Two opposite statements were placed on each item on the nine-point scale, andthe participants were asked to choose a number according to which statement they felt close to.
The highest score that could be obtained from the three items in each dimension was 27, andthe lowest score was three. High scores from each dimension indicated that the cause wasinternal, stable, and individually controllable. In the scale, the participants were asked to scorethe statements according to their causal attributions. Necessary permissions for the copyrightof the CDSII had been obtained. The Chinese version of the scale was used in the study to beable to get more reliable responses. It was adopted from Wang’s (2020) study, in which internal
dimensions’ consistencies were calculated, and the Cronbach’s Alpha, known as the mostwidely used objective measure of reliability (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011) of source of control,
stability, internal control, and external control were 0.67, 0.67, 0.79, and 0.82, respectively,
which meant that the scale was found to be reliable and valid for the measure of dimensions.

99

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Additionally, 20 Chinese students were given the Chinese version of the scale and thequestionnaire for the face validity. Participants in the pilot research assessed the clarity of the
instructions, the items, and the answer format. According to the feedback from the pilot study,
necessary editions were made to make the data collection instruments more reader friendly.
Both the questionnaire and the scale were distributed to the participants via Sojump.
Data Analysis
The quantitative data was analyzed differently depending on the question type. For
demographic information and the list of attributions in the questionnaire, the data was analyzed
with descriptive statistics, mainly with frequency percentages. For the CDSII, the data wasanalyzed on SPSS (IBM SPSS Software, n.d.). By computing the mean scores of eachdimension individually for the success and failure groups, descriptive statistics were used to
examine the causal dimensionality of the participants. Using ANOVA (Judd et al., 2017),
dimensionality style comparisons between the success and failure groups were calculated.
Similarly, ANOVA statistics were run to find out whether causal dimensionality styles of theparticipants differed according to school types in success and failure conditions.
For the qualitative data analysis, the researchers used the Constant Comparison Method(Williams & Moser, 2019) to conduct a content analysis of the data. According to this method,
analysis is carried out by comparing all semantic units acquired from inductive category coding
concurrently. The inductive method (Azungah, 2018) was used to identify the indicators foracademic attributions in participants’ responses to demonstrate the culture and context specificnature of attributions. In other words, rather than limiting themselves to hypotheticalarguments, the researchers truly intended to look for genuine attributions in the participants’statements. Therefore, the coding strategy used during the content analysis was neither
predetermined nor did it draw from the relevant literature. The researchers compared the codes,
and they only assigned the codes after reaching consensus. After categorizing the participants’
responses, all labels that emerged for success and failure conditions were tallied according totheir frequency. Since the success and failure groups revealed distinct labels, the percentagesof explanations for success and failure situations were compared individually. In addition, theattributions were also grouped according to school type both in success and failure conditions.
Findings
The participants answered the yes/no question in the questionnaire to express their perceived
success and failure in learning EFL. The responses of 561 participants indicated that most ofthem believed they were not successful EFL learners. Table 2 shows the frequency percentagesof perceived success and failure.

100

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 2
Perception of Success
Perception of successf%unsuccessful
successful
Total

412
149
561

73.4*
26.6
100

Note. * Highest percentage

Participants were asked to choose at least three attributions from the list of attributions that arecommon in the literature. Table 3 below demonstrates the frequency percentages of theattributions chosen by the participants in success and failure conditions. Effort, interest, andability attributions appeared to be at the top of the list in both success and failure terms. Luck,difficulty, and the teacher appeared to be the least frequent attributions in both groups.
Table 3
Common Attributions in Success and Failure Conditions

Attributions
EffortInterest
Ability

Failure-oriented group
f
337
297
243

%
25.8*
22.8
18.6

Attributions
EffortInterest
Ability

Success-oriented group
f
127
124
120

%
24.5*
23.9
23.1

Difficulty

220

16.9

Teacher90

17.3

Teacher
Luck
Total

140
68
1305

10.7
5.2
100

Luck
Difficulty
Total

43
15
519

8.3
2.9
100

Note. * Highest percentage

When selecting attributions from the provided list, participants from various higher educational
institutions tended to make selections that were similar to one another with ability, effort, andinterest attributions as the most frequent ones. Particularly, the similarity appeared to be higher
in the failure condition. In the failure condition, the most common attribution was found to beeffort in all school types, while the least common one was luck. In the success condition, theleast common attribution appeared to be difficulty for all school types. Table 4 below shows
the distribution of attributions according to school types.

101

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 4
Distribution of Attributions According to School Types
School Type
Perception
Successoriented

Failureoriented

Ability
Difficulty
EffortInterest
Luck
Teacher

GraduatefSino-American fAbility*
EffortInterest
Teacher
Luck
Difficulty

39
35
32
25
9
2

EffortAbility
Interest
Teacher
Luck
Difficulty

57 Interest
49 Effort
49 Ability
42 Luck
21 Teacher
8 Difficulty

16
12
9
7
6
4

Interest
EffortAbility
Teacher
Luck
Difficulty

27
24
23
16
6
1

EffortInterest
Ability
Difficulty
Teacher
Luck

62
58
44
39
32
7

EffortAbility
DifficultyInterest
TeacherLuck

59 Effort
45 Interest
42 Ability
36 Difficulty
28 Teacher
10 Luck

107
100
86
69
38
23

EffortInterest
Difficulty
Ability
Teacher
Luck

109
103
70
68
42
28

Graduate %
22
11
25*
24
4
15

Vocational College f

Undergraduate f

Attributions
both in failure and success conditions
Sino American % Vocational % Undergraduate %
21
20
18
11
15
14
26
25
26
19
24
25
7
6
7
16
9
11

Total
20
13
25
23
6
13

Note. *Most frequent attributions bold faced

The responses to the open-ended question revealed 17 different themes for the successcondition. On the other hand, the participants had more responses for the failure condition with
25 different themes. Table 5 demonstrates the themes created by combination of codes driven
from the open-ended question data both in success and failure circumstances with theirfrequencies. The most common theme in both success and failure-oriented groups was theenvironment.

102

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 5Frequencies of the Themes Driven from the Open-Ended Question
Failure-orientedfSuccess-orientedfEnvironment
Lack of interest
Irrelevant to life /career
AbilityLack of effort
Education system
Lack of time
Lack of skills
Difficulty
Teacher
Persistence
Laziness
Lack of autonomy
Not like
Not getting help
Lack of motivation
Lack of learning
strategies
Lack of learningmaterials/resources
Social judgement
Low self-esteem
Learning atmosphere
Lack of experience
Lack of confidence
Lack of background
Family manipulation

49
16
16
13
10
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
2

Environment
Relevant to life/career
Ability
Learning resources
Interest
Opportunity
Family support
Persistence
Learning method
Confidence
Motivation
Learning atmosphere
Getting help
Experience
EffortEducation system

9
8
8
6
5
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1

2

Background /foundation 1

Total

159

2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total

57

Content analyses of the responses to the open-ended question revealed fewer themes in the
success condition compared to the failure condition. When themes were grouped according toschool types in the success condition, the group that responded most was the Sino-Americangroup with relevant to life/career, interest, environment, family support, and opportunity
attributions as the most frequently repeated ones. None of the school group ascribed theirsuccess to luck. Table 6 below describes the distribution of the themes according to school
types in the success condition.

103

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 6
Distribution of the Themes According to School Types in the Success Condition

Success attributions

Graduate

Environment
Relevant to life/career
Ability
Interest
Learning resources
Family support
Opportunity
Confidence
Learning method
Persistence
Total

4
3
6
1

1

School Type
Sino-American
University
5
3
3
2
3
3
1

Vocational
college

Undergraduate
2
2
1
3
1

1

2
18

27

1

2
11

Total
9
8
8
5
5
4
4
2
2
2
57

More themes emerged from the responses to the open-ended question in failure group. Whenthe themes driven from the responses were grouped according to school types, the mostregularly mentioned attribution appeared to be environment by both graduate and SinoAmerican groups. Unlike the success condition, vocational college, and undergraduate groups,
which were the most crowded groups, tended to respond more in the failure condition. Noneof the school group mentioned luck as a causal attribution behind their failure. Table 7
demonstrates the themes according to the school types with the frequencies.

104

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 7
Distribution of the Themes According to School Types in the Failure Condition

Failure attributions
Graduate
Environment
18
Irrelevant to life /career0
Lack of interest
0
Ability1
Lack of effort
0
Education system
5
Lack of time0
Difficulty0Lack of skills
0Laziness0
Persistence2
Teacher2
Lack of autonomy0
Lack of learning resources0
Lack of learning strategies
0Lack of motivation0
Not getting help
1
Not like
0
Total
29

Sino-American
university
9
0
2
3
2
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
27

School Type
Vocational
college Undergraduate
9
13
5
11
11
3
3
6
5
3
1
0
1
5
4
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
51
52

Total
49
16
16
13
10
7
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
159

Descriptive statistics of CDSII scale revealed more internal, personally controllable, stable andmoderately externally controllable attributional styles for the success-oriented group. Personal
control mean score appeared to be the highest followed by locus and stability. Table 8
demonstrates the descriptive analysis results of CDSII in the success condition.
Table 8Descriptive Statistics of CDSII in the Success Condition
Dimensions

N

M

SD Std Error MedianMode

Sam Var Kurtosis Skewness

Locus

447

6.,34

2.00

0.09

7

7

3.99

-0.28

-0.57

Personal Control

447

6.53

1.94

0.09

7

7

3.76

0.07

-0.76

Stability

447

5.55

2.23

0.11

6

7

4.96

-0.99

-0.08

External Control

447

4.87

2.25

0.11

5

5

5.05

-0.83

0.08

In the failure condition, descriptive statistics of CDSII revealed relatively more internal andpersonally controllable attributional styles. The locus dimension mean score appeared to be thehighest followed by personal control and stability. Overall, the group’s responses suggest amoderate belief in stability and a modest belief in external controllability. Table 9 shows thedescriptive analysis results of CDSII in the failure condition.

105

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 9Descriptive statistics of CDSII in the failure condition
Dimensions

N

M

SD

Std Error Med

Mode

SamVar

Kurtosis

Skewness

Locus

1236

5.69

1.86

0.05

5

5

3.46

-0.10

-0.15

Personal Control

1236

5.29

1.81

0.05

5

5

3.26

0.07

-0.05

Stability

1236

4.92

1.92

0.05

5

5

3.72

-0.27

-0.02

External Control

1236

4.77

1.93

0.06

5

5

3.76

-0.26

-0.10

Possible differences in terms of causal dimensionality between success and failure-oriented
groups were analyzed with the descriptive statistics and ANOVA group comparisons.
Descriptive statistics results can be seen in Table 10, and ANOVA results can be found in Table
11. The success-oriented group appeared to have higher mean scores for all dimensions. Locus
and personal control dimensions were found to have the highest mean scores in both groups.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics of CDSII in Both Success and Failure Conditions

Dimensions
Locus
Personal Control
Stability
External Control

Groupssuccess
failuresuccess
failuresuccess
failuresuccess
failure

N
447
1236
447
1236
447
1236
447
1236

Mean
6.34*
5.69
6.53
5.29
5.55
4.92
4.87
4.77

Std.
Deviation
2.00
1.86
1.94
1.81
2.23
1.92
2.25
1,.93

95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std.
Lower
Upper
Error
Bound
Bound
.094
6.15
6.52
.053
5.58
5.79
.092
6.35
6.71
.051
5.18
5.39
.105
5.34
5.76
.055
4.81
5.02
.106
4.66
5.08
.055
4.66
4.88

Note. *Higher values bold faced

ANOVA analysis between success and failure groups revealed significant differences in locus,
personal control, and stability dimensions. When mean scores were considered, the successgroup appeared to have more internal, personally controllable, and more stable attributions.
There was no significant difference in terms of external controllability dimension as bothgroups had about moderate perception. Table 11 below shows the ANOVA analysis of thecausal dimensions both in success and failure conditions.

106

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 11Differences in Terms of Dimensions between Success and Failure Groups

Dimensions
Locus

Personal Control

Stability

External Control

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squaresdf
138.13416057.492
1681
6195.626
1682
510.34415703.463
1681
6213.807
1682
131.55816802.796
1681
6934.354
1682
3.139
1
6895.957
1681
6899.096
1682

Mean Square138.134
3.604

F
38.333Sig.
<.001

510.3443.393

150.415<.001

131.558
4.047

32.509

<.001

3.139
4.102

.765

.382

The analyses of differences in terms of scopes across school types in the success condition
revealed significant differences for stability and external control dime neither nsions. There
were no significant differences between school types in terms of locus and personal control
dimensions. Table 12 below shows the mean scores of elements for each school type and Table
13 shows the ANOVA results of the school type comparisons in the success condition.
Table 12Mean Scores of Dimensions for School Types in the Success Condition
School Type
Graduate

Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Sino-American
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Vocational College MeanN
Std. Deviation
Undergraduate
Mean
N
Std. Deviation

Locus
6.37
129
2.008
6,21
183
2.020
6.36
45
2.101
6.56*
87
1891

Personal Control
6.79
129
1.840
6.43
183
2.020
6.24
45
1.897
6.62
87
1.869

Note. *Higher values bold faced

107

Stability
5.94
129
2.072
5.08
183
2.346
5.78
45
1.964
5.84
87
2.209

External Control
4.84
129
2.252
4.45
183
2.195
5.51
45
2.283
5.46
87
2.182

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 13Comparisons of School Types in Terms of Dimensions in the Success Condition

Dimensions
Locus

Personal Control

Stability

External Control

Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

ANOVA
Sum of Squares
7.422
1760.541
1767.964
14.9121634.897
1649.809
69.1112140.799
2209.910
81.4142165.010
2246.423

df
3
440
443
3
440
443
3
440
443
3
440
443

Mean Square
2.474
4.001

F
.618

Sig.
.603

4.971
3.716

1.338

.262

23.037
4.865

4.735

.003

27.138
4.920

5.515

.001

To understand exactly which school types differed significantly in terms of stability andexternal control factors, post-hoc Scheffe statistics were run. Findings revealed that theGraduate group had significantly more stable attributions than the Sino-American group. For
external control dimension, both Vocational College and Undergraduate groups had
significantly more externally controllable attributions compared to the Sino-American. Table
14 below demonstrates the comparison of the groups in terms of stability and external control
dimensions.
Table 14Comparison of the School Types for Stability and External Control Dimensions

Dependent
Variable
Stability

External
Control

School Type
Graduate

School Type
Sino-American
Vocational College
Undergraduate
Sino-American
Graduate
Vocational College
Undergraduate
Sino-American
Graduate
Vocational College
Undergraduate
Vocational College Graduate
Sino-American
Undergraduate
Undergraduate
Graduate
Sino-American
Vocational College

108

Mean
Difference
.856*
.160
.099
-.856*
-.696
-.757
-.397
-1.063*-1.012*.666
1.063*.051.615
1.012*
-.051

Std.
Error
.254
.382
.306
.254
.367
.287
.255
.369
.289
.384
.369
.407
.308
.289
.407

Sig.
.010
.981
.991
.010
.310
.075
.490
.042
.007
.391
.042
.999
.264
.007
.999

95% ConfidenceInterval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
.14
1.57
-.91
1.23
-.76
.96
-1.57
-.14
-1.73
.33
-1.56
.05
-1.11
.32
-2.10
-.03
-1.82
-.20
-.41
1.74
.03
2.10
-1.09
1.19
-.25
1.48
.20
1.82
-1.19
1.09

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

The analyses of differences in terms of features across school types in the failure condition
revealed significant differences for only locus dimension. There were no significant differences
between school types in terms of personal control, stability, and external control dimensions.
Table 15 below shows the mean scores of dimensions for each school type and Table 16 shows
the ANOVA results of the school type comparisons in the failure condition.
Table 15
Mean Scores of Dimensions for School Types in the Failure Condition
School Type
Graduate

Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Sino-American
Mean
N
Std. Deviation
Vocational College MeanN
Std. Deviation
Undergraduate
Mean
N
Std. Deviation

Locus
5.84
231
1.80
6.06
204
1.80
5.42
399
1.74
5.67
402
2.00

Personal Control
5.42
231
1.76
5.43
204
1.77
5.09
399
1.75
5.33
402
1.89

Stability
5.12
231
1.90
4.65
204
1.97
4.91
399
1.82
4.94
402
2.02

External Control
4.74
231
1.92
5.00
204
1.92
4.90
399
1.90
4.54
402
1.98

Note. *Higher values bold faced

ANOVA results in Table 16 showed the significance of the difference between the groups interms of the locus dimension. To understand exactly which school types differed significantly
in terms of the locus dimension, post-hoc Scheffe statistics were run.
Table 16
Comparisons of School Types in Terms of Dimensions in the Failure Condition
ANOVA
Dimensions
Locus

Between Groups

Sum of Squares
61.385

PersonalControl

Within Groups
Total
Between Groups

4216.443
4277.828
24.949Stability

Within Groups
Total
Between Groups

4003.235
4028.184
24.273ExternalControl

Within Groups
Total
Between Groups

4565.807
4590.080
37.650Within Groups
Total

4607.095
4644.744

109

df

Mean Square

F

Sig.

3
1232
1235
3
1232
1235
3
1232
1235
3
1232
1235

20.462
3.422

5.979

<.001

8.316
3.249

2.559

.054

8.091
3.706

2.183

.088

12.550
3.740

3.356

.018

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Table 17 below demonstrates the Scheffe results. According to the statistics, the SinoAmerican group significantly differed from the Vocational college in their mean scores for the
Locus dimension. That is, the Sino-American group appeared to have more internal attributionsin the failure condition compared to the vocational college group.
Table 17Comparison of School Types for the Locus Dimension

Dependent
Variable
Locus

SchoolType
Sino American

SchoolType
Graduate
Vocational College
Undergraduate

Std.
Mean
Difference Error
.219
.178
*
.635
.159
.387
.159

Sig.
.678
.001
.116

95% ConfidenceInterval
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound
-.28
.72
.19
1.08
-.06
.83

Note.*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Discussion
In this study the majority of the participants perceived themselves as unsuccessful in learning
English. The fact that three-fourths of the participants perceived themselves as unsuccessful isa significant highlight for several reasons. Firstly, it emphasizes the importance ofunderstanding learner perspectives and experiences in language education. By acknowledging
their perceived lack of success, educators can gain valuable insights into the challenges learners
face and tailor instructional methods accordingly. Secondly, this highlight underscores the needfor a learner-centered approach in EFL instruction. Recognizing that a majority of learners feel
unsuccessful prompts educators to shift their focus from a one-size-fits-all approach to a more
personalized and adaptive teaching style. This could involve incorporating learner interests,
providing individualized support, and adopting strategies that address specific difficulties facedby learners. Moreover, this highlight emphasizes the significance of fostering a growth mindset
among EFL learners. By perceiving themselves as unsuccessful, learners may develop negative
attitudes and beliefs about their language abilities, hindering their motivation and progress.
Educators can use this insight to promote a positive learning environment and empower
learners by cultivating their self-belief, resilience, and perseverance.
Frequently mentioned attributions of this study showed similarities with the findings of relevant
attribution research (Çağatay & Erten, 2020; Hussain et al., 2020; Li & Han, 2022; Safdar et al.,2023; 2022; Smith et al., 2020). Notably, the frequency of mentioned attributions did not change
across the school types. Effort, interest, and ability were the top three mostly repeatedattributions respectively, and luck was among the least repeated attributions in both success andfailure conditions by the participants from all school types. Effort appears to be the most
repeatedly mentioned attribution in both success and failure conditions by a majority of theparticipants, which shows similarities with the findings of studies in similar educational
contexts (e.g., Chen, 2021; Chen, 2011; Lu et al., 2014. Particularly in the failure condition,

110

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

participants from all school types put effort, which is a typical attribution after experiencing
failure, on the top of the list.
Ascribing success to ability is considered to be key to having an adaptive mindset as it promotes
self-confidence. The findings imply that these students attribute success in an adaptive manner,with successful students believing that their accomplishments were the product of their highability, which may relate to self-confidence and self-efficacy (Graham, 2022; Hatteberg, 2022).
On the other hand, changing ability attribution in the failure condition, which refers to amaladaptive mindset, to lack of effort may increase perseverance and enhance performance(Graham & Chen, 2020). Therefore, this finding might be regarded as a healthier approach tooutcomes in success but not in the failure condition. When learners ascribe their success andfailure to effort, they tend to believe that they have control over their outcomes and this cause
is related to themselves but not others. Likewise, stating a luck attribution as the least frequent
one in success and failure conditions shows that participants have control over theirperformance. If the students believe that they have control over their outcomes, they mightdevelop confidence, motivation and sense of mastery (Graham, 2022; Hatteberg, 2022). Whilecertain attributes, like luck and ability, cannot be modified willingly by an individual, attributes
like effort may (Weiner, 2000), and effort attribution is likely to result in sustained effort in the
future (Anderman, 2020). Likewise, Lu et al.’s (2014) study, in which university level EFL
learners in China participated, revealed effort attribution as the most frequently reported cause
for failure and in success conditions. In their study, effort was significantly more important
than ability attribution for the participants. Similarly, Gan et al.’s (2019) study, which focusedon Chinese EFL learners’ motivation to learn in the higher education context, revealed thateffort received the highest mean score in comparison to other motivational aspects.
The open-ended question sought to uncover the subjective reasons of the participants for theirsuccess and failure perceptions. Participants appeared to have more responses in the failure
condition than the success condition. The most frequent theme in both success and failure
situations was environment. Ascribing failure to the environment, which is regarded as an
uncontrollable and external factor, might lead to maladaptive mindsets, and often reveals
relations to lower self-efficacy (Ngunu et al., 2019). The other most frequent theme for the
success condition was relevant to life/career. The graduate group and Sino-American group are
the only groups that mentioned relevant to life/career attribution as the most frequent one in
the success condition. Also, these two groups were the only ones who never mentioned
irrelevant to life/career attribution in the failure condition. Similarly, these two groups seem tohave mentioned environment more often than the other school types in the success condition.
This may be because these groups have more opportunities to interact in the target language,
English might not be confined to the classroom for these groups, and they take learning English
seriously for their future lives and career goals.
Lack of a language learning environment revealed to be the most prevalent cause of failure. As
it was indicated the most frequent reason, this attribution did not demonstrate disparities acrossthe different types of schools. The most frequent themes that emerged from the vocationalgroup and undergraduate group were lack of interest, environment, and irrelevant to life/career.

111

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Unlike graduate and Sino-American groups who seemed to closely relate English to their future
career, these two groups tended not to take English so seriously. According to Lu et al. (2014),
this might be because students who major in fine art and physical science find that English
courses are not as necessary as those in high school after they enter universities since they are
more interested in their majors. Also, considering the fact that all participants are native
Chinese speakers, they might rarely get the opportunity to interact with the target language ina Chinese environment.
For the success-oriented group CDSII scale results demonstrated more internal, personallycontrollable, stable, and moderately externally controllable attributional patterns. In the failure
condition, attributional styles were considerably more internal and personally controllable. The
mean score for the locus dimension proved to be the highest, followed by personal control.
These dimensional styles are considered as adaptive mindsets (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002;
Weiner, 1985;). When the learners attributed their success to internal, stable, and personallycontrollable causes, they have higher expectations for having the same successful performance.
In the failure condition, when learners ascribed their weak performance to internal causes andwhen they believed that they had control over those causes, they tended to believe they could
improve their performance in the future.
Success- and failure-oriented group comparisons showed that the success group had higher
mean scores across all the dimensions. This finding is also parallel with the relevant literature,and it is considered to be a healthier approach to success. Higher scores on controllability havean impact on the value of success, which has an impact on each person’s level of motivation
for achievement (Graham, 2022). Similarly, higher scores on stability have an impact on
success expectations (Weiner, 1985). Failure that is ascribed to stable internal uncontrolled
factors will lead to a decrease in the desire for more action, whereas failure that is linked to
unstable external controllable causes will not result in a decrease or even an increase in thisdesire. In this study, the aspects of locus and personal control had the highest mean scores inboth groups. The locus, personal control, and stability aspects of the success and failure groups
were significantly different. Given that both groups’ perception was in the range of moderate,
there was no significant variation in the external controllability dimension. The success group
appeared to have more internal, personally controllable, and stable attributions when meanscores were considered. Similarly, Lu et al. (2014) noted that, there were differences between
successful and unsuccessful learners in the relevant literature in the Chinese EFL contexts. In
their study, effective learners preferred to credit successful outcomes more to internal andunstable causes. The findings of their study and this study seem to be similar in locus dimension
but differ in the stability dimension. EFL learners in this study seem to hold healthy
attributional styles with more internal, personally controllable, stable dimensions in the successcondition, and with more internal, personally controllable, and unstable dimensions in the
failure condition.
Significant differences were found for the dimensions of external control and stability in theanalysis of differences in terms of dimensions across school types in the success condition.
Regarding locus and personal control aspects, school types did not differ much from one

112

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

another. Compared to the Sino-American group, the graduate group exhibited much morestable attributions, which is accepted as a healthy mindset when success is experienced. Boththe Vocational College and Undergraduate groups showed significantly higher externallycontrollable attributions than the Sino-American group in terms of the external control
component. It can be inferred that the higher the education level, the healthier the attributions
were in the success condition. Also, the Sino-American context appeared to make learners
believe that they had more control over their success outcomes, which is considered a healthiermindset. In contrast, the vocational college and undergraduate groups tended to owe theirachievements in English to the externally controllable factors, which might signal less hope for
future success because external ascription seemed to hinder learning motivation, enthusiasm,
and retention in the language learning process (Li, 2004).
Only the locus dimension showed substantial variations in the failure condition. The SinoAmerican group had significantly higher internal scores than the Vocational School group, who
had the highest scores for the external control dimension, for their ascriptions to failure. It canbe concluded that the Sino-American group holds healthier attributional styles compared to theother group. The learners in the Sino-American context are aware that they are experiencing
failure due to themselves, not something external and uncontrollable. Therefore, they might
have positive expectations regarding their future performance. Internal ascriptions after
experiencing failure give learners chances to change their future behaviors in a way to improvetheir performances. The reason behind this significant difference between these school types
could be related to contextual factors.
In general, the findings of the nine-point-Likert CDSII revealed moderate scores both in failureand success conditions. The scores ranged from 4.77, as the lowest score in the failure condition
for external control, to 6.53, as the highest score in the success condition for personal control
dimension. The reason why there were no high scores like 9 or 8, or low scores like 2 or 3
might be due to the cultural factors. Similarly, significantly higher perception of failure mightreflect cultural aspects. Tian (2012) noted that Lao Tzu and Confucius and other thinkers’
humble ideas demonstrated modesty as a classic Chinese virtue. They were always humble andbelieved that their standing was quite low when they received praise from others. Theyfrequently exhibited a reserved and modest demeanor when it came to academics andinterpersonal interactions. Similarly, Zhou (2006) pointed out that modesty was viewed as the
manifestation of politeness in cross-cultural communication. One should depreciate oneselfand be modest while talking about himself or herself, other people, or items that are connectedto them. Respect is lifted when referring to the listener or to individuals or objects associatedwith the listener. The speaking party in Chinese typically addresses himself in a modest mannerand refers to the other party using honorifics to convey respect. Honorific and modest words
are significant manifestations of humility in Chinese. Unlike Western cultures, Chinese cultureemphasizes the need for perfect morals, modesty, and caution. Despite the remarkableaccomplishments, the standards are still far from optimal (Zhou, 2006). Being modest, prudent,
and moderate are essential characteristics of this culture. While humility helps people advance,
boasting hurts since it causes people to lag behind (Bi, 1996).

113

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Implications
The causal explanations that students gave for their success and failure outcomes, particularlyin the context of language learning, could be used to forecast the actions they will take in theirsubsequent learning process and their future success. This is only conceivable if educators candistinguish between failure brought on by lack of ability and failure brought on by lack of effort(Graham & Taylor, 2022). As attribution theory integrates correlates of motivation constructs
within the theoretical model, it may be able to offer direction at this stage (Anderman, 2020).
This study might offer implications for language instructors. Language instructors are more
likely to be able to observe each student’s behavior individually, so they can place more
attention on individuals in the classroom rather than groups since students’ attribution andlearning motivation is a complicated psychological habit. Chinese English learners are diverse(You & Dörnyei, 2016), and their motivational factors change depending on the learning
environment (Xu & Gao, 2014; Li, 2014;). Therefore, different institutions might have different
effects on learners’ perceptions of success and causal dimensionality styles. EFL instructors
should be more aware of these factors and provide assistance for their learners accordingly.
The instructors might encourage and help students to do self-reflection and retrain attributions
in a supportive learning environment. Perry et al. (2014) as well as Graham (2020) highlightthe significance of viewing academic successes as controllable and failures as unstable. Doingso helps with motivation, emotion, persistence, and performance. At this point, attribution
retraining provided by the instructors might reveal positive outcomes. It is important to notethat causal dimensions can provide clear instructions for retraining attributions (Graham,2020). Language instructors should reassure their students that they genuinely have influence
over their results by being aware of their students’ maladaptive attributional practices (Zhang
et al., 2021).
There are limitations in this research. First, answers to open-ended questions only provided alimited amount of information regarding the participants’ unique attributions. For in-depth
information on the attributions of EFL learners, future research may employ aphenomenological approach via one-on-one interviews with the participants. Furthermore, it islimited to circumstances related to higher education. However, English is taught to EFL
students in China from a young age. In this regard, the study ignores the possibility that
attribution patterns may be shaped by early experiences of the learners of English in diverse
contexts.
In conclusion, this study provides comprehensive insights on the perceptions, attributions, andcausal dimensionality patterns of EFL learners, which are essential for understanding the
motivational factors behind language learning. A significant percentage of participants thought
they were unsuccessful English learners, even though success was more often attributed tohealthy traits like effort and interest and rarely to outside variables like teachers or luck. The
qualitative analysis underscores the significance of the environment and relevance to life andcareer in shaping learners’ attributions while learning English. A closer look finds different
attributional patterns for different school types, with Sino-American and graduate groups

114

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

strongly associating English skill with future employment. Furthermore, attributional stylevariations reveal how the educational atmosphere affects learners’ thinking, with the SinoAmerican group displaying healthier attributional patterns. The moderate scores in the causal
dimensionality scale across conditions underscore the influence of cultural factors. All things
considered, these results highlight how critical it is to take cultural factors and educationalsettings into account when developing more positive attitudes and motivation for language
acquisition.

Declarations

Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial conflicts of interests to disclose.
Data Availability
The electronic data is stored in private Google Drive folder of the researchers. Data will beavailable via e-mail to the corresponding author.
Ethical Approval
Name of the committee that made the ethical evaluation: Wenzhou-Kean University Ethics
Committee. Date of ethical review decision: 09.06.2023. Ethics assessment document issue
number: WKUIRB2023-046/R
Author Contributions
Ayse Taskiran contributed to the manuscript by designing the study, reviewing the literature,
writing the research questions, preparing the data collection instruments, analyzing the data
and writing the findings, discussions, and the implications.
Hong Pan contributed to the manuscript by reviewing the literature, preparing the datacollection instruments, analyzing the data and writing the findings, discussions, and theimplications.

115

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

References
Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing precision and utility.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101864.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101864
Azungah, T. (2018). Qualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data
analysis. Qualitative Research Journal, 18(4), 383–400.
https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-D-18-00035
Betancourt, H., & Weiner, B. (1982). Attributions for achievement-related events,
expectancy, and sentiments: A study of success and failure in Chile and the UnitedStates. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13(3), 362–374.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002182013003007
Bi Jiwan. (1996). The cultural characteristics of “humility”. Chinese Construction, 10,https://doi.org/10.16412/j.cnki.1001-8476.1996.10.012.
Bouchaib, B., Ahmadou, B., & Abdelkader, S. (2018). High school students’ attributions ofsuccess in English language learning. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2),
89–102. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1127aBrophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610218
Ciabuca, A., & Gheorghe, L. (2014). Attribution for success and failure in Romanian context:
Theoretical model that accounts for explaining performance. Procedia- Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 159, 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.368
Chen, Z. (2021). Non-English majors’ writing self-efficacy and attribution in learning
English as a foreign language. International Journal of English Linguistics, 11(2),137–149. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v11n2p137
Chen L.-Y. (2011) A study on the attribution orientation of senior high school students in
English learning [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Henan Normal University,
Xinxiang, China.
Cheng Xiaotang, (2014). Reflections on the adjustment of the current English education
policy. Curriculum, Textbooks & Teaching Methods (05), 58–64.
https://doi.org/10.19877/j.cnki.kcjcjf.2014.05.012.
Çağatay, S., & Erten, İ. H. (2020). The relationship between ideal L2 self, achievement
attributions and L2 achievement. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6(3),337–359. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.834642
Del Ponte, A., Li, L., Ang, L., Lim, N., & Seow, W. J. (2024). Evaluating SoJump. com as atool for online behavioral research in China. Journal of Behavioral andExperimental Finance, 100905.
Dörnyei, Z., & Schmidt, R. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation and second language acquisition.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

116

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Faber, G. (2019). Longitudinal effects of task performance and self-concept on preadolescent
EFL learners’ causal attributions of grammar success and failure. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 9(4), 633–656.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.4.4
Gan, Z., Leung, C., He, J., & Nang, H. (2019). Classroom assessment practices and learning
motivation: A case study of Chinese EFL students. TESOL Quarterly, 53(2), 514–
529. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.476
Glaser B. G., Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, New York
Graham, S. (2020). An attributional theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 61, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101861.
Graham, S. (2022). Self-efficacy and language learning–what it is and what it isn’t. The
Language Learning Journal, 50(2), 186–207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2045679
Graham, S., & Chen, X. (2020). Attribution Theories. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia ofEducation. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.892
Graham, S., & Taylor, A. Z. (2022). The power of asking why?: Attribution retraining
programs for the classroom teacher. Theory into Practice, 61(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2021.1932160
Hatteberg, S. J. (2022). Responding sociologically: Using attributional processes to promotestudent confidence and sense of mastery in Sociology courses. Teaching Sociology,
50(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X221087227
Hattie, J., Hodis, F. A., & Kang, S. H. (2020). Theories of motivation: Integration and ways
forward. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101865.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101865
Hu Dongping, Shi Zhuoting & Zhou Hao, (2009). An empirical study on influencing factorsof college English autonomous learning from the perspective of attribution theory.
Foreign Languages and Their Teaching (10), 34–37.
Hussain, M. S., Salam, A., & Farid, A. (2020). Student’ motivation in English language
learning (ELL): An exploratory study of motivational factors for EFL and ESL
adult learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English
Literature, 9(4), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.9n.4p.15
IBM SPSS Software. (n.d.). IBM.com. https://www.ibm.com/spss
Jiang Xiaohong, (2003). The influence of achievement motivation and attribution on the
choice of English learning strategies. Journal of PLA University of Foreign
Languages, 26(2), 69–72.
Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Ryan, C. S. (2017). Data analysis: A model comparison
approach to regression, ANOVA, and beyond. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315744131
Kálmán, C., & Eugenio, E. G. (2015). Successful language learning in a corporate setting:
The role of attribution theory and its relation to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 583–608.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2015.5.4.4

117

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Lei, L. E. I., & Qin, X. (2009). An empirical study of success and failure attributions of EFL
learners at the tertiary level in China. Asian EFL Journal, 11(3), 29–51.
Li Changzhen, (2004). Using attribution theory to study English learning behavior of nonEnglish major students. Foreign Language World (06), 41–45+51.
Li, Q. (2014). Differences in the motivation of Chinese learners of English in a foreign andsecond language context. System, 42, 451–461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.01.011
Li, C., & Han, Y. (2022). Learner-internal and learner-external factors for boredom amongst
Chinese university EFL students. Applied Linguistics Review.
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0159
Liu, G., & Zhang, L. (2018). Study of the Correlation among Junior High Students’ English
Learning Motivation, Attitudes and Achievements-From the Perspective of
Attribution Theory. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 9(5), 970–978.
https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0905.10
Lim, D. H. (2004). Cross cultural differences in online learning motivation. Educational
Media International, 41(2), 163–175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09523980410001685784
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Motivation as an enabler for academic
success. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 313–327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2002.12086158
Lu, J., Woodcock, S., & Jiang, H. (2014). Investigation of Chinese university students’attributions of English language learning. SAGE Open, 4(4), 2158244014562391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014562391
Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and
Kelley attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 271–284.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2004_4
McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The
revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18(5), 566–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185006
Nakamura, S. (2018). How I see it: An exploratory study on attributions and emotions in L2
learning. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 8(3), 553–574.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.3.2
Ngunu, S., Kinai, T., Ndambuki, P., and Mwaura, P. (2019). Causal attributions as correlatesof secondary school students’ academic achievement. Educ. Res. Int. 2019:1950753.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1950753
Nolen, S. B. (2020). A situative turn in the conversation on motivation theories.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101866.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101866
Ou Ying & Yang Lihua, (2014). Rational examination of the status of English college
entrance examination in China. Education and Examination (02), 11–15.
https://doi:10.16391/j.cnki.jyks.2014.02.002.

118

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, inc.
Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R., & Hamm, J. M. (2014). Attributionbased treatment interventions in some achievement settings. In Motivational
interventions, 18, 1-35. Emerald Insight.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-742320140000018000
P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications(2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Qin Xiaoqing, (2002). College students’ attribution tendency in foreign language learningand their understanding of attribution phenomena. Modern Foreign Languages,1,
71–78.
Safdari, S. (2021). Operationalizing L2 motivational self system: Improving EFL learners’
motivation through a vision enhancement program. Language Teaching
Research, 25(2), 282–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819846597
Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT journal, 59(4), 339–341.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci064
Smith, S. A., Foster, M. E., Baffoe-Djan, J. B., Li, Z., & Yu, S. (2020). Unifying the current
self, ideal self, attributions, self-authenticity, and intended effort: A partial
replication study among Chinese university English learners. System, 95, 102377.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102377
Soriano‐Ferrer, M., & Alonso‐Blanco, E. (2020). Why have I failed? Why have I passed? Acomparison of students’ causal attributions in second language acquisition (A1–B2
levels). British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 648–662.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12323
Stipek, D., & Iver, D. M. (1989). Developmental change in children’s assessment ofintellectual competence. Child Development 60(3), 521–538.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1130719
Su Jianhua, (2011). The teaching of college advanced English from the perspective of
attribution theory. Chinese University Teaching (02), 53–55.
Taskiran, A., & Aydin, B. (2018). Do adult English language learners and their teachers have
similar approaches to success? Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in
Education and Science, 11, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2018.110101
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International
Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Tian Si. (2012). Views on modesty of Lao Tzu and Confucius from “Tao Te Ching” and“Analects of Confucius”. Journal of Xiaogan University, 4, 76-79.
Timans, R., Wouters, P., & Heilbron, J. (2019). Mixed methods research: What it is and what
it could be. Theory and Society, 48, 193–216.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-019-09345-5
Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language
learning. The Modern Language Journal, 79(4), 505–518.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05451.x

119

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Wang Jianhui, (2020). Construction of the attribution effect model and subgroup study ofcardiac rehabilitation exercise behavior in patients with coronary heart disease[Unpublished doctoral dissertation] Peking Union Medical College.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational
process. Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1170017
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548
Weiner, B. (2000). Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from anattributional perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009017532121
Weiner, B. (2012). An attribution theory of motivation. Handbook of theories of social
psychology, 1, 135–155. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n8
Williams, M., & Moser, T. (2019). The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative
research. International management review, 15(1), 45–55.
Xu, H., & Gao, Y. (2014). The development of English learning motivation and learners’
identities: A structural equation modeling analysis of longitudinal data from Chinese
universities. System, 47, 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.09.020
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students
believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational
psychologist, 47(4), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
You, C., & Dörnyei, Z. (2016). Language learning motivation in China: Results of a largescale stratified survey. Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 495–519.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu046
Yu, T. (2016). The difference between undergraduate education and vocational college
education in the modern education system. Science Chinese, 14, 332.
Zarei, M., Ahour, T., & Seifoori, Z. (2020). Impacts of implicit, explicit, and emergent
feedback strategies on EFL learners’ motivation, attitude, and perception. Cogent
Education, 7(1), 1727130. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1727130
Zhang Zhaoyuan, (2006). Research on the relationship between college students’ English
performance, learning attribution and academic self-concept. Shandong Foreign
Language Teaching (02), 25-28.
https://doi.org/10.16482/j.sdwy37-1026.2006.02.019.
Zhang, X., Lou, N. M., Noels, K., Daniels, L. (2021). Attributions and mindsets. In T.
Gregersen & S. Mercer (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Psychology of Language
Learning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429321498-16
Zhao, X. (2021). Prospects for Sino-foreign higher education cooperation. China Education
News Web. http://www.jyb.cn/rmtzgjyb/202106/t20210617_598667.html
Zhou Jie. (2006). The cultural characteristics of “humility” in cross-cultural communication.
Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science
Edition), 5, 55–58.

120

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 12 – Issue 1 – 2024

Zou, B., Wang, X., & Yu, C. (2022). The impact of Sino-foreign cooperative universities in
China on Chinese postgraduate students’ learning performances in the United
Kingdom and United States. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1012614.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1012614
Corresponding Author: Ayse Taskiran
Email: ataskira@kean.edu

121