日本大学歯学部紀要 39，43‑50，2011

Attribution for self‑evaluation in learning English
Eiji Ishikawa, Hidehiko Negi and Michio Tajima
Abstract
This paper considers the causal attributions of 121 Japanese university students as towhether they think they did well or not in English language courses by evaluating their own
class performance and achievement. The results imply respondents think teachers andclassmates influenced their learning outcomes more than other factors. Those who think ofthemselves as successful are significantly higher than those who think of themselves as
having failed in effort and interest.This indicates 1)building up appropriate rapport among
learners,and between learners and teachers,2)providing motivating learning materials,and
3)reminding learners of the necessity of effort are important to help learners feel they aresuccessful language learners.
Key words: Attribution theory, causal attributions, effort, interest

１. Introduction
This paper investigates English language learnersʼaffective aspects regarding perceived
causes of success and failure.For what reasons do they think they are successful or unsuccessful? How do they explain their success or lack of it? Why do they think they did not makeenough progress?Educators need to focus on causal attributions if there are some differencesamong reasons why they succeed or fail,and investigate how these affect learnersʼsubsequent
learning. It is meaningful to acknowledge learnersʼperceived causes of achievement,and help
them to enhance their learning,and reflect on failure.This will eliminate some potential factors
hindering their learning.
２. Learnersʼmotivation and attributional causes
Attribution theory enlightens understanding of learnersʼmotivation in the learning environment. Research on motivation for learning a second language was initiated by Gardner andLambert (1972)who introduced integrative and instrumental motivation.In the 1990ʼ
s,Deci and
Ryan (1985)brought a more educational psychological aspect of learners to explain motivation
with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for learning foreign languages. Dornyei (2001, 2003a)
used psychological elements more extensively in the foreign language education field withexpectancy value theories,achievement motivation,self efficacy theory,social motivation,and
so forth. Attribution theory is a part of these diversified motivational theories.
Attribution theory is not used only in the field of language learning. Weiner (1979, 1986)

日本大学歯学部

英語

Nihon University School of Dentistry
1‑8‑13 Kanda‑Surugadai, Chiyoda‑ku, Tokyo 101‑8310, Japan〒 101‑8310 東京都千代田区神田駿河台１‑８‑13（受理：2011年９月 30日）

43

日本大学歯学部紀要 39，43‑50，2011

investigated causal attributions for hyperactivity, mastery, parole decisions, loneliness andaffiliation,and depression.Also,an Internet search using Eric shows 3,350 results and Science
Direct provides 60,432 hits with the keywords “attribution theory”(retrieved on Nov.27,2010).
This indicates how widely affective aspects of individual behaviors are accepted and used invarious fields.
As for academic settings, a number of studies have been conducted. Fry and Ghosh (1980)
studied cross‑cultural differences between Asian and Caucasian children in achievement tasks
and found opposite attributional patterns.Caucasian students took personal credit for successand attributed failure to luck, while Asian students felt personal responsibility for failure andattributed success to luck.M izokawa and Rickman (1990)who analyzed the ethnic differencesof six different Asian Americans wrote that language arts and social studies engenderedgreater effort at work more than math and science studies and that effort more than ability as
attributional choice would explain academic performance.They concluded data patterns werecomplex and called for more detailed motivational descriptions of Asian Americans andspecific attention to each ethnic group to clarify causal attributions.Birenbaum and Kraemer(1995) also examined gender and ethnic differences and found more ethnicity than genderdifferences indicated larger effect in causal attributions.Kanazawa (1992)studied outcome andexpectancy as antecedents of causal attribution. His experiment showed expectancy has anindependent effect on spontaneous causal thinking but outcome also has effect on non‑spontaneous cause search. As these studies would indicate, research on attribution causes covers awide range of not merely study fields but also subjectsʼpersonal backgrounds such as gender,
cultural and ethnic differences.
Research methodologies on causal attribution have been changing and developing. Early
stages of research looked into subjectsʼresponses about hypothetical scenarios or contrived
laboratory tasks,whereas Vispoel and Austin (1995)studied subjectsʼrecollections of naturally
occurring successes and failures at junior high school.Later there was more and more researchscrutinizing subjectsʼresponses about successes and failures in their real life,but not reactions
about hypothetical situations.
M ainstream research in this field seems to focus on differentiated categories of attributions.
M any studies documented that success and failure are attributed to seven factors: ability,
temporary and sustained effort,the difficulty of the task,luck,mood,family background,and
help or hindrance from others (Graham, 1994).
Vispoel and Austin (1995) explain their dimensional classification scheme as having eightcausal attributions based on Weiner (1979) who discerned three central causal dimensions:stability, locus, and control. This scheme shows attributions with locas stability controllability.Locas of ability,effort,strategy,and interest are internal,and among them onlyability
is stable and uncontrollable but the rest are unstable and controllable. Task difficulty, luck,
family influence and teacher influence are external and uncontrollable,and luck is unstable but
44

Attribution for self‑evaluation in learning English

the other three are stable.For example,according to Weiner (1979,1986),when subjects thinkthat causes of failure are due to lack of ability or task difficulty, their expectations for
subsequent learning become low, because these are uncontrollable for the subjects. However,since effort is unstable and controllable,their expectancy level will rise if they believe they canbe successful with effort.This indicates that high expectancy exerts one to put more effort tolearn better for higher achievement. As learning and its peripheral issues vary, attribution
theory is outcome and situation dependent and is characterized by a self‑serving effect regardless of the methodology used (Vispoel and Austin, 1995).
This paper deals with learnersʼsubjective importance they place on attribution for self
‑evaluation, to see which dimensions of causality they attribute their success or failure to.As
conceivable causes are infinite, underlying properties of the causes need to be identified.
Learnersʼself‑evaluation will be assessed because test results and final grades done byteachers
can not be controlled by learners directly. Dimensions of causality here used are the eightfactors that Vispoel and Austin (1995)explained and peer influence.Since there are peer‑workand group work inside and outside the classroom for particular language courses the learners
took,classmatesʼinfluence may affect their subjective attributions.Also,whether or not theirsubjective attributional causes affect achievement motive for their future learning will be
discussed, too.
３. Method
Research was conducted in February2011,at the end of the second semester 2010 school year,
after a semester course from October 2010 to January 2011. Participants were 121 first year
students at a private university in Tokyo, Japan, taking English language courses as general
education units. Sixty four of the students were male and the rest were female.
Participants answered a survey (Appendix 1),answering basic background information suchas gender or overseas experiences as well as whether they think they were successful inlearning English in the past one year or not.Then,they rated their anticipated learning effect,
via a 4‑point Likert scale on 9 factors: 8 traditional causal attributional factors and peer
influence. The reason for not using an odd numbered scale (e.g. 5)is so that participants may
choose a neutral position without thinking about the questionnaire (Dornyei, 2003b). The
responses in categorized fields were tabulated.
Participants were divided bytheir self‑evaluation on whether theythink theywere successful
or felt they had failed,but not on the basis of their experimental situation or on test results andgrades.They also chose whether they expected to be either successful or unsuccessful in their
future English learning.The mean scores were eyeball tested,and then,analyzed with one‑way
ANOVA.

45

日本大学歯学部紀要 39，43‑50，2011

４. Results
The subjects were divided into four groups as follows. Those who evaluated themselves as
successful and expect themselves to be successful for the next course again were unified asgroup SS.Those who felt they were successful and think they will be failures next were group
SF. Ones who assessed themselves to be failures and expect themselves to be successful next
are group FS. Ones who felt they were failures and think they will be failures again next aregroup FF. With these four groups, distributions according to nine causal attributions wereanalyzed.
The satisfactory responses are 109 out of 121. There was a respondent who answered“Successful”for the self‑evaluation, and “I donʼt know”as to the expectation for the next
course. Another answered “
Failure”for the self‑evaluation, and “I donʼt know”about the
expectation for the next. These two answers were excluded from the total and 107 responses
were tabulated (Appendix 2).
Since the scale is from 1 to 4, neutral point is 2.5. Therefore it is plausible for us to deduce
that,if each value is 2.5 or more,the subjects consented to a particular item,that is to say thatthey attributed their success or failure to the specific dimension of causality. While if eachvalue is less than 2.5, they were against an item.
One can safelyinfer that subjects believe that their teachers and peers have a strong influenceon their learning no matter whether it is successful or not,as only two items of “teacher”and“peer”elicited mean scores 2.5 or more. This indicates that the subjects are more greatly
affected by the surrounding people than the level of the learning itself or internal causalitysuch
as the subjectsʼeffort made and/or knowledge of learning strategy.
It seems that the subjects are likely to think that they will succeed next time if they feel they
have “ability”and “
strategy”to learn English. They might perceive that they failed this time
but theywill succeed next time if theyhave know‑how to learn.As for“difficulty,”participantsconsider that it is not very much related to the result this time,although they think it might befor the next time. However,since the scores of “strategy”and “difficulty”are both under 2.5,
the subjects sense “
strategy”and “
difficulty”are not directly connected to the result.
They are more likely to conclude that they succeeded because they made an effort to someextent. Likewise they expect themselves to be successful for the next time with the same
reason. Also, those who succeeded feel, regardless of the expectation for the next time, that
“interest”is crucial.
With regard to “
luck,”it looks as if they feel some luck is needed in order to be successful
either this time or next time.
Subjects in every group perceive the considerable amount of “teacher”influence. Yet it
remains vague with regard to whether they feel that the influence is upon their own learning,or they perceive the impression of authority their teachers bear as the ones who grade them.
What is explicit, however, is that teachers have some influence on students. In addition they46

Attribution for self‑evaluation in learning English

believe that cooperation with fellow students plays a huge role in succeeding in this time andin the future.
From one‑way ANOVA (Appendix 3),significant differences were observed only in “effort”
and “interest.”In both of them,the mean scores of the group of those who evaluate themselves
to be successful are significantly higher than those of the group who evaluate themselves to be
failures.This allows us to roughly summarize that making an effort and interesting content are
the keys to success.
Post‑hoc tests reveals that the mean scores of the successful group regarding “effort”and“interest”are significantly higher than those who considered themselves failures, whether or
not they think they will succeed or fail in the future (Appendix 4).
５. Discussion
Educators should acknowledge that learners tend to think that teachers and/or friends canbe affective factors with regard to their learningʼs success and teachers should not neglect
effort in making a good rapport among learners and between learners and teachers.
Another thing teachers should show explicitly is effort, strategy, and interest, which areinternal and learners can amend these things themselves and improve themselves for a potentiallybetter learning experience.Language learners should be advised not to have a biased viewthat their learning achievement is onlyinfluenced byteachers or other learners around them too
much.M ore or less,learning is an individual matter,and teachers should help them see that it
is possible for them to be able to control learning outcomes to a certain extent.
This study shows that those who think they succeed rate“effort”and “interest”significantly
higher than those who think they failed. This may indicate that successful learners acknowledge they can do well as long as they put effort into learning something and find somethinginteresting enough to be motivated to learn. It may be important to guide learners who thinkthey have failed so that they acknowledge that effort can direct them to successful learning.
They should be informed that effort, strategy and interest can help them to improve, too, sothat they may try harder the next time.
It is important for university students to examine actual feelings of achievement andsatisfaction in learning as well as to consider grades and evaluations. Teachers should try to
make a better learning environment for students,especially if there are any factors which canbe improved, and help them to improve things which the students have scope to control forthemselves.
There might be a drawback in analyzing only self‑evaluation, as it is difficult to see its
validity.Often,in fact,self‑evaluation merely concerns itself about satisfaction and about likes
and dislikes.Also,subjects may answer in order to make themselves look better and to protect
themselves. However, even in such cases, it might be meaningful to examine their likes anddislikes,as the results can sometimes provide clues on how to improve classroom management.
47

日本大学歯学部紀要 39，43‑50，2011

Further research with more data collection concerning various aspects of self‑evaluation isdesirable and should eventually allow one to explore causal attribution with more definitenessand clarity among different groups,such as differences among learners with regard to gender,
past overseas experience, English language proficiency levels, or with any combination of theabove or with grades and other self‑evaluation surveys. Also, it will be meaningful to see if
there is any correlation among the 9 factors surveyed. Hopefully, this will clarify learnersʼthinking about their success and about the failure of educators,so that they might be enabled
to support learners more effectively.
Works cited
Birenbaum, M . & Kraemer, R. (1995) Gender and ethnic‑group differences in causal attributions for
success and failure in M athematics and language examinations.Journal of Cross‑Cultural Psychology, 26(4), 342‑359.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M . (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self‑determination in human behavior. New
York : Plenum.
Dornyei,Z.(2001)Motivational Strategies in the language classroom.Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Dornyei, Z. (Ed.), (2003a)Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning. MA : Blackwell.
Dornyei, Z. (2003b) Questionnaires in second language research : Construction, administration, andprocessing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fry, P.S. & Ghosh, R. (1980) Attributions of success and failure: Comparison of cultural differences
between Asian and Caucasian children. Journal of Cross‑Cultural Psychology. 11(3), 343‑363.
Gardner,R.C.& Lambert,W.E.(1972)Attitudes and Motivation in Second ‑Language Learning.Rowley,
Massachusetts: Newbury.
Graham,S.(1994)Classroom motivation from an attributional perspective.Oʼ
Neil Jr.,& Drillings (Eds.)
Motivation : Theory and Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. 31‑48.
Kanazawa,S.(1992)Outcome or expectancy?Antecedent of spontaneous causal attribution.Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 18(6), 659 ‑668.
Mizokawa,D.T.& Rickman,D.B.(1990)Attributions of academic success and failure.A comparison of
six Asian‑American ethnic groups. Journal of Cross‑Cultural Psychology. 21(4), 434‑451.
Vispoel, W.P. & Austin, J.R. (1995) Success and failure in junior high school: A critical incident
approach to understanding studentsʼattributional beliefs. American Educational research Journal,
32, 377‑412.
Weiner, B. (1979) A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 3‑25.
Weiner, B. (1986)An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York : Stringer Verlag.

48

Attribution for self‑evaluation in learning English

Appendix 1
Table 1. Questionnaire Regarding Perceived Causes of Attribution
１) どちらかに丸をつけてください。
過去一年間の英語学習を振り返り英語学習を自分で，成功（するべき学習をした＆それなりに上達した）か失敗（するべき学習を十分にしなかった・出来なかった＆上達したと思えない）かを判断し，どちらか選んでください。

成功・失敗

２) 以下の９つの質問に，１〜４の数字で答えてください。
１. strongly disagree ２. somewhat disagree ３. somewhat agree ４. strongly agree.
ａ) 私には英語学習の能力があると思う。
ｂ) 私は昨年度に英語能力を伸ばす努力した。
ｃ) 私は英語学習の適切な方法を知っている。

１ ２ ３ ４１ ２ ３ ４１ ２ ３ ４ｄ) 私は昨年度に英語に興味をもって学習した。
ｅ) 昨年度の英語科目は難しかった。
ｆ) 昨年の英語科目の結果に関しては，私は運が良かった。
ｇ) 英語を学習する上で家族の影響があると思う。

１ ２ ３ ４１ ２ ３ ４１ ２ ３ ４１ ２ ３ ４ｈ) 英語学習をする上で先生の影響があると思う。
ｉ) 英語学習をする上でクラスの友達の影響があると思う。

１ ２ ３ ４１ ２ ３ ４３) 第２学年次は少しだけ歯学分野の英語に踏み込みます。今までとは少し違う内容の英語の学習になるかもしれません。さて，あなたはこの分野の英語学習（歯科英語）の成功者・失敗者のどちらになると思いますか？どちらかを選んでください。

成功・失敗

４) その他：好きなことを書いてください。

Appendix 2 : Successful Failure
Self‑
evaluation
Expectation
for the next

Successful(n＝51)

Failure(n＝56)

Failure(SF)(n＝６)

Successful(FS)(n＝38)

courseMean/SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

mean

SD

１. ability
２. effort
３. strategy

2.49
2.53
2.18

0.82
0.76
0.81

1.83
2.67
2.17

0.75
0.52
0.41

2.32
2.00
2.47

0.81
0.74
0.76

1.89
1.56
2.28

0.90
0.92
0.89

2.28
2.18
2.29

0.84
0.84
0.79

４. interest
５. difficulty

2.73
2.22

0.78
0.82

2.67
2.17

0.52
0.41

2.29
2.37

0.69
0.75

1.78
2.28

0.73
0.96

2.43
2.28

0.81
0.79

６. luck
７. family
８. teacher

2.51
2.42
3.22

0.92
1.06
0.79

2.50
2.67
2.67

1.05
1.03
1.37

2.58
2.55
2.71

0.83
1.08
0.98

2.17
2.06
2.89

0.79
1.11
0.96

2.49
2.43
2.97

0.88
1.07
0.95

９. peer

2.80

0.87

2.67

1.03

2.61

0.92

2.61

1.14

2.68

0.94

49

Failure(FF)(n＝18)

Total(n＝107)

Successful(SS)(n＝45)

日本大学歯学部紀要 39，43‑50，2011

Appendix 3 : Univariate ANOVA for attribution causes on SS, SF, FS, & FF, and descriptive
statistics for univariate ANOVA on SS, SF, FS, & FF
Factor

Source

SS

Df

MS

F

P

EffortSSSFFSFF

15.28

3.00

5.09

8.61

0.00

Interest

SSSFFSFF

12.85

3.00

4.28

8.01

0.00

Appendix 4 : Post‑hoc Tukey HSD and Scheffeʼs Test on “effort”and “interest”
M ean (I‑J)

Significance Significance#FactorGroup (I)Group (J)１

Effort

SS

FS
FF

0.53
0.98

0.17
0.21

0.01
0.00

0.02
0.00

２

Effort

SF

FF

1.11

0.36

0.01

0.03

３

Interest

SS

FF

0.96

0.20

0.00

0.00

difference(P ＜0.05)

50

Std. error(Tukey HSD)

(Scheffe)