3.1.2 Attribution theory

Attribution theory links motivation and learners' perceptions of reasons for their success or failure, and has been given some attention by researchers in the field of psychology in the recent years. Skehan (1989: 51-52) gives a satisfyingly complex account of the issue.

The theory postulates four basic reasons for success or failure and assesses them according to two factors – their stability (i.e. to what extent they are stable or changeable) and locus of control (i.e. whether they are internal or external to the student): ability (stable, internal), task difficulty (stable, external), effort (changeable, internal) and luck (changeable, external). We may then hypothesize that learners who ascribe their success or failure to factors that are within their locus of control (internal and changeable) will be more persistent and more highly motivated, because they will see themselves as "having a potential impact on learning progress" (Ibid: 52).

Benson reports on research that offers another interpretation, where "learners who attribute success to stable factors and failure to unstable causes are more likely to take on challenging tasks and be positively motivated" (Benson 2001: 70). However, the same research that Benson reports on perceives ability (or intelligence) as mutable (changeable), which runs contrary to the theory the research is based upon.

The first of the two interpretations seems less controversial and more suitable for our study, because the notion of control over success links it directly with the core notion of learner autonomy, which is control over one's own learning. However, the two differing interpretations already give evidence that the issue is more complex and can hardly be reduced to four easily identifiable factors.

Skehan (1989) reports on individual differences between learners – some are more wide-ranging in attributing causes to events (e.g. ascribing one cause to the success or failure in the whole of their learning, or possibly, life), while others tend to ascribe causes only to specific events. Also, others persist in ascribing success to unmodifiable factors and failure to changeable ones; composing a group of people we would probably, in layman's terms, call natural-born pessimists. However, an extensive study of literature in the realm of psychology would be needed to give attribution theory the justice it deserves.

Although Skehan (1989) notes that research into attribution theory and individual differences is much needed, we can already envision a number of difficulties that may arise. First of all, in asking students to comment on their general progress, we may be forcing them to make generalizations, which, as we have seen above, is not an attribute shared by all learners. Secondly, we can imagine that some or most learners will have a relatively low readiness for expressing criticism or self-flattery; therefore, they might not openly ascribe their success to ability and their failure to external factors. Thirdly, in reality, we may expect a student to ascribe his or her success or failure to multiple factors, not just one. And lastly, we can already imagine a number of causes that cannot be reduced to or interpreted as one of the causes listed above – e.g. age, the quality of the teacher, the learning materials etc. A research into these causes would provide a valuable new dimension to attribution theory, but we would have to employ our own powers of interpretation in deciding which factors are internal, external, stable or changeable.