Academic casual attributions and course performance for college students

The purpose of the study was to compare student perceptions of the role of the teacher with that of ability, effort, and luck in accounting for student successes and failures. An attribution questionnaire addressing attributional style as it relates to success and failure outcomes in a college course was designed for this study. The College Academic Attribution Scale (CAAS) was designed, because previous attributional scales such as the Multidimensional-Multiattributional Causality Scale and the Attributional Style Questionnaire did not adequately reflect the perceived influence of teacher actions on students\u27 success and failure experiences. The CAAS includes the common attributional areas of effort, ability and luck, but it also addresses the area of teacher input rather than the common area of task difficulty. The CAAS addresses both positive and negative outcomes related to course performance. The CAAS was administered on the first day of class to a large group of undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory human development course. Students took either a forced-choice or Likert version of the CAAS. The information gathered from the CAAS was used to determine general attributional style as it relates to different aspects of course performance. The students also responded to a brief rating scale of possible contributors to specific exam performance the day after receiving feedback on each of five unit exams. The brief exam rating scale addressed the attributional areas of effort, ability, and teacher input as they related specifically to performance on the exams. The participants of the study consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in a human development course at a large state university. A total of 306 students participated in some phase of the study. The participants consisted of more females than males, with the majority of the students being sophomores and juniors. The course was offered through the College of Education under the title of Psychoeducational Issues in Human Development. Developmental themes provided the framework for five course units. The five class sessions in each unit followed a standard sequence: session one involved viewing and discussing a videotape; sessions two and three consisted on an instructor overview; session four began with a brief essay quiz and then continued with the instructor overview; and session five included a multiple-choice exam and feedback regarding their score on the essay quiz and the exam. Results from different dimensions and versions of the CAAS indicated that students perceived personal effort as the primary contributor to academic successes and failures, with teacher input, personal ability, and luck following in order. In contrast, the exam ratings ranked both teacher input and student ability more highly than student effort. The Likert dimensions of the attributional questionnaire correlated more strongly with the performance measures than did the forced-choice dimensions, and all three of the exam rating dimensions (effort, ability, and teacher input) generally correlated with exam performance. Students\u27 perception of their ability was most strongly linked to exam performance. Students scoring high and low on the exams did not differ significantly on their perceived effort in preparing for the exams, but they consistently differed in their ratings of exam-related ability and teacher input. High performers consistently rated their ability to master course content and the teacher\u27s management of instructional and assessment procedures more highly than did the low-performing students