Page 1 of 10
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 11, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/assrj.119.17679.
Asrori, M. (2024). The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving Perseverance and Learning Achievement of Low- Achievers and Under-Achievers Students in Mathematics of Junior High School Students. Advances in Social Sciences Research
Journal, 11(9). 301-310.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving
Perseverance and Learning Achievement of Low-Achievers and
Under-Achievers Students in Mathematics of Junior High School
Students
Muhammad Asrori
Study Program of Guidance and Counselling
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Universitas Tanjungpura, Pontianak, Indonesia
ABSTRACT
This experiment tested the hypothesis that students who received oral and written
attributional feedback showed higher perseverance and achievement in learning
Mathematics than the control group. The subjects of this study were students in
grades I and II of Semester II SLTP whose achievement in Mathematics was below
the class average. They were categorized as low achievers (SBK) if the scores
obtained from the WISC-R Intelligence Test were at or above the average obtained
by their peers in this group of research subjects, while the rest were categorized as
low achievers (SBR). Students were randomly assigned to one of four treatment
groups: (1) oral attributional feedback group; (2) written attributional feedback
group; (3) reinforcement feedback group; and (4) no treatment group. The results
of ANOVA with LSD test showed that those who received attributional feedback, oral
or written, scored significantly higher on the variables of perseverance and
achievement in Mathematics compared to the control group students. The
comparison group, students who received reinforcement feedback, did not show
significant differences in both scores with either the attributional or untreated
group. Further factorial design analysis revealed that attributional feedback, both
oral and written, was more effective for low achiever students than underachiever
students.
Keywords: Attributional feedback, low-achievers, underachievers.
INTRODUCTION
There have been many attempts to encourage perseverance and improve the learning
achievement of students who are less successful in school. However, systematic interventions
based on the latest concepts and findings seem to be rare in research reports set in our schools.
In fact, there have been several research findings recently that have the potential to support
the realization of systematic interventions. These research findings can generally be found in
research on motivational interventions. Motivational intervention is a research theme that has
recently experienced rapid development and has produced findings that are replicable,
comprehensive, and relevant to educational endeavors [1][2].
A review of the literature shows that one of the recent interventions that has received much
attention is "attributional intervention"[3]. According to Berk, these interventions are easy to
Page 2 of 10
302
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 9, September-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
implement and have been shown to lead to improvements in academic achievement [4] and
more specifically in the persistence and achievement of less successful students [5][6][2][7].
These research findings prompt the question: "What is the effectiveness of this attributional
intervention when applied to secondary school students in our school setting?"
The attributional intervention programs found in several studies so far have similarities as well
as variations. The similarity lies in the conceptual basis, which is based on attributional analysis
[4][8]. This analysis states that whether students after obtaining low learning outcomes will
become discouraged or will maintain their motivation depends on the student's attributions
regarding the cause of their low learning outcomes. In this context, despair is experienced if
students attribute their low learning results to their abilities (ability attribution; on the other
hand, motivation will be maintained if their low learning results are attributed to lack of effort
[4] (Weiner, 1992). Such attributional analysis is supported by many research findings [9] [10]
[11]. This analysis underlies the attributional program [5] which has seen variations in its
implementation, one of which was developed by Shunck [7].
The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of attributional interventions,
particularly Shuncks’ Model [7] with certain modifications and extensions to improve students'
perseverance and learning achievement in Mathematics subjects of junior high school students.
The modification made in this study is in terms of the type of attributional feedback given to
the research subjects. Instead of separating attributional feedback on past achievement and
future achievement as done by Shunck [7], this study provides feedback on both outcomes at
once. Still in terms of the type of feedback, Shunck's intervention only used verbal feedback,
while the written feedback was a recommendation only [6]. This study, in addition to applying
oral feedback, also used written feedback.
This study selected first and second semester junior high school students for several reasons.
First, these grades are a vulnerable period for motivation to learn basic sciences (math,
chemistry, physics, and mathematics): "Fear of basic sciences is learned somewhere around the
4th to 8th grade"[12]. Second, rebuilding attributions at this age is more effective [5]; in
contrast at younger ages, children have not yet reached the stage of cognitive development
required for attributional interventions [13].
In summary, the hypothesis tested in this study is as follows: "Students who receive both oral
and written attributional feedback will show significantly higher perseverance and Math
learning achievement than students who do not receive the treatment. Furthermore, the
effectiveness between oral and written feedback is predicted to be no different. It is also
predicted that both attributional feedbacks will be more effective for low-achievers than under- achievers without interaction effects".
METHODOLOGY
Research Subjects
This study involved 84 students in grades I and II of Semester II of junior high school whose
performance in Mathematics was below the class average (measured by their scores on the
Summative Evaluation of Semester II of the 2023-2024 academic year). The research subjects
came from three junior high schools in Pontianak City who participated in the experiment
voluntarily. In identifying the under-achievers, local norms were used per school.
Page 3 of 10
303
Asrori, M. (2024). The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving Perseverance and Learning Achievement of Low-Achievers and Under- Achievers Students in Mathematics of Junior High School Students. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(9). 301-310.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.119.17679
The identification of under-achievers and low-achievers was done through the following
procedure. First, the 84 students who were the subjects of the study plus 15 students in grade
I and 15 students in grade II whose Mathematics performance was equal to or greater than the
class average were given the WISC-R Intelligence Test. Second, the average WISC-R score of
each class was determined, that is, the WISC-R scores of the 15 students were added to the 15
students who were the subjects of the study (students whose Mathematics performance was
below average). Thus, this average WISC-R score represents students whose Mathematics
achievement is "below", "equal to", and "above" the class average. Thirdly, 84 students were
classified as under-achievers if their WISC-R score was equal to or higher than their class
average WISC-R score, while the rest were classified as low-achievers.
Experiment Procedure
Randomly by drawing lots, the 84 research subjects were evenly assigned into four groups:(1)
oral attributional feedback group; (2) written attributional feedback group; (3) reinforcement
feedback group; and (4) no treatment group. Thus, each treatment group was attended by 21
research subjects. The implementation of the treatment was given in two meetings. The first
meeting, the attributional feedback was future achievement attribution feedback, namely: "You
can do this assignment if you try harder", which was delivered when the research subjects were
working on math problems in class. While the second meeting, the attributional feedback was
for past achievement attribution feedback, namely: "You have tried hard", which was given on
(1) the student's homework, and (2) the student's work in class.
First Meeting:
The scene (setting) of this treatment was the usual classroom learning process. The teacher
used the first half of the two-hour Math lesson to explain the subject matter, while the second
half was used to give the students a problem sheet to work on. In this second half, attributional
feedback was given by the experimenter. After 15 minutes of working on the problem, with a
list of students who were research subjects in the class concerned, the experimenter
approached the research subjects.
After a cursory look at the student's name and work, the experimenter asked how many
problems he had done. While the student was counting, the experimenter looked at the list he
was carrying to make sure that the student in front of him belonged to which treatment group
(group 1, 2, 3, or 4). A few seconds after answering, the student received individualized
attributional feedback.
In detail, it can be described as follows: To each student belonging to the oral attributional
feedback group (AF-Oral) the experimenter gave a comment: "You have not tried your best".
The same comment was given to AF-Written, except that it was not spoken in words but written
on the student's paper. To the reinforcement group, the experimenter said: "Good". As for the
control group students, the experimenter only asked questions like the other groups but did
not make any comments after the students answered. To avoid questioning the other students,
those who were not included as research subjects, the experimenter also approached some of
them and glanced at their work but did not ask or comment anything.
At the end of the lesson, after the students had collected their worksheets, the teacher
distributed Math problem sheets to be done at home (homework). The teacher announced to
Page 4 of 10
304
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 9, September-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
the students that the homework had to be collected two days later. The homework was treated
on the second day.
Second Meeting:
This meeting was conducted a week after the first meeting was completed. There were two
treatments at this meeting: (1) the treatment given through the students' homework results,
and (2) the treatment when the students did the task in class. Homework sheets that had been
corrected by the teacher were distributed to students by calling students one by one.
For students who belong to the Oral AF-group, the collection of the worksheet is accompanied
by verbal comments: "You have tried hard". To students belonging to the Written AF-group, the
comment is written on the paper. To the reinforcement group, a verbal comment is given:
"Good". Meanwhile, students in the control group received their homework without any
comments. Furthermore, the procedure as in the first meeting was repeated in the second
meeting, with the difference in terms of time and comments given to the attributional feedback
group. If in the first meeting feedback was given after 15 minutes of students working on the
task, then in the second meeting feedback was given after 20 minutes. This was done to provide
more opportunities for task completion.
The order of giving treatment to the subjects was kept the same as at the time of the first
meeting. The comments given were: "You have tried hard" was said to the Oral AF-group and
written on the paper for the Written AF-group; to the reinforcement group it was said: "Good",
while to the control group no comments were given.
Research Instruments
There were three instruments used in this study: (1) WISC-R Intelligence Test; (2) Mathematics
achievement test; and (3) Learning perseverance inventory.
WISC-R Intelligence Test:
This test consists of two subtests: oral and action. The oral test consists of 5 subtests:
information, similarity, counting, vocabulary, and comprehension. While the action test
consists of completing pictures, composing pictures, cube design, assembling objects, and
coding.
Learning Achievement Test:
This test consisted of 25 test items for each class. The item difficulty level of both tests ranged
from 0.25 to 0.75. The Cronbach Alpha reliabilities were 0.57 for class I and 0.62 for class II.
Learning Perseverance Inventory:
This inventory was a list of questions that asked students to report the average length of time
(in minutes) spent studying and doing Math homework within a week from the last meeting of
the classroom treatment.
RESEARCH RESULTS
Effect of Treatment on Study Perseverance
Measurement of study perseverance through parents' reports showed that the average time
spent studying and doing homework from the four groups was significantly different. The
Page 5 of 10
305
Asrori, M. (2024). The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving Perseverance and Learning Achievement of Low-Achievers and Under- Achievers Students in Mathematics of Junior High School Students. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(9). 301-310.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.119.17679
following presents the data description, homogeneity of variance test, variance analysis results,
and LSD test for multiple comparisons.
Table 1: Summary of Study Perseverance Post-Test Score
No. Treatment Group Case Mean Std.Dev.
1. Oral Atribusional Feedback 21 34.05 11.79
2. Written Atribusional Feedback 21 35.95 12.71
3. Reinforcement Feedback 21 27.86 7.68
4. Control (No Treatment) 21 27.38 8.61
5. Whole Group 84 31.31 10.90
Table 2: Result of Analysis of Variance on Perseverance Variables
Source DB Sum of Square Mean of Square F Ratio F Prob
Between Groups 3 1184.5238 394.8413 3.6427 .0161
Within Group 80 8671.4286 108.3929
Total 83 9855.9524
Table 3: Multi-Comparison Results with LSD Test
Groups Mean (4) (3) (2) (1)
Control 27.3810
Reinforcement-AF 27.8571
Oral-AF 27.0476 *
Written-AF 35.9524 * *
The results of the homogeneity of variance test at the 0.05 significance level showed that there
was no significant difference between the variances of the four groups (= 0.3726; p = 0.178; and
Barlett-Box F= 2.237; p = 0.082). Thus, these data are eligible to be subjected to analysis of
variance.
The results of the analysis of variance (Table 2) showed a significant difference between the
four groups (F = 3.643, p < 0.05). Subsequently, the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was
used to determine the comparison between groups. The results, as presented in Table 3,
showed that significant differences were found between the groups: (1) Oral-AF-group with
Control; (2) Written-AF-group with Control; and (3) Written-AF-group with Reinforcement-AF- group. This means that, Oral-AF and Written-AF groups were significantly higher in
perseverance compared to the control group.
The Effect of Treatment on Mathematics Learning Achievement
The data description of the subjects' scores on the math test is presented in Table 4. The
homogeneity of variance test using the Cohran and Bartley procedure showed that the
variances of the four groups were homogeneous at the 0.05 significance level (Cochrans C =
0.3168; p = 0.652; and Bartlett-Box F = 0.291; p = 0.832). Analysis of variance (Table 5) showed
a significant difference between the four groups (F = 3.004 p < 0.05). Furthermore, multi- comparison results using the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test of the four treatment
groups showed that the attributional feedback group was significantly higher than the control
group. As indicated in Table 6, significant differences were found in the groups: (1) Oral-FA
with Control (54.0476 > 47.1429 at p = 0.05); and (2) Written-AF with Control (53.3333 >
Page 6 of 10
306
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 9, September-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
47.1429 at p = 0.05). Both Oral-AF and Written-AF were higher than the control group.
Meanwhile, the reinforcement-AF group did not differ significantly from the control group.
Table 4: Summary of Post-Test Scores of Math Learning Achievement
No. Groups Cases Mean Std. Dev.
1. Oral Atribusional Feedback 21 54.05 8,16
2. Written Atribusional Feedbcak 21 53.33 7.96
3. Reinforcement Feedback 21 50.24 9.42
4. Control (Without Treatment) 21 47.14 7.84
Whole Groups 84 51.19 8.66
Table 5: Results of Analysis of Variance of Perseverance Variables
Source DF Sum of Square Mean of Square F Ratio F Prob.
Betwwen Group 3 630,9524 210,3175 3.0045 0.0352
Within Group 80 5600,000 70.0000
Total 83 6230,9524
Table 6: Multi-Comparison Results with LSD Test
Mean Groups (4) (3) (1) (2)
47,1429 Control (4)
50,2361 Reinforcement-FA (3)
53,3333 Oral-FA (1) *
54,0476 Written-FA (2) * *
(*) Different at 0.05 significance level
The Effect of Attributional Feedback on Low-Achievers and Underachievers
In the results presented earlier, it is known that the perseverance and learning achievement of
the attributional feedback group is higher than the control group. These results allow further
analysis, namely the comparison of the results obtained by low-achievers and underachievers.
By using a 2x2 factorial design (i.e. 2 treatment groups: Oral-AF and Written-AF; and 2 subject
categories: low-achievers and underachievers) the following results were obtained.
Comparison on Learning Diligence Variable
The data description and factorial analysis comparing the acquisition of Low-achievers and
Under-achievers on the learning perseverance variable are presented in Tables 7 and 8. In
Table 8, it can be seen that a significant F at p = 0.05 is found in the main effect category Low- achievers-Underachievers (F = 5.023 significant at p < 0.05). While the main effect group
treatment (Oral-AF-group and Written-AF-group) is not significant. The interaction effect was
also not significant. Thus, the prediction that low-achievers scored higher than underachievers
was supported by the results of the data analysis (Mean Low-achievers = 40.77 > Mean
Underachievers= 32.41; and p = 0.05).
Table 7: Cross Tabulation of Study Perseverance Mean Scores
Treatment Groups Low-achievers (a) Underachievers (b) (a) and (b)
(1) Oral-AF 41.25 (8) 29.62 (13) 34.05 (21)
(2) Witten-AF 40.00 (5) 34.69 (16) 35.95 (21)
(1) and (2) 40.77 (13) 32.41 (29)
Page 7 of 10
307
Asrori, M. (2024). The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving Perseverance and Learning Achievement of Low-Achievers and Under- Achievers Students in Mathematics of Junior High School Students. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(9). 301-310.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.119.17679
Table 8: Results of Factorial Analysis on Learning Perseverance
Source of Variation Sum of Square DF Mean Square F Sig of F
Main Effects 729.924 2 364.962 2.650 0.084
Group 103.266 1 103.266 0.750 0.392
Category 691.828 1 691.828 5.023 0.031
2-Way Interactions 86.062 1 86.62 0.625 0.434
Group-Categori 86.062 1 86.062 0.625 0.434
Comparison on Learning Achievement Variables
Tables 9 and 10 below present the description and analysis comparing the acquisition of Low- achievers and Underachievers on learning achievement variables.
Table 9: Cross Tabulation of Average Learning Achievement Scores
Treatment Groups Low-achievers (a) Underachievers (b) (a) and (b)
(1) Oral-AF 59,38 (8) 50,77 (13) 54,05 (21)
(2) Witten-AF 56,00 (5) 52,50 (16) 53,33 (21)
(1) and (2) 58,08 (13) 51,72 (29)
Table 10: Results of Factorial Analysis on Learning Achievement
Source of Variation Sum of Square DF Mean Square F Sig of F
Main Effects 362,662 2 181,331 3,155 0,054
Group 0,402 1 0,402 0,007 0,934
Category 357,305 1 357,305 6,216 0,017
2-Way Interactions 56,132 1 56,132 0,977 0,329
Group-Categori 56,132 1 56,132 0,977 0,329
The factorial analysis in Table 10 shows that the significant F at p = 0.05 is in the main effect
category Low-achievers-Underachievers (F = 6.216 significant at p < 0.05). While the main
effect group (F = 0.007) and interaction effect (F = 0.329) are both insignificant. Therefore, the
means of Low-achievers and Underachievers as listed in Table 9 are significantly different; in
this case Low-achievers is higher than Underachievers (58.08 > 51.72; and p = 0.05).
DISCUSSION
In general, the findings of this study are in line with previous predictions. In the context of
improving learning perseverance, for example, after analyzing some of her research findings
came to the conclusion that: "...retraining children's attribution for failure (teaching them to
attribute their failures to effort or strategy instead of ability) has been shown to produce sizable
changes in persistence in the face of failure"[11]. Meanwhile, in the context of learning
achievementfound that children aged 7-12 years who received attributional feedback showed
improvement in mathematical operations. In addition to supporting previous findings, this
study also presents some extensions [31] [32].
The first extension is in the provision of feedback. Instead of separating attributional feedback
to past-achievement attribution and future achievement attribution as done by Shunck [31], in
this study both feedbacks were given at the same time. Moreover, this study has also tested
written feedback. So far, attributional interventions have only focused on verbal feedback,
while written feedback has only been in the form of recommendations, such as those proposed
Page 8 of 10
308
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 9, September-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
by Gredler [15]. The second extension is found in the subjects receiving the intervention, by
comparing the gains of Low-achievers and Underachievers. Dweck recommended the need to
test the effect of attributional feedback for brighter students [11]. On the other hand, that
underachievers tend to have low self-concept and external locus of control [7]. These
characteristics of Low-achievers are opportunities for attributional feedback interventions that
emphasize the effort factor. In line with these findings and recommendations, this study found
that Low-achievers showed higher gains than Under-achievers after both received attributional
feedback.
The final extension is in the setting of the treatment. Instead of using a laboratory setting as
previous studies have done, this study used a natural classroom setting, i.e. a normal teaching- learning process. The study showed that attributional feedback is also effective in actual
classroom settings. Thus, together with the previous findings, it can be concluded that
attributional feedback is effective in both laboratory and actual classroom settings.
CONCLUSION
The findings of previous research as well as the findings of this study show us that the problems
of mathematics in Junior High School (and most likely also in elementary and high school) are
not just technical mathematical operational issues, but are closely related to psychological
issues in students, especially motivational issues. The use of attributional feedback in this
study, which is a contemporary motivational intervention, turned out to be able to increase
learning perseverance in both Low-achievers and Underachieves, although its effectiveness
was higher in Underachievers than Low-achievers. The effectiveness of attributional feedback
includes both oral attributional feedback (Oral-AF) and written attributional feedback
(Written-AF).
The findings of this study, therefore, suggest that interventions in the teaching-learning process
of mathematics should not only focus on mathematical operations, but should also turn to
psychological issues, especially motivational aspects. However, this motivational
understanding and intervention should not just be understood using the old paradigm, but
should use a contemporary perspective. Finally, it is hoped that the findings of this study, if read
and pondered carefully, can make a useful contribution in order to improve students'
perseverance and learning achievement in mathematics, in addition to other efforts that have
been made so far.
References
[1] Allan, W. (2018). “Children Attribution for Success and Failure: Effects of Age and Attentional Focus.”
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 78-81.
[2] Asrori, M. (2018). Determinant Factors on Learning Process and Achievement of High School Students
Over West Kalimantan. Pontianak: Research Report of Research Collaboration between Research
Networks.
[3] Asrori, M. and Effendy, C. (2021). The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving Academic Self- Efficacy and Learning Achievement in Mathematics of Elementary School Students. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 7, 98-115.
[4] Bandura, A. (2017). “Self-Efficacy: Towards A Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Page 9 of 10
309
Asrori, M. (2024). The Effectiveness of Attributional Feedback in Improving Perseverance and Learning Achievement of Low-Achievers and Under- Achievers Students in Mathematics of Junior High School Students. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 11(9). 301-310.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.119.17679
[5] Bandura, A. (2016). “Recycling Misconceptions of Perceived Self-Efficacy.” Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 8, 235-255.
[6] Berk, L.E. (2019). Child Development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
[7] Betz, N.E. & Hackett, G. (2013). “The Relationship of Mathematics Self-Efficacy Expectation to Selection of
Science-Based College Majors.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.
[8] Bores-Rangel, E. et al., (2020). “Self-Efficacy in Relation to Occupational Consideration and Academic
Performance in High School Equivalency Students.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 407-418.
[9] Church, A.T. et al., (2012). “Self-Efficacy for Career and Occupational Consideration in Minority High School
Equivalency Students.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 498-508.
[10] Cozby, P.C. (2015). Methods in Behavioral Research. Third Edition, Hayfield Publishing Company.
[11] Dweck, C.S. (2016). “Motivational Processing Affecting Learning.” American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
[12] Elliot, E.S. & Dweck, C.S. (2018). “Goals: An Approach to Motivation and Achievement.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.
[13] Forsterling, F. (2016). “Attribution Conception in Clinical Psychology.” American Psychologist, 41, 275-
285.
[14] Goldman, L. (2018). Research Methods for Counselors: Practical Approach in Field Settings. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
[15] Gredler, M. (2012). Learning and Instruction: Theory into Practice. New York: Macmillan.
[16] Heppner, P.P. et al. (2012). Research Design in Counseling. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company.
[17] Herry, W. (2020). “Sistem Percepatan Kelas (Akselerasi) bagi Siswa yang Memiliki Kemampuan dan
Kecerdasan Luas Biasa.” Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Tahun ke-6, No.026, 496-509.
[18] Hurley, K.V. & Dobson, T.E. (2011). What’s My Type? Use the Enneagram. San Francisco: Harper.
[19] Juvonnen, J.A. (2018). “Outcome and Attributional Disagreement Between Students and Their Teachers.”
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 330-336.
[20] Kerlinger, F.N. & Pedhazur, E.J. (2013). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt
Rinehart & Winston.
[21] Kirk, R.E. (2002). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Edition, Monterey,
California: Brooks/Cole.
[22] Manning, B.H. (2018). “Application of Behavioral Modification: First and Third Graders’ Self-Management
of Classroom Behaviors.” American Educational Research Journal, 25, 193-212.
[23] Minium, E.W. (2018). Statistical Reasoning in Psychology and Education. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[24] Multon, K.D. & Brown, S.D. (2013). “Relation of Self-Efficacy Belief and Academic Outcome: A Meta Analytic
Investigation.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 407-418.
[25] Overwalle, F.V. (2019). “Structure of Freshmen’s Causal Attributions for Exam Performance.” Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 400-407.
Page 10 of 10
310
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 11, Issue 9, September-2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
[26] Popham, W.J. & Sirotnik, K.A., (2013). Educational Statistics: Use and Interpretation. 2nd Edition, New York:
Harper & Row.
[27] Post-Kammer, P. & Smith, P.L. (2015). “Sex Differences in Career Self-Efficacy, Consideration, and Interest
of Eight and Ninth Graders.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 551-559.
[28] Richardson, J. & Margulis, J. (2011). The Magic of Rapport: How You Can Gain Personal Power in Any
Situation. San Francisco: Harbor.
[29] Ryckman, R.M. et al., (2012). “Development and Validation of a Physical Self-Efficacy Scale.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 754-766.
[30] Sanna, L.J. (2012). “Self-Efficacy Theory: Implication for Social Facilitation and Social Loafing.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 774-786.
[31] Schunk, D.H. (2012). “Effect of Effort Attributional Feedback on Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy and
Achievement.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 548-556.
[32] Schunk, D.H.; Hanson, A.R.; & Cox, P.D. (2017). “Peer-Model Attributes and Children’s Achievement
Behaviors.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 54-61.
[33] Tankersley, K. (2013). “Teaching Math Their Way.” Educational Leadership, 50, 12-13.
[34] Tuckman, B.W. (2008). Conducting Educational Research. New York: Harcourt Brace Javanovich, Inc.
[35] Weiner, B. (2020). “History of Motivational Research in Education.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,
416-622.
[36] Weiner, B. (2019) “Motivation.” Dalam Marvin C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 3, 860-
865.
[37] Weiner, B. (2013). “Some Methodological Pitfalls in Attributional Research.” Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 530-543.
[38] Weiner, B. (2018). “Attribution Theory and Attribution Therapy.” Some Theoretical Observation and
Suggestions.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 93-104.
[39] Wittrock, M.C. (2016). “Students’ Thought Processes.” Handbook of Research on Teaching, New York:
Macmillan.